1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2008 Democratic Front-Runner is ... John Edwards (yes, he's running)

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by EStreetJoe, Dec 16, 2006.

Page 2 of 5
  1. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    I'd be more worried by the fact that your party dropped to almost nothing in the last midterms -- the D's have a bigger congressional majority than the R's did in the "revolutionary" year of 1994 -- and by all those losses at thre state level, and by the fact that no Democratic incumbent lost anywhere in America, and by the fact that your party seems intent on becoming a regional Southern party.
    And, yes, I'd be worried about the 2008 presidential but not as much as I would be for all those yummy Senate seats up for grabs.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 18, 2006
    #13
  2. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Um, thanks for the advice. Not sure how that shows that my opinions on Edwards are in fact a sinister plan to goad you into nominating someone who might actually win, but, whatever.
     
    Guy_Incognito, Dec 18, 2006
    #14
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Kucinich is a lounge act.

    Whichever Dem minimizes his (or her) mistakes while maintaining maximum buoyancy will get the nom.

    All harbor vulnerabilities.

    But at least, none of them have established themselves as serial incompetent brats -- yet.
     
    Ben_Hecht, Dec 18, 2006
    #15
  4. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Wait a minute, you're quoting Darth Vader from Revenge of the Sith?
     
    Double Down, Dec 18, 2006
    #16
  5. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Edwards is the best hope for a Dem to be elected. Not that he'll do a better job than others. But Hillary can't get elected; Edwards can.
     
    slappy4428, Dec 18, 2006
    #17
  6. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    Let's talk about the "electable" Republicans.
    McCain? Yes, his position on Iraq is bound to be a winner this time next year.
    Rudy? In the South? Bwahahahaha.
    Mitt? Ditto. Voting for a heathen from the capital of gay marriage?
    Sam Brownback? Has the votes of Jesus and at least three of the Apostles, and nobody else.
    Gee. This is fun.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 18, 2006
    #18
  7. Freelance Hack

    Freelance Hack Active Member

    Edwards is a one-term senator and has been out of politics for two years. I realize he's had family health issues to deal with and has made some noise on social policy, but I'm not sure he can emerge from the field to be a strong candidate come Autumn 2008.
     
    Freelance Hack, Dec 18, 2006
    #19
  8. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    You don't have to like Charlie Rangel -- I do, but you don't -- to recongize that this is a helluva shot.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800464.html
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 18, 2006
    #20
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Rangel has a gift for being glib. And he's made me laugh plenty of times. That was not a pretty mediocre shot, though, by his standards. Maybe it gets a bit of a laugh in the East Village, when he's surrounded by like-minded people, but he knows that if Giuliani runs nationally for something, Bernard Kerik is a giant "who"?

    Giuliani is perceived postively. Look at any poll of potential candidates and he always has among the highest positive ratings. It's because the perception is that he was a good leader after 9/11. It doesn't matter whether that is the reality, and very little else that he has ever done matters anymore. There is an enduring image in most American's minds. Dredging up Bernie Kerik's name isn't going to change it. That perception is what makes him a presidential candidate and it will be nearly impossible to change it.
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 18, 2006
    #21
  10. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    It will be very easy to change it, if and when he decides to run, which I don't believe he will, because he couldn't stand to lose, which is why he chose not to run against Hillary. 9/11 means a whole lot of different things to different people now, and his "leadership," which includes running the adminstration's ball for at-risk first-responders working in bad air is not as bulletproof as it was.
    And people know Bernie Kerik. More than you think.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 18, 2006
    #22
  11. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Weak and easy shot. If that's all they have for Rudy, he'll be fine. Chollie has had alot better. Also, didn't the cancer also get in the way of that election?
     
    Guy_Incognito, Dec 18, 2006
    #23
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't think so. But I have been known to not have my finger on the pulse of things.

    If I'm a Democrat, there are plenty of Republicans I want on that ticket before Giuliani. Giuliani is polarizing, but in a Bill Clinton sort of way. The people who hate him are REALLY going to hate him. But there are way more people who can be won over by him--way too many people who have already been won over by "America's Mayor."

    Trying to throw dirt at him will backfire. It's just the worst approach for challenging him. He's too good at fighting back. It's pretty likely that he will be quicker on his feet and a better speaker (not in terms of the message, but in terms of how people react to him) than his opponent. If they come after him with dirt, he won't be an inept cardboard fumbler, like Kerry was (and like Bush would have been if faced with someone quicker, like Giuliani). He'll turn the knife on them.. and he's really good at carving someone up. He does it with a zest.

    If I'm a Republican, the two things that give me pause about him: 1) Getting the Christian loonies on board might be impossible. This is huge. Giuliiani doesn't believe in some of the right things. 2) The flip side of the nasty streak that the Democrats should be afraid of, is that after he kicks the shit of you, there's always the chance that he'll stand over you and sneer... to the point that he turns people off. It's the line he constantly straddles. Even though it should be a concern for the Republicans, the reality is that he hasn't really crossed the line that often. Which is why he is a viable candidate at this point. But this is why the people who hate him REALLY hate him. They see the nasty streak, think he crosses the line all the time, and then can't understand why everyone else doesn't see it.
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 18, 2006
    #24
Page 2 of 5
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page