NYT: Edwards will announce tomorrow

No, Democrats should most definitely NOT be uniting behind Mrs. Clinton. There is a democratic process involved in choosing the presidential nominee. We don't just anoint someone because they had a family member who was president once.

Democrats should be trying to get all the information they can on the various candidates and choose the one they like best. That is what democracy is all about.

I want to point out that the comment above was made by a Republican. I checked Lonnie's profile. Republicans hope we pick Senator Clinton, IMHO.

Senator Edwards has a very strong chance.

The Republicans don't have any strong candidates for 2008 - so they know that Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning with seniors and white men (which is the largest group of voters in America). Because of this they want her to be the candidate. They like Obama, too, because those very same people know that an African American cannot get elected in our still very narrow minded country. We'll see how Edwards does. He has a chance but can't beat McCain, for example.

I disagree Astrogirl, I am a republican, and I do not want to see miz Rodham-Clinton nominated, she would be bad for this country, and many mainstream dems feel the same way. I also do not like John Edwards, he built his fortune as a sleazy lawyer chasing ambulances. He shows pictures of his humble NC roots, but he lives nowhere near there, He just built a multi-million dollar home. He lives well beyond the means of the people he represents. I think he has forgotten where he came from.

I think Edwards/Obama would be a nice ticket.

I can't take Edwards' campaign seriously when he still remains in debt from the 2004 campaign.

Sorry to hear that Edwards is running (on the off-chance he could be selected and elected) because he is appealing primarily to the protectionist sentiments that are the inevitable result of an equally inevitable globalization and the understandable fear it engenders. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that politicans in this country will never promote sensible policies on any truly important issue: there are sensible approaches to the problems and challenges posed by a global economy, for example, but I doubt very much that Edwards will be able or willing to advance them. They might inconvenience us.

as many of you know, I predict that Gore will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, if he runs (you heard it here first! My reasoning has been spelled out in other Gather articles I've written.)

However, if he doesn't run, I predict Edwards to be the D nominee. Clinton's too polarizing, and it's not time yet for Obama.

Wow! Such vehemence already! I think we should all listen and learn, and hope that we get someone in the White House who can turn things around. The negativity helps no one.
I look forward to learning more about John Edwards, and Obama, and anyone else who puts their name out there.
It would be nice, in my opinion, to elect someone with an intellect and integrity.

I agree wholeheartedly Nancy, neither side is willing to work with the other, and they are all out for themselves once elected.

Nancy,

I hope with all my heart we will nominate and elect someone with intellect and integrity -- HOWEVER, we the electorate don't have a good track record in that regard; we like our presidents "folksy"and common and are apparently easily fooled. It's just my personal opionion, but in the integrity and smarts department, there is only one candidate on the dem side and that's Edwards. Not all lawyers are ambulance chasers; nor are all democrats liberal or all republicans neocons.

I do also think he is a genuine populist and probably has skills that Jimmy Carter, for example, did not have, with regard to negotiating the DC beltway. There is also one on the repub side who hasn't announced, and may not.

Bill,

You say regarding Edwards: // he is appealing primarily to the protectionist sentiments that are the inevitable result of an equally inevitable globalization and the understandable fear it engenders. //

Globalization is not simply a matter of being inevitable. It's here isn't it -- at least to the extent that many ordinary people who heretofore considered themselves as relatively safe, middle class, well off working class, are actually feeling the brunt of it as opposed to just being afraid of it. Somewhere I read a survey result that shows many students don't believe that their education makes a difference; i.e, they feel more like fodder for the global mill. Not to mention the little matter of where all the "boots on the ground" are going to come from; in the meantime they all seem to be in an IPod state of denial.

I will vote for whomever convinces me that war and war mongering is not a growth industry and our constitutional rights not something to be haggled over in the marketplace and that our liberties are not just for decoration and speech-making.

