It is incredible that Edwards won the Moveon.org poll

[penguin7]

I listened to Edwards on the Moveon.org forum. He suggests that bio-fuels are the answer to the energy problem. It is clear that bio-fuels at best have some rather serious problems. An important one being the cost of food. He didn't bother to address any of these problems.

Edwards said, "Bio fuels which is where the transition will have to lead to."

Further, now that I listened to him again, he is talking about the price of oil dropping.

The only possible way to interpret his spiel is that the price of oil will drop because of the use of bio fuels. And this will enrich the economies of Africa and America because they have land to grow bio fuels, and force the opec countries to change their policy because of the dropping price of oil.

This strikes me as a typical politicians and a typical Edward's speech, promising the impossible to pander to the electorate. He was clearly in LaLa land when he was talking about the price of oil dropping.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Oh, really? Lala Land?

So, what do YOU see as a reasonable way to start to make the shift away from petroleum? Surely you have ideas on the matter, or you would not have cared sufficiently to post the OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Don't Worry - He'll Change His Mind Soon

and apologize. Like he did with war, outsourcing, the first awful bankruptcy bill... and so forth.

And he'll be sincere.

Really.

[Clark2008]

4. ROFLMAO!

You always make me laugh in regards to Edwards, Manny.

And, sadly, you're always correct about what he'll do. I swear, that politician changes his mind, sincerely, more than some people change their underwear.

:7

[JANdad]

6. Just out of curiosity

What is wrong with changing your mind? I know I wish Bush would change his mind from time to time...just sayin'

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. It is always ironic to see Clark supporters of all people invoke the flip-flopper charge

When Clark, who would reincarnate as a progressive Democrat to the left of Howard Dean two years later, was headlining a Republican fund-raiser in 2001 (he was flirting with both parties because they were recruiting him to run for office in Arkansas. Clearly, Clark was keeping his options open...) and praising the * team Edwards was fighting the * agenda in Congress...

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Spin spin spin

When Clark first moved back to Little Rock after his retirement, he spoke to his home county Repub party at a dinner. That's hardly what I call "headlining a Republican fund-raiser" altho it may be technically true in that he was the guest speaker and there was probably some fund-raising going on. But the fact is his speech was extremely critical of Bush administration policy, even if he put it politely, and he spoke on a completely non-partisan basis.

You have absolutely NO basis to say Clark was "flirting with both parties" and there is NO reason to presume he was the least bit interested in running for state office. He certainly never expressed any. You're just making that up, so it passes spin and moves into lying.

The fact is, Clark has done nothing significant in support of Republican politics ever. He retired in 2000, was campaigning openly for Democrats by 2002, and never had anything to do with a single Republican office-seeker.

Btw, you do know that Mario Cuomo has said that he hopes Clark runs for president, don't you? I will be curious to see if you change your handle if he endorses Clark?

And another thing... why do Edwards people assume that everyone who criticizes their boy is a Clarkie? Or that accusing one of being a Clarkie somehow makes the criticism less valid?

[venable]

17. show me where Cuoma said this.

someone on DU said Cuomo said 'we need him'. I'm not saying this is not true, but it is second hand reporting by a Clark supporter of a moment that would have occured at an event where people were pressing on Cuomo. I know I was standing right there when the conversation would have occurred. Cuomo was besieged, as the great man should be, and he said something to a Clark supporter.

Unless you are talking about something else.

Why are we always discussing Wes Clark, even on threads having nothing at all to do with him. He's not running. He has little support. What's going on here?

Please don't start an urban myth about Cuomo pining away for Clark.

[CarolNYC]

25. Why are we always discussing Wes Clark?

You might want to ask your buddy draft mario that one. He's the one who brought the General into this thread...I'd too like to know why he decided this thread about Edwards should turn into one about Clark. Isn't that the way the right wingers work after all? When their guy is criticized, they don't defend but instead start attacking others, including the ones bringing the criticism? I don't understand why any of us would want to follow that pattern but what do I know? :shrug:

As for the Mario thing, it's kind of a bizarre thing for you to say you were standing right there when the conversation would have occurred. How do you know when exactly the conversation 'would have' occurred? You're saying everyone was pressing around Mario out in the foyer while Edwards was speaking in the hall? I guess that doesn't say much for Edwards' ability to hold a crowd then. Apparently, he couldn't even hold your attention as you must have been out there with Mario. And, actually, the 'conversation' didn't even take place in the foyer but in another room that the Governor asked the supporter to enter with him....so maybe it was that other room you were in?

This whole Mario Cuomo discussion is kind of stupid anyway. Apparently he told someone that we need Clark and that really bugs at least a couple of Edwards supporters. Life is tough.

