The old Edwards and the new Edwards.

[citizen snips]

* The Old Edwards was booed by Democratic activists for supporting the war in Iraq. The New Edwards has become a leading critic of the war and is often hailed by the same liberal bloggers who helped bring down moderate Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in last week's Democratic primary.

* Old Edwards had the financial backing of trial lawyers. New Edwards is courting the organizational muscle of labor, as well.

* Old Edwards was viewed as a foreign affairs greenhorn. New Edwards has been jetting around the world to meet leaders in Russia, Britain and the Middle East. He works anecdotes into his speeches about the slums of New Delhi and the view of the Israeli/Lebanon border.

* Old Edwards talked about the inequality of what he called the Two Americas. New Edwards has fleshed out that theme by starting an anti-poverty think tank in Chapel Hill and outlining proposals to end poverty in the next generation.

more...
http://www.newsobserver.com/643/story/470503.html

[Franknable]

1. As an exceptionally talented trial lawyer, his ability to empathize with

people from ranks and stations of life, combined with his experience as a U.S. Senator and former Vice-Presidential candidate, would make him a formidable candidate for any political office.

[ChiciB1]

12. Seeing Him In Person Is What Really Won Me Over...

Call it being political, but there was something about him AND his family that really drew me to him. I can't say enough about Elizabeth either. She is intelligent in a way that's not over assertive, and I've always been struck by the way she seems to talk "to" people and not "at" people!

Now I grew up in a Yankee family, was born in PA and would consider myself a Yankee for the most part, even though I've spent most of my life in the south. But I guess you would call the two of them together down home "southern hospitality" not of the elite, but the common man.

And yes, he has focused on poverty a lot, but I always admired Morris Dees for that too! I'm what used to be middle class and I understand THAT pain, the pain of being forgotten to some extent, but at least he doesn't pander for the rich!! Being middle class then and now is quite different, so my status has declined.

I'm so totally fed up with all this caviar attitude I'd like to smack them up side the head with a baseball bat, just to see if they had any brains between their ears!

[longship]

2. He's putting action where his mouth has been.

Edwards looking better and better every day.

Could this man be positioning for a full press in 2008?
(rhetorical question)

[question everything]

33. I certainly hope so

A major point against Kerry candidacy was that we, the voters, prefer our Presidents to have executive experience - governor, military - rather than legislative.

Thus, it is a good route for him to build himself as a "decision maker" - as someone who has a vision, can articulate it and implement it, and convince others to join him. These are traits of a leader.

[ReadTomPaine]

3. He's a good man, and he learns fast.

Can't wait to see him back in government, whatever the capacity.

[OzarkDem]

53. Good qualities for a President

I'm glad he's staying involved, too. I have a feeling he's running his own race this time around.

[RufusEarl]

4. Well imho this is the type of politician it's going to take

to get our country back on her feet, a politician like FDR. I've come to the conclusion that with the state of our nation with the mounting debt and lack of motivation in this country we could use a president like Edwards, a real Democrat and populist.

The middle class built this country, and we're in need of this type of thinking again. I'll support Edwards if he gets the nod in 08, and we have a couple of other candidate of his mind set to choose from.

[cami715]

5. He is my choice in '08

He has integrity, is truthful, honest and sincere, in addition to being brilliant. He truly cares about people, especially the middle class and those in poverty.

I'm from NC and have watched as he has traveled our country speaking and carrying his message. People respond well to him. I would love to see him as President.

[PeaceProgProsp]

6. During the '04 primaries, News & Observer's coverage of

Edwards was incredibly nasty.

Even this article sort of implies that Edwards doesn't really have core convictions, but is an opportunist who shifts with the changing sentiments around him.

[bobbolink]

7. My only problem with Edwards now is....

his stand on poverty is only directed towards the "working poor". Those who are poor and unable to work don't get any attention from his One America campaign.

I've written to him about it, and receive no reply.

What am I, chopped liver??

[nickshepDEM]

13. IMO,

His message doesnt really resonate with middle class voters either.

Its shame that so few people care about poverty, but the reality is, we live in a 'what about me world'.

Maybe Im just naive, but I dont see his message resonating with middle class voters.

[serryjw]

52. The poor don't vote

Until they learn that organizing with one voice is the way to change things, they are doomed. Middle class people have been assauted in every way in the last 25 years.

