… Obama’s appeal.
If the Democrats wanted to nominate a young, clean and articulate lawyer with little governmental experience they could have chosen Edwards.
Fundraising is part of it so perhaps the question is not of the nominating proccess and the voters but Americans in general.
I think it’s his race. Heck, everything else being almost equal, I’d vote for a minority over a white male myself.
Race is part of it, but if you’re saying that race is the only (or even the biggest) difference between Edwards and Obama, you’re fooling yourself.
You think it’s his race huh? Is that why I [a white man from CT] voted for him? Because he’s black?
Stop kidding yourself and perpetuating a silly meme. Or rephrase your question to sound a little less…odd.
I’m a proud American voting for Barack Obama. His fresh views, intelligence, judgement, track record, and overall demeanor make him aces in my book. I’ve done my homework - have you?
Obama has the charisma that Edwards doesn’t. Obama has something of the air of JFK; Edwards doesn’t.
Obama came out of Harvard and chose to go into the public sector, giving up private sector jobs that would have made him very wealthy.
Edwards is a multi-millionaire from his career as a malpractice attorney.
I see your point Qadgop - coming from your prospective, it’s a clear point I would think.
If the Republicans wanted to nominate a elderly, incompetent and inarticulate rich guy who thinks Saddam was responsible for 9/11 they could have chosen Bush.
Have you heard Obama speak? There’s no comparison between him and Edwards. In my mind, Obama seems more like a statesman than just another politician. Because of that, Obama has been able to appeal to huge swaths of the population, especially young folks and unaffiliated voters, who are thoroughly disgusted by politics as usual.
Obama’s race is a factor in his appeal, I agree, in so far as his race lends creedence to some of the things he says. Some of the talk about hope and overcoming problems would get scoffed at from a white man. But it’s mostly about what he says and proposes, not what he looks like.
Edwards strikes a lot of people as a phony, and it’s not hard to see why. If the Democrats had a committee to design a candidate, he’d be it: he’s a relatively young and handsome Southern lawyer. What’s missing?
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
… Obama’s appeal.
If the Democrats wanted to nominate a young, clean and articulate lawyer with little governmental experience they could have chosen Edwards.[/.QUOTE]
Edwards is young and articulate, but he simply doesn’t have Obama’s charisma.
I’m an outsider with no vote; I don’t agree with OBama’s politics in any substantial way more than I do Edwards. But my impression of Edwards, my impression from the moment I first saw and and my impression of him every moment I have ever seen him, is one of slimy insincerity. He may be a really great guy, I don’t know; he might be the most honest politician in the modern history of the USA, for all I know. But he looks, sounds, and acts like a real estate agent or a car salesman. It’s inescapable; no matter what he is talking about I cannot shake the feeling that his next line will be asking me how much I’m willing to spend on a beautiful car like this Buick here.
Obama does not give that impression. Obama has all the charm and gravitas of a professional politician with absolutely none of the hint of sleaze.
In politics, that’s important stuff. I really don’t think Obama’s choice of post-graduate work has a lot to do with it; I suspect the effect would be the same if Obama had been the ambulance-chaser and Edwards the public sector guy. Obama looks and sounds like a statesman, Edwards looks and sounds like a politician.
I like Obama because I believe that he has an unprecedented ability and willingness to frame political discussions with candor and sophistication.
The best recent case in point was a temporary suspension of the Federal excise tax on gasoline. Virtually every single economist thought it was stupid (unless you wanted to give the money straight to the oil companies), but both McCain and Clinton lined up to cry, “we’ve got to do something!”
Obama, on the other hand, opposed it and had an articulate and well thought out reason to do so.
Clinton essentially just replied, “well sure, if we’re going to let those smarty pants economists tell us what to do about the economy, but I prefer to listen to the working men and women of America,” etc.
Justagoldarnfrickinminnit . . . This is a bad thing? :mad:
– BrainGlutton, Esq.
(BTW, he’s really a general personal-injury attorney; med mal is only part of his practice. And people who say PI attorneys are ruining the American economy are Ogdamned liars. Fuckin’ braindead “tort reform” bullshit . . . grumblegrumblerackarackarassinfrass . . .)
(bolding mine)
Obama does not have “little government experience.” Granted, he has no national level experience beyond speechifying and campaigning, but he has worked in several areas of government including several years in the Illinois legislature–far more experience than what Edwards has.
If you’d like to step into the Wayback Machine, here are a couple of threads from 2004 by people who saw his keynote speech at the Democratic Convention and thought, “Hey, this guy could be President someday!”
I don’t think Qadgop is saying that it’s a “bad thing,” rather, he’s contrasting that with the “good” thing that Obama did with his education and prestige.
The fact that Obama got a rather prestigious law degree, and then decided to continue doing public service says a lot about his character, rather than anything bad about Edwards, who chose a less remarkable path.
That’s cool. I’m just a little sensitive about it because, while Edwards was never my first choice for the nom (Kucinich was), when he was still in the running there was a lot of egregious asstardery on this Board about his profession and specialty.
I’m confused as to whether the OP wants my reasons or if the OP wants me to explain the reasons of every other Democratic voter.
As for myself, it’s simple: The front-runners back in Iowa all ran on pretty close to the same policies. In the areas where they differed, I liked Obama’s policies more. So that’s why I initially supported him since, if he won, he’d be the guy with the policies I liked best.
Since then, I’ve found things I liked about his campaign style, etc but it really started with some boring analysis of the policies of Clinton, Edwards & Obama and who I liked the best.
If you’re genuinely curious about Obama’s appeal to a lot of people, I would suggest reading his books. That’s what really sold me. I knew about the charisma, but there is a thoughtfulness, an intelligence, a thoroughness, a fairness, to his words that isn’t like anything I’ve read from a modern politician before. It might not come across in 10 second soundbites, but complexity of thought never does.
I was generally an Obama supporter from the beginning, mostly because I didn’t want Hillary and the DNC in the White House, but the point where I REALLY started actually being a supporter FOR Obama rather than a supporter of someone other than Hillary was the speech on race after the first Rev. Wright outbreak.
I was stunned…a politician seeking the presidency was treating the electorate like actual adults! Oh my GOD!
The man is honest. He’s straightforward. He’s not afraid to actually speak to the people as actual adult human beings. He’s classy.
That’s why he appeals to me, anyway.
He’s eloquent and articulate. He doesn’t act like he already knows all the answers. I want someone who will surround himself with good people who are working for the common good, who will listen to his advisors and sort the good advice from the bad. He seems to have the native intelligence and strength of character to weigh decisions carefully and act on them. He isn’t afraid to tell us what we need to know as opposed to what we want to hear, and doesn’t pander to us.