News-Record.com

So the question for Democrats should be which one of the two frontrunners stands a better chance of proving Edwards wrong.* Doug

None! The Edwards campaign is over. Move on Doug and tell the former Senator that he is a dead man walking, unless he leads a charge to impeach Bush and the thugs of the neo-con agenda. And if that did happen, you would be shocked at the anti-establishment unrest and massive numbers out there to jump on that political bandwagon.

I don't think Edwards will win the nomination, but his campaign is far from over. In fact, it seems to be pretty strong. It's just his bad luck that Barack Obama is the fresh face and alternative to the presumptive leader this time around.

Why would someone run for president on an impeach Bush platform? By the time he's elected, Bush is on his way out. According to the Constitution, the impeachment process has to begin in the House of Representatives.

I don't think Edwards will win the nomination, but his campaign is far from over. In fact, it seems to be pretty strong. It's just his bad luck that Barack Obama is the fresh face and alternative to the presumptive leader this time around.*Doug

Oh it is over Doug! Just pile dirt on the coffin of the campaign and say he was a nice person in politics. As to Obama, it was not luck as Judge Ann Marie said in her judical decision about Poker. Obama was running two years ago and chances are that he could be the VP to slick Wille....oops, I mean Hillary ..The worst nightmare to the Republican mean unconsitutional machine...

Why would someone run for president on an impeach Bush platform? By the time he's elected, Bush is on his way out. According to the Constitution, the impeachment process has to begin in the House of Representatives.* Doug

Doug! Of course we know where impeachment starts. The simple political point is that the War must be stop and not one more American die or be wounded in this act of foreign insanity that is taking this nation to the basement of a dictatorship with Bush. You want to stop the war! Then threaten him with removeable and watch the cheers from the masses.

Of course if you are confortable with this arrangement and with more Americans dying without honor, than go for it and hid your head in the sand of politicial neo-con conservatism.

I would not say any one of our troops has died in Iraq "without honor." They're serving bravely and honorably and in many instances saving lives by protecting the Iraqi people.

But I'd like to see them come home and no more sent to replace them.

Doug,

In case you haven't noticed every Democrat is running against George Bush (maybe not calling for impeachment, but nodding towards the idea) . That's the only thing they know to talk about when campaigning. They have no answers to our nation's problems, so it is easier to campaign against a person who won't be on the ticket in 2008. When you strip away the rhetoric against George Bush, you can cover the field with a small ideological blanket. When they actually have to start verbalizing their ideas for the future, there are very few Republicans that will vote for them. In 2008, it'll come down to the Independent vote once again, and that voting block is getting smaller and smaller. If the Repubs come up with an energized and attractive candidate to back (Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!), it'll be horse race in 2008. I personally don't think that this country is ready for a far-left political agenda that any of the Dem candidates will offer-up. Iraq? You better believe that everyone of the Dem candidates do not want to inherit the Iraq War. They'll be faced with a dishonorable withdrawal for Iraq or continuing the fight. Neither of those options is desirable to any of them. Rudy is already taking shots at them that they can't defend. He is right when he says that if one of them is elected, this counry goes back on defense again. How long can we play defense against the Jihadist threat, without giving up some big scores?

Doug,

I understand you sentiment that you'd like for our troopsd to come home and no more to be sent, but would you do that without regard to the situation on the ground? It is clear that the big battle right now is with Al Queda in Iraq. The spectacular explosions we are seeing have been identified as Al Queda. Whether they were there 5 years ago or not, they are there now. So, do we withdraw now without any settlement in Iraq in the face of the Al Queda threat? The War of Terror has several fronts. Iraq is one and here in River City is another. It loks as though we are losing the one on the home front. If we only we all had as much courage as our soliders and marines.

Doug:

Ah, the Edwards fixation continues--made all the more fascinating by your statement to Connie that he's not a viable candidate.

And the threshold keeps getting lower and lower. His faux pas today? Having the temerity to claim that he is the only Democrat with a chance of winning the South. Hmm, what else should a primary candidate say?

