I'm on this bandwagon early


Much has been written here by others--and me--about the absolute, dire need for a presidential candidate who can unify and heal this country. Repairing the damage, both at home and abroad, wrought by eight years of neocon madness, will require an individual with some extraordinary skills--and loud, overwhelming mandate from the electorate to do so.

I feel like a member of the mob in "The Life of Brian"--wildly running loose over the politcal landscape in a desperate search for a Messiah.

Hillary ain't it. Obama doesn't have it.

Maybe it's Edwards.

Let the debate begin.

Update:The Annnouncement

Update2: Today's Rocketboom:


Doug Richardson December 28, 2006 - 9:09pm
( categories: Campaign 2008 )

Actually, I could not disagree more. We don't need to 'heal' or 'unify' the country.

There are important things that the government needs to do, like start working on global warming, or end the occupation of Iraq, or start taxing the rich again, or repeal the laws that let the government torture people and spy on citizens. But none of those things, if we really do them, will feel 'healing' or 'unifying'. Instead they will feel 'painful' or 'hard'. They can only be taken up by a rather adult, grown up populace that has decided that they absolutely need to happen. The populace is nothing like that now.

Our virtues are usually only vices in disguise.

Aaron Dellutri December 28, 2006 - 12:47pm

Obama has made mistakes. So has your man Edwards. And Hillary.

Obama may not be the man today but he has the raw materials. Hillary is not all bad either. You won't find anyone perfect for the job.

When I heard about Obama's background and his exposure to life of life and culture in an Islamic country, my view of him changed for the better.

We need someone that will represent the views of all Americans, even more, that will take into account the needs and wants of the rest of the world as well. I've seen what you get with an ignorant man.

Edwards, in my book, smells of the same "slime" you get with Kerry. Finger in the wind... I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for the guy, but he is a lawyer.

I remember his support for the war during last election's debates and the way his bush-lite stance rendered him ineffective in the debate with Cheney. The election was lost in that debate.

I did inhale.

Don December 28, 2006 - 12:56pm

Actually, amongst uncommitted voters he won that debate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/opinion/polls/main647648.shtml

Ian Welsh December 28, 2006 - 7:15pm

I'll take what you say under advisement. But it's hard to throw your heart behind a guy who gives a speech about the need to preserve the environment and conserve resources and then hops in a 9 mpg SUV and boogies.

As for Hillary...I met her once.

Never. Not ever.

Doug Richardson December 28, 2006 - 8:33pm

Who hopped in the 9 mpg SUV?

Not Hillary. Nope - I'm still thinking of circumstances of when I'd even be TEMPTED to vote for her.

Not Obama. Something, something is out of synch with him. I don't like him or trust him. ('don't like' does not mean dislike BTW)

And, the links aren't working for the updates.

ecophem December 29, 2006 - 3:55am

I put a new link in for his announcement to run, the rocketboom link does work for me. I believe he is talking about Obama, but all the links I'm finding on his suv driving are in active.



"you can disagree without being disagreeable" ~ Gerald Ford

Tina December 29, 2006 - 4:23am

And the film clip I saw is gone. I thought YouTube might have it, but not.

Doug Richardson December 29, 2006 - 8:50am

personally. But so are Clinton, Obama, Biden, Vilsack and Kerry. Gore was in law school but left to run for senate in 1976. If you start disqualifying politicians on account of their being lawyers, the field really narrows. I agree with you (as you stated in another post) that he (Gore) is the best of the bunch, but not on account of his failure to actually get the license.

Mark January 2, 2007 - 10:33pm

He's the only one with the international creds and with the intellectual acuity to deal with both friend and foe in that arena.

The man of honor pays his debts with his own money.

Ellen Dana Nagler December 28, 2006 - 7:27pm

but is he electable?

Doug Richardson December 28, 2006 - 8:34pm

I've been watching him and his wife since his loss in 2004. I've been impressed. You know what the bonus is? Edwards and his wife read the blogs. I like that. People who are technology oriented do not scare the living crap out of them.

Let's face it, we have a problem with non-techonological politicians not understanding their voters are more informed, more vocal, faster reacting and a lot less gullible than previous generations.

I'm not into Obama. I don't trust him. He's too far into catering to the religious. They only think of me as a household pet and an expendable means to get their dead asses into heaven, definitely not a sentient human being. I want my freedom without the caveat of having get their dead asses into heaven. I just can not get into a person that wants to cater to those that think of me as less than human.

SilverOwl December 28, 2006 - 9:05pm

the man has spent the past decade running and trying to find away to be prez. Too slick by half and untrustworthy. I find Edwards fake. phoney.
I support my senator, Obama. he is so much more intellegent, hard working, a great senator for us, has a grasp of the issues Edwards wishes he had.
Obama is more liberal.
More magnetic and interesting.
I look forward to seeing him surprise the blogs if he runs and shows his depth and intellegence and ability.
Will be interesting.

vwcat December 28, 2006 - 11:35pm

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/28/1294/2516



"you can disagree without being disagreeable" ~ Gerald Ford

Tina December 29, 2006 - 6:23am

Passed it on (n/t) (6+ / 0-)
Join me at http://blog.johnedwards.com

by elizabethedwards on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:54:11 PM PST

by DrFrankLives on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:59:26 PM PST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Elizabeth (6+ / 0-)
If you read 750 Posts down, that says you and your husband really are listening...

And this is good:

Where have you been? (1+ / 0-)
DailyKos has been around for several years now. Did you finally show up because you wanted our vote?

by Free Spirit on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:52:13 PM PST

Just letting you know (15+ / 0-)
Not taking the flame-bait.

Join me at http://blog.johnedwards.com

by elizabethedwards on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:51:46 PM PST
[ Parent ]

(*snort* - even got the dialect right. Nicely done.)

