John Edwards Speaks Out

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==Q: How would you approach fighting terrorism and mending the country's international reputation through foreign policy?

A: I think that there have been serious structural problems with America's foreign policy over an extended period of time, and Bush has certainly been the worst by a long shot. But those deficiencies have been the lack of an underlying strategy to undermine the forces of terrorism.

Education, stopping the spread of HIV-AIDS, stopping the spread of disease, creating some hope in economi development in parts of the world where it doesn't exist. And I think it's fine for us to talk about keeping America safe, but also be willing to entertain a new vision for what's necessary to keep America safe.==

==Q: Why would you make a better president than Senator Clinton or Senator Obama?

A: If you want change in this country, and you believe change is needed, it's very clear that I have a long history of taking on these entrenched interests and beating them. There's a difference in the way that I would achieve change versus Senator Obama.

Which is I don't believe you can compromise and negotiate your way to change. I think you have to stand up and fight. And you have to show strength because these people will not voluntarily give away their power.==

Read the rest at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/17/usnews/whispers/main3179406.shtml

[Colobo]

1. Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama works. They both want the same thing, just that

Edwards is a fighter and Obama is an uniter. We need both approaches.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. You can't achieve real change with a strategy of compromise

The fundamental problem with Obama's candidacy is his obsession with consensus. "Unity" sounds great and polls well (which is why Rove ran on this in 2000). What he doesn't tell you is what it will require. Who does he intend to unite with? Republicans. How exactly do you achieve consensus? You do so by making concessions to the other side...

Edwards/Obama would be a great ticket, though. ;) Obama/Edwards would work as well but I doubt JE would run for VP again.

[Colobo]

3. This country needs healing, man. Healing.

Obama has the ability to HEAL this nation from these years of brutal divisiveness.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. This is the fundamental difference between the Edwards and Obama candidacies

Obama will produce more unity (although he--like every president since Washington--will not be able to produce true unity). However, the price of that is having less change occur. Voters deserve to know that now, not when they have signed the 4 year lease on the White House for you. The choice between Obama and Edwards can be summed up as whether you place a higher priority on change or consensus (with Republicans).

[trayted]

5. And healing is just going to leave a bunch of scars. We need change. Go back Pre-Reagan.

Dump supply-side economics. We don't need to heal over mess.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. I agree

However, I can understand how many would prefer the Obama approach. We do need healing. We do need to come together. However, at this point in time I believe real change should be a higher priority. Let's produce real change first, then work to become more united. We simply cannot have real change if we give top priority toward achieving consensus. One of my biggest objections to the Obama campaign is that he never bothers to tell voters this. He promises voters that they can have their cake and can eat it too. You can't. A "Unity" approach precludes real, progressive change.

[trayted]

7. Well, healing would technically be a "change." But it's way to sentimental for me.

Unless we have major change, healing is a waste of time, because it will not last. For example, one of the reasons why so many people hate illegal immigrants is because they are looking for "someone" to blame for the problems that they are having in their lives. They lose their "good paying jobs," because of outsourcing, and instead of being smart enough to blame the people who made millions by outsourcing jobs (like Mitt Romney did), they blame an illegal immigrant who is making $5/hour.

You aren't going to "heal" that without some major changes. What is Barack going to do, tell them, "Now, now kids. Let's get along"? No, you need to take the power away from people like Mitt Romney who make millions of dollars by buying up U.S. companies, shutting them down, and then outsourcing the jobs.

In other words, if you are just going to "heal" over major flaws in the system, you are trying to put a band-aid over a severed limb.

[Mythsaje]

8. Not to mention that the Republican idea of compromise is

either their way, or no way. When only half the body is willing to make concessions, you're left with the choice of either getting nowhere or losing ground.

How, precisely, are you going to achieve unity with people who hate you and want to destroy everything you stand for?

[LaPera]

9. Kick ASS John Edwards!

:kick:

[jsamuel]

10. He is absolutely right here.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. They surely won't voluntarily give up their power.

And they will create whatever scenario they need to maintain it.