“Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it.”
–Stuart Rothenberg, The Rothenberg Political Report
Maybe not. The most likely result of John Edwards being elected president in 2008 will be the landslide election of a Republican Congress in 2110, and the Democrats will wind up out of power for another generation. The results might not be desirable, but the nation will become united under Republican rule if the Democrats so something as insane as electing John Edwards.
Let’s hope that the Des Moines Register poll is predictive. The poll shows Obama with a comfortable lead, and includes 40% of independents and 5% of Republicans among the people likely to attend the Democratic caucuses. Clinton comes in second with Edwards virtually tied with her. The question is whether this many independents actually show up, with Edwards having an advantage in that his supporters have attended the caucus before. The considerable support for Obama among independents over Clinton and Edwards provides a hint as to what Democrats should do if they want to build a real majority as opposed to imitating the Republican pattern of rule by 50% plus 1.
“The most likely result of John Edwards being elected president in 2008 will be the landslide election of a Republican Congress in 2110, and the Democrats will wind up out of power for another generation.”
Wow, that is quite a prediction.
How did you arrive at that?
By taking Rothenberg’s prediction a step further. He’s right as to how Edwards will polarize the country (if he ever manages to get elected). The results will be similar to what the Democrats faced in Congress in response to the Clinton health care plan. However Edwards is no Bill Clinton, and the results will be far worse for the Democrats.
Interesting, I doubt the conclusions but predictions are just that.
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
~ Niels Bohr (1885 – 1962)
“Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).”
It is an odd premise with which to start an objective discussion don’t you think?
It sums up the race fairly well for a single sentence.
I couldn’t disagree more.
Just look at the wording –
Edwards IS ….
versus
Obama presents himself as
and Clinton presents herself as
*****
If you can’t see the difference I would be surprised.
The only question is why, eh?
The difference makes sense. In the cases of Obama and Clinton they are matters of how the candidate portrays themselves and it is understandable why he uses presents himself or presents herself. In Edwards case he is using an actual description of the candidate. In the context of what he is saying in the article it makes sense to begin with a description of Edwards and counter this with how the others are tying to present themselves in a different manner.
In Edwards case he is using an actual description of the candidate?
That is his (and some others) opinion of the candidate. An “actual description” would be fact based and without question far more complete.
“angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors ”
An unfair zinger – I have not seen that in Edwards (yet) – the fact that Roth is of that opinion doesn’t make it factual.
Not to mention the weakness in the wording could make some people favor Edwards as he actually is something while the others are just pretending to be something. The implication of one being genuine.
I might be reading too much into it as I often do.
NBD
It’s not unfair at all. Edwards has based his latest attacks on Obama based on his claims that Obama would not fight corporate America, and brags about how he would fight them. His campaign has argued that his anger is a good characteristic, and that Obama is a poor choice because he is willing to compromise and lacks this anger. Edwards and his supporters have often attacked Obama and Clinton as being too compromising and in a sense a “traitor.” He is using a bit of hyperbole but this does symbolize the attacks which Edwards has actually made (in terms of traitors to their cause, not traitors to the country.)
I don’t think people will dwell on the wording to interpret this as Edwards being something and the others pretending to be something. If someone’s criteria is a candidate who is genuine, this would sure leave a phony like Edwards in a poor position.
Edwards is exactly what we need. This piece says it better than I can:
Link
And let me add that even though money is tight, I just contributed to to the Edwards campaign.
That piece at Huffington Post is just a repeat of arguments other Edwards supporters have been making the last few weeks and do not hold up to analysis. I’ve already commented on these arguments in several recent posts.