What is that Bill Cosby quote about success?

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

I feel like maybe John Edwards thinks that he cannot bring moderates and Southerners along for the ride if he appears liberal. He has to speak truth to power and trust that his Clintonesque charisma will remind people why they DO believe in liberalism.

Yeah, I dont think Edwards is going to win if he runs. He will make a great cabinet secretary/ambassador in a Dem administration, but not president I dont think.

He appeared too nice when he appeared with Jack Kemp and that hurt him just like he was too nice to VP Dick Cheney in the debate and cost us the debate and possibly the election.  That's one criticism of John Edwards he's a good campaigner but he is reluctant to attack his adversaries.

I loved Bob Graham. I know he was cautious and had little charisma but remember that he voted AGAINST the Iraq war resolution and won five statewide elections in FL by wide margins.

If he'd been our candidate I think we would have had a decent shot.

The closest look I got at Edwards was in the VP debate in 2004.  I really thought he embarrassed himself there; I was very happy he was second on the ticket (well, I was happy he wasn't first).  I just don't think he's got the chops.

"Greatness" doesn't lie in being an attack dog.  Edwards did today what most democrats are incapable of doing: he talked about reform ideas, about the future, he showed that the democrats just aren't the anti-bush, they actually stand for ideals and ideas.  Sure, using the few minutes he got on MTP to bash bush would've fired up the base, however, I would say that the majority of Americans are more interested in hearing about the possibilities for tomorrow.  And, Edwards gets that.  Bush is almost done, his approval rating is so low that the democrats don't even have to push on this guy's lows, what they need to do is convince a disillusioned country that THEY now have the vision to put this country back on track. People now know that Bush is a loser, now they want to know if the democrats are any better or not?  

Great leaders are those who talk to all their constituents... and Edwards always does: he talks to all Americans about what we can accomplish together.  He criticizes Bush a lot too at the events that he attends for democrats, however, I think it isn't caution, it is thoughtfulness, that forces him to rise above mere partisanship.  Of course, that wouldn't satisfy partisans like yourself, but anyone without an ideological agenda, should and would have listened to him today and realized that this guy is someone who is more interested in solutions, rather than talking points.  

Lincoln taught us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and he too was derided for being a "nice guy" in his time.  Well, there is a certain graciousness that accompanies great leadership.  

Edwards overplayed the issue of 'poverty' in the interview?

I'm a fan of Edwards for many of the reasons you lay out.  But I thought he seemed a bit imbalanced, today--really passionate and prepared on the issue of poverty, but less focused on everything else.  

My take was just that he had not been well staffed for this interivew with Russert.  Luckily, Jack Kemp always looks like, well...like Jack Kemp.

Hamsher: "Edwards appears to be openly courting the Lestor Maddox brigade in some new reverse Southern Strategy."

You know, I'd been wondering just how full of shit Hamsher was, and now I know: completely.  I mean, what the fuck?

As for this

John Edwards is going to run for President, and if he does not start to make a case for why he is a different type of candidate, he will not even make a dent in the field.

Yeah.  Right now, he's just like every other 2008 candidate who's promoting unionization, working to pass minimum wage initiatives, and talking about poverty.

And there are tons of those, aren't there?

Edwards' 2004 "Two Americas" campaign theme looks prescient, post-Katrina.

I got the sense that the Kerry people kept him under wraps after the convention out of fear that he would outshine the top guy on the ticket. If correct, that's much more responsible (among many other Kerry miscalculations) for losing the election than anything Edwards said in the Cheney debate.

That he doesn't have to go after Bush. So many others are doing just that. Could it be that he is going to be above the name-calling and act like a civilized human being?? personally, I think this could be a winning stragety.

I don't dislike Edwards and I think he has many likeable qualities and good positions on some key issues. I was a bit mystified as to how he got onto the national ticket and I'm even more mystified as to how he is still favored for a shot at the top in 2008 by some of his admirers.

