Political Punch

What I can't get past on John Edwards is how he came by his considerable wealth. That is by sueing the pants off of Doctors, Hospitals and others whose occupations require them to attempt to help people afflicted with, (or dying from) ailments or injuries. Their HUMAN efforts to help in many NO-WIN health situations, are scrutinized by lawyers like Edwards for any fault from which they can win a lawsuit. Now Mrs. Edwards desperately needs the services of those Doctors her husband has persecuted. I Wonder if John's going to sue them too! I can just hear president John Edwards in a tough stand-off with North Korea's or Iran's president. "Listen here buddy, if you don't knock it off, I'll SUE you!" Honestly people, Democrat or Republican we had better elect a President with GUTS enough to put the fear in our enemies...because we can't just wish them away. Remember WWII

Actually, the media has done a good job of making the Dem race racist - by confining the race to a white woman and a black man.
And ABC once again - smears Edwards.

Democrats have a unique opportunity this time...we can elect someone who is the most progressive and the most electable, John Edwards.

Edwards, since last spring, has consistently outperformed all the other Democrats in head-to-head match-ups against all the Republican candidates, according to Rasmussen Reports. Even Doug Schoen, Bill Clinton's former strategist, says Edwards is the strongest Democrat in general election match-ups.

What makes Edwards so electable? Even though he is the most progressive of the leading candidates, he is the only candidate to have won an election in a red state. His southern, working class roots appeal to voters in the South and Midwest. His character, integrity, and social programs that promote and value hard work have won the hearts and minds of many Republicans, including my mother, who switched parties just to vote for Edwards.

Let's not reduce this nomination to a matter of race or gender...John Edwards is the candidate with the best policies and the greatest appeal to voters across the country. He is the Democrats' best hope for recapturing the White House.

He discredits himself! He has no experience and his own state does not want him!

If you're looking to discredit Edwards, of whom the Republican and corporate elites are afraid, this might be the way to do it. But think of this: pundits have been saying since the beginning, "Is America ready for a woman president?" "Is America ready for a black president?" I don't know. But with Edwards the issue doesn't arise. We so desparately need a Democrat to be the next president, it might be best not to go with the progressive experiment, this time.

An interesting thing here now I know its hard for you libs to open your eyes and think outside the box, I mean below someone stated she did not see racist in Edwards comment.

But now how many people really think of the deficit, truthfully? Kids in school are not taught about nor are they taught true history.

As far as the War well libs don't read the rest of this -
We are winning in Iraq, so that will help the Republicans, Low Un-employment, Lower taxes I think helps the Republicans. The Republicans lost in 06 because they were acting like Dems not because of the War or deficit, or yes by the way the 1.9% deficit is the lowest is has ever has been under Clinton.

Lib you can read now -
We will not fall for your Socialist, Racial, and Gender ploys anymore!

I was shocked when I read or heard a news-cast that Republican's hate Democrat's and(vice-versa)/that's a terrible place for politics to use the best in Vision-instead you get bad attitude(partisan)might be a lesser crime..then there is just wasting people's time..considering the most important angle the citizen's might offer in the argument/Edwards-Obama-Clinton/come closer to loosening a positive GRIP on people(instead)"wasting their time"..I think Sen. Obama is just a rude person,,then John Edwards is realy a natural at smiling(he's)convinced me he's a subversive..Hillary Clinton is "passing the torch"..a truly innane development of poor judgement that places a silly nature bellowing "top of the world"..basically/a whole lotta' NOISE.

I think Jake Tapper is looking for something nasty to pin on a candidate who is moving up and has the Republican and business elites scared.
If there is any suggestion in his words that a white male is preferable to a white woman or a black male, i don't see it. But consider all the talk about "is the country ready for a woman president?" "is the country ready for a black president?" I don't know, but with Edwards the question doesn't arise.

The Dems have a heck of an advantaage this time, due to voter dissatisfaction with Bush, the war, the defecit, etc. Yet it scares many 'downticket' Dems to have Hillary or Obama at the top of the ticket...like when Dukakis was at the top of the ticket...or McGovern. If Hillary can imply that Dems who don't vote for her are sexist, then surely Edwards can imply that Dems who don't vote for him have a death-wish.

