Log in

No account? Create an account
14 November 2007 @ 08:14 pm
I support John Edwards. I agree with every one of his policies. I've talked about him with liberal friends, and while they might be supporting another candidate, they don't have anything negative to say about Edwards (besides his past losses, Southern accent, or $400 haircut he paid for himself).

Am I missing anything in particular about Edwards or is there a certain reason why he hasn't picked up steam? Is it because Obama appeals to the youth vote? Clinton to the Clinton vote?

edit Disregard this post! Opinions change.
Music: Goldfrapp - Black Cherry
mingster on November 15th, 2007 04:43 am (UTC)
have you read transmetropolitan?

edwards is the smiler and you can't trust the smiler

Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 15th, 2007 05:38 am (UTC)
Sure that guy looks like Edwards. But I thought OBAMA was the smiler in this race.
mingster on November 15th, 2007 06:40 am (UTC)
i don't see how, edwards' whole schtick is much closer than obama's
Starline Xiomara Hodgestarline on November 15th, 2007 04:48 am (UTC)
I've heard people aren't going for him because his wife is having health issues. They're worried if he gets into office and something happens to her, his priorities can't be on his job.
brandon johnsonpiratezim on November 15th, 2007 05:46 am (UTC)
he's not a minority (women are a minority)
Matt: Fuzzy pickles!whitenoise on November 15th, 2007 06:54 am (UTC)
Wouldn't that make him a better candidate than Obama or Clinton?

We've never had a president in the white house before who is a member of a minority. Why would the Democrats think that a minority would have a better chance in 2008?

(PS: nice userpic.)
a_to_tha_qa_to_tha_q on November 15th, 2007 06:56 am (UTC)
cause people want to prove that they're not racist or sexist by deigning to vote for a black or female person and then congratulating themselves but secretly hoping they don't actually win the primaries so they can safely vote for another white protestant man but self-righteously regale their friends with tales of how they did their best?

Mattwhitenoise on November 15th, 2007 07:02 am (UTC)
I'm not racist or sexist, but I wouldn't vote for Obama or Clinton for the same reason I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader: I simply don't think any of them have a chance of getting elected.

I like Nader, and I like Obama, but I would much rather get someone aligned with my political beliefs into the white house than "prove" that I'm open-minded enough to vote for a minority candidate. Not that it actually "proves" anything, of course, since it's a secret ballot and I have no obligation to discuss who I voted for or my motivations for doing so.

Sadly, the American public can be very foolish, and votes for people for very silly reasons, as has been made abundantly clear in the 00s. I hope they're able to take things seriously this time around. I'm afraid for what's going to happen to my country if they don't.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 15th, 2007 07:58 am (UTC)
I've already SEEN what's happened to my country in both 2000 and 2004. There's a lot of visible damage already.
Justin Boucher: J Creamfranceattack on November 16th, 2007 06:15 am (UTC)
Obama has a way better chance than ralph nader to get elected, and Clinton has a hell of a chance of getting elected being the fron runner of the dems right now. I think you should vote for what you believe in instead of perpetuating something that you don't believe is right.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 15th, 2007 08:00 am (UTC)
Well what's interesting this time around is that the front runners are both (political) minorities. I feel as if Edwards has been grouped with Biden, Dodd, and Richardson as regular ol' white doofuses that promise the same old stuff. (while Gravel and Kucinich are fucking crazy.)
brandon johnsonpiratezim on November 15th, 2007 06:18 pm (UTC)
honestly, I feel the strongest ticket would be edwards as president and clinton or obama as VP, but I fear that both their egos would not allow them to run as veep.
(Anonymous) on November 18th, 2007 05:21 pm (UTC)
"(while Gravel and Kucinich are fucking crazy.)"

I really dont like hearing close-minded language. I have no idea where you are coming from here. could you tell me what you mean by that? Think carefully. what drives you to speak with your emotions instead of logic, when it comes to candidates that are dramatically, honestly, and genuienly suggesting a very radical change? Im not saying I agree with either of them, but try to be fair in your opinions. no one wants to hear knee-jerk responses.
night_tracker on November 15th, 2007 07:36 am (UTC)
he's not for gay marriage, but that wouldn't stop me from voting for him.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 15th, 2007 07:54 am (UTC)
Last I read he hadn't made up his mind. But yeah I mean I don't like marriage in general so I don't really care.
night_tracker on November 15th, 2007 08:03 am (UTC)
last i read he was too much of a southern baptist to be for it but that his daughter was like 'dad just doesn't understand'
beauseizure on November 15th, 2007 03:36 pm (UTC)
this nonchalance may have serious implications for human rights, now and in the future, and you might want to reconsider that.
Alex Davisjoevual on November 15th, 2007 04:27 pm (UTC)
It's not even about being gay or about marriage, it's about providing every citizen with equal rights and opportunities and respecting their beliefs.
Josephloccster on November 15th, 2007 11:05 am (UTC)
Alex Davisjoevual on November 15th, 2007 04:22 pm (UTC)
When he ran for vice president in 2004 with John Kerry he was against gay marriage. I don't know if he's changed his position since then, but that's the image that I've placed him with; a homophobe.
brienhopkinsbrienhopkins on November 15th, 2007 06:12 pm (UTC)
I think he plays up his accent.
hellokaorihellokaori on November 15th, 2007 10:56 pm (UTC)
They all do. I think several hundred years in the future political campaigns will hinge on who has the most incomprehensible Southern drawl. "Ahmjuzlahkyall!"