Why is John Edwards not doing better?

Is it simply that Obama and Hillary are better candidates? Or that they have better messages? Or that they are simply better at communicating?

Or do many folks see him as fake or insincere when he talks about the "mills" and growing up poor, when his present life is the direct opposite? Oh, he gets those $400 dollar haircuts and lives in one of the biggest houses in NC. Is it that his message of populism seems contrived?

In my opinion, he has over-weighted his populism message, which is a winner and a message that the American people are ready to accept. However, Edwards has over-emphasized this populism, and would do better to talk about the lives of others than about his own poor upbringing, in my opinion.

Also, as Feingold pointed out, his message and issues now are quite different than when he was in the Senate. They question his sincerity. Personally, I think Edwards is very sincere about his beliefs, whether they have come about recently or not, and that his life's experiences, including Elizabeth's health, are guiding his present path.

and that, I think, was his problem last time, too.


Bill Clinton was slick, but also had a likeable charm that Edwards seems to lack.

that's just your opinion. I don't find him very honest at all - he's running a platform that markedly different from his record.

on a lot of critical fronts.

Labor? Right-to-work(for less) was never attacked by JE on the state level. He only makes symbolic gestures against it on a national level, but he never opposed it on his home turf of NC. And rightly so, he would have never made it very far because NC is very much a right-winger's paradise.

Peace? IWR is only one point. I would add that NC is the mercenary capital of the world. JE is a native NC'er. Has JC ever been against military-industrial complex in the past? Close down some of those big NC military bases, maybe? How 'bout SOA (aka School of Assassins, or Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, now located at Fort Benning, GA), JE will dodge the SOA question altogether.

Cuba solidarity? He won't dodge, you get a totally blank look out of JE on this issue. Actually, all the 3 Dems currently avoid Cuba policy statements, but JE will put on his best vapid, empty stare on this one.

JE puts on a mediocre talk show, it bores me very quickly, and I see no substance in his messages.

A lot of people don't see her as sincere either.

Although, slick isn't exactly the right word for Hillary Clinton - she's seen as calculating.

This is not a dig, merely pointing out that Edwards is not the only one with perceived likability and credibility issues. On the whole, I think Edwards is far more likable and a better speaker than Hillary Clinton.

to say Edwards isn't doing better because people don't see him as sincere isn't completely on the mark because H. Clinton does well even though people don't see her as sincere.

So, if it is perceived sincerity, that's only part of the picture, otherwise Clinton would not be doing so well.

I think it's a lot of things. From the very beginning, the media wanted a two person race Clinton vs. Obama. It's a fascinating dynamic - a woman vs. an African American. One of the most well known people in Washington vs. the "young" idealistic newcomer. The only way it would have been better is if Obama was a governor.

Edwards doesn't fit into the mix. He's not new and fresh, but he's not a powerhouse either. There's nothing particularly of interest about him. So, he ups the intensity of the message.

On to the message. It's a little bitter, a little harsh. If some one is middle class, they may not connect with Edwards, and may resent being grouped in with poor people. Or, they may see his lifestyle, his voting record and think there's a disconnect. Maybe. Or maybe Edwards is merely human and feels the conflicts we all do in wanting to enjoy the fruits of our labor, but feeling for those who are not as well of as we are. But, because of his message, his lifestyle and voting record get additional scrutiny and cause him to be judged by a tougher standard.

He never really had a chance. I wish I were more optimistic about his chances. I wish I felt more confident that 01-20-09 really will be a grand day.

There is nothing wrong with John Edwards. Imagine what would happen to any excellent product without positive exposure? What if Pepsi cut its ad budget by 90% and was criticized on news shows, print and radio EVERY DAY, what do you think would happen to sales? I think it is AMAZING that he is doing as well as he is considering the climate he is working in. I was glad to see that he would be on David Letterman next week-Where is Colbert and Stewart? Have they ever had him on? We should start pressuring these shows to have him on. Bill Maher is the only one who has tried to give him positive exposure.

Edwards' exposure is about commensurate with his results.

Of course the candidates with 40% get more exposure than those with 15%, or 2%.

IIRC, he didn't talk a lot about his upbringing other than to say that he came from a place called Hope, which was understood as code for having grown up poor. And you KNOW Bill grew up as a member of the lower/lower middle class. Playing saxophone, eating at McDonald's... all these things resonated with people and were understood as sort of a camaraderie with the people. Especially following the patrician elitism of Bush pere.

