MyDD :: Does the American electorate reward apologies?

Does the American electorate reward apologies?

by francislholland, Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:41:16 PM EST

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Candidates and supporters who believe we can win the presidency on a wave of apologies should learn the lessons of history.

Cross posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

NEW YORK - Democrat

John Edwards said Tuesday that honesty and openness were essential qualities for a president, and that he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of
Iraq was a mistake . . .
"If you asked me what I think the most important personal characteristics of the next president are, I would say honesty, openness and decency," he said. "There's not a single voter in America who doesn't understand that their president is human, and their president will sometimes makes mistakes." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_o n_el_pr/edwards2008

In the September 30, 2004 debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, the word "mistake" arose 13 times in the context of Iraq, offering Bush ample opportunity to admit that he had made at least one mistake. Kerry admitted to having made significant mistakes while George Bush admitted to none.

BUSH: My opponent says help is on the way, but . . . it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.
Not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 30 seconds.
KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a. html

Apparently, much of the public believed Kerry's mistake was worse - admitting a mistake, changing his story, and becoming a "flip-flopper" - because Bush went on to win the election.
The New York Times said,

Until sometime early in the summer, President Bush and his advisers sporadically wrestled with a fundamental choice: Was it smarter to go into the final months of the election campaign confessing to considerable error in decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and in early calculations about how best to occupy the country? Or would the president - "not a man given to backward-looking introspection," as one close aide put it - be better off conceding only the smallest errors of judgment, and focusing the electorate on the hope of a bright future for Iraq and the whole Middle East?
Mr. Bush chose the second option. To choose otherwise, one of Mr. Bush's advisers said the other day, would be "to give John Kerry the opening he was waiting for."
But now, in the final 23 days of the campaign, that decision has come to look far riskier than it did in the flush of handing Iraq back to Iraqis. Win or lose, when the history of the 2004 Bush campaign is written, it may turn out that the bet about how to talk about the war will prove pivotal. Mr. Bush held his bet through the presidential debate Friday, declining a questioner's invitation to describe any mistake he had made. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/weekin review/10sang.html?ex=1172725200&en= ac83b971d8fdeb28&ei=5070

But, at the time the talking heads and many Democrats ridiculed Bush for his unwillingness to admit having made mistakes. From CNN:

BORGER: . . . [O]ne of the most interesting things to me, Howie, was sort of the question that the president was asked about, can you ever remember a mistake you made? And this time, unlike the last time he was asked that...

KURTZ: When he was at a press conference.

BORGER: When he was at a press conference, he was a little bit more prepared. And he said, well, if what you mean is did I make a mistake in going into Iraq, the answer is no. Yes, I made a couple of mistakes on presidential appointments, but I'm not going to talk about those now.

And what you see is the Kerry campaign saying, this is a stubborn person who will never admit that he has made a mistake. And that is something they are talking about. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0 410/10/rs.01.html

Still, Bush's strategy won the day: "Better to be perceived as wrong and resolute than to be perceived as an irresolute flip-flopper in a time of war."

And still John Edwards continues today on his National Apology Tour, with the anti-war Left encouraging him and demanding that other candidates joint the John Edwards Lollapalooza Apology Tour. Other candidates refuse to join Edwards either because the have nothing to apologize for or because they don't believe the Apology Tour is the best way to win the Presidency and end the war. After the Kerry/Bush rout, can you blame them? Are we Democrats trying to win an election or win a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for most apologies on a single issue?

One of the most famous American apologies was Jimmy Carter's 1976 admission that, as concerned adultery, he had "sinned in his heart".

PLAYBOY INTERVIEW: In an interview published in the November 1976 issue of Playboy magazine, then-Governor Carter talked about the role of religion in his life. In one part he said:
"I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I'm going to do it anyhow, because I'm human and I'm tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.'
"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do--and I have done it--and God forgives me for it." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/gl ossaries/carter.html

As obvious as the admission seemed, since most of us have sinned in our hearts and do so daily in one way or another, still Jimmy Carter's admission became a scandal and the focus of national derision until his presidency ended abruptly after one term, with the election of the less apologetic Ronald Reagan. It's not that Democrats can't win the Presidency, but just that apologizing isn't historically an effective way of doing so.

With Hillary Clinton at 44% in the polls and John Edwards at 17%, the public seems already to be punishing Edwards for his apologies. http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/27/201349/679#commenttop Candidates and supporters who believe we can win the presidency on a wave of apologies should learn the lessons of history. As valid as apologies may be factually, the election usually goes to the candidate who apologizes the least.

