Political Punch

Jean - The vote for Thompson or Guilliani

While it is certainly one's right to chose not to vote, you also have the right to write-in whomever you want. I, personally, would never not vote -- in any election. Especially when I think about all those who sacrificed their lives or lost limbs for our freedom and our right to vote.

If Edwards gets the nomination I guess I will have to stay home on Election day.I just can not see him as president.

Mr. Tapper, you're going to strain yourself with a reach like this. The population of Iowa is 95% white, so perhaps the ad is meant to reflect the audience to whom it's directed. If Edwards ran the same ad in my own more ethnically diverse state of California, I might consider your point. Until then, this election season is shaping up to be one where rather than shining a light on the candidates the media seems determined to jump up and down and block the view for the rest of us.

Again All the Republicans said they are against it! The issue on the Republican side is who will be tougher.

When the Democrats were asked who was AGAINST giving out Drivers Licenses to illegals, Edwards did not raise his hand. That means Edwards is for giving out Drivers Licenses to illegals. Only one democrat raised his hand in making a stand against giving Drivers Licenses to Illegals. How many of the Republican Candidates are willing to make the announcement that they are AGAINST giving Drivers Licenses to Illegals. Remember that a few others who were Republican did stuff in their states to help Illegals instead of against Illegals. I want to see more states taking the same stand as OKLAHOMA recently did.

Bob Smith, I can sympathize with your questioning whether voting for a person based solely on gender or race is wrong. But you say that in doing so they are "narrow-minded...not very intelligent or well informed...doing a disservice to yourselves, to our (Democratic) party, and to our nation." You are entitled to your opinion, but people have the right to vote for whomever they want AND based on whatever criteria they desire. That is what makes America so great. Now then there are some individuals who are very well informed and probably quite intelligent who feel it is about time that a woman become president. Likewise, that it is about time an African-American become president. And for those who feel that way, but do not like Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, there is another well qualified candidate -- Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

What has he done , other then make money off people in New Orleans by foreclosing on them? Yes really for the poor!

What a shallow take on a great man. Those people in the ad appear to be real people from Iowa. Would you rather John "faked" the ad and "planted" a couple of black people in it. Then you would say he's "pandering" for the black vote. Some of us don't see things through color. I saw working people. To be honest with you it didn't matter to me what color they were or weren't. My reaction and emotion was based on the fact that John cares about the "working" class. We finally have a candidate that really cares about us instead of some rich lobbyist and this is the best you can do! It is obvious that Washington D.C. is really worried about what John wants to do. They keep sending the dogs out to chew him up!

If it was not for lawyers like Edwards our healthcare costs would be lower

A George Soros puppet just like the rest!

"Anybody who's considering not voting for Sen. Obama because he's black or for Sen. Clinton because she's a woman, I don't want their vote." --- John Edwards

The status quo elites and the establishment media have started their analysis concerning the John Edwards campaign strategy of beginning to emphasize to primary voters in Iowa and elsewhere Edwards national electability. The establishment media and elites are trying to create controversy, where no controversy exists. And they are indicating there is a subliminal race and gender message concerning a Woman or Black candidates electability in the John Edwards message. The obvious retort to that is, -- hogwash. John Edwards has said publicly that he does not want the vote of anyone who would vote for him based simply on his race and gender or the race and gender of any other candidate. What’s important for voters to remember is that Clinton and Obama haven’t said that. In fact their campaigns have largely been built around race and gender group focused politics. Thank God we have an honest forthright candidate like John Edwards.

What swing voters need to think about is this. When elite pundits in the establishment indicate that the female vote will or should go to Sen. Clinton simply because she is a Woman, or that the Black vote will or should go to Sen. Obama simply because he is Black the establishment media applauds the political ramifications of such race and gender group focused politics. Voters then need to ask the obvious question. The question is, -- isn't it wrong for Clinton and Obama voters to vote for a candidate for no other reason than the person’s race or gender? And the follow-up question then becomes, why then the double standard establishment media analysis giving Clinton and Obama a free ride on race and gender politics while at the same time trying to create controversy by chiding John Edwards for talking about electability and for spending time spreading his economic Populist message to rural voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states. The obvious answer becomes Clinton and Obama are given plaudits for their group focused politics and Edwards is criticized for carrying his economic Populist message to all voters, because he is the true anti-establishment candidate.

