"... one candidate stands out above the rest: John Edwards."

[Sapphire Blue]

John Edwards Blogswarm
by: mooncat
Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:31:53 PM CDT

All the Democrats running for president this year are strong candidates with good ideas and most any of them can win in the general election. As I said a while back, I support John Edwards for President. Why? Sure, he's right on the issues I care about -- universal health care for everyone, stop digging that hole in Iraq and rewarding work more than wealth -- but I like Edwards most because he cuts through the crap.

Gonzo resigns, Edwards says "Better late than never."

Karl Rove bails out, Edwards says "Goodbye, good riddance."

Bush does yet another photo op in Iraq, Edwards says "When Congress comes back, they should stand firm: No timeline, no funding. No excuses."

Lobbyist money? John Edwards never took it, never will and challenges the others to do the same. “I challenge not just my fellow Democratic presidential candidates, but all federal officeholders and candidates from all political parties to join me in sending a message to all of the lobbyists in Washington: Your money is no good here, and we’re not going to take it anymore."

This is not just about snappy comebacks, it's about a Democrat running for President and being absolutely straight with voters. This is who he is, what he thinks, no spin, no language crafted to please focus groups. What you see is what you get.

And what you see is a man who did not come from a wealthy or powerful family, who attended a state college, not an Ivy League school, rose to the top of his profession on his own ability, has had a long term relationship with exactly one wife, sought the U. S. Senate as his first elected office and won, and is now seeking to lead this country. This is a man who has set goals throughout his life and has achieved them. He knows how to succeed. In other words, he can get things done. What a change that will be from the failed man who holds the office of President of the United States now.

John and Elizabeth are holding back nothing in their campaign for One America. This is their chance. Today a number of bloggers are announcing their support for Edwards. Here are some links:

David Mizner at MyDD
Perry Dorrell at Brains & Eggs
The Texas Clover Leaf
TXSharon at Blue Daze
Refinish69 at Doing My Part For The Left
Vince at Capitol Annex
Aldon Hynes at Orient Lodge
Jordan Klein

http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=440

John Edwards for President
by david mizner, Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:07:55 AM EST

My post last week got a big response, mostly positive. In emails and comments, hundreds of people said they agreed that bloggers should endorse a candidate in the presidential race. So today I'm endorsing Edwards and offering a forum for others to do the same.

First, a little about me. I post at MyDD and at Daily Kos, and I recently started my own blog, Insidious Beast. I'm a 38-year-old novelist. My father, a Holocaust survivor, died from kidney cancer in 1998, and my mother lives in Waterville, Maine, where I grew up. I'm married to Miri Navasky, a documentary filmmaker, and we have a nine-month old son, Milo. We live in Manhattan. I'm lucky, so damn lucky, a son of privilege, a white American man with money. I'm a Jewish agnostic, a pragmatic idealist, a believer in people, an often-sad-yet-hopeful non-dogmatic leftist Democrat who wants John Edwards to be the next president of the United States.

I'm under no illusion that my endorsement means anything in itself, but I have hope that my explicit support for Edwards combined with that of others in the netroots will mean something. My hope, then, is in collective action, in the power and beauty of a chorus, in democracy.

Why Edwards? Because he rejects neoliberalism . Because he preaches enlightened populism. Because he's running to the left. Because he would fight the amorality of the Market with the morality of progressivism. Because he opposes the Global War on Terror. Because he's getting better and bolder. Because he's capable of outrage. Because he's proud to be a progressive. Because he would win.

But one reason rises above all others: the stated and demonstrated rationale of his campaign is to fight inequality. The monstrous power held by the few at the expense of the many causes unnecessary hardship and agony. It hurts, it maims, it kills. It threatens what Thomas Frank calls the Middle Class Republic. It threatens our democracy and our freedom. And because power corrupts, because economic insecurity breeds fear and fear breeds militarism, because corporations have a vested interest in war and place profits above all else, the disproportionate power of the few threatens humankind.

Call it what you will--our class war, our bleeding wound, our dirty open secret--it's the problem of our time, and John Edwards has chosen to spend his political life addressing it.

