why is obama more "electable" than edwards?

... midwest?

I still think that a massive mistake of the Kerry campaign was not to challenge the Republicans to defend their base. And I think that Edwards can better challenge the Republicans to defend NC, VA, MO, and if he picks Sebelius KS, and would be on the inside track to win IA and OH/KY. Or if he picked Warner have a serious prospect of winning both VA and NC.

I was another Deaniac in 2004 who's been inspired over the last 2 years by Edwards.

between Edwards and Obama. I can't see any of them ending up in the Clinton camp. The ones I know in Iowa are either for Edwards now or undecided.

Well, you'll have to make up your mind on that. But after watching or listening to nearly everything he's said over the last two years, I think it's safe to say that it's genuine. Remember, he's been working with unions and at the poverty center since 2005. This was before it really became politically popular to be a progressive. Bush had just won his supposed "mandate". And Edwards goes and.....walks picket lines with unions? I don't think it's something someone would be doing just for political expediency. Especially, not at that point in time. Unions have not been the most popular thing in Democratic circles (except at election time) since about 1984.

When you add it all up, I think Edwards comes across as someone who has grown a lot and thought a lot about his life (staring at the possibility or reality of the death of two of your loved ones will do that to a person) and what he wants this world to look like. I think his main change is that he now has a coherent vision for what this world should be. And the specificity of his policies derive from that worldview. And his rhetoric flows much more easily and isn't so contorted as I thought it was in 2004. He doesn't have to worry about doing the things to make him a  better candidate this time (as he says he did in 2004), because all that stuff flows naturally with his maturity and his coherent and progressive ideology.

People bad-mouth ideology like it's a dirty-word. But it sure as heck helps to have one if you want to speak from the heart and come across as "authentic".

Edwards found his ideology and his vision. It's a vision of a socially, economically, and environmentally just society and planet. Once he found that, everything else fell into place and I imagine it became a LOT easier for him to be a great candidate.

This is genuine. And that's why I think this is a once in a generation chance to elect a transformational president.

Nobody gets this close to the presidency and decides to take, what the media is calling, a 'left' turn, if they buy into the CW.  So Edwards disregards the Inside-the-Beltway claptrap about needing to be a 'moderate' to attract independent voters, and he runs on his principles - articulating strong liberal values...and explaining them to the American people in a way that resonates.  That's a win for Democrats and the progressive movement.

His political 'transformation' (he's also talked about and worked on economic and social justice issues - in a variety of forms) is as genuine as you can find.  He's found that if there is political expediency in the way he's acting now, it's in that being real and true to yourself - while being able to communicate that extremely well - makes for good, practical politics as well as making an impact on political discourse.  And thus the future of the country.

I've long held that John Edwards is not my favorite candidate because of what he is running on, but instead because he is the best candidate for our movement for the long-term.

The biggest single change, across the board, is in the scope of his policies. In 2004, he was in favor of reforming health care to help out the little guy. In 2004, though, it was not full blown universal health care, but a less ambitious proposal. In 2004, he was in favor of pursuing better Energy Independence. In 2004, however, there was no cap and reduce CO2 plan, so no $10b raised from auctioning CO2 emissions for jump-re-starting the R&D that Bush has sidetracked, and no 25% renewable electricity generation mandate on utilities.

In 2004, he trimmed his sail to fit his cloth. This time around, he is getting the cloth that the trip demands.

Great call.  Edwards is my guy.  But in the unfortunate event that he doesn't win, I can get behind Obama too (though less passionately).  

If Hillary wins the nomination though, my efforts will immediately focus much more locally on helping WI Democrats take back the assembly and hold the senate in 2008 (in addition to working on movement-building).

"This is precisely, in my opinion, why most of John Edwards supporters are backing him."

Well first of all you can see my comment posted up-thread to see why I support him.

Second of all,

"Unfortunately, those people happen to be his most ardent supporters."

You have absolutely no evidence to back this up. You have one comment from someone. Are they an ardent Edwards supporter? Is Edwards being white and male the only reason they're voting for him?

For someone who says they are working for the Edwards campaign, you sure do spend a lot of time criticizing him. Or at least criticizing the motives of people who support him.  

That has got to be one of the most bias statements going.  You might want to keep a watch on all the events coming up, the debates, the polls, and primaries, you maybe suprised.

With thinking like that, Edwards will win with no problem.

Most Edwards supporters support him because he's white and southern?

