John Edwards can fix what ails us

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards can fix what ails us

Recently, several of the Democratic candidates for president attended the Polk County Democrats' spring picnic. John Edwards was the most impressive candidate because of his detailed discussion of the critical issues facing our country, including specific plans to improve health care, the environment, economic opportunities and to finally deal with the mess created in Iraq.

He spoke with passion about both our needs here and the issues facing the world, including genocide. Edwards reminded us that domestic policy and international policy are no longer separate in the 21st century; what we do in foreign lands affects us at home as much as what we do at home shows the world our real values.

His commitment to serve and his courage to discuss new ideas and solutions - in detail - will be factors in returning Iowa's electoral votes to the Democratic Party as he wins the presidency in 2008.

While the other party and the media are preoccupied with trivia in an attempt to distract everyone from the disasters they either created or allowed, John Edwards continues to push for real change, for real solutions to start building a better tomorrow today.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070506/OPINION04/705060315/1035/OPINION

[AuntPatsy]

1. I honestly believes he has evolved somewhat due to his own experiences

I think people need to sit back and watch instead of pointing fingers, we still have a way to go, it doesn't hurt to hold scrutiny but if we were all held to everything we did wrong in our lives we would never be allowed to grow, I say give him a chance, I think he has earned it to prove to us why he deserves this nomination...

I give credit to any and all dems running in this race, and I pity the one that gets it, the mess they are facing is going to be beyond our comprehension and they have to know how hard it is going to be to clean this country up from the mess the rapid right wingers have left it in....

[MannyGoldstein]

2. His Voting Record Says Otherwise

He voted for permanent 'free' trade with China, both no-predatory-lender-left-behind bankruptcy laws, both 'Patriot' acts - and, of course, co-sponsored the IWR.

He talks Democrat - but walks Republican.

[The Count]

3. Yup. Talk is cheap.

"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on teevee". What ails me needs the real thing.

[w4rma]

5. Edwards calls for repeal of NAFTA - Has your candidate done this? Would they? No, they won't.

During a stop in Iowa last week Presidential candidate John Edwards suggested that repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement would be a great benefit for workers in the United States. Edwards made the comment during a stop in Indianola, Iowa. He also said that negotiation rights need to be strengthened and called for the implementation of “card-check neutrality.
04/22/2007 - 1:23pm
http://www.laborradio.org/node/5761

That right there tells me all I need to know about where the top three candidates stand on American economics and who is working for the economic elite instead of regular Americans.

[Forkboy]

33. My candidate has.

By pulling out of NAFTA, we can return jobs that have been lost, including high-wage jobs in the information technology field. By initiating a WPA-style jobs program that puts Americans back to work rebuilding America, we can create millions of jobs and simultaneously improve our quality of life.

As a nation, we face a predicament of either buy American, or bye-bye America. Unless we cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, corporations will continue to move jobs out of the country and produce goods in developing and third-world nations (with great costs to those countries' workers and environment). In order to buy American, we have to assure that goods are still being produced in America. That's why we must first cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, which have lost us millions of jobs and spurred a soaring trade deficit.

http://kucinich.us/issues/jobs.php

As a bonus,he didn't vote for a war and didn't co-write the Patriot Act.

I don't feel that Edwards is as bad as some think,but I don't think he's as good as others think he is either.

[AuntPatsy]

7. Wealth and power is a powerful aphrodite and sometimes hard to resist

Ive been reading up alot today on him, I think the change is real, the reason I even did the research is that I am a bit unsure of him I admit as to his true motives considering his voting record, but there is something that is just not adding up with the attacks on him....

don't discount him quite yet, I feel that would be a mistake.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. You mean aphrodisiac?

