Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards and the Electability Question

At a town hall event in Carroll, Iowa, on Sunday night, former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C) called on the audience members to take the long view when it comes to picking their next presidential nominee.

John Edwards
Edwards, center, greets supporters Tuesday at the "Take Back America" political conference in Washington. (AP photo)

"It's not just a question of who you like," said Edwards as quoted by the Iowa Independent. "It's not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with. It's also a question of who is most likely to win the general election. It's a pretty simple thing. Who will be a stronger candidate in the general election here in the state of Iowa? Who can go to other parts of the country when we have swing candidates running for Congress and Senate?"

Then, in a recently published interview with Men's Vogue magazine, Edwards twice promised: "I will win more than one Southern state."

It's not a new message for Edwards or his campaign, but it is an interesting one given the sort of campaign Edwards has run so far.

He has been by far the most aggressive of the top three candidates in his rhetoric on the war in Iraq -- calling not only for a troop pullout but urging Congress to cut funds for the war. He was outspoken in his criticism of Democrats in Congress for their alleged capitulation to President Bush last month on the war funding bill.

Edwards is also the only one of the Big 3 Democratic hopefuls to reject the idea of a global war on terrorism, insisting it is nothing more than a "bumper sticker" for the Bush administration to justify its own actions.

On health care, Edwards has proposed a universal health care plan that would roll back tax breaks (or, in Republican-speak, raise taxes) on the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for it.

He boiled down his political philosophy into a few sentences during an address yesterday at the Take Back America Conference. "No more pontificating, no more vacillating, no more triangulating, no more broken promises, no more pats on the head, no more 'We'll get around to it next time,' no more taking half a loaf, no more tomorrow," said Edwards.

To Edwards's rivals, that tone and the positions he has taken since falling short of the White House in 2004 have the potential to make him unelectable in a general election, as it plays into the supposed stereotypes voters already carry about Democrats -- that they want to raise taxes and are not equipped to keep America safe.

Not so, according to Edwards spokesman Mark Kornblau, who called his boss's health care plan "a winning primary election argument and a winning general election argument."

On the war on terror, Kornblau maintained that Edwards has a stronger position than President Bush and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. "He knows there are terrorists out there intent on attacking America, and as president he will find them and destroy them," said Kornblau, adding that Edwards believes there is a better way to make America safe than the course currently being pursued by the Bush administration.

The truth is that Edwards's "electability" argument is based more on where he's from and what he sounds like when he talks than on his policy proposals. He was born in South Carolina, won a Senate seat in North Carolina and his accent is pure south. That profile has led a number of leading southern Democrats to endorse his candidacy, including former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes and several member of Congress from rural districts.

"Unlike other Democrats who will be forced to 'run the table' of states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards bring new states into play," writes Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman in a polling memo for the campaign. "This provides alternative scenarios -- and a margin for error -- when it comes to winning 270 electoral votes."

The memo goes on to cite a series of Survey USA polls, whose methodology The Fix closely examined in a post last year, that seem to indicate Edwards is the strongest Democratic candidate in a series of battleground sates, including Oregon, Iowa, Ohio and Minnesota.

It's also worth noting inherent in all of these arguments is the fact that Edwards is the only white male among the top three Democrats. Edwards's campaign vehemently denies that his call to consider which candidate is the most electable has anything to do with Hillary Clinton's gender or Barack Obama's race. But the fact remains that America has never elected a woman or an African American to the White House. It's not an issue any candidate will bring up in the course of the contest, but it would be naive to assume it has no role in at least some voters' minds as they make their choice on which candidate to support in the upcoming caucuses and primaries.

Remember that electability was the buzz word for Democrats in 2004 when Democratic voters fell in love with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the summer and fall of 2003 only to fall out of love by the time the Iowa caucuses rolled around. That break-up was fostered by Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), the eventual nominee, who made a direct appeal to voters to consider whether they really wanted Dean leading the ticket in the fall. Bumper stickers reading "Dated Dean, Married Kerry" epitomized the electability argument in Iowa and beyond.

Democrats have now been out of the White House for the past eight years as their practical-minded decision to go with the "most electable" Democrat backfired in 2004. We've long believed that after voting with their heads in 2004, Democratic voters will be casting a heart vote in 2008.

Interestingly, Edwards seems to be casting himself as the best mix of head and heart among the Big 3. On the one hand, he is seeking to claim the ideological left (heart) on issues like Iraq and health care. On the other, he argues that he is the candidate best equipped to win the White House in 2008 (head).

It's an intriguing strategy and one we're interested in seeing play out over the coming months. Let's hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 21, 2007; 7:50 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wyoming Senate: And Then There Were Three
Next: Wag the Blog Redux: Readers Talk Back

Comments

Edwards is far and away the best and most electable candidate. He has experience; he is concrete and specific, not opportunistic and vague; and he plays well across the board. Media pundits and the lemmings who love them may fawn on Hillary and Obama but they cannot win in 2008. It's worth remembering that the Democrats who have won the White House since 1960 have all had a southern accent.

Posted by: Diderot | June 25, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm a registered Demorcrat living in Florida's 13th Congressional District (Katerine Harris' old seat). I got a call from the Edwards campaign this past Saturday asking for support. That is the second time. I haven't heard from anybody else. Maybe at the end of the day Edwards is willing to work harder for it than anybody else.

Posted by: Kenny Charnell | June 25, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm a registered Demorcrat living in Florida's 13th Congressional District (Katerine Harris' old seat). I got a call from the Edwards campaign this past Saturday asking for support. That is the second time. I haven't heard from anybody else. Maybe at the end of the day Edwards is willing to work harder for it than anybody else.

Posted by: Kenny Charnell | June 25, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm a registered Demorcrat living in Florida's 13th Congressional District (Katerine Harris' old seat). I got a call from the Edwards campaign this past Saturday asking for support. That is the second time. I haven't heard from anybody else. Maybe at the end of the day Edwards is willing to work harder for it than anybody else.

Posted by: Kenny Charnell | June 25, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm a registered Demorcrat living in Florida's 13th Congressional District (Katerine Harris' old seat). I got a call from the Edwards campaign this past Saturday asking for support. That is the second time. I haven't heard from anybody else. Maybe at the end of the day Edwards is willing to work harder for it than anybody else.

Posted by: Kenny Charnell | June 25, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I've been a Democrat my whole adult life and I cannot fathom how anyone thinks John Edwards is an honest man. The guy makes my skin crawl.

Anyone but John Edwards. Maybe Obama, maybe Hillary.

Posted by: Carl Richards | June 24, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I've been a Democrat my whole adult life and I cannot fathom how anyone thinks John Edwards is an honest man. The guy makes my skin crawl.

Anyone but John Edwards. Maybe Obama, maybe Hillary.

Posted by: Carl Richards | June 24, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I've been a Democrat my whole adult life and I cannot fathom how anyone thinks John Edwards is an honest man. The guy makes my skin crawl.

Anyone but John Edwards. Maybe Obama, maybe Hillary.

Posted by: Carl Richards | June 24, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I believe your assessment is correct. Edwards is the best shot we have and in my guy in western PA. He is a solid VP tap also.

Posted by: Jesse | June 23, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Edwards and Obama! A vote for Hillary is a vote for Romney. If Hillary takes the Dems, my first ever Repbub vote will go to Dr. Paul.

Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | June 22, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Osama bin Laden chartered a plane that carried his family members and Saudi nationals out of the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said FBI documents released Wednesday."

That was news years ago. What about the bin Laden Group's connection with the Bush family? That was known years ago too, but did most of the JohnQs read it or believe it? Would W have been elected again if they had?

Posted by: oldog | June 22, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

it is totally idiotic to predict WHAT another person will consider "important" in a candidate for president. this man has not lied, not, inbeknownst to him, circulated a "stupid and caustic" campaign memo, has not impersonated tony soprano to get a laugh, and he has not kept america in suspense as to whether he is running, or not. he is honorable. for me, the party is not the issue. i consider the person, their speak, their life, and what they CAN DO FOR AMERICA. john edwards so far is the best all-round candidate for president of the united states. i believe he will win.

Posted by: linda | June 22, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

It makes me depressed to read/hear what criteria people use to judge who to vote for. Edwards is ripped for a haircut and for supporting the middle class and poor because he is wealthy. Well, from what I've read he might be the least wealthy of the candidates and definitely not the only one to spend money on his appearance.

The problem is that too many Americans don't have the time to actually try to find out whether the video/sound bites they see/hear through the media have any meaning or truth. Most people are too busy working their butts off trying to get by and trying to raise their kids and/or take care of their parents.

I'm glad to hear the JE is gaining some ground and polls well against the Republicans. He may have some flaws but I truly think he is the best option for Dems.

Here's hoping for Edwards/Obama in 2008

Posted by: Griff | June 22, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat, I continue to be amazed that John and Elizabeth Edwards have been able to fool as many people as they have.

John Edwards is a calculating opportunist! His campaign to end poverty is a sham. Get a grip Democrats! Please.

Posted by: Paula Ryan in Iowa | June 22, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Cue spooky music.

Nothing is as it seems in Dem conspiracy politics. that would reflect poorly on them.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

In response to Posted by: "where's all the Rs?" | June 21, 2007 12:35 PM:

BIAS has nothing to do with party affiliation, it's all about the PROFIT MOTIVE.

If you work for a company, you work to keep your job, not advance your PERSONAL BELIEFS.

I like to use the head of Viacom as an example. Bill Moyers had a conversation with the head of Viacom, who is a DEMOCRAT.

Who will he be voting for in 2008? Who does he want to win in 2008?

That's right, the Republican party. Why?

Because he says, "THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD BE BETTER FOR VIACOM."

He didn't say they'd be better for America. He's a Democrat, he knows that they wouldn't be. But he wants the Democrats to lose because the Republicans would mean more corporate and millionaire's tax cuts for him and Viacom.

But he's a Democrat. If you think that party affiliation means anything, you're an idiot. Corporations have run amok these days. Profits trump political affiliation any day.

Besides, wouldn't it be a great "COVER" to register as a Democrat, even if you don't lean that way politically? Wouldn't that cause people like "Posted by: where's all the Rs?" to believe that there is no conservative media?

Wouldn't "Posted by: where's all the Rs?" fall for it? They are clearly smarter than you are.

Posted by: ST | June 22, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I haven't seen Chris Cilizza ever tell the truth about the hair cuts. Come to think, I haven't seen anyone on MSNBC or CNN or NBC or ABC or CBS correct the record on the hair cuts.

Gee, I wonder why? Might it be the fact that the media is intent on destroying John Edwards by any means necessary, including lying.

They know that John Edwards didn't "GET" $400 hair cuts.

They know that John Edwards had nothing to do with the hair cuts besides showing up at the hotel and getting them.

But yet, they portrayed the situation as if it had something to do with John Edwards' "judgment," as if he's some spendthrift.

A guy who wears a cheap watch, a guy who's tight with money. They want to make him out to be some prima donna.

I can hear the weeds rattling in some people's brains. Yes, he has an expensive house. How many candidates don't?

Has the media ever told us "HOW MANY" homes Mitt "$250 million" Romney owns?

How big is the Crawford Ranch that Bush has spent more vacation time than any President in history? How many homes do the Bushes own, paid for by the money they have made for decades off of the military-industrial complex?

John Edwards has a large house on a large estate. Romney and the Bushes call that "POOR."

If John Edwards was to become President, he would need a large, ISOLATED, house, for security reasons when he's away from DC. Anyone with a brain understands that.

Anyone who listens to the media as if they are trying to give you more than spin, doesn't understand much of anything.

Posted by: ST | June 22, 2007 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Drew Feraios???

"Retains a centrist-DLC image from 2004."

What a load of bull. John Edwards ran on a populist theme in 2004 of "TWO AMERICAS." He didn't run a on a DLC message of CORPORATIONS-FIRST.

Do you know anything about why Democratic activists can't stand the Republican-lite DLC?

Besides, voters don't know jacksquat about the DLC, and based on your "IGNORANT" logic, if it was all about "centrist-DLC image" then the Queen of the DLC (Hillary (DL)Clinton ) would be doing better than him, wouldn't she, since that's what she embraces.

You clearly know very little.

For example, IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING, then you would know that JOhn Edwards did not "GET" $400 hair cuts. John Edwards' campaign has people who schedule things just like offices have people who arrange events. They arranged for him to get hair cuts IN BETWEEN CAMPAIGN STOPS to save time. Since the stylist, a friend of Edwards', had to close shop, pick up his supplies, and travel to Edwards, the hair cuts ended up costing the campaign $400. That $400 included more than the cost of just the hair cut you know-nothing. John Edwards didn't know how much the hair cuts would cost. Why would he? Why would he even ask? Candidates don't worry about those things. They are too busy making speeches and meeting with donors to care about who pays what bill. There are people in charge of those things.

When the LAMESTREAM MEDIA made an issue of the hair cuts in a way to manipulate SIMPLETONS like you, Edwards in the mind-set of the "buck stops here" took responsibility for something THAT HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH, but was done in his name.

Tell me, how do you feel about the two $1,250 hair dos that Hillary Clinton had in 2006?

John Edwards got to ARRANGED hair cuts that cost $400 because of the stylist having to come to him to cut his hair to save the candidate time. Yes, since the sylist was a friend who works in Beverly Hills, the "ORIGINAL" cost of the hair cut was $150, which is probably cheap in Beverly Hills.

I repeat. YOU KNOW NOTHING.

Posted by: ST | June 22, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is polling well in cross matches with the GOP candidates right now largely because he retains a "centrist DLC image" from 2004. When voters focus on what he is saying and understand that he has lurched to the left since the last election, he will be revealed as the Democratic Romney. In addition, he will remind Independents and Reagan Democrats of all the reasons why they don't like to vote for Democrats: they raise taxes, they are week on defense, they are beholden to labor unions, they pander to narrow constituencies.

Furthermore he intends to dramatically increase social spending without dealing with the Bush deficits. In a general election, his left rhetoric and his "I am embarassed to be an American" rhetoric will take him down like a Mondale or a McGovern. It's just that most voters have not focussed on him yet.

His $400 haircut, his lame statements about his role in the hedge fund where he made gobs of money in a business implicated in unsavory sub-prime lending, will provide images and contradictions that will make the Swift Boat Attackes of 2004 seem like hopscotch.

Who are you John Edwards? Are you the Clinton without bimbo eruptions DLC centrist from North Carolina who voted for and displayed bellicosity when he thought it politically expedient in 2002? Or are you the populist, left wing, mea culpa anti-war hero you are trying to paint yourself to be in 2008?

Edwards makes me as sick as Romney - both want so desperately to be President that they will say anything and do anything to make it so. Neither has a moral or philosophical center.

