John Edwards--not just the BEST choice, the ONLY choice

[Mythsaje]

The other "top tier" candidates make noises about terrorism...okay, they make noises about a LOT of things. But they don't craft carefully planned policy statements. They try to play it every way they can, giving just enough information that people THINK they've actually said something concrete.

Not John Edwards. Right or wrong, he says something tangible, something that we can get our teeth into. Yeah, he's a southern white guy in a race dominated by a new paradigm. But that doesn't make his candidacy any less than it would be in other circumstances. This guy has a plan, and he's not afraid to put it out there for the rest of us to see.

He doesn't bother giving the Bush administration acclaim or respect it doesn't deserve. He doesn't ignore their few successes, but he makes it clear that these successes are more or less incidental in the grand scheme of things...more accidental than intentional.

Some people want to make it about his haircut, or his huge house. Personally I don't know WHY anyone would want a house that big, unless they planned to start a commune. If I had a house that large I'd probably have several people living with me. But that's the kind of guy I am. In truth, I'd prefer a modest house on the Oregon Coast with room for my menagerie to run.

He wants to empower Americans. That says something right there. He wants to give our children chances that the Bush regime and those who'd follow its principles (Conservatives--the only thing they want to conserve is THEIR perks and privileges) would never allow. More access to education, healthcare, and environmental regulations that have teeth.

Oh, I know. Someone's bound to say "he's losing his home state. That's the death knell for his campaign." Americans just aren't paying attention. He's not just saying the same things as the other top tier candidates--he's leading the dialogue. He's not giving us vague platitudes and operational intentions, he's stating his case with solid details.

Free trade? He's on it.

Universal healthcare? He's on it.

Terrorism? He's on it. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/529

He acknowledges the mistakes of this administration and those who gave them a green light. And in so doing recognizes that HE made a mistake because he didn't yet grasp the short-sightedness and regressiveness of this Administration and its ideology. Now he does. We can't oppose terrorism with the tactics of the past--we have to craft new tactics, and make it a true international effort. It's not more of the same by any measure.

He wants us out of Iraq. And knows how to make it happen.

The man's got a plan, and I LIKE his plan. He grasps the fundamental issues of the day and has crafted concrete strategies to do something about it.

This isn't about a haircut, or a large house, or about SUVs. It's about knowing what he wants to do and being willing to say so with no equivocation.

If he's polling under some of the other candidates, it's because no one's actually listening to what he's saying, and no one is getting the message that he is giving us details about his operational strategies that the other candidates just aren't willing, or able, to share.


I'm just an author. I have no way but these words to influence others. But I know who I support, and I know why.

And you know what impressed me the most? When he said "I'm not making any promises that I can do these things, but I'm going to try my hardest."

When was the last time you remember a politician, ANY politician, saying that s/he WASN'T making any promises? It suggests that he understands that he'll require the cooperation of the House and Senate, and the American people. And that's something the current pResident never seemed to grasp.

John Edwards for President.

Because it's time someone did the right things for the right reasons.

[AtomicKitten]

1. I choose Obama.

You say Edwards "wants us out of Iraq."

Edwards was at the head of the pack chomping at the bit to invade Iraq. He rallied for it so convincingly, his OP-ED was posted on the State Department's website. He voted 'yes' on the IWR and stuck to it when he had the chance to change his mind in 2004 instead of running on the 'yeah war' Democratic platform as the VP candidate.

Why would any conscientious citizen vote for someone who demonstrated such an egregious lapse in judgment?

[zulchzulu]

10. Additionally...

Not only did Edwards rally for the Iraq War, he was also the CO-SPONSOR of the Iraq War Resolution with our dear friend, Joe Lieberman.

He not only voted "YES" on the Iraq War Resolution, he helped write the damn thing.

He also voted "NO" on the Levin Amendment, which called for more diplomacy before attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Being on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 and knowing full well that the intelligence the Bush administration was feeding was BS, he chose to take the careless, politically expedient road at the cost of many lives and billions of dollars wasted.

On "free trade", I think it's particularly a joke that people believe Edwards is a saint on trade bills.

He voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons, YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam and YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. His recent endorsement by the United Steelworkers union is particularly amusing since they have lost their industry due to the China MFN vote that Edwards made.

He can catcall now. But we know how he voted. That's what really counts.

[jenmito]

13. Exactly, which is why I replied to Cafferty when he asked yesterday

"John Edwards says it's time for Congress to attach a timetable for troop withdrawals to future funding for the war in Iraq. Is he right?"

My response was:

"Yes, but it's very easy for him to say what Congress should do now that he's no longer a Senator. I don't remember him being nearly so outspoken while he was in the Senate. -Jenny, Nanuet, New York"

[Mythsaje]

15. No, that's NOT what really counts...

Not if he's crafting strategies to repair the damage now.

[zulchzulu]

18. So someone who made a really bad decision now tells us what he would do better now?

Sorry. That dog don't hunt, bubba.

Support Edwards. I'll support Obama. We'll see what happens.

[Mythsaje]

19. Everyone's made at least one really, really bad decision...

And hopefully learned something important from it.

It's the ones who continue to make the same mistake over and over again that concerns me.

[zulchzulu]

33. Yes, you are correct. Edwards' choice to pimp for war was a very bad decision...

...and a very good reason why I would never vote for or trust him.

Support him...but know that it would be a HUGE issue if he ever became the nominee.

[calteacherguy]

50. Yes, that is why Edwards concerns me. He's made the same mistake with his Iran rhetoric.

He's a dangerous man because he's nothing but a pandering political opportunist, and thankfully he will not be our nominee.

[DemDogs]

63. He has to be the nominee

Thankfully you are wrong about the misleading Iran rhetoric, which has been covered here so often that it doesn't need repeating.
Dangerous and pandering? I think you are thinking about HRC.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

114. Tee-Heee!

Thank you.

I was hoping someone would say this...

HRC is the biggest cheerleader for staying the course and then going into Iran and Syria that is vying for the office... P-U...

[bjobotts]

108. Kucinich calls for strength through peace like FDR.

[bjobotts]

107. Kucinich didn't!...Kucinich/Edwards '08...the truth ticket

[madmunchie]

150. Edwards has made SEVERAL really bad decisions and took

WAY TOO LONG to realize how bad his decisons were Patriot Act, IWR, VISAS, Trade..... He should have STAYED IN THE SENATE and helped to clean up his mess. But NO he was too busy visiting Iowa to be POTUS rather then putting his neck on the line and putting money where his mouth is to stay in the Senate and DO THE RIGHT THING.... (but I guess that would have been hard since he wouldn't have been re-elected anyway....now- why is that?)