Aphrodite is the goddess of love; an aphrodisiac just makes ya horny... ;)

[AuntPatsy]

17. Pretty much the same thing don't you think?

[Triana]

4. K & R For My President! (n/t)

[dave_p]

6. His speaking record says otherwise

Has Edwards backtracked on his support for the Administration's insistence that Iran is seaking a nuclear strike capability (a position unsupported by IAEA inspectors)? Or his bizarre advocacy of Israeli membership of Nato (something that would drag Europe into Israel's next war)?

If he hasn't done that, he isn't offering the real change that's needed for real solutions and a better tomorrow. he's offering something rather alarming.

[w4rma]

8. No other candidate, for any party, has done *any* of that.

Except maybe a couple of 1 percenters.

[dave_p]

9. 1 percenters?

Who they?

Is the implication that correct stances should be avoided for easy votes, even if they may contribute to instability in an already volatile international situation?

Other Democrat candidates have doubtless supported an aggressive line based the same unproven assumption about Iranian intentions, but I don't know of any who've urged binding Nato protection of Israel.

[w4rma]

10. No, the implication is that you had better be slamming all the candidates equally for whatever when

they all do it, rather than picking on one to promote one of the other's agenda, despite their exact same shortcoming.

[dave_p]

19. Not so

I'm not picking on Edwards. I'm criticizing his stated policy positions, which I consider fair game.

I think if people post a promotion of a candidate, it should be open to responses that may be less than adulatory. If that's bad DU etiquette, forgive me, but the alternative would seem to be that any claim might be made for a candidate, without a critical response.

I find Edwards strong on opportunity at home but weak on foreign policy. I've said elsewhere that I think he should have a high-powered domestic role, but not the Presidency. I like his position on sending the Funding Bill back, and I'd like to see more of the strong opposition on foreign-policy fundamentals that Democrats will need to secure the neocons' demise.

I haven't joined in any of the personal attacks on candidates, because I'm concerned with politics. And Edwards isn't the only candidate whose suitability I've questioned on that score. I've also criticised or disagreed with candidates I view favorably, something I don't see much of hereabouts.

[w4rma]

25. You're criticizing policy positions that every candidate in the race from all parties

share, except for a couple of 1 percenters. But you keep attributing that policy to only Edwards. At least note that Edwards isn't the lone supporter of whatever policy that your criticizing.

[dave_p]

36. he's the subject of this thread

This thread's about Edwards. As I said, I've criticised others where they were the subject. I've criticised what I considered a similarly bellicose stance on Iran in at least one other candidate. I've already noted that Edwards isn't its lone supporter, and I don't think I gave that impression. He was, however, the only candidate I'd seen mentioned in this thread. And he is the only Democrat candidate I know of with his dangerous position on Nato incorporation of Israel. Any information to the contrary would be appreciated.

And more "1 percenters". I know of candidates with quite different positions with considerably more support than that. Again, you seem to be implying that only stances with ready broad appeal possess legitimacy in an election that will have to be fought and won through exposing the whole GOP policy agenda. I believe that correct policies are worth fighting for, and that a minimalist approach to overturning the Bush policy debacle is not the way to achieve what's needed.

[w4rma]

39. All theDemocrats except for Kucinich and Gravel hold the same position on all of that.

It's the standard Democratic foreign policy position that they all agreed on in the back rooms before they began campaigning.

[dave_p]

42. Not on Nato, they don't

They may do on Iran, but even there the nuances are going to be as important as the broad similarities: I very much doubt that they all hold "the same position".

But I've yet to hear any of them echo Edwards's curious Nato position. If you can point me to any statement to the contrary, please do so.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the suggestion that what anyone agrees in back rooms should somehow determine my response to any candidate. If the position's wrong, I'll oppose it.

As for all who dissent from this imagined consensus being irrelevant "1 per centers", they're clearly no such thing, as Democrat front-runners' response shows.

You don't win without fighting your opponents' fundamental failings. 2004 showed the results of avoiding a firm, consistent attack on underlying Administration policies. This time we need something better.

[AtomicKitten]

12. not convinced

His cosponsoring of the IWR still sticks in my craw, but I will support him in the general if he wins the primary.