[venable]

39. Carol, you said when you spoke to Mario right after the event.

I thought I remembered that you said you spoke to Mario just after the event.

In any case, I believe you've misread my post.

Just after the speaking and interview with Lehrer, the Governor was up front, in front of the stage, and there was a group around him. After which he and his wife went to a small gathering upstairs. I was in both places with them. So I assumed that your chat was in that group in the minutes between the speeches and the gathering upstairs.

Sorry if I've misunderstood. In any case, the poster said that Cuomo is asking for Clark to get in the race, and I just think that doesn't necessarily follow from what you'd reported earlier, if that is his/her source.

I'm sure Cuomo likes Clark. I'm not disputing that. I just don't think we can unilaterally turn him into one who is simply waiting Clark. I don't think you did that in the previous post a few weeks ago.

I wish I had known you were there, I would like to have introduced myself to you - or maybe you wouldn't want to meet me, as we've exchanged strong positions on DU...but I woud have liked to say hello to a fellow-DUer. Another time. Until then, Peace.

[Jai4WKC08]

44. You're twisting what I said

Go back and read it again. Or just be quiet. But don't put words in my mouth.

And don't try to make it sound like it was one of us who brought Clark into the conversation. That's a lie.

[CarolNYC]

46. It wasn't me, it was someone I know....

I never said I was there. I never said I spoke to the Governor, in that first discussion or in this one. If it was me, you'd know it. I would say it was me and wouldn't be talking about myself in the third person, referring to myself as "the supporter" or any kind of ridiculousness like that.

In fact, I wasn't even the one who brought the conversation with Mario up the first time. It was another Clark supporter, who was also not at the event but just reporting what he'd heard. But he never said it was after the event either. I'd only jumped into that conversation when you got riled up about someone reporting that Mario said we need Clark.

See, that's why I'm always asking for links when people post about something that someone said....You posted that piece about knowing when the conversation took place and what the circumstances of it were as if it was an indisputable fact when you totally misremembered the first exchange in the first place.

Anyway, I wasn't there but maybe we'll meet at some other NY event....Peace to you, too....

[venable]

47. let's communicate

when next there's an event in nyc that we both might attend.

I'm downtown.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Clark was not even a Democrat until 2003!

==When Clark first moved back to Little Rock after his retirement, he spoke to his home county Repub party at a dinner. That's hardly what I call "headlining a Republican fund-raiser"==

Um...a 4 star general who had just won a war would not boost turnout at an event where money was being raised for the Republican Party?

==You have absolutely NO basis to say Clark was "flirting with both parties"==

So he spoke at a Republican fund-raiser for fun?

==The fact is, Clark has done nothing significant in support of Republican politics ever.==

Sure, but the fact is he was not even a Democrat until he began to run for president. What does that tell you? That shows that he had no real ideology at the time. Then, two years later he reincarnates not only as a Democratic candidate for president (the Dems were the ones who needed a candidate, who drafted him) but as a very progressive Democrat. If he was so progressive in 2001 he would have been a staunch Democrat at the time. Or perhaps he was but wanted to keep his options open and was willing to say whatever was necessary to win if he ran as a Republican.

==And another thing... why do Edwards people assume that everyone who criticizes their boy is a Clarkie?==

The poster I responded to is named Clark2008. There is a fleet of Clarkies who love to paint Edwards as a hypocrite but buy Clark's story lock, stock, and barrel.

What is the point? Clark's story has far more hoops one needs to jump through to believe than Edwards. Edwards was a Democrat. He shifted slightly to be a more progressive Democrat. That is a far cry from someone going from speaking at a Republican fund-raiser in 2001 to a progressive Democratic candidate for president. If Edwards is a fraud, what does that make Clark?

I like Clark too and believe him. I just apply the Clarkie "logic" that is used regarding Edwards to their hero.

==Btw, you do know that Mario Cuomo has said that he hopes Clark runs for president, don't you?==

That is false. He allegedly said "we need Clark." That could mean many things. Maybe he meant we need his voice, maybe he meant we need him in a cabinet position, maybe we need him as VP, or maybe he meant that he hopes Clark runs for president. We do not know. What we do know is that he has praised Edwards publicly at least twice.

As far as Cuomo is concerned, he does not control my vote. If he endorses someone I will take it into account but I will not vote solely on his endorsement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. You can be fair when you want to be

I know that it pisses you off when someone who identifies themselves as Pro Clark reacts in a way that is anti-Edwards, but it's a big world, you know? It's going to happen from time to time, and around here lots of people have strong feelings and aren't afraid to express them. I see supporters of many candidates say pro and con things about John Edwards an DU, he's in the bulls eye now because that comes with tbe territory when you run for President. Sometimes I'm amazed at the mud slinging going on regarding Clinton and Obama also.

