I’ve been watching the Democratic Presidential contest for a while now. Through it all, I’ve gotten an idea of the personalities and positions of most of the media-appointed “leading” candidates, Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephart and Lieberman. Up to now, however, I’ve left John Edwards on the “who’s that and why do I care” pile with Kuzinich and Mosley-Braun (and, as a New Yorker, the less said about Sharpton, the better).
Last week I watched the returns from the Iowa caucuses, and saw Edwards’ “not quite victory” speech and was impressed. It was a particularly strong contrast to the next thing I saw,to Dean’s now-infamous cheerleading speech.
From what I can see, the other serious Democratic candidates may well have some significant electability problems, with Dean and Clark suffering from likeliehood of loopyness and Kerry and Lieberman suffering from personal annoyingness. Also, in this thread, many of the Board Republicans seem at least comfortable with him, though at least one has a strong issue with his background as a personal injury lawyer.
Based on all of this, it seems possible that he could be come out of “nowhere” to become a consensus candidate. So, it seems to me that this would be a good time to learn about him, and what Dopers think of him.
First off, hes basing his campaign on a positive message. His only direct criticisms of other candidates seems to only be that they engage in too much attacks.
Like you said, hes a trial lawyer and also the senior senator from North Carolina. He voted for the war resolution, the patriot act and the 87 billion (not positive on this one but pretty sure), but is predictably against the war and patriot act in the same manner as the rest of the candidates (unjustified war). Claims to have met with many world leaders but nothing really outstanding in the foreign policy department here.
His foreign policy seems to be based on uniting the “two Americas”. He feels that the government is becoming controlled by the rich and special interests at the expense of the average American. His stances are pretty unclear beyond that. For example his entire stance on education is the sentance “there shouldn’t be a seperate school system for the rich and the rest of us.”
He hasn’t come forth very strongly on any issues. His support mainly comes from his positive message, which almost all the voters who support him cite. He has the ideals of the other candidates on the issues but hes very weak on specific details.
His surge in Iowa came from him not attacking the others, a quality that goes far in Iowa. He doesn’t seem very viable in the long term right now but he has the chance to pull out strong if he plays the Feb. 3rd primary week right.
I disagree, from what i’ve seen of him in debates & interviews i think he is the most vehement in standing up for the working poor and the borderline working poor of any of the democrats. He seems to exert more effort into appealing to this group, which numbers roughly 20 million adults. He spends more time appealing to them than Kerry or Dean does. Kerry & Dean seem to me to appeal more to the middle class & working class when they debate.
He has the best sense of humor of the bunch, with the possible exception of Al Sharpton who is, of course, a showman. He doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously and can laugh at himself. All good qualities in my book.
I see by this that Montana and us (NJ) get to be the last ones, voting on June 8. I doubt this race will still be undecided by then, but if it is, it’s going to be very interesting trying to figure out who to vote for. Makes my position of waiting until after the early primaries are over to begin really making up my mind a bit more plausible.
Anyway, my only impressions of Edwards so far are what Billdo posted about him looking better than Dean on Iowa night, and Wesley Clark’s impression that he seems to actually talk about the working poor, which is a refreshing thing.
A few points:
Gay marriage: He didn’t know what the Defense of Marriage Act was in the Dem debate in New Hampshire. I think of the top four, he’s weakest on this issue. He’s also the only one of the top four who doesn’t specifically address gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender issues on his website. This is totally my opinion, but he seems like he’s in the “ewww, icky” camp, but pays lip service to being on the Democrat side of gay issues.
Stem cell research: From this site “After much reflection, I have come to support ethical, regulated stem cell research.” Again, he’s towing the party line, but he’s the least commital of the top four (Clark didn’t reply to them, but has a bit about stem cell research on his own page).
Education: Edwards wants to give everyone a free year of college. I can’t find anything about how he’d pay for it, though.
Sadly, though, he’s probably the most electable Democrat, even though I agree with him just about the least.
Edwards proposes that if you do 10 hours a week of community service work, the government will give you the money to attend a public or community college for one year. I talked to his National Spokesman on the phone a few days ago and that’s how he explained it.