Can you amplify on the issue of "policies" which politicians will not touch for fear of alienating or inconveniencing us? I can think of a few, but specifically with regard to globalization? I find it's hard to even think of issues in purely domestic terms because our economies are so intertwined and interdependent. Public health, Education and Housing are basically dismantled no matter how they pretend to reach across the aisle on makeshift, feel good legislation. Which explains, in part, why we've become so dumbed down.

Joe T.

Interesting you should say that. There are quite a few conservative columnists who, with tongue firmly in cheek, but with a straight face, are touting Obama, and hoping and praying. If he were Collin Powell [before WMD] and with a little more experience he could win. Hillary will be perceived by progressives as too military minded and, you're right, white men and seniors may not vote for her. You never know what the political strategists will come up with though by way of manufactured "ick and yuck" or "isn't it wonderful how Mr. or Mrs. Smith goes to Washington." Any candidate will have to be able to stand up to brutal tactics, no matter how disenchanted the voters.

I just watched it on C-span! He is one of the best speakers, ever. And, as much as I hate to make such a shallow statement, he is nice to look at, too. (How does he keep from aging? I do want to believe that is a statement of good living - in the ethical sense)

Hey Astrogirl, thanks for bringing the Ewards announcement to light. I wrote about his populist message in New Orleans that might interest you here:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976871455

Joe, in fact, a recent poll showed him as the ONLY Democratic candidate who can beat McCain. Quote from MSNBC:

In some head-to-head match ups, McCain leads Clinton by four points (47 to 43 percent) and Obama by five points (43 percent to 38 percent). But — in an interesting twist — the Arizona senator trails Edwards by two points (43 percent to 41 percent).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16189893/

Jody, it's funny how you Republicans worship wealth until someone tries to do good with it.

California Yankee, wow! Which is it? Either Edwards is too rich for you Republicans, or he's too much in debt. Why do I find this funny? I guess being in debt means maybe he's just not so obscenely rich as say, some of your guys.

Bill, so you're saying that in order to make things more egalitarian across the globe, Americans ought to start living like people in the third world also? Interesting. I happen to think we're at a point where some smart policies put in place to keep our country from bleeding jobs would be a good thing.

Greg, Gore said about a week ago that he's not running (he was quoted on Time's web site, I believe) and many political commentators have noted that he seems to be making no effort to put together a campaign. That said, I hope that whoever gets the job makes him an important environmental advisor.

Nancy, your attitude is refreshing.

Missy, your comments are welcome and appreciated as always. (I need to get off the computer, or I'd respond to them more fully.)

Sandy, I missed it on C-SPAN! I wish I had seen it. He IS one of the best speakers ever.

Lauren, thanks for the link. I went to your article and commented. By the way, if you want to post it to the Edwards 2008 group, you're welcome to. The group is for people interested in learning more, not just already committed supporters.

C-SPAN link to video of Edwards' announcement can be found here: http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp

Excellent article in the Wall Street Journal today: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116725461738460888-Ups3_pA6nmNclAawkuv2dm4M_yw_20071228.html

Wow! A political article that actually provides some real information and doesn't try to create scandal. What a concept.

I agree, Sandy. I watched him carefully last time around and found him much more intersting than his ticket mate. It will be fascinating to watch this campaign. I'm glad he's in it.

JFK for a new generation?

WebbieWrites,

JFK for a new generation with a new twist -- [JFK was not liberal and he was not a populist, though he had lofty ideas and ideals.]

Edwards is the real thing if he has the stamina and smarts to withstand the attacks and dirty tactics that will come. I, too, thought he was much more interesting, and genuine, than his ticket mate and found myself wish many times that it was the other way round. Hindsight being better than forsight, probably worked out for the best -- Edwards now has a running track record, no small advantage.

I agree, Missy. (The analogy with JFK was more on percieved persona than politics.) This is gonna be a wild and interesting ride. For ONCE I'm excited to see who runs on both sides. (My Libertarians never do win, do they? LOL!)

