He's good-looking, intelligent, charismatic, and with a very sunny disposition.
He comes from a humble background, is a true champion of the ordinary American and hails from the South, an area where Kerry (and Gore, back in 2000) got clobbered and one which the Democrats need to carry if they have any hope of winning the White House.
So why didn't be beat out Kerry in '04 and why are people already starting to write him off this time around?
2006-12-28 05:32:47 · 8 answers · asked by Student 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because . . . this nation has been losing IQ points for years now and most people are intimidated by those who demonstrate higher intelligence- hence we have suffered for what will be 8 years, a president who can neither speak formal English nor formulate an entire intelligible sentence and whose capacity for logic is non-existent. I know I've gotten to the point where I cringe when I see him speak before leaders of other nations and cannot stomach a state of the union address. If one is to be a buffoon leader, at least Kruschev's shoe pounding or Hugo Chavez' diabolism commentary was/is more entertaining.
Judging from the number of W04 stickers in evidence on my community's roads, that's just the way "Amerkins like ther gubment."
We have become the jerry springer show for the entire world sadly.
2006-12-28 05:50:38 · answer #1 · answered by SWMynx 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know... I like him... I think he could have a chance...
the only thing people can say is "he's a lawyer"? yeah... and?
I think he was too green to the process in 2004, but being VP on the ticket helped a lot and I think he has the best chance out of anyone...
he's from the south... which could put the south into play if the Republicans go with a northerner who's more liberal like Giuliani...
and I don't think the Republicans can win without the south...
it's still a long ways away... no one thought Clinton had a chance this far out either...
2006-12-28 13:41:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he is about as anti-corporation as any politician in this age can be. Because corporations are responsible for all major media and marketing in this country, John Edwards will find it almost impossible to get good buzz and coverage. It's not that 'people' think John Edwards would be a bad president. Corporations think that, and so they use marketing science to persuade the populace likewise.
2006-12-28 13:36:38 · answer #3 · answered by Zafrod 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We are afraid he will take one more step to the left and fall completely off of the political spectrum. Also, from what I understand, he made his fortune as an ambulance chasing attorney. The last thing we need in Washington is another slick lawyer.
2006-12-28 13:41:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's a Democrat, which automatically alienates half the electorate who've been poisoned by decades of GOP hate propaganda. We see it parroted here.
Plus he's a lawyer. Many people hate lawyers, especially Trial Lawyers that help people rather than corporations.
If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him over ANY Republican.
2006-12-28 13:35:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Can you really trust a person who could legitmately be called a "slick lawyer" after making his millions on litigation was eventually proven to be false? Besides, you've not mentioned anything to show his experience as a leader.
2006-12-28 13:36:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If I only had a choose between Edwards and Hillary....I would vote for Edwards. Only NY likes Hillary but that is it! she has too much trouble history and scandals that will make it difficult for her to win.
2006-12-28 13:39:15 · answer #7 · answered by 2u-sister 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To me it seems as though he has a fake personality, kind of like Bush.
2006-12-28 13:36:58 · answer #8 · answered by E 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