I haven't chosen a candidate; tell me why I should work for John Edwards

[RevolutionStartsNow]

I think all of our candidates have something good to offer. I don't really dislike any of them (okay, maybe Biden. And Richardson).

It's unusual for me not to already be firmly behind a single candidate; I was hard worker for the Dean campaign, well before the primaries, and I figured this time wouldn't be different.

But I'm on the fence, not because I DON'T like any of them but because I like different things about all of them. I also think it's okay not to have chosen a candidate yet, there's lots of time.

I liked Edwards last time around, and I worked for Kerry/Edwards when Kerry was nominated, but I focused more on Kerry, and don't know much about John Edwards. I am reading a lot on here and other places, but can someone break it down for me? Push me off the fence into the Edwards camp? Or not?

I have an open mind; please try to limit anything mean-spirited about JE or any of the other candidates. Just the facts.

Thanks, DU'ers!

[Justyce]

1. Have you been to this site:

It has a quiz that matches where you stand on the issues with the candidates: http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/#sec0

[Hieronymus]

12. I only got results for 2004 .. on that site.

[Justyce]

14. Try this one:

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

[momophile]

24. I'm so glad I got 0% with Tancredo

It was gonna drive me crazy if we agreed on anything.

[Yael]

2. I am supporting him 110% because

I believe he has the only workable plan to bring about UHC and reform the broken system.

HR 676 would be the ideal, but HOW we get to it is the challenge. My undergraduate degree is in Economics and I believe that Edwards' plan is the most feasible to get us there.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

[penguin7]

4. I could not disagree more

HR 676 has a much better chance than the Edwards plan. The Edwards plan is huge government spending program. Edwards will be labeled a liberal big government spender. Edwards and his program will go down in flames.

Edwards has all kinds of problems in this race. He is flip flopping on almost all his issues. So he is going to lose big time on the sincerity issue which is always, rightly or wrongly, extremely important.

The huge mansion that he built will give him no credibility with the environmentalists, although he is talking tough on the environment. He will lose both ways here.

I also see it as a big time negative that he made a fortune as a trial lawyer or as the GOP will call it, "ambulance chaser." The American people do not like lawyers. This is a another huge negative.

John Edwards greatest asset is that he is a good looking white anglo saxon from the South. I do not think that is enough.

[Yael]

5. LOL!

Um, you are aware that Hillary and Obama are lawyers, right?

[trayted]

13. Most Presidents have had law degrees. Lincoln was a trial lawyer. Edwards would be in good company

The only thing I worry about is the people who Edwards is most compared to were all assassinated, like Lincoln (trial lawyer) and both Kennedys, so I worry for his security.

[Hieronymus]

11. Same here .. he has the most workable health care plan. Plus I like him.

[trayted]

3. In the words of David Sirota, first look at a man's enemies. Who hates John Edwards?

1) Corporate lobbyists, because he was a trial lawyer

2) The Republican Party hates him the most, as is clear by Bill Oh'Really and Michelle Malkin's constant, venomous rants against John Edwards on Fox Noise.

3) The establishment, DLC-type Democrats, as indicated by David Sirota and Bob Novak.
http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/05/25/why-i-like-john-edwards/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602288.html?referrer=emailarticle

4) The establishment media. Turn on the television set. Has any candidate ever been smeared as much over things that "all other candidates" are doing? Historically, most Presidential candidates are rich, live in very expensive houses, spend a lot on hair and make up for media appearances, and make some investments that end up being "questionable." The media don't have anything to smear John Edwards with, so they smear him over ordinary plutocratic stuff.

That's motivation to work "for" John Edwards since all of those groups are working "against" him, but if you need reasons to work for John Edwards, look at the fact that he is running a campaign based on substance and ideas instead of symbolism and image, only. That has won him favor with a lot of people like Paul Krugman, Thom Hartmann, the MoveOn Climate Change crowd.

John Edwards also has the added advantage of being able to stake out "mainstream" positions that are labeled "leftist" by the media, while yet maintaining a sense of moderation and electability. No other Democrat running for President can do that. It's inborn. So, no matter what the media say about John Edwards, the public would always consider him to be a down home fella instead of a "fire-breathing liberal," which is why the media works so hard now to taint his image. I guess they don't feel like they'd have enough time to do it if he got nominated.

John Edwards is, and has always been, the strongest candidate against the GOP field. Even in the Newsweek polls that were touted as indications of Obama and Clinton's strength, John Edwards beat the GOP field by larger margins than Clinton and Obama did. Beating the "field" by larger margins, indicates greater electability against the GOP field.

If you nominate John Edwards against any of the Republicans currently running (except for Huckabee), John Edwards will win by a margin wide enough to potentially ruin GOP "theft" plans. There is only one way that 2008 will be a close election, and that's if Clinton is nominated. Edwards wins in a landslide.

