Only John Edwards Can Beat McCain

I'll be 60 eight days before the election in November. This is a bad thing and a good thing. The bad thing is it ain't going to be a real long time before I'm dead. The good thing is I've traveled a few miles and have picked up something along the way, and that something is called "institutional memory".

As I watched news coverage of Monday night's debate, the ever-escalating "I know you are, but what am I?" fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton suddenly struck a memory from 28 years back. The feud between Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter rushed into my mind like a horrible memory of an old girlfriend. My recollection of their self-destructive hostilities reminded me how their battles went a long ways toward giving this nation Ronald Reagan.

It was 1980, and the Democratic Party had two supposedly strong national candidates--one an incumbent president, the other a scion of America's national family. They were going up against a Republican Party that was searching for an identity and would go deep on the bench to nominate the host of "Death Valley Days".

I remember this as an election we shouldn't have lost. But as we have done so many times in the past, we Democrats figured out a way to step on our Johnson.

In that 1980 nominating battle, our two candidates went after each other like Sherman went after Georgia. The result? Unbelievably, half of Washington is now named after Ronald Reagan--though I'll still say I'm flying into National Airport until the day the Good Lord or the Devil calls me home.

Surely, I'm not the only one who can see this six-foot rabbit named Harvey. John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee. How do I know? Because "institutional memory" also reminds me that the Democratic Party I love can't count. And regardless of what you think of the Republicans, they can.

It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ that my boy John Edwards, with his combination of red state electoral experience and toughness, is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether you believe polls or not, polls from CNN to Rasmussen say just that.

And it should be equally as clear to anybody with over a 25 IQ that Obama and Clinton are going to render each other totally unelectable against any Republican, especially John McCain, by the time we get to the convention.

All the Republicans have to be loving this. Because the Democrat they don't want to face, John Edwards, is getting sandwiched between the coverage of this murderous cat fight between two so-called "historical" candidates who, when all is said and done, will be just that. HISTORY.

Comments

[chafinlw]

Mudcat, you are right about one thing - (at least some - apparently you are among 'em) Dems can't count. C'mon. JE couldn't win against Kerry in '04. JE can't win against Obama or Clinton in '08. Why? All of them got (or are getting) more votes than JE. More Dem votes, I might add. John has great ideas and great delivery - but he has terrible traction and can't seem to get any. And I have a couple of things to say re: history - Eisenhower/Nixon; Kennedy/Johnson; Johnson/Humphrey; Reagan/Bush. They all tore at each other in their nomination fights and none of those could stand each other - but they could pull their party together aferward and successfully run on a presidential ticket together. HISTORY.

[teamsterwife]

Lets just hope America wakes up and LISTENS! GO JOHNNY GO!

[knowhelpnow]

If the DNC has any mind at all they would make sure Edwards was the candidate for the Democrats you are right that only Edwards can beat McCain. We are killing ourselves with Clinton and Obama neither of them can win the Presidency.
Please don't let this slip by us, we will never recover.

[K-Dog76]

Great! I'm a conservative and I was going to vote for Obama in the general election. So it looks like Hillary gets nominated and McCain wins (or Romney). Go elephant!

What Edwards needs to do is drop out and sign on the Obama ticket early. As a numbers game Edwards is really only running for V.P> anyway. Why not actually get on the ticket by pledging to OBama? Oh wait he's probably waiting to jump on the Clinton bandwagon, which is why he keeps helping her win by taking votes away from Obama.

Clinton won't ever pick Obama for V.P. you can ask Chris Rock why.

[JMEB]

You are right about Clinton and Obama tearing each other down.

The problem with Edwards, as Russ Feingold correctly pointed out, is that his campaign rhetoric is completely at odds with his voting record. Well, that, and the fact that he has not budged from 3rd place.

[magadog1]

This bummed me out because I believe that it's true. I'm further bummed because I live in Oregon, and by the time of our May primary, we're often left with the dregs. I don't even know if Edwards will be on the ballot.