Tags: John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, 2004, 2008, apology (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Apologies are a very tricky issue. Usually they are disastrous. But I think there are exceptions.

I think you do not trust Edwards, Holland. I can see how the chemistry of that could work out for black people. As to the reality behind the mistrust, well, none of us are mind readers, I would guess.

by blues on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:19:20 PM EST

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

I used to like Edwards, before he went off on this anti-poverty kick. It's seems like a transparent ploy for leftist votes. But the people who it's supposed to help aren't enthused about Edwards and are already committed to Clinton or fast attaching to Obama.

Edwards is a lawyer who represented poor people sometimes, and I did too, so we hit it off initially. He could have run a moderate campaign using his trial lawyer history to show he's a serious person with good speaking skills, but broadening his appeal to the whole gammut of issues that face a president.

Instead, he's become the anti-poverty candidate. I don't think a lot of working-class people will go for that because although they need help they're not considered poor.

Bill Clinton's formulation that he wanted to help "people who work everyday and are having trouble making ends meet" was much more inclusive, and so it had a chance of winning a broad-based constituency. I think Edwards has marginalized his candidacy and that's why his poll numbers are so anemic in spite of the fact that he was our VP nominee last time.

He's clearly hoping to catch fire in Iowa and ride that through the primaries. Even if that worked, would it be fair or constructive for a state that is so homogenous to choose the candidate for a party that is so diverse?

I trusted Edwards fine when he presented himself as the moderate Democrat that his voting record suggests. But, now that he says he's a populist leftist, I don't think his record supports that and I don't know WHAT to believe about John Edwards.

In any case, I don't think America is going to buy what John Edwards is selling. Read "Why John Edwards' Candidacy Won't Resonate with America." (If your compare the Census to public opinion polls, you find that a large percentage of Americans who ARE statistically poor don't want to admit it and don't identify as "poor". So, when Edwards calls all of the poor people to stand up and vote for him, few even of the poor will be willing to do so. That's a problem not with John Edwards per se, but with the signature issue he has chosen.

And now he's become Mr. Mea Culpa as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12 /202415/98

by francislholland on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:39:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Let's see, we have Clinton, the corporate lawyer; Obama, the constitutional professor, and Edwards, who took on large corporations for the "little guy."

Who's calling did the most direct, tangible good for their fellow man, was more altruistic?

But ultimately, it's all about policy, isn't it? Clinton's is GOP lite. Edwards has very detailed populist/progressive proposals. And Obama make us feel good but hasn't done his homework yet.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Americans in general have a short attention span. Most people cannot sustain a heighten level of interest in anything for an extended period of time. I think people will get tired of focusing who said what back in 2002 as time goes on. Apology will become less of an issues. Instead people will want to know what we are going to do in the future. The fact that it is brought up so early in the campaign as opposed to early '08 is helpful for Hillary. She has found a way to explain her vote without alienating too many people. Now I feel she has more leeway to move on to other issues. On the other hand, it can be risky for Edwards to dwell on this Iraq issue because he also voted for the war. It only draws attention to the fact that he made a "mistake."

by PhillyGuy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:07:08 AM EST

Agreed 100% n/t (none / 0)

by francislholland on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Phillyguy, that's a pretty paternalistic/cynical top-down view ot the American electorate. NO wonder you approve of the pseudo-incumbant Clinton and her sense of entitlement. (Without Cheney, Gore or Jeb in the race, she's the closest thing to an incumbant we have.)

In 2002, Edwards and Hillary were wrong, Obama was right. Old news, true. But it is Edwards and not the two active Senators who supports Murtha unequivocally. When Clinton and Obama had the chance, when they could have supported the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer bill in '06 which would have gotten us out of Iraq by this summer. Instead they adopted the White House party line that setting a timeline was irresponsible.

Edwards is walking the anti-war talk, supporting Kennedy's defunding of the escalation and Murtha's redeployment strategy. Why aren't Clinton and Obama?

Some day, they should be apologizing for not doing what Edwards is right now, leading.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:53:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

No everyone believes that we should pull out of Iraq immediately. Most Democrats don't think the vote was Hillary's mistake and even those who thought it was a mistake don't want Hillary to apologize according to the latest poll. Ironically, Clinton has more anti-war support than Obama. Go figure. Yes Edwards has staked out a very anti-war position, but that is only after he has left the Senate. It's a convenient position for him to take on now that he does haven to vote on these issues anymore.

by PhillyGuy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

But that doesn't explain Obama. He was against the war when he was a State Senator. Now that he's a national figure, he could be leading and not pandering.

