I finally discovered what it is about Edwards that makes him "Presidential" to me..

[Ninga]

With so many smart and wise candidates I needed to find the element most important to me that made a candidate "Presidential".

I decided that the certain something that came with age, that speaks of more than life experience, how is it captured in the face and heart of a candidate, what is the word? Edwards has a devotion to the underprivileged and the working class that sets him apart. It is long past time that we have a president who is "Presidential".


Is it Political courage? Here is what JFK said about Political Courage.

“In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow.” John F. Kennedy

yep, sounds like John Edwards to me.


How about when John Edwards said his vote for the war was a mistake.

W. Somerset Maugham To bear failure with courage is the best proof of character that anyone can give.

And Robert F. Kennedy said this.....

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.

Robert F. Kennedy, 1966 speech

[Justyce]

1. I believe he is genuine in his

desire to help the working class and poor. (I also believe he can withstand swiftboating -- if the worst they can come up with is an expensive haircut....)

I think he would make a great president.

[Ninga]

4. Thank you.

[Ninga]

5. dupe. self delete

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Well said. I agree.

[surfermaw]

3. He is real

being raised poor and pulling himself up by the bootstraps, show all we need to know about him, Bill Clinton did the same thing, he wanted to do better, he spent his whole young life preparing for the Presidency..and he was a good president, I class John not only with the Kennedys but will Bill Clinton, and I think strongly that he will be the next president of the United States, not that I have any thing against Hillary, I just think John is the man and the one to occupy the White House for the next 8 years.

[Ninga]

6. Thank you.

[ChiciB1]

7. Regardless Of How MANY Here Keep Bashing Edwards, I'm Still

in FOR EDWARDS! I agree with your comments and LOVE the positive information. I think after all the "hoopla" settles down we will see that John Edwards is really working to make a better America!

The only thing that really bothers me is just how DISGUSTING it is that WHEN a Democrat is elected it will take such a humongous effort to even TRY to clean up "some" of the mess that has been created over the past 6 plus years!! The real "hard work" will have to be done, but the fact that John Edwards is so energetic and willing to work for those less fortunate will be a FIRST STEP to healing! He has much to offer even IF he has some baggage, but then can anyone say that ANY candidate doesn't have "baggage?"

Elizabeth is a strong and effective woman and will make a GREAT First Lady, who is gracious but not afraid to take on issues that many others AVOID, simply because they are controversial. One of the reasons I respect her.

And it would be so wonderful to see "little ones' in the WH again!!! What a boost that will be!!!

[Ninga]

8. I have to go to a meeting, and when I return to DU, I hope I find more wisdom about

that "certain something" that John Edwards has that sets him apart to his supporters.

Thanks to all of you!!

[pocoloco]

9. Political Courage? What The Fuck??

Combine Political Courage and the IWR??

Good fucking luck!!

[Ninga]

25. Ok, I guess you don't accept his apology and when he said he was wrong. Your choice.

Quote from David M. Shoup

The galleries are full of critics. They play no ball, they fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down in the arena are the doers. They make mistakes because they try many things. The man who makes no mistakes lacks boldness and the spirit of adventure. He is the one who never tries anything. His is the brake on the wheel of progress. And yet it cannot be truly said he makes no mistakes, because his biggest mistake is the very fact that he tries nothing, does nothing, except criticize those who do things.

[Clark2008]

44. I don't because he knew better.

He was told on several occasions and had access to more info than any of us did and we all knew better.

[GreenArrow]

50. I don't, because it was purely self serving

generated solely by his personal political considerations. He apoligzed simply for his vote, but not for the consequences thereof. There was no remorse, no pennance paid, only a ploy for which he expected to be rewarded, and which anticipates the expectation of an even greater reward. To make matters worse, he then takes his "apology" and proudly brandishes it like a badge of honor in the face of his opponents.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

10. I agree...

I like Edwards.

Those who attack him for being a trial lawyer probably never needed one.

[ryanus]

11. Hmm. Being wrong about the war makes him Presdential

In a certain sense I guess that's true.

[penguin7]

12. I prefer Hillary Clinton over Edwards

At least with Hillary, I have some clue where she is at.

Edwards is either a phony or he does not think things through very well.

And I do not like lawyers, and most people I know don't like them very well either. I know they are both lawyers, but he gets the big donations from the trial lawyers.

I much prefer Kucinich over everyone else.

[huskerlaw]

14. I'm a lawyer...

do you dislike me too?

Disliking someone because of their profession is stupid. Simply ignorant.

[penguin7]

15. The legal system is corrupt and hurts people

There are good lawyers and bad lawyers.

Most people just try to stay out of their way when lawyers are in their professional capacity.

[huskerlaw]

17. And you propose no legal system at all?

Because that's your alternative if you're against lawyers.

Like any profession, there are good and bad, as you said. So saying that you dislike lawyers (as in, all of them) is broad and uninformed. The thing is, lawyers work within the legal system they're given. Perhaps you should focus your anger on the people who CREATE the legal system...aka, the judges, legislatures and special interests...rather than the players within it.