He's clearly the only true progressive still standing (wobbling???) and very scary to our Corporate Welfare State-- who just happens to control the media. At times I've wondered whether John Edwards is just a figment of our imaginations. The pundits and talking heads, not to mention the Wolf Blitzers and Brian Williamses who manipulate the debates to showcase "the woman and the black guy," barely utter his name.

What really ired me most was when Williams told Edwards he could ask one question to both candidates. He asked about contributions-- Williams directed him to Obama first- and Brian Williams CHANGED THE RULES. (Sorry. You can't ask Hillary.) *I* wanted to know, too.

Are we supposed to be elated that he could be a "king-maker"? Whoopee!

"Mudcat" is right.

Just add a little vote-tweaking here and caging there and Rove-ian tactics and we end up with the wrong "king." It would be McCain.

Can someone convincingly tell me to keep the faith?

We need John Edwards!

[made]

I am a New Yorker and I will vote this Feb for John Edwards because he is the candidate that has proscribe the toughest and most honest solutions for what is ailing this nation. Either Clinton or Obama would be better then the dynasaur McCain. The problem I have with Clinton vs McCain is that he will destroy her on the expierience issue and likewise the same with Obama. If I have to pick between Obama and Clinton I take Obama. Hillary is old news and her touting her 'expierience'; sleeping in the White House with Bill is laughable. And one more thing, Bill should butt the f---out.

[barbie]

Dave AKA Mudcat - Do you have any ideas as to how we start raising the IQ levels of the public so they realize that John is the guy that will represent the common citizen of the US of A in the White House?

[RobHoff]

Thanks for the post MudCat, preachin to the choir here my man!

Rob Hoff
Shelton, Wa

[Duncan]

Anyone can win against McCain because he is so supportive of Bush and his policies. The vast majority of voters are sick of Bush and most independents will vote for whomever the dem candidate is..

[CanSoc]

Mr Saunder's Carter-Kennedy analogy defeats his conclusion. Reagan was perceived as bringing something NEW (even though it was really reactionary) to Washington, whereas Carter represented the tired status quo. Now the situation is reversed. McCain even disregarding his years only promises more of the same wretched Republican program of plutocracy, including a war which the Democrats will point out is draining the resources government needs to deal with the economic state the Bush admin has left the country in. As far as McCain is concerned the proper analogy is a veteran from an earlier war, Bob Dole.

[alamo]

All 3 Democrats are electable if everyone actually turns out and votes in the General Election on November 4, 2008.

I like John Edwards--reminds me of a southern version of JFK. (Admittedly, their backgrounds do differ more than a bit) Has intelligence and excellent policies as well as a new vision for America. He can trounce ANY Republican (see 1st paragraph above)

I like Barack Obama--int­elligent,p­assionate, youthful and epitomizes "change". (God knows we need it after the 7 nightmarish centuries/'er years of Bush/Cheney) Certainly he can defeat ANY Republican (also see 1st paragraph above)

I like Hiliary Clinton--i­ntelligent without question, tough, experienced (very) and a policy wonk to the 9s. She impressed me when she pointed out in no uncertain terms that contrary to Obama's remark, she would be a hands on President and NOTHING like Ronald Reagan or GWB! (Again note 1st paragraph above)

[Tulka2]

Edward's problem is he has the best handle on policy, but he puts a fatal spin on it. His fatal flaw is that people do not like to be told they are f___ed. It is especially hard to hear if the person telling you says that only he can rescue you. The American people know in their gut only they themselves hold the answers. Even if the candidate has great ideas, he must be humble and ask for inspiration from the hoi poli.

I am especially interested in health care reform and Edward's policies on health-care are the best for the country's economic recovery.

There is a guest essay on today's "Seattle P.I" newspaper opinion page. It is by a local named Thomas A. Preston M.D. Recomended reading if you want to be informed. Read it at www.seattlepi.com Go to the opinion page.

[hopeless277]

So what you're saying is that a cap that says President McCain will be good investment?

[CalvinistHobbesian]

His performance as the only adult at the debate Monday has me convinced Edwards is the best choice. Come on, South Carolina, throw us a bone here...