That's not convenience, that's backtracking in the wrong direction.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:43:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

It doesn't matter to me personally if Hillary apologizes or not. I still would never vote for her and I still intensely dislike her.

by vwcat on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:08:50 AM EST

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

I hear you. I've visited Hillary's blog and there are many heartfelt and glowing testaments there to the strides that her supporters believe our country can make with her leadership.

But, for some reason I find it more interesting and challenging to advocate for Hillary here, among the mini-segment of Democrats where those who like Hillary least can be found.

I'll bet that if you make a list of all of the reasons you don't like Hillary ("ambitious, strategizing, calculating, single-minded, determined?") you'll realize that these are precisely the characteristics that a successful presidential candidate must possess. I would not like to vote for any candidate who DIDN'T have those qualities, because no one who is NOT those things is going to beat the Republican nominee.

by francislholland on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:55:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree (none / 0)

Also remember that these qualities (ambitious, strategies, calculating, single-minded, determined) are only negative when you apply them to women. A man can be ambitious and is even expected to be. However, when was the last time you hear that word used to describe a woman?

by PhillyGuy on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Agree Too (none / 0)

We're very lucky indeed that we have such outstanding choices. But I simply can't sit back and watch one democratic faction deliberately try to smack down another knowing that those same attacks will come in the general ten-fold. This whole theme is a not so veiled hit on Edwards, period. That, and it's historically disingenusous when it comes to the effect of apologies on politics.

JFK and Reagan famously apologized and it didn't hurt them whatsoever -- wuite the opposite.

Even Nixon was able to partially redeem himself before he died.

Francis, after reading some of your work, I know you could have done better than this.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree Too (none / 0)

"But I simply can't sit back and watch one democratic faction deliberately try to smack down another knowing that those same attacks will come in the general ten-fold."

If that is your true intent, will you get active and write the same the next time a gratuitous Clinton hit piece is published here?

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:50:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

I was very surprised to see the headline "Edwards apologizes for the Iraq vote" today. I thought "Wait, he already did. Did he seriously apologize again, and created another headline with it?" Way to milk a cow, but where is the response, where are the poll results? He lost major steam in EVERY poll in existence, even the Iowa polls.

IMHO his health care plan did not go over well. His well-publicized spat with Walmart is not a winner (Democrats are more likely to shop at Walmart to save a buck than Republicans.) His Iraq apologies are not resonating. He may have to find another angle to recapture the imagination of the Democratic voter.

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:02:19 AM EST

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Yeah, Edwards is not a "bad" man, but he needs to go back to the drawing board on his issues development. The issues he has chosen and the way he is going about them are making him look bad.

If he ran as "the Bill Clinton of 2008", he might have a chance, if he could only get the endorsement of Bill Clinton.

But, if Edwards can't even frame issues that Democratic primary voters will support in opinion polls, then how is he going to win over the country in a general election?

by francislholland on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

America rewards apologies if someone shows they were trying and made a wrong decision. A simple but very important vote for which one apologizes - not an individual action, but one of many who voted a particular way - is only good for a certain amount of primary voters.

He's apologized and now he needs to get on with it. Sure, have it in a stump speech, but what we need to know at this point is what he'll do next. Same for EVERY candidate.

Edwards concentration on the poor...I don't know...I see your point on Bill Clinton in '92 and agree with it, but I like the fact that Edwards is also calling attention to those that are poor. They need to be brought into the conversation.

I'm a lot more conservative than most on this site. A lot more. For instance, I'm against the death tax. But for too long, our country has looked at programs that help the poor as 'give-away' programs, marginalizing any effort to help them and marginalizing what they go through.

by jptrenn on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:02:21 AM EST

Calling attention to the poor. (none / 0)

If there are any politicians who would insist on "calling attention to the poor", it's Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. They have historically put the needs of the poor and working class at the forefront of their campaigns and efforts.

So, why aren't they supporting John Edwards?

Rev. Jesse Jackson, a leader in the African-American community and two-time presidential candidate, told CNN Thursday he is all but certain to endorse Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Illinois, likely bid for the White House.

"All of my heart leans toward Barack," Jackson said. "He is a next-door neighbor literally. I think he's an extension of our struggle to make this a more perfect union."

"I will talk to all of them, but my inclinations are really toward Barack," he added.

Jackson also spoke highly of others seeking or likely to seek the Democratic nomination, and said Obama cannot take the African-American base of the party for granted. http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/po liticalticker/2007/01/jesse-jackson-all- of-my-heart-leans.html

Meanwhile, I saw the Rev. Al Sharpton on YouTube a few days ago and he refused to decide between Obama and Clinton, with no mention whatsoever of John Edwards.

