The Dem field so far
Joe Biden, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Tom Vilsack are the Dems who have announced officially for president, and unfortunately, Mark Warner has dropped out, and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin opted not to run.
Do any of the four already announced candidates have a snowball's chance in this?
Does anyone feel that Edwards has what it takes to catch fire and emerge on top?
Has Biden lost his position as the Dem "expert" on Iraq, and is he viable at all?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 12/30/2006
7 comments
7 Comments:
The only one with a chance is Edwards, and his chance depends on Obama. If Obama runs, the charisma fight goes to him. If he doesn't Edwards has the young, idealist, role all to himself.
This is the first election since 1952 where there is not a incumbent VP or P running for the office. I guarantee there will be more Dems and Reps coming out of the woodwork, so the field is completely open.
Edwards is already at the top. He leads in the polls in Iowa. Clinton and Obama will need to play catch up. Unless and until Clinton says that the war in Iraq was a mistake and we need to start getting out now she does not have a chance at my support and, I suspect, that of most Democats.
I really like what Edwards is saying. He spends more time talking about what he is for and what he would do than many Democratic candidates. I find him quite inspiring. The media seems to be trying to create the impression that he has no support. Don't believe it!
We are the poorer for Mark Warner's decision. He would have brought a ton to the table in terms of abilities and assets. Noblesse Oblige and talent in one Package!
Biden has no cohesive strategy or national appeal. His loose Federalism proposal was--have we heard this about him before?--not original work and flawed to boot.
Edwards has three things as nearly as I can tell. Burning Ambition (very important), telegenic presentation and the chance to shoplift a Southern State or two. Now, if Obama goes, all of that is worth a pitcher of warm spit because E. won't win any southern primaries. If it comes down to HRC and E., the Southern swing could give E. enough credibility to hold on for the western primaries (some of them are proportional voting).
So, yes, there's a scenario where John Edwards becomes the democratic nominee.
Oh, he has one other thing that is possibly a plus: He has already flatly labeled his vote for use of force in Iraq "a mistake". Against HRC, he gets the high ground for that.
Good topic.
Edwards is & will be the front-runner of this field of candidates. He's shed his insider status, is honing a populist message, & has terrific name recognition. He's got the right position on Iraq.
When it comes to the general election, any strong Dem could win. We'll still be in Iraq, the "surge" will have meant the commencement of aggression toward Iran, & we'll be desperate to throw more of these bozos out.
I was curious to see how many people would talk about John Edwards being from the South as a strength, just like they did in 2004. It is hot air, of course as the Kerry-Edwards ticket got MOPPED UP in the South, including in Edwards' home state of North Carolina.
To add another voice to the conventional wisdom, Edwards is the only one of the four listed who has a chance.
Kucinich couldn't win if a meteor hit the New Hampshire candidate debate that declined to invite him.
I don't see a niche for Vilsack or Biden. What selling points do they have? Biden is a foreign policy expert who was wrong on the big foreign policy question. Vilsack is a midwestern governor who can carry... Iowa... maybe... on a good day.
Nico,
Apples and Oranges, my man. The Left Turn Set, wasn't ever in any danger of voting for wind-surfer, married to a foreigner.
You can't knock the guy for failing to swim the English Channel with Lurch tied to his back.
15 yards, unnecessary roughness!
Post a Comment
<< Home