So Much for Edwards' "Slow News Week" Theory

By: Lowell
Published On: 12/30/2006 12:24:07 PM

My understanding is that John Edwards chose to announce his 2008 Presidential candidacy this week because it's traditionally a slow news week.  The calculation was that he could grab the headlines for a few days.  Well, so much for THAT theory, thanks to this and this

Meanwhile, there's a new American Research Group poll, which indicates that Hillary Clinton is currently leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and even Edwards' home state of South Carolina.  Of course, polls this early in the campaign cycle don't mean much (where were Kerry and Edwards in the polls at this point 4 years ago?), but still, I wonder if Edwards is feeling a bit frustrated right about now.  (on the other hand, the Washington Post reports big crowds for Edwards in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so maybe these polls really are full of you-know-what).

P.S. Despite rumors to the contrary, I have NOT decided who I will support for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.  However, I am quite optimistic that whichever contender secures the nomination, the Democrats are in great shape to win the White House in 2008.  In large part, that's because the GOP continues to tear itself apart, in Kansas, in Virginia, and elsewhere.  What a shame! :)


Comments



what rumors? (Rob - 12/30/2006 12:55:32 PM)


A certain RK front pager (Lowell - 12/30/2006 1:01:13 PM)
wrote on DKos that I had thrown my support to Obama.  Although I admire Obama greatly, I remain uncommitted, as stated in the post.


I know.. (drmontoya - 12/30/2006 1:03:01 PM)
And he's very very sorry. He's actually thinking about remaining more neutral himself! =)


Lowell, you forgot a few things!!! (drmontoya - 12/30/2006 12:59:49 PM)
The GODFATHER of SOUL, James Brown! also left us this past week.

NBA Legend Michael Jordan and his wife are splitting!

And! Julia Roberts is expecting a THIRD child!

Finally Is Denver ever going to get a break between winter storms?!?!?

John Edwards who? John Edwards what?

Oh, that's the guy who lost the Debate to Dick Cheney. Well, that's what America thinks anyway. And, they are also thinking about who Britney Spears will be dating next!



True, those were signficant stories... (Lowell - 12/30/2006 1:03:00 PM)
...as was the news that a huge polar ice sheet had broken off in the Arctic, signalling that the global warming crisis is not years away, but right NOW!  Still, none of those stories would have knocked Edwards off the front page, IMHO.  The death of two former Presidents, one American and one Iraq, on the other hand...


Global warming.. (drmontoya - 12/30/2006 1:05:13 PM)
Troubles me the most, I really fear for the future of my son because of it. Honestly. It's something that must be addressed immediately. This isn't a left or right issue anymore. It's a survival issue that affects everyone.


Posting this on DK? (drmontoya - 12/30/2006 1:07:52 PM)
Lol.. I swear about HALF of DailyKos are on the Edwards bandwagon, and the other half (myself included) in the Obama wagon. Hillary get's the least love on Kos.

But, if you post this on Kos.. they might EAT you alive.

Look at this latest Diary on Kos.

http://www.dailykos....



Hey, don't you have to change some diapers (Lowell - 12/30/2006 1:09:33 PM)
or something? :)


I saw ONE JRE supporter there... (beachydem - 12/30/2006 3:16:10 PM)
and not eating candidates alive....just the MSM.  It's quite a good discussion how to deal with the MSM.

Makes you understand why Time Magazine chose us/YOU as the Persons of the Year and not the MSM....LOL.



The ARG poll seems like an outlier (Politicalhack - 12/30/2006 2:35:58 PM)
Especially in Iowa.  All the other polls I've seen show Edwards leading there.


Hardball (Gordie - 12/30/2006 3:18:39 PM)
Last night on Hardball Chri, interviewed Edwards and Chris kept saying Edwards was leading in Iowa and Hilliary was leading in New Hampshire. Also Edwards is from NC, not SC.


The American Research Group polls (Lowell - 12/30/2006 4:27:28 PM)
show Hillary ahead in all the early primary states, but as I said, polls a year out don't mean much of anything.

