Edwards is the only Democrat the GOP fears.

Edwards is the only Democrat they truly fear, and they pay lip service to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to ensure that the Democrats try to run them as candidates, as they are the only contenders that the GOP is certain they could beat.

Discuss.

Thank you for phrasing that insight in the most inarticulate way possible.

Hillaryous. Edwards is old news, no one - regardless of party - takes him seriously.

Listen to me VERY carefully, chanfags.

The Dems do NOT run losers for major offices.  Edwards lost, hence he'll NEH-VAR be considered for the White House again.  Never ever!

Once you've lost a major race, you're just a nigger to the DLC no matter what the color of your skin is.  The DLC will run a complete (oh, irony) Dark Horse before ever considering YOU.

Al Gore is a great example.  He knows he can't run for the Presidency again, as long as the DLC controls the national party.  You see, the DLC is concerned about only TWO things, and that's "election excitement" and "personal electability".  They want excitement since that's about the only real satisfaction they can offer the public (since they're running a Centrist Dem -- in other words, a fucking Republican).  They want electability since they want to take ZERO chances of their man not getting into office.

The Dem nomination is sewn up between Clinton and Obama.  Since Congressmen don't win the Presidency any more (and haven't, for many decades), and a woman/black approach is even more of a guaranteed loser in fully half the American populace, then the Dems have ALREADY lost the 2008 Presidential election.  Of course, this partially depends on the Repubs running a governor (who is about the only type of politician who wins the White House in the last 50 years).

Note well that losing the election is actually fine by the DLC behind the scenes, since they are extremely wealthy people, and the Repub policies are very beneficial to them.

In the polls, Edwards beats any Republican challenger head-to-head, while Clinton and Obama both lose against any mainstream Republican. In this sense, he is the greatest threat to the Republicans. They don't need to take down Obama or Clinton. Of course, Fox News will start throwing mud once one of them wins the primary, but for now they NEED to make sure Edwards doesn't get it.

Nobody thought Kerry would get the nomination for 2004. Everyone thought it was Dean, but look how that turned out.

RedCream, it took me over a minute to read your shitty post. I want that minute back.

#5, what you got was free of charge and you're just lucky I didn't fucking actually CHARGE you for it.  Edwards isn't competing against the Republicans since the Republicans aren't going to be nominating him.  Is that fact really that hard to comprehend?

Like I've said, Clinton and Obama have the Dem nomination sewn up.  The DLC loves them, and the financiers and Jews have given their own stamps of approval.  The election of 2008 is already over, for the Presidency ... unless the Repubs go all fuckwitted and DON'T run a current Repub governor.

P.S.  Kerry was the Dem clone of Bush; wealthy, White, eastern-educated, and heavily pro-war and pro-corporation (i.e. pro-Imperialism).  Dean was way too Socialist, in comparison.  You may as well (falsely) say "Ron Paul is polling well and nobody expects him to not gain the Repub nomination".  Ron Paul has ZERO chance of getting the nomination, as Dean had ZERO chance of getting the same in 2004.  The nomination is RESERVED for those who will preserve the status quo of the American Empire, and who will continue the Great War on Middle-Class and Poor Americans.  If you thought that Dean had a shot, then THAT only shows how you have ZERO understanding of American party politics.  The DLC drives the Dems, and Clinton is a positive DLC darling.  The Neo-Cons drive the Repubs.  Follow those lines of money and power, THOSE are where you'll find the candidates that end up on the actual ballots each November.

Edwards' wife was QQing yesterday because he isn't "Black or a Woman," well guess what cancer bitch? No one in their right mind wants a shyster prick of a lawyer who wouldn't get elected even if he was a black woman with those beliefs he has.

#5, what polls? come on, with an argument this ridiculous you need to state SOME kind of source - if for no other reason than we could laugh at whoever claimed those results. =)

>>7

That's kinda funny, actually. I wouldn't vote for a nigger or a woman either. Granted, if it came down to the two against each other, I'd vote for the nigger, but I wouldn't say it's so far outside the realm of possibility for him.

