John Edwards supporters: Who's your #2

[janieblue]

<p>My first choice is Edwards. I agree with Garland that Edwards has been very clear on his all the issues, including on health care, affordable college, the Iraq war, and how he would go about instituting changes. He has been very consistent and detailed with his ideas and plans. I certainly can’t say the same for either Obama or Clinton. </p>

<p>Obama is quite charismatic, although if I hear the comparison to JFK one more time, I think it will be time to quote Lloyd Bentsen. The main problem with Obama is-- while he talks a good talk about change, does he ever actually say anything? I have yet to hear him give detailed information or step-by-step plans on anything-- and certainly given no detailed plans that are truly viable. If he has, I’ve missed them. Maybe someone can detail them here… People need to really listen to what Obama says; ultimately, he never really says anything as far as I can tell, but I will admit-- what he’s not saying, he says really well. ;)</p>

<p>So, my first choice is Edwards. He is very smart, very capable, and he’s already personally implemented (on a small scale) one of the plans he has for affordable college, and it’s been very successful. Also, the worst that can possibly happen to a person (in my opinion) has happened to him and Elizabeth. These two are very strong, smart, and capable people. I wouldn’t write him off just yet. </p>

<p>If I ultimately had to choose someone else, it would probably be Hillary-- before Obama. I just think Obama has very little experience, and never has actually said anything of real substance, as far as I can tell. Oh, and he has small children. Yikes.</p>

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: Of the few presidents we’ve had who have had relatively young children when they were in office, I think all those kids turned out very well (ie., Amy Carter; JFK, jr and Caroline; Chelsea Clinton (a little older, but still relatively young); and probably a bunch of others I don’t remember).</p>

[Rachacha]

<p>Don’t forget too that JFK lost a newborn son - while in office I believe. Family tragedy can strike a president at any time…</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“When you say he is short of money, that surprises me, as I thought he was a very wealthy man from his legal practice.”</p>

<p>Edwards had to resort to public funding for his campaign. This means that the amount of money available to him is limited and also means that should he win the nomination that he will essentially go “dark” until after the convention when he can start spending again.</p>

[violinists]

<p>Then let’s get going with those fun raisers if it is true!</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

Under the public financing system, federal money, which comes from income tax checkoffs, will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions. To become eligible, a candidate must raise more than $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least 20 states. A candidate must also agree to limit spending for all primary elections, campaign spending in each state, and spending from personal funds to $50,000.</p>

<p>The spending limit, based on voting-age population, is just more than $818,000 in New Hampshire - and could curtail his campaigning there.

</p>

<p>Looks like even if he raises more private funding, he is restricted as to how much he can spend on any primary.</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>Quote from post #22: “Family tragedy can strike a president at any time…”</p>

<p>Family tragedy can strike anyone at any time. </p>

<p>Just posted on CNN today: "(CNN) — Mike Huckabee’s campaign said his oldest son, John Mark, was treated at a hospital and released after being injured in a car accident leaving Iowa after the caucuses, the Republican’s campaign said.</p>

<p>The campaign said the former Arkansas governor and his wife, Janet, campaigning in New Hampshire following his victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday, spoke with their son while he was in the hospital in Des Moines."</p>

<p>Fortunately John will be ok, but this demonstrates the vulnerability of all of us!!</p>

[janieblue]

<p>Edwards’ second place in Iowa can only help him in terms of raising more funds; I certainly sent him money this morning. Clinton had a ton of money, but that didn’t prevent her from a last-place finish in Iowa.</p>

<p>Also, the comment that “Edwards had to resort to public funding” is a tiny bit misleading. In fact, Edwards made the decision NOT to accept money from lobbyists/special interest groups-- a decision that neither Obama nor Clinton has made, to my knowledge. So, yes, that left him strapped for money, but I give Edwards a lot of credit. Unlike these other two, he walked the walk on that one. If Obama or Clinton ever gets to be president, they’re gonna owe so many-- so much. Ouch. That’s all we need.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>Don’t be so sure that special interest money isn’t being used for Edwards -
(From the Washington Post)

Our focus today is Alliance for a New America, the shadowy advocacy group that praises John Edwards as the candidate who will sweep the “special interests” out of Washington. The organization emerged out of nowhere over the last few weeks with a series of mailers and television and radio ads in Iowa that have cost over $1 million, and seems likely to recede back into the shadows as soon as the election is over. Edwards has said he has no influence over the group, even though his former manager, Nick Baldick, has been identified as its organizing genius.
…
According to recent FEC filings, the principal financial contributor to the Alliance is the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, which includes many health care workers. During the month of December alone, SEIU locals around the country contributed around $1 million to the Alliance. A further $495,000 was contributed by a company called Oak Spring Farms, which is controlled by Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, the 97-year-old widow of billionaire Paul Mellon. </p>

<p>Barack Obama has dubbed all these funds “special interest” money, much to the ire of the SEIU and other unions. His campaign manager, David Plouffe, accused the Edwards campaign of “exploiting the biggest loophole” in the campaign finance system.
…

[Edwards</a> and ‘special interests’ - Fact Checker](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/edwards_and_special_interests.html?hpid=topnews]Edwards”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/edwards_and_special_interests.html?hpid=topnews)</p>

[janieblue]

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: This is true, but he has not courted them. He has asked these people not to donate money to his campaign; unfortunately, there’s not a lot he can do to stop them.</p>

<p>

Edwards has gotten a boost from two independent groups.</p>

<p>The Alliance for a New America, headed by Edwards’ former campaign manager, has spent more than $1.5 million on ads on his behalf. Another group has spent more than $500,000.</p>

<p>Both are 527 groups – named for the section of the tax code that regulates them – and are legally bound to stay at arm’s length from the campaign.</p>

<p>Unlike campaigns and political action committees, 527 groups have no contribution limits. One donor gave the alliance $495,000.</p>

<p>Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has called such groups “shadowy, Washington-based organizations.”</p>

<p>Edwards has tried to distance himself from the groups. And he has downplayed the importance of money. “This is going to be an election,” he told one interviewer: “It’s not going to be an auction.” . . . </p>

<p>“The further we go in the process, the less important money is,” said analyst Charlie Cook of the Washington-based Cook Political Report.</p>

<p>Edwards, he said, “has stayed alive and stayed more viable than a lot of us ever thought he would.”</p>

<p>“I didn’t think we would be talking about John Edwards at this point,” he said.</p>

<p>Polls show the top three Democrats closely bunched. Cook said a third-place showing for any of the top candidates could be fatal. Elizabeth Edwards, the candidate’s wife, agrees.</p>

<p>“Other campaigns like to tell you John has a lot riding on it and they don’t,” she said. “And that’s a bunch of malarkey.”

</p>

<p>[newsobserver.com</a> | Iowa win would bring Edwards big bucks](<a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/857273.html]newsobserver.com”>http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/857273.html)</p>

<p>Obama’s campaign manager certainly needs to get the attention off of Obama and point to someone else, considering all the money he’s taking from special interest groups. Why doesn’t Obama walk away from that? Perhaps he’s not interested in “change” as much as likes to believe (or would like others to believe).</p>

<p>Also, someone mentioned on this thread, or perhaps another here, that Edwards was “too angry.” All I have to say about that is-- if you’ve been living in this country for the last 8 years and aren’t angry with the direction this country has taken, then you’ve been either sleeping or in a coma. We should all be angry and looking for change. Edwards is our best hope in that, in my opinion. Obama could be, but he’s definitely, sadly not the same person he was when he spoke at the Democratic Nat’l Convention a few years ago</p>