WebbieWrites,

Not sure what a Libertarian is these days. We had a candidate here in CA who ran as a libertarian and supported the legalization of marijuana -- that's the one issue that seems to unite the Libertarian's that I know; otherwise, they seem to be all over the place, like the rest of us. I don't feel like I really fit in anywhere. I feel disenfranchised as a voting citizen. I believe it will be a rough and dirty campaign.

I think it will be a rough campaign also. I got a cold a few days ago, and I actually think my resistance was down from worrying about all the political nastiness that will be thrown at Edwards. It's nice knowing that he will rise above it and also that he can take it. I really really hate hearing/seeing some people try to ruin the reputation of a good man, all for their political advantage, though. It bothers me.

I want to say that when I saw his entire announcement on C-SPAN's web site, I was once again blown away by his intelligence and insight and also rather humbled by it. The speech sounded more like he's asking us to take action on the problems facing our country and volunteer for charities and things like that, rather than focus solely on his campaign. I think one reason I really like John Edwards is that he often challenges me to become a better person. After the speech, I sent him a note that said "What a great speech today. Thanks for making me feel like a slacker." That was my little joke, but it's kind of true. I felt after his speech like I really should be doing more on the issues I care about. I also should note that I do actually sometimes send notes to Edwards and his staff, because I think they really listen to people. That's special as well.

I'm way behind getting here, but my enthusiasm for Edwards is as High as any politician in my adult life. He is no ambulance chaser. That comes from the same people that say health care costs are because of medical lawsuits, when in fact the percentage of the health budget is less than 1% for malpractice. It's a way to discredit one they consider an actual threat. Edwards was the only candidate that apealed to moderate republicans and independants, and liberals and moderate democrats. His messages of two americas was always spot on, that there should be one, I mean. I always felt Obama took a page from Edwards on his famous spech at the convention, in a way. If the Democratic party isn't smart enough to nominate him, then It might be time to take a look at whether the long overdue start of a middle class party might be a possibility, and finally break the grip of these two corrupt parties we are continually stuck with.

Ron, I agree with most of your comment. I think "ambulance chaser" and "tort reform" are Repoublespeak. The "ambulance chaser" label is meant to smear people who represent you and I in court when we need it, often against big corporate odds. When it's applied to Edwards, it is because they really feel very threatened by him.

When Republicans Repoublespeak about "tort reform," they like to let you think it's about medical malpractice and small business, but in reality, it's a way to prevent their big corporate donors from being sued, especially with class action lawsuits representing lots of people (against the tobacco industry, for one). It's also, perhaps not secondarily, a way to defund the Democratic Party. As their major funding sources, the Republicans have big corporate donors and rich people. The Democrats have unions and the good sort of lawyers, who represent real people, plus lots of small donors. When the unions and lawyers are attacked, it's a way for the Republicans to protect the interests of their corporate masters and also keep the huge funding advantage that they have as a party.

I feel like Obama took a page from John Edwards' book for his speech at the convention, too, but I've been hesitant to say that. I think there's room for more than one optimistic, sincere politician who talks about hope in the Democratic Party. I am completely positive that Edwards is the real thing, though. I'm not sure about Obama yet.

The one thing I kind of disagree with you on is the corrupt parties remark. I just want to make the distinction that I don't think they're equally corrupt. The Republican Party seems to me to be widely and massively corrupt. The Democratic Party hasn't sunk to quite that level yet, IMHO, although some of them take far too much corporate money as well, and to put it in Star Wars terminology, that's the path to the dark side.

One reason I like Edwards is because I know he won't take corporate money if it makes him beholden to anyone besides the people. He didn't take any corporate money when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004. I don't know what his plans are about that this time. Not taking corporate money puts him at an obvious disadvantage. I think at the very least, his donors will be thoroughly vetted to make sure he stays clean and free of any unsavory obligations.

Anyway, I'm thrilled he's running. I plan to write a longer article about why I support him, but I didn't do it yet because I've been sick. (That's why this particular article is so very lame, too. I can usually do better than just point a link to someone else's article.)

Ron, if you care to write an article about why you support him, I could use some help with adding articles to the Edwards 2008 group.