And if everyone from Hillary Clinton to Mike Huckabee now talks about our class divisions, it's in part because Edwards began to do so at the national level in 2003, when it was a deeply unfashionable thing to do. It was on the advice of no consultant, at the suggestion of no poll that Edwards took it on himself in 2003 to speak out against inequality. His policy prescriptions have evolved in the last four years but the wound targeted by those prescriptions has stayed the same.

John Edwards is this century's most prominent progressive populist, the candidate most likely to give more power to more people. This alone makes him worthy of the presidency.

*******

Fellow bloggers and/or netroots activists, if you support John Edwards, please say so in comments and provide links to your blogs, blog pages, and/or endorsement statements.

Here, to get the ball rolling, is the endorsement statement by an excellent Texas blogger and Democratic Party activist, Vince Liebowitz.

And a collection of powerful endorsement statements by Boston-based bloggers.

UPDATE: here are some endorsement statements and/or blogs of endorsers: Jordan Klein / Asa Hopkins / RDean's blog / Catchawave's Journal


Continued @ http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/4/9755/69777

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ENDORSEMENT: John Edwards
Written by Vince Leibowitz

There is a truly marvelous field of Democratic candidates seeking our Party’s nomination for President in 2008. We have longtime stars of our party like Hillary Clinton and rising stars like Barack Obama. But, to us here at Capitol Annex, one candidate stands out above the rest: John Edwards.

As Texas Democrats who still believe strongly in the dream of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, we at Capitol Annex believe that John Edwards is best suited–and has the best vision and plan–to roll-back the eight years of destruction that has been done to the policies of the New Deal and the Great Society by the Bush administration.

Lyndon Johnson’s dream was, as John Edwards’ is, for One America. We believe strongly in this. Edwards believes we can end poverty in America in a decade. It is a lofty goal, and America needs leaders with lofty goals willing to do everything possible to achieve them.

Too, John Edwards’ positions on a wide range of issues are, we believe, appropriately progressive. In particular, Edwards’ vision for protecting and restoring rural American resonate with us. Issues like rural recovery, rural broadband, and rural lending policies–and Edwards’ vision in that regard–should resonate with many Americans.

And, though Hillary Clinton has for a generation been America’s leading voice on universal health care, we believe John Edwards’ plan for health care for all, with emphasis on taking on big pharma and big insurance, is right for the time in which we live.

Edwards’ “Smart Trade” approach to trade policy (which has helped him earn the support of several labor unions) is also something we sorely need. After more than a decade of seeing an economic decline as a result of trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and more, now is the time for a progressive approach to trade that helps keep American jobs in America and doesn’t serve to deflate American wages. Edwards’ support of the Employee Free Choice Act is also a major plus for him.


Continued @ http://capitolannex.com/2007/09/04/2008-presidential-election-endorsement-john-edwards/

Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"If you call wanting to give everybody a chance 'class warfare,' then so be it. That's what I'm for." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Building One America Starts in New Orleans - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. ONLY if you exclude Dennis Kucinich

He may be short of stature, but he towers over every other Democratic candidate when it comes to ethics and values.

[saracat]

2. Well, much as I like Dennis , he doesn't have the 30 year marriage thing going for him and

he isn't considered a top tier candidate. I like many of his ideas but he is just not viable. Plus he has never proven that he can get any of his high flown i8dea passed.he doesn't seem to be able to get fellow congresspersons to support him.We need someone who can "convince" others to pass legislation.Dennis seems unable to do that.

[slipslidingaway]

5. I'll take reading the classified NIE and questioning the

intelligence BEFORE voting for war over a 30 year marriage anyday! How many future terrorists would have been prevented, not to mention the money available to possibly help the less fortunate. Estimates of one to two Trillion dollars for this invasion!

If you have watched and listened to him at all you will hear about the struggle within our party. Maybe there are just too many Dems that have outside influence and who worry about the next election more than going against the Dem leadership?


http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250935

Remarks By Sen. John Edwards to the Center for Stategic and International Studies

"This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons."


IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO

http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker..."