[bobbolink]

57. Not being middleclass myself, I wouldn't know if it's resonating or not.

However, I will be honest with this... I don't take the perspective of the DLC with much seriousness. There is an agenda there that certainly isn't in support of the likes of me.

That's just how that is.

[ChiciB1]

8. I'm So Glad To See Edwards Popping Up So Much Lately!!

I've been lauding him for a very very long time! As was mentioned earlier in this thread, THIS is the kind of Democrat we need! I have come to admire him more each day as he works toward rebuilding America. Or at least getting out in front and stating the obvious.

I so wish Gore and Edwards could get together and come out blasting! While Edwards has been my number one for many years, if Gore would run and the two of them could put their heads together and work out some kind of agreement... Democrats would have a winning team!

Both of them seemed to have "bloomed" or "blossomed" or "pollinated" since the last 2 elections. I had to throw in pollinated because the other two words seems overly feminine! Maybe "burst" might be the best word. I'm not going to go back and change it anyway. I said what I said and really believe if they would just get out there and stomp around some more, these scabs we have in the WH might just see fear come back to SMACK them where it hurts!!! Use your imagination!

It's going to take me a very long time to EVER forget what THEY have done to America, and their idiotic followers who salivate on every word they utter! Stuck On Stupid is all I can say.... Stuck On Stupid!!

Go, Johnny, Go!!! And come back Al!!!

[Clarkie1]

9. Interesting article. Clearly, he's running.

What is his anti-poverty think tank called? Have they published any policy papers?

[spooky3]

11. It's not a think tank, but a Center at UNC.

Here's a link to their website that deals with the mission:

http://www.law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=453&Q=3

It does not appear that publishing policy papers is a key part of the mission of the Center.

[Clarkie1]

16. Thanks for the link.

I think it's a great idea, but I would think with all those people discussing the issues and how they are interrelated they would come up with some specific ideas for solutions...which would be published in order to reach a wider audience.

If they are not doing that, it seems to me their impact will be rather limited to North Carolina.

[citizen snips]

14. it's part of UNC Chapel Hill

Edwards is the director.
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.htmls

[ChiciB1]

20. Can't Get The Link To Come Up.... ut I Get His Updates All The Time... n/

[citizen snips]

21. it is only a press realse here is the real link. . .

http://www.law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=453&Q=3

[ChiciB1]

23. Thank You Very Much. n/t

[Clark2008]

10. This is not 1992.

Foreign policy experience is key.

And Edwards doesn't have it.

What he does have, Dems beat Republicans on, anyway.

We need the trump card.

And Edwards doesn't have it.

[citizen snips]

15. Edwards is working on it.

[Donna Zen]

17. I'm worried about his hanging with Kemp

also, his suggestion that we bomb Iran. Foreign policy is more than making speeches, it means getting it right.

[GreenArrow]

58. I've seen you post this several times and I have yet

to see anyone respond to it. People will see what they want to see, I guess.

But hey, he did apologize on Iraq, albeit well after it became clear that the whole thing was FUBAR from day one. You can expect the same sort of apology on Iran, should Edwards end up having a say on it. He got it wrong the first time; why should he get a second chance?

[citizen snips]

61. maybe because nobody belives it.

as for Iraq Edwards has done more then apologize he has called for the immediate withdrawl of US troops from Iraq.

[GreenArrow]

63. maybe they don't believe it

but a lot of people believe a lot of things for a lot of reasons. When push comes to shove, Edwards' foreign policy would be of the same class as we've seen for generations. He will toe the line. You can believe it or not. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I for one hope we never have to eat this "pudding."

So as not to single Edwards out unfairly, here's an intresting thread on the same subject from a more general perspective.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1914914

[Clarkie1]

18. That's all well and good, but it's about lifetime experience. nt

[citizen snips]

19. I agree.

He is not as good as the general so I will give you that. But I like how he is studying poverty by visiting other countries.

[ChiciB1]

22. Simply Being A General Is No Reason To Elect A President.

I grew up as an Army brat, and my father was THE MOST WONDERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD! But, I'll pass on the military aspect of this.

Just look at what the Generals are doing in Iraq! I do realize that Clark has different views, but there is something about being a "lifer" that makes me a little hinky! It is different from growing up in a civilian family, that much is FOR SURE! Standing your ground, and doing the right thing and we could go on and on.... Oh, wait a minute! Who am I talking about???