Now he talks like he wasn't even part of the horrible mess that he helped create. The guy is not only a fake, his votes - (the major ones) while he was in office were HORRIBLE. Hindsight is 20/20 - the problem is that when you are POTUS, you don't always have the convenience of hindsight. It just blows my mind that there are so many people on this sight that actually buy his BS....oh well - another bitter pill to swallow.

[Divine Discontent]

83. "So someone who made a really bad decision now tells us what he would do better now?"

by that philosophy then, Barack can't be trusted because he was into drugs and was on his way to becoming a "Junkie" and a "Pothead"? Is that what you're really saying?

[Yukari Yakumo]

120. Then why isn't he in the Senate? You know, like Kerry? {nt}

uguu

[Baby Snooks]

180. Been there, done that...

In other words, we should pay attention to what he plans to do rather than what he's already done? Been there, done that already with far too many politicians. Past, as they say, is prologue in politics. Which the voters are finally beginning to realize.

[madmunchie]

253. "Been there, done that" How flip can you be?!!!!!

Should be...."Been there, Fucked THAT UP!, NO MORE CHANCES! especially when it comes to allowing you to make judgments when precious lives are at stake. Maybe stopping to think about the lives lost, the family's of the dead and maimed victims of the Iraq war, the freedoms sacrificed by the Patriot Act.....would wise you up a bit. Most wouldn't advocate giving the #1 job to a person who screwed up so badly, but then JE supporters aren't "most" of the voters....Thank God.

A pretty boy, giving great speeches based on ideas and policies carefully constructed and some borrowed from previous candidates does not a great POTUS make. Any actor could do that (Reagan showed us that much). Making decisions AS EVENTS OCCUR is what one has to be great at - and JE has demonstrated that he is a bit slow on the understanding of what this country's Foreign Policy decisions should be based upon. I don't like a leader that is so slow that it takes him 2 - 3 years to admit a mistake that so many of us knew about BEFORE his disastrous IWR vote.

I may have given him more credit if he would have stayed in the Senate (or at least tried to, although he probably wouldn't have been re elected in his own state) and tried to help clean up the mess he was part of creating. No, he was too focused on 2008 and becoming POTUS. Now the hypocrite actually goes after Bush for putting us into Iraq, while JE was part of those that helped him....He makes me sick

[ripple]

182. You're trying to excuse the inexcusable

the decision to take our nation to war is probably the most profound and far-reaching decision our nation's leaders can make. 'Oops' doesn't cut it.

[dugggy]

34. But Edwards is smart enough to admit a mistake and change

and that is a sure sign of a wise man. Obama was not
even in the senate when IWR passed, so his opinions
at this point are just hot air and empty rhetoric.

[AtomicKitten]

35. "smart" is not the word I would use

opportunist, perhaps

[AnotherGreenWorld]

43. If Edwards ran on his Senate record,

what would he be at in the polls? 1% maybe 2?

The only option for him politically is to say his fervent support for the Iraq war was a mistake.

[GreenArrow]

56. If Edwards ran on his Senate record

he'd probably be right up there with Hillary. Instead, he chose to woo the left netroots, hoping that they would catapult him to the top of the fray. He hoped he could take the approach used by Howard Dean one step further. He miscalculated. Again.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

69. Support for the war, support for the Patriot Act?

How would that propel him to HRC's level? HRC is the front runner because of name recognition, perception that she's very liberal, and money.

The only chance that Edwards had was to outflank HRC and Obama on the left. He learned from Howard Dean: It doesn't matter what your record is. The "netroots" are about vanity and self-righteousness, not actual performance, etc.

[GreenArrow]

71. Simple proposition for him.

Make an apology on the war, Patriot, bankruptcy, etc. and court the left. It almost worked for Dean, and no, he wasn't that liberal either; it was simply about creating a perception. The problem Edwards has encountered (well, there are many) is that he has been all over the flippin' map with his positions. Sure, Hillary has money and a name (Edwards was almost VP last time, he's not an unknown entity), but most importantly, she has been more or less consistent on her stands, whereas Edwards' changeability simply makes him look, weak, vacillating and opportunistic.

[lynnertic]

74. I would like to add that in contrast, Kucinich supported neither the war nor the Patriot Act.

AND he introduced Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney.

[bjobotts]

109. Kucinich voted against Auth.to Use Mil force,Patriot,Mac,Fund,FISA

[Yukari Yakumo]

121. And was Pro-Life and Anti-Stem Cell Research until one week before announcing his '04 bid. {nt}

uguu

[druidity33]

131. stuff it

It would be one thing if Kucinich actually CRAFTED A BILL OR SUPPORTED ONE which pandered to his former Pro-Life leanings. Having a quasi-religious opinion about something is fine with me if you DON'T TRY AND CRAM IT DOWN ANYONE'S THROAT. And what pro-lifer out there is FOR stem-cell research? As far as i know he is still Pro-life personally, but has stated loud and clear that PROFESSIONALLY he wouldn't support that stance. Y'know the whole SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE THING.

It's a distraction from the real issues and you know it. People are allowed to rethink and retool their Agenda. On this one issue Kucinich thought it best to no longer proclaim his personal opinion.

I just read A Prayer for America by Dennis... it is a collection of his speeches. Pick that book up and read it. If it doesn't inspire you and make you want a TRUE LEADER, then your soul is dead.

uguu?

[dugggy]

260. I agree on that point 100%...Edwards would be higher in polls if

he took a more centrist approach. Voters are pining for that.
A far left approach has not elected any president in 100 years.

[calteacherguy]

49. No. He's a hypocritical political opportunist who will say anything he thinks might help him win.

nt

[DemDogs]

64. A progressive man of principle who will ...

win the White House
help the Dems pick up seats in the House
add to the Senate margin, which we REALLY need
not kowtow to lobbyists

You know, calteach (ha), you can keep kicking this thread to the top as often as you want but all you do is get the Edwards' supporters here answering and kicking again/

[madmunchie]

256. JE supporters, seems to me, are basically dreamers

[dugggy]

261. can you name one elected president as progressive as

Edwards current position?