When Bill first busted onto the scene, did people think he was that slick? Or was it only after a few years in office that even Dems started using the tag "Slick Willie?" :shrug:

I think all Edwards sells is his rhetoric, and people are wary of that, myself included. I feel like I'm the only person who remembers that Edwards campaigned as a whole different person in 2004. Some here would argue that he's since had a great political awakening with his wife's illness, but here's my problem with that:

If having grown up the son of a millworker didn't imbue him with a progressive ethos, then he's a morally shallow person.

If having been duped by the BFEE didn't imbue him with a progressive ethos, then he's a morally shallow person.

Tacky as it may be to say, if his son's death didn't imbue him with a progressive ethos, then he's a morally shallow person.

I think he's shown himself to be a person who has routinely shown bad judgment in office, and even a great moral awakening in the last four years doesn't change that. :shrug:

Most people want to be on the "winning team" ~ not only Hillary's or Obama's, but the team that's NOT poor and downtrodden. Even many technically in that category don't want to think of themselves that way. Edwards does need to broaden his message.

a lot of people remember him in that VP debate in 2004 with Cheney where he did absolutely nothing to take Cheney down.

He was a real let down then.

that he is not popular. I guess Hillary and Obama are taking the lion's share and Edwards just comes in 3rd.

They both look like they were manufactured in a politician factory.

Well sometimes when you see Dean too, he looks like plastic sometimes

:P

Life sucks=buy me is not a positive method.

And it was clear Hillary would be running as a Centrist. So Edwards' only real choice was to try being a Populist.

Might have worked if he didn't use such negative messaging.

Further, why would you trust his sincerity? Remember he was willing to manipulate people using the story of his dead son.

He is a politician playing the game just as Hillary and Obama.

it wouldn't matter, the "greedy corporate America sucks" message would work like a charm. But people mostly still have jobs and homes, they are just much less secure than in the past.

Overall, people respond much better to positive messages and campaigns, see Reagan and Clinton. The modern era of "vote for us or you'll die from the terra-ists" is an anomaly, and appears to have run its course.

I give him mad props for acknowledging corporate fascism, and making it central to his campaign. He's a little light, however, on specific, positive remedies. I love, however, the way he says Big Insurance shouldn't get a seat at the table when it comes to universal coverage.

He's a politician, all right, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to equate him with the rest.

and the poor. Obviously nothing wrong with the idea, but in the wake of 9/11, the Iraq invasion and bush's first term, I don't think the main concern of the majority of voters, even Dem voters, was helping the poor.

It seems like in 2008 he decided he would run as the 2004 Howard Dean, only more polished and disciplined. That may have been a winner if it weren't for the historic candidacies of Obama and Clinton.

John Edwards if favored for what he says, but Obama and Hillary are favored for who they are, and that means change. (Even though the media is ridiculing that word, it's still a very good one.)

John Edwards message is being blocked by the media!!!!!!I never heard Feingold point out that this opinion. Please reference my good Senators remarks-much appreciated.

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

time as they do other candidates,to get his message out.He is more of a threat to the corporations and big oil than the other top candidates .....And the only candidate that doesn't have corporate campaign money.
You could ask the same question about Dennis Kucinich...same reason..

:thumbsup: I wonder why this isn't obvious too all? :shrug:

voters place far, far more emphasis on retail politics and local media than on the MSM. And he didn't do well enough in either state to really give his campaign a boost.

from the other two. Folks are voting who they think is likely to advance, and he's been consistently portrayed as unable to win. An, don't forget, he's not had but a fraction of the exposure in the press as the other two.

<http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D>

Some don't like superdelegates so they refuse to acknowledge they exist, but.... they vote and they count toward the total.

Seriously, you want the root of almost all large-scale problems we face today, there you have it. Economy. War. Wealth inequality. Health care. Election fraud. No accountability. Waste. Consumption. Environmental destruction. Media with a Republican, pro-corporate message. All education issues. Mainstream culture that gets more vapid and empty-headed by the year.

It all comes back to unbridled corporatism. We have a government dictated by the corporations, for the corporations that benefits solely the wealthy that run them and that shit has to stop at ONCE.

Someone needs to stop throwing blank checks at Big (Insert Sector Here). They had their gravy train under the whiskey-button-pusher Failure Fuhrer. That's OVER. Enough is enough.

that showed he's gained 5% nationally? Wasn't there a fundraiser only yesterday, that netted thousands of dollars just here on DU, and possibly millions in total?