As far as Edwards is concerned, he was born in South Carolina and served as Senator from North Carolina.  How about we split the difference and say he's from both North AND South Carolina? :)



Hillary's sudden rise (Jambon - 12/30/2006 5:02:38 PM)
in Iowa doesn't make any sense to me.

Look at two previous polls there, starting with the most recent showing her in the lead...

American Research Group: Dec. 19-23
600 likely caucus goers MoE +/- 4.0%

Clinton 31%
Edwards 20%
Vilsack 17%
Obama 10%

Research 200O Dec. 18-20
600 likely Iowa voters MoE 4%

Barack Obama 22%
John Edwards 22%
Tom Vilsack 12%
Hillary Clinton 10%

Harstad Strategic Research: 10/12-10/19
602 likely Iowa voters MoE 4%

Edwards 36
Clinton 16
Obama 13
Vilsack 9
Kerry 6
Biden 5
Clark 3
Richardson 2
Bayh 0
Dodd 0
Unsure 8

The Obama bounce in the 2nd poll totally makes sense.  But Hillary suddenly being at 31% when she polled 16% and 10%?  And Obama being behind Vilsack?  No way. 

Something is fishy with that ARG poll. 



The polls are all over the place (Lowell - 12/30/2006 5:16:07 PM)
See here for a good summary of both the Democratic and Republican contenders.


Hi Lowell, welcome home :) (beachydem - 12/30/2006 2:50:33 PM)
I know a lot of the major blogs have this same problem, but most are staying neutral not to piss off their supporters and diarists. I posted a diary yesterday, with reservation, because I thought this site leaned heavily Clark and Obama, and I didn't want to start any trouble...sigh.  I'm glad my first response was pleasant :)

I think the biggest problem we have to face....why not support them all !  Especially against the MSM whackjobs and Rovian smear machines.

I've been in the Edwards Camp since '03, where we were inspired to stick to issues not attack, but certainly be prepared to defend attacks!  He's already taken on the McCain Doctrine, which is a good start!

With hopes Edwards supporters will be welcomed here?



I wouldn't hold your breath beachydem... (Jambon - 12/30/2006 3:25:03 PM)
about feeling welcomed on this site.

One of the RK Frontpagers has referred to Edwards supporters as "hypocrites" and "kool aid drinkers" over at DailyKos.

Looks like the nomination season is about to get nasty...



See, that's the thing about having a group blog (Lowell - 12/30/2006 4:31:13 PM)
and community blog, we don't all have to agree.  Personally, I very much admire Edwards for his focus on poverty and income inequality in America.  I also believe that Edwards is an extremely articulate man and a major asset to the Democratic Party.  And no, I have not drunk any "kool aid" recently, at least as far as I am aware! :)


point well taken Lowell... (Jambon - 12/30/2006 5:11:45 PM)
I just get disappointed from time to time when "disagreement" delves into name calling, smearing, and stereotyping.  Especially when it's done by fellow bloggers you consider to be friends. 

 



And these intra-party battles can be the worst (Lowell - 12/30/2006 5:17:53 PM)
I hope the Dems don't tear themselves apart over who the nominee is going to be.  Ultimately, though, politics is a contact sport, definitely not tiddlywinks, so I'm not holding my breath on this...


tiddlywinks! (Jambon - 12/30/2006 5:27:00 PM)
LOL.  i don't think I've heard that one before?  Is that a Lowell original? ;) 


Actually, tiddlywinks was invented in 1889 (Lowell - 12/30/2006 5:34:19 PM)
For more, see here and of course here.  Ha, I bet you're sorry you asked! :)


jambon, not holding my breath here... (beachydem - 12/30/2006 7:29:33 PM)
but it is my home team, so I'm NoT giving up on you guys.

The national lefty blogs (DU, Kos, et al) were very mean to Webb the last election cycle, mostly by Kerry04 supporters who couldn't forgive Jim for his OpEd's against Kerry.

It was all so stupid, especially after Kerry endorsed Jim!

I learned a lot about that kind of forgiveness in politics, which I feel is better for our Virginia and  country too.