Bush II - No
Clinton - No
Bush I - No
Reagan - heck No
Carter - ran as a southerner, hardly a flaming progressive
Nixon - No
Johnson - No
Kennedy - gave US 1st taxcuts
IKE - No
Truman - No, only leader to nuke enemy civilians
Roosevelt - started WW II

I don't see many real progressives in that list!

[Divine Discontent]

82. well aren't you on fire with your

disgust of John Edwards - how interesting. HYPOCRITE. OPPORTUNIST. What other thoughts do you have of John, and I'm to take it if he's our nominee you won't support him?

[Mythsaje]

164. A politician? Imagine that.

So who do YOU support? I want to know because each of the other top tier candidates carry their own baggage.

[LSK]

90. RFK; Bobby Kennedy

Learn some history.

[AtomicKitten]

145. I wasn't aware "RFK; Bobby Kennedy" was running.

Learn some current events.

[Bluebear]

119. I just can't vote for someone who counts Sen Coburn as his good friend

and the 'kind of Republican he'd like to work with', as Obama trumpeted.

[AtomicKitten]

146. It is an expression of speech --

only taken literally as a means to an end.

[Mythsaje]

170. A figure of speech?

And how, precisely, are we supposed to take it? What does "Good Friend" mean in political doublespeak?

[AtomicKitten]

175. Oh, the faux outrage!!!

I expect my elected representatives to behave like adults and at the very least muster a modicum of civility in working with the entire body of Congress. If the GOP chooses to continue to behave like a bunch of spoiled children, let that be on them. The contrast will be striking to voters.

If you are more comfortable with someone who will say whatever it takes to lead the parade (in or out of Iraq, whichever you prefer; Edwards is flexible), that is your prerogative.

[Mythsaje]

193. It's not outrage...it's disgust.

I'm not treating you like you're an idiot. I ask you do the same. It's one thing to be civil to these creatures, it's another entirely to declare one to be a "good friend." I sincerely doubt the feeling is mutual. For the Repugs, their ideology seems to trump everything else.

He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon. I'm not sure Obama has a long enough spoon.

[AtomicKitten]

208. Your anger is spilling over inappropriately.

You despise Coburn (for good reason) and are attacking Obama in a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" kind of way for having the audacity to refer to a colleague respectfully as decorum dictates.

You've sculpted your talking point, but not a very good one. And it pales in comparison to the egregious error Edwards and Hillary made by participating in the inception and implementation of this war.

[Mythsaje]

218. Who are you to declare what's "inappropriate?"

"Decorum" is the reason that every time someone tries to give us the truth about what these rat-bastards are doing, everyone jumps all over them until they apologize, after which DU and the rest of the left blogosphere proceeds to castigate the offending party.

Fuck Decorum. I'd trade it for truth any day of the week.

[AtomicKitten]

228. F*ck decorum?

Wow.

[Mythsaje]

229. Yeah.

I'll take truth over pretty lies. We ALL should.

[AtomicKitten]

232. I have no clue why this is a Truth Vs. Decorum debate in your head.

It's a bogus analogy.

[Mythsaje]

237. When the pretty little lies are used to obfuscate the true nature

of the debate, which is PRECISELY how the Republicans use it, I DO have problems with it. We're being universally FUCKED by the RW and OUR people are supposed to be NICE rather than speaking the truth?

Pretty lies are no better than ugly lies when the fate of our democracy and maybe the world lies in the balance.

[AtomicKitten]

245. Yeah, we get it ... F*ck decorum.

[Mythsaje]

259. Precisely...and I've explained why I say that ad nauseum.

You don't get it? Fine.

I assume you never attacked a Dem for apologizing for speaking the truth after the media blitz.

I know I have.

[AtomicKitten]

266. oh, I get it alright --

and it's still an absurd allegation. Turn your tee-vee to CSPAN and start counting the violations to the World According to Mythesaje.

Edwards referred to his colleagues in the very same way when he was in Congress, but I suppose if he does it it's okay with you, right?

Yeah, I understand completely.

[Sapphire Blue]

210. ...

Perhaps he has a shovel.

[ripple]

185. Yep, any regular CSPAN viewer

knows that most all Senators and members of Congress refer to each other- even to those to which they are diametrically opposed- as 'my friend', or 'my good friend'. It's a matter of decorum.

[Mythsaje]

194. Fuck decorum.

It's that twisty pretense of accomodation that enables them to screw the people of America and slam everyone who dares call the on it in a public forum to the point they're forced to apologize...for which they are instantly and appallingly castigated here on DU and throughout the left blogosphere.

We're in a fight for the future of America and the Earth itself. It's about time the public got to see what the fight is about for a change.

[ripple]

203. I'm sure Edwards called plenty of political opponents his friends

during his time in the Senate. That's simply is what is done- like it or not. The indignant outrage over Obama's statement is quite frankly ludicrous.

I completely agree with you about holding our elected leaders accountable. I just realize that it's the way they vote that matters, not how polite or impolite they happen to be when casting their votes.

[Mythsaje]

219. It's one thing to do so in the confines of the House or Senate

Part of their procedures and what not. It's quite another to proclaim something like that out in the open as if it's MORE than just business as usual.

I TRUST my "good friends." With my life and the things that matter most to me. How ANY liberal/progressive could TRUST someone like Coburn is completely beyond my understanding.

[ripple]

250. Coburn and Obama worked on an ethics and lobbying reform bill together

They agreed on something, as shocking as that might seem. I'm about as hard-core of a democrat as they come, but I still have to give a republican credit every now and then for taking the correct stance on an issue.

Obama also worked with Sam Brownback to draft legislation to help end the genocide in Darfur. As a Kansas, I'm disgusted by Brownback's position on practically every issue, but I agree with him on this one. Just as I agree with Coburn and Obama about the need for transparency in government.

Despite the 'outrage' over Obama's statement, the story that everyone seems to be missing is that he was able to work in a bipartisan manner to achieve something that will be beneficial to all Americans. THAT is what makes a leader.

[Sapphire Blue]

201. Yes, they refer to each other as such, but they DON'T say that they've BECOME good friends.

'My friend across the aisle' is a polite term, commonly used in the political arena. 'We've become good friends' is something else entirely. There really is a difference... and Dems who claim to be buddy buddy w/hateful, bigoted repub extremists & want to achieve unity w/the likes of them get absolutely no respect or support from me. That type of so-called Democrat is nothing but a traitor to the Democratic Party.

