Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

John Edwards runs for president. Surprised?

mccmcc glitchRegistered User, ClubPA regular
edited January 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
John Edwards, standing in the ruins of a house destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, today announced he is running for president in 2008. This announcement comes a couple of weeks after a separate announcement that Edwards would be announcing he is running for president soon from the ruins of a house destroyed by Hurricane Katrina; and a month or two after Edwards actually started in fact campaigning for president.

One begins to wonder why these announcements are reported on at all, or for that matter why I am making this thread.

The list of people who have so far announced they are running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 now stands at:
US Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware)
Former US Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina)
Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-Virginia)
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico)
Governor Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa)

Meanwhile, Newsweek's cover image last week announced that the 2008 Democratic nominations are a race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom have been actively campaigning for the job about as long as Edwards but neither of whom have formally announced they are running.

mcc on
«1

Posts

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    The strangest thing I'd heard about this was that Edwards has a lead in the polls for Iowa. I think this is mainly because Hillary and Obama haven't gone through the Iowa thing before, but still strikes me as odd.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I was going to start this thread, but same diff.

    Edwards is the man. I was in here campaigning for him in the 2004 primaries, and I'll be here doing it again. Someone cut his jib quite nicely.

    Yar on
  • YallYall Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I was just happy to see Hillary was 4th in Iowa.

    Even though I'm a registered 'Pub, the only potential candidate that has me interested is Obama. I'm not even sure why. Probably because I'm terrified at the thought of Hillary winning.

    I don't even know that she personally is that bad, but in my mind she is the personification of all that is bad with modern politicians.

    Yall on
    My band: https://youtu.be/rw2ersccCsQ[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yar wrote:
    I was going to start this thread, but same diff.

    Edwards is the man. I was in here campaigning for him in the 2004 primaries, and I'll be here doing it again. Someone cut his jib quite nicely.
    Feel free, then, to take some time to fill me in on him. All I know is that he's an incredibly charismatic candidate who appears to be a career politician aimed for the Presidency. Should I really care about his politics that much?

    The Green Eyed Monster on
    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yall wrote:
    I don't even know that she personally is that bad, but in my mind she is the personification of all that is bad with modern politicians.

    What would that be? I'm curious.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I've never had much faith Hillary would get the nomination. The first woman/black/gay/whatever president will likely need to be someone with broad appeal that is not already a very divisive candidate that is hated as much as loved. That's the only way a party would risk nominating them. Like Condoleeza Rice, except if 9/11 and the Iraq War didn't happen. So no one right now.

    Edwards seems genuinely charismatic and a good guy. He has lived and worked many of the same locales that me and my family have lived and worked in recent generations, and that comes across very clearly to me in the way he talks and jokes.

    His politics have gotten markedly more liberal than last time, but I still like his commitment to personal responsibility and truly helping working America, instead of just spouting off the standard Union-boss stuff that is often disguised as working-man politics but in reality is just as bad as bending over for corporations.

    And he's not an attention-grabbing dickcheese like a lot of the Dems in the list so far.

    Yar on
  • scarlet st.scarlet st. Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Edwards-Obama in 08 plz

    scarlet st. on
    japsig.jpg
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I'm not sure why, but Edwards never really registered for me during the last election. I knew he was around, but even after he got the VP nomination I still don't feel like I actually know anything about him or what he stands for.

    He acquitted himself well enough in the VP debate, but I lost a lot of respect for him when he used a dig on Cheney about his gay daughter. It's a valid point, but it's bad form to use someone's family to score points on them in a public setting.

    Other than that, he's still kind of a non-entity to me.

    werehippy on
  • YallYall Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Derrick wrote:
    Yall wrote:
    I don't even know that she personally is that bad, but in my mind she is the personification of all that is bad with modern politicians.

    What would that be? I'm curious.

    Well, for starters she wants to be president. That statement may seem inocuous or obvious at first, but she isn't in politics for the good of the people, she is in it for the power.

    Why else would someone move to any state to run for the senate? I mean how can she claim to represent the people of NY when prior to her moving there and running she was "debating" whether or not to run in NY or IL. That isn't trying to represent a group of your peers and neighbors, it's a calculated power grab. NY happened to be a convenient locale. Plus if she really cared about her NY constituents, wouldn't she really be concerned with finishing her term instead of going around the country, campaigning for her self interests?

    Second, she is a fuckin fake. She'll say whatever she can to gain popularity or votes. "I'm a Yankee fan!" or "By the way I'm a jew" come immediately to mind. Don't even mention the current conflict overseas...