You are capable of being above that crap, so do you really need to find something bad to say about Clark everytime someone with a Clark avatar says something bad about Edwards? Clark isn't in the race now for one thing, though that may change. But none of this has anything to do with Clark, and that's the main thing. But you brought Clark into this so now I will defend him, which is you should do for Edwards if he is unfairly targetted in your opinion. Note that I have no interest in defending Clark by attacking Edwards:

I have seen only one media source speculate about Clark in 2001/2002 supposedly thinking about seeking office in Arkansas either as a Democrat or Republican, and that was a short comment in U.S. News and World Report which gives a pretty dependably Republican spin on everything, and they gave no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. Here is some much more detailed coverage of Clark's relationship with the Arkansas Democratic Party during that time period, including one link to US News and World Report that actually contains details:

New York Times
National Briefing | South: Arkansas:

A General For Governor?
Published: October 3, 2001

Secretary of State Sharon Priest will not run for governor next year, adding to speculation that the former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark, left, might. Ms. Priest's decision, announced on Monday, leaves Democrats without a challenger to Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican who plans to seek re-election in 2002. The state Democratic chairman, Ron Oliver, said General Clark, who retired from the Army last year, met with him two weeks to discuss the race, but he declined to elaborate.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DB113DF930A35753C1A9679C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fH%2fHuckabee%2c%20Mike



The Nashville News
Thinking ahead to 2006
November 9, 2004 - No reporter cited

"When Army Gen. Wesley Clark retired to his Arkansas home in 2001, Democrats recruited him to run for governor and a private citizen started a movement to draft him to run for the U.S. Senate. At the time, Clark said that he had a better feel for national issues and that the executive branch might be a better fit for his take-charge mentality. He skipped both state races and instead mounted an ill-fated presidential bid two years later..."

http://www.nashvillenews.org/index.php/comments/885 /


The American Prospect 3/1/03

He votes Democratic. In Arkansas most voters enroll with no party affiliation; you show up on primary day and select the ballot of whichever party you want to support. Clark told me he voted in the Democratic primary in last year's state elections. He seriously considered seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Arkansas in 2002, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee.

-snip

Clark had several chats last year with Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Ron Oliver about the possibility of taking on Huckabee for the governorship. "It was 2001 when his name started popping up," says Michael Cook, the party's executive director in Arkansas. "He and Ron had a series of discussions." Clark took a pass, obviously; but equally obviously, he had caught the bug.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/3/tomasky-m.html


Washington Whispers 10/3/01

Pressing Clinton into action

Desperate to find someone to run against Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, state Democrats are pushing President Clinton to urge CNN commentator and retired Gen. Wesley Clark to seek the state's highest elected office. It's part of a bid by beleaguered state Dems to rebuild the party slapped down by Republicans ever since Clinton left the governor's mansion in Little Rock for the Oval Office in 1993. The plan is this: Democrats hope to button-hole Clinton this Friday when he comes here to review the latest plans for his presidential library and museum. Sources tell our Suzi Parker that he'll be asked to push Clark, a fellow Arkansan who worked for Clinton in Bosnia, to run against the incumbent Republican next year. It may be a "Hail Mary" pass, however, because Clark has turned his focus to TV and CNN. But some say that's simply a way for him to raise his profile in advance of a political bid.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/october2001.htm



More later, gotta run...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. I play devil's advocate when someone says Edwards is a flip-fllopper

I point out the changes in their favorite's views. You are right, though. I seem to have a knee-jerk response to the 4-5 Clarkies who keep trying to paint Edwards as a fraud. I will try to cut down on this. :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Thanks d_m_c It took me a little while...

...to understand your motives and methods, but I'm glad I stayed open enough to you to figure it out. I almost developed a knee-jerk rsponce to your knee-jerk response, lol, but then I realized that I enjoy and get stuff out of reading what you have to say when you weren't playing devil's advocate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. lol no problem, thanks nt

[Jai4WKC08]

30. You don't prove a damn thing

...about whether Edwards is a flip-flopper or not by attacking Clark or Clark-supporters. Whether Clark has ever flipped or not (and I submit that he has never changed any fundamental position on anything) is totally irrelevant to judging what Edwards has said and done.

Moreover, the person who made the original charge against Edwards in this thread is NOT a Clarkie.

As for whether Edwards is a fraud or not, I think his actions (or lack thereof) while in the Senate tell all that needs be told. People can draw whatever conclusions they choose.

But you might want to look up the term "devils advocate." It's not what you are doing here.