[penguin7]

42. Lawyers create the corruption in the legal system

These judges and legislatures are for the most part lawyers.

My feelings on lawyers really do not matter. I am not too fond of lawyers in their capacity as lawyers. I do know people that are lawyers, that do not happen to be practicing law, that I find tolerable.

Read the comments on the Edward's "I feel pretty" video. There is major lawyer bashing. It is a mistake to run a big time personal injury lawyer as the Democratic presidential nomininee. It is just plain asking for trouble. Why give the GOP spin machine this issue on a silver platter?

[huskerlaw]

57. Judges have the same training as lawyers

and used to be lawyers, but their job is completely different. Same with legislators.

You're painting the entire situation with a really HUGE brush. Essentially, you're saying that you hate an entire group of people based on the type of education that they have. That's ridiculous.

What you really hate are people involved in the legal system that have perverted it in ways that you do not agree with. But who, exactly, do you think is going to remedy the situation? Oh hey...lawyers! We're not all evil. In certain areas, the good are being overrun by the bad...but I think we can both think of another area in which that's the case. Does that mean we should hate everybody that has anything to do with government? Nope.

And frankly, I don't care what was going on in another thread. I read your comment. I'm calling you on it. And if you knew ANYTHING about John Edwards' career as a "big time personal injury lawyer" you'd know that he was one of the good guys. He sued large corporations for injuring people. Yes, he made money doing so. But he also helped people who otherwise would have suffered grave injuries and not been compensated for it in the least. He also held corporations accountable for ongoing injustices when nobody else was willing to take them on.

Educate yourself before you buy into the GOP spin machine. There's no silver platter involved. Only ignorance.

[penguin7]

60. The bottom line is that John Edwards lawyer career

would be one giant lead anchor in any general election.

It is going to be hard enough for the Democratic party to win this thing without all that unneeded extra baggage.

It does not matter what I think about lawyers. The American people do not like them. If you think his career wouldn't hurt him in a general election, well that is just plain nuts.

[huskerlaw]

64. No worse than Hillary's

And frankly, the MSM tried to swiftboat John with that shit in 2004. It's tired.

If you think that a lawyer can't get elected, well...how do you explain the VAST majority of the US Congress? They all managed despite their "giant lead anchor." Many of them even had legal careers that SHOULD have practically disqualified them from office. Unlike John, whose legal career was actually beneficial to the people who are electing him.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

We have a saying in the legal profession. People don't like lawyers...until they need one.

[penguin7]

87. How do personal injury lawyers do in politics?

The people I know that have needed lawyers
are the ones that dislike them the most.

I am very much a Democrat except for the huge influence the trial lawyers have on the party. It is the rich, powerful and connected that get justice in the US courts. The people get screwed. The huge numbers in prison is proof of this.

I know this subject is not at all popular here so I am going to drop it.

[huskerlaw]

88. There's a reason your opinion isn't popular...

it's wrong.

I would suggest you do a little research regarding democratic/liberal judges versus their republican/conservative counterparts. I think you'll easily discover where the problem lies. If you could find that kind of information on lawyers, you'd probably find the same thing.

Until then, you're going to continue to look foolish with your overly broad brush and uninformed stance on the issue.

[Inspired]

75. Many politicians are lawyers. n/t

[tomp]

92. i have a brother who is a public defender in appeals cases...

...specializing in death penalty cases. i have a sister who works for a non-profit institute defending immigrants in the u.s. and you don't like lawyers. what kind of idiot are you to paint with such a broad brush? please listen to yourself. try to increase your tolerance for people you don't even know.

[saracat]

90. Really? My entire family were lawyers and a finer group of people you never met.

No one did more to represent the poor than my mother and no one did more to represent the rights of the creative than my grandfather.Legislation he argued for still stands today! My dad also represented and intervened on behalf of the "little people' and many times my parents went without because my dad didn't like to charge fees from people who couldn't pay!He actually left private practice and went to work for the state because he couldn't do "billable hours" How dare you judge an entire group of professionals by such a narrow bigoted standard?
John Edwards is a brilliant advocate for the people and we are priveldged to have him running for office.We would be lucky to have him as our president.

[surfermaw]

53. The best thing in the U.S for some people

And the only thing some people have on their side, is a Lawyer and a jury. Thank God for the jury and an highly educated lawyer

[slipslidingaway]

58. There are good and bad in every group and I agree that

painting the entire group with a broad brush is wrong and counterproductive.

[venable]

66. "I do not like lawyers." ????

do you have any idea about the place of law in democracy, in the inalienable rights of man? do you know what it means to be a nation of laws? check out a nation not governed by laws, as practiced by lawyers.

Our founding fathers determined that was an inherent conflict between capitalism - the chosen form of our economy - and democracy. ie corporate abuses could over-ride individual rights and power. Lawyers like John Edwards are the very protection of rights against the avarice of corporation. John Edwards work is part of the necessary vision of the founding fathers. Read his book, FOUR TRIALS, and get back to us.

