Comments on: What The…? How’d I Miss That?

By: The Bij

The Bij — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:33:32 +0000

I would welcome an Edwards nomination. Americans hate trail lawyers. Once the telescope focuses on how he made his fortune by suing OB/GYN’s he’s toast. I doubt Americans would judge one term as a senator to be sufficient preparation for the presidency either.

There are 2 Dems that sacre me whose names shall not be mentioned. I really hope that they will be unable to capture the nomination.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:15:07 +0000

I stand corrected, thanks –

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:46:45 +0000

Carter never saw combat. He graduated from Annapolis right after WWII (1946) and served until 1953 when he resigned to help run the family farm. So his service overlapped the Korean War and of course saw the dawn of the Cold War, but he was never close to combat. His service was the same as guys like Reagan, Nixon, Dukakis, etc. Honorable and worthy of great respect, but not the same as getting shot at.

By contrast, Kennedy had his PT boat adventures, McGoven was a bomber pilot, Bush was a naval aviator who was shot down, Dole was a wounded infantryman and of course Kerry led a swift boat and was shot.

By: peter

peter — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:29:38 +0000

Well, Gary Hart coulda been a contender, if it wasn’t for Donna…

Also, I believe that some of Jimmy Carter’s naval experience was during wartime.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:40:21 +0000

Edwards strikes me as someone like Gary Hart (before the Donna Rice scandal, of course). He’s routinely touted as a fresh face, uniter, new ideas, etc. And as Fritz Mondale famously cracked, “Where’s the beef?”

Wes Clark wins the Kos polls, which indicates they still haven’t learned that no, the populous isn’t lulled into a stupor just because a candidate pulls out some shiny medals. In recent decades, John Kennedy, George McGovern, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John Kerry all were combat veterans, and that got them a record of 2-4 in presidential elections.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:46:55 +0000

The Bij, Wes Clark is indeed doing well in polling among the activists on the left…whether that translates into support among the Democrats at large, I don’t know…

By: dmac

dmac — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:12:28 +0000

I don’t think someone who made his name as a high – profile malpractice lawyer will ever make it as a serious Presidential candidate, particularly with Edwards. The media will no doubt be inclined to bring up one of his famous court victories, where he “channelled” a dead child’s voice during his closing arguments.

Sleazy stuff, even for the political climate we live in today.

By: The Bij

The Bij — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:48:22 +0000

What about Wes Clark?

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:46:56 +0000

peter, one thing I consistently see about Edwards, though, is that party insiders were very discouraged by his performance as Kerry’s VP; the feeling was that he was a bit of a dud…

By: peter

peter — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:45:00 +0000

What Democrat is acceptable to the base and could win? I would say John Edwards. He doesn’t have Hillary’s albatross of 40% of the American people who would never vote for her. He is close enough to traditional Democratic values to get the support of unions, blacks, pro-choice, and the other blocs. He does not have the stridency of a Howard Dean or Tom Harkin. He is young, telegenic, and looks fresh when so many others look tired.

This is not meant to be a paean to Edwards — in my opinion, one term in the Senate is a pretty thin resume to run for President — but I see the following scenario: in 2008, the voters are disgusted with Washington, sick of the war, and shaken by another catastrophe (which I believe will be either a second major terrorist attack on US soil or a financial crisis — but that’s another post). The people want someone who offers a different future. Edwards runs as the outsider and takes all the marbles.