And you're wrong about Clark not becoming a Democrat until 2003. I think you know better than that, but repeat the lie anyway.

There are MANY reasons a retired military officer might speak to a Republican audience. Perhaps simply for the opportunity to present his views, for example. More likely, imo, it was because he was getting into business and many (if not most) of the Little Rock business leaders are also leading Republicans. They were probably his new neighbors as well -- Clark didn't exactly move into a trailer park, and he spoke to similarly influential Democrats as well a week or two later. If you've never been a soldier returning home after 38 years absence, you don't know what it's like and shouldn't jump to judgment. It's hard as hell to build one's way back into a community, or start over in a new one, and mixing with community leaders is one way to go about the task.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. I won't say much in light of posts 23 and 26

==And you're wrong about Clark not becoming a Democrat until 2003. I think you know better than that, but repeat the lie anyway.==

I know he voted for Clinton twice and Gore. I was referring to his party registration. He remained an independent until recently.

[Jai4WKC08]

43. Post 23 is from Tom, who agrees with me

Post 26 says almost nothing at all. So I don't really understand your subject here. You sure don't justify your attack on Clarkies (plural) when you responded to a single one who in turn was merely reinforcing the opinion of a non-Clarkie.

I very much resent people, USUALLY Edwards supporters, who whine and go on the attack whenever a Clarkie expresses an opinion. As tho we are the only ones who do, and the only ones with no right to.

As for the rest of your post, the fact is, Clark first registered as a Democrat to vote in a primary back in the 90s. Did he formally join the party? No, but why should he? He was not a politician. I call myself a Democrat, and I'm registered as such for voting purposes, but am I a party member? No, not officially. Very few people are. You don't need to be until you run for office. Heck, I've even chaired a state Senate campaign and was not required to join the party. My candidate did.

[Catchawave]

42. Got "waffles" ?

:rofl:

[Pastiche423]

10. You've got his tune!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. As we know, Al Gore has never "evolved" on any issue

;)

[Pastiche423]

12. It is quite true that Al Gore has evolved

But he is not a finger in the wind politician that will say or do anything to be president. He has proven to the world that he truly cares. His work backs him up.

I listened when Molly Ivins said, watch what they do, not what they say.

;-)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. What standards are you using?

One distinction between Edwards and most prominent politicians is that he entered politics late. Is it such a shock that someone new to politics changed his mind on some things after learning about the issues, seeing the affect they have on people? Evolution of newcomers are less suspicious than those of people who have spent 15, 25, 30 years in politics and then suddenly see the light...

==But he is not a finger in the wind politician that will say or do anything to be president.==

Really? The "evolution" of this southern centrist DLCer hawk (sound familiar? ;) ) from 1976-2000 always moved in the direction that suited his political ambitions (he is similar to Gephardt in many ways). I.e., from anti-gun control to pro-gun control, pro-life to pro-choice, and so on. None of his shifts hurt his ambitions. Coincidence?

==He has proven to the world that he truly cares==

That can be said about anyone. That is vague enough and can be translated as: If I like the candidate, I accept his or her changes; if I don't they are a wind sock.

==His work backs him up.==

What does that mean? His "work" is what changed as his positions evolved.

The truth is you would be hard pressed to find a politician who has not evolved while in politics, even if it takes some decades to see the light. What is amusing is the hypocrisy regarding candidates changing their position.

The sad irony with Gore supporters criticizing other candidates for not being authentic is that if Gore himself was viewed as authentic Florida would have never mattered...

For the record, if Gore runs he will be my #2 choice. I accept his evolution.

[Pastiche423]

22. Where did you live between 1998 and 2004?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. NJ nt

[Pastiche423]

32. You watched a N.C. senator while you lived in NJ?

What prompted you to do that? Some special bill, like say, co-sponsoring the IWR?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Where did I say I watched him?

I did not really know of him until 2003.

[Pastiche423]

36. I rest my case

If he had been your senator, I believe you would have a different view of him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. There are several DUer from NC who support him and Edwards won the NC primary in 04'

Could it be that there are different interpretations of the record of a politician, even of his "evolution"? ;)

[Pastiche423]

38. There are several DUers that lived in N.C.

who know he ignored his constituents. I am one of them. My father, a former N.C. politican is another.

If you interpret his co-sponsorship of and vote for the IWR as a good thing, it speaks volumnes about you and what you prefer in a candidate for president.

[venable]

41. I don't understand how one can say I and my father don't like him, so..

people in NC don't like him.

I am from NC originally and I like him, as do many I know there.

Is that a stand-off?

No, it's just personal anecdotes/preferences.