You should think before you type something like this. so should your 'most people I know' crowd.

I'm not a lawyer, but thank god we have laws, law schools, and lawyers. It is a trite joke to say lawyers are bad. It's like dumb blonde jokes, or Polish jokes - they are ignorant and offensive. Mainly ignorant.

[Inspired]

74. So you don't think Hillary gets big donations from trial lawyers?

Really?

[waiting for hope]

13. I agree with you - and if I might

add, his commitment to helping Americans lift themselves out of poverty is a cause that is paramount to his character. He has been speaking out about this far longer than any of the candidates. He is been first in so many instances to come out with a statement on an event - Elizabeth said on Daily Kos not to long ago that they don't employ a speech writer, so what he is saying is what he is really saying, not something 10 or more spin doctors have poked at before being released. And yes, I believe he has Moral Courage.

Thanks!

[huskerlaw]

16. I've had the honor of hearing John speak in person.

I honestly believe he's the real deal. He believes what he says, it's not a canned stump speech.

The main reason that I support him is because he CARES. He cares about regular Americans, he cares about poor people, he cares about people that are sick, or hurting, or in need. NONE of the other candidates have shown me that. Not even close. And even though there are some things I disagree with him about (gay marriage being the biggest), I truly believe that he listens to people. And that he's willing to learn from them. He's not coming from a place of ignorance. He can be reasoned with, in other words. Again, none of the other candidates have shown me that they'd seriously consider changing their stance on an issue if presented with new facts or information. He has already proven that he can and will do so, if necessary.

[IA_Seth]

18. Political Courage?

Political Courage would have been to come out against the IWR when the majority were calling for blood, either duped by false 9/11-Iraq connections, or cowed by the Republican majority.

Political Courage is not grandstanding with the majority, endorsing something he had to know was wrong.

Political Courage is not apologizing for a 'mistake' when the majority of the country is now anti-war.

----

A Kennedy, Edwards is not.

[Gregorian]

19. I read your post, and came up with Kucinich.

With one extra point. He never voted for the war in the first place. I'm not voting image, which is what "presidential" is. I'm voting "principals".

I can hear the corporate media meme already. Just don't repeat it. He IS electable.

Vote for whomever you want. But read your words again with Kucinich in mind, and you might see what mean.

edit- spelling. And to add that Kucinich has HR333 to his name. That's really big.

[Ninga]

26. Of course, when it come to the war, Dennis wins without exception. Dennis has

not been able to display the day in and day out leadership skills, nor be able to build a consensus.

Leadership is about getting people to follow you.

[Gregorian]

62. That's interesting.

Thanks. That actually gives me something to think about. Now I see why this process takes time. We're all learning.

[CTyankee]

20. Hi, Ninga. I think Edwards has what I call a "stirred conscience."

He has truly been through a lot and has seen a lot of suffering. I believe he has developed a deeply caring conscience as a result. And, like all great leaders, he captures people's hearts. People care about what happens to him and Elizabeth and he cares about what happens to Americans who are not affluent or powerful.

I support John Edwards because I think he will get this country back on track and to the job of serving the people. If he is the candidate, he will win against anybody the Republicans run. They are all tired and old. He is fresh and new. But he has also had to work hard and suffer and many people are identifying with that. People have seen that he has had great tragedy in his life and has worked through it. That is very meaningful to many people, IMHO.:hi:

[Ninga]

21. Hi back CTyankee.....I like how you captured the essence of his personal growth.

I would like to somehow collaborate and end up with a work product, an essay, an opinion piece...what ever you want to call it....with each paragraph written by a different person....because when different voices come together in one effort the result can have a tremendous impact.

John Edwards was wrong and admitted it, and didn't hide behind his words. He is getting stronger, and I think, more brave in his positions. He has allowed his personal growth to elevate his thinking and to be more inclusive.

We are witness to his change and personal growth, because he has let us in and has been humble.


More quotes:

Tryon Edwards "He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today."

How about this one:

David M. Shoup "The galleries are full of critics. They play no ball, they fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down in the arena are the doers. They make mistakes because they try many things. The man who makes no mistakes lacks boldness and the spirit of adventure. He is the one who never tries anything. His is the brake on the wheel of progress. And yet it cannot be truly said he makes no mistakes, because his biggest mistake is the very fact that he tries nothing, does nothing, except criticize those who do things."



It is "Presidential" to own mistakes, to mourn them, to want to rectify and make right all the wrongs in this world. I wish I could capture it better.

[CTyankee]

31. Well, feel free to borrow anything from my post.

When are you going to post the essay? Can I borrow key parts for a LTTE? I haven't decided whether I will write a LTTE yet but I may do so if there is a good time to do it.