Okay, Clark may be competent and all, but he's not on my top 5 list. I actually don't have a top 5 list!

[Clarkie1]

25. Neither is simply being a trial lawyer. What's your point? nt

[Donna Zen]

32. In Iraq

Correction: Just look at what the civilians are doing in Iraq. Bush and Rummy (the insane) barely served, and the main architects of this war including Cheney, never served.

The subject is foreign policy anyway, not the military. Not having military experience is not a must for the Oval Office, but having sound foreign policy judgement is. I don't agree with bombing Iran, or Edwards latest op ed about Russia because it was poor diplomacy.

We will agree to disagree.

I blame bush, rummy, wolfowitz, condi etc...not the military for the mess in Iraq.

I also favor people who got Iraq right from the beginning.

[Jai4WKC08]

46. How do you know it's different from a civilian family?

You've never grown up in a civilian family. How do you know it's different? How do you know it's not better? What do you have to compare to?

Every kid looks at what they imagine other kids have and figure it's got to be better. Some people never outgrow it.

My kids grew up as military brats. Well, the son did. The daughter was a pre-teen when I retired, is a teenager now, so I guess the jury's still out. Point is, they seem to have turned out all right so far. My son is in the Guard now, and just starting college after almost two years of active duty, so he's obviously not completely turned off by the military, but not enamoured with it either--he wants to teach high school science.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Wes Clark or the kind of president he'd make. I also don't understand your point about "standing your ground, and doing the right thing..." That is precisely what Clark does, but I sort of expect he would no matter whatever profession he'd gone into. I believe the military can help shape character, but most of us have our moral foundation (or not) long before adulthood.

But whatever the case, your judgment (what makes you "hinky") is based solely on prejudice. We "lifers" are as diverse a group of people as any other, and ANYone who assumes they know one of us because of some personal experience with some others is as guilty of bigotry, pure and simple.

[ChiciB1]

50. I Am No Bigot... My Father Was A Lifer Himself. I Think He Was

MARVELOUS. I'm not even going to try to rationalize my statement. Perhaps, it was WHEN I was an Army brat that has made me feel that a certain amount of military "correctness" bothers me. Perhaps it was because I was also brought up as a strict Catholic at the same time.

Or maybe it was ALL THE RULES & REGULATIONS that we had to follow all the time. Nothing wrong with rules & regulations, it just seems there are many more of them in the military than not!

Not only that, the rules pretty much DICTATE that you DO NOT buck the System! I think that's really what I'm trying to say. You don't see many soldiers speaking out these days do you??

And that DOES NOT mean ALL military are wrong, it's a way of life! I always felt my father was different from many of the others, I saw a difference in him, but then he was the one who introduced me into politics as a Democrat. It was more because he was an Enlisted man as opposed to an Officer and really felt for the less fortunate.

Please accept my apologies if I denigrated anyone... it was not meant that way! I know ANY military MUST have those rules, but many I saw were not as necessary as they should have been.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChiciB1]

66. I'm Sorry You Feel That Way... I Was Trying To Make A Statement

from my point of view, but I don't think I'll be able to change your mind. I have been a civilian for more than 30 years and I do know the difference between military & civilian.

While I have implied there are more restrictions on the military way of life, I don't think that "morphs" into being a bigot. I saw many things that upset me, but then I see many things that upset with Rumsfeld et al! I was simply implying that there is a difference here.

It may be different these days, but when I was a "brat" we as children were basically "in the Army" too! I was told many many times that if we got into trouble that my father could lose a stripe because of how we conducted ourselves. We had more restraints on us as to what our political views were also. Taking orders and executing those orders was something I knew about and I saw friends of mine who had fathers who were very over-bearing to the point that turned me off! Saying Yes Sir & No Sir was how you answered questions.

But it wasn't so harsh in my family, but we knew the rules. My father was a Sgt./Mgt E-9 and we were a reflection of him. I'm simply saying that you do learn the rules and you need to be careful about stepping over that invisible line.

Colin Powell comes to mind, why didn't he "blow the whistle" or as I stated before, why haven't many higher ups in Iraq actually "told the truth" about many things? I think a large part of it is that you follow orders and if you're in charge you dictate the orders. It stays with you.

