Opinions of Sen. John Edwards

I know I'm asking for trouble here, but oh well. I'm too curious. Senator John Edwards announced some time ago that he planned to run on the Democratic ticket in 2004 for President. It's never too early to start evaluating candidates for the presidential election, IMO, but I don't keep up with politics as much as I'd like to (no time).

So, that said, for our more politically active/inclined board members, let me know what you think/know about Sen. Edwards. Please don't blast him just because he's a Democrat. If you're going to blast him, please bring up why his record is against him. I'd like to hear from both sides of the fence, conservative, and liberals.

Of all the democratic candidates announced thus far, Edwards is the most appealing to me. He's new blood and young. He's not from a political family.
He seems to be a conservative liberal (albeit, a bit too much of a Democrat in some areas). And stacked against Gephardt, Sharpton, Lieberman, Graham, and Kerry, he seems normal. :)

I ask that we try and keep this civil for as long as possible. I'm just as interested in why you might feel Edwards is a bad candidate, btw. And no, I'm not looking for others to help me decide who to vote for. Members of this board on both sides of the political spectrum are good at pulling up facts that the media forgets or glosses over, though. :)

Fire away!

I just remembered what Edwards' problem is - he was a trial lawyer. Although he's got a lot of the good characteristics Clinton had, and he's appealing, I think his history and his deep connections to trial lawyer work will hurt him, in ads, in the news, stuff like that.

Fox News could paint him as the sort of guy who would've gone after McDonalds for selling Whoppers, stuff like that, and he'd lose face pretty quickly.

He gets called "inexperienced" right now. He's polling pretty poorly right now, too. Edwards also isn't much of a debater, from what I've seen - he did fairly poorly in that recent candidates debate, and wasn't really able to define a position for himself in the race. Bush isn't a spectacular debater, but he did really well in the second debate, well enough to handle a guy like Edwards.

Lieberman, on the other hand, should absolutely slaughter Bush. The support of evangelicals for Lieberman could make a huge difference for his poll returns, also. I don't know - I think that Lieberman's the best way for the Democrats to take on Bush. He's pro-war, which people like. The religiousness thing is positive. He comes across as being far more intelligent than Bush. If the economy is still doing poorly, he represents an alternative.

Ah, someone responds. Thanks Stone! See, for me, the "inexperienced" thing is a plus. I don't want someone who has been doing this for 50 years, and has a family in politics. Those type of politicians are typically more tainted by special interests. I figure Edwards is doing poorly in the polls since few people know who he is. Everyone knows Gephardt, Lieberman, and Sharpton. I didn't realize that he did that poorly in the debates. I missed them, unfortunately.

My biggest problem with Lieberman is his amazing ability to go after whatever seems to generate the biggest outcry among "concerned citizens" and parents (like video game violence, movie violence, etc). Beyond that, he's the best the Dems have for 2004, I guess.

What I wouldn't give for a McCain ticket in 2004...

Thanks for the reply, Stone. Anyone else?

I have to agree about Lieberman. After watching the debate on Sunday and the candidate's forum a few weeks ago, he seems to be the most experienced and the most prepared. Gephardt isn't going anywhere (again) and Edwards is appealing but not that much. Dean has a very spotty record on the environment (which turned me off) and the others just seem so "meh" with the exception of Kerry. His problem is that he's just not that charismatic, IMO.

Aside from his anti-gaming views, it would be cool to see Lieberman win. He can debate against Bush, he's experienced and knowledgeable, and it'd be a kick to see the country elect a Jew. One non-protestant president in history? C'mon!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Melf
One non-protestant president in history? C'mon!

---

Besides Kennedy, you mean?

He's the only one.

Edwards is a puppet, so the comparison to Clinton is a good one. I get to see way more of him here in NC than I care to. The least evil on that side of the aisle is clearly Lieberman.

Lieberman's going to have huge, huge support from moderate Republicans. The thing that could tank Lieberman is Nader running (which would become much more likely if Lieberman was the Democratic candidate). If Nader runs, Lieberman will experience too much erosion from the left to properly capitalize on his moderate Republican support. Nader will get more votes than 2000, but he'll also keep Bush in power.

If Nader doesn't run, and the Democrats use Lieberman, than Bush is going to have a real fight on his hands - it's not going to be easy, at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Fox News could paint him as the sort of guy who would've gone after McDonalds for selling Whoppers,

---

Hey, if he was representing Burger King, he'd have one heck of a case!

Quote:

---

Lieberman, on the other hand, should absolutely slaughter Bush. The support of evangelicals for Lieberman could make a huge difference for his poll returns, also.

---

Evangelicals backing a jewish guy? Please explain.

Anyway, I really hope the guy who wants to ban violence in all media isn't the best option for your country. There has to be someone whose views are grounded in reality.

