Edwards plays up second-place finish

Why do you say that the crowd was mostly made up of campaign workers? We aren't campaign workers and neither were a lot of the people that we met this morning.

Edwards is the only Deomcrat that can beat the top Republicans. Hillary and Obama may be great with the far left, but centrist democrats, particularly in the South, are not going to vote for either of them.

I would also like to note that the Boston Globe is one of the few mainstream news outlets that is giving even a moderate amount of coverage to Edwards.

The TV outlets particularly are trying to pick the candidates for us. they ignore the fact that Edwards finished ahead of Hillary in Iowa and insist on trying to freeze Edwards out. It is shameful. they are ignoring their duty to report the news (and not try to direct it one way or the other).

I think that edwards is the only candidate tthat can affect real, positive change. I hope that the Globe continues to give him the coverage that the American people deserve.

John Edwards' speech last night after his second place finish in the Iowa caucuses was positively electrifying. I'm convinced now he's a real person with real convictions, telling the real story about uninsured healthcare tragedies, homeless and hungry families and working people who can't make a go of it while corporate CEOs reap millions.

I thought John Edwards' candidacy was dead in the water, but today I have a growing conviction that he's the president who'll work for me. New Hampshire voters, give John Edwards another look. Show the country and the world that it takes more than money to win the hearts of Americans.

I am absolutely going to start campaigning for Edwards.

I don't get this whole "Edwards Can Win The South" thing. He didn't run for re-election in NC because he was going to lose badly and he couldn't even help Kerry carry his home state of NC.

Southern states have a larger % of African-Americans, i.e. Georgia and S. Carolina--if there is anyone who can win one or two Southern states, which is all that is needed for any democrat, it is Barack Obama.

Edwards is not a populist, he is a complete socialist and would bring this country into even more debt. You do not have to scream and yell to bring about change--Obama has brought about more positive changes from his years in the state senate and U.S. Senate then Edwards ever did in his 6 years. Edwards is simply a hypocrite. He talks about responsibility and these powerful CEOs, but yet gets a $400 haircut with campaign funds. Give me a break.

I am a NH voter and after lots of consideration have decided to vote for Edwards. I have transitioned from Clinton then Obama and do feel that both (all three actually) are intelligent, interesting charismatic leaders but in the end I have decided the "electability" factor is important to me. When a (slight) majority of Americans will elect Bush for two terms in a row then you have to be realistic and know that Hilary and Obama don't have a chance with that kind of voter mentality. I feel comfortable and confident with Edwards and think he has a better chance of surviving against a Republican candidate.

Edwards showed a lack of class in downplaying Hillary's returns. He BARELY won and he's acting like there are only two candidates now? It reveals his fear of Hillary and his eagerness to get her off the spotlight.

At any rate, and what is most important, is that Edwards is resorting to the politics of division, which is just not presidential anymore. Perhaps in the past... but the bar is being raised by Obama. Time to step it up other candidates!
.

Edwards need to expand his message just a little--speak of the possibility of a draft if the Republicans are elected and how they have already promised to keep the war going on. Speak of how the Republican and Democrates can work together without the influence of corporated pay offs to once again make our elected officials work in favor of the people. Stress they need to work with the Republican to change the way they do business. Mention how Bush vetoed certain bills guaranteeing that the people would be left out. Mention how the troops have suffered and continues to suffer under this administration.

Edwards need to expand his message just a little--speak of the possibility of a draft if the Republicans are elected and how they have already promised to keep the war going on. Speak of how the Republicans and Democrates can work together, without the influence of lobbyist pay offs, to once again make our elected officials work in favor of the people. Stress the need to work with the Republicans and independantes to change the way government do business. Mention how Bush vetoed certain bills guaranteeing that the people would be left out. Mention how the troops have suffered and continues to suffer under this administration. Remind the crowds that there are those that don't won't him to win because "they don't want you the people to win and have a voice".

Edwards is the democrt that can win the election. People are not ready for a black muslim president it scares people. Obama is a fine fellow but I don't think he is telling us everything about himself. Hilary is not the genuine artical (Bill Clinton)
too bad.

It's amazing how the media have decided to eliminate Edwards from the scene. Neither CNN nor MSNBC deigned to mention him more than in passing last night, and both repeatedly said that Obama had beaten "Hillary" -- without noting that Edwards had placed second.

The NY Times hasn't had his name on the front page at all today. It's been all Huckabee, Obama, and Hillary.

What's most interesting is that they've pointedly ignored that Obama beat Edwards because of Independents; without them Obama barely squeaked 1% past Edwards. That's a HUGE story, and they've buried it. Obama gave his usual speech full of vague platitudes, and instead of calling it what it was, Chris Matthews called it "heroic" and "big-picture." It wasn't big-picture -- it was just a bunch of nice-sounding words that didn't mean anything.

No question: Edwards is the candidate the establishment fears. They're trying to write him out of the script and hope no one notices.