CAMPAIGN ENEMIES

Figuring out who DOESN'T like a candidate is probably the best way to figure out what that candidate is really all about, and candidates who don't have ideological enemies are suspect, to say the least. If you don't have enemies, you aren't doing anything.

Let's stipulate up front that every Democratic candidate has Republican opponents for sheer partisan reasons, and that to judge the candidates based on the specific levels of hate directed at them by Republican partisans is pointless (For instance, Clinton perhaps is more intensely despised by the right, but only because of the virulent, issue-free anti-Clintonism of the 1990s - not for any position on any issue that she holds in contrast to other Democratic candidates).

So who are the candidates' ideological opponents? Clinton used to be hated by the health industry - that is, until she started apologizing for ever pushing universal health care and then became the U.S. Senate's number 2 recipient of health industry cash. Meanwhile, one of Clinton's repetitive talking points is how she's forged close friendships with fringe-right-wing Republicans in the Senate, and she's been a helpful ally to pro-war neoconservatives on an array of Pentagon budget and Iraq War issues. Frankly, other than Republican partisans, Clinton doesn't seem to have many ideological enemies.

Same thing for Obama, and not just because he has a magnetic personality. Though he was a community organizer, Obama's Senate M.O. has been to avoid confrontation at all costs - and in my interview with him, he insinuated that such a posture is a deliberate goal.

Edwards, by contrast, has real ideological enemies - not a surprise considering that before entering politics, his entire career was based on challenging power. Right-wingers can belittle trial lawyers, but at their core, trial lawyers challenge entrenched and often corrupt power for a living - and that has created real adversaries for Edwards.

As Inc. Magazine reported, corporate lobbyists had a rare public temper tantrum when Edwards was put on the Democratic ticket in 2004. While Clinton and Obama fire up the cash vacuum on K Street, Edwards is persona non grata there, thanks to his refusal to take lobbyist or PAC money, his promise to crack down in a serious way on lobbyists if elected, his populist economic stances, and his unwillingness to kiss the corporate ring. "Edwards has little discernible support downtown," the Hill wrote, referring to K Street. "And one source close to the Edwards campaign claimed that it is not working to change that."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/john-edwards-the-people-_b_45053.html

[Justyce]

6. Great post!

:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Excellent.

Though the only candidate I've contributed to so far is ________, I've always liked Edwards. The one thing that bothered me was in the VP debates last time out I expected him to tear Cheney up, but he didn't take advantage of a number of openings that Cheney gave him - I've since wondered if he deliberately soft-pedaled those debates to 1) make Cheney look like the attack dog he is, and 2) to not give Bush/Cheney political material showing him being an attack dog. If that's the case, it shows him to be a lot more strategically minded than his campaign tends to indicate. That might just become obvious if he walks away with Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Yael]

9. I am seeing a different John Edwards today than in 2004

He strikes me as stronger -- more of a fighter today than he was back then. Kinda like dipping the toe in '04 and going for broke in '08.

[Catchawave]

17. To be fair about Cheney-Edwards.....

As the VP candidate, he wasn't allowed to "own" it per the Kerry/Edwards campaign managers. It's obvious today that he's on his own and he's doing fabulous!

I had the pleasure of experiencing the John Edwards For President campaign in person at Yearly Kos....this is not Kerry's dog :patriot:

[saracat]

7. Because John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate that consistantly

beats all the GOP contenders in a general election matchup.He is the only one of our candidates that GOp voters and Indies will support.You should work for Edwards because he can win the general election.I also believe he is the only one of our candidates who genuinely cares about the interests of the average person and he has been on the forefron with evry issue that concerns us.Only Edwards has a workable plan for heath insurance.Please join the Edwards campaign and bring change to America!

[Yael]

10. Well said!

[slick8790]

15. My reasons:

1. plan for healthcare. it's the only truly universal plan out there among candidates right now.
2. support for labor and fair trade as opposed to buisiness and free trade
3. plan to use environmental initiatives to stiumlate economy while cutting emissions
4. and then lastly, i agree that he is the most electable.

[trayted]

16. I agree

His plan for health care is doable. The GOP scare the people talking about Democrats trying to take away "choices." Well, John Edwards' plan adds more choice. Paul Krugman thought it was the best plan. If Edwards does it correctly, the insurance companies would not be able to compete with a government plan. The fact that it's not tied to your job, meaning you can take it with you, and you don't have job lock would be attractive to many people.

He said that he would not abrogate NAFTA, but instead will redo it to include labor and environ standards. Earlier this year, in a town hall in NH, he said he'd repeal NAFTA. Last speech, he said, "not abrogate." We'll see where it ends up, more than likely the latter.

[jsamuel]

18. It is difficult to tell someone why to vote for a candidate without first knowing what issues are

most important to them.

So, I guess my answer would be, because...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/15/144331/856

John Edwards is capable of not only turning progressive ideals into wonderful realistic plans, but he is also capable of advocating for them so that they become mainstream.

I would be happy to answer any specific questions though.

[Yael]

19. That is a great quote

I think it sums up my feelings of electability.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

20. Thanks for the responses

It gave me more to think about, as I've been taking this particular election season slow...No, I'm not waiting for Gore...that's a bit like waiting for Godot, and as great a president I think he'd be, he's great now, why mess with that?

One thing I've learned is that you can't just vote for the man running -- you have to look at where the money is coming from and who influences him. I know a few moderate Repubs who fell for Bush's "compassionate conservative" crap and never would've voted for him if they had been smart enough to realize that with him would come Rove, and of course all of Poppy Bush's IranContra felon friends.

So who are the people close to Edwards? Who will he bring to DC with him?

[jsamuel]

21. Well, there is Bonior, his campaign manager and Elizabeth.

Elizabeth is our liaison to the WH if John wins.

Bonior quote below
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070810-giuliani-comments/

John Edwards for President National Campaign Manager Congressman David Bonior released the following statement in response to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments that he was at ground zero in New York City "as often, if not more" than rescue workers.

"Evidently, Rudy Giuliani has taken a break from reality. It is outrageous for Giuliani to suggest, in any way, shape or form, that he did more at ground zero or spent more time there than the brave first responders who worked tirelessly around the clock for many months during the rescue and recovery operation. It seems that Giuliani is determined to take every opportunity to exploit the memory of 9/11 for political gain, rather than honor the incredible sacrifices of our first responders. Enough is enough.

"Mayor Giuliani should start answering the serious questions of why firefighters and other first responders didn't have proper equipment and support. The 9/11 Commission and National Institute of Standards & Technology reports have documented the failures of the broken radio communications system, a splintered chain of command and an unprepared Office of Emergency Management under his watch as mayor. These are the questions he needs to answer."

I think that Bonior has done a great job so far of representing what I would say if I were there.

His next highest two are the two "Wake-Up Wal-Mart" guys.

[saltpoint]

22. Because in plain, direct words, Edwards will reconnect U.S. citizens

with the things they love about their country.

I'd cite as evidence of that the instincts for parenting John and Elizabeth have shown their kids, as well as the emphasis he places on the disenfranchised. Poverty is not a glamourous issue. He could very easily have chosen to ignore it. Most politicians do ignore it, in fact.

There are identifiable strands in the Edwards campaign that serve as these reconnectors. The alliance with labor. The plight of the uninsured. The struggle for economic democracy. And the notion that children are first, grown-ups second.

I like how often in pictures Edwards is captured with his sleeves rolled up. I take that as a clue to his earnestness and it reminds me of the things in my country and my culture that I respect -- and which I have not seen much of under the current administration.

[Adelante]

23. You've asked for both sides of the fence, but have gotten mainly one side

I will contribute Senator Dodd's press release on the Bankruptcy Bill of 2001. This is one of very many reasons I oppose John Edwards for the Democratic nomination and state plainly that he is the very last Democratic primary candidate I would want to run for the Democrats in the GE.

I hope this helps, RevolutionStartsNow, as you consider your choices:

Dodd Campaign: John Edwards May Not Take Money From Washington Lobbyists, But He Sure Acted Like It
8/19/2007

Contact:
Hari Sevugan
Cell - [phone]
Office - (202) 737-DODD (3633)

Colleen Flanagan
Cell - [phone]
Office - (202) 737-DODD (3633)

* Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt. 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans rejected this bill, including Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. President Clinton eventually vetoed this bill because it was too hard on debtors.

---

* Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure. Chris Dodd voted to reject this bill, joining Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone. In all, the bill was rejected by 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

* Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone.

* Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test "will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives." 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy.

* Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure.

---

The bill "punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., a leading opponent of the legislation. "We are heading into hard economic times and we're going to make it hard for people to rebuild their lives."

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=102959

[RevolutionStartsNow]

25. Thanks for the info. Did Edwards explain himself about this?

It doesn't seem particularly consistent with his other positions, so just curious if he defended these votes. Seems like he would've been called out somewhere for voting with the GOP on this one, and I'd be curious to hear if he was able to defend it rationally.

I googled and found this on TPM

Guest Blogger: John Edwards

This morning Elizabeth Warren and her students invited me to say a few words about the bankruptcy reform bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I'm now spending a lot of my time tackling the challenges of poverty, but I learned a lot about bankruptcy on the campaign trail last year. I saw how many good families end up broke and poor, and
how they need the safety net of a fair bankruptcy law if they're going to get back on their feet.

Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.

The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance. And, even
more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/bankruptcy/archives/2005/04/index.ph

[Adelante]

26. Wrong and sorry is about all I know he's said

Thanks for posting that.