Have you been following the controversy over what JE said about "mandatory" health care? It's all over the DU postings. What do you think of the issue? I have argued in many of the threads that if JE said what they say he said and it is on YouTube (my crappy computer won't play stuff), he seemed to have clarified it on his website. But his opponents here want him to come out and confess his error and apologize. I say clarification in a positive way is better. Some posters have called him "Stalinist" which is just over the top IMHO.

[FrenchieCat]

22. That RFK quote says it all......

"Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change."

It is a great Quote!

and here are some other great Quotes in the records, this time, from John Edwards......

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." John Edwards, 02/24/2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.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. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq." John Edwards, 09/12/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030219152335/edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0912a-pr.html

"Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/2002

"At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.<>

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world." - John Edwards, 10/07/2002
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002


"Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.” 02/08/03
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

"I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

....I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled." John Edwards, 10/13/2003
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

YESSIREE INDEED......Co-Sponsoring, justifying, cheerleading, defending and voting for the IWR must have taken an awful lot of "moral" courage....and John Edwards' words and track record says it all! :thumbsup:

I will say that John Edwards does get an "A+" for consistency.......at least until November of 2005, that is, when the polls stated this about Iraq:

52% of Americans believe the Bush administration "deliberately misled the public before the war," and 57% say the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated its evidence that pre-war Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." Support for the war has dropped significantly since June, which suggests that the percentage of Americans who believe Bush lied about the war has increased.
http://impeachpac.org/?q=node/6

So many "Vital" qualities illustrated in so little time! :patriot:

[Ninga]

23. That was 2003, unfortunate and maybe by some account, unforgiveable. I choose to

look at the sum total of the man, and must take into account the holistic and complete record....and the way he has chosen to move forward.

If the next president has not taken a humble journey, has not tasted the fear and bile of his or her decision....then what measure will the next president use to test their own moral ground?

It must be enough to say we are wrong, we have been wrong, and we won't be wrong again....because the fear and nightmare of such a wrong decision will be the driving force to right.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Yep....saying "I made a mistake" not yet two years ago

makes it all better....because I guess that a few good recent words can erase any deed.

What "penance" did John Edwards pay during this Humbling Journey of his (that I guess started in November of 2005), exactly? I only come up him running yet again for the highest office in this land". How Humble of him! :sarcasm:

[Ninga]

24. self delete

[slipslidingaway]

28. In 2007 he says Iran threatens the security of the entire world :(

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

"...Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world..."

[FrenchieCat]

29. How "Humble" of him......and the quote is filled with Moral Courage......

Considering how "popular" Iran is.

But really now, this was said by John Edwards in January of 2007; That is just soooo long ago! He has "changed" since then! :sarcasm:

Edwards also discussed Syria's recent calls for peace with Israel, saying that "talk is cheap," and that Syria was not doing enough to prove it was serious.

The former senator also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable.

After opening his speech with great praise for Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward's continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was "a bond that will never be broken."
snip
Until Israel has a real partner, according to Edwards, Israel has the right, and indeed the obligation to defend itself, and should be strengthened militarily, politically, and economically.

In a further display of support for Israel, Edwards went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen to include Israel next.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

"As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."-John Edwards, January 23, 2007,In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

"My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable." - John Edwards responding to NYT Reporter."
http://mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

[Ninga]

32. Read this: from an interview after the 1/23/07 conference.

When you were at the Iowa town hall in Des Moines, I remember a young woman asking you about Israel, and you said to her, she asked you about Palestine more specifically, and you said, “You're not going to like my answer but you deserve one.” Your answer was very pro-Israel in the conflict. Then you were at an AIPAC dinner the other night. You are, it seems, notably -- and I remember reading now your Iraq resolution -- where you said in the first line of it that they are a grave threat to us and our ally, Israel. You're notably pro-Israel, I think. What is -- two things -- what is your view on their treatment, or the way, or the interaction with them and the Palestinians, can anything be done there? More to the point, what is it, what are the experiences -- you were just in Israel you said -- that have brought you so much closer to that community and that way of thinking, and do you support sort of AIPAC's line on these issues?

Those are a lot of different questions, there are a lot of different questions … You're too smart, you ask too many questions at the same time …

I've had some personal experiences in my interaction with Israel. I think that they're in a very difficult place, and they are subject to an awful lot of attacks, and there are countries around them that would like to see them destroyed. So, I think they live in a dangerous environment, I think that actually the 2002 road map was a pretty good road map, and the substantive elements of it were essentially correct. I think that there are -- I've been, I was in Israel just before Hezbollah, the fighting with the Israelis in Hezbollah. I saw Hezbollah outposts in southern Lebanon, when I went to the border. I was in Jerusalem when the Sbarro Pizza bombing took place. Actually, let me be accurate --

So was my family, they had gone to the Sbarro that morning.

No kidding, No kidding.

Or the night before.