[LSK]

11. I suppose you blame RFK for Vietnam too huh?

[saracat]

12. What difference does it make if Dennis can't pass legislation a or get people to support him?

He "speechifys" all the time but nothing is done.Sorry but he isn't listened to.We need someone who will be listened to and who can convince.

[slipslidingaway]

15. The power of people to persuade others to do the wrong thing

is not to be admired. The message is just as important and the courage to not be swayed by the popular voice...even if that means they lose the next elelction. Again if you listen what he has been saying there is a struggle within the party.

Dennis Kucinich and the Fight For Muny Light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z0rk5RoP2U

"Principles don't change with time, it's really a matter of what's inside of you. I did what was right for people at the time and if people today say I was right I'm glad they do feel that way..."

[saracat]

16. But if he can't persuade the people to do the right thing his efforts don't matter!

If he can't persuade his colleagues on a house vote and usually he has trouble getting cosigners, he certainly isn't going to persuade the majority of Americans to vote for him.And even if he could get elected, he would not be a persuasive president so nothing would get done. Results matter. Dennis has wonderful ideas but few "results' because he can't make people listen to him.

[slipslidingaway]

31. I'll just repeat this again...

If you have watched and listened to him at all you will hear about the struggle within our party. Maybe there are just too many Dems that have outside influence and who worry about the next election more than going against the Dem leadership?

[saracat]

32. I could care less about the primary voters.Most will vote for the eventual Dem nominee.

They will never nominate Kucinich, but the Dems might still nominate someone who can win a nomination but not the general.

[CTyankee]

40. At the time JE made that speech, we had no proof that Saddam had NO nuclear weapon capacity.

Bill Clinton had worked to get Saddam's hands off of nuclear capability and the world joined us. The UN did its part with inspectors, our allies were with us and our Democratic president also took limited military action. The fact is, Saddam was a real threat to stability in the Middle East.

To ignore the context of Edwards's speech is to be blind to history. Only later did we find out that Saddam had been deprived of the WMDs by the time Clinton left the White House. Bush's maneuvering tactics then started to be revealed, but not all at once. There was the DSM, there was Joe Wilson's OpEd piece in the NYT and on and on. Sure, many doubted Bush's assertions. But for awhile we had no concrete proof, only our doubts.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

[KaptBunnyPants]

7. It's a real problem... Democrats for the status quo.

So many of our elected Democrats don't really want any substantial change. Their mansions are pretty, none of their kids are in Iraq, their families get federal health care, and they need never worry about becoming part of the underclass. I guess for people like that, life must be pretty good right now. Sending in DK would be like sending an angel to lead a pack of devils. He'd do his best, but his "allies" would be constantly back stabbing him.

[superkia]

13. If you have an honest politician, (if you can say that)

and you team him up with a bunch of crooks only looking out for their financial interests, yes it would be tough to get them to be on your side. Is that his fault or theirs? So I guess if its an uphill battle to accomplish oh I don't know lets say acknowledging the constitution for one, should we just say never mind lets go for something easier? Some times its tougher to do the right thing and allot easier to do the wrong, but when it comes to our country, I would hope we would ALL be willing to fight for the right things and the right people. If not then lets continue the normal running of Washington, because they have been doing such a great job, and let it continue to be just a corrupt workplace. When I was younger I knew people that sold drugs and it sucked because they had allot of money for our age and I worked a part time job after school, selling drugs would have made it allot easier to get money and the things I wanted, I should have went that route?

[Catchawave]

4. Do write more about that ! Love the Kuch, but know so little....

some of us would rather read DUer commentary from candidate supporters, rather than quick jabs at others. Jus'saying....

[jgraz]

9. I love Dennis, but he doesn't have the numbers against 'Pug opponents

Edwards is beating all the GOPers by wider margins than Clinton or Obama.

[Catchawave]

3. From Montana:

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/09/05/news/top/news01.txt

Nice article about this enthusiastic college crowd.