I've bookmarked his website and am glad to see him highlighting connections with state legislatures across the country. It shows an interest in favoring the party's bench and the state-level organization that is refreshing in a candidate for the presidential ticket. It also shows, of course, that he's networking for support. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see himas a winning choice for the national ticket, myself, but he's got at least a year to persuade the doubting, just like the other candidates do. My own hope is that if he does not see the support developing that he hopes for, he will re-strategize, and take Liddy Dole out of the Senate in 2008. One of the perceived drawbacks to his national candidacy is that he doesn't have a long enough record to earn the place he seeks at the top. Retiring a powerful GOP incumbent would earn him political chops within the party, and give him a platform to work from in building a larger portfolio of achievements.

And then there's that whole psychic talking to the dead thing. What up with that?

Ok, kidding. I didn't get to make my lame Rep. Jerry Lewis joke this morning, so....

I like John Edwards, he's smart and seems to be an honestly cheerful guy. His heart's in the right place and if he can say, run for governor and get some experience as an executive, then I think he'd have a chance in some future presidential run.

We could do far worse.

The thing that stood out for me was his willingness to admit he was wrong on the original Iraq vote and wrong to defend it later.  How many other candidates or office holding dems have the courage to say that?  And he didn't mince words about Bush's cherry picking of intelligence either.

To me it's the first step in winning my support...If you voted for the Iraq Resolution, you have, as Desi said, "some 'splaining to do."

Edwards did the job...as for the reverse racism I don't get Jane's comment.  That didn't register on me at all.

This does not mean I would vote for him in the primaries, necessarily.  I was at the Washington Days event in Kansas last year and this year and Edwards gave the better speech over Obama in my opinion.

That his entire political experience is one term in the Senate. He's got charisma and he's got smarts but he doesn't seem as interested in DOING the job as he seems in trying to GET the job.  Which throws me off.

Matt, I won't call you cynical, because I recognize that of course Edwards wants to run again for president, and is currently trying to lay the groundwork, network, etc. and should be thinking strategically about politics. Nor, to be frank, am I very likely to support Edwards should he run.

But really, why criticize a man for NOT running for president 2 years out from the primaries? Why criticize him for talking about the work he's doing now, or for taking on a progressive cause, or for getting passionately involved in something we should all applaud, if not actively participate in ourselves?

And if you do want to critique his appearance on strictly strategic political terms, consider that what everyone here has been saying about the generic congressional ballots is that the Republicans are now thoroughly disliked, voters are ready to change, and we must give them good reasons to.

Why, then, criticize Edwards for putting some passion out where people can see it, of Democrats working hard on issues that mean something? What would it have served for him to sound like another Democrat taking advantage of the sway of opinion to attack Bush?

I don't want a cautious candidate for president either. But you need to make one hell of a better argument than you have done, to say that talking about poverty in the US is example of "Beltway-itis."  Last time I checked, this harsh reality is not a very comfortable subject inside the beltway.

I get the feeling he's going the Carter post-presidency route--fighting for the things he cares about (which are never mentioned anymore at all, even with Katrina, and certainly not by anyone in Congress now) and trying to do good in the world--i say good for him!

I think that if people are disappointed with his tv appearance, you really have to ask why the bookers chose him instead of other people--he's made it clear he's not playing the game anymore, and they probably just wanted someone who wouldn't hit as hard as others would, which upsets their script, and makes the repubs even whinier and more vindictive than usual. They only book people who don't fight back as hard--it's usually a Biden or some other weak bigmouth. Edwards beats Biden any day.

I'd be proud to vote for him in 08--he has principles (and i love Ms. Edwards). I do not want any sitting Senators to get the nomination--i want someone who's doing real work to help Americans, which they're not doing in Congress--they're hurting us. Give me a primary with Edwards, some Governors--at least one female one, a few activists, and a vet or 2...i'll be thrilled.

Once he hands back the millions of dollar ill-gotten from doctors and families who have suffered, then maybe, he'll have a real chance.  Until then, he is still a disgusting trial lawyer.