I sure hope the country starts "not doing better" in the way you've defined the phrase.

the one where you have to donate to receive a free gift.....lol!

now thats a first.

the free gift wasn't what got people to donate. It was a nice gesture by another DUer but many people had donated before that post.

I wasn't even aware of the "free gift" until now. :shrug:

I think there are many things that didn't bounce Senator Edwards way...didn't turn out as he expected and now the problems are compounding. He needed a win in Iowa and it didn't happen and since then the campaign has slowly lost both drive and focus. But again, I think he's more a victim of circumstance than a bad politician or with the wrong message.

This country is in political flux right now. Democrats are very much that way as people want change, they just don't know what change. Edwards attempts to speak a populist message would work well if he was challenging a party incumbent, but in this race, he's third on a match. He's not Hillary...who is always going to attract corporate media attention. Obama has always had the "fresh kid" narrative that caught Edwards...and many other of us...by surprise as he had a far stronger ground organization than expected. This tapped into a lot of the independents who Edwards was banking on to beat Clinton. It was a calculated risk, but one he lost and has had to play a game of catch-up ever since.

Many politicians change over time as events and their own situations warrant. I imagine many here who revere Al Gore wouldn't have felt the same way about him back in the 80s when he was against abortion and Tipper was running the PMRC. The problem with a populist message in this election cycle is it works best when the country is on a political even keel...when there's a real vacuum of power...instead we are in a very polarized time and people aren't certain if they want change as much as "normalcy".

Whomever takes over on 1-20-09 will have a big mess to clean up. Ideals won't be as important as the ability of moving mountains in restoring diplomacy that gets our troops out of Iraq, deals with an economy in shambles and many other crisis. They won't haev the luxuary of pushing programs or agendas as so much of the time will be fixing and restoroing functionality to the government. I don't think Senator Edwards has sold that case and...while he has the ideas and ideals...people don't see him as being able to pull it off.

Cheers...

Thanks. :-)

:hi:

Edwards latter-day populism doesn't sell, and sounds insincere, coming from a multi-millionaire, IMO.

which is more fun for the press too. way to not make it a slam dunk in Nov, i'm afraid and give the reporters a change to cover something "historic". plus they are pwned. Doh!

When I think of someone bringing this country together, I don't think of someone that angry. And also, as far as being 'slick' goes, what has HE got to be angry about? He's got a right to gripe about anything he wants--and there's plenty to choose from--but all the stuff he gripes about (poverty, jobs etc.) sure isn't anything HE'S suffering from. And that makes me question the sincerity of his feelings.

Edited to add:

Also, He's never really talked about the middle east--and I can't even get a picture in my head of him with, say, the King of Jordan, or a Saudi prince, or somebody. We know we're going to have to deal with those folks--at least Nancy's etc. been to Syria. I'd like to see more of how he'd deal with them--he sure can't approach them in that angry fashion!

:hi:

who has negotiated probably hundreds of cases in his life time. He IS a good negotiator, and he has gone up against the best lawyers. I would think that a representative from a country would not have all that negotiating experience under their belt.

zalinda

...quite a dfferent definition of 'negotiating' than he does. Anger can always be a last resort; I'm not sure it's a good first one, or only one--and, once shown, it's hard to backtrack.

session angry, he knows better. I'm sure he is much better at hiding his hand than all the other candidates. He never walked into a courtroom or negotiating room without knowing everything he could about the situation. He didn't become successful by accident.

zalinda

Read my post (later in the thread) for how he should act, and see an alternative to this pantywaist "bring us together" crap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2718151&mesg_id=2718477

Well it FEELS good to get good and angry but, in the end, that's not what WORKS the best. I like Obama's ideas about community organizing; like it or not, we're all Americans and there is any number of issues around which we might have to suddenly work together. That's going to be a heck of a lot easier if we don't work so hard to demonize the other side. Obama shows you can oppose without the divisiveness.

over for corporate interests when they began challenging the New Deal programs. Oh, wait...

Screw that. FDR told the elites to fuck off and threatened to pack the Supreme Court if they didn't go along with the New Deal. Guess what? They backed down and FDR and the Dems got the programs needed to put people back to work.

You want compromise? How the heck do you compromise with people who really in truly honestly think you are evil and commiting a sin by even voting for a Dem? How do you compromise with people who think that we must destroy the Middle East to keep "them" from coming to this country and slitting your throat while you sleep? How do you compromise with people who think that raising the minimum wage takes money away from them even though they themselves are only in the lower middle class?

Those are the kinds of people who support republicans. Those are actually things I've been told by repubs I know. You want to compromise with that? Go ahead. I'll stick with the angry candidates.