Im actually fairly certain that Liberman doesn't want that - he was just shocked back in 1992 or whenever when there was a game, unrated game mind you, that featured guys who rip hearts and spines off people, brutally killing them, and said game was played my tens of thousands of little kids. I read in an NG interview he heard about it from his kids, and he was horrified - and what's so wrong with that? My mom was horrified when she saw MK for the first time. So he advocated a rating system. And there is one now. He still comes out with his 10 most violent games list every year, but really, who pays attention to that anymore?

Lieberman has become a pariah to gamers, but I think that maybe it was a bit harsh. You have to be a total moron to think that violent videogames have absolutely no effect on a person, and really, the guy never really did anything wrong (to my knowledge) - he just advocated a rating system, which yea there really should be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Evangelicals backing a jewish guy? Please explain.

---

Evangelicals absolutely love Israel and Jews - they appreciate Lieberman's moral strength, his commitment to his religion, all of that. The May 3 debate was pushed to after sundown so Lieberman could participate (Sabbath), and that sort of stuff is like manna for evangelical Christians. A lot of people think evangelicals support Israel because there's something in the bible that says that once Israel is reclaimed by the Jews, we'll figure out the whole Jesus thing and the world will be one step closer to Revelations or something like that.

Lieberman polls really, really well with evangelicals.

Except for the fact that evangelicals think all Jews are going to hell.

Minor detail, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Except for the fact that evangelicals think all Jews are going to hell.

Minor detail, I know.

---

You disagreeing with the idea that Evangelicals will support an Orthodox Jew in an election, or just being snarky?

And, anyways, I don't think being hell-bound necessarily disqualifies someone for the office, even in the minds of those people.

I was responding to this:

Quote:

---

Evangelicals absolutely love Israel and Jews - they appreciate Lieberman's moral strength, his commitment to his religion, all of that.

---

Love the sinner, hate the sin, etc. Just pointing out the irony.

I think evangelical Christians support candidates who are fiercely pro-Israel (including Orthodox Jews), but for their own selfish reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or what's best for Jews.

Quote:

---

Edwards is a puppet, so the comparison to Clinton is a good one.

---

Yoshi, can you explain this comment? Is he a Democrat version of Lindsey Graham (SC's Bush yes-man)? If so, that's a strike against him in my book. I can appreciate supporting your party, but from a state perspective, I want someone who will look out for the state before the party. Lindsey has literally said that he'd agree with ANYTHING from Bush. I hate that in Republicans AND Democrats...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
I think evangelical Christians support candidates who are fiercely pro-Israel (including Orthodox Jews), but for their own selfish reasons that have nothing to do with Judaism or what's best for Jews.

---

Ahh, gotcha - yeah, you're right, although I think there's a measure of actual, reasoned respect for what Israel is doing, something not related to the Biblical implications of Jewish control of the area.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Except for the fact that evangelicals think all Jews are going to hell.

---

Depends on which 'evengelicals' you ask.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Except for the fact that evangelicals think all Jews are going to hell.

Minor detail, I know.

---

thats why i love this guy:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolffen
What I wouldn't give for a McCain ticket in 2004...

---

you and me both.

and yes, i agree that right now edward's trail lawyer background would be rife for the picking,as most peopel can be turned against them rather easily by bringing up some non-representative samples of their work. so i dont see edwards as a person who could beat bush. lieberman i would like myself, i agree with diff, he had a point at the time,and I think a lot gamers are just being paranoid and small minded, Lieberman would probably do well with religious catholics too,better to have a real Jew than a phony christian. as for the nader effect, it could hurt any cantidate who appeals to moderates, since nader polls so well with the extreme american left, but you never know, last election the reform party was chaotic,and that helped the republicans. If the reform party gets their act together this time, it could split the conservatives,and this could be a very interesting election. Dont get me wrong,neither green nor reformhave a snowball's chance in hell,but it would be a test of who has a more frustrated fringe, the repubs or the democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
Im actually fairly certain that Liberman doesn't want that - he was just shocked back in 1992 or whenever when there was a game, unrated game mind you, that featured guys who rip hearts and spines off people, brutally killing them, and said game was played my tens of thousands of little kids. I read in an NG interview he heard about it from his kids, and he was horrified - and what's so wrong with that? My mom was horrified when she saw MK for the first time. So he advocated a rating system. And there is one now. He still comes out with his 10 most violent games list every year, but really, who pays attention to that anymore?

Lieberman has become a pariah to gamers, but I think that maybe it was a bit harsh. You have to be a total moron to think that violent videogames have absolutely no effect on a person, and really, the guy never really did anything wrong (to my knowledge) - he just advocated a rating system, which yea there really should be.

