Mudcat Saunders: John Edwards has the Winning Hand

By: benny06
Published On: 11/8/2007 11:18:06 PM

There's nothing better than a bit of Southern talk about politics to stir up some good conversation. Dave "Mudcat" Saunders may not try to play the part of Mark Twain as a 19th century satirist but he is more like Jim Hightower or Molly Ivins in how he talks to us. And I like it.

Mudcat's rhetorical style speaks to me as though I'm sitting on a dock near Lake Ruralsville, reaching for a can of Diet Coke in the cooler; he's handing me some peanuts he picked up at the fishin' store, and we are playing "Go Fish", a simple card game while we take a break from rod and reel fishing.

Follow me beneath the fold
Yesterday at the Huffington Post, Mudcat had a good hook to talk about the recent local and state elections in by using a song that the Clintons had for their campaign song, 'Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow' in bringing our Reagan Democrats back to the cabin. He observed:

I think yesterday answered one huge question concerning red state politics. Will the Reagan Democrats who left our party in the eighties continue their return? When a Democratic candidate can get through the red state culture as Steve Beshear did in Kentucky, the answer is a resounding yes. However, if a Democratic Presidential candidate can't get through the culture, or worse, hits the cultural wall head-on, a Democrat can't win. The science is literally everywhere.

You can guess what this is leading to, so I'll post a little more:

I know people say "trust me", and then you think they must be lying. But as a red state Democrat who has been fighting these Republicans for a long time, just trust me this one time when I tell you that John Edwards is the only Democrat who understands and can get through the red state culture and psyche.


Admittedly, I live in Central Illinois, a Red-state district. Been reading RK because
John Edwards helped campaign for Tim Kaine.


Know this although Kaine supports Obama despite the Edwards support for his campaign, and still fights for rural Dems.

But I but write here because I live in the rural area by knowing some Central Illinois Dems would say the same things Mudcat is presenting at the moment.

Obama has no such plan, but I would not by a wooden yardstick be critical if Obama is still working on his agenda.

Mudcat continues to deal the cards here:

  That is one of two reasons I am with John. He can head to a red state, connect with the people, and look like he was born on that stump. The absolute truth is with the eminent coming of the Republican onslaught in '08, John is the only electable Democrat. And believe it or not, the Republicans are coming with the fury of Hell. For those who think the Republicans are done for, we must never, never, never forget they are like a cornered animal and will do anything next year. A snake can still bite you until you cut off its head.

But as he picks up another card and discards one, he makes his strongest point about why we should be in John's corner:


  Money has now completely taken over our electoral process and government. It's nuts. Somebody has got to do something and now. We need somebody who is mean enough and not afraid to fight the incredible money and power of the huge corporations and special interests. John is perfectly suited for the tough job that lies ahead, and I promise you, there will be a fight to get our government back.


Mudcat concludes with a heartfelt comment as he lays down the winning hand:


John will fight them. Of that, I am sure.

Now I have to have to shuffle the cards again. And we will go invite more to come back to the cabin, and give those rural Dems toothpicks and cards or dominoes as they sit in coffee shops, hoping the government will work for them and not for those rich folk.

Comments



I'm a big fan of Mudcat ! (beachydem - 11/9/2007 12:44:02 AM)
Thanks for posting this.  He supported and advised Jim Webb as well.

Go Team Virginia :)



Agreed: Edwards can win (cycle12 - 11/9/2007 2:54:33 AM)
I'm now a "John Edwards for President" supporter, not just because he seems to have the best approach to U. S. cultural, economic and social policy, not because of his position on the Iraq war, but because I believe that he can win the presidency next year.

Look what happened when we had an excellent candidate who couldn't win.

John Edwards can win.

It's that simple...

Thanks!

Steve



He also has the support of the DPVA chair... (beachydem - 11/9/2007 1:34:09 PM)
who said the same thing :) 


Mudcat is Right (connie - 11/9/2007 9:05:04 AM)
My husband,who is the most loyal liberal I've ever met, shocked the heck out of me last night listening to the news when a poll was announced that an astounding high percentage of married men said they'd never vote for Hillary.  He said "yep, I'm one of those"....I challenged him, saying I knew he'd never vote for Rudy and he just said he hoped to God she didn't get the nomination.  I've never known him to say anything like this in my life, and it bodes ill for the party if she is nominated in my view. 