>>6

I love how the more ridiculous someone sounds, the more readily they'll throw around that someone else doesn't understand politics. Even if I agreed with what you had to say, I wouldn't openly admit it because you present your ideas like a total embarrassment.

>>9
Rejecting my ideas on the basis of presentation is about par for the course of someone deeply involved in system of propaganda.  Thanks for at least admitting that, by implication.

I can and will repeat what was true:

"If you thought that Dean had a shot, then THAT only shows how you have ZERO understanding of American party politics."

"If you thought that Dean had a shot, then THAT only shows how you have ZERO understanding of American party politics."
^
He had a better chance than Kerry, as history shows.

Edwards vs. all source:
http://www.rasmussenresearch.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Edwardsvs.ThompsonGiuliani20070409.htm

RedCream, I agree with #9. I'm ashamed to say that, on occasion, you say something that I have to concur with, although you generally use the craziest possible logic to make your point. Your latest posts, though, don't really have arguments. You're just spewing off at everyone because you think everyone's against you (which you're actually right about). Go see a therapist, honestly. You have some serious anger issues, you have a lot of hostility with no real direction, and I'm honestly worried that you might become a danger to yourself at some point.

If you insist on arguing here some more, please try to take some deep breaths first. Think with reason instead of this neurotic emotional outpouring that we've been seeing.

>>11
You don't need to draw a deep breath.  You just need to stop drawing your air in through a tube that contains some combusting herb.

History shows that Kerry had a better chance than Dean since it was KERRY who gained (to my horror!) the Dem nomination.  Once the DLC members made their choice and the party delegates leaned heavily in that direction, Dean was done like a steak left on the grill too long.

Dean was trying to align himself with the semi-historical basis of the Dem party.  However, the Limousine Liberals who run the Dem party want nothing to do with "all that bullshit" anymore.  The semi-historical platform of the Dem party is quite simply bad for Hypercapitalism.  If you prioritize the general populace in your social policies, you endanger corporate profiteering, the socialization of costs, and the overall hoarding of private wealth.  The elites who now control the Dem party aren't going to jeopardize their own class in that fashion.

THEREFORE, Dean had no chance.  Sure, there was a significant popular following for Dean.  However, the Dem party is as baseless as the Repubs are, in that party politics determine the matter, not philosophy.  Once Dean failed to secure the nomination powers from the elite, the elite were in control nearly no matter how many people backed Dean.  As each primary went largely to Kerry, Dean's backing evaporated ... because at their core, Dems are spineless and won't risk losing the election.  Once Kerry demonstrated his lead, he was in.  It was inevitable at that point.  The Dems are always going to choose "electability".  (Kerry was an East Coast Lib, anyway, which is a frequent "safe bet" for Dems.)

The same thing is going to happen in 2008, which is the hilarious thing.  Clinton and Obama are the same type of elitists as Kerry and Gore were, and essentially have their foreheads stamped "APPROVED" by the leading investment bankers.  They are a terrible choice for the semi-historical Dem platform (you know, people over profits, blah blah blah) ... but since that platform is 99.9% in place for PR reasons, it doesn't matter.  Millions of Dems will vote because they've "always voted for the party of the working man" (this is where you tend to hear the sound of my vomiting) and will click and tap for the Clinton/Obama ticket purely on that basis.  Clinton will continue the destruction of their class of person, but as "Default Dems" they aren't very smart anyway, so there's THAT.

Obama and Clinton both blow.

>>13
That's exactly correct.  They both blow ... blow investment bankers, that is.  (They also both blow ZionCock, with all the lip-service to Israel.)  Anyone who puts them into office will have to explain to the rest of us how they plan on putting dinner on the table, since their jobs and money will continue to escape our shores.