DKOS and Webb (DukieDem - 12/30/2006 9:09:09 PM)
I find that statement hard to beleive - did we read the same Dailykos?


DKos was VERY supportive of Jim Webb (Lowell - 12/30/2006 9:18:05 PM)
Among other things, DKos readers contributed around $200,000 to the Webb campaign.  By the end, I'd say that Webb had achieved rock star status at Daily Kos.  Maybe beachydem is talking about a different Daily Kos after all?


Sorry I wasn't clear about that... (beachydem - 12/31/2006 2:16:54 AM)
Some Kerry supporters were not very forgiving of Jim's articles, especially during the primary, they were heavily endorsing Harris Miller and trash talking Webb.

I didn't mean to broad brush DKos as being anti-Webb as a community.  DU was very $upportive too :)



I am still not sure what DK your talking about.. (drmontoya - 12/31/2006 10:39:39 AM)
I have followed the Webb race rather closely and have yet to find an instance when many people were trash talking Jim. A few were upset about the "Women can't fight" article. But, they were few on DK.

Secondly, beachydem. I understand and respect your passion for John Edwards. But, I didn't say anything negative or unproductive about him. I leave that for Daily Kos, I have much respect for Raising Kaine and our community blog.

Even though many of us will support different candidates in 2008, I hope to maintain our civility. I don't think it's wrong to be sarcastic about JRE. On here at least I will respect anyone views and any different opinion.

Like Lowell has greatly pointed out, this is not Daily Kos. I have respect for all here. Though, I think you can also have an opinion about anything. If you don't agree, state why.. just don't troll rate or 1 point a user.

Just my thoughts, It's going to be a nasty primary in 2008. I hope here on Raising Kaine we keep our community together and peaceful.

Have a happy new year everyone!



Amen. (Lowell - 12/31/2006 10:41:14 AM)
Thanks Dave, you've been a valuable RK contributor in 2006 and I hope you keep it up in 2007.  Also, good luck with the new Montoya! :)


Hm. (Kenton - 12/30/2006 2:50:47 PM)
Edwards is actually from North Carolina. :)

Regardless, I'm still undecided. Warner and Feingold both passed it up, so I haven't really thought about it yet.



Sorry, Kenton, you're wrong on that one. (Lowell - 12/30/2006 3:18:10 PM)
From Wikipedia: "Edwards was born on June 10, 1953 to Wallace R. Edwards and Kathryn Juanita Wade in Seneca, South Carolina."  I am well aware that he was Senator from NORTH Carolina as well.


I call a DO-OVER!!! (relawson - 12/30/2006 4:46:09 PM)
He should just do it again next week ;-)

It will be fresh news to most people, considering the media focused their attention elsewhere. 

He should make a joke of it, and act as if he hasn't already declared.  Bring in more baloons this time, and then a staffer to curse when they don't fall from the ceiling.  That may get their attention ;-)  In fact, bring in the SAME staffer who cursed the balloons last time ;-)

People, I really should be paid for this advice.



beachydem (relawson - 12/30/2006 9:13:18 PM)
no sense of humor?


Ha, that's funny! (Lowell - 12/30/2006 9:15:48 PM)
:)


I'm glad I'm not the only one (relawson - 12/31/2006 2:56:11 AM)
laughing at my jokes.  Thanks ;-)

And for the record, I lean Edwards so my humor (or humorous attempts) should not be construed as an attack on him.

I mean really, nodoby else thought the guy cursing the balloons was funny?  Come on, that is a classic! 