---

It wasn't that - in the last election he was going after hollywood quite fiercely, and I remember a quote where he was saying nobody underage should be able to see any kind of violence at all, especially on tv. That's just goofy, and makes me think the guy's either not playing with a full deck, or doesn't care what kind of fears he has to blow out of proportion to guilt votes out of parents. Either way, I wasn't blown away by the guy's "moral" stance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Evangelicals absolutely love Israel and Jews - they appreciate Lieberman's moral strength, his commitment to his religion, all of that. The May 3 debate was pushed to after sundown so Lieberman could participate (Sabbath), and that sort of stuff is like manna for evangelical Christians. A lot of people think evangelicals support Israel because there's something in the bible that says that once Israel is reclaimed by the Jews, we'll figure out the whole Jesus thing and the world will be one step closer to Revelations or something like that.

Lieberman polls really, really well with evangelicals.

---

Hmm...that's really odd. I'd still have to figure that the born-again Dubya could beat a "heathen" when it comes to getting the Christian vote, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by frostwolf ex
as for the nader effect, it could hurt any cantidate who appeals to moderates, since nader polls so well with the extreme american left, but you never know, last election the reform party was chaotic,and that helped the republicans. If the reform party gets their act together this time, it could split the conservatives,and this could be a very interesting election.

---

Nader's entry into the party would hurt any Democratic candidate, no matter who ran, but it'd hurt Lieberman more - simply because he's further right. It'd limit his ability to capture the moderate voters he should have, since he'd have to play left to fight off the Greens. A guy like Howard Dean would lose voters to the Greens, too, but nowhere near as many since he's already naturally left.

I've heard Lieberman's not leading in fundraising, which really surprises me.

Quote:

---

That's just goofy, and makes me think the guy's either not playing with a full deck, or doesn't care what kind of fears he has to blow out of proportion to guilt votes out of parents. Either way, I wasn't blown away by the guy's "moral" stance.

Hmm...that's really odd. I'd still have to figure that the born-again Dubya could beat a "heathen" when it comes to getting the Christian vote, though.

---

Lieberman's just genuinely worried about the effect violent entertainment has on children. He's not looking to censor it - he just wants to protect children from that sort of stuff. His beliefs in that area are a lot less virulent than I think some people make it seem.

Lieberman basically touches on all of the same bases that Bush does when it comes to the important issues for evangelicals, and past that point, I think the strength of Lieberman's observation is what puts him ahead.

(side question - for any Jews on this board: would you feel compelled to vote for Lieberman just because he's a Jew, whether you agree with his politics or not? Hard question to answer, I know. Honestly, that's a motivating factor for me in and of itself. I know the guy, and I think he's great, and he's as close to me politically as Bush is, but I also think I just feel a responsibility to vote for him because he's Jewish.)

All this sarcasm in regards to Christianity. Just wonderful. Now we just need someone saying that if Bush and Liberman run against each other in 2004, it's all just an orchestrated event so the Zionists who 'really' run this country have a win-win situation to having their puppet-leader in control.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
All this sarcasm in regards to Christianity. Just wonderful. Now we just need someone saying that if Bush and Liberman run against each other in 2004, it's all just an orchestrated event so the Zionists who 'really' run this country have a win-win situation to having their puppet-leader in control.

---

I wonder how much difference it'd make to your average Almaci-level European if Lieberman was in power, vs. Bush? The president wouldn't even just be a pawn of the Neo-Conservative Jewish Cabal - he'd actually be a, what, fringe member?

I'm just sick of walking into a thread thinking, "cool, I'll learn about someone/something I don't know about"

Only for it to degenerate into something off-base, off the cuff, and backhanded-sarcastic insulting. Not like it has, but I already see it going that way.

If it gets to that point, I'll delete it or have a mod lock it. I don't want to see this moved to Fight Club, or turn into the mess that is "The Victory Thread."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
I've heard Lieberman's not leading in fundraising, which really surprises me.

---

It's because he doesn't fit the Democratic base, that's why. Sure, he might have a better chance, but that doesn't mean anything. McCain probably would have done better against Gore, but the Republican base liked Bush better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
All this sarcasm in regards to Christianity. Just wonderful. Now we just need someone saying that if Bush and Liberman run against each other in 2004, it's all just an orchestrated event so the Zionists who 'really' run this country have a win-win situation to having their puppet-leader in control.

---

But remember, Hero, Christians are not enlightened people.

John Edwards? well I'm a skeptic, so I don't believe in medium-ship, but it helps his viewers cope with losing loved ones and gives them hope of an existance of the afterlife.








































(I am being sarcastic)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
And, anyways, I don't think being hell-bound necessarily disqualifies someone for the office, even in the minds of those people.

---

I...
did not...
have sex...
with that woman...




Hehe. ;)