I guess we'll never know since he decided not to run. That senate seat was more important than running for vice-president- because it was very unlikely that another Democrat besides him could have won that seat. He should have known that.
heartfelt and sincere wishful thinking. And it may be correct.
In the end, I think it will be hard for John Edwards to close the deal. He has been out of politics for 4 years. He chose to run for vice-president instead of staying and fighting for his senate seat; he has only been involved in politics for one term in the senate. During these years he was not known as a leader of any sort.
I realize that national polling shows him doing well in general election match-ups. In the end, however, democratic voters and caucusers will have to determine whether he really can accomplish what he says he wants to. I think this will be very hard for him to do.
I, myself, have no one I am advocating for. Most Democrats that are not involved politically have not made a decision either. And do we really need another bush or clinton for president?
Personally, I think all of the Democratic candidates would do an okay job. But none of them, at this point, seem to have most of the qualities that I would be looking for in a candidate.
Clinton- well most of the public (myself included) is just tired of her. And being married to a president doesn't give a person the experience to be president. And winning a New York senate seat is not comparable to winning a presidential race in a midwestern or western state. And then there's that voice you would have to hear on your tv every night for four years.
Obama- he has the message and looks. but may have a hard time with a national campaign. I worry that baby boomers will not support him.
Edwards- best hair but shorter on experience than Clinton or Obama. And he didn't run for re-election for his senate seat in 2004- that is a big negative since he should have known how important it would be to keep that senate seat for the Democrats. I don't care that he was running for vice-president- he should have been working to keep that senate seat.
Richardson- this is the guy i would like to see do well- experience and competence all over the place. But, he is having a hard time pulling it together.
a farm policy that provides some sort of goal that if you are a family farmer, then you should be able to have an income that is comparable to middle class incomes for the rest of the nation.
If you farm in this country, you shouldn't have to live a third world life-style.
The original New Deal farm legislation contains this goal of comparable income- and the department of agriculture is actually still charged with fulfilling this role. Current Farm Policy and Programs, however, do not advance this notion.
You can do whatever you want about conservation and the environment. It still misses the point that if you want reasonably-scaled, local, family-owned farms, then the nation has to pay for them in some form- either higher food costs, taxes, deficit spending, or some sort of combination.
and currently raising apples, I have to say that your comment on the farm bill will undoubtably raise questions within this community about the need for a farm bill in this country at all.
The farm community and its way of life is not understood by almost all Americans and it is disheartening to see continued loss of support for farmers amongst liberal and progressive groups.
That being said, it is important to realize that the current farm bill, while better than no program at all and better than the "freedom to farm act" of the 1990's, does little to set a coherent farm policy for our nation.
It is in our own best interest to encourage agricultural production in our own country just as it is in our own best interest interest to encourage manufacturing or any other kind of production.
Whenever I hear people say that our agricultural policies are hurting the third world, I always wonder if people are really suggesting that our nation should represent the interests of third world farmers over the need of American farmers to earn a living right here in their own country? Please don't read into my comment any notion that I think the current farm program should remain in its current form or that it promotes family-owned local farms.
and Matt- feel free to make as many unsubstantied and ill-informed comments as you like since most of the press does all the time- just like in the article you quoted.