Hillary is a very strong woman (beachydem - 11/9/2007 1:49:27 PM)
and I admire her so much, but not for my President.  I think she would make an amazing Secretary of State, especially partnered with Bill.

Obama needs a little seasoning to his very young, but productive Senate career.  I hear the GOP fears an Edwards/Obama ticket the most.....not only an unbeatable ticket, but a hold on the White House for 16 years !

Obama will only be 63...AT THE END OF HIS SECOND TERM IN 2024 !



Stop with the Obama is young thing (sndeak - 11/9/2007 6:06:05 PM)
He is the same age now that Clinton and Gore were in 1992.


His career is "young", I wasn't implying age.... (beachydem - 11/10/2007 5:46:30 PM)
Clinton had a gig as a gov under his belt, and Al had some years in the House and Senate before he was selected for VP running mate.  JFK was 42, I believe, when he was sworn in, but that was another era, and he had many years of national political experience at that point too.

My implication was that Obama would grow in the VP position, then lead for another 8 years.

My apologies if I wasn't clear.



Agree about Hil (benny06 - 11/9/2007 9:01:23 PM)
But agree that Obama is not too young, but rather needs more seasoning in general.  One cannot continue to duck votes just for political expediency.


I like Obama a lot, but.... (Lowell - 11/9/2007 9:57:55 PM)
...I wish he had more experience in foreign policy and national security.  I suppose if he gets the nomination, he could select someone like Wes Clark as his running mate for that purpose.  The question is whether that's sufficient in a time of war.


If not Gore, Edwards is the man. (thegools - 11/9/2007 11:45:17 PM)
  I will hope until election day that Gore jumps in.  I really wish he would, but given that, I have always liked Edwards the best of the bunch.  In fact I once wished it was Edwards/Kerry instead of the Kerry/Edwards.


He will fight, that's for sure (Quizzical - 11/9/2007 11:53:21 PM)
http://johnedwards.c...

I wish he had experience running a big organization, though.



I trust JE's judgement to select qualified people to (beachydem - 11/10/2007 5:56:31 PM)
help him lead our country to greatness !  Afterall, if you look at the resumes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld....where did that get us?

I want vision, intellectual curiosity, and moral judgement in my next Decider-In-Chief :)

"Look your children in the eyes..." is one of my favorites, thanks for posting it Quizzical.



Obama Is A Better Candidate Than Edwards (Lee Diamond - 11/11/2007 4:50:02 AM)
I think that if you do an objective comparison of their resumes, Obama comes out ahead.  Obama has been fully involved in American politics for over 20 years.  He has applied himself throughout his professional life to making society better for people who lack power.  Having grown up abroad, he understands  the world and our place in it as few (if any) Presidential candidates ever have.  He brings an approach to politics and governing that is needed at this moment in our history.

I admit that he would be an even better candidate in four years, but we need him now.  The truth of the matter is that the only candidates who match him in the foreign policy area are Richardson, Biden and Dodd.  For one reason or another, those candidates are not moving voters.  Hillary Clinton is running a safe, anoint me campaign while she coddles special interests.  John Edwards has no background in foreign policy.  He is a trial lawyer.  Talks great.  It means nothing.



Wondering about a pattern (benny06 - 11/11/2007 6:42:29 AM)
On women's health/reproductive health issues in Illinois, Obama voted "present" not yes or no.

In the Congress he has been ducking votes right and left, e.g. Kyl-Lieberman and recently about the AG he was "out of town".  He was, and I think he does it on purpose.

One can say that about any candidate, but Obama is truly concerned about the resources to run his campaign, not about us, in which he matches Clinton.  I don't get it why he needs to be out of town when he has more than enough to run ads anywhere.

As a constituent, I wrote him about problems of transportation in the Gulf Coast since it affects farmer exports from the Midwest, but it took his staff months to answer my question about rebuilding the roads; at best, his response was non-committal.

Hmm.  Do we want that in a President?  Admittedly, GWB is a decider, but I don't think Obama is an uniter either if he cannot make up his mind.



I don't care what the polls say (relawson - 11/12/2007 12:55:44 PM)
I believe that Edwards will be the nominee.  And thank God, considering Hillary just came out in support of another NAFTA style free trade agreement with Peru.

Our country can't stand any more wreckless free trade agreements.