Lighten up folks - it's gonna be a long ride from here to 2008 ;-)



I'm for Edwards! (fix_it - 12/30/2006 7:14:15 PM)
On 12/28 I mentioned on Dkos that
-----------------------------------------------
I saw John and Elisabeth on hardball
I thought they were both 'real', know what I mean?
Not packaged, like others (Hillary).
I think I can trust John, and that says alot.
Edwards/Clark ? could be...
Gore? I'm not sure if his arc has crested...
Obama, I really can't say, but he seems a little young or something...
-----------------------------------------------
I hang out there mostly, because its current. Lots of people.
I signed up here when I was delivering doorflyers for Senator Elect Webb.
And made a cash contribution to his campaign.
Instead of just vote, which is what I've always ever done.
But it was getting out of hand for me, and I wanted to do my 2cents.
Anyway, I always look here to see whats happening, and decided to post tonight. I guess this is my local blog.
;-)


Spammed by Edwards (JPTERP - 12/30/2006 7:36:19 PM)
Man, I did my second unsubscribe from the Edwards email list yesterday--my first attempt was over a week ago. 

Somehow I got on the McCain list (perhaps George Allen or John Warner have been selling constituent email addressess?)--unsubscribe, and I haven't been bothered since.

None of the presidential contenders has me sold yet.  Edwards is fine on economic policy, but the national security cred is a serious concern for me. 



Why I can't support Edwards (drmontoya - 12/31/2006 10:53:28 AM)
I find it difficult for me to support Edwards due the main fact he co-sponsored the IWR that gave Bush full authorization to invade Iraq. As a Iraq War Veteran, I can't forgive that.

Leadership is defined in moments of conscience, anyone especially any elected official that claims they were mislead are either foolish or liars. All they had to do was listen or talk to any military expert at the time in 2002 (General Zinni, General Clark, Jim Webb) and they would have told them it was a mistake to invade.

Jim Webb wrote the famous "Heading for Trouble" on September 4, 2002 in the Washington Post. General Clark actually testified to Congress with a warning of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq and the consequences.

Congress knew what it was getting into, they may not have been away of the outcome but were fully aware of the circumstances.

There was no real threat from Iraq.

They knew it, many of us bloggers knew it.

Anyone who paid any attention knew it.

But because Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, & Edwards all had Presidential ambitions and didn't want to appear "Weak on Terror" they sold out, and voted for the War.

Bayh and Edwards went so far as to co-sponsor the IWR. SJ RES 46 passed with the help and the urging of Edwards by his Senate colleague to join him in support of this war. Just yesterday someone dug up his speech on the Senate floor.

Some actually took a stand whether serving in the Congress or not.

Russ Feingold, Bob Graham, Wes Clark, Jim Webb, Howard Dean, Tony Zinni, Barack Obama, Richard Clarke, & Al Gore.. to name just a few.

These individuals had the foresight and the moral judgment to know that invading Iraq was wrong.

I would rather stand behind a candidate who had it right about Iraq from the start. That has the intelligence, foresight, moral judgment, and integrity to lead a nation in a time of crisis.

You don't need a long resume to be elected President. Many haven't. But you do need to have proved you have a good sense of judgment.

In a defining moment of U.S. History, we all saw who lead and who followed.

I end with this quote by my personal hero:

"We need more leaders, not followers" --Jim Webb



One more thought. (drmontoya - 12/31/2006 10:56:32 AM)
I do think John Edwards has very good positions on domestic issues. I value his concern for those less well off. My wedge issue just happens to be Iraq.

But, in 2008 no matter who we choose as a party.

I will fully support the Democratic nominee.



I thought the war was wrong - when I thought they had WMD (relawson - 12/31/2006 1:33:17 PM)
Even if they had stockpiles of WMD, I thought it would be a miscalculation to go to war.  I mean really, who these days doesn't have some form of WMD?  It's like trying to stop the rain - you just can't do it.  What you can do is make it clear the penalty for ever using such weapons against the United States or allies.  The only response to an attack like that, well, is unspeakable.

I don't forgive Edwards for co-sponsoring the war.  He hasn't asked me to.

That said, so far I support Edwards because I believe the economic issues are that important - important enough that I'll let him slide on his former support of the war. 

Our country is in a crises, and most people don't get that.  We have such massive debt hanging over us, and such large trade imbalances, that our prosperity is in grave danger.  The middle class is eroding, many going backwards into poverty.

Poverty and violent crimes are linear.  As poverty goes up, so does crime and violence - and a host of other problems, like hunger.  Go visit any Mexican border town.  That could be the United States some day if we don't get our economy in order.  The great depression CAN happen again.  It probably will, the question is how long it will last and how hard it will hit us.  Also, as you recall our way out of the depression was WWII.  You could probably expect the same.