[AtomicKitten]

205. exaggeration + semantics = voila! A bogus talking point.

[Sapphire Blue]

209. Was Obama exaggerating when he said that he & Coburn had become good friends?

[AtomicKitten]

212. Duh! That is apparently obvious to everyone except those --

clam-digging for bogus talking points.

[Sapphire Blue]

216. You're not making any sense at all; are you saying that Obama uses bogus talking points?

What exactly did he mean when he said that he & Coburn have become good friends?

[Mythsaje]

221. We're supposed to ignore that.

It's a "figure of speech."

Okay, whatever.

[AtomicKitten]

227. It means he is a Senator that adheres to decorum & isn't an a-hole.

Trying to say Obama means it literally when he refers to colleagues as "my good friend" is a bogus talking point.

[Mythsaje]

230. So you say.

Some of us find it VERY disconcerting. That makes it MORE than a talking point.

[AtomicKitten]

234. Hey, any old port (or straw to grasp) in the storm.

whatever works for you

[Sapphire Blue]

240. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt! Obama said that he & Coburn have become "good friends".

He did not just refer to him as "my friend" or "my friend across the aisle". Your trying to spin his words ain't working.

[AtomicKitten]

243. Tune into CSPAN sometime.

Oh my gawd!! They're all "my good friend" or "the gentleman from _______."

Now what was that about spin again?

[Sapphire Blue]

249. What is it about Obama saying that he & Coburn have become "good friends" that you just can't...

... seem to comprehend?

[AtomicKitten]

251. 5 minutes of CSPAN proves you wrong

If you choose to believe Obama's manner of speech as a Senator is unique or wrong in any way, that is your prerogative.

Don't let the fact that about five minutes of CSPAN proves your claim here absolute nonsense.

[Sapphire Blue]

252. I hope you don't get dizzy from all your spinning.

[AtomicKitten]

255. And your take on this is very, very silly.

I don't think it's because you don't get it. I suspect it's because you've sunk your teeth in and aren't letting go of this lame assertion of yours. Funny stuff, really.

In the words of George Harrison, "It's all part of the stew."

[Sapphire Blue]

258. You alternately deny & spin what Obama said, and you call me silly?

Since when is reality "lame assertion"? Talk about not getting it.

I'm getting dizzy from your spinning! Not gonna play anymore. :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

265. Obama called a colleague a "good friend."

It is your interpretation of that that is the spin here. Your candidate used the same verbiage when he was in Congress.

It's Congress-speak and anybody with a TV that gets CSPAN knows it!

Best of luck trying to peddle this as something negative. I'm delighted that that's the best you can do. Gobama.

[zulchzulu]

269. Do you love Joe Lieberman?

:popcorn:

If this is chess, I call "Check".

[hurricaneric]

148. I wonder what Obama

would have voted for if he had actually been in the senate at that point? He's not exactly an outsider.

[AtomicKitten]

153. In a 2002 speech, he came out hard against the Iraq War.

Obama was clearly against the war BEFORE the invasion which would indicate to most reasonable people how he might have voted.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

So, let's do the math and looked at the empiric evidence:

1. Hillary and Edwards voted FOR the war.
2. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and rallied hard for the invasion of Iraq
3. Obama came out AGAINST the war before the invasion.

Even those that speculate on how Obama might have voted - ignoring his clear opposition to the war before the invasion - still cannot deny that Hillary and Edwards actually voted for the war.

The evidence is clear. I would much rather roll the dice on someone who has been right all along than for anyone that has already proved their poor judgment.

[Laurab]

155. Obama spoke out against the war quite eloquently

although he was only in the state senate at the time. The speech is on his website, I believe. I don't believe he thought it would help him politically, and I'm sure he had political aspirations then. He spoke out against "dumb wars", and it could have come back to haunt him, depending on what happened in Iraq. I believe he would have done the same in the U.S. senate, although we'll never know.

I like Edwards ok, he's my second choice out of the three "front runners", and I do believe people can change, but he did have access to intelligence that a lot of the Congress didn't, and still voted for the war, which is somewhat troubling. It's over and done now, I do believe he's changed and really believes what he's saying now, but I certainly don't agree with the OP that he's our best and only choice.

[zulchzulu]

270. You wonder...well...how about a little video of Obama in 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

Remember that this was about the time that John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee supposedly viewing the bogus intelligence that the Bush administration was feeding and either is a fool or figured out it was better to give Bush a free pass to go to war with his co-sponsoring the Iraq War Resolution with our lovely friend Joe Lieberman.

It gets down to who can you trust and who has better judgement. If you seek the truth, you know the answer. If you're blind, good luck...I guess.

[rndmprsn]

206. obama has funded the war at every step...

aside from the last vote when he was a candidate, you can say edwards did too and you would be true, but lets not pretend that obama has clean hands.

[AtomicKitten]

211. Obama was against the war from the get-go.

On the other hand, Edwards and Hillary participated in its inception. Funding is an entirely different matter. Funding is debatable but certainly pales in comparison with the abdication Congress' war-declaring powers to an idiot as written in the IWR. There is a huge distinction in gravity and implications between the two.

[rndmprsn]

217. obama's hands are not clean re the iraq war...

no amount of hair splitting changes the fact, i like obama personally, but facts are facts.

even though they both voted for authorization, edwards has since apologized for his vote, to compare he and hillary together without mentioning this is less than honest.

[AtomicKitten]

231. It isn't hair-splitting to state Obama came out against the war before it even started.

That is a fact; I already referenced that for your perusal.

And I'm not impressed by anybody's apology or pseudo-apology as the case may be when it comes to matters of war. There is no do-over for the thousands that have died as a result. We would be remiss as citizens to even try to marginalize the impact of giving Junior the keys.

[Nutmegger]

2. R&K

:thumbsup::kick:

[Warpy]

3. What working stiffs don't understand about huge houses for

the rich and powerful is that they ARE hotels. Dignitaries don't make reservations at the Ramada Inn. They expect to stay with their hosts. More and more, they also arrive when their hosts are on vacation.

That's what that ridiculously large house is all about. That's also why Stupid bought the pig farm in Crawford and built a tacky Texas mansion on it.