:kick:

[The Witch]

6. Go Edwards! He "sets goals and achieves them"

This is *hugely* important, especially for those who want to hold Edwards up as the False Kucinich. I'm not doubting Kucinich's integrity, mind you, but we're at a place where we need a president to be able to lead and sway public opinion, and it's Edwards who is a) able to do that and b) looking in the right direction. THAT is the combo that lifts Edwards above the others, imho.

[AzDar]

8. Go Johnny Go!!

:kick:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. you missed one-rolling stone's "The Real Liberal"

Why corportists Hillary "finger to the wind" Clinton and Barack "I'll come up with a position later" Obama are leading this guy in our supposedly progressive party mystifies me
------------------
The Real Liberal: John Edwards is Third in the Polls, But Don't Count Him Out

--From Issue 1033

Tim DickinsonPosted Aug 10, 2007 1:03 PM

Page 1 2 3

If he weren't rich, handsome and so well married, you might feel a little sorry for John Edwards. Never before in the 231-year history of our republic have the inalienable traits that Edwards possesses -- his fair skin and a Y chromosome -- been anything but a prerequisite for presidential politics. Today, his race and gender stand a chance of derailing his campaign altogether. "There's a lot of democrats who would like to make history," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential online forum Daily Kos. "The party is anxious to nominate a black or a woman," agrees Dick Morris, the former adviser to Bill Clinton. "You have to sign off on either of those two options before you even get to voting for Edwards." Indeed, Edwards has been all but eclipsed by the celebrity candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: He ranks a distant third in national polls, and his $12 million cash on hand is barely a third of Hillary's and Obama's hauls.

But counting Edwards out would be a big mistake. Flying below the radar, the former vice-presidential candidate is pulling off a feat that Democratic consultants have long considered impossible: staking out the most progressive platform among the viable candidates while preserving an aura of electability. In head-to-head polling against the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, Clinton and Obama have managed to post only modest leads. Edwards, by contrast, not only bests every Republican candidate in the race, he trounces them -- by an average of twelve points.
more:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15825410/the_real_liberal_john_edwards_is_third_in_the_polls_but_dont_count_him_out

[Lucinda]

17. I hadn't seen that...thanks for the link!

[Clark2008]

25. Bullshit.

Total BS.

Liberal, my ass.

[BrklynLib at work]

14. Edwards has my support...and my vote when he is nominated.

[The River]

18. I've Posted Several Times

that 2008 is not the year for a non-traditional candidate.
With so many disillusioned Repubs and Indy votes up for grabs
why risk loosing by running someone "different" from the
previous 43 Presidents just to be doing something "different"?

As this passage from the Rolling Stone article indicates, some Dems seem to be
thinking more with their hearts than heads.

"There's a lot of democrats who would like to make history," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential online forum Daily Kos. "The party is anxious to nominate a black or a woman," agrees Dick Morris, the former adviser to Bill Clinton."


Too much is at stake in 08; both for America and the World to risk pushing cultural limits
to prove how "big tent" we are or "to make history". There are far too many closet racists and closet misogynists in this Country who will vote Republican before they ever vote for a ________. That may sound harsh but it's a reality. As a society, we have come a long way in the last 50 years on issues of race and gender, but not far enough.

Edwards is the one candidate who is both progressive enough and traditional enough
to ensure a near landslide with plenty of crossover votes from disaffected Repubs.

[rjones2818]

21. Vote for Edwards!

He's a white male!

:wtf:

How Republican can you get????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The River]

23. You Prove the Point

You knee-jerk react to a statement you perceived to be a little bit non-pc,
and accuse me of being a Republican?
Go away Troll..

[rjones2818]

24. Nah...

It's just that you posted what basically said "Vote for John Edwards. He's a white male."

Read your post again. Maybe it came out wrong. I somehow doubt it.

BTW: I think I'll stay! :)

[Clark2008]

26. No - he's not.

He's too wishy-washy. My whole family of Dems thinks so - and if we do - then I'm sure there are others.

I'm very sorry, but if he's our nominee, I'll be voting third party. I can't stand liars, fakers and consummate politicians. How is he so beloved on this board after all he's voted for? How? Just because he says stuff "pretty" now? Geez. We're no better than Republicans if we vote for him because of that.