You didn't even wait to research the quote or determine the context before "running with it." (BTW, if you had researched the article, you would have found that the context was that he led all of the Democratic candidates in raising funds from the South; he also raised more money from the South than the top three Republicans combined).

If Edwards is so unimportant and his actions and statements are so ridiculous, why all the attention? A psychologist suspect you of having latent Edwards leanings.

The fact that Edwards couldn't even deliver his own state of NC in 2004 for the Democrats at a time when he was expressing more moderate views than he is now indicates to me that he has no chance of winning in the South.

Dave, you're just not reading.

AP already ran with this story. I'm commenting on the AP story.

What else should a primary candidate say? A good Democrat should say that the party has several candidates who could win in the South. Or would that not be sufficiently self-promotional.

I didn't tell Connie Edwards' campaign isn't viable. The exact opposite is true. I said I thought it was strong. I simply predicted he won't win the nomination.

Let's see, Dave. You don't like me writing about Jimmy Carter. You don't like me writing about John Edwards. Who else?

Jon, I agree. But there will be a different political climate in '08, so all Dems' chances may be better.

Doug:

It seems like more nit-picking and negativism (once again regarding a single sentence where you explain that you're not sure of the context).

The desperation in trying to find something, anything, bad to say about the guy shows up in your twisting "I'm the only candidate with a chance to win" into Edwards being "an extraordinary defeatist." Come on, at least make the criticism fit the offense. Better yet, say something nice. You did it in this morning's print column. Why not go for two in a row?

Dave, you accuse me of negativism for pointing out Edwards' negativism, and then you say I'M nitpicking.

Would you like to comment on the question I raised: Can a Democrat win in the South?

Doug:

The nitpicking criticism seems fair when the whole column focuses on a single sentence. Seems like you're huntin' very small (nit-sized) game there.

Negativism also seems like a fair charge (turning the candidate's statement about "winning" into "defeatism," ending the column with the statement that we'll get to see who proves Edwards wrong).

My guess is that Richardson could win the South if he ever emerges from the second tier, but his nomination is a long shot.

Dave, the question of whether a Democratic presidential candidate can win in the South next year is hardly nit-sized. It's a very big question. The outcome could hinge on it. It also could effect how well Democrats do in other races down the ballot. I find it very significant if one of the Dems' top three candidates says they can't win in the South unless he's the nominee. It's worth discussing, unless of course you think statements by some presidential candidates should be off limits.

I qualified the discussion by stating upfront I wasn't sure of the context, but AP was very positive in its report about Edwards' statement. It doesn't seem to leave room for interpretation. Maybe AP got it wrong, but probably not given its generally good record for accuracy.

Richardson's credentials should give him higher standing that he currently seems to have. He's probably the best qualified candidate of anyone running to be president, but that doesn't always get you anywhere.

I would not say any one of our troops has died in Iraq "without honor." They're serving bravely and honorably and in many instances saving lives by protecting the Iraqi people.* Doug

Doug! Our Sons and Daughters are dying with honor only among themselves as a unit. In WW2, it was call " Band of Brothers", the unit first and the rest of the political BS last. As to to question about protecting the Iraqi people. That is last on the list of things to do at the moment with our troops. They have seen the corruption of the present Iraqi government which is 1000 times worst than the last Republican Congress and the Present Presidental team and have observe a culture that cannot be change after 1300 years of Religious infighting among themselves. It's FUBAR Doug!

Connie, I always have to give you credit when you make sense.

What you describe is why we do need to remove our troops sooner rather than later, even though as Stormy indicates it will be giving a victory to al-Qaida. We will simply have to choose and execute the next battle much more wisely.

Maybe a very conservative Democrat could win in the overall South. None are running, I believe. Hillary's posturing as a sometime hawk notwithstanding.

The Dems do offer some alternatives to more-of-the-same-ism from the big business, anti-gay wing of the Repubs. To wit: much wider, if not universal health care; strengthening the social safety net; getting a handle on immigration reform.

