it sounded like he leaned more Clinton. But who knows?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8UMhAsCm 5U&eurl=http://www.eenrblog.com/fron tPage.do?nextId=1
I think he would have been a better President than either Barack or Hillary (though I don't think someone like him would ever win)
I think he could have won against a traditional field. His timing did him in. Obama, the star and first AA with a real chance to win and Hillary, former First Lady and first woman with a real chance to win. He couldn't get any attention.
Without a doubt he would be.
We would have real change.
Instead, HillObama is hell bent on bringing us President McCain.
Personally I thought Edwards was a better choice in 2004 than Kerry.
agreed, i thought Edwards was a better option. The timing just hasn't been right for him. In that cycle, the mantle of the passionate newcomer fell to Dean, and once Dean fell, the CW sort of became to go safe with Kerry. In this cycle, the deck was stacked. I think he'd make an excellent President if ever given the opportunity, although I worry that his time has passed for that, unless he gets the VP nod. Knock on wood, but if we lose, I just think that in 2012, we may be speaking about someone else, say, a Mark Warner.
I thought so too. Kerry was a disaster (still is, as you can tell, I clearly don't like him). But I have to say that I was very disappointed with Edwards for his debate with Cheney. I love Elizabeth Edwards and thought she could have done a much better job facing Cheney than her husband.
I meant for 2004. For 2008, I think Hillary is the best candidate, even in comparison to Edwards.