[w4rma]

13. Edwards apologized. Hillary didn't and will never apologize. I'm convinced. (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

14. I'm sure the thousands of dead people are moved by his apology.

That's one genie you can't put back in the bottle.

[w4rma]

15. He apologized and working as hard or harder than everyone to fix the problem.

That's more than anyone can ask for or do.

He obviously knows that he can't put the genie back in the bottle, but he's doing everything in his power to grab that genie and capture it before it does more harm.

He has taken the hard road and the most honorable road.

[AtomicKitten]

20. no it's not

That's more than anyone can ask for ...

I will not support anyone that voted yes on the IWR in the primary. I can and will ask for someone who had the good sense not to buy into this national disgrace and nightmare.

After the primary, I will pull up my socks and support the nominee.

[w4rma]

21. That's fine. You obviously weren't a John Kerry supporter in 2004. (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

27. Really? It's obvious?!?

Damn, I could have sworn I took a second out on my house to work a swing state in 2004 on behalf of Kerry/Edwards.

:shrug:

[w4rma]

30. John Kerry voted for the IWR. Who did you support in the primary? (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

31. general vs. primary election --- I already addressed that.

here you go since you must have missed it:

I will not support anyone that voted yes on the IWR in the primary. I can and will ask for someone who had the good sense not to buy into this national disgrace and nightmare.

After the primary, I will pull up my socks and support the nominee.

[w4rma]

32. Well? Who did you vote for in the primary? You did bother to vote, right? (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

35. The fabulous Wes Clark.

Also, my favorite color is pink, I like to cook, and just got my hair cut.

Any more questions that will be used to mitigate my POV? :eyes:

Free advice: A different point of view should be viewed as interesting, not a threat. Your "You did bother to vote, right?" crack was puerile and completely uncalled for.

[w4rma]

37. What the hell is up with some of your former Clarkies?

Why are you continuing this anti-Edwards trash into 2007 all because Clark didn't get the Vice Presidency nomination nod?

Give up the blasted grudge please. And quit coordinating your talking points on other websites.

[AtomicKitten]

45. I trash the IWR and for good reason -- because it matters.

That's the grudge I continue to carry and I won't apologize to you or anybody else for it.

What other websites? You apparently have a whole lot more free time than I do.

And don't presume to lump people together to make them convenient for you to dismiss. I also did some work for Dennis Kucinich in 2004; I wonder if that throws a monkey wrench in your snap judgment.

You take in just enough information (you clearly don't really even read what people have to say) just to glean something to throw back in their faces whether it makes any sense or not. You need to calm down and accept the fact that there is a myriad of opinion here.

It apparently is not enough for you that people will support Edwards in the general if he gets the nod.

Just know it is your toxic attitude and your jackrabbit posts around DU trashing all the other candidates that is a huge disservice to your candidate. Some of the most fervent devotees of candidates never seem to understand that dynamic and end up driving people away from their candidate.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

47. my belligerence?

You could really use a good look in the mirror. You weren't content for me to say I'd vote for Edwards in the general, stating my ONLY reservation was his cosponsoring the IWR.

I have defended the hair cut and big house bullshit. You seem to have overlooked that in your campaign here at DU, but little details like that matter especially when you are carelessly categorizing people so you can more easily dismiss them.

on edit: most recent http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3251525&mesg_id=3252264

And frankly this primary political posturing at DU is also bullshit, because in the end I will work my ass off for the nominee in the general to make damn sure we put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. As I've said before, it is more important to me that we put a Dem in the WH than which Dem in particular. And you can take that to the bank.

[w4rma]

50. Whatever. These smears from you Clarkies with a grudge is just ticking me off further.

And, no I trust Obama even less now that this day is over. Good night, sir.

[AtomicKitten]

52. that's mam

Take a deep breath and get a good night's sleep. I understand that exploding blood pressure thing because I have been afflicted with that myself here from time to time. Just keep in mind this is only a message board and we are in this thing together.

Peace.

[w4rma]

54. I apologize, ma'am. (nt)

[bling bling]

48. Ha ha!

That's funny that you'll post fewer "facts" about Obama. That's impossible. I haven't seen you post a FACT here yet.

And you're so totally off the mark (which by the way, seems par for the course with you) that you're actually going after someone who's stuck up for Edwards consistently around here. AND, if that's not enough to prove how off-base you are, AK is for Gore.

Just another confirmation that you don't know about what you speak. As if I needed more confirmation.

[w4rma]

49. Where does Obama stand on any important issue? Oh, that's right he doesn't.

Noone knows what his positions are. He's a slippery con-man who only won his Senate race because it was handed to him on a silver platter by the Republicans who set him up with an opponent that a small child could beat.

[bling bling]

51. You're just lashing out wildly now.

You're coming undone before my eyes. Sheesh - The Republicans could do a better job of attacking Obama than you are right now. Stay focused!!!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[bling bling]

55. Right. Well I'm sure it's past my bedtime.

Goodnight.

[GreenArrow]

22. after a "mistake"

of the calibre of his IWR mistake, the most honorable road would involve not running as a candidate. The same applies to Hillary or Biden or Dodd... One would think honor and shame would preclude such a choice on their parts, but one would think wrong, apparently...

[AtomicKitten]

24. word

:thumbsup:

[w4rma]

26. How fortunate a position for Obama who talked big, but wasn't in the Senate at that time.

And had no risk to being called a terrorist in a Southern state where Edwards would have to run for reelection if he chose to.

[AtomicKitten]

29. & there are people who don't consider their political backsides

in matters of war and life and death ...

[Forkboy]

56. There ya go!

Damn straight!

[GreenArrow]

16. there's no practical difference between

what Hillary has said and what Edwards has said. Edwards has "apologized" not for what he has done, but for fear that what he has done may undo his political ambitions.

[w4rma]

18. No, Edwards has apologized for his support, along with the vast majority of Congress--including the

previous Democratic nominee for President--, of the IWR.

He apologized and working as hard or harder than everyone to fix the problem. That's more than anyone can ask for or do.

He obviously knows that he can't put the genie back in the bottle, but he's doing everything in his power to grab that genie and capture it before it does more harm.

He has taken the hard road and the most honorable road.

[AtomicKitten]

23. dude, he's like totally sorry 'n shit

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

28. yeah, he's sorry all right

His apology is as sincere as the average three year old's, and as self centered.

[illinoisprogressive]

34. It's funny because I see Obama as the one who can fix the country. ah, different strokes...

[Colobo]

38. Me too...

[bling bling]

40. Who is Thomas G. Fisher, Jr.?

I clicked the link to read the article but it looked like some random persons opinion that he submitted to the newspaper. Not that a random persons opinion isn't noteworthy. It just appeared to be an actual article written by someone with more influence over public opinion than say, my next door neighbor, or bling bling on DU, for example.

It didn't look like many of the responses from the random people who read the opinion piece seemed too smitten with Edwards.

[w4rma]

41. Many Republican responses. Many positive Democratic responses too.

Of course on at least one major news site, Obama articles have their comments shut off because of so many hateful racist comments. American racism rears it's ugly head again. :(

[bling bling]

43. Here's one of the positive Democratic responses I liked i particular.

From the Obama supporter in the bunch:

**************

Sam Osborne
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 914
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject:

John Edwards is a good American and he does not smear other people. He is the kind of person that learned in childhood what those that denigrate others did not:

“You deserve the reputation of the company you keep and the words you speak.”

***************

If only I thought you'd get the irony.

[w4rma]

44. Yeah, I like that one too. And I agree with it.

Although, I suppose it doesn't really apply to myself. I tend join a crowd and then do what everyone else in the crowd isn't doing.