John Edwards in New York Thursday
DL21C continues its phenomenal Road to the White House series on Thursday with Senator John Edwards, Democrat of North Carolina and the 2004 Vice Presidential nominee.
Thursday, March 22
7:30 pm at
Branch
226 E. 54th Street (between 2nd and 3rd Aves.)
E/V train to Lexington Avenue/ 6 train to 51st St
It's just a guess, and I haven't spoken to anyone at DL21C, but I'd assume this will be a mob scene. Edwards is positioning himself as the most Progressive of the top three contenders. A year ago, Governor Mark Warner - then the Not-Hillary of the day - drew a crowd of roughly four hundred; if I had to lay odds, I'd assume that Edwards will exceed that. So if you're planning to go, you might want to RSVP now, here.
There's probably going to be a Q&A, and I usually get to ask questions; leave suggestions for what you'd like to know from the Senator (and, if I had to lay odds again, the next President of the United States) in the comments.
On the web: John Edwards for President
(Crossposted from The Daily Gotham)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | John Edwards | New York City
By your analysis...
Submitted by mole333 on 21 March 2007 - 1:45pm.
Neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton were doing so well so early. There is no reason to discount anyone. Polls this early mean almost nothing. Particularly since I still think one major player has yet to declare.
Having said that, the person who so far has been showing the best momentum is Obama. Too far too fast? Maybe. But if he can maintain this momentum he's our man. Still, WAY too early.
Because I have what you don't
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 March 2007 - 2:52pm.
...which is a measure of expertise.
The meta-narrative of 2008 is already a search for strong, fresh, post-Bush leadership. Your favored candidate, Hillary, is not leading on anything, and she's the candidate of the establishment, which in the strengthening anti-DC, anti-establishment mood of the electorate, both primary and general, will be a hindrance.
Then, there's the fact that white Southerners generally do well in Presidential contests, while Northeastern Senators do not. That argument will carry increasing weight as we get closer to the actual elections. Polls at this moment in time really don't mean that much, unless they're of high-information voters (that is, not Wallner), and Edwards scores at the top of these; cf. DKos and MyDD polls. Plus, he's got the unions and trial lawyers sewn up, which means boots on the ground and money in the bank.
As to Obama, what I'd be really excited to see would be an Edwards/Obama ticket. I like the guy, I really truly do, but I think he has some major weaknesses as a candidate. He'd make a great President, no doubt, and I think he will someday; I don't see it happening yet, though.
I lIke Him Too
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 March 2007 - 3:47pm.
but agree about the trouble spots, not the least of which is having BECOME a Senator!! Look at the track record for ANY sitting US Senator winning the presidency -- don't we have to go all the way back to JFK? (Johnson and Nixon don't count because they only won the vp slot from the Senate, right?)
And the only other time it happened ever, ever that a senator moved straight into the presidency was Warren G. Harding (hard-ing-ly a presidency we'd wish to emulate in 2008?)
So all three of the current Dem poll and money-raising leaders are disadvantaged in that way! Maybe we should imagine something different than the usual then, if we want different results this time around??
Argues...
Submitted by mole333 on 21 March 2007 - 4:18pm.
for Richardson. So far he has been lackluster. But I know some folks who like him alot. And he could be strong in some of the Western States. Add to that the benefits governors get from appearing like a "Washington Outsider" and yet having "exectutive experience" and he may fare better than expected in the end.
Yeah..
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 March 2007 - 4:46pm.
...I'm really surprised Richardson isn't doing a lot better. On paper, he's the ideal candidate.
But as I always tell people, it is very early. This race could go a lot of different ways, and we at least have a really good field; the other side, well, not so much.
The Party Base
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 March 2007 - 1:18pm.
(of either party) is more problem than solution when it comes to getting the best next president for a united and progressive America. SO if that's really the reason for not preferring Edwards, it's lame.
Ask Edwards about illegal immigrants
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 21 March 2007 - 7:45pm.
I think a good question to ask Edwards would be on illegal immigrants. That is a serious issue now and the republicans are being pushed towards the proposed legislation that would require illegal immigrants to leave the country before they can apply for citizenship. I'd like to hear his views on this.
There's a quote out there
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 21 March 2007 - 4:32pm.
attributed to JRE. Saw it in the political wire newsletter. Something about things going easier in the dating stage. Then thoughts of marriage and things get more serious.
Kinda a crazy thing for a white Southern male to be talking about. Reminds me of Carter's lust statement and Clinton's boxer shorts.