    Third, she is dirty. But hey, what politicain hasn't been involved in a shady land deal...

    Which brings me back to my original point: It's not that she is the worst per se, but she has all of the rotten qualities we have come to expect from politicians, and I challenge anyone to find a compelling reason to have her as our president.

    Yall on
    My band: https://youtu.be/rw2ersccCsQ[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Whiniest Man On EarthWhiniest Man On Earth Registered User
    edited December 2006
    John Edwards reminds me far too much of the Smiler (Transmetropolitan, for those who don't know) for me to feel comfortable with this.

    Whiniest Man On Earth on
  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    defrag wrote:
    John Edwards reminds me far too much of the Smiler (Transmetropolitan, for those who don't know) for me to feel comfortable with this.

    Politics would be so much better if we could take the chair leg of truth to all the candidates.

    Mai-Kero on
  • TankHammerTankHammer Atlanta Ghostbuster Atlanta, GARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I will write-in again in 2008 if we go with another Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche election.

    2-Party system is our biggest flaw.

    TankHammer on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I will write-in again in 2008 if we go with another Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche election.

    2-Party system is our biggest flaw.

    It's kind of inevitable now. The only places new parties can come from is within the old parties, and unless there's an equivalent split from each party at the same time, breaking off only weakens your position. The whole Green/Dem/Pub drama from 2000 would just play out again, and no one wants that.

    werehippy on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bloomberg better damn well run as a third party. I'd vote for him in a second.

    nexuscrawler on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bloomberg better damn well run as a third party. I'd vote for him in a second.

    Has he made any moves towards running? Honestly, the field is pretty crowded this time around, and unless he's sitting on some deep, deep reserves he's going to find it extremely hard to mount anything resembling a real campaign.

    werehippy on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Bloomberg better damn well run as a third party. I'd vote for him in a second.

    Has he made any moves towards running? Honestly, the field is pretty crowded this time around, and unless he's sitting on some deep, deep reserves he's going to find it extremely hard to mount anything resembling a real campaign.

    He's keeps denying he'll run saying he wants to do charity work instead. Seems like there's some people in his administration that have been spreading the rumors though.

    He is like the 90th richest person in the world worth so I think if he couldmount a pretty robust campaign.

    nexuscrawler on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Bloomberg better damn well run as a third party. I'd vote for him in a second.

    Has he made any moves towards running? Honestly, the field is pretty crowded this time around, and unless he's sitting on some deep, deep reserves he's going to find it extremely hard to mount anything resembling a real campaign.

    He's keeps denying he'll run saying he wants to do charity work instead. Seems like there's some people in his administration that have been spreading the rumors though.

    He is like the 90th richest person in the world worth so I think if he couldmount a pretty robust campaign.

    I don't know. A national can going into the 100s of millions, and that Bloomberg would need to be at the high end and have the money up front to fight his (relatively) low name recognition anywhere out of the Northeast.

    werehippy on
  • NisslNissl Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Bad timing on the announcement, with president ford's death tying up most of the media's attention.

    Personally, I'm not all that enthusiastic about edwards. He just strikes me as someone who wants to be president. He's decided to ride a populist, pro-worker message to get there, and I'm sure he'd try to do a lot for the poor as a president, but I've never gotten the sense he really feels it himself. He's also improved substantially on his delivery since 2004, but still comes off as a bit of an intellectual lightweight. The only advantages he brings to a race are being a white male, having nice hair, and being southern.

    I'm frankly not too enthusiastic about his electoral chances either. Already, the two years of groundwork he spent cultivating labor in Iowa has completely evaporated. He's gone from a 20-30 point lead to a dead tie with Obama, after a single visit from Obama to Iowa, just like Obama erased a 23 point lead for Hillary in N.H. after one visit. (As far as the general election viability of the big three, Obama is also now leading both McCain and Giuliani in new hampshire matchup polls now while Hillary and Edwards trail.)

    Hopefully Edwards keeps advocating for the poor either way.

    Nissl on
    360: Purkinje
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I wish Hillary wouldn't run. I don't dislike her but I don't really like her either. She has far too much baggage with her to win a presidential election. I don't really need another 8 years of "But.... Clinton!" from the Right.

    Same with Gore. I KNOW Gore would be an awesome president, but honestly, after a certain point you need to back away for a while and let things cool off. If he runs now it's just going to seem kind of, I dunno, sad. Like the kid who keeps trying out for the basketball team but they'll never actually let him in. I think he is doing far more good now as a citizen anyway. I don't think he will run in this one, but will most likely do some campaigning for one of the others. In 4-8 years I want to see him back on the ballot though.