I haven't heard any Edwards supporter say that, and I honestly don't believe any Edwards supporter believes that.  Hopefully Obama doesn't pull the race card like you did.

The reason "most" people support Edwards is his truly progressive agenda.  Unlike Obama, Edwards has evolved positions in the right agenda.  Unlike Obama, Edwards believes Congress should withdrawl funding for the Iraq War.  Unlike Obama, Edwards wants to send the exact same bill back to Bush if he vetoes it.  And unlike Obama, Edwards can state his position without writing a 100-page thesis.

If you want race-baiting, join the Biden (aka "Obama is articulate") campaign.

I disagree with you.

Edwards got nearly a third of the delegates in Iowa in 2004 when there were no top-tier non-white or female candidates.

With only a couple of exceptions, everyone I know in Iowa who caucused for Edwards in 2004 plans to caucus for him again.

So no, their support is not based on fear or the belief that he is "safe." Talk to some of these longtime Edwards supporters, why don't you, to find out where they are coming from.

As for me, I backed Kerry in the 2004 caucuses. Edwards won me over in 2006 with his domestic political priorities: health care, strengthening labor unions, addressing poverty. This was before Obama even declared.

If Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano were running, I would have given them my serious consideration, but there was no chance in the world that I would ever support Hillary in the primary. Not just because I think she is unelectable, for many other reasons as well.

I think Barack would win, and probably Hillary too.  I just prefer John.

from someone who supposedly likes Edwards:

"This is precisely, in my opinion, why most of John Edwards supporters are backing him. John Edwards is "safe" because he's a white male and being from the South does not hurt."

Most? Really? Do you really think most of his supporters only like because he is "white male" and "safe"?

I find that extremely offensive.

Now, I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't think this is the case - at all. IF Edwards were all about ' safety', then he would be running a far different campaign. Edwards is running, IMO, the most distinctive campaign.

There are plenty of reasons why Edwards supporters would be for him...him being a White male is down on the list, IMO.

Patently false.  Many of my best One Corps volunteers for Edwards right now are female.  The just don't think Hillary is the best candidate - and they geuninely love John Edwards.  I know of exactly zero Edwards supporters who would rank his 'safeness' as among even their top three reasons for supporting John.

Without evidence, you claim that those who think a woman or black cannot be elected President are John Edwards' most ardent suporters.  

Bullshit.  

That may fit your worldview, what you want to believe, but it is false.  SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE.  

I support John Edwards because he is to the left of Obama and Clinton.  Barbara Ehrenreich supports Edwards for the same reason.    

I expect more of this as Obama falls in the polls.  Edwards has eclipsed Obama in New Hampshire in the most recent poll.  I fond Obama too pro-business, too centrist.  Isn't it possible people want economic populism?

Of course, there is the fact that Edwards has explicitly said that people looking to support him because he is not black should move along, but then you may say "in your opinion" he is saying that but doesn't mean it, and then the charge is still laying out there.

I could reply, "in my opinion, you beat your spouse", challenging you to disprove a charge for which there is no evidence. But responding to that kind of argument with another of the same kind is not appropriate.

All I can do is offer one case study, and hope that the accumulation of case studies over the next nine months will establish that, yes, there are far more substantial reasons for the support of most strong Edwards supporters.

The fact is that if Edwards was running on the same cautious, baby steps in the right direction policies as he did in 2004, and as Obama would seem to be doing now, I would not have been a committed suporter, I would have been a leaner.

And if Obama, in that hypothetical alternate-reality, came out with support for Energy Independence and called the global warming the greatest moral challenge of our time, and backed it up with a real plan, and called for Universal health care and backed it up with a real plan ... I'd switch.

But that's an alternate reality. Obama is the one with the cautious baby steps in the direction indicated by much grander rhetoric, and Edwards is the one who has broken free of the professional campaign adviser mindset and asked the questions of what we need to do and what are some ways we can get there.

I got it.  It reminded me of that episode from the last season of The West Wing when the Santos campaign was trying to figure out how to use the nuclear reactor shutdown against Vinick.  The came up with: "Santos.  Right from the start."

So, write a diary about Obama.  Too many whiners.

And yet, according to the last straw poll, a plurality are Obama supporters. His supporters need to do more first hand accounts of going to see Obama at events, especially smaller events, so we get a chance to see what he is like at a smaller events.

John and Elizabeth Edwards have a similar town-hall meeting planned at Roosevelt High School. I assume he'll cover the same ground for the most part.

Feel free to post on BB.