If you were to poke him with a stick you would find him to be make of paper mache and without internal organs. (times two on Romney)

Posted by: Drew Feraios | June 22, 2007 1:56 AM | Report abuse

I knew John Edwards' message was resonating with many if not most Americans when Sean Hannity began obsessing on T.V. about the $400 haircut and repeatedly playing that silly video of the candidate fussing with his hair before an appearance. I would love to see the grooming habits of Mr. Hannity on video. Let's face it, every man looks kind of goofy grooming himself, but is this substantive evidence of a candidate's credentials to be the leader of the western world?

Fox News knows how formidable Edwards will be in the general election. That is why their commentators spend so much air time opining what a "wimp" or " lightweight" he is. That is why Ann Coulter jokingly intimated he was "gay" but later explained she meant "weak," a characterization that is as old school as "pansy." She knows or should know the percentage of brave, strong and patriotic gays is the same as the percentage of brave, strong and patriotic heterosexual men. "Gays" don't hold a monopoly on weakness. In fact, many Republicans are "gay" and probably resented her implication of weakness.

These Fox commentators are quite effective communicators and I mean that as a compliment. They have been successful, up to now, in using buzzwords, slogans and bumper stickers to define their opponents. Knowing that they lack the facts, they do a good job of demeaning Edwards in the eyes of their most adoring fans. Their tactics are those of the schoolyard bullies, the "mean girls" of the same movie, or Cyrano's most uninventive tormentor. The American people instinctively know this.

Fox labels Edwards a "trial lawyer" or "ambulance chaser" reinforcing the stereotype of Whiplash Willy coaching Jack Lemon's character to fake his injuries for insurance money. By doing that, they insult an entire profession, the best of which fight relentlessly for their clients against fellow "trial lawyers" hired by the insurance companies to protect the interests of the strong and mighty. "Wimp" or "lightweight" is not the noun that can be used to describe one of the best trial lawyers in America. Certainly the insurance companies and major corporations did not consider him a "lightweight," especially after he effectively beat them over and over again in the courtroom.

It takes strength and intelligence to become an effective advocate for injured people who cannot pay attorneys fees or case costs until the case is over, knowing that if you lose, not only will you not get paid for your work, but will pay for the privilege by absorbing the litigation costs necessary to properly present a case at trial. It is this strength and intelligence I see in John Edwards. The strength and intelligence of an advocate that is willing to go up against the strong and mighty to fight for those less fortunate. Ask his former clients what kind of a "trial lawyer" he was. I suspect they would not describe him as a "wimp" or "lightweight." No more than anyone would so describe Abraham Lincoln, an exceptional "trial lawyer" before he was president.

Edwards has made mistakes, his Iraq war vote and support for anti-consumer bankruptcy law changes come to mind. The difference is that he admits his mistakes and learns the lessons of his errors. He will not make the same or similar mistakes. That is what is important. He will be tough but smart in protecting the U.S. from terrorists, in fixing the health care system, in reducing this country's dependance on foreign oil, in fighting the real war against global warming, in restoring the middle class, in advocating for those who draw a paycheck and those who are poor and don't.

Posted by: Richard A. Caplan | June 22, 2007 1:30 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the only candidate running that's honest enough to expose Bush's fake war on terror. If the Neo-cons were truly interested in avenging the terror of Sept.11, we'd have gotten Bin Laden by now. Edwards knows this and is unafraid to tell it like it is. Where's Hillary and Obama on this and the 'so-called' Patriot Act. It takes boldness to be a good President. Edwards is certainly not lacking in that department. The last thing this country needs is to continue the Bush/Clinton/Bush with minor tweaks at the edges on no substantive changes for the populace. Edwards with AZ Gov. Napolitano in 2008. Bold, forward thinking

Posted by: Randy | June 22, 2007 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Betcha every politician on those debate stages, with the possible exception of Mike Gravel, has had more than a couple three figure haircuts. Hell, I bet there were a couple of four digit haircuts. Enough.

John Edwards has the policy proposals and "the vision thing" to be the Dem for our times.

Edwards/Obama 08. There'd be no stopping them. Sixteen years of a Democratic White House - paint it blue!

Posted by: Will in Philly | June 22, 2007 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is a loser, can't believe any man would spend $400 on a haircut. I'd have another term from Bush instead of Edwards.

Posted by: Nathan | June 21, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is extremely likable and sincere in his desire to stand up for the lower 99% income Americans. He is much more liberal than I am but I am voting this election only for someone with an ethical and moral foundation. I think after the kleptocracy of the past 8 or more years, most Americans are with me on this. The only people running with any moral backbone seem to be Edwards, Obama, and Ron Paul. I'm much less concerned with their particular politics as I am with their willingness to at least try to do the right thing. For the rest of the field, its simply idle chatter to cover their business dealings.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' firm stance on poverty and inequality is exactly why I support his presidency
campaign. The poverty in America alone is astounding, but when viewed in a global perspective, something really needs to be done. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty. Imagine how different the world would be. On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutrition, which is peanuts considering our $522 billion military budget this year.

Posted by: ellec | June 21, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't anyone question why Edwards was okay with being a one-time senator? Could he have been elected?

The country's priority should be to repair our relationships with the rest of the world. Of all the Democrats running, only Clinton, Biden, and Richardson have the knowledge and experience to lead this effort. Why we even bother to have the others on the stage is beyond me. They're taking away more time from the people we should be looking at closely.

On the Republican side, only McCain has enough experience to put his hawkish stance should scare all.

Posted by: Nick | June 21, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Zouk says, "those moronic statements have been discredited too many times, on this blog alone, much less in the press."

Zouk, this is from the U.S. Constitution. Maybe you've heard of it?

"The Congress shall have the power... to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

This is from CNN last August. As we know, the rate of US deaths has gotten WORSE since then. Here it is:

"Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq."

This is from the Post:

"Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides 'all confirmed' that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

And this is you today:

"live in fear. p*iss in your shoes. hide under the bed."
"I have nothing smart to say."
"Hey watch me, I can drool and foam and frothe and rant and howl all at once."

Q.E.D.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 21, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

WHEN the democratic party supports John Edwards, i'm convinced he will win the general election in 2008 and bring a large number of independent voters with him.

Posted by: wesley nicholas | June 21, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

To the anonymous poster who posted the media poll.

**MSNBC.com has scoured Federal Election Commission and "identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records.**

How did MSNBC identify the 144 journalists? How did they determine their political contributions?

The larger question to ask is not what journalist lean for which party, but which party the owners of their business lean to. What party do the media owners and executives identify themselves with ... you know ... the people who write the checks.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is, without a doubt, the best candidate the Democrats have. Not only is he standing for traditional Democratic values--universal health care, education for all, the right to unionize, strengthening the middle class and eliminating poverty, taking care of our environment, a sound foreign policy, etc., but he is the only leading Democratic candidate who refuses to take contributions from lobbyists and PACs (Obama and Hillary are taking contributions from lobbyists). He is intelligent, caring, and compassionate, and has a broad appeal to not only my progressive friends, but to my moderate ones, as well. A friend of mine worked with his law firm and said he is "the real deal" and has a real passion for the underdog. He will make a great president.

Posted by: Kathy Callan | June 21, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon was having a federal tax discussion with someone the other day - maybe with JD -
and he suggested that sometimes tax cuts were a great idea and sometimes not - the trick was knowing when. He made the arithmetical point that if tax cuts were always good, cutting taxes to zero would make sense.

I have a corresponding suggestion: sometimes, supply side economics works, as when it is important to stimulate supply, as it clearly was in 1946, for example. Sometimes demand side economics works, as when it is necessary to stimulate demand, as it clearly was in 1958, for example. It seems damned hard to know when to do which in advance, unless you just ended WW2 and have to refocus production to civilian goods, or unless unemployment just hit 8.5% because nobody is buying anything, and you can visualize the down cycle.

It also seems counter-productive to stimulate supply when it is already high, or stimulate demand when demand is already high.

That is the extent of my offering. My point would be that singers of one-note supply side songs or one-note demand side songs are sirens, leading us to the rocks of despair. Judge C.? J.D.? bsimon, if you are out there?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 21, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

JD: here's the link ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285172,00.html ) and the intro. You can quibble that I'm confusing letting tax breaks expire with not paying taxes at all but there isn't any difference in Cavuto's argument. He does not propose any middle ground.

"By Neil Cavuto

Let me ask you something: If you had a contractor at your house and he was always running late, screwing up and generally being a pain, then had the nerve to hit you up for more money, what would you do?

I think, at a minimum, most folks would say, "Are you kidding me?!"

Yet not when it comes to the government.

Never mind the fact most Americans have little faith in how it handles money, a lot of politicians have no problem giving it money. And now more money....."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 21, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Same old lame replies.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

same old lies, zouk, same old lies. what a parrot you are. i'm sorry, that insults parrots.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Golgi - Kennedy ran a campaign based on hope, looking forward to the future, etc. what we ended up with was a refusal to live up to military promises and the Bay of Pigs. After that fiasco and murder of american allies, the USSR beleived that we could be run over like the cowards that most Dems are. Kennedy saw this and being an actual military hero, objected in proper fashion. some coincidence that we later found out he was using the lincoln bedroom for all his bimbos. is that strictly a Dem thing. the point was really the whole "hope" thing and the pre-civil rights era. Back then it was appropriate, today it is just pandering and obfuscating a lack of substance.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I get the Edwards 2004, Hillary 1992 thing, but I don't get why Obama is like 1960. Can somebody explain this in a way that makes sense, or is it just untrue?

Posted by: Golgi | June 21, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"after we left vietnam, thousands of fighters came over here and there was mass murder of americans "

Quite right - the Arab and persian world saw us for thew weak cowards that the Dems in congress exhibited. they attacked abroad during the next weak Dems reign of cowardice (1992-2000) and rightly observed that any attacks would not be taken seriously and no allies would be defended. then the final insult, the slaughter of thousands occured, planned for years during the weak Lib administration. you may remembeer that day - 9/11/01.

the moral of the story is:
If you exhibit weakness abroad (the Dem platform) the enemy will be emboldened and eventually kill you wherever they feel like it. they will first kill the easy victims - your old allies and sympathizers who tried to side with you before you lost your nerve. but ultimately, this will not be satisfying enough for their bloodthirsty ways. not that any Dem will admit this truth. they still can't figure out why anyone would want to kill another. to them it must be the fault of america under all circumstances.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, maybe things in the real world aren't as easy and straighforward as you wish they were. Is Iraq like vietnam? do you insist that it is 100% like it or zero % only, either/or, no middling. Is this like the Dems who all agree on every single thing in life? Perhaps you could contact john Kerry to be told about the nuances there.

Meanwhile, that goat of a human ignorant coward is displaying his intellectual rigor with statements like:"live in fear. p*iss in your shoes. hide under the bed"

how come you Libs embrace this idiocy? After the primary, you are going to go back down the rathole where you belong.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

TTJ writes "People who attempt to call [Edwards] shallow have not bothered to look into what his priorities are. Please do."

Alrighty then. Edwards seems to be offering more policy proposals than any other dem candidate in the primary...

The question is whether other voters will cheer when they see the price tag - more than $125 billion a year.

Edwards is quick to acknowledge his spending on health care, energy and poverty reduction comes at a cost, with more plans to come! I can hardly wait.

All told, his proposals would equal more than $1 trillion if he could get them enacted into law and operational during two White House terms.

To put the number in perspective, President Bush has dedicated more than $1.8 trillion to tax cuts. The cost of the Iraq war is nearing $450 billion. And this year's federal budget is about $2.8 trillion.

Edwards says fixing the country's problems takes precedence over eliminating the deficit or offering middle-class tax relief like he proposed when running for president in the last election.

Edwards said his spending proposals would take precedence over eliminating the more than $200 billion deficit.

So much for restoring fiscal conservancy; Edwards is just another tax-and-spend liberal whose big ideas are quite costly.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

JD, since I have nothing smart to say, I will simply insult you, ignore any facts or points you made and focus on grammar. If you were me, you would too. I couldn't find a response on Kos so I am witless as usual.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

live in fear. p*iss in your shoes. hide under the bed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 21, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Yes, you all remember, surely -- after we left vietnam, thousands of fighters came over here and there was mass murder of americans -- a terrible slaughter.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary goes further back to 1992. Obama further still to 1960. With all this backsliding, how will the country move forward?'

i've been asking myself that too, considering that the R party wants to take us back to the Midddle Ages and a feudal society, where the wealth is concentrated in a few hands and everyone else is a serf.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I've heard of that. But I haven't heard of all the Vietnamese Communists who came to America after the war and slaughtered people here. You say that there will be massacres in Iraq after we leave, because Iraq is like Vietnam. But then you say terrorists will follow us here after we leave, even though that didn't happen in Vietnam. Make up your mind.

Posted by: Blarg | June 21, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Hey watch me, I can drool and foam and frothe and rant and howl all at once."

first time ever an actual truth is posted by ignorant coward. being the coward that he is, he signed it with another's name of course. but there is hope. The light of truth is beginning to dawn even on his feeble world. Admitting it is step one.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

JD's right here with his C of C talking points and B school fantasies and big ole words, just to show us he's real smart.

'incentivize' is not a word.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

blarg - ever heard of " the killing fields" One of the greatest massacres of all times. What initiated that murder?

If you really think that the jihadists will simply ignore us if we leave Iraq, you are demented and no further discussion is required.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Judge C, not sure what report you're referring to, I don't watch cable news much.

I'm not sure who 'they' are, but whoever says don't pay taxes because gov isn't perfect, ought to go to jail.

However, there's nothing unreasoanble about wanting lower taxes to

1) Incentivize a smaller government, at least federal government, footprint ('starve the beast')

2) Boost the economy; a concept rooted in solid economics - if you don't get this, I'm not going to try to convince you of it, just trust me

3) Philisophically, put more $ in the pockets of the people who earned it, which is solid in my book

4) Incentivize risk taking, business building, and other things good for the country at a macro level.

Posted by: JD | June 21, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is bemoaning the growing divide between rich and poor as he returns to the signature theme of "Two Americas" from his unsuccessful 2004 White House bid.

Hillary goes further back to 1992. Obama further still to 1960. With all this backsliding, how will the country move forward?

Wake up Dems. Its 2008. we are at war against maniacal killers, the economy is booming, taxes are low, America is prosperous. I am sure you Libs would like to change all these things to their polar opposites but you have to win an election first. after your last win, it looks doubtful.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey watch me, I can drool and foam and frothe and rant and howl all at once.

Posted by: kingofzouk | June 21, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"People vote for the person at the top of the ticket, and no southern STATES were going to vote for the aristocratic, Ivy League, Skulls and Bones member that Kerry was."

Yes, Southern voters prefer the aristocratic Ivy League, Skulls and Bones member that Bush was....

:rolleyes:

Posted by: Yale Class of '99 | June 21, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"for example if you abandon the field to the enemy they follow you and try to kill the rest of you."

Really? Like they did after we left Vietnam?