I was actually, I had left Jerusalem by the time the bombing happened, but I'd woke up there that morning and then I'd been gone just a few hours when that happened. So that felt personally, fairly close to me personally. And I think that it is very important for America to be engaged in this peace process. Because at the end of the day, what we should have is very difficult to achieve, I understand that -- it's certainly hard to achieve when Hamas is running the Palestinian Authority -- but there's so many things we could be doing, like humanitarian help, more serious humanitarian help for the Palestinian people that would help strengthen the capacity of a more moderate element within Palestine. So uh, what we want is two countries living side by side, two states living side by side, with security and in peace.

But so let's talk, then, about AIPAC for a sec. This morning in the New York Post a story came out that last night Hillary Clinton was there, or was it two nights ago that you were both there?

It was last night.

And she said they should be engaging with Iran and they sort of booed and hissed a little bit. I think a lot of people, and I'm one of them, when read your comments to AIPAC, given where they are …

She's right about that, by the way.

No, I know, you said that clearly earlier. I think a lot of folks read your comments to that audience, and to the Herzliya audience, as, given that you've said pretty explicitly that Israel cannot live with a nuclear Iran, and that keeping Iran from nuclear weapons is one of the gravest challenges of our time, that there is that line -- that you are drawing that line --that they can't have them. That if you take seriously what you've said about both Israel and the threat Iran poses to them --

You know when you're president of the United States you carry an enormous responsibility --

Sure.

-- and there are consequences to what you do. And I just, I would never ever prejudge something that serious in advance. I don't think we're anywhere remotely close to having exhausted diplomatic avenues. I don't think we've done anything close to what we should be doing, and there are devastating consequences to a military strike. So, that's my judgment about where we are today and where we ought to proceed.

One of the things, one of the realities, I think, of the responsibilities of the president, are that, is that, the criteria for ever using American force is pretty clear. You know when there's an imminent threat to America, or our allies, when we have a treaty obligation, or when there's some huge humanitarian crisis. But those are very broad, obviously, and so the kind of human being you have in the White House is enormously important -- I would argue more important than trying to have somebody predict, off in the future, what you'll do when confronted with it, because I think its unknowable. I think what's more important is to know that you have a good and decent human being who, who really wants to do the right thing and understands what the consequences are.

Let's talk then for one moment about the past … Back to Iraq, if they had had weapons of mass destruction, if the intelligence had been correct, given what happened when we actually invaded, given the fact that it turned out that we could not elide the Sunni/Shia enmities, given all that, had the intelligence been correct, had the management been somewhat more competent, was the Iraq war an impossibility, should we never have gone in, or were we wrong to go in because we were wrongly informed? Was it morally wrong or was it --

That's so complicated. I think that, can I rephrase slightly what you just said?

Sure.

If you were to tell me that they did have the weapons of mass -- it's just so hard to answer these hypothetical questions -- I believe that my vote was wrong, I take responsibility for that. But it was wrong for two reasons; it wasn't just wrong for one. It was wrong because, first, the basis for me voting for it was the weapons of mass destruction, and that was just false. But the second is I felt a great conflict then about giving George Bush this authority, because I didn't trust him. And I resolved that conflict on the side of voting for it. Now seeing what's happened, I would not resolve that conflict that way. This president should not have been given the authority to go into Iraq and I think on both fronts -- that's the thing I can confidently say to you -- on both fronts the vote was wrong.

But you can't confidently say that actually invading a country like Iraq for possessing active programs of WMDs would be the wrong thing to do?

Ever? Ever?

In the Iraq case, if they had possessed them, because, you know --

Well but that's, see there's the problem -- we didn't exhaust the use of inspections. We didn't take the steps that needed to be taken to ensure that they in fact had weapons. There are multiple steps that weren't taken. We didn't engage the international community in a serious way. I mean I think that uh, with these kind of hypothetical questions, what I am confident saying is we should not have gone into Iraq, that my vote was wrong. And it wasn't just wrong because of the weapons of mass destruction; it was also wrong because of giving this president the authority.

Ezra Klein is a writing fellow at The American Prospect.

[FrenchieCat]

34. And I raise you a "Levin" amendment that Edwards could have voted for,

but chose not to....

which addresses this Edwards' quote in the interview you posted...
"Well but that's, see there's the problem -- we didn't exhaust the use of inspections. We didn't take the steps that needed to be taken to ensure that they in fact had weapons. There are multiple steps that weren't taken. We didn't engage the international community in a serious way. I mean I think that uh, with these kind of hypothetical questions, what I am confident saying is we should not have gone into Iraq, that my vote was wrong. And it wasn't just wrong because of the weapons of mass destruction; it was also wrong because of giving this president the authority."- John Edwards

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1189224000&en=ca6046526fcc95bf&ei=5070

[Ninga]

38. I will try to contact Edwards to see if he was more wrong than he already has said.

10 hours is not 10 days or 10 months.

It must have been a horrible, heated enviornment in which the debate took place. But you are so right, Edwards needs to pull out the sword, and re impale himself one more time, now for the Levin substitute. He needs to include that in his mea culpa.