Can't blame Edwards for that
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 March 2007 - 5:22pm.
because we ALL call the period right after inauguration the honeymoon, right?
OOH and remember
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 March 2007 - 5:26pm.
he's got that great wife, no divorces and no philandering on the record. Prompting idly attending voters to associate his candidacy with marriage would only be a plus for him, and maybe a subtle minus against several Rs and somewhat of the Clintons.
And Finally
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 March 2007 - 6:08pm.
who WOULDN'T want to flirt with the thought of dating him??
Ask Edwards about his vote on the Iraq war
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 21 March 2007 - 7:48pm.
Ask Edwards about his vote on the Iraq war. Ask what he was thinking when he made that vote, and why it should matter that he apologized. I think its good that he apologized but it can always help to hear him elaborate a bit.
I'm anxious to know how the meeting goes
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 21 March 2007 - 6:21pm.
That is, if anyone is present. I can get the happy talk by going to Edwards' page.
Here might be a good place to say a word about Elizabeth Edwards. I watched her in 04. There was coverage on C-Span of her in discussions. She stood on a circular raised platform and turned to people on all 360. Questions were spontaneous from the floor, and she answered them without benefit of notes. It was shortly before the election--Harrisburg, I believe--and the audience came for answers. One person mentioned that it was remarkable that she could give answers to such hard issues as stem cell research. Her response was that she had the backing of a good team. That's my impression of her. She's a team player.
She is awesome.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 21 March 2007 - 6:44pm.
Met her back in 2004, and she's the nicest, kindest, most engaging person you'd ever want to meet. She got a standing ovation at the New York Apple store in SoHo, if you can imagine that. No press, no hype, just your normal mom shopping for a new computer.
I wouldn't be surprised, by the way, if she reads this blog.
I hear Elizabeth blogs quite a bit
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 21 March 2007 - 6:59pm.
Maybe she will find us worth watching. I always figure it's not just us here, but friends and foes as well.
And if Elizabeth is reading this, don't worry about me, dear. Your husband would make me a fine adoptive son. As long as you think he's hot, don't worry about the women in our group. They are really very accomplished, modern women and they mean no harm.
But, seriously, I do wonder what Edwards, or other candidates for that matter, think when they read about our dissecting their appearance, their ethnicity, their gender, while they're out pounding the tarmac, trying to bring a well-formulated platform. I guess that's why reporters call campaigns a horse race.
Margaret Is Right Except
Submitted by JJ Ross on 21 March 2007 - 10:58pm.
you know, rock idols do inspire more than technical appreciation of their skills! 
Welllll
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 21 March 2007 - 11:39pm.
I have yet to see a rock idol I'd consider to be my adopted son. In a bygone time, I liked Dylan and I felt a little smotherly for those two boys who were always so insecure about their pecking order. But you'd have to name me a rock idol.
No New York appearance today
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 22 March 2007 - 12:55pm.
Like many others, I'm awaiting the noon news conference. I saw hints of the medical appointments on oneamericacommittee, but as of now the bloggers there are waiting too. JRE is in NC and Elizabeth is joining him to make an announcement about her health.
Why do you persist in
Why do you persist in thinking Edwards will be the next president? The numbers don't back you up. Here are the latest national poll numbers (sourced from dailykos.com):
CNN. 3/9-11. Registered Democrats and lean-D Independents. MoE 4.5%
Clinton 37
Obama 22
Gore 14
Edwards 12
AP. 3/5-7. Registered Democrats and leaners. MoE 3.45% (No trend lines)
Clinton 38
Obama 21
Gore 14
Edwards 10
Gallup. 3/2-4. Democratic voters and leaners. MoE 5% (2/9-11)
Clinton 36
Obama 22
Gore 18
Edwards 9
In all three of these polls taken this month, Edwards is barely in double figures and running behind Gore who is not even in the race. If you judge by the stories about youtube and myspace hits and such, Obama is the one who is now becoming the netroots candidate. The only state where Edwards shows any strength is Iowa, and he's not going to carry Iowa if the caucus goers there don't see him looking good anywhere else. Thats what happened to Gephardt.
Edwards is not a star, he was an undistinguished one term senator from a red state that didn't vote for him as vice president. When he was Kerry's runningmate, he all but disappeared. He is not the candidate who is going to inspire and energize the democratic party base. The fact is that Edwards has a good message, but he is not the one the democrats want to be the messenger.