John Edwards is the best candidate to beat Bush

[cityboi]

Instead of looking at it by who is the best democrat. I think you have to figure out which candidate will most likely defeat Bush. It shouldn't matter who gets the most votes in the polls because democrats are still going to vote for who is nominated. This is why it should be about who is going to beat Bush. the most important thing is who will edge out in critical states. While Dean is leading in the polls, I think John Edwards has the best chance at beating Bush. Those two are polar opposites. Edwards is a fresh new face, also he will get alot of support in the southeast. The southeast is very critical for the democrats. Democrats just don't win elections without the southeast. the last two or three democratic presidents all came from the south just like Edwards. Edwards is also likeable in all regions of the country including midwestern states with small towns. Edwards appeal to people who live in the republican states in the midwest. Edwards would naturally win the states with the big cities and electorial points such as New York, Illinois, Pennsylvainia, Ohio and California. But in orger to win Edwards will have to pick up some States that Bush won in 2000 including Florida. many of those states had no big cities and were basically states with small towns and farms. I think Edwards is the closest person to Clinton style politics that you can find in the group of the candidates. No one can deny that the Clinton years were the most prosperous and best economic times in our nation's history. Edwards is also young, and likeable. He knows how to energize a crowd. What I found interesting is that at Deans rally, may of the people that were suppose to be supporting Dean were still undecided. Over two thirds of them were undecided. At Edwards Rally he seems to get full support from just about everyone. Edwards seem to be mimicing what happened to Bill Clinton when he ran. Bill Clinton also started out low in the polls while other candidates were expected to run up against George Bush senior. Just before the caucus, Clinton then surged into the spot light and was nominated as the candidate to go up against Bush. The same thing seems to be happening with John Edwards. For over a year, Edwards was a nobody who had low poll figures and over the past week, he has surged into the spotlight. Iowa's largest newspaper now endorses Edwards to run against George Bush. "John Edwards" his name even sounds presidential.

[monsoon]

[cityboi]

Interestingly enough, I think Bush is beginning to feel threatened by Edwards because he is scheduling a fund raising event in Charlotte. North Carolina has always voted republican for as long as I can remember and Because Edwards is a North Carolina candidate, Bush wants to make sure he won't win his own state should Edwards be nominated. Bush only comes to NC when it makes political sense. Every thing Bush does is political.

[BrandonTO416]

The best candidate in the Democratic primary who has the best chance at beating Bush is Wesley Clark, hands down.

The problem is, the core roots of the party have to give up their principles to vote for him. Wesley Clark doesn't stand for labor. Wesley Clark doesn't stand for liberal social policy - he's just saying it to get the vote in the primaries. Wesley Clark isn't a lot of things, and one thing he isn't is a Liberal. He campaigns on the fact that "George W. is not a compassionate conservative, I am."

I think Edwards would let Bush run all over him, and couldn't hold up a strong campaign unfortunately. That's precisely what Dean CAN do. I'd rather have someone who shoots off then someone who is too much of a p*ssy to stand up for himself or his values.

Dean is still the strongest real moderate liberal. And the question for Democrats is - do I give up my principles to vote for someone who has a chance at beating Bush (voting FOR Clark), or do I vote for a real moderate liberal that the Democrats haven't had run for them in decades?

That's the real issue here. Dean is the closest presidential candidate to Franklin Delano Roosevelt I think this party has seen, well, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

He'd take us to war when we needed to go - Roosevelt waited until 1941 after two years of WWII already going on.

But he'd also introduce some of the most innovative domestic policy ideas we've seen in decades, at least since the Great Society.

That's what Dean is - and if you want it, you can get it. You just have to vote for him.

If you want a pus*y, vote for Edwards.

If you want an old Democrat that has been pushing the party towards failure, then vote Kerry, Gephardt, or the others.

[BrandonTO416]

Interestingly enough, I think Bush is beginning to feel threatened by Edwards because he is scheduling a fund raising event in Charlotte. North Carolina has always voted republican for as long as I can remember and Because Edwards is a North Carolina candidate, Bush wants to make sure he won't win his own state should Edwards be nominated. Bush only comes to NC when it makes political sense. Every thing Bush does is political.

Just to be realistic, I doubt Edwards could carry North Carolina. He'd be another Gore.

North Carolina hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential nominee in decades.