Posted by: Blarg | June 21, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The repubvlicans are the vapid but solid core of a radical party -- a party that has risen to power by obfuscating its radicalism and opening its arms to Americans in love with Mussonlini and Stalin.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, how am I supposed to be a functioning idiot with you around pointing out my stupidity. go away so I can get away with posting my nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

This is an interesting discussion. I like Edwards (but I'm from a Northern state). I'm surprised to hear that some lower and middle income Southerners might think he is a phony. Who's real then? Giuliani, Thompson (the actor), Mitt Romney?? McCain seems the closest thing to real on the Republican side although at times he seems more "real looney". I would hope people would carefully consider Edward's positions before dismissing him. Who's getting most beat up in Iraq? It's not the rich urban elite. Who's in most need of a comprehensive health care plan? It's not the rich urban elite. Who will most benefit from a plan to reduce poverty? It's not the rich urban elite. Those are some of the top issues for Edwards. Three swings, three home runs. People who attempt to call him shallow have not bothered to look into what his priorities are. Please do.

Posted by: TTJ | June 21, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

George Bush chose to begin this war against the wishes of the international community.
*"War" is declared by Congress.
* over 60% of the country
* At the time the U.S. invaded, Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq.


Have you been chanting these same laugh lines for five years now. Try on some new false material. those moronic statements have been discredited too many times, on this blog alone, much less in the press.

And it still doesn't answer one thing about the consequences of your actions. can't you adolescent post-60s dimwits think through one policy to its logical conlclusion?

for example if you abandon the field to the enemy they follow you and try to kill the rest of you.

If you raise taxes, the small businesses suffer and stop hiring people.

If you fix prices or wages you hamper the ability to supply the necessary goods.

I am sure you would rather talk about someone off their meds or some other dumb botched joke because clearly when confronted, you retreat into chanting, insults and personalities. you have nothing else.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

James - O reilly you are not. what is it with the kool aid thing. If anyone can be accused of cultish behavior, it is most certainly the Dem caucus. Please name a single major issues that the candidates disagree on. I'll help. they all agree War is bad and should be lost ASAP. abortion is good and should be encouraged at all ages. taxes are good and should be raised but only on "the rich" who will turn out to be just about everyone with a job. social security although heading for bankruptcy is just fine the way it is, nothing a major tax hike can't cure. schools although failing miserably, are just fine from a teachers point of view, enough said. blacks need special opportunities to get ahead, they are too feeble to make it on their own. If we just retreat into our own navals, everyone out there will ignore us. Israel can go it alone. Palestineans just want to live in peace but are thwarted by us. Prices should be controlled and monitored by the President. energy should be mandated by the federal government. the choice of which auto to buy should be made by the Senate.

On the other hand, the R candidates disagree substantially on immigration, abortion, taxes, military, etc.

Now take another sip of googy grape.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Zouky -

"'against the wishes of the international community'" so I guess all those UN mandates represented the kingdom of Mars?"

-No, the UN mandates were for Saddam to disarm and stay disarmed. Which, it turns out, he actually did, as we would have learned if Bush hadn't forced the UN inspectors out - before they had finished their inspection - so he could invade. However, if you can remember that far back, the UN did NOT sanction military action in Iraq, and thus what I said is correct.

"the rest is just the usual loony left mumbo jumbo with no ideas and no solutions."

-You stand corrected, sir. In "the rest," I answered you point by point, and I can only assume that your brushing it off means that you are unwilling to acknowledge that you were wrong.

"Seriously, if you want to have a debate of ideas it would help if you came equipped with some."

-Good advice. Follow it.

"and correcting of typos doesn't count toward your minimum, it just makes you look pedantic, like the rest of your party."

-'pedantic' (according to dictionary.com) = 'overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.' What I said was:
*George Bush chose to begin this war against the wishes of the international community.
*"War" is declared by Congress.
* over 60% of the country
* At the time the U.S. invaded, Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq.

Which of those do you consider a 'minute detail'?

Posted by: Bokonon | June 21, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

George Will found a nut on Sunday's This Week:

'When, against the urgings of the Israelis, we pressed for the elections that overthrew Fatah, who we were backing and put in Hamas, Condoleezza Rice said nobody saw it coming. Those four words are the epitaph of this administration.'

Posted by: george will | June 21, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

oh sorry that was politico -- but same thing.

'In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush's approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including a third of Republicans.'

Posted by: ** | June 21, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

In a June 21 article on the legal troubles of various members of Congress who have served on appropriations committees, The Politico reported that Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was "recently indicted on a host of federal corruption charges." By contrast, the article described former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as simply "under investigation over his ties to [disgraced former lobbyist Jack] Abramoff, as well as for foreign travel and other actions." The article did not mention that DeLay was actually indicted in Texas on money laundering and conspiracy charges relating to a campaign finance probe.

Posted by: the lies of drudge | June 21, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Today is a high holy day for moonbats. we are obligated to spout nonsense and annoy others. then we vote in lockstep on all our issues, which surprisingly enough, we all agree 100% upon. and you thought that Repubs were non critical thinkers. We accpet and do what we are told by the head nanny, whoever she turns out to be.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

repugs don't do math, james, isn't their strong suit.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Lowest ever, huh? Let's see, you're using the Rasmussen Poll only, right?

Ok, well, as the Democrats were taking back Congress in 2006, the Rasmussen poll put Congress' job approval at 15%. That's lower than 19, right?

Every other poll conducted in June puts the job approval in the 20s. Roughly equivalent to the GOP Congress at the same time in 2006. Congress usually polls in the 20s and 30s, has for years.

Remember, sip the KoolAid, don't chug. You'll get a tummy ache.

Posted by: JamesCH | June 21, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH says ", take a look at the approval when asked only about Democrats in Congress"

O.k.! According to an ABC news poll, Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election.

The Democrats' overall job approval rating has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent in early June.

The shift away from the Democrats in Congress has occurred on two levels. In terms of their overall approval rating, the damage is almost entirely among people who strongly oppose the war in Iraq.

In this group 69 percent approved of the Democrats in April, but just 54 percent still approve now. See, even loyal liberals think Reid and Pelosi are doing a miserable job!

Their decline in leadership ratings vs. Bush is more broadly based -- that's occurred among war opponents and supporters alike, apparently reflecting more an assessment of their performance than an expression of support or opposition.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 21, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Don't try to reason since you are incapable. Stick to the chanting like the rest of us. We don't debate on Fox news because they won't accept the canned answers. Same as on this site. Keep up the poor work.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

zouk and a 'debate of ideas'

ROFLOL *tears running down cheeks*

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Don't try to reason with the creature zouk, bokonon. He totally went over the edge after the last election and his mental state has gone downhill ever since. He is a pathetic example of the obbsessive, paranoid, dittohead who is incapable of orignal thought and he apparently has nothing else to do except post here. It's sad, really.

Posted by: Jane | June 21, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

More Dem math from JamesCH, it doesn't matter that approval ratings are sinking like a stone and are lower then they have ever been because......We're Dems, we don't do that kind of math. It makes us look bad.

More revisionist history from boko

"against the wishes of the international community " so I guess all those UN mandates represented the kingdom of Mars? the rest is just the usual loony left mumbo jumbo with no ideas and no solutions. Seriously, if you want to have a debate of ideas it would help if you came equipped with some. and correcting of typos doesn't count toward your minimum, it just makes you look pedantic, like the rest of your party.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I really have to laff when repugs talk about vitriol-- could they really be any bigger hypocrits?

Posted by: Cathy | June 21, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

For those who like to spit out polling data on Congress' job approval, take a look at the approval when asked only about Democrats in Congress. Much higher than the overall rating, and within the general trend of opinion.

The point: Nobody likes Congress. They just don't. It doesn't matter who has the majority, people just don't like it.

On the other hand, the most recent Cook Political Report Poll, 52% of Americans lean toward voting for Democrats for Congress in 2008.

Enjoy.

Posted by: JamesCH | June 21, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

OK, Great Sage of Zouk:

"If the surrendercrats get their way, we will have the consaequences they do not wish to confront."

-OK, first of all, it's spelled "consEquences." Secondly, these are consequences that were chosen for us by George Bush when he chose to begin this war against the wishes of the international community and under false pretenses. "Staying the course" is only a virtue if the course you're on is the correct one.

"Just like the killing fields after surrendering in vietnam."

-Hey, wait, I thought you guys said this was NOTHING like Vietnam!

"how about another Gaza strip? you post-60s adolescents need to grow up and face the music."

-you wannabe Rambos need to recognize that there are consequences if you want to play army with real soldiers.

"War is not entered into by choice by eager politicians as you make it out to be."

-No, "war" is declared by Congress. This is not a "war," but rather the occupation of a foreign country, poorly-planned, poorly-managed, and with consequences yet t be seen.

"Only the far left loonies make this argument."

- That would be over 60% of the country to you, pal.

"War is thrust upon us again. do you really think there are no al quedists there to kill?"

- 1. If ever a military action was freely chosen, it was the invasion of Iraq. It was thrust upon the American people and the world by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. And at the time the U.S. invaded, Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq. They hated Saddam Hussein, and he them. The only reason they are there now - in the limited numbers that they are - is that the U.S. made it possible.

"how clueless and idealogical can you get?"

-First, it's spelled "i-d-e-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l." Secondly, you provide a good example of its excess.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 21, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I posted the reply at 3:02P.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 21, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

i am zouk, watch me drool.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Please folks, only pay attention to posts made by the original ignorant coward. you can tell them by their offbeat nature and clueless proginy.

accept no substitutes. Me me me. If it isn't hopelessly one sided and slanted toward lunatic libs, it's not me.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"The speech, or parts of the speech?"

|, I have heard JB say he used Kinnock's speech, with attribution, on several occasions, but in IA that fateful day, he did not attribute. It was a speech about humble beginnings and being the first in his family to go to college - a lot like one of Edwards' stump themes. I always thought it was a whole speech, transported from the UK to PA.

Do you know that only "parts" of the speech were used without attribution? You may recall Dukakis ran Kinnock and JB side-by-side in an attack ad.

Would it be incorrect grammar to say JB plagiarized Kinnock's speech if he "merely" used significant parts without attribution?

Any english teachers out there?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

After a brief stop at a Little League game in Beranek Park, where Emma Claire mentioned that her softball team's name is the Hawkeyes, the family ventured on to Tipton to rejoin their favorite candidate. Oh, but that's not entirely accurate -- or at least it wasn't on Saturday. When the Edwardses visited the Cedar County Democrats' tent, Mrs. Edwards asked her daughter which of the presidential candidates she liked best. Did she point to dear old Dad? No, she pointed to Hillary Clinton. One strange political event, indeed.

Posted by: from the mouths of babes | June 21, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' strategy is sloganeering. And sadly enough, his pithy shallowness mirrors the Democratic base far more than Clinton's newfound moderation or Obama's faux-profundity.

If everyone who slaps a "War Is Not The Answer" sticker on their Prius votes for Edwards, the charlatan from North Carolina could breeze to the Democratic nomination.

"Edwards' supporters are the true blue, the loyal foundation. They are the disappointed Deaniacs and Ned Lamont backers. They are the "Bush Lied, Kids Died" contingent, the "No War For Oil" crowd. They are the Michael Moore followers, the Al Gore worshippers. They are the vapid but solid core of a radical party -- a party that has risen to power by obfuscating its radicalism and opening its arms to Americans disaffected with President Bush.

Edwards supporters offer no real answers; they offer fortune cookie proverbs and unremitting vitriol."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2007/06/06/john_edwards_bumper-sticker_liberalism&Comments=true

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 21, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Democrats have become, over the years, very good at electing very bad Republicans," Nader said. "Democrats always know how to implode, how to be ambiguous, how to waver, how not to be authentic."

While Nader praised two candidates who have almost no chance of winning their party's nomination -- Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel -- he was severe in his criticism of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

"She is a political coward," Nader said. "She goes around pandering to powerful interest groups on the one hand and flattering general audiences on the other. She doesn't even have the minimal political fortitude of her husband."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

see
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_edwards_dominates_both_mccain_and_romney

for Rasmussen's latest on Edwards' strength, which was published today after my 8:50A check in.

Posted by: More and Better Polls | June 21, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

eWhy Senator Reid isn't allowed at his granddaughter's soccer game:

Harry: "Okay, honey, the other team look reeeallly talanted!! and big!!! better give up now!! I'll take everyone out for ice cream!

Posted by: funny bird | June 21, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I love how Edwards feels the need to remind voters to "take the long view", and
that "It's not just a question of who you like,.. or whose vision you are impressed with, or who is most likely to win the general election. It's a pretty simple thing."

Reminds me of their campaign slogan last time:
"We've got better vision. We've got better ideas. We've got real plans. And we've got better hair".

The Kerry-Edwards vision, ideas, etc don't look so good in the cold light of day, but John Edwards's hair does.

CC, I'm sure you can personally vouch for his beautiful layered nape.

But the breck girl is right about one thing. It's pretty simple. Even a simpleton can easily see that Edwards is neither likeable, electable, nor does he have an impressive vision unless you count his Two-Americas vision . There's two Americas but unfortunately for Edwards, neither one voted for him last time and they won't in '08 either.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | June 21, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC.com has scoured Federal Election Commission and "identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records." We'll give you three guesses as to which party received the lion's share of the donations:

Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Redeeming this dog-bites-man story, though is the lengthy sidebar enumerating all the donations and the comments from the donors. A particular standout is Mark Singer, who gave $250 to "Victory Campaign 2004, which supported America Coming Together, which opposed President Bush." He says:

"I believe very much that writers have to be aware of conflicts of interest in all sorts of situations. Probably there should be a rule against it. But there's a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler--a journalist interviewing him had murdered him--the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don't regret it."

Then there's Randy Cohen, who writes the "Ethicist" column for the New York Times and gave $585 to MoveOn.org, an Angry Left Group":

Cohen said he thought of MoveOn.org as nonpartisan and thought the donation would be allowed even under the strict rule at the Times.

"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities--help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen said in an e-mail. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I'd say not. Unless a group's activities impinge on a reporter's beat, the reporter should be free to donate to a wide range of nonprofits. Make a journalist's charitable giving transparent, and let the readers weigh it as they will.

"Those who do not cover anything, but write a column of opinion should have even more latitude. It is such a writer's job to make his views explicit. Those donations to nonprofits will no doubt reflect the views he or she is hired to express. In evaluating such civic engagement, it is well to remember that to have an opinion is not to have a bias. To conceal one's political opinions is not to be without them."

After MSNBC.com checked the names of Times staff and contributors on this list with a spokesperson for the Times, Cohen sent this addendum:

"That said, Times policy does forbid my making such donations, and I will not do so in the future."

Cohen's effort at self-justification approaches high comedy: If it's OK for his colleagues to make donations to nonpolitical organizations that he finds politically objectionable, it must be OK for him to make donations to political organizations! And anyway, he thinks of MoveOn.org as nonpartisan! We haven't read Cohen's column in ages, but we recall that his guiding principle always seemed to be that the ends justify the means, so long as the ends are liberal.