And in my opinion Edwards isn't "angry" enough too suit me. :mad:

The way that Republicans and the corporations have screwed us over should make all of us very angry. The rich are getting richer (undeservedly) and the poor continue to get poorer. Those of us in between are only a month or two away from homelessness because the damn corporations have stolen our jobs, ruined the health care system, and run this country into the ground.

I find Edwards to be refreshingly honest and an ANGRY voice we need.

"ya think FDR meant it?"

That is how a friend addressed this issue. I really don't care what Edwards thinks as long he keeps on saying what he's saying. It is a message long absent from our discourse, the issue of class.

they have wanted a two-person race. Even when Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa they gave him scant attention going into NH and concentrated on the candidates they wanted. I'm not trying to say Clinton and Obama are corporate candidates what I'm saying is that the media likes the idea of the first AA vs. the first female candidate and Edwards being in the thick of it would have sullied that up.

I was sitting behind two Republican doctors on a plane last night and I couldn't believe the conversation. On the one hand, they both recognized the need for a major change to health care, and that Bush was a total liar who had ruined things for the Republican party. And though they can't stand Hillary, they think she is the only one who will leave the system with a PROFIT in it for them. So they are FOR her. But they bashed her for at least an hour, in great detail. Republican men hate women. They had a lot of good things to say about Obama, and they never mentioned Edwards.

Once a candidate has been on a losing ticket, there is a stigma that he must overcome. Nixon was one who was able to overcome it.

Of course another person who overcame it is FDR who ran for VP in 1920 with James Cox and they lost big time! but FDR also came back to be elected president.

The loss is why I initially supported Obama over Edwards, even though I liked them both.

That's why they are getting so much more attention. Maybe, Edwards needs to spar with Kucinich and get the old ball game going a little more. We could have exciting alternative debates for those of us who aren't sold on the noise makers as much. :shrug:

It seems weighted towards the Edwards supporters, frankly. :shrug:

He's a multi-millionaire with a 28500 sq. ft. mansion, skinning more millions off the backs of the poor and evictable, hypocritically smearing his opponents while engaging in identical behaviour, attempting to flim-flam the voting public by disavowing his dismal Senate record. He's a proven LOSER, a Corporatist stooge and former WarWhore with a love for the Police State, attempting to run with a populist, anti-poverty, anti-corporate, anti-war message that no one in their right mind could possibly believe.

What's not to like?

He's White
He's Male
He's Xian
He's Southern.

I hate to see any candidate marginalised or ignored, but if anyone deserves it, it's Pretty-Boy John. You can't believe a word that comes out of his mouth...

of course the other top tier are no better. Kucinich is the only candidate with credibility and the intelligence to see right through this evil administration from the beginning.


http://peacecandidates.com/

I think Obama comes across as an absolute bs artist

Before anyone flames me, I did not say I think he IS one, just that the impression I get just listening and watching body language is:

HRC - negative
BHO - negative
JRE - positive

people react different ways based on life experiences. That's what keeps marketing people busy, and makes them rich.

If I drank beer, I'd be MUCH more inclined to choose Edwards as a companion. But so the hell WHAT? NONE of this should be criteria for choosing POTUS.

repeat this in every locality for a year and it dont take no rocket scientist to figure it out-then obviously as polls suggest niether clinton or obama can beat a republican in the general---this is by design---and all these liberals feeling like there is hope listening to these jokers---what a load of shit

If he wanted to make an impression, get out in front of the pack, he should build anger. Liberals and progressives are wimps. They would "kind of" like to end the war, "sort of" help the homeless, and "it would be nice to" have universal health care. And they go hat in hand to Republicans and the voters to beg for it.

He should stand up and lay out what is wrong, his anger slowly building to a fever pitch, and conclude by saying, "If you voters don't want to do anything to change this system, and make your own lives better, you are f***ing stupid."

Yes, curse. With the cameras rolling. And angrily kick the podium over to the side of the stage and stomp off.

It would be noticed. It would bump him up to the top of the headlines. And if he stayed on his game, responding to the inevitable criticism from the other candidates with the same anger and curse words, he would pull ahead of the pack.

What? Not principled enough? Not polite enough? In case you haven't noticed, politeness doesn't work. Politeness got Bush, Bush II, Reagan and all the other bad guys elected by default. It's time to stop being polite.