[Mythsaje]

5. This is a VERY good point

and one I hadn't considered. Thanks, Warpy.

[cali]

62. This is gonna drive me nuts.

It's just not true. That's a justification, not a rational explanation. It bears repeating: No one needs a house of 24,000 sq. feet for entertaining dignitaries or guests or whatever. 10,000 sq. feet is an enormous house- 5x the size of the average house. And there's something to be said for living the change you want. I like Edwards, but yeah, there's something hypocritical about talking about evironmental sacrifices and not making any.

[DemDogs]

65. House is under 10,000

There is a piece, I think in O magazine, that has the actual house numbers. House is big, but like 8900. There's a basketball court, which I am guessing is what makes the number so much bigger, but I think the same article said the whole think is about 20,000. Still big, I know, but we gotta quit repeating the Freeper lies.

[cali]

70. Wrong. The main house is 10,400. Altogether, 28,000

Knight approved the building plans that showed the Edwards home totaling 28,200 square feet of connected space. The main house is 10,400 square feet and has two garages. The recreation building, a red, barn-like building containing 15,600 square feet, is connected to the house by a closed-in and roofed structure of varying widths and elevations that totals 2,200 square feet.


And as you can see, it's virtually one structure.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848

[AnotherGreenWorld]

102. Thanks for posting that.

The picture of his secluded mansion juxtaposes quite nicely with his of the people rhetoric, don't you think?

[smitty]

20. Rich and powerful people built ridiculously large houses

because they want to show off their wealth and their power. The dignitaries duly follow, but they are a secondary issue, they're just another way of displaying the wealth and power. Even a working stiff understands that.

[cali]

21. You're wrong.

you don't need a 24,000 sq ft house to put up guests- no matter who they are. 2 or 3 guest bedrooms with baths en suite will do quite nicely. And Guess what? You can fit that into 7,000 sq ft and still have room for media rooms and living rooms and dens.

By the way, Bush's house in TX, much as I despise him, is 4,000 sq ft and environmentally conscious.

[Warpy]

29. I've seen it at 10,000 square feet with a pool

and that is NOT environmentally conscious.

[cali]

36. Why would you just make something up?

I don't get it. This is commonly acknowledged and it is all over the web:

Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.” Hmm, back to that vote

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php

Just in case you don't like that link. This is from Commondreams:

Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home
by Rob Sullivan

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.


http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm

I trust you're not going to continue insisting on something that's so easily disproved

[Warpy]

39. Read a site a very long time ago

that listed it at 10,000 square feet.

Now why would you accuse strangers of making things up?

[cali]

60. Because you made an assertion without foundation

We're on the internet, right? I mean why make the asserton before checking it out?

[cali]

61. Because you made an assertion without foundation

We're on the internet, right? I mean why make the asserton before checking it out?

[DemDogs]

66. Solar heated and Energy-Star

Edwards has said that a hundred times.

[Cameron27]

242. It doesn't matter if he's using solar --

the question is what percentage of his energy use is actually solar; it doesn't matter how high his energy star rating is, what matters is the amount & cost of fossil fuels needed for his house, and that question he's managed to dodge.

[Atman]

4. Uh...yeah, well...the check is in the mail

Nice cheer leading job. Excellent, in fact. Ask for a raise. But you totally turned me off before I finished reading the subject line.
Edwards is a good choice. He might be a better choice than others. But I saw nothing in your little advertorial which convinced me he's the BEST choice, and certainly nothing which indicates he is the ONLY choice.

The media will tell us what our ONLY choice is.

.

[Mythsaje]

6. Our REASON should tell us what the only choice is...

Those of us who still have it, anyway.

I suppose I should take it as a compliment you'd suggest I'm a paid spokesperson. But no.

[ChiciB1]

192. Nor Am I... I Just Have To Post When I See John Edwards As The Subject...

Say what you will, bash him all you want, drag up his hair, house, wife and WHATEVER else you can dig up to denigrate him, it only makes me support him MORE!!

I can't say I've followed Obama as close as some of you, but I have checked him out a lot, and I do like him, but there's something about him that bothers me. Can't say WHAT it is, and I'm no racist so that's NOT it! I would LOVE to see America elect a person of color, and I could be missing something here, but he just doesn't grab me.

And then there's Clinton... I will only say this... IF and I mean IF she gets the nod, I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT campaign for her. I have entertained the notion of not even voting in the GE if it's her, but am still thinking about what the consequences will be. If she gets the nod, and she looks like she has the MO-JO going her way, then I'm sitting it out! If I see it may be close, then I may have to hold my nose and vote for her. But then again, I live in Florida so it may not matter anyway!

I don't think any of my votes have been counted the 4 times I've voted in any type of election, given where I live.

[Mythsaje]

195. It could be closer than you think in Florida this time around...

And as much as I don't like HRC, I'd vote for her rather than sitting it out, and I live in a predominately blue state.

I don't think she represents change in any degree that matters.

My primary problem with Obama is that I get a sense of naivete I think we can ill afford. He may well have been able to forge bi-partisan accords in the state house and at the federal level, but if he thinks his "friendships" with the Repugs there would help him in the White House, he's sorely mistaken. From what I can tell, they will ALWAYS choose party and ideology over everything else.

You want a fair weather friend, choose a Repug.

[ChiciB1]

226. Naivete COULD Be What's Niggling At Me... And Perhaps I Get The

feeling that the "can't we all work together" thing kind of makes me wonder. I recall his speech in 2004 and it WAS great, but even then I noticed that he was talking a more "centrist" talk to some extent. Which of course defines me as more liberal than he, but I do make an effort to find some common ground when necessary. Even saying that, BECAUSE of these past 6 plus years I can't say I have much real respect or that I go out of my way to have much tolerance for Repukes anymore. So I don't go out and "court" them.

As for Florida being close this time out... well in MY book it wasn't close in 2000! I watched county by county returns then AND in 2004, and while 2004 may have been closer than 2000, it would take more than anyone is willing to show me that The Idiot won either time out!

So, by saying that living in Florida may not matter that much, I happen to live in the county from which Cruella sprang, and this county STILL does NOT have a paper trail, and even when it was stated that EVERY county in Florida will be mandated to have a paper trail, OUR Supervisor of Elections must have taken some really super lessons from Cruella! And we are still having electronic machine problems! She's such a WITCH and one that acts very much as The Idiot does when confronted with any type of controversy! Basically, you get ignored if you make any noise and IF you make TOO MUCH noise.... YOU GO TO COURT!!