It's amazing how the media have decided to eliminate Edwards from the scene. Neither CNN nor MSNBC deigned to mention him more than in passing last night, and both repeatedly said that Obama had beaten "Hillary" -- without noting that Edwards had placed second.

The NY Times hasn't had his name on the front page at all today. It's been all Huckabee, Obama, and Hillary.

What's most interesting is that they've pointedly ignored that Obama beat Edwards because of Independents; without them Obama barely squeaked 1% past Edwards. That's a HUGE story, and they've buried it. Obama gave his usual speech full of vague platitudes, and instead of calling it what it was, Chris Matthews called it "heroic" and "big-picture." It wasn't big-picture -- it was just a bunch of nice-sounding words that didn't mean anything.

No question: Edwards is the candidate the establishment fears. They're trying to write him out of the script and hope no one notices.

I thought Edwards' post-caucus speech last night was bizarre. He never acknowledged that Obama had won the caucus; his speech made it sound like he thought he had won. Edwards' narrow victory over Clinton for second place doesn't give him a legitimate basis to lump himself with Obama as one of the Iowa winners and posit Clinton as the Iowa loser (he and Obama = change while Clinton = status quo). Clinton's speech last night was much more graceful and appropriate. I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primary, but I don't like his new confrontational and seemingly angry style. Obama's optimism is far more appealing.

It's amazing how the media have decided to eliminate Edwards from the scene. Neither CNN nor MSNBC deigned to mention him more than in passing last night, and both repeatedly said that Obama had beaten "Hillary" -- without noting that Edwards had placed second.

The NY Times hasn't had his name on the front page at all today. It's been all Huckabee, Obama, and Hillary.

What's most interesting is that they've pointedly ignored that Obama beat Edwards because of Independents; without them Obama barely squeaked 1% past Edwards. That's a HUGE story, and they've buried it. Obama gave his usual speech full of vague platitudes, and instead of calling it what it was, Chris Matthews called it "heroic" and "big-picture." It wasn't big-picture -- it was just a bunch of nice-sounding words that didn't mean anything.

No question: Edwards is the candidate the establishment fears. They're trying to write him out of the script and hope no one notices.

Sorry for the three posts -- server got hung up.

Obama's optimism won't change the status quo.

Anyway, he doesn't want to change the status quo; he is the status quo's choice, with a lot of great-sounding words to fool progressives. His record, and his echoing right-wing talking points on everything from health care to social security, explain why the money and the establishment are behind him. He says what progressives want to hear, but he constantly signals to the big money that they need not fear him. He's done that since law school -- look it up.

That's his trick; say what liberals want to hear, but go with the money and be cute about it. He campaigned for Lieberman, don't forget, and helped keep Ned Lamont out of the Senate, preventing a Democratic majority.

You have to hand it to him, though -- he's the least progressive of the three candidates, and people think he's the "agent of change." Boy will they be disappointed.

Barack is a brilliant guy and a genuinely inspiring, even compelling orator. He wows me. The problem is that, so far, it seems that all he is, is a brilliant guy and a genuinely inspiring, even compelling orator. I want someone who is willing and able to roll up his or her sleeves and confront what needs to be confronted. This country is not slightly off-course, it's way off-course. The next president needs to be tough, and a fighter. He or she will need to play hardball, not softball like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry et al. Conciliation, negotiation and consultation are not the games the Republicans play. We can't afford to try to play those games with them.

I will be up in NH canvassing for Edwards tomorrow, which I have done on recent weekends. It is fun. I urge you to try it. They give you a map and a list of voters in a certain area of town. You walk up to the houses, ring the doorbell, smile, say you're a volunteer for John Edwards, hand them a book of Edwards' positions and ask who they're voting for. Then you jot down the result and go to the next house on the list. If you'd like to do this, the friendly Edwards campaign staffers will welcome your help. There are offices in Salem, NH and Derry NH that are a quick ride up 93 from Boston. The primary is January 8. If you're an Edwards supporter, your two "boots on the ground" for a couple or three hours in NH would be a terrific and valuable way to help.

Edwards and Obama are two good men--may the best one win. We can not take four more years of the Republican party and its hate and war peddlers.

Then why did Edwards vote twice--2000 and 2001 for the Bankruptcy Bill? The Iraq authorization Bill as well? Does that square with the claim that he's been "fighting all his life for us?

Obama is nothing more than an empty suit. If we elected Presidents
according how good they are at inspirational speeches we would see priests,
ministers running.

The man just spews a lot of "simpatico" platitudes to wow the crowds.
I am not fooled in the least. Just another Bush promising to be "a uniter
not a divider". He never speaks substantively. He dodges and equivocates.

Edwards is the real thing. What courage he shows. Go John go!!!

Hey ! remember edwards voted for war in irak.....

i wont forget that!

he is PHONY !!!!!! (not only on irak)