Whether you think this is sincere, is being done by a staffer rather than in person, or just think it's "scratching the belly of the blogosphere so it will roll over and wag its tail", the meta-issue is that it is being done, and done well and insightfully - and that contains a very important message itself.

EE stayed engaged in that DKos thread on John's announcement day from 1 PM to 5 PM - sending a completely unmistakable assessment of its importance. A self-identified staffer stuck around after as well. All comments appear to have been read - including flames (LOL).

An early "next generation" pol family.

Escher Sketch December 29, 2006 - 4:36pm

Note: I'm not on Obabma's wagon because I don't know the guy. I just have not eliminated him from consideration. I woud vote for Edwards if I liked him better that the alternative. Hell, I voted for John F%(&#$% Kerry.

Kucinich/Paul. Or Paul/Kucinich.

What about New Mexico's Richardson? I know. He too has the slime factor. Most if not all running for president do.

I did inhale.

Don December 29, 2006 - 9:22am

from Intrade:

Nominee:
Hillary 49.9%
Obama 22.5%
Edwards 13.5%
Gore 7.4%

Democrats winning the presidential race: 54% Thus the internal fight of the democrats is very important now :-)

-- 101 ways to avoid the subjunctive mood

Gandalf December 29, 2006 - 10:48am

with embarrassment from the 2006 elections.

The Prediction Markets Stumble
The "wisdom of crowds" crapped out in Election 2006.

Katherine Mangu-Ward | November 13, 2006

It's not often one finds oneself in a position to eat crow on behalf of more than 50,000 people—but here I am. My beloved election prediction markets have failed me this cycle, and so I'm here to apologize for the inaccuracy of the predictions I stole from those markets, and for the failings of the tens of thousands of traders who were supposed to illuminate the truth for us all.

Usually, when people—especially pollsters—predict election outcomes wrong, they say something like "No one could have guessed that the turnout would be so high in the southwestern part of the state" and leave it at that. They don't get fired, and they only occasionally even concede that they might have something to apologize for. And maybe they don't. After all, they're in the business of entertaining and informing, but perfect accuracy isn't required.

( ... Link ... )

Just a caveat lector. It's an entertainment field, like fantasy football; fun fluff with no actual contact with the planet's surface.

There was a time long ago when I thought the term "expert" had something to do with getting things right more often than non-experts.

"Data is not information; information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom"
- att. various.

Escher Sketch December 29, 2006 - 4:00pm

Perfect.

Perhaps this isn't the time, but somewhere down the line I would love to have a discussion here regarding a question that has plagued me for several years: "Is this country ready, is it willing, is it able to elect a woman, a black or a Jew President of the United States?"

"If they buy the premise, they'll buy the bit."

--Johnny Carson

Doug Richardson December 31, 2006 - 8:31am

Until he self-destructed.

Escher Sketch December 31, 2006 - 2:23pm

We went this through already once.

I explained that the majority was based on a two tossups: thus the probability of the democrats gaining the majority was practically 1/2 * 1/2 = 25%. The democrats won the lottery in both states. The prediction market gave a slightly higher winning probability.

Some student referenced by The Agonist gave unrealistically high probabilities, almost 50%.

The Mark Foley trick saved the election. Your source should give credit to the best campaign help of the Democratic party. Whoever they were. It is strange that nobody wants to know :-)

There was a time long ago when I thought the term "expert" had something to do with getting things right more often than non-experts.

The market was very accurate in predicting the number of tossups.

-- 101 ways to avoid the subjunctive mood

Gandalf January 2, 2007 - 5:52pm

Seeing as obviously neither you or I believe the Foley story was a a complete piece of luck for the Dems out of the blue, then we must assume that all the pieces were in place in advance.

Whether it was Dem strategy (or Republican strategy, knowing how many Republicans - likely concentrated amongst those who knew their own personal seats were secure - could plausibly have thought it would be a good thing either for the nation or for the survival of the party for the GOP to lose the House) or whether certain journalists refused the story saying "there isn't enough there", while in fact secretly squirrelling it away and holding it back until it could have maximum effect - someone knew. And apropos of nothing in particular, I wonder if all the elements in the CIA are content with the way that life's been going lately?

All that was missing was that you and I and others lacked a crucial piece of data upon which the election may arguably have hinged. But it wasn't data that wasn't there, it was data that some knew - but the predictors didn't.

And when elections like this past so often hinge on pieces of data that are invisible, the idea of predictions markets - which still tacitly assume that they hinge on the visible and predictable - gets less tenable.

Escher Sketch January 2, 2007 - 6:51pm

to those chat logs on Microsoft servers? Domestic government spies of course.

Even FBI had made an investigation on Foley, providing more possible leaking surface and cover for the trickster.

Media tried to obfuscate the original source by referring to individuals who provided logs after the story broke out.

And when elections like this past so often hinge on pieces of data that are invisible, the idea of predictions markets - which still tacitly assume that they hinge on the visible and predictable - gets less tenable.

If historical statistics doesn't prove otherwise, the market assumes that the shock probabilities are symmetric and have no effect to the expected average. (Some math details not explained here to avoid further confusion.)

(In the stock market the long term expected average is positive, but the negative shocks are stronger and shorter than the positive shocks. The stock market never crashes upwards.)

-- 101 ways to avoid the subjunctive mood

Gandalf January 4, 2007 - 1:39pm

He's a serious contender. Today he beats McCain. Word of warning though. The landscpe is liable to change quite a bit over the next two years.

Having troops in Iraq won't seem quite the big deal if we're involved in a larger conflict.

I can almost hear it now: See we did need those permanent bases in Iraq after all...

I did inhale.

Don December 31, 2006 - 10:22am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.