Did Hillary vote for the Levin amendment?

I really don't know the answer, so I am not being coy.

" Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote."


Edwards stand on edcuation, the poor, working and blue class Americans, health care and more, make him the person I prefer.

[FrenchieCat]

40. You see, you dragging in Hillary does not help John Edwards....because,

Hillary Clinton did not Co-Sponsor the "Blank Check" bill that Edwards did. Hillary Clinton did not write Op-Eds justifying a war with Iraq, like John Edwards did. Hillary Clinton did not have her words posted on the State Department's website making Bush's case for war like Edwards did. Hillary Clinton did not sit on the Intelligence Committee and have access to the Classified NIE, like Edwards did, although he didn't bother to read it prior to signing up as a co-sponsor of the Lieberman Blank check bill. Mentioning Hillary does not make the case for John Edwards on the IWR. And Hillary Clinton saying "she's Sorry" won't change the damage that was done....cause words don't do that.

In reference to the numbers who voted for the Levin Amemdment, most were those that voted against the IWR that Edwards co-sponsored.......if you care to look....

But beyond that, my support is not for Hillary Clinton anyways, so I'm not sure why she's being brought up to justify John Edwards actions.

[Ninga]

Just asking, not justifying. The only thing I am justifying are his apologies.

You are right, he was wrong, wrong, wrong.

And that is what makes him "presidential"......because he must surely live every waking day knowing he was wrong.

I would be more wary of the candidate who has nothing to regret, nothing to weep over, nothing to avenge for...... there is no price tag that can pay for a lifetime of rich and compelling experience to carve the backbone and strengthen the resolve.

[FrenchieCat]

45. And my point is that you certainly should support who you so choose.......

cause at the end of the day, that's what Democracy is about.

Many people support John Edwards for a number of reasons; the most common being that he is the only attractive Southern White Male with a populist message running.....and for some, they have decided that is what is considered "Most Electable"......

However, I don't believe that apologizing for something that one hawked as aggressively as John Edwards did with the Iraq Invasion at a time when the exact opposite actions and words would have been morally courageous constitutes any great accomplishment, beyond being politically smart (and maybe that's not such a bad thing).

And so it is my belief that calling John Edwards morally courageous for apologizing for his strong support on invading Iraq once it was politically safe to do so, 3 years too late, is hardly accurate.

In other words, if moral courage is what you think you have found in John Edwards, I will have to say straight up that I don't see it.

[Ninga]

48. The trickey part for me, is when I read your words they are colored with your anger

(which I do not deny) and so I believe there is no chance for a redemption in your mind when it comes to Edwards.

John Edwards has not taken a safe path, for if he did, he would not be suffering such contempt as you have for him.

Why would anyone want to suffer such wrath? Why would anyone want to follow in the footsteps of the most horrible president we have ever had.

If you are correct with your assertion that he only does the politically safe thing.......according to you.....saying he was wrong was wrong.

What would you have him say that would be right?

How many swords does he have to fall on?

[FrenchieCat]

54. "John Edwards has not taken the safe path" you state......

and in the meanwhile I have been making a documented case that he has done just that; taken the safe path.

And so in essense, you have chosen to dismiss all what I have posted.....and as as you do, you also choose to call me angry?

Why? Surely not because I failed to respond with a "Ooooh and Ahhhh, Me too...I agree" post on this political board that is not called "John Edwards Underground" last time I checked?

So NO, I'm not angry at all, I'm just not blinded by the mere recent words of the beautiful one running for office.

You are the one that has put up an OP basically announcing to us that John Edwards is "presidential" because, in your opinion he has "moral courage". But if the reason that he has courage is that he apologized when it was safe to do so, you simply have not made your case.

[Ninga]

41. ..... + .........

[slipslidingaway]

49. According to the OP political courage is swimming with the tide

but then saying you are sorry?

:rofl:

And he is saying many of the same things in 2007 about Iran that he said about Iraq in 2003 and 2003.

Of course he throws in the hope of a diplomatic solution and at the same time let's us know what he really might do. Fool me once...

"As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

-John Edwards, January 23, 2007,In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel

Thanks for all the links!

[Ninga]

30. I match your link and raise you one:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12434

[FrenchieCat]

33. That was the "Clean UP" interview i.........AFTER he said what he said at the conference......

and all hell broke loose.....in particular on the liberal blogs, Edwards' leading Marketplace! Some would call it "damage control"....something every politician is adept at doing. Just note the date of the initial interviews and comments that I linked to....and the look at the date on the Prospect interview.

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly analyzed Edwards' "changed" and "toned down" rethorics on Iran during that week long period in this way..... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

[Ninga]

35. Kevin Drum supported the war before he decided it wasn't such a hot idea. My point is

who is doing the writing...it's ok for Drum to change his mind....wouldn't it be good if there was a disclaimer from Drum about what he wrote about and changed his mind.

If Drum isn't a virgin, and Edwards isn't a virgin, are you???



