On this blog of Deaniacs and Clarkistas, some occasional diversity of opinion is in order, especially to stem the food fights.
Earlier tonight I watched John Edwards's Iowa Public TV interview. Perhaps some of you should watch the replay. Of course, it's my opinion only, but I cannot see any Democrat who has a better chance to beat Bush. I say this even though I am more liberal than he is, but he is actually more liberal than he appears.
Edwards is articulate and has real passion that comes through. He is positive and ethical. While most of the candidates' positions are quite similar (not counting the war resolution which is actually a false issue -- voting no would have not stopped Bush for one second), Edwards has the best communication skills, hands down. And on substance he not only provides more details than the others (see his "Solutions for America" booklet), but can better explain those details, too.
As the Des Moines Register said, even though he has less experience in politics than the others, he is a natural, a cut above, and the complete opposite of Bush in virtually every respect. What better way than to give Americans a choice between day and night? Can you see the debate?
If given the chance, this man has the potential to be better than Clinton, to bring Americans together from all regions of the country, and to provide the face of America that the rest of the world will look up to.
Edwards does not talk down to anyone. He does not rant against the other candidates. He does not raise false issues, and when he talks it comes from his heart. He presents a vision of true hope, and not at the expense of anyone else.
Yes, he may not win in the end, but that will not mean that we Democrats chose the best person, or the best leader, to move our agenda forward.