The more I hear JE's campaign, the less I like it.

It's simplistic to the extreme. At the moment its: 1. I am a candidate for change; 2. I will fight for it (with every fiber of my being) 3. It's personal - I've been fighting the (big)corporations all my life. 4. I'm not going to negotiate, I'll punch them out.

There is a fine collection of policies on his site, but his stump message is ... simple, real simple. Give examples of tragedy, then say that's why he's fighting. Say you will take them all on. Trippi's gone over the top.

How signaling your punches to every entrenched interest on the horizon makes sense is beyond me. They have all the bullets. A finance blackout after clinching the nomination, while everyone you've threatened loads ups and fires. I don't understand the strategy, if there is one.

Who just uses #1

All 'change' chants and no specifics.

or someone who died or a mill doesn't mean he doesn't talk about specifics. He does. Maybe you should listen to him instead of just listening to people talking about him.

They are exciting and inspirational to me and from what I can tell many others. Candidates are never elected on laundry lists. Candidates win by connecting to the emotions of the voters. Most candidates knowing this connect to the emotions of fear
and greed. Every once in a while a candidate comes along that that connects to the best that we are. That candidate for
our time is Obama. He raises the political discourse high above the muck of our current political dynamic. This is
why now more than ever we need to elect him to the Presidency.

He must be doing something right.

Use the Bully Pulpit of the Presidency and you can flatten the power brokers.

the difference between Edwards and the other two is that he DOES have tolerably Democratic policies to back it up, while the other two are basically moderate repukes

Of the top three Democrats Edwards actually has more substance to his standard speech than the other two. For example, he categorically states that he will withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within the first year.

It's not good strategy. I don't think he'll get far with it. JMHO...

it's something that hasn't been heard for a long time. It's a message well suited to a severe recession, something I hope we don't see any time soon.

He also should point out that he has laid out his policy on issues in more detail than Clinton and Obama.

With a closed mind, it's hard to really hear anything.

What Edwards wants for America really is pretty simple: a fair chance for all, not based on class, race, or gender. An equal playing field. The same opportunity to achieve the American dream that everyone else has.

John has been fighting the big corporations all his life, and he's not indebted to them by taking donations from them. So, when he's President, he can sit down unencumbered and cut a new deal for the American people. The status quo will not like it, because things are going pretty well for them the way things are. Only the little guys are the ones suffering.

And once nominated, the American people will support Edwards with donations because they will finally see he is the only hope we really have for change.

The GOP will rip Clinton and Obama to shreds, which is why the media is covering every breath they take, while ignoring Edwards. The corporate owned media wants Edwards to go away, and that should show the rest of us the way to go is clear: Edwards for President.

General Electric owns NBC and is raking in a fortune with its military contracts. The profits on those contracts are huge. Why would they cut their own throats? War is great for big companies like GE, so it's not too much of a stretch to see that they are censoring what they report on NBC, instead offering up their own propaganda.

After all, they aren't breaking any laws by doing so, they have no obligation to report the truth, all sides of the story, or anything else.

Follow the money, do the math, and keep an open mind while doing so. All the clues are there for you to see.

So why would they not put their maximum effort into defeating him in the general election?

And corporate interests do not equal what's good for the American people.

Which is why we have AT&T spying on us, and charging the government huge fees for each connection, plus a maintenance fee to maintain that connection, just so our conversations can be recorded.

Nice.

His campaign message is framed horribly.

his message of change - and the plans to back up that change - make Edwards the only choice if you don't like the status quo.

And, whoever the Dem candidate is, they still must defeat the GOP machine to win the White House. Edwards is the only Dem candidate that consistently beats EVERY Republican in this area.

Edwards is the only choice.

I actually love the message all 3 are sending. I just love his the most.

And I can JUST imagine Edwards supporters rushing to tell me that voters are just too stupid to "get" Edwards. They are sheep being lead by the media.

Edwards' policy proposals aren't all that radically different than Hillary's or Obama's.

What's different is his emphasis on corporations and how he presents that message. Exit polls showed his economic message was a turn off.

it's entertaining, but it has limited appeal. Lots of people either aspire to work in corporations or actaully are employed by them; JE doesn't make a whole lot of sense to these folks. What's true is that coporate power is unaccountable and we need a stronger and more active government to guard against corporate excess. With Clinton and especially Obama in his way, Edwards has been forced to take the red meat route. It has been good for the overall discussion (i.e. keeping the more mainstream campaigns responsive to the real sense of desperation that many people feel) but it's a loser for him.

Edwards= Life sucks/buy me to feel better

at least according to the polls

That doesn't mean the message is wrong, it might mean people aren't ready for it

He got years before having to face the electorate.

A WINNER!! Sheeple, IMHO!!

Go, Johnny, GOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

The problem isn't the voters.

It's the messenger and how he puts his message across.

even if they won't say it publicly.

I'd like to believe that, but I rightfully have some trust issues. It's reassuring to hear it from Edwards and Kucinich - even though the likelihood of overthrowing entrenched interests is about equal among all four (not very likely).

I only trust Dennis to go after Bushco for their crimes.

by locking them into deals under the glare of publicity. Clinton - I have no idea. My best hope is that she will be looking for revenge.

and I admit this is a bit irrational...

is that it reminds me of Gore's 2000 campaign, which was horrible (check my avatar, I love gore, but the campaign was terrible).

Here's a quote for those of you too young to remember:

''If you want someone who will fight for you,'' Mr. Gore said, ''and who will fight for the middle-class families and working men and women who are sick and tired of having their parents and grandparents pay higher prices for prescription drugs than anybody else, then I want to fight for you.''

But it was still a wretched campaign

who owns the corporation?


There is no single owner of course. The profits go to the "owners", and who are they?

You and me as shareholders, either directly or through retirement plans, etc.

great idea, destroying corporations.







"