That does not make me a bigot and I'm not against the military... I'm just stating that "for me" I find I'm much more of a pacifist and don't go along with that much "structure!" If you think that makes me a bigot, then so be it. I dare say very few people who actually know me would think that way at all. To them, I'm a leftist LIBERAL. I still have many classmates back at Ft. Hood, TX who think I'm sort of weird because I don't walk in lock step with The Idiot!!

Most of my past classmates and I have remained friends even though many of them are Ga-GA for George! I don't argue with them about it. I've tried to reasonably talk to them, but some just don't want to see. And I prefer to "engage" as opposed to talking to a wall.

I'm done... sorry I made you so mad.

[citizen snips]

59. that is harsh

calling someone a bigot negates your entire post.

[Jai4WKC08]

64. Why?

If the poster is a bigot, it may be "harsh" to say so, but it's truthful and negates nothing.

Suppose he/she had said, Jews make me a little hinky, so I couldn't support one for president. Wouldn't you call it bigotry? And would it matter that he/she also said, oh, but so-and-so is a Jew and he's great... it's just all the rest of 'em. They're just a certain way, you know?

In addition to being career military, I am a Jew, I grew up in the South, and I know bigotry when I see it.

[1932]

31. Yes. Yalies need not apply.

[saltpoint]

24. He's a decent man, he has a spectacular wife, he's prepared on the

issues, and he's electable.

[Clarkie1]

26. true, true, true, and maybe but I have my doubts. nt

[saltpoint]

27. For me there's a lot of Democrats versus Republicans energy to

any potential nominee.

And late today came word that Cement-Head Allen used a racial slur in addressing a Webb staffer assigned to cover Allen's campaign stops.

Allen and Edwards are from bordering states. How can it be that John Edwards is talking about One America instead of two (Bush's filthy-rich tax-privileged 6% or so versus the disenfranchised, anonymous working or unemployed and under-insured poor) while Allen is casting ridicule and scorn onto minority professionals in broad daylight?

If the South is to rise again, let it rise not as Nixon's "southern strategy" but as a new region altogether, far more integrated and modern in its outlook.

That's a useful hinge for me in deciding about our 08 ticket. Who represents an evolved South? I think Edwards is well-positioned for that job if he winds up as the nominee.

I'm also aware of the money factor. Senator Clinton and Evan Bayh lead the pack, with Kerry almost tied with them. There's a sharp drop-off after that. It's going to be a wild and woolly Iowa caucus, that's for sure.

[venable]

28. don't sleep on Edwards' foreign policy experience

he's spent a lot of time out of the country, doing real work, and will bring a lot more to the table in this regard than many think.

[Texas_Kat]

29. Jetting around talking to people is not experience

Sorry, you can 'cram' for Commander in Chief.

[venable]

35. excuse me, please

how about he is prepared to be commander-in-chief.

what does cram mean? so he shouldn't broaden his horizons? how broad do you want them? you mean he is not a general?

come on, that is just not fair. or relevant.

[Texas_Kat]

37. No amount of flitting around talking to people in other countries

can substitute for hands-on experience in diplomacy.

Edwards may have some some attributes, but the ability to guide us out of the morass that Bush has left the world in isn't one of them.

Ahmadinejad would eat his lunch.

[venable]

47. you say 'flitting', I say seeing other realities first hand

we all have certain perspectives that lean us, each one of us, to see the same thing in different ways.

My perspective is one that supports Edwards, yours is not. Why call it flitting? How about he is building alliances, getting facts on the ground, familiarizing himself with other realities in case it might one day be necessary to understand what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes.

You call it 'flitting'. I don't.

"Ahmadinejad would eat his lunch" - please explain this curious statement.

[saltpoint]

30. Is your post to me? I'm a Kerry-Edwards voter from the word 'go'

and have no problem at all with John Edwards if he becomes our nominee.

And I feel he has an extremely realistic chance of becoming so.

[venable]

48. no, not to you, sorry

I linked the wrong post.

[Catchawave]

43. Hi OC !

I thought you'd enjoy this article....from 2001 !



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

here's a snip:

John Edwards, Esq.
Republicans believe that Americans will never elect a trial lawyer president. They're wrong.