It is so complicated, so much information, and what facts do we use to weigh and balance our decisions.

Conventational wisdom tells us it is not what happens but how we deal with it.

That is my measure.

[FrenchieCat]

37. It has nothing to do with Drum ....who states that he likes Edwards in that article,

which showed clearly.

It has to do with the fact that Edwards ordered up that Prospect interview (he phoned the Prospect and "arranged" to be interviewed) after damage had been done. Drum didn't make up Edwards' words at that conference, nor his gentler words to the Prospect.

Personally, I believe that Edwards' was pandering to that audience, and got caught doing so. He then cleaned up his act for the sake of the blogosphere....where many even Edwards supporters were disallusioned after reading his statements at the conference. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to recognize that Edwards is a politician, and a skillful campaigner as well. That's a credit to him and a possible asset for us.....

BUT, my point is that John Edwards isn't really about "Moral" courage as you stated in your op. He learned well in 2003 that it doesn't pay to havehawkish views if one is running to win Democratic Primaries....and one's hope of winning are pinned on those activists on the Internet (and he has worked a great deal to that end). Certainly, he still forgets or must do what he has to do now and then, but he reads DU (or his staff does) and he knows by now how to fix what needs fixing. That's not a bad thing....it's just doesn't need to be called something that is in short supplies these day; Moral Courage.

[slipslidingaway]

52. Yes damage control, some people buy it, just like they bought

the recent spin on his health care plan. I trust what the candidate says more than the later clarification.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3498895&mesg_id=3500809

I'll believe the candidate,unless he now says he made a mistake

He should know all the details of his plan, watch the video again and listen to the question being asked by Lance Armstrong


"...As part of the universal healthcare system, we don't just cover preventive care, we mandate preventive care. In other words if you're in this universal healthcare system you have to go for regular, periodic check-ups, you have to be monitored..."

In other words if You're in this universal healthcare system YOU have to go for regular, periodic check-ups,

Again watch the video and listen to the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9SgIwzumB4

[venable]

69. He has the most enlightened, nuanced, anti-militaristic approach to Iran

of all the candidates, with the possible exception of Dennis.

Don't pick out one quote, from one greatly misunderstood and abused speech. Read everything he has said since, including "the greatest threat to world peace is the prospect of Israel attacking Iran'. (of course, this has been upped by the prospect of cheney attacking Iran).

Go to his MTP interview shorty after that speech you quote. There is a long section on Iran, and I think you will revise your post after hearing it.

[2rth2pwr]

36. There will always be supporters of any candidate that will take

great pride in coming up with creative ways of defending them. I am not impressed by his so called "courage", most people would say that his actions don't match his rhetoric and he says what he thinks he needs to to get support. And this idea that that he has no speechwriters is quite charming but just shows how well the koolaid takes.

For the poor! bankruptcy bill, hedge fund investments in predatory lending, the list goes on and on.

He is no JFK. Maybe Marilyn, but no JFK.

[Forkboy]

39. And there will always be other's supporters who think they're above acting the same way.

How's your brand of kool aid taste? Because we're all drinking one flavor or another in this world.

[2rth2pwr]

47. I prefer to acknowledge that they are just human beings bringing all

the faults and frailties that come with the good stuff.

"Drinking the Kool Aid" is to follow something/someone with suicidal zeal.* No Thanks.




*See Jim Jones in Jonestown,Guyana cica 1978, it was actually Flavor Aid laced with cyanide, the current cultural reference doesn't really include Tom Wolfe's book about Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters anymore.

[Forkboy]

59. Your post before refered to "how well the kool aid takes".

Do you really think the OP and others here are following someone/something with suicidal zeal, a la Jim Jones followers?

[2rth2pwr]

82. Yes, .....metaphorically

It was expressed quite well recently.

The ones willing to take a bullet defending Edwards remarks,
when the next day a campaign spokesperson would leave them to squirm out in the open, losing blood slowly in front of the crowd.

[GreenArrow]

85. it's remarkable, isn't it,

the power of charisma.

[AtomicKitten]

43. Political expediency as a means to an end.

Edwards distinguishes himself from the pack by allowing the administration to use him to rally support for the war. He was on the Intelligence Committee and had the raw data, didn't do his homework, and voted 'yes' on the IWR.

And as really, really enthusiastic as Edwards was about invading Iraq, his flowery apology for same now isn't political courage. It is the opposite of political courage. I see a man who wants to be at the front of the parade no matter where it's headed.

No thanks.

This is my opinion. The acolytes will call it bashing. I call it looking at all the evidence and not conveniently framing inconvenient facts.

[Cameron27]

46. His apology would have more meaning

if he didn't blame his vote on "faulty intel, if I knew then what I know now, and the Clinton people," because, between the closed door sessions of the Intel Committee, his fellow colleagues on the committee who were raising red flags, and the classified NIE docs, he would have aware of the lack of evidence for the Niger yellowcake, the aluminum tubes, and Saddam's WMDs.