[hfojvt]

37. Really? Is the man that much more important than the message?

A win for Edwards, does not just put Edwards in the house, it gives a mandate to his messages. It's a vote for 'the pretty things he says'. Are any of the other contenders saying the same things?

[illinoisprogressive]

19. I think it's Obama but, I admire Edwards and he is my second choice.

so, I try to rah rah for him every now and then.

[illinoisprogressive]

20. oh, since you guys are Edwards fans maybe you could answer a question

How do they decide who is the frontrunner at the beginning of the primary race?
John edwards was our 04 vp nominee. He was just shy of becoming our vice president.
So, why was he not concidered the number 1 when the primaries started. I have felt it wrong the whole season and I wonder if I'm wrong.

[The River]

27. I Wonder About That Also

He was good enough to be a heartbeat away in 04.
We voted for Kerry and Edwards. The sticker is still on my car.
BTW.. we did elect him VP. Your Repuke neighbors in O high O stole it.

The reason he isn't the front runner?
The MSM are too busy pushing their choice of "front-runners"
on us.

[2rth2pwr]

33. Lieberman was too.

People's perceptions change over time and as they get to know our candidates.

[waiting for hope]

36. The MSM wants the Hillary/Obama show

to continue for some time, apparently they think it will boost their ratings....BTW, haven't you noticed that on the Hillary/Obama show, they really don't talk about their platforms/issues....It's a reality political show!

[PurityOfEssence]

34. You are getting very sleeeeeepy.

Verrry sleepy.

Your eyelids are like stones.

When I snap my fingers, you will be a chicken, and you will cross the road and vote for Hillary Clinton because we all know she's the only one who can beat them even though she polls worse and because she's more deserving than the others who are more progressive.

Buck buck buck, buck-uk.

[saltpoint]

22. Proud to add my recommendation vote to this thread atop an already

huge mountain of recs.

Go, Johnny, Go.

[defendandprotect]

28. YES . . . YES . . . YES !!! --- - - - - - ------- - - -- --------- - - - - -

[abq e streeter]

29. Edwards is the man...

I'm more convinced of this all the time. Not perfect by a long shot, but overall, I think he'd be the best president of all our Dem candidates. But I'll support whoever our nominee is (even Hillary, who I really don't care for--but still light years better than any repub).

[eridani]

30. His domestic policy positions are stellar

It's just that I really don't like his going along with a permanent presence in Iraq, and that he has joined in on the anti-Iranian saber-rattling.

[tom_paine]

35. K & R for Edwards, one of a very small handful of Dems

who seem to have some connection and affinity for the Old American Republic.

[Blackhatjack]

38. Why not elect the best candidate to win the General Election? Why chance losing the General Election

Time and again Edwards has the highest winning margins over the Republican Candidates on a head to head basis.

It is imperative that we win back the White House in 2008. Why not elect as our Party Nominee the Democratic Candidate with the best chance of winning the General Election?

Support for Edwards is building even though the MSM has attempted to marginalize him.

Don't forget that an Edwards Administration would be populated with lots of progressive Democrats who today have a voice but not much actual power to change things.

Edwards has thrown down the gauntlet to corporate and elite power brokers, and it would be a huge change to have a President that puts the people first and not the moneyed special interests.

Make no mistake about it. Edwards is the candidate the Repubs fear most, not Hillary or Obama.

Thanks Sapphire for this OP!

[Blackhatjack]

39. Kick for Edwards!

[saracat]

41. And another kick for Edwards! He is the man! He is the "real liberal"

and he can get elected! Great combination AND he is married to Elizabeth, which should be enough to elect him right there(Just kidding but she is a plus!)

[ChiciB1]

42. My GUT Tells Me That There Will Be Many Here Who Will Be Sorely

trumped when in the end it's Edwards who gets the nod! More and More I see many coming on board and I'm happy to be a supporter of his!

You can criticize all you want, you can do all the name calling you want and you can denigrate everything about him, but in the end... NONE OF US got a PERFECT button yet, NOT EVEN Hillary!

Once again.... Go, Johnny, Go!