Jake I am glad you had the courage to state the obvious. I recognized his coded message at the debate and have fumed as the campaigned progressed and he continued to add fuel to the fire. Of course, we won't hear this conversation amongst the punditocracy on Sunday mornings, but I do applaud your efforts to provoke the discussion on line. Trust me, my community and particularly my generation is discussing it.

Wow, Edwards is sounding more like the KKK with every passing day. Sounding desperate too. Too bad, as he runs around the country screaming ONE AMERICA he's really telling people to continue to DIVIDE -- stay divided and vote for me because I can win here, he's really saying. Isn't that something, he's really running on SEGREGATION. I kind of want to say how dare he, so much as telling people vote for me because I'm white and male and I can win the south. And you can hear it in his voice and see this desperation in his eyes. It's like he's running his own private little secret discrimination presidential campaign.

Why are people surprised by a Lib doing this.

As some one stated below you got Hilary playing the gender card, you got Obama playing the Race card, and now Edwards is playing both cards. Which they all do anyway.

The Democrat/Lib Party is a Racist anti-religion, anti-Liberty Party today. When people realize these facts they will no longer be surprised.

Jake, I go another blog for you to start, one on the Clinton Library and Hilary's promise to be open but yet no one can access info about her in the library?

Waiting to see? I know the Chinese connection would be there if it was a republican geting illegal donations.

Simple PREJUDICE on Edwards words and thoughts

This is Disgusting.

What country does he live in???

We are a DIVERSE USA not a PREJUDICE USA

I'd expect this "wink wink," tactic from Karl Rove, but coming from another Democrat it stinks.

Who does John Edwards think he's going to con with this tactic? Barack Obama was the most requested speaker during the 2006 campaign, and he played a big part in the Democratic takeback of Congress. John Edwards couldn't even carry his own state during 2004.

A Democrat that stoops this low deserves to have it blow up in his face. The sooner Edwards flails his way out of this race, the better.

oh well, this is a racist, sexist country, is it not?
It's all fair game isn't it?

If Clinton can run on the fact that she's a polarizing woman, and Obama can run on his being a skinny black kid with big ears from chicago, then Edwards should be able to run on his being a southern white male. Seems like the equality we've always yearned for to me.

It feels as if Edwards is trying another strategy out. Will he connect? I doubt it. Wink, wink, nod nod is not a way to reach out, as others have pointed out. (Not to mention $400 haircuts) The whole idea he seems to be trying out will not stand the test of a campaign. I hope and am sure that it will meet with revulsion in the heartland.
For me, I keep wishing that we have not seen all of the possible choices for 2008. My gut tells me that we have not seen the big issue yet.
Say what you mean and mean what you say would be a refreshing change.

Nan - So you want a Socialist Country, where only if you have direct connections to Hilary you will get anyplace?

You want high unemployment, no defense?

If you libs wabnt all this why dont you move to China or Russia, because that is what we will have here if any of the libs win.

Izzy - Edwards could not even carry his home state for Kerry, so please.

And usually a VP is picked that will help the ticket win in states, they do have an impact might be small but in a toss up state they do help.

The problem you have here is the race baiting by the Libs. Saying the south is prejudice really shows that they have no clue.

If a Republican said what Edwards said do you really think any of you that are defending him would feel the same, I think NOT.

The Lib party has 3 top contenders that are inexperienced, socialist driven agendas, and one in particular that is being paid off by the Chinese.

The Republican party has done more for minorities in the last 8 year alone then the Lib party has ever done.

At this point we know Edwards is anti-gay, and now from this he is racist. Stop with the Excuses, these speeches are written in advance and they know what they are saying. the Lib media gives them a pass all the time.

Betty Hooker - If that is true why does his neighbors all hate him.

DKNY - FYI usually what I put is from different blogs condemning Republicans, as a test see Libs will say the same thing I say about Conservatives and that s ok, but if I repeat it and change the word Conservative with Lib, they get all upset, its an interesting test I am doing to show hypocrisy on behalf of the left.

Jake - You should do a blog on Hilary's funny money donations, on how people on welfare or making 500$ a month can afford to donate 2000 dollars to Hilary.

Edwards is right, unfortunately. History tell us (recent history, too) that it will be difficult to gain wide support (large enough to win the state's electoral votes) in the south, running on a liberal, left-of-center agenda. It would make it even more difficult, as history reports it, that a female or a black male be the one selling those ideas. Not in the south. Not in 2008. (And it sucks.)

