DADvocate

Some of us do, and Instapundit is spot on correct. I think Edwards is possibly still the best Presidential material out of all the current hopefuls, Republican and Democratic. I definitely think he is the most likely to build comprehensive consensus among Americans.

Every. Other. Hopeful. I see at this point will keep the nation just as divivded and spitting fire at the other side. On the ballot, I think Edwards is maybe the only candidate who could lead a ticket to the 60%+ range. Everyone else will bring more of this 51-49% nonsense.

Especially now that McCain has decided to self destruct.
 

Once again, I agree. How embarrassing to agree with a liberal twice in one day!

Fixing breakfast this morning it struck me that Edwards is different from Gore, Clinton, Edwards, etc. in a significant way. He's not an aging 60s/70s liberal fighting those old battles in old ways. He is the freshest breath of air in the Democratic Party right now.

There has been too much divisive politics the last two decades. The country does needs to come together.

And, yes, John McCain has self destructed. I couldn't vote for him with any confidence. To begin with he thinks I'm lazy and doesn't respect the right of free speech strongly enough.
 

Interesting that there is such Edwards love of late. Here is a piece by Orson Scott Card about Edwards from 2004

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-07-04-1.html
 

Anna - interesting piece and not flattering. Edwards does make a good impression and I'll watch him but I'll be cautious. A Democratic candidate would have to be convincing for me to give up my conservative/libertarian vote. But the Republican Party needs to be shaken up right now. And at the moment, they don't seem to have a breath of fresh air.
 

I was just about to point you to OSC's article, too. He seems smarmy to me but I have a very low tolerance for hypocrisy. Plus, not only is he a trial lawyer but his landmark (for him) cases have been huge settlements after reducing juries to weeping puddles. So he knows how to manipulate an audience which is a far cry from saying what he thinks and being believable and therefore letting people vote for or against him because of his points of view and/or authority.
 

Interesting - maybe Edwards is a more clever manipulator than Bill Clinton. It appears he needs to be watched with a jaundiced eye.
 

But what candidate isn't, really? What candidate shouldn't we take with that grain of salt or a jaundiced eye?

Though I always thought Edwards' positions were too coherent and comprehensive to be the work of political mavens (you know, the same political mavens who suggested Kerry 'go hunting'). In this day and age of non-responsive candidates more worried about staying on message than actually listening to the audience, I think someone who hears concerns and then addresses them to be a breath of fresh air.
 

You're right about the jaundiced eye bit and a candidate can make me leary in a heartbeat. I still hold hope for Edwards. And despite the fact that he got rich off of liability suits at least he earned it unlike the Kennedys and Kerry. Republican ex-Senator Fred Thompson, much loved by conservatives, made bunches of money the same way.

Right now the Republicans don't have a strong presidential candidate, McCain and Rudy can't do it. Hillary is too polarizing. I think Edwards has a shot.