Apparently, the candidates who historically and consistently have most expressed concern for the poor are not taking John Edwards seriously on this issue. So, John Edwards essentially is seeking to be elected to represent constitutuencies which themselves do not want John Edwards' representation. That's paternalistic, condescending and disingenuous, in my opinion. He uses us not as a constituency for his campaign but as an excuse for his campaign, while not winning our trust or our votes but relying on OTHER voters to see us as a worthy cause and vote for Edwards as a way of helping us, even while we vote for someone else.

That is NOT going to work. It's risky enough to make poverty the centerpiece of your campaign, but if you can't even get the poor to support you, then you have to either find a different raison d'être or simply get out of the race.

I say "we" because if Edwards can't get Blacks to support him in a program against poverty, then he has no chance whatsoever of winning Democratic primaries.

There's another conceivable reason for Edwards to stay in the race, however: If one of the front-runners stumbles, Edwards could find himself in second place and in line, once again, for a shot at the vice presidency. If he gets on the ticket and the ticket wins, he could end up President one day, or not, like Al Gore.

by francislholland on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:49:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess I'm a little confused... (none / 0)

...If Edwards is not a viable candidate why are you spending the time to deconstruct the hurdles he faces? I don't see the same level of attention aimed towards either long-shot Dem contenders (Kucinich) or to those who could step up to the next level (Richardson). I've been reading your posts for a while, and you have made many valid points. However, what I don't follow is why so much attention is being paid towards a candidate you feel has no chance?

by Derzocrat on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess I'm a little confused... (none / 0)

Exactly!

To do a little more deconstructing of Mr. Holland, he took an article that had a lazy headline writer who repackaged old news and tried to lump it in with an almost FoxNews-like dig at Edwards for making the point that Walmart doesn't treat its workers as well as it could and that a man who went to New Orleans immediately after Katrina, and opened up a poverty center into which he's poured considerable time and money, is just pandering.

I expect that from Michele Malkin, not another Democrat.

Shall we examine, for instance, just what the Clinton foundation has been up to? I'm not interesting in any stupid clerical mistake she made in not disclosing that she was again finding ways to lose some of her fortune like the wingnuts want to. But this story did make me wonder why the Clinton's foundation took in 5 million only paid out 1.25 million over the last five years.

75% overhead? WFT Hillary? That looks more like a tax dodge than a real chairty.

Just quit going there Francis.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 11:49:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

You do not apologize to win votes. You apologize when you made a mistake you SHOULD NOT HAVE made. But the thing is the apology has NOT hurt Edwards. It is immaterial that his poll numbers are dropping. Show me one person who said he has less confidence in him because he apologized. There are other reasons for his lack of sufficient traction.

And if a candidate does not want to apologize, how about expaining clearly how the same mistake won't be made again and how one learned from teh past without using the word "mistake". For me, Hillary has not shown that. When she says what we know now, she tells me that she is a dumbass because there were signs even back then when she should have known better. Maybe a talk with Scott Ritter would have helped. Maybe she should have talked to Code Pink who seemed to know better(Oh wait, she did, and she acxtually supported going to war, not merely authorising).

by Pravin on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:50:47 AM EST

Frankly, Pravin, I was shouting against the war. (none / 0)

I was in France when this war movement started. I had daily arguments with foreign friends there, a couple of whom said, "Bush must have SOME information to insist so." I told them that I was absolutely certain that Bush was a lying propagandist. Bush, as we all know now, was and is a lying propagandist.

Why did everyone running for President vote exactly as Hillary did? Your guess is as good as mine, but the simple fact that she is the front-runner or a woman ought not tempt us to punish or revile her MORE than we do others who made the same decision at the same time.

To me, the question is now, "Who can best get us out of this mess?" Consider this: Not one single US troop died after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the Bosnian Civil War, named after "Dayton" because the Accords were signed in Ohio after months of intense negotiations led by the Clinton Administration.

Now many people will say that there is no reason to give Hillary any credit whatsoever for a successfully ending the civil war that whose peace treaty was negotiated white she was in the White House. But is there another candidate running who has as much connection to the successful end of a civil was as Hillary does? Is there any candidate with someone MORE experienced at ending civil wars than Bill Clinton?