John Edwards didn't run for his senate seat again specifically because he didn't see that he had a real chance at winning, either. That's pretty sad. I think Edward's political life is going to be ended in several weeks when the party nominates either Dean or Clark.

The real primary season comes after New Hampshire. Either Dean or Clark will win the states thereafter.

[Guest donaltopablo]

As a non-liberal/non-conservative I'm waiting to see who wins the nomination. I'm curious who they select, since that choice will determine for me who I vote for. Since I'm not an avid Bush support, if they choose a moderate that I think will support some of the key issues to me, there is a very good chance I will support him over Bush in the election. I don't hate Bush, but I don't believe he's got the right balance, and he is certain too conservative for me.

On the other hand, if the nominate a true liberal (like Dean), I will be voting to have Bush back in office. I can't see the answer to Bush being over conservative with answering with someone overly liberal. I know there is a lot of liberals who join in the political discussions on this board, so I imagine the majority of those posting will disagree.

Why to offer my opinion? Because I probably represent similarity to the swing vote in this country. I don't believe the Democrats will win 2004 without appealing to the swing vote and an overly liberal nomination will lose my swing vote.

[monsoon]

[sleepy]

I've said all this before.

I don't think any democrat will carry anything in the south, even Edwards.

I also think any democrat will carry the same Gore states in the NE and the West coast.

Gore also carried Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan. For the most part, that's the industrial midwest, and I think Gephardt--a known and respected midwestern figure up here and with much labor support--would have a better chance to carry those states than other democrats.

If you carry all the Gore states, you only need one more, Gephardt's home state of Missouri, and . . . . . . . . . bingo.

An aside--I went to Mason City IA yesterday for a little Gephardt rally and saw and spoke to the man.

[BrandonTO416]

donalto - you represent the swing southern voter, definately. You are more conservative leaning then liberal, even if you are moderate.

Dean isn't a hardliner liberal - his idea for healthcare is to expand private based incentives to achieve universal healthcare, for example. Not to create a single-payer system in where everyone is covered with no questions asked. That's not so liberal.. Dean's also got a top rating with the NRA, something that isn't known for being liberal. If you would vote Bush over Dean, you either don't know where Dean stands; or you are just more conservative then you are admitting.

Dean's plans are in line with FDR and LBJ old-style liberalism more then anything else - not the liberal we know today.

I honestly don't care either way at this point. Its not like either side will make a real difference, regardless. Its a pseudo difference between the Republicans and Democrats - even with Dean. Right now I'm undecided if I'll even bother voting in the fall... If Clark gets the nomination, I'm definately not voting. There is zero incentive to vote even on the more local races like US Congressional delegate or -gasp - state reps.

One reform we badly need is to get rid of this broken up primary/caucus system. It should be Federally mandated that to choose a Federal candidate, all primaries and caucuses should occur on one unified date - end of story.

[thumper]

I won't be voting for Bush this time and hate that I did the first time. Dean doesn't excite me that much so I would go for Kerry or Edwards. Too bad it will be decided by the time that NC has its primary.

[monsoon]

[Guest donaltopablo]

donalto - you represent the swing southern voter, definately. You are more conservative leaning then liberal, even if you are moderate.

I'm not southern. I'm a moderator. Moderates tend to be swing voters since we don't have an affliation one way or the other. But being in the south has little to do with me being moderate, I was a moderate long before I came here.

As for being more conservative then liberal, or a conservative leaning moderate. That depends on the issue at hand. Some things I've very liberal, others I'm very conservative. But a better example of me being a moderate is an issue like Affirmative Action. I believe in AA (would be considered liberal), but I don't believe it should be based on race. I believe top students from low income/unperforming sections be given some additional chances at obtaining higher obtaining entry in to colleges. However, when it comes to AA in the work place, I am against it. I believe that the rule for business is that the opportunity to work, performance, and be promoting should be share, and should never be based on race. This is probably more conservative thinking.

As for Dean. Here is some of his liberal agenda I disagree with:

Dean: Opposed the Iraq war from the outset. Says Bush misled the American people.

[Guest donaltopablo]

BTW Prehaps me calling Dean is a "true" liberal was a bad choice of words. But, he's certainly liberal enough.

[monsoon]

[Guest donaltopablo]

Thanks for pointing out that typo, LOL

[uptownliving]

I hope Dean falls by the wayside... I never did like him.

[monsoon]