John and Elizabeth Edwards to Visit Atlanta (Blog for Democracy)

John and Elizabeth Edwards to Visit Atlanta

John and Elizabeth are going to be in Atlanta next Tuesday night to meet with local supporters. Space is limited, but the price is right.

What: "Small Change for Big Change" grassroots fundraiser with John and Elizabeth Edwards

Where: Georgia Freight Depot, 65 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303

When: Tuesday, July 24th, 4:45 PM

Tickets are $15 (with a cash bar).

RSVP online to reserve a spot.

Posted by Paula on July 18, 2007 10:07 AM | Permalink

Comments (23)

RuralDem

Sounds good to me. Edwards continues to display his support for Georgia. Savannah, Macon, Atlanta, etc... have all played host to the campaign.

At least one candidate truly cares about the citizens of our state. I can't say the same for Hillary or the hot-air machine Obama.

Posted by RuralDem | July 18, 2007 11:34 AM

Posted on July 18, 2007 11:34

Smitty

quote of the day:

"I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that I'm the strongest general election candidate," he said citing his election to the Senate from a red state and his roots in the rural South.

--John Edwards, Washington Post

yup, heard the same in 2003 and 2004.

Posted by Smitty | July 18, 2007 1:03 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:03

RuralDem

We need a bridge builder and someone who has great ideas as our nominee.

Hillary has great ideas but is too divisive for our country.

Obama is a great talker but has no substance.

Edwards will help Democrats make gains in the South. He's the only one that can bring back the moderate to conservative members of the party that have bolted to the GOP in recent years.

Of course, if you're not a fan of those two wings of the party, then I can understand why you'd be against Edwards :)

Posted by RuralDem | July 18, 2007 1:11 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:11

BEZERKO

Yep, he can't raise as much corporate cash as the top candidate either.

Posted by BEZERKO | July 18, 2007 1:15 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:15

Smitty

RD, I still don't understand this statement "Hillary has great ideas but is too divisive for our country."

- is this still FoxMedia infiltrating the brainwaves of Democrats?

- cause she wears pantsuits and not dresses?

- still about the "I'm not apologizing for my vote" stuff?

- cause her husband played loose and fast with his marriage vows?

- she doesn't speak soft and but carries a big stick?

I need something concrete to believe that she is "too divisive" for this country. Convince me why HRC receiving the Dem nod will turn this country into an evil land.

Posted by Smitty | July 18, 2007 1:30 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:30

Jen B.

I think RD probably meant that she wouldn't win in the general because her negatives are too high.

Posted by Jen B. | July 18, 2007 1:34 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:34

RuralDem

Jen,

Thanks.

Smitty,

I realize you were attempting to be funny with those reasons.

Here's an idea, how about actually asking people what they think about Hillary and would they vote for her.

It's not that difficult to do.

She is a divisive person in general. It's not because of any one certain thing and it's certainly not because of some of the idiotic statements you just gave. People just do not like the woman.

Posted by RuralDem | July 18, 2007 1:46 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:46

CatherineAtlanta

OK folks. You may think that Senator Clinton has big negatives but the polling proves you wrong time and time again. Check out these links:

General Election:
http://tinyurl.com/2hnunr

Democrats only:
http://tinyurl.com/24trvt

Posted by CatherineAtlanta | July 18, 2007 1:54 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:54

CatherineAtlanta

BTW, I think it's terrific that The Edwards' are doing a reasonably priced fundraiser in Atlanta. Bravo to them! I may even show up...

Posted by CatherineAtlanta | July 18, 2007 1:59 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 13:59

BEZERKO

As far as the presidential candidates go, we all should stay single (metaphorically of course) play the field, but not like Ron Mexico:) Encourage them when they're courageous and slam the hell out of them when they use talking points straight out of the Luntz playbook.

Posted by BEZERKO | July 18, 2007 2:06 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:06

Jen B.

Catherine,

I don't "think" Clinton has high negatives, I know she does.

From the same site:
http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm (scroll down to her name)
Her negatives are consistently in the high 40s, low 50s.

I wasn't saying she can't win the general election, I was merely explaining RDs probable thought process.

Posted by Jen B. | July 18, 2007 2:09 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:09

Smitty

RD,
Why are my statements idiotic? Its the exact same thing I keep hearing over and over when people can't back up the "divisive" statement with stats. And as Catherines has proven, the divisiveness lies in those that are afraid of a woman in charge, cause the "people" don't hate her.