One could argue that journalists who make political donations are doing the public a service by disclosing their own biases. The reason that many news organizations bar such contributions (though not all do; see this sidebar for the details) is to protect their institutional credibility--that is, the plausibility of the claim to be unbiased

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Now that we actually see what you are up to - lower than a snakes belly

"A new Gallup poll has bad news for Nancy Reid and Harry Pelosi:

The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure--and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades. . . .

Of the 16 societal institutions tested in Gallup's 2007 update, Americans express the most confidence in the military. They have the least confidence in HMOs and Congress. Americans have much more confidence in "small" business than in "big" business.

The survey suggests Americans are generally grumpy; all the institutions surveyed showed a decline in confidence since last year except HMOs and "big business," which held steady at 18% and 14% respectively.

Newspapers, meanwhile, have a confidence rating of 22%. Eat your heart out, Nancy!"

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

**Posted by: Edwards is Alright | June 21,
...Please go away Nader.**

Ralph Nader is not the problem, it is our main stream candidates that are not offering what many third party members and moderates want.

Did either the Democrats or Republicans make any effort to include Ralph Nader in their debates. Did they make any effort to bring him or some of his ideas into their tent of polarization? No.

Both parties are to blame for being less and less in touch with Americans.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"Robert Chapman's recollection is correct that Sen. Biden plagiarized Kinnock's speech in 1988."

The speech, or parts of the speech?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

One of the new "destroyer" lines is that Edwards' father was white collar, not the hard-working guy he was. Having grown up in the South with family members who worked in those Southern mills, let me tell you how it is: Those jobs are hot, tedious, low-paying, and dead-end. The fact that Mr. Edwards was able to become a supervisor after many years slaving in those mills says that he was respected by his fellow workers. There was never a man or woman who worked in those mills who were anything but hard-working, good family people who slaved to make life easier for their children. Mr. Edwards is a real hero in my mind, because he worked hard, never asked for anything he didn't earn, and raised a close, loving family. Don't twist the truth and try to make him into a corporate executive. That is not who the man was. And his son, John Edwards, is proud to be his son.

Posted by: rebelfriend | June 21, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"a war which cannot be won" - how do you know this? Because Harry told you so? what are your decision variables?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

If the surrendercrats get their way, we will have the consaequences they do not wish to confront. Just like the killing fields after surrendering in vietnam. how about another Gaza strip? you post-60s adolescents need to grow up and face the music. War is not entered into by choice by eager politicians as you make it out to be. Only the far left loonies make this argument. War is thrust upon us again. do you really think there are no al quedists there to kill? how clueless and idealogical can you get? Review the vote tallies if you are unclear about the consensus for war. review the 23 reasons. do not attempt to spin things to your benefit if you wish to have a truthful discussion.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, there is a difference between losing a war that is winnable and worth fighting and extricating yourself from a war which cannot be won - and would never have started, had the pre-war intelligence been read and taken seriously. Or had Hans Blix been allowed to finish his job... but Bush was in a hurry to go to war because he knew that if the inspection teams were allowed to finish their work, he would have lost his excuse for invasion.

What we have now is a no-win situation which is costing the U.S. soldiers, over $1.5 trillion so far, and the international goodwill and credibility we will need if we are to pursue any kind of strategy against international terrorists.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 21, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark from Austin, I don't disagree that Biden would make a decent president (though the State of the Union address would have to be aired in multiple episodes, like a miniseries). But if we're discussing electability, I just don't see how he could possibly win a general election. He makes Kerry sound pithy.

Posted by: jane | June 21, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

there are so many other things to attack him on, why bother? He is destined to be forgotten like all the other envious populists who ever ran for office.

Vote for me - free ice cream.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards' father WORKED HIS WAY UP to manager in the mill. He started at the bottom, so for John Edwards to say that he is the son of a millworker is "FACTUAL AND ACCURATE."

For people to harp on his father being a "manager" in the mill is to ignore where his father started out at.

John Edwards didn't expect to be as successful as he became, which is why he majored in "TEXTILE MANAGMENT" as an undergrad at NC State University, a land grant university, I might add. He fully expected to graduate from college and get a good job in management in a mill somewhere, like the one where he, John Edwards, swept floors in the summers to earn money for college.

People who try to use his "mill history" to attack John Edwards are simpletons.

Posted by: ST | June 21, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

doing nothing was so much better. so what if we're attacked. We can use the press to blame it on our political adversaries and get our spending through.

as long as we win the next election, it is OK to lose a war and strangle an economy. no one talks about our corruption so we should be OK there. Just make sure no one does a proper analysis of our policies.

And never debate on fox, they ask questions we may not want to answer. Better to stick with underwear preferences and such. who wants to discuss details about consequences of losing a war.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Well, ok. Edwards could win NC, GA, VA, TN and LA in the general election.

Its not a question of free speech. Its a question of lying. His father was a floor worker in a mill. That is the established fact. When you say that he was white collar, you can either present evidence or you are flat out lying. If you are lying than it is an attempt to deceive the voter into making a decision that he otherwise, with better information, would not have made. This a an attack on our democracy and our nation. What you are calling free speech, the right to lie, is actually more akin to fraud than to free speech. If you sell something to someone by telling him lies, than you are engaged in fraud which is a crime. Yet much more damaging to our country are deliberate lies made in the political sphere. Without truth, there can be no democracy.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Typo:

This line should read:

"People vote for the person at the top of the ticket, and no southern STATES were going to vote for the aristocratic, Ivy League, Skulls and Bones member that Kerry was."

Posted by: ST | June 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

nobody has a reasonable plan to deal with iraq. becuase whatever we do will result in a continuing bloodbath, because th invasion/occupation is the biggest strategic error by a country in probably a century.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

This viewpoint IS right on the mark. I am supporting Edwards for the exact reasons you articulate...His heart and his electability in the general. His policies should appeal to most Democrats and his honesty and background should appeal to moderates and independents when compared with whomever the Republicans nominate. Clinton is tough but will get HAMMERED by the right and pull the whole election into the mudpit, which the country doesn't need this time around. As for all the griping about "trial lawyer", no one mentions that he represented the little guy against big business interests as a lawyer, which should be lauded, not panned. His campaign has not been effective in getting that message out there.
GO EDWARDS!!!

Posted by: Randy Minneapolis | June 21, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Just who is this organization - "lurch back america?" back to when?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the only Democrat running who has won a GENERAL ELECTION in the south, when he won a Senate seat, which is a statewide election, to the U.S. Senate in 1998. In 2004, John Edwards had a 56% favorability rating in the state of NC. John Edwards was not the problem with that ticket, John Kerry was, and NOT EVEN JESUS CHRIST as a running mate would have done Kerry any good.

To those stupid people who like to say that Edwards "couldn't win NC in 2004" as if Edwards was at the top of the ticket, I'd like to ask them if they believe that Dick Cheney won NC for Bush? Did Dick Cheney win any states for Bush? Did Dick Cheney lose any states for Bush?

Of course not. Anyone with a brain, knows that Cheney didn't win or lose any states for Bush, and John Edwards didn't win or lose any states for Kerry. People vote for the person at the top of the ticket, and no southern Democrats were going to vote for the aristocratic, Ivy League, Skulls and Bones member that Kerry was. Wasn't going to happen, even if he was running with every Democratic governor from the south as his running "MATES."

As for the "Hillary and Obama are leading him in SC" knownothings, I'd like to ask them how many southern and midwestern primaries did John "KERRY" lose in 2004? The answer, only 3. That was NC, SC, and Oklahoma. That means he won every other southern and midwestern primary, including Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia. Tell me again, how many of those "DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VICTORIES" translated into "GENERAL ELECTION VICTORIES" for Kerry?

The answer...ZERO.

If Obama or Hillary win southern primaries where DEMOCRATS are voting for the DEMOCRATIC frontrunners, they are still weaker in the south and midwest than John Edwards is. Matchups against Republicans proves it, and so does history. Look at Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale.

Fact is, John Edwards has proven that he can win "STATEWIDE" in the south. None of the others have, and they want even try.

Go ahead southern and midwestern Democrats. Join the "HERD" and support Clinton and Obama.

They will just "ABANDON" you and your state come General Election time, just like the Kerry campaign chose to do. And yes, that campaign missused John Edwards.

John Edwards on the other hand would be a welcome edition for Democrats up and down the ticket in 2008, and he would actually compete in and win many southern states against any of the Republicans running, including Fred Thompson who will fall flat on his face when his corporate lobbyist past, his involvement with shady figures in the middle east, and his busty young wife become more well known. Right now, Thompson is a FAKE vision. Once the truth comes out about him, he won't be a threat. Add the fact that he's assembling the Bush team to run his campaign.

Do people want more of Bush? If so, then vote for Fred Thompson.

Posted by: ST | June 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I am trying for a new record of over 20 posts per hour. It does not matter if they are relevant or intelligent, mostly they are not. If anyone could try to challenge me on anything it would make my job easier. all this hopping over to Kos and Huff for ideas is time consuming.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits shot up unexpectedly last week, rising to the highest level in two months.

The Labor Department reported that unemployment claims totaled 324,000 last week, up 10,000 from the previous week, to the highest level since mid-April.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I believe that Edwards has veered too far left to be elected. Of all the Democrats running, I think Biden would make the best President. He is the only candidate in either party who has a reasonable plan to deal with Iraq.

Posted by: JimD in FL | June 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse


'Cheney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him

Former Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was recently convicted on several counts of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the leak of the identity of former covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Waxman noted, and in 2006, former Cheney aide Leandro Aragoncillo pleaded guilty to sharing classified U.S. documents with foreign nationals.'

Cheney is a madman and traitor to his country.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Winning a primary and winning the general election in the south are completely different. I could win the primary in UT but that does not mean I am going to win it in the general. Name the states in the south that John Edwards will win (Florida does not count).

So he was a white collar worker. Most people start at the bottom and move up. So, he was not this poor kid whose father was at the bottom of the rung.

A) I am not lying B) Free Speech is essential to Democracy regardless if you agree with that speech which is most repugnant to you.

Posted by: John | June 21, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

'
Pregnant Iraqi women who have been forced from their homes by worsening violence are obtaining illegal abortions because they are unable to get medical care for themselves and their unborn, according to a new report by a national humanitarian group.

A record number of Iraqis -- most of them women and children -- are fleeing their homes to escape the bloodshed of sectarian violence and anti-U.S. attacks, according to a new report by the Iraqi Red Crescent organization, the largest aid group operating in Iraq.

Health care is inadequate and difficult to access for those people, according to the IRC report. '

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Yikes. Did anyone read that Clinton girl-group article? It reminded me of my ex. She and her little group of girl friends was exactly like that, totally self-absorbed, totally isolated from reality and unrelentingly supportive of each other as they all drifted uncontrollably out of orbit. They cared nothing for anyone outside their little group. What a total disaster Clinton would be as president. After 8 years of Bush, this could be the end of our country.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The Environmental Protection Agency did not provide the public with sufficient information, nor did it follow an advisory panel's recommendations when designing a second program to test for indoor air contamination at residences in lower Manhattan near the disaster site of the World Trade Center, according to a preliminary government study.

Posted by: ** | June 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

zouk, if you only had a life like me, you could spend all day, every day finding things to cut and paste over to this site, informing the fellow moonbats about all the transgressions by the cons. It takes a lot of time and work, but it is having its effects. all the Dem ideas I am espousing are failing gloriously in both houses and all my chosen polticians are suffering record low approvals.

See, my work is paying off. the more I air my views, the more of an idiot I appear to be. the truth gets out slowly, despite my best efforts. but this is some life I have. you should be envious, as all Dems are as a policy matter.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse


'A satellite photograph obtained by ABC News reveals Pakistan is nearing completion of a third, previously unknown plutonium production reactor, suggesting Pakistan may be planning to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal.

"With large stocks of plutonium, Pakistan can build a new generation of lighter, more powerful weapons that can more easily be launched via missiles and can cause far more damage," said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), which, along with Digital Globe, provided the satellite image to ABC News. '

After Mushareff leaves in a couple of months, we're going to be in BIG TROUBLE. How about it? Should we bomb them? they're far more dangerous than Iran.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Lying under oath? That's no big deal, says Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).

Here he is during this morning's hearing lamenting how the U.S. attorney firings investigation has taken to scrutinizing misstatements under oath -- not "real wrongdoing." It's part of a pattern, Smith says, of "so-called scandals" (presumably referring to Scooter Libby).

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I am funny too, aren't I? I have this ability to use the same old stale jokes over and over and they are more hilarious each time.

I still can't understand why I am in this dead-end job with low expectations and minimal requirements when I am such a gifted writer and analyst? Can anyone tell me?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

god you are a bore zouk. don't you have a life at all?

Posted by: ** | June 21, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

See how smart I am. I can now say things without even going over to Kos for instruction.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

'Deliberately lying like that should be punished as the serious crime that it is.'

they've have to take fox, msnbc, and almost all talk radio off the air....

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

that was zouk. he is trying to make me look like a fool. I don't need help doing that.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

the voices are back. Mommy help. can you cut the crusts off?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

In 2004, Edwards won both the South Carolina and North Carolina primaries.

Posted by: morganja | June 21, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse


'Vice President Exempts His Office from the Requirements for Protecting Classified Information

Washington, D.C. -- The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch."

WTF? I mean seriously... the VP is not part of the executive branch? Maybe he thinks he's really King?

This is a very dangerous man.

Posted by: Jake | June 21, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

How exactly does floor worker promoted to supervisor count as white collar? Its great to have different opinions on political matters, but when you lie you are attacking the institution of democracy. We need the free flow of true information in order to make intelligent decisions. But people like you lie with the intention of preventing this flow of information and thereby subvert our democracy. Without truth there can be no democracy. Deliberately lying like that should be punished as the serious crime that it is.

Posted by: morganja | June 21, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

'if anyone is going to post ignorant, empty propoganda all day, please continue to allow only me to do it.'

it IS only you, zoukie.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

'Tommy Thompson: Iraq War Has A "Degree Of Insanity"
Speaking in Des Moines on Tuesday, Tommy Thompson gave his frank opinions about the Iraq War. "If you keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, that has a degree of insanity stapled with it and that is exactly what we're doing," Thompson said. "Eight and a half billion dollars a month and we still do not have a plan on how we're going to win the war or win the peace."

Hey a republican says it best... if you wanna know which way the wind will be blowing in 08 -- watch it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

CC - I am the only one here that is supposed to get away with breaking all the posted rules - not signing a name, using profanity, insulting others, etc. Please block anyone who disagress with me. My point of view and arguments are so weak, they stand no chance against an informed view. If anyone is going to post ignorant, empty propoganda all day, please continue to allow only me to do it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I got mail from a friend that had been thru Iowa this past weekend and he states he was suprised at the support Hillary appeards to be getting there, and said for me to not be suprised if she actually won there. Now I surely hope Hillary pulls what would be the big upset at the early stage of the game.