It would seem to me that Sen. Edwards is trying to "have his cake and eat it, too." He decries racism/sexism at the outset of his clearly populist message, but then slips them in with such clear, unambiguous semi-references like "your instincts will tell you," and "who's gonna feel more of a connection...." But none of this is important compared to a more serious problem the good senator fails to see: his populism won't resonate well with his intended audience while he's getting $400 haircuts and checks from hedge funds.

I think Mudcat and Hooter are playing with that argument. But I don't think anything that I've heard or read from Edwards crosses any line.

I'm not an Edwards supporter. For the moment, I prefer Hillary or Obama. But I have no problem with his current line of campaign argument. He's a southerner and a guy who targets his campaign at lower middle class America. I don't see a problem with any suggestion that Clinton and Obama are candidates of the elite who won't connect as well as he can with heartland voters. That's all I read into these comments.

Clearly this Tapper post has reached a pro-Edwards blog of some sort, so let me re-state Tapper's question. It is NOT whether Edwards is a good candidate. The question is what message Edwards and his campaign are sending when they ask possible primary voters to "picture in their heads" each of the top Democratic contenders campaigning in "tough places."

Is Edwards asking potential voters to respond to the assumed prejudices of some of the electorate in those "tough areas?" And if so, is there anything wrong with that?

flyover, no offense intended, and yes I was regurgitating what I learned from the reviews of that unfortunatly titled book. Your insight is appreciated. So...is Edwards connecting with the rural constituency in your opinion? My take is that the inevitability refrain is really beating voters down, including rural america.

It appears you are making an argument to support your own hypothesis. The truth is, John Edwards at the top of the ticket will do exactly what he has stated. Hillary particularly and Barack as well= downticket disaster. We need Edwards at the top of the ticket to help downticket so that we can gain the necessary majority in the Senate and House to begin making changes so many in this country hunger for.

I, like Mellencamp and Edwards, grew up in a small town. I also spent 17 years in NYC and LA. I live in a small rural town again.
There are rural areas in all 50 states, but no one except John Edwards gets that. And neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to show up here in Montana and other rural areas.
Edwards is seeking to be the first populist liberal to unite town and country, urban and rural working folks who share the same values of love of family and community and feel a responsibility to our democracy.
I know it sounds crazy, but there are a majority of us out here who aren't drinking the "greed is good, screw your neighbor" kool-aid. And it's not because we are naive or backward. It's because we have what Tom Paine called "common sense" and Suroweicki calls "the wisdom of crowds". It's how you get things done. It's how you get your barn raised or your cattle branded or moved to safety during a fire.
Most people want to be seen and heard, not ignored and told to go shopping and leave it to Daddy ...or Mommy, in this case. Edwards is running as a lobbyist for the people who have no access to one. Edwards will run and win everywhere.

Hey Spock - maybe if you took the time to look, Kerry didn't campaign in the so called red states and it wasn't Edwards to lose, being the VP nominee. Edwards has out raised Bracka and Hillary in South Carolina:

and is showing strong support in places like Oklahoma and Arkansas. Edwards will carry more than you think.

Are you even aware that no Democrat has won the presidency in the last 43 years unless he was from the South? Edwards is more electable than the others because he's from the South alone, not to mention that he is actually saying something about real issues and is far more eloquent and charming than Clinton and Obama put together.

Hey, look, if Obama were a gangly, awkward, long-winded white guy from Massachusetts (John Kerry) instead of a gangly, awkward, long-winded black guy from Chicago, he'd be just as unelectable. And if Clinton were actually Joe Lieberman instead of just being his female counterpart, she'd be just as unelectable.

Let's see: Clinton has very high negatives, particularly among Republicans; she will not help down ticket races in red districts. Obama is a novice who is not even showing leadership in the Senate where he either misses important votes or waits until everyone else has voted; he will not help down ticket races in red districts.

This isn't about sexism or racism, as hard as you are trying to make it so. It's about the cold hard facts in politics: Edwards-rightly or wrongly-is perceived as more moderate than either Clinton or Obama, has relatively low negatives and relatively higher name recognition. He is focusing on issues that are immediately accessible to rural voters, to people who are living paycheck to paycheck, to those who believe that the political system is broken and the status quo is unacceptable.

Seems like you are really reaching on this, trying to make what he said fit a conclusion you seem to have already made.

Nowhere does he mention race - only you do. Nowhere does he describe this "image" as one defined by race. It seems clear from the context that he is refering to them as candidates and not as racial caricatures.