I'm 49 years old. A man who acted that way in front of me wouldn't have any credibility--and I sure wouldn't trust him to handle anybody overseas. I want a classier president than that! I demand better behavior than that from the men around me--I'd sure need to see it in a president that wants my vote. A temper tantrum just isn't going to work.

You've got to understand that any nominee has to be able to appeal to us older folks as well as the young. Maybe kids would like the cachet that throwing such a tantrum would give him, but it pales as you get older and realize what real poise is. Also, I'd have to think what it would do to our reputation overseas--people in other cultures (cultures in which I've not seen THEIR leaders act that way) and what they'd think of us.

John Edwards, by being being mad about things he's not personally suffering seems phony. I don't need to see anger-by-proxy as a vote getter in ANYONE.

:eyes:

the corporate think tanks knew only way out was for them to buy guanteed loss candidates that they can be sure to defeat. Thus they funded our two leaders and spread the message that we had already lost

The MSM get a partial pass for making much of the history-making candidacies of Clinton and Obama, but that excitement does not excuse the careful marginalizing of anti-corporate messages like Edwards'.

Must Dems want a "winner". Someone they think can win the next election. John lost in 2004 at the bottom of the ticket. He doesn't hold an office now either. I think a large fraction of the voters simply aren't looking for message as much as how thy think the candidate would do in a GE. The sad thing is Edwards polling numbers suggest he would do just fine in a GE.

I think you are over-thinking this. Most Americans are not on D.U. or even on Free Republic, so his record is virtually unknown to the majority of Americans IMO. I think it's simple. When people do hear about Edwards it's as an also-ran. The press has undermined him and we know from reading the report about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's president that it isn't by accident.

I believe polls have shown that when people are exposed to Edwards he garners their support.

he represents too much of a threat to current Dem leadership.

Did the media also help Huckabee win Iowa ? ...jeeesh, lets be honest here.

John Edwards left the Senate just so he can focus on the 2008 election, his efforts so far
has been disappointing, message has not changed and he is running on the same message he ran on in 2004 with John Kerry.

The fact of the matter is, John Edwards has said everything people have already heard, also
people are still fretting from that performance he gave against Dick Cheney....during the
veep debate, that performance left us flabbergasted and scratching our heads...like.....WTF
just happen, he was so flat that all our hopes disappeared.

He took all this time out from the Senate just so we can hear the same shit we heard in 2004....
makes you think and feel that we are being played by him.

So you see, there is nothing new to see from him, its nothing but the same ol' song (corporatist)
and added to that is the memory of his poor debate with Dick Cheney.

really? I think that's a ridiculous assumption. I don't think most voters remember a damn thing about that debate if they ever saw it in the first place. YOU are fretting over it but I don't think many other people are.

if not then I'll advice you to.....the bottom line is
I don't think Edwards has what it takes to challenge those crooks
on the other side, he is too angry and he doesn't seem to have solution
into moving the country forward.

DU is not representative of the American voter.

said they were drawn to his positive message versus the righteous indignation of Howard Dean.

This time around Obama's taken the Beaver Cleaver role and Edwards has co-opted the Howard Dean "mad as hell" role.

But Howard Dean seemed more sincere with the "mad as hell" tirade, not being complicit in the rise of the BFEE. He was also planning to take it straight to the BFEE in the general election, and not some other candidate with a different message.

And you know, Howard was running AGAINST the BFEE, and not "corporations."

While "corporations" can be evil, the BFEE is *EVIL*!11!!!! Ya know?

their marching orders of whom to endorse and he's not it.

if you open your eyes you will notice the amount of pressure
Hillary and Obama are undergoing, if you think that those two are
having it easy then you have no idea, MSM coverage is not based on
who they like, their coverage is about the masters interest, they
are searching and collating information to use eventually against our
dumb asses in the future.

Everyday there is something about Clinton and Obama in the news but I rarely see or hear his name.

only chance to save this country!

They want feel good positive vague messages, they don't want reality. Edwards is trying to sit the country down on the couch and tell them what is wrong and just like a spoiled child the American people don't want to listen.

Its not because they don't understand what he is saying, about healthcare.. about corporations they just don't want to face it.

The country needs to look in the mirror and see itself for what it is.. a declining super power who relies on a rapidly declining currency to keep buying shit it doesn't need and to keep financing a war it should have never been in. I mean seriously we are selling our country out one piece at a time to keep the ferris wheel turning.

The media is all about the "rock star" showdown of Hillary vs. Obama, so people think they have to choose between them.