[democrat2thecore]

43. Good stuff! I am deciding between Obama and Edwards. -nt

[calteacherguy]

44. "no language crafted to please focus groups" LOL!

That is the most incredibly naive statement I have ever heard. Edwards is the biggest hypocritical flip-flopping panderer of them all.

We need a leader, not John Edwards. Thank goodness he won't be our nominee, he's not even leading in his state (which he pathetically lost for Kerry in 04).

[Sapphire Blue]

45. You really should take your nastiness to FR; I'm sure they'd welcome you!

[Blackhatjack]

54. Let us take a moment to analyze the stupidity of the calteacherguy post....

"no language crafted to please focus groups" --

Ok so let's look at the candidates for President who do not use focus groups. Great we will make a list .... oh wait, there are no names on that list. They ALL use focus groups? No kidding? Well that leaves us with no candidate to support if we follow calteacherguy logic.

"he's not even leading in his state (which he pathetically lost for Kerry in 04)." --

Not true. Edwards has been polling very well in his state of North Carolina(where I live by the way). And the decision to "pull" advertising from North Carolina in 2004 was made BY KERRY. Edwards would have won North Carolina if the KERRY CAMPAIGN had not abandoned North Carolina to focus on other states.

"We need a leader, not John Edwards." --

John Edwards was first out with a compehensive healthcare reform plan. He was first to raise poverty as a cornerstone of his campaign. He has called for an immediate troop pullout from Iraq.
That is leadership, as the other candidates have followed on his footsteps.

[calteacherguy]

57. It was the OP that quoted, "no lnaguage crafted to please focus groups"

I agree with you that is an incredibly naive thing to believe, as you correctly point out.

Edwards is trailing Clinton in NC; if you don't believe me, do some research

Edwards has failed the test of leadership when it mattered most (his co-sponsorship of the war), the rest is just words.


I don't know what you referring to by "stupidity," unless it's your lame attempt to spin Edwards' shortcomings as a leader.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

46. “Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately.” --

What an interesting quote. With that in mind, what do you think of John Edwards' 28,000 sq. ft house?

[Sapphire Blue]

47. The quote is from Elie Wiesel's Nobel Prize Speech

The Nobel Acceptance Speech delivered
by Elie Wiesel in Oslo on December 10, 1986

~ excerpt ~

Do I have the right to represent the multitudes who have perished? Do I have the right to accept this great honor on their behalf? I do not. No one may speak for the dead, no one may interpret their mutilated dreams and visions. And yet, I sense their presence. I always do - and at this moment more than ever. The presence of my parents, that of my little sister. The presence of my teachers, my friends, my companions...
This honor belongs to all the survivors and their children and, through us to the Jewish people with whose destiny I have always identified.

I remember: it happened yesterday, or eternities ago. A young Jewish boy discovered the Kingdom of Night. I remember his bewilderment, I remember his anguish. It all happened so fast. The ghetto. The deportation. The sealed cattle car. The fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed.

I remember he asked his father: "Can this be true? This is the twentieth century, not the Middle Ages. Who would allow such crimes to be committed? How could the world remain silent?"

And now the boy is turning to me. "Tell me," he asks, "what have you done with my future, what have you done with your life?" And I tell him that I have tried. That I have tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.

And then I explain to him how naïve we were, that the world did know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe.

Of course, since I am a Jew profoundly rooted in my people's memory and tradition, my first response is to Jewish fears, Jewish needs, Jewish crises. For I belong to a traumatized generation, one that experienced the abandonment and solitude of our people. It would be unnatural for me not to make Jewish priorities my own: Israel, Soviet Jewry, Jews in Arab land... But others are important to me. Apartheid is, in my view, as abhorrent as anti-Semitism. To me, Andrei Sakharov's isolation is as much a disgrace as Joseph Begun's imprisonment and Ida Nudel's exile. As is the denial of solidarity and its leader Lech Walesa's right to dissent. And Nelson Mandela's interminable imprisonment.