Posted by: lylepink | June 21, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

'Tom Tancredo warmly welcomed Mike Bloomberg's exit from the GOP, saying the move helps purify Republican party ideology, and maintaining that the mayor's independent candidacy would have little impact on Electoral College votes. "Good riddance," Tancredo said, adding that other Republicans should do the same because "it would be a truer reflection of who they really are."

'purify party ideology' -- wow sounds just like Mao and Stalin, doesn't it? That's because it is. Because today's R party is a rigid authoritarian neo-fascism.

Yes! Let's hope that everyone with a shred of sanity and a functioning brain leaves the party, leavingbehind only the shreiking harpies and frothing wingers who can then dispatch themselves in a circular firing squad....

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Edwards/Obama08

Posted by: Barb | June 21, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Edwards/Obama08

Posted by: Barb | June 21, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Edwards/Obama08

Posted by: Barb | June 21, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Edwards has no chance of winning any Southern state. Please someone tell me which one and Florida does not count. Go back and look at his poll numbers before he decided not to run for reelection in his Senate campaign. He would have lost by a huge margin. Edwards can't deliver his home state. The evidence is the 2004 Presidential race and his own Senate reelect numbers. Hillary is the only one who has a chance of winning AR and probably the only Southern state. The chances are slim but there is a chance. In addition, Democrats don't need the South anymore because of the seismic change in the Rocky Mountain/Western States. I don't think Southerners can associate with someone who has a campaign pay for his $400 haircut. When he says he is a son of Mill Worker. He fails to mention that his dad was management, white collar, and not a blue collar worker.

Posted by: John | June 21, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

christ, zoukie's on steriods --or off meds today, folks. look for an avalanche of nonstop batsh*t winger propaganda all dayu today...

he's trying to hijack and ruin your blog, CC... if i were you, i'd delete him....

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

'the moonbats are out in force for solstice.'

yes you are, zoukie. but why don't you sign your name, ignorant coward?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

ABC reported on the "exceptionally low" rate, as Stephanopolous described it -- albeit 19 minutes into its evening newscast. But "CBS, and NBC to a lesser extent, spun the good news into bad," MRC observed. "Though wages had grown by 3.9% over the (previous) 12 months, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric used the lower unemployment news as a segue to ask: 'But do the jobs out there pay enough? A big issue in the battle for Congress this year is how much the lowest-paid workers make.'

"Viewers then saw a full story on the plight of minimum wage workers and how raising it is 'resonating' with voters."

No wonder, said MRC, that an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken just before the election found more than half of Americans (53%) thought the economy was "not so good" or "poor."


View larger image
"The big broadcast networks have buried the good economic news under an avalanche of bad news stories," MRS concluded. "While the real world offered good news, the networks presented pain."

A study by MRC's Business & Media Institute of a year's worth of economic coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC found "more than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62%) compared to good news (31%)."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=267229438173731#

Posted by: all the lies that suit us to print | June 21, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Nope, I see no bias here - brer rabbit.

List of journos who donated to politics.

Television:

(D) ABC News, Mary Fulginiti, "Primetime" correspondent. Click for details.

(D) ABC affiliate in Boston, WCVB, Sangita Chandra, producer. Click for details.

(D) ABC affiliate in Wichita, KAKE, Susan Peters, anchor. Click for details.

(D) CBS News, Serena Altschul, correspondent for "CBS Sunday Morning." Click for details.

(D) CBS News, Edward H. Forgotson Jr., producer, "CBS Sunday Morning." Click for details.

(D) CBS affiliate in Boston, WBZ, Liz Walker, newsmagazine host. Click for details.

(D) CBS affiliate in Los Angeles, KCBS, Claudia Bill, news writer. Click for details.

(D) CBS affiliate in Memphis, WREG, Markova Reed, anchors the morning and noon news. Click for details.

(D) CNN, Guy Raz, Jerusalem correspondent, now defense correspondent for National Public Radio. Click for details.

(R) CW affiliate in Chicago, WGN, Jay Congdon, news producer. Click for details.

(R) CW affiliate in Los Angeles, KTLA, Diana Chi, news writer. Click for details.

(R) Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor." Click for details.

(D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report." Click for details.

(D) Fox affiliate in Omaha, KPTM, Calvert Collins, reporter. Click for details.

(D) Fox affiliate in Minneapolis, KMSP, Alix Kendall, morning anchor. Click for details.

(D) Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., WTTG, Laura Evans, anchor. Click for details.


(R) MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, host of "Morning Joe" and "Scarborough Country." Click for details.

(D) MTV News, Gideon Yago, "Choose or Lose" presidential correspondent. Click for details.

(D) NBC News, Victoria Corderi, "Dateline" correspondent. Click for details.

(R) PBS affiliate in New York, Thirteen/WNET, Rafael Roman, host, "New York Voices." Click for details.

(D) Independent station KTVK, Phoenix, Steve Bodinet, reporter. Click for details.

-----

Online:

(D) MSNBC.com, Rachel Schwanewede, senior editor, TodayShow.com. Click for details.

(D) MSNBC.com, Joel Widzer, travel columnist. Click for details.

(D) Salon.com, Gary Kamiya, writer at large and former executive editor. Click for details.

(D) Salon.com, Katharine Mieszkowski, reporter. Click for details.

-----

Magazines:

(D) The Atlantic Monthly, Martha Spaulding, assistant managing editor. Click for details.

(D) Business Week, Prudence Crowther, chief copy editor. Click for details.

(D) The Economist, Andreas Kluth, technology correspondent. Click for details.

(D) The Economist, Joanne Ramos, financial writer. Click for details.

(R) Forbes, Jean A. Briggs, assistant managing editor. Click for details.

(R) Forbes, Robert Lenzner, national editor. Click for details.

(D) Forbes, Tatiana Serafin, senior reporter. Click for details.

(D) Inc., Jane Berentson, editor. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, David Denby, film critic. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Henry Finder, editorial director and books editor. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Tad Friend, Hollywood reporter. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Ann Goldstein, head of copy department. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, John Lahr, theater critic. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Janet Malcolm, writer. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, George Packer, war correspondent. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Mark Singer, profile writer. Click for details.

(D) The New Yorker, Judith Thurman, writer. Click for details.

(D) Newsweek, Temma Ehrenfeld, associate editor. Click for details.

(D & R) Newsweek, Jane Bryant Quinn, personal finance columnist. Click for details.

(D) Newsweek, Anne Underwood, correspondent on health and medical stories. Click for details.

(D) Rolling Stone, Jason Fine, deputy managing editor. Click for details.

(D) Rolling Stone, David Swanson, assistant editor. Click for details.

(D) Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner, editor and publisher. Click for details.

(D) Time, Jim Frederick, senior editor. Click for details.

(D) U.S. News & World Report, Michael Freeman, researcher. Click for details.

(D) U.S. News & World Report, Amanda Spake, senior writer. Click for details.

(D) Vanity Fair, Elise O'Shaughnessy, contributing editor. Click for details.

(D) Vanity Fair, Michael Shnayerson, contributing editor. Click for details.

-----

Newspapers:

(in order by approximate circulation)

(D) McClatchy Newspapers, Beryl Adcock, news desk chief, Washington bureau. Click for details.

(D) The Wall Street Journal, Krishnan Amantharaman, managing editor of the classroom edition. Click for details.

(D) The Wall Street Journal, Henny Sender, senior special writer. Click for details.

(D) The Wall Street Journal, Eben Shapiro, editor of the Weekend Journal. Click for details.

(D) The New York Times, Randy Cohen, ethics columnist. Click for details.

(D) The New York Times, Christine Muhlke, deputy editor, style magazine. Click for details.

(D & R) The New York Times, Nancy Tilghman, freelance writer. Click for details.

(D) Los Angeles Times, Nick Cuccia, design editor. Click for details.

(D) Los Angeles Times, Manohla Dargis, film critic, now at The New York Times. Click for details.

(D) Los Angeles Times, Dan Neil, automobile critic. Click for details.

(R) Los Angeles Times, Charles Perry, food writer. Click for details.

(D) New York Daily News, Celia McGee, reporter, and freelancer for The New York Times. Click for details.

(D) New York Daily News, Matthew Roberts, photographer. Click for details.

(R) The Washington Post, Stephen Hunter, film critic. Click for details.

(D) The Chicago Tribune, Maureen Ryan, entertainment reporter. Click for details.

(D) The Chicago Tribune, John von Rhein, classical music critic. Click for details.

(D) San Francisco Chronicle, William Pates, letters editor for the editorial page. Click for details.

(D) Newsday, Long Island, Rita Hall, section designer/artist/writer. Click for details.

(D) The Boston Globe, Rebecca Ostriker, arts editor/writer. Click for details.

(D) The Boston Globe, Henry Riemer, sports statistician. Click for details.

(R) The Star-Ledger, Newark, Robin Gaby Fisher, feature writer. Click for details.

(D) Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Barbara Haugen, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Detroit Free Press, Susan Hall-Balduf, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Detroit Free Press, Joel Thurtell, reporter. Click for details.

(D) The Oregonian, Portland, Steve Amick, reporter. Click for details.

(R) The Miami Herald, Harry Broertjes, copy editor/page designer. Click for details.

(R) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Joe Cline, graphic artist. Click for details.

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Penni Crabtree, business reporter. Click for details.

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Bob Elledge, assistant news editor. Click for details.

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Shaffer Grubb, graphic artist. Click for details.

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Arline Smith, news production editor. Click for details.

(D) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Charlie Smith, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) The Sun, Baltimore, John Scholz, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) San Jose Mercury News, Rachel Wilner, sports editor. Click for details.

(D) Boston Herald, Chris Donnelly, news librarian. Click for details.

(D) South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, Ethan Skolnick, sports columnist. Click for details.

(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Randy Galloway, sports columnist. Click for details.

(D) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Vincent Langford, sports copy editor. Click for details.

(D) The Hartford Courant, Nancy Gallinger, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) The Hartford Courant, Bill Lewis, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, Michael Hardy, state political reporter. Click for details.

(D) Richmond Times-Dispatch, Pam Mastropaolo, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Contra Costa Times, Calif., Robert Taylor, fine arts reporter. Click for details.

(D) The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif., Mark Benoit, wire editor. Click for details.

(D) The Palm Beach Post, Fla., George McEvoy, columnist. Click for details.

(R) The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Barbara Bradley, fashion editor. Click for details.

(D) The Des Moines Register, Stephen P. Dinnen, business reporter. Click for details.

(D) The Honolulu Advertiser, Chris Neil, wire editor. Click for details.

(D) The Blade, Toledo, James Bradley, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Lexington Herald-Leader, Brian Throckmorton, copy desk chief. Click for details.

(R) The Morning Call, Allentown, Pa., Beth Hudson, sports reporter. Click for details.

(D) The Daytona Beach, Fla., News-Journal, Marc Davidson, editor. Click for details.

(D) Albany, N.Y., Times Union, Greg Montgomery, graphic design editor. Click for details.

(R) The Washington Times, Gary Arnold, film critic. Click for details.

(D) San Gabriel Valley Newspapers, Calif., Eric Terrazas, sports editor. Click for details.

(R) The New York Sun, Liz Peek, financial columnist. Click for details.

(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, Paul Fell, editorial cartoonist. Click for details.

(D) The Lincoln, Neb., Journal Star, Sylvia Hermanson, copy editor. Click for details.

(R) The Macon, Ga., Telegraph, Stephen "Keich" Whicker, local government reporter. Click for details.

(D) New Hampshire Union Leader, David Johnson, sports copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Corpus Christi, Texas, Caller-Times, Elvia Aguilar, business writer. Click for details.

(D) National Catholic Reporter, Margot Patterson, senior writer and arts/opinion editor. Click for details.

(D) York, Pa., Daily Record, Teresa Cook, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Muskegon, Mich., Chronicle, Terry Judd, reporter and chief of the Grand Haven bureau. Click for details.

(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, Fran Adler, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Fort Wayne, Ind., News-Sentinel, Faith Van Gilder, copy editor. Click for details.

(D) Martha's Vineyard, Mass., Times, Whit Griswold, copy editor. Click for details.

-----

Radio:

(D) Air America and CBS Radio, Betsy Rosenberg-Zimmerman, environment talk show host and environment reporter. Click for details.

(D) National Public Radio, Corey Flintoff, newscaster. Click for details.

(D) National Public Radio, Michelle Trudeau, correspondent. Click for details.

(D) NPR affiliate in Washington, WAMU, Susan Goodman, reporter. Click for details.

(D) WWJ News Radio, Detroit, Vickie B. Thomas, reporter. Click for details.

-----

Wire services:

(D) Bloomberg News, Katherine Burton, reporter. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Dieterich, energy editor. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, Joshua Fellman, reporter in Asia. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Houck, multimedia news editor. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, Milanee Kapadia, reporter. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, James Polson, reporter on energy and utilities. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, Carlos Torres, reporter in Washington. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, Robert Urban, real estate reporter. Click for details.

(D) Bloomberg News, John Wydra, radio newscaster. Click for details.

(D) Dow Jones Newswires, Samuel J. Favate Jr., editor. Click for details.

(D) Dow Jones Newswires, Billy Mallard, credit markets editor. Click for details.

(D) Reuters, Lisa von Ahn, news desk editor. Click for details.

(D) Reuters, Michael Erman, reporter. Click for details.


-----

Non-English-language news organizations:

(D) La Stampa, newspaper in Turin, Italy, Paolo Mastrolilli, New York correspondent. Click for details.

(D) New Delhi Television, Stephen Marks, reporter. Click for details.

(D) The Korea Daily News, Chang W. Kim, journalist. Click for details.

(D) Pakistan TV, Jack Khangura, reporter. Click for details.

(D) Oriental Daily, Chun Fai Cheng, reporter. Click for details.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455

Posted by: where's all the Rs? | June 21, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

As for the South Carolina primary, let's be fair: More than 50% of the registered Democratic voters are African-American, and they are voting for Obama or Bill (whops! Sorry, I meant Hillary). For that reason, and that reason alone, Edwards may not do as well there as in the other caucuses/primaries. But when the GENERAL ELECTION come, do you really think those Democrats will vote for the Republican?? Please!

Posted by: rebelfriend | June 21, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Robert Chapman's recollection is correct that Sen. Biden plagiarized Kinnock's speech in 1988.

It is also accurate to describe Sen. Biden during the Roberts hearing as having wasted his entire allotment of time without having asked a pertinent question.

However, Sen. Biden has addressed foreign policy issues with knowledge and skill that the D front-runners do not have and which only McCain can approach for the Rs. This election, more than any since 1980, is about foreign policy. If the Ds think it is about who has the best health care plan, as imposing as health care delivery is as a problem, the Ds could miss their opportunity.

This election will be about foreign policy, if the center has its way.