By Joshua Green
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 5th, NBC's Meet the Press featured someone and something we're likely to see much more of in years to come: Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) squaring off against a nervous representative of the Bush administration.
The issue in this case was the so-called patients' bill of rights, and Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-G.A.) the Bush surrogate. Days earlier, the president had sweet-talked Norwood into a midnight deal that sharply restricted patients' right to sue their HMOs. Norwood, who for many years had advocated a much tougher bill, had essentially been suckered, and appeared acutely aware of this as he sat alongside Edwards, glumly resigned to defending a bad deal.

Tim Russert was on the attack, pressing Norwood about his recent yielding on patients' rights to sue in state courts: "Why did you abandon those views?" Norwood hemmed and hawed and finally was reduced to parroting the administration's line: "It is potentially possible that could ruin the employer-based health-care system in the country." Russert pressed him harder. "Do you believe that?" It turned out Norwood did not.

Russert then turned to Edwards, a trial lawyer by profession, who neatly summarized the deal's shortcomings. "Number one, this deal---which was written in the middle of the night, by the way---takes away rights that patients already have across the country," he explained. "Number two, it maintains the privileged special status that HMOs enjoy today. And, number three, it stacks the deck against patients when they're trying to hold HMOs accountable for what they do." Edwards also pointed out that a seemingly minor change in the bill's language had shifted accountability away from HMOs---something Norwood had failed to recognize and meekly agreed was "a mistake." ....more....

Enjoy :hi:

[saltpoint]

44. Hi ya right back, Catchawave. Great article. Edwards is prepared

for questions, then and now.

Trial lawyers have that eye for detail, don't they? Lincoln did.

I'm still smarting over the Ohio election in 04, and every time Dubya opens his mouth I think that the Kerry-Edwards ticket won and that Bush/Cheney cheated.

For me, that's the hinge. And this November, I think that door swings back and smacks the GOP in the face.

Nice to bump into you on DU today!

[Texas_Kat]

51. The "Patient's Bill of Rights" was originally written in 1998 by Daschle

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.01890:

Here's the bill summary: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01890:@@@D&summ2=m&

(I assume you think Edwards wrote it or was somehow 'responsible' for the idea) It was not an initiative by Edwards, just re-submitted by him.

Here were the cosponsors in March of 1998 when it was introduced.

Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 3/31/1998
Sen Bingaman, Jeff - 3/31/1998
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 3/31/1998
Sen Byrd, Robert C. - 6/9/1998
Sen Cleland, Max - 3/31/1998
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 3/31/1998
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 5/22/1998
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/31/1998
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 3/31/1998
Sen Ford, Wendell H. - 7/21/1998
Sen Glenn, John H., Jr. - 5/22/1998
Sen Harkin, Tom - 5/15/1998
Sen Hollings, Ernest F. - 7/16/1998
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 3/31/1998
Sen Johnson, Tim - 4/1/1998
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 3/31/1998
Sen Kerrey, J. Robert - 4/1/1998
Sen Kerry, John F. - 3/31/1998
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 3/31/1998
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/31/1998
Sen Levin, Carl - 7/15/1998
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 3/31/1998
Sen Moseley-Braun, Carol - 3/31/1998
Sen Murray, Patty - 3/31/1998
Sen Reed, Jack - 3/31/1998
Sen Reid, Harry - 5/20/1998
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV - 3/31/1998
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. - 3/31/1998
Sen Torricelli, Robert G. - 3/31/1998
Sen Wellstone, Paul D. - 3/31/1998
Sen Wyden, Ron - 3/31/1998

[Catchawave]

54. Thanks for that info !

I don't believe the article claimed Edwards wrote it, just that he explained it better than anyone else.

Have you read his book Four Trials ?

[JohMunich99]

34. You've got to be kidding me

I'm glad he has such a free calender that he can attend all of these photo-ops. How in the world is a man who does yoga with Russell Simons, then the next days flies to Iowa and then the next day after that flies halfway around the world a good representative of the American people.

You know what, if I had a ton of money I could set up my own center at UNC, fly to the slums of New Dehli and check out the Israeli/Lebanon border myself. That doesn't mean I should be President.

You can tell a lot about a man based on his instincts. Edwards' are terrible. He supported the Iraq War and took quite awhile to become a critic of it. The Democratic party has so many great leaders, certainly we can do better than a one-term Senator who didn't run for re-election because he likely would have lost and couldn't even deliver his own home state in the Presidential election.

[venable]

36. not kidding at all

your complaints about Edwards do not strike much of a chord. Yes, he jets around, that's how you get places to see first hand, see places for yourself, not as they are packaged for you. Yes, he knows Russell Simmons. Yes, people take photographs of him.