There is so much injustice and suffering crying out for our attention: victims of hunger, of racism and political persecution - in Chile, for instance, or in Ethiopia - writers and poets, prisoners in so many lands governed by the Left and by the Right.

Human rights are being violated on every continent. More people are oppressed than free. How can one not be sensitive to their plight? Human suffering anywhere concerns men and women everywhere. That applies also to Palestinians to whose plight I am sensitive but whose methods I deplore when they lead to violence. Violence is not the answer. Terrorism is the most dangerous of answers. They are frustrated, that is understandable, something must be done. The refugees and their misery. The children and their fear. The uprooted and their hopelessness. Something must be done about their situation. Both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have lost too many sons and daughters and have shed too much blood. This must stop, and all attempts to stop it must be encouraged. Israel will cooperate, I am sure of that. I trust Israel for I have faith in the Jewish people. Let Israel be given a chance, let hatred and danger be removed from their horizons, and there will be peace in and around the Holy Land. Please understand my deep and total commitment to Israel: if you could remember what I remember, you would understand. Israel is the only nation in the world whose existence is threatened. Should Israel lose but one war, it would mean her end and ours as well. But I have faith. Faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even in His creation. Without it no action would be possible. And action is the only remedy to indifference, the most insidious danger of all. Isn't that the meaning of Alfred Nobel's legacy? Wasn't his fear of war a shield against war?

There is so much to be done, there is so much that can be done. One person - a Raoul Wallenberg, an Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Jr. - one person of integrity, can make a difference, a difference of life and death.

As long as one dissident is in prison, our freedom will not be true. As long as one child is hungry, our life will be filled with anguish and shame. What all these victims need above all is to know that they are not alone; that we are not forgetting them, that when their voices are stifled we shall lend them ours, that while their freedom depends on ours, the quality of our freedom depends on theirs.

This is what I say to the young Jewish boy wondering what I have done with his years. It is in his name that I speak to you and that I express to you my deepest gratitude as one who has emerged from the Kingdom of Night. We know that every moment is a moment of grace, every hour an offering; not to share them would mean to betray them.

Our lives no longer belong to us alone; they belong to all those who need us desperately.


http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/nobelprizespeech.aspx

If you've ever listened to John Edwards, you might just get it.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

48. The question is, does the man who lives in a 28,000 sq. ft. house get it?

If John Edwards' life belongs to all those who need him desperately, how does he justify his extravagant lifestyle?

In what way does living in a 28,000 sq. ft. house help a child who tonight will die of hunger?

[Sapphire Blue]

50. Why John Edwards must not only be defeated, but destroyed:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/430

[AnotherGreenWorld]

56. You're not answering the question.

The fact is, John Edwards is a hypocrite. He did nothing for the poor in the Senate.

If he cared about the poor, he would do more in his own life--stop living so extravagantly and use his money to save lives, etc.

How many lives could he save with one of his haircuts? How many children could he feed?

[Blackhatjack]

52. Provide us all with your PROOF that Edwards lives in a 28000 sq ft house. You can't...it's not true

And don't waste our time linking to other bare allegations with no proof.

You are either too lazy to research the truth, or you are perpetrating a lie. Just because the county tax assessor links all buildings into one tax bill because there are covered walkways between them does not mean Edwards lives in a 28,000 sq ft home.

However, if you contintue to promote this lie you must have evidence that PROVES John Edwards' home is 28,000 sq ft in size, right? So please share with us...

We are waiting... PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!

[GreenArrow]

51. I'd submit

that those of us who actually have listened to John Edwards are those of us who are most critical of him.

[Blackhatjack]

53. A faulty proposition indeed .... just proves you can read and listen, not that you comprehend ...

[GreenArrow]

55. Not a faulty proposition at all

just a simple distinction between those of us who listen to him with our heads and those who listen with their emotions. What is faulty is the proposition that John Edwards is somehow beyond criticism, and that his words should be taken at face value and not weighed against his actions.

[Nutmegger]

49. Giving this a needed R&K!

:thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick:
:thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick::thumbsup::kick:

These are for you SB: :hug::hi::loveya::pals::bounce: :toast: :grouphug: :yourock: :applause: