Not Your Sweetie

Am-NY pushes Edwards on page one. My response


http://www.nynewsday.com/other/special/amny/

Editorial@am-Ny.com
Subject: Eduards attracting Republicans? Only the Bush voting ones

First of all, here's William Saletan debunking the notion:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096251/

To John Kerry and John Edwards:

Thanks for plugging my exit poll analysis. I worked hard to earn this little niche, so I'll take the liberty of refereeing your dispute about it. John E, you said "the independents have been voting for me" in the primaries. Not so. My chart shows Kerry beat you among independents in six of the 10 exit-polled contests. In a post-debate e-mail to reporters, your staff lopped off the top half of the chart, in which Kerry beat you among independents all five times. Poof, just like that, your 4-of-10 record became 4-of-5. Your aides even trimmed Missouri out of the picture, claiming it wasn't "contested." Who decided which states would be "contested"? You did. And which states did you choose to contest? The ones where you figured you could win independents. And where did you find those states? In your native region. Four of those five states you brag about are in the South. In short, you did well where you knew you would, in your home games.

Stick to chronological accounting. You're 4-of-8 in all exit-polled contests this month, and 2-of-3 since Feb. 10.

and then, here's CNN's exit poll in WI (we can only imagine SC, TN, and VA)
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html
Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry
Voters who are enthusiastic about the Bush Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry
Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards
Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.

So, who believers that the voters who are ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and voted overwhelmingly for Edwards, would vote for him in November?
Edwards has been all along a tool of the RNC to get rid of the real threat: Clark

Here is an excerpt from the December 5 entry on the right-wing site polipundit:
"The rationale is simple:
1. We still want Dean to be the nominee so that President Bush can crush him and have long coattails.
2. The biggest threat to a Dean nomination is no longer Dick Gephardt, John Kerry or John Edwards. It's Weasel Clark, for all the reasons outlined below.
3. To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
4. In New Hampshire, donating to neighbouring-son John Kerry will help ensure that Clark won't surpass expectations by finishing ahead of Kerry.
5. In South Carolina, Clark can be stopped by neighbouring-son John Edwards.
 http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i16clarksurge.htm

So, I am disappointed that am-NY is trying to sell New Yorkers the guy who would have started the war himself as he declared on Hardball:

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?
EDWARDS: I would.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?
EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/