    I know almost nothing about Obama and this scares me a little. But being a former Chicagoan, if the city loves him, he's probably good people. I would like to see him as a Vice President first.

    Edwards. I like him so far. As for the using Cheney's daughter against him... It may have been a slightly low blow, but it's still a very valid point. His daughter (who now has her own child) is gay, and yet he turns around and advocates legislation to deny her rights that other citizens get, and that would help her build a better life for his grandchild. It's a disgusting double standard and he needs to pick a fucking side. Either support gay rights for your beloved daughter's sake or disown her and be done with it so we can hate you more.

    MuddBudd on
    steam_sig.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    I lost a lot of respect for him when he used a dig on Cheney about his gay daughter. It's a valid point, but it's bad form to use someone's family to score points on them in a public setting.
    Yeah, I thought that was pretty fucking nasty of him, and I just tell myself that someone must have pushed him really really hard to do it. Oh well.

    Yar on
  • SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yar wrote:
    werehippy wrote:
    I lost a lot of respect for him when he used a dig on Cheney about his gay daughter. It's a valid point, but it's bad form to use someone's family to score points on them in a public setting.
    Yeah, I thought that was pretty fucking nasty of him, and I just tell myself that someone must have pushed him really really hard to do it. Oh well.

    Heh, I think it's a valid point and I find it great that he had the balls to come out with a valid criticism of cheney's handling of policy.

    SkyGheNe on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    SkyGheNe wrote:
    Heh, I think it's a valid point and I find it great that he had the balls to come out with a valid criticism of cheney's handling of policy.
    It seems you don't know what we're talking about.

    Edwards wasn't criticizing Cheney's handling of anything. He was just pointing out to America, in case they didn't know, that Cheney has a gay daughter. It was pretty clear to me what his true intentions were. Both Cheney and Edwards were saying pretty much the same thing. Actually, Cheney was putting forth the more liberal stance. Cheney was against the Consitutional Amendment and for couples entering any arrangement they choose. Edwards was against the Amendment but for marriage being only between a man and a woman.
    Cheney wrote:
    People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

    That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

    Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.
    Edwards wrote:
    Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

    And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.
    Cheney wrote:
    Let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

    Yar on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    MuddBudd wrote:
    I know almost nothing about Obama and this scares me a little. But being a former Chicagoan, if the city loves him, he's probably good people. I would like to see him as a Vice President first.

    If you read the wiki article on him it pretty much explains all of his positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

    He looks pretty liberal if you just look at his stances on major issues, but if you listen to him speak he seems like he could bring in a LOT of independents and moderate republicans.

    As for Edwards sadly I don't know much about him so I'll have to do a little reading before I form an opinion.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I will write-in again in 2008 if we go with another Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche election.

    2-Party system is our biggest flaw.

    Looking at most of the people on the field, I'm expecting to write in Mark Warner.

    Jragghen on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Jragghen wrote:
    I will write-in again in 2008 if we go with another Turd Sandwich vs. Giant Douche election.

    2-Party system is our biggest flaw.

    Looking at most of the people on the field, I'm expecting to write in Mark Warner.
    I think the only guys in the speculative field left that I would ever consider voting for are Al Gore and Colin Powell. Past that, unless I get overly impressed by someone, I'm going Green again. They will get their ass beat, but they get enough votes and the Dems might take on some Green policies I like out of fear of losing due to spoilers. Which is what I'm really going for. The people are interchangeable. The policy isn't.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    celery77 wrote:
    Feel free, then, to take some time to fill me in on him. All I know is that he's an incredibly charismatic candidate who appears to be a career politician aimed for the Presidency. Should I really care about his politics that much?

    Not really. Near as I can tell, all the Democrats in the race have about the same political positions. Specifically, "trying to salvage anything from the Iraq mess, try to reduce the deficit, do something about alternative energy and try to restore international relations with everyone"

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2006
    Edwards has always struck me as JFK without the vision. I suspect if he became president - which he won't - he would neither help nor harm things too much. He would just make a lot of pretty speeches that failed to rouse much excitement.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I thought Edwards made a lot of sense as a running mate, and I wouldn't mind seeing a real candidate pick him for the job again.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2006
    Feral wrote:
    I thought Edwards made a lot of sense as a running mate, and I wouldn't mind seeing a real candidate pick him for the job again.