It will be about finding a working majority to steer a sane bipartisan foreign policy, eventually. Let me add that if the Rs think its about tax cuts and the Ds think its about health care; or even if the Rs think all foreign policy boils down to "stay the course" and "they will follow us home" and the Ds think all foreign policy boils down to "pull out now" and damn the consequences, a third party candidacy looms.

I assume that 6 of the Ds and 3 of the Rs would be MUCH better presidents than GWB. Every president in my lifetime has been better than GWB, so any contrast with him becomes damnation by faint praise.

The first question is who can best reassert America's leadership while taking the high ground? In that light, Biden and McCain look like better bets going in than their less experienced competitors.

But if we keep hearing "health care" and "tax cuts" as if the world can or will just sit and wait for us, we may get a foreign policy lightweight who has to learn on the job - perhaps JD's 5'7" billionaire. Better than GWB? Surely. Good enough? Open question.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 21, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"Whatever troubles the Republicans have had this year and last, they can no longer be blamed for what Congress has or, more to the point, has not done."

Don't read too much into those polls. They don't indicate how many people like the Democrats' initiatives and are unhappy with the Republicans' ability to kill them, due to the close margin in the Senate. I'm not disputing that lots of people are unhappy with aspects of Congressional Dems' performance, particularly on the war, but you overreach on both the poll results and reality when you claim it's all on Dems' heads now and no one can blame Republicans for any of it.

Posted by: jane | June 21, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break on the trial lawyer propoganda. It is a job and an honorable one if done right, which is what Edwards did, ask his clients. Hope none of the bashers ever need one, just ask Trent Lott who he turned to when the insurance companies screwed him.

Posted by: from TN | June 21, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I am from the South, grew up there and have family there and in the mid-west, and let me tell you, Southerners are smarter than many give them credit for. They know the real thing when they see it. And many of them have figured out that Bush and the Republicans ripped them off. Edwards' populist message is a return to the days of FDR when the South was solid Democratic. The times they are achangin', friends, and John Edwards may not win them all, but I can guarantee you, he will win enough and more, once he is President. He will win the mid-west as well. Do not sell this smart man short. When he has the full backing of the Democratic Party, he WILL win the election!

Posted by: rebelfriend | June 21, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to guess why the Clintons would want to be compared to a mob family. Maybe the Sopranos spoof was a hip post-modern jab at conservatives, who despise Hillary. Or maybe it's just a joke.

Either way, we're surprised that most of the media have so far ignored Hillary's possible legal troubles -- just as they ignored Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's questionable land deals, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's seeming conflicts of interest and evidence that Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson was on the take.

As Tony Soprano might say if he was a reporter, "Fuggedaboutit."

Posted by: lying press at it again | June 21, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Because even as the video spoofing the Sopranos was being flashed around the Internet, serious charges of political corruption were about to be leveled against Hillary Clinton in a California court. As it turns out, the Clintons-as-crime-family trope in Hillary's campaign video might be a little too close for comfort.

The scandal involves allegations by movie producer Peter Paul that a 2000 senatorial fundraiser for Clinton in Hollywood violated campaign laws. Paul claims he spent $2 million to produce the fundraising event -- a de facto campaign expenditure. Under campaign law then in effect, campaign gifts were limited to $2,000.

He further claims that Hillary Clinton knew of his behind-the-scenes illegal activity and approved of it.

Posted by: america's real crime family | June 21, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This 2008 presidential election represents an unparalleled historic opportunity, given the disillusionment and disgust of millions of Republicans about this disastrous war, their party and the ruinously incompetent Bush administration,
for the Democrats to sweep in huge numbers of newcomers. John Edwards in my view not only is offering truly bold leadership, exceptionally well defined policies across the board, and straight talk on every signicant issue, but alone offers the opportunity to broaden the base of the Democratic party for a generation to follow.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee these millions of Republicans would stay home, her negatives are as high as her name recognition and are set in concrete among these voters. The historic shift to the Democratic fold would not occur, and in fact I quake at the thought of her or Obama yielding the result of a Republican victory in 08. I do not see her prevailing in the general election. Hillary does not offer bold leadership, and no matter how impressive her array of resources and advisors are, we as a nation will not benefit from her being beholden to the corporate interests and the old paradigm of politicking (us vs. them) she is hidebound in personifying.
She would make a marvelous Democratic leader of the Senate, and could make historic contributions there for her career.
Obama is marvelous, but having heard him twice, both at the DNC winter meeting and at the Take Back America conference, needs more years of thoughtful development to give an impression of depth relative to policy on the crucial issues of the day which require seasoned, bold, mature leadership. He is a great inspirational speaker, but does not strike me as ready to prevail in a national election, nor having yet achieved presidential level of maturity.
Now is the time for bold leadership that is NOT hidebound in the political establishment, we do not need entrenched dynastic government, we need the mature and creative, fresh leadership John and Elizabeth Edwards would contribute to reestablishing the US respect in the world.

Posted by: Priscilla | June 21, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Im a moderate Republican from Mississippi, and I believe that Edwards could win here in MS if the GOP puts up Rudy or Romney because the social issues will cancel out with Edwards, who is more of a populist, and Mississippians love their populist politicians, former AG Mike Moore and LG Amy Tuck. That being said Edwards is the only Dem I see having that opportunity because many see him being like them from a rural, poor area and speaks the language. Hillary and Obama have no chance down here.

That being said, I think I am going to have to write in a candidate because I cannot vote for ANYONE who is running at the moment, including Thompson.

Posted by: Magnolia | June 21, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Whatever troubles the Republicans have had this year and last, they can no longer be blamed for what Congress has or, more to the point, has not done. The Democrats are in charge now and, apparently, the voters do not like the job they've been doing.

The Democratic Congress' job-approval score has sunk to 23 percent, down 8 points since April. Other polls give them even lower marks. A Rasmussen survey found that "just 19 percent of American voters believe Congress is doing a good or excellent job."

Notably, among Democratic voters, only 24 percent say Congress is doing a good job -- down from 35 percent who said that a month ago.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"the moonbats are out in force for solstice. After the Dem primary, even their chosen candidate will run from them as fast as possible.

Posted by: | June 21, 2007 12:18 PM"

anne C: your doctor called and wants you to go back on your meds. Please.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The postings on this blog show just how diverse the political opinions are amongst the readers of this column. John Edwards is an intellegent individual with thought-out opinions and would be a strong candidate to win the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, his message is a little to far to the left to appeal the independents to win the general election. I think that he was a better candidate in 2004 than Kerry. The Democratic Party needs to look at the candidates with the proposals that are most plausible. I think what the Clinton adminstration learned with their healthcare plan is that a great idea that creates strong opposition will never work no matter how good it is. John Edwards proposals are liberal dreams. Hillary Clinton's proposals demonstrate sound realistic judgement.

Posted by: Mike Petrucci | June 21, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

the moonbats are out in force for solstice. After the Dem primary, even their chosen candidate will run from them as fast as possible.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Obama Tops Among Conference Attendees

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was the most-selected first and second choice among candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, as preferred by participants in the Politico straw poll among more than 700 attendees of the Campaign forAmerica's Future's "Take Back America" conference.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/obama-tops-among-conference-attendees.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris, thank you for finally drawing attention to the most important factor in this current campaign. The only right way for us to go about selecting a nominee is to pay attention to the people. And as Jonathan Alter said on MSNBC a few days ago, those who are pushing the national polls on the NOMINATION process "are just blowing out smoke." Those numbers are worthless now.

The numbers the Democrats had better be paying attention to are those provided by the RESPECTED Polls that compare ALL the Democratic candidates in matchups with ALL the Republican candidates as to who voters (including Independents, who now number about as many as Democrats, as well as the Democrats and Republicans)will vote for.

The most recent RASSMUSSEN POLL (proven to be the poll that gets it right more often than any of the others) showed that ONLY EDWARDS COULD DEFEAT ALL OF THE TOP REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES INCLUDING THOMPSON. And Rassmussen is not the only poll showing such an outcome.

Since this process began, Hillary and Obama have benefited from the media blitz on their "horserace." Hillary has Bill in the fundraising department (where would she be today without having been his wife? And look at her disastrous negatives!) and Obama has been the "darling" of the media, a smooth, charming, charismatic speaker, but clearly not ready. Meanwhile the handful of conservative mega-corporations that control the media in America today have done everything they can to ignore, and to subvert, Edwards, with a little help from the Republican "destroy" machine in the blog world.

Considering all these facts, it is remarkable that John Edwards has the support of so many across the country. (Did you know that it was John Edwards who raised more money in the first quarter IN THE SOUTH than any other candidate? That suggests that if anyone can begin the healing process of bringing our whole country together again it is John Edwards.)

Edwards has that support because he has shown that he is a decent, honest, very smart man with a strong vision, excellent ideas with well-thought-out plans. And he has shown throughout his life that he has a backbone of steel (to quote Elizabeth). People sense that he is not just trying to build a political career, but rather is fighting so hard because he loves this country and wants desperately to serve and make life better for us all. As someone recently said, "If a woman like Elizabeth Edwards loves him so much, and believes so much in him, there has to be something quite remarkable about the man."

So, Democrats, wake up! Stop allowing the conservative media to control this election! Stop allowing them to manipulate the process! If we want to have a Democrat in the White House in 2009, we had damn well better select the right candidate -- the candidate the American people will vote for! (Had he been the candidate last time, Bush might well have been history.)

Posted by: rebelfriend | June 21, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

So, Anne C, what are you whining about? Go watch a soap opera or sth, why don't you. I think you still have a few donuts in the fridge. Then when you're done, there's a new Harper's Bazaar in the bathroom. Don't worry about the "second-rate" masses... they may complain, but you don't have to deal with them if you turn up the Lifetime channel.

Posted by: sloth | June 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

anne C -- and you're zoukie too. give it up ignorant coward.

and go to hell nader -- nobody will vote for you or support you but republicans. just go f*ck yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

anne C: your doctor called and wants you to go back on your meds. Please.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Electability will be an issue in this campaign. For the Democrats to win they will need a moderate or Southerner to help them (not named Edwards). As former Gov. Mark Warner pointed out winning the Kerry states plus Ohio and winning doesn't really give much of a manageable governing coalition when 30+ states vote against you.

Clinton is obviously the least electable candidate. She can win, even if barely, but will kill the party in down ticket races in the South and parts of the Midwest.

Of the top three Dems, Obama is the best candidate in a general election, because of his charisma and the fact that he is the least tainted by Washington. I'm a Southerner and I think a lot of people really overstate the race issue. This isn't 1964. Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee had as much to do with mistakes he made, such as getting in Bob Corker's face at a press conference, as any negative GOP ads did. In fact those ads probably did more to hurt the GOP than help.

Obama can speak to a really diverse group of people and comes off as least partisan. I think that means something. An Obama/Bayh ticket would do well, just as I think an Obama/Warner ticket would do well. Also don't forget about Wes Clark. I think he would make a fabulous VP candidate, because having an ex-Army 4 star would neutralize the usual GOP talking points about being tough on security.

Posted by: Democratic Nole | June 21, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

no matter how you sign your name, zoukie, your obssession will harry reid always gives you away. you can't run you can't hide from your own petty obssessions and mental illness...

'The Mitt Romney camp is denying an accusation by a New York Times reporter that their security detail pulled him over, told him they had run his license plates, and ordered him to stop following their car. "We will not comment on security procedures for the governor," said Romney spokesman Matt Rhoades. "We can confirm, though, that at no time was the reporter's license plate run through a check or was his vehicle pulled over," Rhoades insisted -- indeed, to have done so would have been illegal under New Hampshire law.'

little paranoid now, eh mitt? scared of reporters?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Second-rate liberals who went to mediocre schools and married mediocre women are burning with jealousy from their nondescript, mediocre jobs. So they use their government jobs to attack their betters and sneer about the players' "daddies."

Like so much injustice in America, this whole sick spectacle was the revenge of the mediocre against the successful. Stupid and envious is a bad combo platter.

Posted by: anne C | June 21, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Obama/Edwards to me at this point. Perhaps CC will entertain us with how presidential candidates whose names begin with vowels have done historically.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 21, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Well, Well -

I live in Massachusetts and I can tell you for sure that Romney is a self-obssessed, holier-than-thou windbag whose only sincere commitment is to himself.

And BTW - HE DID NOT BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET. When Gov. Patrick took over, he found a $1.5 billion shortfall which had been concealed by creative accounting.

With regard to what you say are his credentials, so what. Running the Olympics and running a big business are basically the same thing... means he's a good businessman. So are at least twenty or thirty people whom I know personally, and I'm sure we could all say the same.

He was really only a working governor of MA for three years - he basically took the last year of his term to campaign for Republicans nationwide, bashing the state that elected him to conservative audiences. And to what end? The GOP's biggest loss since Bill Clinton was elected. (In 1992, remember? Fifteen years ago.)

All Romney has going for him are his money and his hair. He's a fraud.

Posted by: Bokonon | June 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, has become the fifth Justice Department official to resign after being linked to the firings of several U.S. attorneys:

Elston's resignation is effective at the end of next week. Reached Friday afternoon, he confirmed his plans to leave but would not say why.

Elston is a key figure in several recent Justice Department scandals:

- Last month, Elston admitted that at the direction of McNulty, he placed calls to four fired U.S. attorneys calls that three of the prosecutors say involved threats not to testify before Congress about their dismissals. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that Elston's calls were one of many examples in this scandal that have the "whiff of obstruction of justice."

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Now that Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) is the Democratic floor leader, he has not just one but three sons -- and a son-in-law -- who are lobbyists. One of Reid's sons, and his son-in-law, has lobbied in Washington; a second son lobbies for the same interests in Nevada; and a third son is an attorney who litigates for them in court. Reid's lobbyist-sons worked to promote federal land swaps, mining interests and the University of Nevada at Reno.

Posted by: dirty nepotism | June 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash - Nader to run again for president
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2108468,00.html

"Ralph Nader, the independent candidate blamed by many Americans for George Bush's election victory in 2000, says he is considering a run for the White House next year - even at the risk of dishing the Democrats again."

Please go away Nader.

Posted by: OD | June 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Edwards won't even win a Southern primary. What is he talking that he will win a Southern State? He couldn't bring his home state to the ticket in 04 or North Carolina. They hate him in North Carolina, i'm not sure why that is not more well known.

Posted by: Edwards is Alright | June 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

'You don't need a brain to vote Dem but it really 'lessons' your chances.'

zoukie's here, right on time. preschool over already, little man?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Wow. What a bunch of crap from a lot of people about North Carolina. I live in a small town in North Carolina and I can assure you that Edwards is way more popular than Clinton. She will never win this state, or any southern state, or possibly any state this side of Massachusetts. She is identical to Kerry, a lot of tepid, ambiguous corporate double-speak meaning nothing.