Regarding rural voters, as others have mentioned above rural voters are really the key to winning in 2008, at the presidential and at the state level and Edwards has great policies for rural Americans and unlike Clinton or Obama, grew up in a rural small town. Polls have shown that rural voters are not only disenchanted with Republicans, but are favoring democrats.

You also make an assumption that Edwards thinks Obama is polarizing - Edwards has never said this. What he has said, and state leaders in red and purple states seem to agree, is that Edwards overall has the better overall package of policy and background to win battleground and red states.

Regarding North Caroline, you should also note that polls showed that had Edwards run for Senate in North Carolina in 2004, he would have easily won. People who say Edwards can't win a red state seem to either don't know that or conveniently forget. And of course he did win once before, against an incumbent. That alone seems to back up Edwards claims of electability more than anything else.

In comparison both Obama and Clinton have only won in very blue states, against weak non-incumbent oppenents.

Cordelia hit a nerve. Her comments were certainly accurate; Kansas voted pro business and pro “values”. Some expatriate actually wrote a book proposing that something was the matter with Kansas. The writer should be tarred and feathered for misusing a tree. Kansas and the rest of the country beyond the coasts did elect our President.
Kansas is a right to work state in that if an employer wants to end a relationship with an employee he or she can with no reason; unions are limited in their activities. Last year the personal property taxes on business property were all but eliminated. That all seems odd to some.
The “rural” issue has also puzzled me for years. I was not until I heard Bobby Jindal this weekend that I realized it is not “values”, not pro / anti business or worker, not nationalist pride, not abortion pro life, not upright citizenship or religion, no not self reliance either that drives the rural vote.

It is that “ruralers” do not want the American dream taken away from their children. So they do in fact vote self interest.

However that American Dream is defined within each citizen’s heart keeps the heartland vote conservative.

More enlightenment from Spock. Thanks for the thoughtful input.

It's hard to fathom what Edwards might be saying with his "picture in your head" comment other than that a white male has a better chance of winning swing votes than a woman or a person with dark skin. While, all things being equal, he might be right, it is more than a little unsavory to encourage people to cast their votes based on the assumed prejudices of others.

The irony is that it is hard to picture many "Bubbas in Buncombe" voting for Edwards. Indeed, to the extent that any of the leading Democratic candidates has had recent success wooing blue collar, rural voters, you'd have to say that Edwards has been the worst, behind both Obama and Clinton. Clinton has been particularly successful in the past few years way north and way west of New York City.

I have a very clear picture of John Edwards because I have seen him in N.C. many times. I picture the man who visited every county we have while he was Senator, listening to everyone and really seeing the challenges faced by real people. I see a man who believes in his plans and programs and who trusts people enough to think they will support him once they understand the details of his programs. When Edwards says he can win in the south, he does not think about being "the white guy". That is NOT the John Edwards I know. He is thinking that he is the candidate who can talk to people in honest language and gain their support for good ideas, and also win their support in electing Democrats in state and local races.

I think Edwards is right about the effect Clinton will have on down-ticket races. It is not about gender with Clinton; it's about her high negatives. Put simply, a lot of people do not like her. That translates into possible or probable votes for her opponent.

As for Obama, with all his hype and money, he is like, as George Will described him yesterday, a modern-day Adlai Stevenson. Barack Obama just does not matter.

The race for Democratic nominee is between Edwards and Clinton.

OH ant Picture just made me sick to my stomach - A nightmare like no other!

Nothing new here we all know Dems/lib politicians are racists to the core. Come on they honor a KKK recruiter.

Now the fact the Edwards was not able to help carry those so called Red States and Reagen-Dems in 2004, what makes him think he can now.

Though I find it funny that libs will give hime the benefit of the doubt, when it so obviuos, but if a Republican made the same comments that would want his hive! Hypocrisy at its best!

I give Edwards the benefit of the doubt. As for the validity of the point regarding the heartland voters, it's interesting. Wasn't one of the object lessons from 2000 and 2004 that rural states will vote against their own self-interest, e.g. Kansas, a working class and rural state, voted for pro-business Bush over pro-worker Gore and Kerry. I'm not sure if Edwards platform will really sway rural voters, although in theory it should, I guess. My point being that rural voters defy conventional wisdom, so prognostication is more or less a waste of time.