And I moved to Florida when it was once more Democratic than not! Most of the time our Governors were Democrats, however I doubt THIS County was ever close to being a Democratic strong hold. It's more like the Orange County in California!

[slipslidingaway]

7. So he's been listening to Kucinich on terrorism, that's great!

Except Dennis has never talked about setting up a new department and feels that we should strengthen and use the tools already available.

[Mythsaje]

8. It's not a new department...

It's a new international coalition. NATO and the UN already have their own purposes. We need another one for THIS battle. I think he's right.

[saracat]

9. Beautifully put! Thank you Mythsaje!

[jenmito]

11. Someone should've told this to Zbigniew Brzezinski or Representative Patrick Murphy

among others, because they think Obama has the right stuff to be president. :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

12. I don't...

He thinks he can play nice with the people who've been dismantling our nation.

He's wrong.

[jenmito]

14. No offense, but I take Zbigniew Brzezinski's and Rep. Patrick Murphy's

opinions more seriously.

[Mythsaje]

16. Go for it.

If you want a President who doesn't know to protect his back from these people, go right ahead.

[jenmito]

17. I will...

He knows very well how to protect his bsck, I'm sure.

[zulchzulu]

22. Who are you talking about with that statement?

I'm curious...

[Mythsaje]

23. I don't think Obama understands how dangerous some of these people actually ARE.

People who, right now, are smiling to his face, people he believes are his FRIENDS, are sharpening their knives to plunge into his back the minute they get the chance. These people have been doing their damndest to dismantle American values and they've been as vicious about it as anyone could be.

To THEM, bi-partisanship and compromise means getting THEIR way. And I don't see that changing any time soon.

[zulchzulu]

30. LOL

Wow. That was funny!

:rofl:

[Mythsaje]

124. Yes, I find Republican attack strategies

VERY humorous.

:sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

168. What "Republican attack strategies" are you referring to?

:popcorn:

[Mythsaje]

171. Where have YOU been?

He referred to someone I wouldn't let in my yard as a "good friend."

You don't make friends with scum. At least, I don't.

[zulchzulu]

268. Another out of ammo argument

Are you suggesting that Edwards never talked to people who might be considered "Republican"?

How do you consider Joe Lieberman... a friend perhaps?

[Divine Discontent]

81. I'll listen to Bill Maher... lol n/t

[Mythsaje]

166. Carter likes him too...

HIM I know. HIM I trust.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Edwards offers empty rhetoric and little more. (NT)

[bobbolink]

38. BWAHAHAHA! "Empty rhetoric" built his poverty institute, eh?

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Empty Rhetoric built his campaign. (nt)

Sorry you have bought a load of snake-oil.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. As if Edwards actually does.

Sure he is PRETENDING to now that he is running for president, but he sure didn't seem to care all that much when he voted for the bankrupcy bill or sending poor kids off to Iraq to die for the war he helped sell.

It's called buying snake oil and you are in for a ton of it right now.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. I want to vote for the democratic candidate...

But I can't do that if I believe that the democratic candidate is the worst long term option for the party and the country.

I could never vote for Edwards because he has shown that he has absolutely no principles. He does and says what he believes he has to in order to get the most votes. This is someone who will bend and twist to the popular will no matter what the issue, which usually results in capitulation and knee jerk responses to complex issues, such as his Iraq vote which required active ignorance on his part.

Putting a dem like that in the white house leads to a entrenchment of the neo-con philosophy and long term republican rule for the United States. Edwards is not now and never has been a "leader", he is a follower to the nth degree, as his positions are based on what he thinks people want to hear... worse, he lies about the results of his specific plans, claiming they do things that they simply do not. (such as his tax plan which offers no real relief to the poor).

Edwards is pure rhetoric with nothing to back it up. His plans are hollow vessels that will not deliver on his promises and from his record, we can have no doubt that should the public demand something (no matter how much evidence there is against it) he will be quick to give in to the will of the masses, something our system of government was set up to stop.

So what am I getting out of this? The hope that I can vote for a democratic candidate.

[bobbolink]

54. Post #53 is pure rhetoric with nothing to back it up.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmunchie]

262. Facts don't seem to make any difference to JE supporters, "PURE RHETORIC" is seemingly all they

really like to listen to.

JE was in the Senate for 6 short years and spent close to half of that time campaigning for POTUS, therefore not really serving his constituents and doing his homework on some of the disasterous bills he voted for.

John Edwards talked about poverty, but he co-sponsored a massive increase in H-1b Visas

JE co-sponsored the IWR and then voted for it, to stood by it a year later, and then finally said that he was sorry after the polls turned, three years and one failed election later. Slow on the uptake I'd say - way too slow for the demands of POTUS

Edwards DID NOT generate or champion any poverty legislation during his 6 years in the senate (while he co sponsored the IWR?????) real humanitarian and champion of the poor huh.

Edwards literally bed down in Iowa and New Hampshire for a couple of years while he nervously wavered because he didn't know if he was gonna run since his wife was sick!!!! He could have stayed in the Senate to help clean up a mess that he helped create. Somebody with a conscince would have done that. But wait a minute, JE probably wouldn't have been re -elected as a Senator in his own state......why is that?

John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." .....John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us that he didn't seem to learn from his disasterous Iraq vote, ya think?

JE voted YES to free trade with China

JE voted YES on the 2001 bankruptcy bill Yeah, a real bleeding heart for the poor.

JE voted against the 2002 amendment for voting rights to be reinstated to convicted criminals

How many more facts do you all need before your eyes can see, your ears can hear and your brains engage?

[Sapphire Blue]

85. EXCELLENT questions, bobbolink, as is your comment above!

You'll not get any real answers, though... even though they are quite evident.

:hi:

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

199. These people attack Edwards at every turn

but I have yet to see any one of them post anything substantial about their chosen candidate. In fact, some don't even have one yet, but they're more than happy to hop in line to join in the bashing party.

[bobbolink]

215. Which brings us right back to--what is the real agenda? What is the fear?

They are obviously really afraid of what Edwards stands for, and what his potential is.

FEAR.

It's as clear as if it was labeled such.