Edwards believes in something and you know if he is elected that he is going to make real changes. It seems most people want someone who wants to do something besides just be president. He is way more liberal than I am, but most people are willing at this stage to try anything else besides the status quo. What is Hilary going to do? After 16 years on the public stage I haven't a clue. She just wants to be president. She doesn't seem to believe in anything herself. She certainly seems to lack any moral or ethical core. And she is the choice of the back room corporate monied interests.
Down in NC, we want a decent human being. Obama fits that well, except he is lacking in aggressive specifics. Edwards fits it to a T. Clinton has no soul, and what she traded it for I shudder to think.

Posted by: morganja | June 21, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

You don't need a brain to vote Dem but it really 'lessons' your chances.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"Good to see that | understands that there is no difference between those who would advocate lower taxes (to encourage a growing economy), and tax deadbeats.

Posted by: JD | June 21, 2007 10:58 AM"

Are you being sarcastic, JD?

I saw a spot on Faux News this morning in which they advocated that no one pay taxes because government isn't perfect. It was somewhat ironic in that they cited the Katrina response as an example, an example that can be laid at the feet of the same Administration Faux News tirelessly helped re-elect (and would do so again if a third term was possible). And, of course, there was no mention of the far-more-costly Iraq imbroglio or of the national debt. All the while they showed clips of HRC and Obama as they always do when they bash presidential candidates. Any comment?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | June 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

'Edwards is just a little too blatantly obvious in his ambition.'

LOL -- look athe republican field if you want to talk blatantly ambitious. rudy guiliani -- war profiteer extranordinaire. mitt romney -- best friend of billionaires. Fred Thompson -- goes without saying.

dems can't lay a fnger on them when it comes to opportunism and using the tragedy of 9/11 to advance themselves. climbing over the heap of dead bodies to stand at the top with a bullhorn juust like their good buddy bushie.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Edwards-Obama sounds like a winning ticket to me, too. I hope SOMEONE gets the election guarantees in place before 11-08. It's the Sec'y of State in states such as Ohio, FL (and KS) that wield such election authority as to determine outcomes. Is this an issue for pol. parties or the courts?

Posted by: ksdemocrat1 | June 21, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Edwards message is probably too intelligent for him to win the election. He isn't the opportunist that the other candidates are. However, I do think he is the best candidate of the field and is capable of winning some of the southern states. I think it's important to note, that had John Kerry not been cheated out of Ohio, he would have been elected president without Southern electorals going his way. You dont need the south to win but it really lessons your chances.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Edwards message is probably too intelligent for him to win the election. He isn't the opportunist that the other candidates are. However, I do think he is the best candidate of the field and is capable of winning some of the southern states. I think it's important to note, that had John Kerry not been cheated out of Ohio, he would have been elected president without Southern electorals going his way. You dont need the south to win but it really lessons your chances.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Polls consistently show what Edwards is saying.

He almost always does better against Republicans than Hillary Clinton does, and only in a few polls did Obama do better. Even in the last gallup poll Edwards beat Republicans by a larger margin than the other two, even though they were light years ahead of him in the MEANINGLESS NATIONAL NUMBERS.

State numbers matter more than national numbers, but HEAD-TO-HEAD MATCHUPS should matter the most, and Edwards always does better than Clinton or Obama in those, and that's what "ELECTABILITY" is about.

Posted by: ST | June 21, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

One BIG difference RandyA, Romney has actually accomplished something! He ran the state of Mass. as a Governor, the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as a businessman ran a large organization. Edwards sued people and was a one term Senator. BIG difference.

Posted by: Well | June 21, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

I feel compelled to point out that while, yes, white males have been the only candidates to win the Presidency in landslides, we have also been the only candidates to lose the Presidency in landslides....

Posted by: RandyA | June 21, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is the one candidate of the top three Democrats who, were he the nominee, would force me to look at Bloomburg if he runs. I simply don't trust Edwards. He strikes me as an "I will say anything to any group to get them to vote for me"...sort of a Democratic version of Mitt Romney (they have more than good hair in common).

Posted by: RandyA | June 21, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for finally calling Edwards out. He keeps pushing the electability thing, and it's ridiculous. He has swung so far left that he'd make such an easy punching bag for the right come general election. I've been waiting to see someone finally use this argument against him. Wait until a little further on down the line, when more people than just us here are paying attention, and the polls show that Edwards does FAR worse in general election match-ups.... his little rhetorical strategy is gonna come back to haunt him.

Posted by: Ryan | June 21, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

At one time I viewed Edwards as the future of the Democratic party. As a North Carolinian I was happy to have a Clinton like Democrat emerge from our state. However, when he voted for the Bankruptcy bill that gave power to banks and gutted the idea of protecting the poor, my trust wavered. And even now his work for the poor at times seems like a phot op. It might not be, and I hope it isn't, but I would rather vote for someone I believe in, who is going to lose, then someone whose words seem empty.

Posted by: Rakesh | June 21, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is just a little too blatantly obvious in his ambition. Sure, he might be a smart enough guy. Sure, he was a good lawyer. Sure, he might have some ideas that I can agree with in principle, even if I don't necessarily think the way he proposes to enact them is realistic. I'm just not convinced that he would be the kind of leader we need in this godawful 21st century.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I can NOT believe that the Demcratic Party, the so-called Party of diversity and inclusion, is embracing this southern grit appeal tactic. Instead of vowing to combat racism and sexism, he's arguing that he's the best candidate to appeal to it? I hope this comes up at the Howard University debate next week. Let's see how this southern grit strategy goes over there!

Posted by: NMP | June 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Again, the issue of Edwards vs. Hillary or Obama is framed in race/gender terms, while the actual issue is that the country has rejected five successive northern Democrats since 1968, all 'white males', often in landslides, frequently to less intelligent or less 'qualified' candidates. This is Edwards' subtext.

However, Edwards is a guy who (a) could not help Kerry win a single southern state in 2004; (b) chose not to seek re-election in North Carolina as its Senator in part because professionals predicted he would not win, after he had made it clear his politics were more Massachusetts than North Carolina, and (c) saw his Senate seat go to a Republican even with Edwards on the top of the Democratic ticket. I can't find any - any - evidence that Edwards has swing-voter appeal.

Posted by: Mark R1 | June 21, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Look, no one in the Democratic Party has really run as an economic liberal in a long time at the national level. For those of you who question whether that is a winning strategy, take a look back at Ohio and Senator Metzenbaum's continuing election victories. Now, Cleveland is not particularly well-liked in the rest of the State--Metzenbaum was from Cleveland. Ohio is not know as being a particularly liberal state, though a mix of industry and agriculture; yet, Metzenbaum was considered by many to be the most liberal senator at the time in the Senate and he would do well, electorally, even in conservative parts of the State. And, with a name like Metzenbaum, it was not likely that he would garner votes from the Bible Belt parts of the State. Yet, he would win! Why? Why was this so? I think that the poor, working poor, working middle class knew, they really knew, that, despite Metzenbaum being a self-made millionaire, they could trust they he was going to fight, I mean really fight, for the little guy, against the oil companies, if necessar; against big business, if necessary, etc. They knew that he wasn't just going to give them lip service, but that he was going to FIGHT for THEM.

Now, when Senator Kerry didn't fight back against the Swift Boat thugs to protect HIS reputation, why should the little guy think he would really fight for THEM?

Economic liberalism doesn't have to no-nothing protectionism, but those who aren't doing well in today's economy will support a Democrat, even in conservative parts of Ohio....and, I think, in the South, if they become convinced that the Democrat REALLY will FIGHT for THEM. Right now, Edwards may be the only one of the top candidates that might have the ability to make that case.

Posted by: Randy | June 21, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court term that ends next week has been quite good for businesses, says the LAT on Page One. "The justices have handed down a dozen rulings that sharply limit the damages that can be won in lawsuits or make it harder to sue corporations," writes the LAT.

Posted by: is anyone surprised? | June 21, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

President Bush should make Scooter Libby Secretary of Revenge.

What and can Dick Cheney?

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | June 21, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The LAT also notes there are reports that a Sunni militant group that has partnered with U.S. forces, "has been using its newfound status to chilling effect." They have set up interrogation centers, and some Diyala residents say that masked men have been taking people to unknown locations and executing them.

Posted by: x | June 21, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

' USA Today leads with a look at how state tax collections appear to be growing at the slowest rate in four years. This development comes at a time when the rate of spending has reached its highest level since 2001.'

borrow and spend republicans...

Posted by: the lower taxes-growth myth | June 21, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

AC, where did you get the idea that Joe Biden, doesn't have a "loser" image, don't you remember his stealing Neil Kinnock's speech and using it as his own when he ran for President in '88.

Biden not only talks too much, while he is doing it, he uses other men's words.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | June 21, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"To Edwards's rivals, that tone and the positions he has taken since falling short of the White House in 2004 have the potential to make him unelectable in a general election..."

No, that's just the sorry spin that the "top poundits" have apparently all agreed to put on the facts and polls that consistently point to Edwards as the most likely to succeed against ANY Republican.

Isn't that what "electability" really means? Beating the Republicans?

If the Dems, whose image has been tarnished of late as an ineffectual majority, would show some serious unity and get behind their BEST candidate to beat the R's, we might actually be looking at something called Prorgess.

Anything less could create another 4 years of continued conservative wingnut power and influence abiding perniciously in the executive branch.

Considering the corporate-owned make-up of the Supreme Court these days, that would leave the Dems with control of only ONE branch of government, the legislative.

Posted by: JEP | June 21, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

In addition his (Edwards) socialist policies aren't resonating down here.

NC guy, calling someone a socialist might be a big insult among the good ol' boys, but if you think Edwards is one, you just don't know what the term means.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

Posted by: robert chapman | June 21, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

'Newsday reported this week that former mayor Rudy Giuliani stepped down from the Iraq Study Group after chairman James Baker gave "him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit." Baker was upset that despite serving on the panel for two months, Giuliani had failed to attend a single official meeting of the group.

According to his recently released financial disclosure forms, Giuliani made eight paid speeches, each on a different day, during the 23 days the Iraq Study Group met. What hasn't been noted is that two of the eight speeches were for an organization called Life Win, Inc. (Get Motivated Seminars).

What is a "Get Motivated" seminar? According to a 2003 report in the St. Petersburg Times, a Get Motivated seminar is:

A daylong program infused with Christianity, patriotism and pumping music suitable for aerobics. Many among the roster of speakers urged the audience of about 25,000 to find their inner power -- and to sign up for more seminars and books.

At the seminars, Rudy would take the stage to Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York" with red, white and blue confetti swirling around his head. He would then launch into a speech using the attack and the aftermath of 9/11 to illustrate his "six principles of leadership." For his two appearances during the Iraq Study Group meetings alone, Giuliani pulled in a combined gross fee of $200,000.'

Posted by: the sleaziest opportuniest ever | June 21, 2007 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Edwards should bring up that fact that he lost in '04 because Kerry was seen as more "electable" by primary Dems. Look at how that turned out...
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mp | June 21, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Southern, what makes you such an expert?

Small town folks in NC hate Edwards?

Have you ever campaigned in NC? I have.

There are a lot of people who like the man, that's how he got elected in the first place.

Robert Chapman

Posted by: robert chapman | June 21, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

In all, the documents detail six flights between September 14 and September 24 that evacuated Saudi nationals and bin Laden family members, Judicial Watch said in a statement.

"Incredibly, not a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members possessed any information of investigative value," Judicial Watch said.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I feel comfortable handing John Edwards the keys to the White House and leaving him to justly govern this nation. I count on him to reverse the Bush Republcan Party's destruction of our environment; and, to get our money back from the Exxons and Halliburtons and reinvest it in real American values of jobs, schools and proper health care. I've got mine, but there are millions of Americans born into poverty who have nothing. The Bushies don't care. John Edwards does.

Posted by: Paul Wertz | June 21, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Good to see that | understands that there is no difference between those who would advocate lower taxes (to encourage a growing economy), and tax deadbeats.

Posted by: JD | June 21, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse


Bin Laden arranged family's US exit: FBI docs

Osama bin Laden chartered a plane that carried his family members and Saudi nationals out of the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said FBI documents released Wednesday.

The papers, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, were made public by Judicial Watch, a Washington-based group that investigates government corruption.

One FBI document referred to a Ryan Air 727 airplane that departed Los Angeles International Airport on September 19, 2001, and was said to have carried Saudi nationals out of the United States.

"The plane was chartered either by Osama bin Laden," according to the document, which was among 224 pages posted online.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone name any accomplishment of Edwards other than getting on the ballot in 2004 after an unremarkable one term in the senate? What has he accomplished, or what bills has he sponsored that have been enacted? What public policies can be attributed to him? There is simply no there there! Obama has far more public experince than Edwards as do most county commisioners I know!

Posted by: NC Guy | June 21, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

He (Edwards) has been by far the most aggressive of the top three candidates in his rhetoric on the war in Iraq--

HELLO- as Senator Edwards not only voted for the authorization, but said he was proud of his vote.

In his acceptance speech for the Vice Presidential nomination in 04, Edwards called for victory in Iraq.

One must wonder that if Edwards will cave again if he were in the Oval Office, dealing with his new constituencies and the pressures that they would bring to implement agressive military policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

Robert Chapman
Lansing,NY

Posted by: robert chapman | June 21, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Free Scooter!

Set Scooter free! He is nice to me. He waves at me from his car and didn't kill nobody. I like Scooter because this one time he give me cookies. Another time he sent me a birthday card. It had a picture of Garfield the cat eating lasagna and I laughed when I opened it and it said inside: Happy Burpday. I showed it to my friends and they laughed too and said what a good friend I have.

Scooter got a bad deal. I think those jurors were paid off or something. I heard a story once that some jurors fell asleep during a trial and I bet these ones slept through the trial too. The judge was not nice to Scooter either. He scared him. Jail is for crooks who smoke crack and kill people, not nice people like Scooter. Perjury is not a crime, it is just a little white lie. I know you people reading this have told white lies in your day but I don't see you in maximum-security prison eating pureed grubs and goat hocks.

Boy I'm mad. What a mess!

President Bush should pardon Scooter Libby and then make him Secretary of Revenge.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The USA doesn't need another presidential dynasty (Clinton), even if it comes from the Democrats. Obama is a rising star, but not this time. All the one-liners about trial lawyers and urban rich are stereotypes that ignore Edward's depth, history, and the substance of his proposals. It is sad that political speech is so superficial: the "war on terror" is an advertising slogan that elevates murderers and serial killers to the same level as our courageous soldiers. Our soldiers and citizens deserve more respect than Bush's cheapening double-speak.

Posted by: upstate111 | June 21, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

The unfortunate problem with politics today...especially presidential races...is that few people try to go listen to candidates in person. Most make up their minds based on sound bites and propaganda. Regarding Edwards, he is impressive in person, and much much more polished than 4 years ago. He has substance. I describe him as the candidate everyone would really like to be able to support, but every time they get close to saying "He's my man" he does something stupid and opens himself up to another wave of attacks.

However, I think it says something about his chances in the general election, especially with the poor choices GOP voters have (regardless of what Thompson does), when he is already being attacked by the right.