Neither of us can extrapolate meaningfully from our cirlce of friends/family. Let's not try.

[librechik]

3. biofuels from Big Agriculture sources are problematic

making them from general organic waste, which we have too much of, and we don't have to grow, is much more promising. You won't hear about it, though, because the corporations control what is said on television. They are determined to make renewable fuels unavailable to the masses so they can keep prices high. A democratic president could change that focus. Edwards is an all around solid candidate, IMO, and he won't be conned (or sell out to Big Corporate Interests) about biofuels like some I could mention.

[venable]

5. not surprising at all. he's honest, concerned about the planet, and not beholded

to corporate interests.

other's get that.

[zalinda]

7. I don't think it's incredible at all

He is doing a lot of ground work, and it's paying off. To some he is the better candidate, and he speaks to them. DU is not the mainstream dems by any shot of the imagination. Yes, some are middle of the road, but the most out spoken ones here are further left and those who want third parties. So, yes, Edwards winning is quite credible.

zalinda

[Cleita]

8. So today is bash John Edwards day is it? Yesterday it was

bash Cindy Sheehan day. Actually, all politicians, not just the ones you like, run on platforms that appeal to their supporters. At the end of the day, even if they are elected President, it's the legislatures that will ultimately determine what laws will or will not be passed. For example, I voted for Bill Clinton because he promised universal health care. Well, I never got it because he couldn't get Congress to pass it. End of the story.

[penguin7]

13. I am just irked that Edwards gave a bad answer and got the most votes.

I guess this was just a popularity contest. Edwards was talking about bio fuels lowering the cost of oil, and the production of bio fuels enriching the Americas and Africa. This is patent nonsense.

I didn't care too much for Obama's answers here either, but they were at least not out in left field.

Clearly people just went on the site to vote, the videos didn't have much to do with it.

I didn't listen to all the videos, but of these three it was pretty clear that Kucinich gave the best responses, although I am biased. I already made my decision before listening to the videos like everyone else. I guess I am just being a hypocrite, but Edward's answer was terrible.

[venable]

16. his answers were not bad to many, obviously

and how in the world can you call it a popularity contest when the massive leads by the two front runners would have guaranteed their victory in such a contest?

[penguin7]

24. Good Point

I do not understand how Edwards won.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. He always does better when people get a chance to hear him

:)

[illinoisprogressive]

15. He did? That is very wonderful news for him. yea to John and Elizabeth.

[ddeclue]

19. Edwards won because he DESERVED to win...

Bio fuels ARE the answer to transportation unless we all just want to stay home and walk everywhere.

Bio fuels have long worked in Brazil for upwards of 30 years. There is no reason they can't work here too.

E85 / Flex bio-fuel hybrids are the first step
Methanol Fuel cell is the next step
Hydrogen Fuel cell is the step after that

Doug D.
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech
Orlando, FL

[skids]

31. I'd disagree on the "steps" however...

...biofuels aren't inherently a bad idea, so Edwards is in essence right... it's just they can be done very badly and with horrible consequences. But if done right they should be fine.

Biodiesel is actually a very promising endeavor given it can instantly convert part of the vehicle fleet to more-or-less carbon neutral with almost no modifications.

Ethanol really badly needs one of these cellulosic techs to get up to speed, but once that happens it may actually stick around for a good while.

I don't think the fuel cells will win the war for engine of choice, however, except perhaps in colder climates where
their waste heat is needed more often. Fuel cells probably do have a promising future in combined heat and power
applications and for stationary home systems, if redox flow batteries (essentially fuel cells with recyclable electrolyte rather than fuel) don't beat them in the latter.

The steps for phasing out the gasoline ICE are already in motion: HEV, PHEV, Battery EV, pure ultracap EV. PML flightlink's kit is being OEMed right now to a good number of small scale producers who are mixing it with some pretty advanced battery systems. Charge times are on the order of 5-10 minutes for those battery systems and since the need to do that will be rare as compared to charging overnight in one's garage, the convenience of ridding oneself of the trip to the fuel station or handling of liquid fuels will win out.

[dogman]

20. It shows how much work needs to be done.

Gore has a lot of educating to do. People still buy what they are told they need instead of what is best for them. The majority responds to a salesman. This might account for the difficulty in overcoming the right wing message that there is no crisis. It's at least a good thing that Edwards is not on the other side of this issue.

[jsamuel]

40. Even Gore is for Biofuels, he just wants us to be careful about it

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/5/15/215113/163

[saltpoint]

45. Edwards enjoys understandably wide support on many blogs.

Less reliability on fossil fuels and more emphasis on renewables is a continually good notion. Not just for energy reasons, either.