He failed to deliver his own state? Let's be precise, Kerry did not deliver NC. Show me the VP candidate that would have delivered NC.

How do you know he got out of the Senate race because he would have lost. It's simply not true.

[JohMunich99]

38. Sorry

If you don't understand the problems, I'm not surprised you support Edwards.

Look we could argue the merits of a potential Presidential run till the cows come home. But you can't argue he was at the very least facing a tough re-election campaign. If you don't know that or don't want to admit that, again, I'm not surprised you support Edwards.

[1932]

42. Calling people stupid and invective? Oh, please tell us who you support

since the opinions of bitter people with superiority complexes carries so much weight with me.

[venable]

49. of course he was facing a tough campaign

that doesn't mean he got out because he was going to lose the seat, which you claim without equivocation.

I don't want to pretend that Edwards is perfect in every way (I regret his war resolution vote as much as he does), but I do think he is an extraordinary man who has gone very far politically while staying very true to himself and his beliefs (ie he has compromised less than most pols must), and he is strong enough to change course when it is clear that he should, and he is freakishly intelligent and communicates extraordinarily well, and his appeal cuts across the political spectrum (check out The Nation's coverage of his candidacy), he has great values and puts his time and effort where his mouth is, and he is very electable.

Peace

[Catchawave]

40. He's also raised over 6 million dollars for 2006 Dems!

Including local legislators in his Raising the States campaigning:

http://oneamericacommittee.com/action/raise-the-states/

And there was more to sweatin'w/Simmons:

....."Afterward, Edwards accompanied Simmons and his posse — including former NAACP head Ben Chavez and activist Glen Friedman — to dinner at Downtown Cipriani, where they discussed spirituality, how to end poverty, the higher self and other inspirational topics.

“It showed that Edwards is flexible and has an open mind,” Simmons pronounced. He added that the evening has sent the would-be White House occupant to the top of his list — and far above Sens. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. “But I’m happy to go to yoga with anybody who wants to.”.....

I just wish I could find that photo of JRE in the sweaty t-shirt and scruffy hair....hubba, hubba :loveya:

[wiley]

39. Amen. Why not Ricky Martin already?

[woodleydem]

56. According to Rasmussen (which leans to the right), Edwards would have won

re-election to his Senate seat 53% to 47% over the Republican Richard Burr. I don't have a link, but if you wikepedia Edwards, I believe there is a link to that. The 2004 election was all about the men at the top of the tickets. Cheney, despite having all of his shady baggage and being generally non-likeable, didn't affect Bush. If Edwards were at the top of the ticket, he probably would have run much stronger in his home state.

[saltpoint]

67. I think you are right about Rasmussen -- it skews right most of the

time.

And its showing Edwards leading Burr is a strong indication that Edwards would have taken that race.

Burr is a waste of oxygen and Edwards is a living-color, dynamic speaker. Burr isn't quite as deadly dull as Ted Stevens, but almost.

[GreenArrow]

60. I agree with you

Unfortunately, in this day and age, image is everything, and standards are low.

[citizen snips]

62. politics has been like that forever.

[Catchawave]

41. Great article Matt !

Obviously some posters in this thread have not read it :evilgrin:

I especially liked this tidbit:

"...Edwards took part in a four-city tour in February for hotel workers. He walked the picket line with strikers at a Sikorsky helicopter plant in Connecticut. He marched with striking janitors at the University of Miami. This month, Edwards helped launch a union-organized anti-Wal-Mart bus tour in Pittsburgh.

"John Edwards is an important ally for the American labor movement, and I am proud to call him a friend of the Teamsters," said Jim Hoffa, the Teamsters president, in introducing Edwards this summer at the union's convention.

Edwards seems to have gotten the Clinton camp's attention. After Edwards was the only potential presidential candidate invited to speak to Change to Win's convention in Las Vegas in March, former President Bill Clinton met privately with labor leaders. The New Republic magazine reported that the former president asked them to hold off on any endorsement decisions...."

[citizen snips]

45. hi catchawave

:hi:
thanks for pointing that out.

[Catchawave]

55. My pleasure....

:toast:

Oh what do I have here: another article:

John Edwards Should Do a Truman
John Nichols


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=59946

:patriot: