The first question:

Are you paid by Edwards campaign? Do you have any financial link with Edwards campaign? Any mean any, salary, event organization fees, consulting fees etc.

Please disclose to us, then we can decide whether to take your opinion seriously.

Nice diary.  Thanks.

I see you have met the local Clinton troll.  Just ignore her.  

I like the tagline "John Edwards First and often Only"

I support Hillary Clinton.  She is far and away the most qualified to lead our country.  As far as Iowa goes, John Edwards better win there or his political career is over.  He doesn't have any strength anywhere else; which I find amazing considering how long he has been campaigning.  

As for polls, you cannot discount all the national polls and then claim the head-to-head polls (for the general) have any clout.  The bottom line is that John Edwards has the support of 11 to 15 percent of the electorate nationally, and very low numbers in most of the states.  How is he going to fix that?    

He has to knock out Obama.  If he is able to do that, which is a stretch at best, he will be face to face with Hillary, who has been working for the American people before anyone even heard of John Edwards.  

And no, I am not a troll for Hillary anymore than anyone here (including the diarist) is a troll for John Edwards.

Yes, John Edwards gets that we need to reclaim the party from the DINOS and return it to it's core values of standing up for economic opportunity and social justice.  He is running as the repesentative of working society.  He is running to be "a lobbyist for those who have no lobbyist".  He has joined the progressive movement that now is a majority movement.  It's just that the Republican lite Democrats haven't caught on.  The people are far ahead of them.

The guy will eat Rudy Guiliani for lunch.  I lived in NYC.  Rudy is a ghoul. Zippo charisma or communicating skills.

First major candidate to call for closing of Gitmo.

First major candidate to call for rejection of the Korea trade pact.

First major candidate to call for allowing for gay family immigration (Obama and Clinton say they support this now but arent not currently sponsors of the Senate bill).

I did not think he did so great in the last debate.  The biggest soundbite that came from it was from Obama with a slam on him.  His "I don't know what a rich person is" was immediately ridiculed.  Edwards did not do well in the dabate against Cheney in the last election so I don't have much confidence in any one-on-one debates with him.

The reason why I consider general election polls to be far more credible than national polling is because when they poll general election match ups (especially Rasmussen who does it quite often) they are pretty good at filtering those who are not likely to vote in a general election. Far more people vote in a general election than in a primary.

The national primary polling often includes far too many casual Democrats who are not likely to attend a caucus or vote in a primary. From what I have seen casual Democrats tend to support Hillary Clinton.  This is probably because they think that they are supposed to support her.  Many Democrats have an emotional attachment to her because of the huge deal that was made of the Lewinsky/Impeachment scandal. All of watched both of the Clintons get hit far too hard, for far too long, for all of the wrong reasons. I have some serious issues with Senator Clinton but none of them have to do with her gender, which appears to be the source of some of the GOP hatred for her.

If anything National Polling seems to register name ID. The names that the respondents are most familiar with are the names that they are most likely to give. I could be wrong about this but I think that this is part of the reason why Clinton and Giuliani have such a large lead in national polls. Personally, I think that if there was a polling firm that could somehow eliminate all responses from those who are not going to participate in their primary/caucus the national polls would look something kind of like...

Obama - 27%
Clinton- 27%
Edwards - 20%
Richardson - 6%
Biden - 4%
Dodd - 2%
Kucinich - 2%
Gravel - 1%
Unsure - 11%

Give or take a few points.  

lot of the support for all candidates seems pretty fluid right now.  As the issues and electability become more important I believe that John Edwards will do even better. He is already seeing increasing support in states like Oklahoma (where he is tied), Kansas, Georgia, and Florida (where polls are all over the place, but one showed him ahead).  

My point is that if you consider that...

1 - National polling is not very good at eliminating those who are not going to be a factor.

2 - How fluid the support is.

3 - The drastic changes that took place in the national polling in 2004, 1992, and 1988 in the final weeks leading up to, and especially after, Iowa and New Hampshire.

You see that national polling is not worth a whole lot.  The media wants to be able to give their audience some kind of indicator.  This is part of the reason why they focus so much on fundraising reports. But the media is not concerned with whether or not those indicators are accurate or not.

Like I said before I am not the only one who feels this way.  Even though their networks was not very happy with them doing so Candy Crowley, Mike Murphy, and Lynn Sweet (sp?) all mentioned this in the last week.

They did say, however, that statewide polling in the early states is more reliable.  Especially if it has been consistent. An example that was used - John Edwards in Iowa.

Why do you think that both rival campaigns have "Iowa memos" that at the very least bring up the consequences of skipping Iowa?

John Edwards was not the first and only Democrat to vote to get into the damn war in the first place. He was one of many to do so, unfortunately. He was not the first and only to buy Bush's crap on Iraq without actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, unfortunately he was one of many on that one, too.

Edwards only started talking big on Iraq after he left the Senate and didn't have the power to do anything. I might still vote for him, but that doesn't set him apart from Clinton or Obama for me.

We'll I disagree with a lot of what you said but I reced you anyways. It's good to get real writing shown off.

Here some of the stuff that I disagree with.

1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to publicly support the 2006 Kerry - Feingold amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (both Obama and Clinton voted against it).

He also wasn't in the Senate.

In reality, since late 2005, Edwards has been demonstrating leadership on the issue of ending the war. On three of the most important Iraq related issues, Kerry-Feingold, cutting of funds for the surge, and the recent vote in the Senate, John Edwards showed leadership while Senator Obama played it safe, even though his early opposition to the war gave him the moral authority to lead.  

In reality, that's when John Edwards was not in the senate had no more say then anyone of us who have opposed the war from the beginning.

1st major candidate to support Jim Webb's Iran legislation.

Again, you can't support legislation unless you're in the Senate. We'll you can, but it doesn't matter anymore then the rest of the majority of Americans who don't want an Iran war.

1st candidate to release a substantive, truly Universal Health Care plan.

Dennis Kucinich?

1st candidate to release a comprehensive plan for Energy Independence / to combat Global Warming.

Again, Dennis Kucinich?

1st and only major candidate who was no support on K Street and is doing nothing to change that. Edwards is not accepting lobbyist money while other candidates, like Senator Obama, pledge to take no lobbyist money but their  finance team contacts the spouses of lobbyists and urge them to give money to the campaign.

There has been no proof of that ever happening. It might have, but really who cares? Just because you are married to a lobbyist doesn't make you a bad person, you're not lobbying for anyone so why does it matter. It's just a smear.

Great and welcome to Mydd, glad to have you here.

Edwards is my choice for 2008.

for the Edwards Nightly ROundup for tomorrow on Dkos..keep you eyes on the site around 7 est and you will see it published under my name. Come join the fun.

During the N.H. debates, John Edwards commended Barack Obama for joining him in releasing a detailed healthcare plan and then went on to say he was proud to be the first candidate to do so. The problem, however, is that neither claim is true. First, Edwards was not first to release a detailed plan, as Dennis Kucinich had already co-drafted and introduced legislation outlining a detailed plan long before him. More significantly, though, it would be a major challenge for anyone to consider either the Edwards or Obama plan as "detailed"; both plans containing so much gray area that they raise critical questions more than providing answers.

Both plans provide no hard figures on their websites for prospective supporters to consult, even though Obama finds it appropriate to provide one figure: wildly he claims his plan will save families $2500 a year without any corroborating figures to support this. What's worse is both plans make sweeping claims like the ability to provide affordable coverage to all citizens, the guarantee of controlling private insurance companies from rating patients and denying coverage, a network for consumers to obtain fair premium rates and deductibles and as alluded to above, a community rating that will once again establish the pooling of risk that the for-profit, private insurance system has undermined and virtually destroyed.

  Again, the problem is neither candidate tells us how they will do this. How will they prevent the private insurance companies from rating patients, as insuring lower risk clients and denying coverage or charging significantly higher rates for the sick is the only way to actually pursue profit in the insurance industry. They very conveniently call their coverage "comprehensive" without citing any figures, rates or even criteria for evaluating such things. That is, they don't tell us what will qualify as "comprehensive": it could be $5,000 deductible for all we know. Further, they gloss over significant details, eg: Obama briefly mentions "participating" providers in one sentence in the whole plan, without telling us the criteria here either. Participating providers means a network, so now we are talking about some people having to change physicians that they have established critical relationships with and the possibility of long travel or waiting lines (see: rationing)  for access to these participants. And then there is the complete neglect of one of the most crucial areas in need of reform: the interference of private insurance companies interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, influencing medical decisions in the name of profit.

  Edwards and Obama avoid the simplest and most sensible solution. They avoid standing up for the American people, in the name of what should be a citizen's basic right: access to healthcare. They avoid doing what the majority of other developed nations, from Canada to much of Europe, have already done to ensure care and well being to all of their citizens. They avoid making the most economically sound decision, by enabling the U.S. to spend less each year on healthcare while proving all citizens with comprehensive coverage. They avoid doing away with for-profit, private insurance. But, why?

 One has to wonder what good reason there is not to convert to a single payer, not for-profit healthcare system. We spend 2.2 trillion dollars a year on healthcare, twice as much as any other country, and yet we do not get better care. Study after study finds us lacking here. There are 45 million+ Americans who are without any coverage and 50 million+ who are underinsured: half of all bankruptcies being related to healthcare and 3 out of every 4 of these bankruptcies had health insurance! They were underinsured, many not even knowing so until the time of need came. And yet we spend 2.2 trillion? That's because of the 30% waste. Take 30% of 2.2 trillion dollars and put it towards healthcare and you solve the problem.
This is the system that Dennis Kucinich has proposed, the only Democratic Candidate to do so. His co-sponsored bill, HR676, has already been introduced to Congress and gained the support of over 60 Reps., various Unions and healthcare professionals. The plan extends the non-profit Medicare system to all, using only 3% for administration. The Dean study found that 95% of families would save money by switching to this system. The average family premium is currently about $3,000, under HR676 it is only around $1,900. No more co-pays, no more not denial of coverage, free choice of provider for comprehensive medical coverage; including dental, vision and psychiatric. This is not socialized medicine, only government single payer insurance. The doctors are still private.

 And what about costs? The current healthcare system is clearly unable to control costs. The rise in health costs has been astronomical in the last ten years. Only a single payer system can accomplish this by cutting out the overhead, setting rates fairly and according a national budget, and by being the only healthcare insurer, having enough clout to actually control the costs of pharmaceuticals. Really, the reason that single payer makes the most sense is because it makes the most financial sense. Not only are we spending less as a country, not only are 95% of families saving money, but businesses also save by not having to pay for employees, which has taken its toll on American companies unable to compete with foreign companies who have single payer systems. GM reports that the cost of healthcare adds an extra $1,500 to the price of each car.

 Edwards and Obama propose a Medicare-like program that would compete with the private insurers, adding that the market may then "evolve" into a single payer system similar to the one I've just described. But, what they don't mention is how unlikely this would be. In fact, the government program is bound to fail in this competition since the private companies are going to insure the healthy and let the government cover the sick and thus spiral in costs. This is against the whole idea of risk pooling which is the reason we have insurance in the first place. They say they won't allow this, but don't tell us how. They say that the competition between the private plans and the public ones will work to drive prices down, but they leave this ominously vague as well. Consider that under their systems anyone content with their present coverage can choose to stay on that plan. Consider, further, that if there are "competing" plans there must necessarily be some difference between them and the difference will either be in cost or coverage. And this will lead to an either/or situation of either low cost, but undercovered or unaffordable coverage. Neither option solves our problems.

Doesn't it strike anyone as somewhat strange that the guy has been running for 5 years now? If he was really so interested in social change, why didn't he work for it directly, ala Al Gore? Obama worked on social justice and poverty issues BEFORE running for office. What did Edwards do? He made a shit ton of money. Money is fine, but while he was busy doing this, did he also take time to work on a grassroots level? No, because his interest in poverty has never been genuine, and is motivated entirely by political expediency.

Edwards is fooling you now the way that McCain fooled you in 2000.

Barack Obama is the only true progressive on the democratic ballot, and despite his alleged lack of experience, he is the only one besides Al Gore who had the presence of mind to call Iraq an idiocy when both Edwards and Clinton were busy authorizing the use of force WITHOUT EVEN READING THE DAMN INTELLIGENCE REPORT!!!

I am really appalled by how easily the blogosphere has been wooed by Edwards and his bullshit. If he looses now, and the country shifts to the right again, he will run in four years as a "centrist" or a "moderate" or whatever else is expedient. There is absolutely nothing genuine about him. And your long list of firsts is, by the way, a long list of things Edwards did to please you, and not because of any personal conviction.

1. John Edwards is the most "electable."

This argument is basicly based on witchcraft. It is absolutely impossible to look at current national polls or head to head match-ups and accurately determine who the most electable Democrat will be in 2008. This is the sort of thinking that got us John Kerry in 2004, and it's nonsense. You can spill some chicken guts on the ground and read all kinds of omens in the way the entrails fall... but it means nothing. The plain fact is that all three TT candidates will likely be the next President if they are the nominee--even Hillary Clinton.

2. John Edwards "best represents our values."

Barack Obama best represents my values. And I suspect the reason you think Edwards best represents "our" values is that he is clearly the most poll driven candidate in this race. If you want to know Edwards position on any issue just check the latest polls. He voted for the war when that was popular among Democrats, started to oppose it when that became popular among Democrats, called for cutting the funds when that became popular among Democrats... etc.

I have no doubt that if Edwards is the nominee he will be the next President. I also have no doubt that he will be far better than what we have now. But will he make the best President of the choices we have before us? Not even close. The last thing we want is a President sitting in the oval office who checks the polls of Democratic or popular opinion before every decision. We need a President who has a mind of his own and has the ability to see the big picture.

We need Barack Obama.

What truly bothers me is the dishonesty lodged in his apology for his mistake.  We now know the NIE report was available to him, a report by our own people which seriously questioned the existence of WMDs, the connection to Al-Qiada, and the imminent threat.  He seeks to brush over his vote by saying it was a mistake without detailing what the mistake was.  He said in the last debate he was fully briefed and didn't need to read the report.  He said in the first debate he should have trusted his intincts more.  These admissions, far from soothing me, just makes the issue more troubling.  

I'm for another candidate, true.  But at the end of the day I'm a Democrat and will be voting for a Democrat and electability was raised in this thread.  So, please, I would like an answer - knowing what we know know, if his intincts were otherwise and he was fully informed, how does someone make a speech the day after September 11th, 2002, and say these words by mistake?

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

You said:

Edwards was also the 1st candidate to call for Lieberman to drop out of the race.

WRONG!

Bill Richardson was the first to call on Joe Lieberman to drop out of the race.