    Depends on what you want your running mate to do, I suppose. If you want an advisor and confidante, he doesn't strike me as terribly useful. If you want a pretty face to wander the nation and sell policies, then he makes a lot of sense.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Edwards has always struck me as JFK without the vision. I suspect if he became president - which he won't - he would neither help nor harm things too much. He would just make a lot of pretty speeches that failed to rouse much excitement.

    So basically another Jimmy Carter.

    LondonBridge on
  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Edwards has always struck me as JFK without the vision. I suspect if he became president - which he won't - he would neither help nor harm things too much. He would just make a lot of pretty speeches that failed to rouse much excitement.

    The day before the election he flew into Pensacola FL, to give a stump speech at the airport. My co-workers talked me into it, and I went. He basically regurgitated the same speech he gave at the close the of the VP debate - I wasn't terribly impresed with him. If Hillary or Obama runs, he'll be playing second fiddle again.

    3lwap0 on
    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Edwards has always struck me as JFK without the vision. I suspect if he became president - which he won't - he would neither help nor harm things too much. He would just make a lot of pretty speeches that failed to rouse much excitement.

    So basically another Jimmy Carter.
    Well, I'm not sure if a guy who would essentially be a stand-in President would neccesarily be a bad thing. What that would do is shift power back away from the executive branch to the legislative, which a lot of people would be relieved to see happen after the reverse happened through the past year or two.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User
    edited December 2006
    A whole lot of Democrats, but what about the Republicans?


    Of course none of this matters. Roslin-Zarek 2008!

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    I thought Edwards made a lot of sense as a running mate, and I wouldn't mind seeing a real candidate pick him for the job again.

    Depends on what you want your running mate to do, I suppose. If you want an advisor and confidante, he doesn't strike me as terribly useful. If you want a pretty face to wander the nation and sell policies, then he makes a lot of sense.
    Aren't most running mates chosen by how well they will play with the voters?

    Couscous on
  • LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2006
    DeepQantas wrote:
    A whole lot of Democrats, but what about the Republicans?


    Of course none of this matters. Roslin-Zarek 2008!

    Meh, didn't you know that Baltar is the Comeback Kid?

    LondonBridge on
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Titmouse wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    I thought Edwards made a lot of sense as a running mate, and I wouldn't mind seeing a real candidate pick him for the job again.

    Depends on what you want your running mate to do, I suppose. If you want an advisor and confidante, he doesn't strike me as terribly useful. If you want a pretty face to wander the nation and sell policies, then he makes a lot of sense.
    Aren't most running mates chosen by how well they will play with the voters?

    Was Cheney?

    Endomatic on
  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Endomatic wrote:
    Titmouse wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    I thought Edwards made a lot of sense as a running mate, and I wouldn't mind seeing a real candidate pick him for the job again.

    Depends on what you want your running mate to do, I suppose. If you want an advisor and confidante, he doesn't strike me as terribly useful. If you want a pretty face to wander the nation and sell policies, then he makes a lot of sense.
    Aren't most running mates chosen by how well they will play with the voters?

    Was Cheney?

    You've got that backward

    Bush was the running mate, and he was chosen by how well he would play with the voters

    mcc on
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Who?

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I'm not worried about Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty liberal, and I'd never vote for her, and I know a lot of people that feel the same way. Not only random people, but partisan activists (i.e., the type of people a good campaign needs to be successful.)

    What kills her is, her negatives hover in the high 20s to low 30s, and you just can't start a presidential campaign with those kinds of numbers. I doubt she'll make it out of the primary, and if she somehow does she'd DOA in the general, unless the Republicans nominate Conservative Turd Sandwich.

    I sort of put Obama and Edwards in the same category: charismatic lightweights with not enough to say. Edwards "Two Americas" shtick is compelling (and I do think it's an important discussion), but I can't escape the feeling that he just doesn't have the intellectual chops that I want in a president. Obama's better at this point because we haven't had enough chance to hear what he's got to say,* and he's playing it coy for now. I think the jury's out on him, regardless of the media attention.

    Realistically, the major players in the next election are likely to be people no one's heard of at this point. Who, nationally, was talking about John Kerry (or Dean, for that matter) at the end of 2002? Who was talking about Clinton in 1990? There's too much time left to start handicapping now.

    *Has anyone ever read Obama's book? I haven't, and I'm sort of curious.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Dyscord wrote:
    *Has anyone ever read Obama's book? I haven't, and I'm sort of curious.

    My parents got it for me for Christmas. It's in the queue, and I'll try to remember to at least PM you once I have.

    Jragghen on
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.