Guiliani won't have an easy time backtracking from his positions to solidify the Repub base. Thompson, despite his cancer, may come out and steal the nomination from under the others. I was a big fan of McCain in 2000, but he's really lost credibility for me and a lot of my fellow Independents. Too bad, because while many of the Dems plans have merit, but I'd like a steadier hand on the fiscal reins, as long as he/she weren't a Neanderthal on social issues.

Oh, and Richardson could certainly win the slightly westish-South-and-Southwestish. He also would do well in Florida. Question is, can a Dem win Ohio, outside the liberal cities, to make sure it doesn't slip away as it did in 2004? Can a Repub win in New York state AND the city? We know New England is solid Dem, as will be California. The South is in play, maybe especially if Edwards gets in.

If Obama or Clinton go up against Guiliani, I predict white Southern males will mostly stay at home. Blacks and women will then pick up the slack and the Dems take the South, without Edwards. If Romney or Thompson get the nomination, it'll be darn close.

Jim,

I disagree on your analysis in one respect. I believe that Southern males will not stay at home with Rudy running, especially if the opponent is Hillary.

One, most men that I know, cringe at the very idea that Hillary Clinton would be President. And, it's not because Hillary is a woman, it's because she is THAT woman. I don't think that I could handle listening to the shrill voice for 4 years. (Does she ever speak without shouting?)

Two, Rudy has some problems with his positions wiht social issues, but he has the energy, drive, and toughness to be President in the tough times ahead. He is a proven leader, and he showed that he can do the tough the jobs. He cleaned New York up and brought it back to a respectable city where people can visit. He projects a strong presence in his handling of 9/11. And, finally, he gets the threat to our country that Al Queda and Muslin Jihad present. Hillary also gets it, but I have no confidence that she is prepared to meet the challenges.

As far John Edwards, he is nothing but an inexperienced lightweight. I can't think of one good reason to vote for him, unless he is a smooth talker. What is the attraction? The fact that he happened to be born in the South doesn't make him a Southerner. The only thing he has ever shown competence in is as a trial lawyer suing physicians, and that competence isn't needed much in the White House. If he was born in New York, you wouldn't even be talking about him.

I do agree that Richardson could be a viable candidate. I think he is the most qualified candidate in the Dem field, but he won't even get a smell of the white House, unless it is as the VP. I think the Dem nomination will be a Clinton/Obama grudge match. The winner of that match isn't certain yet.

Connie, I always have to give you credit when you make sense.*Doug

Good for you! That makes a majority of 2

What you describe is why we do need to remove our troops sooner rather than later, even though as Stormy indicates it will be giving a victory to al-Qaida. We will simply have to choose and execute the next battle much more wisely.* Doug

Doug! Why another battle when Bush has lost the war? Exit now and don't look back or lose one more American son or daughter. It's that simple.

Posted by: Doug

But wouldn't you agree, Stormy, that more white Southern males would far prefer Fred Thompson, if he runs? By all accounts I have read, Guiliani didn't shine the other day at the Reagan Library.

Now that Guiliani has finally unequivocally stated his support for a woman's right to choose an abortion in many circumstances, do you still think Joe Southerner will enthusiastically show up to vote for him?

Yes, especially if national security concerns increase again and if the Dems run an especially liberal candidate.

Do you mean by "national security concerns" something like "if we are attacked at home again" (i.e., FEAR of random suicide bombings which kill thousands)? By "especially liberal", do you mean: wanting to SCALE BACK (to an advisory and nearby monitoring role) in Iraq on a timed schedule of improvements by the Iraqi government? Or would it have to extra liberal, as in, "cut funding to the Pentagon and avoid initiating wars on unproven grounds"?

Don't you think someone who despises the right to allow women to have legal abortion (those wealthy enough would still get illegal ones, far more safely than the poor) might just say the heck with it, saty home on election day, or maybe vote for a stealth, third-party conservative candidate? Guiliani may assuage the afore mentioned FEAR, or stoke it, for advantage, but I am betting we'd face our fears differently, if it meant jumping across oceans to fight in three-to-five different major conflicts (necessitating reinstitution of conscription).