If you want world peace, the best way to get there is by ending poverty.  Period.  And John Edwards gets this.  Use of the military to achieve peace is the WORST possible way.



Last thought (drmontoya - 12/31/2006 11:02:39 AM)
When I said foolish or liars. I am not just talking about John Edwards, but anyone and everyone who supported the war.

They were just foolish if they didn't see the facts.

Politicians, pundits, voters.

I am glad Edwards came out against the war in 2005. I just think he needs to do much much more in regards to National Security issues.

If not, he might need Clark should he capture the nomination.

Actually in my opinion, every '08 candidate needs Clark..

Unless he's the nominee in 2008. And as a former Clarkie, I have no problem with this! =)



I strongly disagree with you. (Lowell - 12/31/2006 11:05:07 AM)
Many Democrats, including myself and many others I know, believed Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, as well as other evidence presented that Iraq constituted a threat.  We were misled, and as it turns out we were wrong to trust the Bush Administration in any way, shape, or form.  However, that should NOT tarnish the overall great record of good people like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or many many others (Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Tim Johnson, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, several others) who voted for that resolution. The fact that Bush misused the authority granted to him - conditionally - by Congress is 99.9% a comment on him, 0.1% a comment on those who he misled. IMHO.


All good Democrats (drmontoya - 12/31/2006 11:13:49 AM)
Everyone you named. I especially have an liking for Hillary (shh don't tell anyone!) not completely sure as a '08 contender but I think she is brilliant.

Lowell, people knew that we had a containment policy on Iraq. At the very least those in Congress knew our policy. If they didn't they failed twice. Once in reviewing our policy toward Iraq, and twice for not listening to military leaders past and present.

They may be good Democrats, and I have forgiven all of them for VOTING for the war, but not the few Dems that co-sponsored the war. That's different to me.

Bayh, Edwards, Z. Miller, Joe Lieberman.

Clark testified to Congress warning them, but they were all afraid to be labeled unpatriotic. Democrats voting for the Iraq war had more to do with politics, and less to do with facts.

That's all I am sayin..



With Respect, (AnonymousIsAWoman - 12/31/2006 3:01:58 PM)
drmontyoya, I have all the respect for your feelings.  And I felt a great deal of frustration with those who voted for the resolution.  Like you, I opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.  And, btw, thanks for remembering to mention Florida Senator Bob Graham, who remains one of my heroes.  Anybody who listened to his impassioned comments about the real threats to U.S. security interests should have known better than to vote for war in Iraq.

But at least Edwards came out and said he was wrong.  Even the best leaders do make mistakes.  It takes a truly great one to learn from his mistake and admit publicly that he was wrong.  Edwards did it directly and with no equivocating.  And that's why I can forgive him for co-sponsoring that resolution.

But then I'm not a veteran who went through the hell of war with in Iraq. Just hope, though, that you will at least consider Edwards and not walk away should he indeed win the nomination.  You are too valuable and I'd hate to see you not be able to support him in the general election. 

Meanwhile, fight like hell for the one you favor and I'll respect that.  I may debate you but I'll respect you too.



Sorry, I still don't agree with you. (Lowell - 12/31/2006 3:50:35 PM)
If you recall, the early months of the Bush Administration were consumed with trying to save the containment policy (remember Powell's "Smart Sanctions" initiative?).  Many believed that it was falling apart, and that Saddam would soon wriggle free.  Also, I would point out that the policy of maintaining sanctions and no-fly-zones on Iraq was being heavily criticized by the left wing as "genocide against the Iraqi people" and other such charges.  Finally, I would add that it wasn't just the US that believed Iraq had WMD, it was pretty much everyone - the Europeans, the UN, other Arab states, Iran, the Iraqi people, etc.  I'm not trying to make excuses for Bush and Cheney misleading us, particularly on the supposed ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, because that was inexcusable.  However, with all due respect, I believe what you're engaging in here is 20/20 hindsight and also a bit of revisionist history.


Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Any Democrat (AnonymousIsAWoman - 12/30/2006 11:47:17 PM)
I am going to subscribe to a version of what has been called "Reagan's 11th Commandment."  After all, even a Republican can't be wrong every time.

Ronald Reagan always counselled, thou shalt not talk badly about a fellow party member.  Of course, for him that was fellow Republicans.

Sometimes, it's not a rule to follow.  But in next year's primaries, I think I will subscribe to it and not trash any of the Democratic party contenders.

Every one of them is somebody I could support in a general election.  Frankly, I'm proud that we have such a good line up to choose from.  It's like being in a five star restaurant where you can't decide on the entree because all the items on the menu look so good.

Personally, I'm currently leaning towards Edwards and the main reason is because of his stance on economic issues.  I still like his theme of two Americas.  He somehow manages to recognize the basic economic unfairness that has been built into our system by the current crony capitalism of the Bush years without appearing angry or bitter.  Edwards manages to convey hope and optimism and to have a vision for a more fair America that includes everybody.  That's what makes his version of populism so attractive, its refreshing lack of anger.  He has staked his campaign on an appeal to basic fairness and done it in a way that embraces everybody and wraps it in idealism and a hopeful vision of the future. 

If you consider yourself an economic populist, you owe it to yourself to consider him.

I think he's learned a lot on foreign policy. And I like the fact that he has unabashedly admitted that he made a mistake when he voted to support going into Iraq.  He stood up and labeled that vote a mistake and did it pubicly. 

I also like Barak Obama a lot and for much the same reason as I favor Edwards.  In fact, I'd love to see an Edwards-Obama ticket for the added advantage that Obama is so promising that if the two of them had a successful administation, we could well be looking at an unprecedented 16 years of White House control.

Obama definitely has the charisma and ability to overcome any of the usual disadvantages that a vice presidency might have.  The biggest disadvantage, of course, is that vice presidents often don't emerge successfully from the shadow of the president whom they serve.  But does anybody believe that Obama would be overshadowed?

In any case, it's so early in the campaign that I reserve the right to change my mind as more candidates emerge and as I see how everybody performs in the early primary states.

For now, however, I am leaning towards Edwards and really hoping its him and Obama representing the Democratic ticket.  But there is nobody I wouldn't work for enthusiatically. And nobody I will speak ill of.



So far, I'm leaning Edwards (relawson - 12/31/2006 2:51:53 AM)
I'll keep an open mind and listen to what all the candidates have to say.

I can't promise I'll be nice to Biden - he has some splainin' to do ;-)

I think the Republicans 11th commandment may be what is wrong with that party.  Nobody dared to confront Bush until it was too late.  I think we have an obligation to address disagreements.  Perhaps we can disagree in a more positive way - without ripping each other to shreads. 

I personally think that debate is good for our nation.  One of the things I like about th UK is that Tony Blair will get up in the mix.  I'd like to see Bush debate in that style - he'd get ripped to shreads.



Agreed on the "11th Commandment" (AnonymousIsAWoman - 12/31/2006 2:49:48 PM)
And that's why I said, "sometimes it's not the rule to follow."

I  think honest debate on issues where the candidates differ is healthy.  And I've never respected the way moderate Republicans too often place the good of their party before the good of the entire country like when they voted to confirm Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito.

But my hope is that debate within our party and among our candidates during the primaries remains positive and civil.  We have lots of good people willing to step up and run.  I don't think we should engage in unfair character assassination, which is very different than honest and passionate debate about issues.

I'm pragmatic enough to believe that we shouldn't do the Republicans job for them and shoot ourselves in the foot.

On the other hand, I'll admit that it is better for a weak candidate to falter in a primary than in the general election, so I'm not saying don't be tough.  Or hide a real skeleton in somebody's closet because we all know those things get exposed eventually and often at the worst time.

Weeding out candidates is what primaries should do.  It's just that right now, I have a genuine enthusiasm for all those running.  But I do reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more about each candidate during the primary campaigns.