Edwards is the Democrat they fear the most because he is preaching the strongest anti-Bush message.

As for what voters in the south think of him, don't believe all you hear. For instance, in the 2004 presidential election, the Kerry/Edwards strategy in NC was to win the I-40 corridor and Charlotte (look at a map). These are the major cities in the state and home to most of the state's democrats. Eastern and western NC are more agricultural and are the former strongholds of Jesse Helms. Kerry/Edwards accomplished their goal in 04 except for Winston-Salem, which has been taken over in the past decade by evangelical Christians from the Midwest and Northeast who wanted to escape those places in order to establish safe enclaves where they can raise their families the way they want. So NC remained a red state in 04, but just by a few thousand votes.

This is going to be a very interesting election. The Dems have so many more solid candidates. This will really get to be fun when Hillary unleashes her husband on her competitors.

Posted by: Carolina guy | June 21, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Biden, not slick? Are you kidding?

His main problem, however, is that he's an incurable windbag. (We would have to extend the convention an extra night just for his speech.) Sure, we'd like a smart candidate who can think about complex issues and construct actual paragraphs, but that's not what I'm talking about. Listening to him yammer on and on (and on and on and on) during the Roberts and Alito confirmation hearings, I just wanted to slap him. Even worse, after reveling in the sound of his own voice at ridiculous length, he contributed absolutely nothing of substance to the proceeding. I'm sure he'll do quite well as a member of someone else's cabinet, but he ranks just above Mike Gravel in electability.

Posted by: jane | June 21, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

for those who think rudy would be for the mythical 'small government' --

'City expense spending rose by 6 percent in 1998, 4 percent in 1999, another 6 percent in 2000, and, finally, an added 9 percent in the Giuliani administration's last full year, according to the Independent Budget Office. In the last five years of the Giuliani administration, spending grew at twice the rate of inflation.

During the late nineties, the city went on an especially extravagant spending spree. In 1998, the part of the budget financed by city tax revenues rose 6 percent, more than double the inflation rate; in 2000, it increased 5.7 percent; and in 2001, it rocketed up 9 percent -- three times the inflation rate.

In December 2001, the Citizens' Budget Commission (CBC), an independent fiscal watchdog, reported that spending increased more in Giuliani's second term (through fiscal year 2001, which ended on June 30, 2001) than in the three previous terms (Giuliani's first term, David Dinkins' (D) only term, and Ed Koch's (D) third term).'

Posted by: fyi: | June 21, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

The sheer idiocy of the American electoral system is underlined by the absurd attention given to a least likely to succeed candidate like Edwards.

Posted by: Jabli Izvesti | June 21, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. military has just announced that 14 more American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, raising the U.S. death toll in the war to 3,545.

how many more?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/21/tax.evaders.ap/index.html

here jd and other tax deadbeats -- some ideological cousins of yours.

'Sitting in lawn chairs around the Browns' long gravel driveway, the couple's supporters rail against Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Federal Reserve, the Vatican and the mainstream media.'

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

"We've long believed that after voting with their heads in 2004, Democratic voters will be casting a heart vote in 2008."

Sadly, I'm afraid you overestimate Dem primary voters' ability to learn from their past mistakes. (And I say this as a Dem myself -- albeit one who has always voted in primaries held long after early-voting states had already chosen the nominee.)

Posted by: jane | June 21, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse


'The U.S. military today reported the deaths of 14 U.S. soldiers and Marines in Iraq over the past 48 hours. '

death toll in iraq is escalating. how many small towns and communities across the country will be holding heartbroken funerals and memorials this week? dozens? hundreds? how long will republicans hold military families hostage in a war that benefits only CEOS of oil companies?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

>>>>>>what the bush administration is doing is NOT a 'war on terror' -- becuase it's not. it's cover for stealing the oil, among other things.

Exactly Cassandra!
Also our House Budget Committee AND the British government have banned the use of the term "war on terror" - because it incites terrorists and makes them feel important - fighting the Super Powers. YeeHaw!

Posted by: annefrank | June 21, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Delaware is not part of The South or the Northeast. It is part of the Mid-Atlantic region.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

This blog has become winghut central today.

Posted by: Wow | June 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure that Edwards was a good trial lawyer, he can certainly make a case.

But, actions speak louder than words.

He not only voted for the Iraq war, Edwards cosponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.

And, then there's that solicitation for encouragement emails to Elizabeth after she announced the return of her cancer, and then hitting on the generated email addresses for money.

He's just too slick.... Biden is better.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | June 21, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

The argument that John Edwards may be playing into the stereotype of the "tax and spend" Democratic candidate won't hold true in this election thanks to Mr. Compassionate Conservative who has effectively reversed that stereotype by transposing the vibrant, thriving economy he inherited from a Democrat into a Republican orchestrated quagmire of debt.

Posted by: PatricefromNH | June 21, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Electability? You must be smoking Guiliani's crack, CC...

How about he beats every top R in direct matchups?

'Check out the numbers in the new Gallup poll released this morning. It finds that the top three Democratic candidates for president are all beating each of the top three Republicans in all nine possible matchups:

Clinton (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 46%
Clinton (D) 49%, McCain (R) 46%
Clinton (D) 53%, Romney (R) 40%
Edwards (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Edwards (D) 50%, McCain (R) 44%
Edwards (D) 61%, Romney (R) 32%
Obama (D) 50%, Giuliani (R) 45%
Obama (D) 48%, McCain (R) 46%
Obama (D) 57%, Romney (R) 36%

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

yes, you'd love to 'move on' and not talk about republican corruption, wouldn't you? welll the FBI investigations are continuing and more will continue to step down or go to jail, as the depth and breadth of the whole cancerous enterprise gets revealed. so even though the rotting repug national press corpse refuses to cover it, the locals will, and we won't be 'moving on' anytine soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Chris you're carrying the dirty water with your racist and sexist implications.

Posted by: Angie | June 21, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

'If there's one thing this country needs, it's more power in the hands of a trial lawyer.'

what a kneejerk corporate toady you are, jd. omigod, a trial lawyer. like abraham lincoln.

if there's one thing this country doesn't need, it's more power in the hands of a crazed schizophreniac who thinks god talks to him and orders him to kill, which is why i won't ever be voting republican again.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

'Edwards is also the only one of the Big 3 Democratic hopefuls to reject the idea of a global war on terrorism, insisting it is nothing more than a "bumper sticker" for the Bush administration to justify its own actions.'

CC propaganda again. Edwards does not say 'reject the idea' he is saying that what the bush administration is doing is NOT a 'war on terror' -- becuase it's not. it's cover for stealing the oil, among other things.

Edwards is saying do it right. For instance, there was a 'graduation' ceremony of 300 young men from what is allegedly a 'terrorist training camp' in Afghanistan on ABC yesterday. These people were supposedly on their way here. Was the US gonig to do anything about it? NO. Can anyone explain this to me?

Posted by: Cassandra | June 21, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"And since Gore and Kerry both won the elections and lost to the shenanigans of the Republics"

OMG. Take a cue from your own grass roots organization, and *Move on*

Posted by: JD | June 21, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

So Chris - you think all Republicans have healthcare?? Many are realizing that hating gays and abortion hasn't improved their daily lives.
Hillary's had 15 years and hasn't produced a healthcare plan yet - and now "promises" we'll have it by the end of her 2nd term - in 10 years! That's the same amount of time she wants our troops to stay in IraK! How can she represent OUR interests while she's taking in truckloads of money from Big Insurance and Big Pharma?
These are the industries Edwards is calling out and confronting NOW - and has successfully battled for the "little guy."
Oh - and these same industries are corporate sponsors of the corporate media - smearing Edwards' character - not his healthcare plan.

Posted by: annefrank | June 21, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

'its only the rich liberal elites in the big cities, and trial lawyers that support him'

i see the dittoheads still peddle this rovian babble... 'the rich liberal elites' because it's not like there's any 'rich con elites' is there? the republicans are the party of rich -- the poor b*stards who support them are morons.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Edwards/Obama '08

Posted by: Stax | June 21, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"Edwards would be a disaster, he will not even win South Carolina in the primary election. He may be from the south but he will not beat a republican in the south, especially if the nominee is old man Thompson. "

I doubt that any Democrat could win South Carolina. Edwards is the strongest of the current candidates in my book. I believe he would win handily. I can't imagine anyone who voted for Gore or Kerry not voting for Edwards. And since Gore and Kerry both won the elections and lost to the shenanigans of the Republics, I can't see how Edwards could lose.

And I believe he would take a state or two in the South. I believe the people in the South are finally waking up and realizing that they can't continue to vote against their own self interest the way they have been doing. I believe they are starting to see their financial future as more important than abortion or gays getting married.

My first choice is Gore. But if he doesn't run, I think that Edwards is the best choice for the Democrats. Especially if he does something like offering the Vice Presidency to either Hillary or Obama. As we all know, the Vice Presidency is no longer just an official role. So having either of them as his running mate will be very attractive to the Democrats and the Independents.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Why is it CC, that you haven't mentioned that the entire Alaskan state Republican party is under investigation, including Senator Stevebs, and one rep has already resigned.

'Juneau, Alaska - Alaska State Rep. Vic Kohring, and two former state Republican legislators, Bruce Weyhrauch and Pete Kott, were arrested Friday and accused of soliciting and accepting bribes from VECO Corp., a private oil services company, extortion, wire fraud and mail fraud.'

http://www.alaskareport.com/z45862.htm

good chance of dem flip there...

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure the south sees Edwards as a Unions guy, and I doubt that will play well. Plus he wants to raise taxes, and whether it's a good idea or not, that's never a good position in dixie.

Now, as someone asked, would Virginia vote for him (which could be enough)? Good question. I live in Northern Va, and this state has been gradually moving from solid red to mildly red over the last 15 years, mostly because of immigrants driving NoVa growth.

Posted by: JD | June 21, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

'CC, you seem to be playing into the hands of the GOP propagandists.'

Oh, please he's one of them. Along with almost every other DC pundit.

Posted by: drindl | June 21, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Yes I believe Edwards is the only winner the dems have for the reasons your article outlines. It is good to see that perhaps the national media is beginning to pick up on this.

Posted by: ND Dave | June 21, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

NC doesn't like Edwards because he was a bad Senator. They know him to be phony and opportunist, and the far left Edwards you see is not the Edwards who ran for Senate, then abandoned his position to run for Prez. Small town folks hate him, its only the rich liberal elites in the big cities, and trial lawyers that support him. And yes, they are the rich, big city, liberal elites from the Northeast in many cases. Geez, how bad can you miss it?

Posted by: Southern | June 21, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Edwards would be a disaster, he will not even win South Carolina in the primary election. He may be from the south but he will not beat a republican in the south, especially if the nominee is old man Thompson.

Posted by: ThatLiberal | June 21, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

North Carolina doesn't appear to like Edwards because so many conservative Christian Yankees have moved into the urban areas and they vote party-line Republican. Go into small towns and ask them what they think of Edwards - you'll find a lot more support than you might expect. A lot of rural southern voters know that Edwards did what they want their own kids to do: he pulled himself up and out and made a better life for himself than his parents had. They respect that. They couldn't vote for him in 2004 because he wasn't at the top of the ticket - John Kerry was, and most of the South saw him as a northeast liberal elite. But give them a chance to support Edwards over Guiliani, and I think you would surprised.

Posted by: Kate | June 21, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

There is no close enough to the South, you are or you aren't in the south, and Delaware aren't.

Posted by: Southern | June 21, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I think Edwards (or Gore) as the nominee is the best chance the Dems have of winning a few Southern states. I like Obama, but I think there are still too many racists in the country who will not vote for him. Look what the GOP ads did to Harold Ford in Tenna. I think Virginia will be an important state for the Dems to win. I'm hopeful that VA will soon be identified as a "blue" state.

Posted by: Janet | June 21, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I am a Joe Biden fan, but from Austin, Delaware is in the Northeast.

AC, are you from Canada?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | June 21, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

What about Joe Biden? He's from the South (or close enough). Also, he doesn't have the "loser" label applied to John Edwards during the 2004 fiasco. Plus, he's a little older, more experienced. And he spends much less on his haircut.

Posted by: AC | June 21, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

What about Joe Biden? He's from the South (or close enough). Also, he doesn't have the "loser" label applied to John Edwards during the 2004 fiasco. Plus, he's a little older, more experienced. And he spends much less on his haircut.

Posted by: AC | June 21, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

If there's one thing this country needs, it's more power in the hands of a trial lawyer.

Go Edwards!

Posted by: JD | June 21, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Look y'all, just because the guy talks like Gomer Pyle doesn't mean southerners are going to vote for him. He isn't leading in one southern state, is currently third in SC, and is fairly unpopular in NC. In addition his socialist policies aren't resonating down here. Is he saying southerners will only vote for white men? (no Ann Coulter jokes)! Kind of a retro posiiton to take eh?

Posted by: NC Guy | June 21, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Rasmussen has Edwards third among Democrats polled yet doing better than any Democrat against all Republicans, out-polling all. He is the only Dem who out-polls Giuliani.

Posted by: More and Better Polls | June 21, 2007 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Edwards wins the south? Please!

The man couldn't even win his own state in 2004!

Posted by: JoeCHI | June 21, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Edwards is the strongest candidate for the general. His strong stand on Iraq is in line with the general population, the Democratic Congress' plunge in the polls after their capitulation on Iraq is evidence of this fact. In addition, he is running an economic populist campaign. This plays very well in states outside the Democratic base. The 2006 victories of Webb, Brown and Tester are evidence of this. Also, Edwards is a very appealing man, not a small factor in any candidate.

Posted by: Judith | June 21, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Edwards is the strongest candidate for the general. His strong stand on Iraq is in line with the general population, the Democratic Congress' plunge in the polls after their capitulation on Iraq is evidence of this fact. In addition, he is running an economic populist campaign. This plays very well in states outside the Democratic base. The 2006 victories of Webb, Brown and Tester are evidence of this. Also, Edwards is a very appealing man, not a small factor in any candidate.

Posted by: Judith | June 21, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Chris: The reason I like this column so much is that Edwards' electability is what I have been preaching all along. His daunting challenge is the roadblock Hillary provides to winning the Democratic nomination. So far his message has not resonated in the primary campaign. He must win Iowa, and is substantially behind in New Hampshire. His positions on honesty in government, and providing real leadership, in my view, and that of authoritative others, won him the first debate among Democratic Presidential Candidates, held last month in New Hampshire. Yet his percentage numbers among the first tier presidential candidates barely budged. He has yet to devise a formula that will wean voters away from Obama and Clinton. In fact, I believe Republicans are waiting for Clinton to clinch the nomination before unleashing their smear guns...Sopranos or no Sopranos

Posted by: Big Dave | June 21, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Is it "rolling back tax breaks"?

Or is it just letting Republican legislated Tax Break Expiration Dates take effect without extending them?

CC, you seem to be playing into the hands of the GOP propagandists.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2007 8:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company