[Mythsaje]

225. Good point.

And those who call him a "politician" and an "opportunist" need to explain why, if he's crafting these detailed policy positions only in order to appeal to the people, why hasn't he changed them in response to the polls that still put him behind by a considerable margin? If he's not stating his REAL beliefs about all of it, why set them in stone and not simply hedge on the important points like other candidates are doing?

[Cameron27]

244. Not so excellent, it appears to have been deleted.

[LSK]

92. which bankruptcy bill? the one that passed after he left the Senate???

:wtf:

[FrenchieCat]

103. Edwards voted on a couple of Bankrupcy bills; the wrong way

The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors.

Dodd further questioned Edwards as a poverty fighter by saying that his opponent voted in favor of a similar version of the Bankruptcy Reform bill in 2001. Specifically, that bill required debtors to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over time under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan rather than letting them seek a discharge via Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Questioning his opponent’s political allegiances, Dodd noted how Edwards sided with Republicans in favoring the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Dodd said that Edwards even aligned with the Republican caucus in rejecting an amendment to the bill by Senator Paul Wellstone of MinnesotaThat amendment would have given an exemption to debtors who were forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Naturally, Dodd was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of this amendment.

Edwards’ voting record on bankruptcy issues gets worse, according to the Dodd camp. Dodd detailed how Edwards once again lined up with the Republicans in rejecting an amendment that would have included a more consumer-friendly means test than in the original Bankruptcy Overhaul bill of 2001. That amendment would have initiated a Chapter 7 means test that would have averaged the debtor’s last two months of income and taken into account sudden job losses or disabilities. The original bill mandated a means test averaging the debtor’s last six months of income.

Dodd concluded the press release by saying that Edwards ultimately supported a bankruptcy bill that not only punished the financially vulnerable but also aligned with big banks and credit card companies.
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john_edwards.htm

[Milo_Bloom]

165. The one he voted on. (nt)

[bjobotts]

111. Kucinich only one to end NAFTA, withdraw us from WTO and Iraq

[bobbolink]

181. Edwards is the ONLY ONE striving to end poverty in the US!

And your assertion is questionable, at best.

[hurricaneric]

149. You must know who the right candidate is then?

[calteacherguy]

46. You are absolutely correct. It's amazing how naive some folks are. nt

[bjobotts]

110. Kucinich is the best Candidate. Surpases them all. Won't stand down

[Mythsaje]

167. Can't get elected.

But otherwise great.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

32. Wow

I guess people are THAT stupid.

First of all, Barack's father was born as a muslim but was considered agnostic when he met his wife. I guess muslims are bad. And since Obama was born in 1961, Hussein must have been named after Saddam...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

:crazy:

[tech3149]

26. Interesting straw poll on Thom Hartmann today

He has done others in the past and the winner was always Kucinich. Today he threw a change-up by announcing the poll only minutes before to avoid an organized effort to stack the poll. The winner was of course Edwards. He won by a 2-1 margin over Kucinich. I consider the Hartmann audience to be the sort that is capable and wants intelligent discussion of issues. There are even a good percentage of freepers and libertarians in the mix. That tells me that Edwards has a much broader appeal than you would see presented by the corporate media. Even those who don't pay attention to the news and facts and vote based on the horse race/personality contest could support Edwards. As an idealist, my best choice would be Kucinich, but I understand that I'm a small percentage of the population and without millions of dollars to affect the outcome, I've got to accept that I've got to choose on basis of the world around me and the best compromise to serve my interest.

[Catchawave]

31. Is this the Thom Hartmann being broadcast on Cspan?

I caught a simulcast one night and I really liked him. A little left of center, just like Olbermann :)

Do you know if this is a regular feature? I live in Pat Robertson's voting district, so I get nothing but RW blatherfests on the radio :cry:

[tech3149]

47. That's the same He has a daily broadcast Noon to 3;00 PM weekdays

It's available on the net for all even if you can't get it locally. My sister lives in Buckroe beach, so I know what you've got to deal with.

[jazzjunkysue]

37. We need Edwards. Period. He can win and he can fix this country.

He's not in it for his family dynasty or profits.

He's the real deal, and he can win.

[calteacherguy]

48. I get a strong sense that Edwards is in it more for his own ego more than anything else.

I don't trust him.

[BlueJac]

139. Kind of like Hillary, huh?

[GreenArrow]

59. he's in it for John Edwards

.

[bjobotts]

112. ANY democrat nominated will win this time. Kucinich is the real deal

Edwards should be his running mate. Kucinich always one step ahead of Edwards.

Kucinich/Edwards '08...the truth ticket

[bjobotts]

115. We need Kucinich. Period. He's the real deal.Strength thru Peace

[DemDogs]

67. Great poll - Thanks (n/t)

[bjobotts]

113. He took less than 20calls..Couldn't get through with Kucinich vote

[never_get_over_it]

135. I wrote down the totals:

Edwards 26 53%
Kucinich 12 24%
Obama 4 8%
Clinton 3 6%
Biden 2 4%
Gore 1 2%
Paul 1 2%

Of course this was a very small poll - but interesting none the less - the top two MSM favorites did not fair so well....

[Colorado Progressive]

154. Thats exactly how I feel! nt

[ChiciB1]

267. Good Thinking... I Watched Him When C-Span Covered Him & I

really liked seeing/listening to him. I've heard of him before, but never checked him out before! He was very intelligent too, He made me feel a little ashamed of myself because I've been so fed up with so much crap for so long that I just stopped being involved with local politics! Just couldn't take anymore of the small groups of people who showed up, only to talk about yet ANOTHER meeting we could go to, to talk about another meeting, etc., etc.

It's really hard being a Democrat here where I live, and I know there are many of us here because we out-registered the Repukes in 2004. But there's almost NO Unity anywhere. The biggest crowd I ever saw was right after the Christine Jennings loss (sort of) when so many of us got together to protest. There was real effort in the beginning, but fighting the election just got to be too much and it was one battle after another and more money needed, and more money needed... it sucked!

OOPS, off message! Thom was really interesting!

