The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Edwards seems to be the only guy who gets it - and who puts out specific proposals to back up his rhetoric. He has the most detailed and achievable plan for universal healthcare out there (as opposed to a nebulous idea of achieving it "in his second term). He understand how folks got screwed by all the neocon dreams - NAFTA, "the ownership society" (which has left many with houses they can't afford and can't unload). And, he has the highest chance out of any of the Dems of actually being able to implement these ideas instead of fighting from day one trying to maintain a razor thin majority in the House and Senate.

Edwards is the most logical choice out there for President.

John Edwards would seem to be an excellent candidate. He has, from the beginning, advocated immediate withdrawal from Iraq, desired, according to the polls, by more than 70 percent of the American people. He has posited the most complete healthcare program by candidates of either party; he is championing the cause of rebuilding America's infrastructure, institutiong programs to help the poor and the middle class; he wants union agreements that don't tacitly discriminate against ASmerican workers; and he believes that at the very least illegal immigrants should pay a fine before being given the opportunity to remain in this country.
So how come John, you're running a lowly third in the country, and are tied in Iowa, where you have virtually camped out for the past year? It's primarily because your campaign manager, David Bonior, and some alleged political pros are fast asleep. They finally responded to the $400. haircut charge three months after it was levied, rather than have you walk around the corner and get trimmed by a local barber for much more moderate prices. They didn't exploit the fine arguments you posited for various policies on two national debates. They have failed to produce a "you and the camera" spot where you can look the potential voter in the eye, explain your program for America in lucid and cogent fashion. Instead we have a well produced but predictable endorsement by your wife...I venture to say my wife would say similar things about me...and a much delayed response to the brouhaha about the haircut. This new "offensive" may produce positive results...I hope so. But the negatives on Hillary are so high you don't need to improve on them. What you have to do, Senator, is convince the Democrats now and the general electorate later, that you are the only candidate that can bring home the bacon in '08.

"The Clintons showed throughout the 1990s that they can advance the Clintons, while other Democrats bite the dust."

I think that wasn't as intentional as you made it seem but rather a product of the trade off in advancing the Democratic party's goals either through the white house or congress. Part of what may of cause the Democrat's to lose Congress in 94' was the strong push to pass so many of the ideas that Clinton's promoted his campaign (especially in regards to health care and gay marriage) but the price for pushing such strong things ultimately found its way into local politics when Republicans used it against them. I think we have learned this time however how to get the issues through Congress and I believe that it maybe only Hillary whose seen the mess in the White House and how through good damage control high approval rating and a popularity rating of the President can remain while using the popularity of an old President to provide support to congressional races.

The one thing that Clinton has not done is talk about how the Clintons kept losing Congressional seats to the Republicans during his Presidency.

Clinton says she knows how to beat the Republicans. Well, if she does, they certainly didn't do much to help the Democrats in Congress "beat the Republicans" through the 1990s.

And you know what? If the Democrats nominate a candidate as polarizing as Hillary Clinton is, they will lose control of the House and the Senate "AGAIN," in 2008.

I'm sorry, but this is something the Democrats need to understand.

The single, greatest way for the Democrats to undo what Bush has done is to get a FILIBUSTER PROOF SENATE, so the Republicans cannot block legislation there.

If they nominate Hillary Clinton, they can forget about that, whether she squeaks out a victory or not.

If they get it right, and run a candidate who can help Democrats appeal to more areas throughout the country, like an Edwards/Obama or an Edwards/Clark ticket, then the Democrats will gain seats in the House and the Senate.

The Clintons showed throughout the 1990s that they can advance the Clintons, while other Democrats bite the dust.