Some might be supporting Obama to stop Hillary. Some might be supporting Hillary to stop Obama. Some might be worried that by going with their head, and gut, and supporting Edwards, it allows the least favorable candidate (in their opinion) of the "rock stars" to move forward.

its an oft repeated talking point, even though Edwards is the most electable of all the Dems when considering the GE.

a minority. He has three things in common with our last two presidents. He's a good looking white man from the south. Maybe people really do want change and instead of looking at the message and his track record aren't going beyond his looks. It's too bad but I'm not giving up on him until after Super Tuesday.

:rofl:

However, I was just rolling the attributes of Clinton and Bush into one guy. So let's say his rakish good looks remind them of Clinton and of course they are both white and male. I just think being a good looking white guy in this election is not an asset and may even be a hindrance.

he doesn't fit into their plan.

it has a lot to do with internal Dem politics at the local level.

I'm even getting party pressure from local congresspersons, even the governor. People are promising a lot of things for supporting Clinton (in my case) or Obama. They're incumbents, they have power over other Dem officeholders who then exert the pressure farther down to the local level of Dem leaders.

Its always been this way, though this is the first time I've seen it quite so strong. But incumbent Dem officeholders always exert more power in the primary races.

He ran alone in 2000, at first, then accepted the 2nd slot and lost again..

and although people won't admit it, I think lots of folks don't want to see a first lady die in the White House. 4 years is a long time when someone has inoperable/incurable cancer.

no further comment.

for our nominee. That said, I think alot of people see him as a fake because of the $400 haircut and the biggest house in whatever and all that. I think other candidates are stealing his populist message, which blunts one of his best attacks. I think he is seen as someone who already had their chance. Most importantly now, he is not seen as viable and maybe hasn't been seen as viable from the start of the voting. It seems everyone either wants Hillary or is desperately trying to stop her. For those people, Obama seems like the only chance. That's my take anyway.

IMHO Edwards has the stigma of the IWR attached to him, he co-sponsored the bill. Apologizing for the mass-murder of 1 million innocents will not wash off very easily in my mind.

Even if the IWR never happened, and if I just try to isolate JE by his current PR campaign, I get the suspicion he is putting on too much make-up and window-dressing, and it strikes me as a charade and a convenience.

I can contrast him with Jimmy Carter. JC was never the one to put on airs, and nothing about his mannerisms ever struck me as being contrived for the moment. JC was/is a simple man, with a simple message. And he had that big smile all the time. For some reason, JE doesn't have the charisma of JC.

He's got a serious TV problem and they just won't address it. He's got a tic, a nervous habit. He blinks and jerks rapidly while speaking on camera. I used to think it was his contacts but now I think it is just a nervous tic. He blinks like crazy, his head jerks around. He does not get his message across. He has the BEST message, IMHO, but he cannot convey it. He simply lacks the presentation skills. A speaker on camera has to hold a steady gaze, maintain composure, not jerk around or fidget too much. Watch Obama. Watch how still he holds his body and his gaze when he is making a speech. Edwards has to learn on-camera technique, or he will not be heard. And I fear he has been told this before and refused to listen, because it's apparent to anyone with any expertise. He Has To Hold Still, and He Has to Control the Blinking. Otherwise he cannot be heard. People just automatically tune out. And rapid blinking subliminally indicates lying, so people intuitively discount him. I seriously believe this is his worst problem. I've been talking about it for a while - I sent a message to his campaign. It's been mentioned in WaPo in a review of a debate. It may sound trivial but in a television age it's essential. John! Call me! I can help!!!

almost uncontrollably. It was non-stop the entire time she was on-camera. I rarely watch CNN, but I wonder if she's always like this, or she was a just little excited because she was speaking with her future hubby, John King.

Watch Edwards. I am convinced this is standing in his way of connecting with voters. They simply can't hear him. I watched him in a hallway conversation with a reporter and his gaze was steady and he stood still and spoke emphatically and totally connected and it was like watching a different man.

His stump speech is almost entirely about the same theme.

I've watched many campaign events in 2004 and 2008, and Edwards' speeches seem to be the most repetitive from speech to speech. Obviously every candidate has a basic stump speech, but Edwards is like a touring rock band that every night plays the exact same set, note for note. Even in his speech the night of the Iowa primary, he barely addressed the present moment before transitioning into his standard stump speech. In debates his answers can seem more programmed than thoughtful (moreso than other candidates). Some of us here can probably recite the answer he's going to give even before he gives it.

Nonetheless, he is a strong candidate who has had the misfortune of running up against a compelling candidate like Obama and a universally known powerhouse like Hillary.