Hate and despise Hillary if you will, but Bill is the American who has the most senior experience and proven determination to end civil wars, in Bosnia and in Ireland. If you try to sideline Bill Clinton from his rightful peace roll, I certainly hope you are not successful because success at sidelining Bill might mean failure at ending the war as soon and as well as it could be ended.

by francislholland on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Trouble is Hilllary wasn't shouting (none / 0)

First of all, don't lump Hillary with OBama on the Iraq war vote. OBama didn't vote, but he opposed it all the same.

Passing off Bill's accomplishments onto Hillary is a dangerous precedent as every good PResident will rule by proxy for two terms as long as they have capable ambitious first wives. And if Hillary is her own person, then let's not give too much importance to Bill as President and see how he functioned as her adviser when she was a senator.

And her talk about Iraq has shown no indication that she learned from her mistakes. Bill and other CLintonites have shown that they were clueles on this issue for the entire decade. So these are the people in Hillary's inner circle and they endorse her need to overcompensate. We do not need a woman like that who feels the need to prove she has bigger balls than her husband.

And forget the polls. Right now the Republican party base is demoralized that they cannot find a candidate to root for. Hillary will definitely drive them to the polls at which point turnout will make your polls irrelevant.

by Pravin on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:37:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trouble is Hilllary wasn't shouting (none / 0)

Passing off Bill's accomplishments onto Hillary is a dangerous precedent

Absolutely. America thought it was getting a younger, but just a "prudent" version of George H.W. Bush -- and we were really, realy wrong.

You know, this view of historical apologies is truly disingenuous. Carter's Playboy interview cemented him as a man of Christian values which resulting in him beating the incumbant Ford in '76.

JFK apologized for the Bay of Pigs and Reagan apologized for lying about the Arms for Hostages deal -- and their popularity went up as a result.

It's one thing to doubt the sincerity of the apology -- and Kerry never seemed to get over that hurdle. Quite another to think that Americans are not moved by a true redemption story and act of contrition. Kerry never did the penance.

This diary is merely a cynical attempt to bash Edwards, nothing more, with cherry-picked historical analogies taken out of context.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:18:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trouble is Hilllary wasn't shouting (none / 0)

I might add that Kerry's "apology" wasn't an apology for how he voted, but for how talked about the vote on the $87 billion. Still, his poll numbers went up after that.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frankly, Pravin, I was shouting against the wa (none / 0)

"But is there another candidate running who has as much connection to the successful end of a civil was as Hillary does?"

YES, Bill Richardson.

"If you try to sideline Bill Clinton from his rightful peace roll, I certainly hope you are not successful because success at sidelining Bill might mean failure at ending the war as soon and as well as it could be ended. "

What Bull! Bill has "sidelined" himself. Why isn't he standing next to Al Gore as a senior statesman echoing Gore's call, Murtha and Biden's call, Vilsack's call and Edwards' call to end thins fiasco?

It's called leadership. Between trips with Bush Senior, which is outstanding and I don't intend here to disparage their excellent work on the tsunami and Katrina relief, you think Bill could fit in an appearance with Al Gore to call on all democrats to do all within their power to end the war?

Oh, no, that wouldn't be prudent.

feh! We can do better. Bill Clinton was fantastic, but what has he done for us lately?

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:37:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Sad but true. My mother-in-law, a retired auto-worker, just came out and said she thought Hillary was just "nasty" and didn't trust that "whatshisname guy." I asked, "Who, Barack Obama? Why?"

She didn't even know his name, nothing on the issues, nadda. Has no idea whatsoever where any of them stand on anything. I just left it hang because I knew that all she saw through her blinders was Barack's name and the color of his skin.

It's a shame, a crime really in the 21st century. But people like her never miss a vote, and vote for all the wrong reasons.

Mark Adams, Dispassionate Liberal

by Mark Adams on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:25:44 AM EST

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Edwards is doing particularly poorly in the North East. If he were (by some miracle) to get the nomination we would be facing major problem in several NE states. If we lose NY to the GOP, forget the entire thing, we don't stand a chance. Besides, polling shows us that Edwards does not resonate in the South AT ALL. Even his homestate does not give him a lift. Something about Edwards must turn many people off. We have tons of polls that all show Edwards far behind, doing badly in the "whale" states (i.e. Florida, California, NY) and in the South. Plus, his unfavorables are getting very high. Not a good position to be in. He still has time, but he has to come up with something different that gets people excited about him.

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:48:43 AM EST

Re: Does the American electorate reward apologies? (none / 0)

Why is every single one of your diaries a negative one about Edwards? Its like non-stop.

If you are a Clinton supporter as you claim to be, why not post a diary on why people should support her (beyond her gender)? Maybe you can acutally do that without attacking another candidate.

by okamichan13 on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 05:04:03 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.