Posted by Smitty | July 18, 2007 2:09 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:09

Smitty

RD, "hate" is a pretty strong and personal word. Since John Edwards continues to poll low even in his own state of NC does that mean that people "hate" him.

Or is it that you just "hate" HRC? That's cool and that's your opinion and I'm not going to try and change it.

I have yet to see any polling on why the so called "people" hate her so much.

Posted by Smitty | July 18, 2007 2:17 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:17

CatherineAtlanta

Sure, but her favorables are high too ;-)

Posted by CatherineAtlanta | July 18, 2007 2:18 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:18

Jen B.

She is an enigma.

Posted by Jen B. | July 18, 2007 2:23 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:23

Smitty

From Wiktionary:

enigma (plural enigmas)

1. Something puzzling, mysterious or inexplicable.

2. A riddle, or a difficult problem.

Again, why is this so hard for HRC haters to communicate?

Just so ya'll know, I'm gonna keep asking the same question tht I have been asking for months...Why is she so devisive?...until an non-HRC fan can fully explain it to me. and, no, I don't just "get it".

Posted by Smitty | July 18, 2007 2:45 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 14:45

Jen B.

Smitty,

My enigma comment was in reference to HRC having both high negatives and also beating several Republicans in the polls.

Not everyone who questions something is an "HRC hater".

Posted by Jen B. | July 18, 2007 3:24 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 15:24

shelby

RuralDem, JE is not "the only one that can bring back the moderate to conservative members of the party," he's just the only one in your MSM-spoon-fed "top tier." I know a candidate with strong national security credentials that could bring back a lot of the terror-fearing soccer moms, while being a pro-choice Catholic that does a good job walking a pretty tight moral tightrope.

Posted by shelby | July 18, 2007 8:45 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 20:45

RuralDem

Shelby,

I'm surprised it took you this long to respond to one of my posts. Usually, you're much quicker than this.

As for the "MSM-spoon-fed "top tier" comment, I hate to tell you but the nominee will not be anyone outside of Hillary, Obama or Edwards. If you think otherwise then I suggest seeking some type of help, as you've distanced yourself from reality.

Edwards is the only announced candidate from the SOUTH that can bring back moderates and conservatives. Maybe you skipped that sentence, or you simply failed to comprehend it since you copied the sentence after it.

Even now, the race is between Obama and Hillary. If anyone else can win it's Edwards.

I like Biden and Richardson, but they have no chance.

Posted by RuralDem | July 18, 2007 10:38 PM

Posted on July 18, 2007 22:38

RuralDem

Catherine,

If you go maybe we'll get a chance to meet this time.

I tried to find you guys at the JJ but things were so hectic seating wise that it was impossible!

Posted by RuralDem | July 19, 2007 12:04 AM

Posted on July 19, 2007 00:04

shelby

RuralDem, you seem to have caught Smitty's "I forgot what I just said myself so I'll attack you for not reading my mind" disease, so let me copy and paste your crap for you. You said, "Edwards will help Democrats make gains in the South. He's the only one that can bring back the moderate to conservative members of the party that have bolted to the GOP in recent years." Then you attack me for not realizing you meant "Edwards is the only announced candidate from the SOUTH that can bring back moderates and conservatives." I'm sorry, fartknocker, but your original comment didn't SAY he was the only candidate FROM the South, you said he was the only candidate who will help Democrats make gains in the South. So don't get up in my shit about "seeking some type of help, as [I've] distanced yourself from reality." And thanks for reinforcing why it's Special Olympics bloggers like yourself that are ready to write off candidates outside the MSM-tier. Jesus F'ing Christ, people, would y'all please reread your own shit before you come snarking after the rest of us? Gawd.

Posted by shelby | July 19, 2007 2:11 AM

Posted on July 19, 2007 02:11

Mouth of the South

Please note, I have read zero of the posts above mine.

There is a serious point made about HRC and is part of our criticism of Bush. People hate both of them, Bush for real things and Hillary for msotly imagined ones, but if we want a different type of Presidency not just in direction but also unity and feel, there are some drawbacks to Hillary.

1) She will produce a tremendous amount of Republican and heavy right wing contributions.

2) It will be an extremely negative campaign.

Others thing that may happen:

3) Hurt local Dems who will be forced to distance themselves from her and will hurt their ability to raise money.

4) Global thermonuclear war.

Posted by Mouth of the South | July 19, 2007 10:36 AM

Posted on July 19, 2007 10:36

Jen B.

4) Global thermonuclear war.

Ha!

Posted by Jen B. | July 19, 2007 11:42 AM

Posted on July 19, 2007 11:42