His apology wasn't political courage, it sounds more like political excuses to me.

[Ninga]

51. What if his answer were the truth? The arguement taking place right now is exactly

what it is like to be in high powered meetings with all kinds of information flying all over the place. Maybe in real time, with fear and emotion in play, the red flags were not red enough....look we don't know diddly cause we wern't in those meetings.

Were you there? I wasn't.

Enough of this arguing.

If you don't believe Edwards, please don't rain on my parade.

He is my guy, and I don't care if he is white, and talks funny, I am voting for him.

I think he has more moral courage than I first believed.

[FrenchieCat]

56. This is not a "parade".....this is a political discussion board.....

If you truly didn't want discussion and a debate on this issue, why did you post it here? Wouldn't it had made more sense to post this where others that have a different opinion couldn't respond instead?

If others don't see those qualities that you see in John Edwards, or if DU members disagree with your rational that is the backbone of your post, are they truly "raining on your parade" and arguing.....or are they just participating as members of DU by responding to the thread as they see fit? :shrug:

[Cameron27]

61. The truth is that he never bothered to read the classified

NIE documents at any time, the only Democrat on the committee who didn't, and then chose to sponsor Lieberman's IWR. Maybe that's political courage in your book, it's called being irresponsible in mine.

Now let the parade continue, I won't let the rain fall on it any longer.

[rodeodance]

55. "Peachy face" was my choice last time and I think he will be again.

[calteacherguy]

63. Is this a joke thread? It takes no courage for that pretty boy to run for President..

Or to take hypocritical postitions to pander to the base. His record is not one of courage of any sort, it's quite the opposite.

You really need to find another angle...seriously. Good luck, because he ain't gonnna be the nominee!

[Inspired]

76. You are one rude dude. Have a nice day! n/t

[benny05]

65. A soundbite I like a lot by JRE

"We need to be patriotic about something other than war."

[calteacherguy]

67. He stole that one from Clark's "New American Patriotism."

The words of vain, weak-kneed pandering hypocrite do not impress me.

[benny05]

68. Could you post a linky from that speech

So that I may see the context of your dismay? I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

[calteacherguy]

71. It was Clark's campaign theme in 04'.

It was everywhere...website, campaign buttons, bumper stickers, etc. Look it up yourself.

[benny05]

73. Thanks for the help

C-ya.

[Forkboy]

78. I just did a search and found NOTHING.

Throw us a bone!

[GreenArrow]

79. A New American Patriotism

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/

[Forkboy]

80. I didn't see the quote in that speech.

He uses the word patriotism a thousand times in it, but nowhere is that quote in Clark's page.And saying something similar is a far fucking cry from stealing something from someone else, as was charged by CTG.

[GreenArrow]

81. It's the TITLE

of the freaking speech!

[Forkboy]

83. "We need to be patriotic about something other than war." is NOT the title of the freaking speech.

THAT'S the quote that CTG says Edwards STOLE.

[GreenArrow]

84. I think CTG was talking about the theme

and there is a clear similarity between Clark's theme and Edwards'. Pols steal stuff from one another all the time. Whether or not Edwards stole that spiel from Clark is open to interpretation. It's pretty widely conceded that Edwards stole his two Americas bit from Mario Cuomo. While John Edwards is a very clever politician, I don't believe he's a very original one. What's even funnier is that Edwards has taken shots at Obama about co-opting his "hope" theme, and expects no one to remember I guess (or make some sort of concious or subconcious connection between the two of them) that Bill Clinton was the "Man from Hope".

[venable]

70. pointless disdain much?

you are ridiculously unfair to the man, so much so that your posts lack any authority. You do little be insult him. You offer no argument, other than you despise him. Not terribly interesting or helpful, IMHO.

you are so far off the mark in your assessment of the man, that I think I won't be looking at your posts any more.

[calteacherguy]

72. I don't care, I don't have the time to be more specific, and as far as I'm

concerned I'm right on the mark. Goodbye!

[Forkboy]

77. Bush uses the same thought processes.

He's thinks he's right on the mark too.

[saltpoint]

86. I just recommended this thread, Ninga, and say

thanks to you for posting it.

Especially I like the men whose words you've invoked to focus on, and all of that against the background of praise for someone you respect.

Outstanding. Thank you.

[saracat]

89. Very true.Edwards is admirable and courageous.no one has his background

or his skills or has done as much for the "average person! Go Johnny Go! We can and will win this thing.The nastiness and viciousness of some of the anti Edwards posts is unfathomable.Disagree if you want but the "hating' is unreal.

[2rth2pwr]

91. "No one has done as much for the average person"

a little hyperbole never hurt anybody.

[saracat]

93. In terms of his settlements in court, what he does with the Unions,

and the foundations and scholarship funds he has started,none of the other candidates can compare.Perhaps the original sentiment was hyperbole but the "hate" of Edwards is also "overblown" .

[slipslidingaway]

94. Distrust would be a more appropriate word. n/t