Edwards supporters believe the objective in politics is to nominate the best candidate, without regard to race and or gender. However having said that there is little doubt that race and gender can garner a candidate a lot of attention (positive or negative) with the establishment media, and status quo elites. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have so far during the campaign garnered the Lion’s share of establishment media coverage. And it has nothing to do with their standing among Democratic voters. American politics is a blood sport and not for the faint of heart. And the establishment media can be brutal and unforgiving when it comes to what it perceives to be an issue where really no issue exists. There is no issue in John Edwards claim about electability other than the fact that it is the truth.

Simply stated, John Edwards is the most appealing national candidate on the Democratic side. He is the most appealing national candidate against the GOP candidates -- with all voters -- when national politics is considered across all demographics, and across all sections of the country. That is simply an established fact, and several polls support it. The establishment media in its typical sensationalized mode is trying to trump up a race and gender debate to make the Edwards campaign tread lightly on the very credible argument that he is the most electable Democratic candidate when matched against the GOP candidates, and the most able to help fellow Democrats in conservative states.

What the John Edwards campaign is saying is simply that Democrats need to make sure that when we make a selection, we must realize that the world is not perfect, we must not let the status quo elites and establishment media coronate our candidate. And we have to consider the long haul. Edwards supporters totally reject any suggestion that John Edwards electability claim is a special appeal to only White voters, or a statement that the nation would reject a Woman or Black man as president. Edwards supporters simply believe he is the best candidate with the best chance to win. And yes we believe that among swing voters in the Red states he is much less divisive than Sen. Clinton and we believe that he has more experience than Sen. Obama. In addition thanks to Edwards working-class roots he is more in tune with middle-class and working poor families both urban and rural.

Edwards relates better to the struggles of the middle-class and working poor. And people listen when he says to audiences that "You will never have a voice unless and until the Democrats have a candidate who understands your lives -- the Democrats have a candidate who will campaign everywhere in America, who won't give up on your part of America, and will not be limited to New York and Los Angeles and Chicago." Those sorts of comments send shivers up the spines of the establishment who find it difficult to look down their noses and see an entire South, Mid-west, and West part of the country that is Red or solidly pink (swing states).

Is race and gender a factor in selecting our Democratic nominee? It will be a factor only if Democratic voters are influenced by the status quo elites and the establishment and make it a factor. And to my fellow Democrats I will say this. If you vote for a candidate simply based on that candidate’s race and or gender you quite frankly are narrow-minded, you are not very intelligent or well informed, and you are doing a disservice to yourselves, to our party, and to our nation. The objective is to nominate the best candidate with the best ideas, with the most national appeal and the best change to win swing voters in the Red States and toss-up states.

It may not be palatable to the status quo elites and to the establishment media that a White Southerner Populist who actually talks to common folks of all races and genders has the most national appeal and when matched against the GOP candidates is the most electable Democratic candidate, but so what, who cares what those people say or think anyway. If grass-roots Democrats should have learned anything over the years it is that the establishment and status quo elites for years have used us as pawns and they have used their power and influence to control and drive much of Democratic politics. They have used their power and influence and establishment media bully pulpit to help select establishment status quo candidates. And they have shown how disconnected they are from main-street economic Populist issues, and how ignorant they are, by time and time again using their power and influence to coronate Democratic status quo candidates that while fine individuals and while appealing to many Democrats did not fair well in national elections across all sections of the country and across all segments of voters.

John Edwards supporters believe that the most-electable candidate is the one with the best ideas who can go to every corner of America and tell the middle-class and the working poor the truth about how badly the elite status quo establishment has broken Washington. And a candidate like that is a candidate worth voting for.

Starting in Iowa it’s time for the Democratic grass-roots to buck the status quo establishment, the status quo elites, and the establishment media and vote for a candidate that represents us – all of us without regard to race and gender. That candidate is John Edwards.

OK is not Edwards the one that made the rude comment about Gays, he is not the one that said he is the only one southerners will vote for?

He is a hypocrite and a racist period, not one person here said anything about what he did for Blacks, but speak about it.

But yet you condemn Pres Bush who actually has done things as stated before.

I just went and looked at Hillary Clinton's ad of Iowans and there was not one black person in the ad. Jake, where is your condemnation on Hillary's ad?? It looks like ABC has double standards for one candidate over another one.

Jake
While I don’t mind you sharing your observation that the Edwards commercial has a majority of white faces in it (it does) I think you owe it to your readers to then talk about Edwards policies and history with regard to race. For without that information your column is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Edwards that tries to imply that because his commercial does not include African-Americans that he therefore must be suspect with regard to race. Now I know the guy is a white southernor but as most of us should know not every white southernor is racist.
Perhaps you were in a hurry when you wrote this piece and didn’t have time to think about the fact that you owe your readers more than just a hit piece. As a journalist shouldn’t you be trying to enlighten your readers? Is is possible to enlighten readers when you only give part of the information they need to form an opinion about Edwards and his commercial?
I hope your next piece will be more balanced.

Stop, hold the presses. Heaven forbid! Someone has done something without doing it in accordance with the god of quotas. I am distraught. I don't think that my mind can handle this 50s kind of thinking. Everyone knows that in everything that we do we MUST ensure that every victim group has representation. We have ways of dealing with this.

John Edwards' work, especially over the past few years, and his platform speak volumes of his commitment to all people, including people of color. He does not need to "place" people of color in ads to prove his commitment to them. Look at his work on behalf of those suffering from Katrina. Actions speak louder than ads.

Oh please. What a nonstory.

I suppose if Edwards's first major TV ad had been shot in New Orleans, where Edwards has frequently volunteered for rebuilding efforts, someone would accuse him of pandering because he might be surrounded by black people.

It's one ad and it's the first, so perhaps it gets inordinate attention, but have we gotten to the point where every ad must be carefully cast and scripted to convey perfect diversity? Trust me, the Edwards ads will feature many different people of all races, ages, sizes, and orientations -- as would his Cabinet if he is elected.

Jake, this reads like a lazy shake-and-bake story that seeks to make something out of nothing. It seems beneath you.

I didn't check the "Remember me on personal info" box, because I will probably never be back here. I knew there had to be a reason why I don't watch ABC! First of all to insinuate that John Edwards is a racist is so below what your intellectual ability should be...he's all ready proven where he stands by his work in New Orleans. So any African Americans visiting here, don't let yourself be sucked into this crap...I am part African American, and that's what this is...crap! How about Hillary's $1500.00 makeover before she appeared on TV; How about all the illegalities that are coming out about her fundraising; what about the fact that the people contributing to her campaign are the same ones that backed GWB; What about the lies she's said about wanting health care for everyone, but she wants to take money out from Medicare to do it and won't take it on until her second term, so she won't have to risk being re-elected; Ther is little difference between Hillary and Bush and that means more of the mess we now have. As for Obama, he won't disassociate himself from a pastor that has made racist remarks; won't fire an entertainer on his tour that offended, via his ignorance, the gay community; and now someone just sent me a picture where he refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or to salute the flag! to whom has he given his loyalty? John Edwards must be a real threat to your candidate of choice, or you wouldn't even come up with this! May the candidate of your choice fall flat on her/his face!

When Osama gets a $400 haircut, that will be the real news.

And do you count all the white people in Obama's ads, and then the men in Hillary's. Come on, people are people and as long as we keep treating each other so politically correct that you're afraid to open your mouth we'll just end up with the status quo. Anyone can fake it that they are diverse, Edwards is genuine and just wants everyone to know that he is for the working poor. I don't think the color of the working poor matters, its the fact we exist.