[fiore280]

27. Sorry but I think Edwards has told some high-impact lies

Like how he voted for the Iraq War Resolution and then claimed that he "made a mistake". He was on the intelligence committee you know...I believe he helped craft and voted for the IWR because of his presidential ambitions. He went AGAINST HIS CONSCIENCE. I know this is probably flame bait as many here like Edwards for his tough talk about real solutions for problems that exist now. I also know that most of the people on this board have probably seen this video, but it's worth a look if you have not. It is Dick Durbin calling bullshit on all the people on the intelligence committee who "made mistakes" Luckily, Durbin followed his conscience and did not make any "mistakes". He should have spoken out though. It's not like you have to reveal high secrets in order to say "the intelligence is laughable".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RbZlZZ7vBh4

[BrklynLib at work]

28. I agree with you.

:hi:

[calteacherguy]

44. Edwards is the worst choice. He'd be the first to bomb Iran.

He has no conception of how effective diplomacy works in the international arena, and he panders the the right-wing Jewish lobby.

Choosing Edwards would be an extremely dangerous choice, because it would likely mean war which could have been avoided (assuming Bush doesn't attack first).

[Snotcicles]

51. What do you folks think of David Bonior? and do you think he would

be Edwards campaign manager if he did not believe in what Edwards stands for?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17596069/site/newsweek/page/0/

[Divine Discontent]

79. don't ask awesome questions like that...

john's a snake oil salesman, don't you know???

[Mythsaje]

125. Oh, you must be referring to the guy I've got on ignore

I recognize THAT phrase.

[Divine Discontent]

80. "He'd be the first to bomb Iran"

this is really egregious of you and frankly, a load of BS - that statement alone of yours makes any argument you attempt laughable.

I wonder how many times your posts have been scoffed at. I really do. The first to bomb Iran? Didn't Barack say something so embarrassingly bad a while ago about world affairs and how he'd handle them, that he was hammered by not only Dem candidates but even the Repubs got in on the act!

[Dr. Strange]

142. Well, he may bomb Iran...

but after a few years, he would admit it was a mistake!
Isn't that what we want in a president?

[tom_paine]

52. K & R for Edwards!

[eridani]

57. I don't go for his anti-Iran saber-rattling

And he wants a residual force in Iraq. Kucinich is the only candidate who is right on every progressive issue, though Edwards is a very strong second on domestic issues, and has a stronger campaign.

[LSK]

94. carrots and sticks is saber rattling????

:shrug:

[eridani]

97. Check his AIPAC speech

Whythefuck does a country that has never launched an aggressive war since the Sassanid dynasty in the 7th century need carrots OR sticks for, anyway?

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012907CARMICHAEL.shtml

According to a report on the website TotallyJewish.com, John Edwards proclaimed his support for the neoconservative agenda of the Israel Lobby, and he even echoed the bellicose rhetoric of George Bush vis-à-vis Iran — “Hinting to possible military action.” Edwards has now become the official candidate of the Israel Lobby for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In his speech before the Herzilya Conference, John Edwards echoed the neoconservative ideology of George W. Bush, who is threatening to bomb Iran. In Israel, Edwards is now regarded as a strong supporter for American military intervention in Iran and the de facto expansion of the war in Iraq that would then engulf Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in a flaming arc of war, terrorism and ultra-violence.

[LSK]

99. I know all about his AIPAC speech

And I have seen him talk about the carrots and sticks method many times.

[eridani]

101. Then why are you both going along with the bullshit--

--that Iran is some kind of threat? Howzabout just abandoning the bullshit notion that every country in that region needs to be under the American bootheel?

[tomp]

141. carpet of gold or carpet of bombs? carrot/stick? get it? nt

[FrenchieCat]

58. If Edwards is the "only" choice, than you are telling us that we have no choice.........

and so you are "telling" us that we should vote for the Ken doll looking status quo White man from the south who said sorry three years too late .......is this what you are actually saying to us? :wow:

[Mythsaje]

126. Vote for whoever you fucking want to vote for...

No one's holding a gun to your head.

[tomp]

143. thank you, i fucking will. and it will NOT fucking be edwards.

well, what do you know, i do have a choice. i guess that makes your fucking title fucking WRONG.

[Pithy Cherub]

158. Exactly!

[Mythsaje]

159. It's a fucking title. Get over it. n/t

[tomp]

235. it's an incorrect and provocative title and ...

...it's a dumbass opinion to boot. you get over it.

[Mythsaje]

239. How is it incorrect?

You point out where I said I spoke for anyone but myself.

Or are you now trying to dictate MY opinion?

[tomp]

272. you didn't state it as an opinion. sheesh, you're dense. nt

[woo me with science]

68. hmm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3503837

[calteacherguy]

72. The OP is an incredible insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of DU'ers. nt

[Divine Discontent]

78. how shocking.... n/t

[Mythsaje]

123. That explains the 39 Recs...

Must be a lot of DUers who like being insulted.

[Forkboy]

169. You're an incredible insult to MY intelligence.

[The Witch]

73. I agree with you, Mythsaje.

The fact is, I believe in him. Maybe that belief will be betrayed as many people here say it will be. And at that point I will take my lumps as not living in the reality-based community. Until then, I will keep my eyes and ears open but I will keep my heart open as well, because I do believe that someday we will have a president who does do the right things for the right reasons. Someday.

[Inspired]

75. I've been reading through this thread

and all I can say is...unbelievable.

I agree with you, Mythsaje. John Edwards is the only choice for me.

[Colobo]

76. Obama: The REAL Choice.

[porkrind]

77. Thanks, but I'll stick with Kucinich.

[bjobotts]

116. Kucinich says it and does it and doesn't back down. He's the one.

[Mythsaje]

173. He's the one who'd never have a chance...

But thanks for playing.

[deacon]

84. he is the best choice, imo.

[Divine Discontent]

86. he's certainly the best choice that's running

but he's not the only choice. I'll vote for any Dem over the repuke candidate any day... anything resembling another b*sh mis-administration makes me sick to my stomach, and that "R" presidency qualifies.

[Sapphire Blue]

87. K&R - John Edwards is the ONLY choice for me!

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

[bjobotts]

117. You really haven't taken a good look at Kucinich or his site. Open up

[Mythsaje]

174. Kucinich is a good choice...

Not that he can win or anything, but hey, why not?

[Sapphire Blue]

186. Excuse me, but don't presume to tell me who I have or haven't taken a good look at.

I've looked closely at each & every one of our candidates. Yes, Kucinich is a very good candidate, and I would unhesitatingly support him were he the nominee (which I would have an extremely hard time doing regarding certain other candidates), but based on where each candidate stands on all of the issues, my support enthusiastically goes to John Edwards.

[madmunchie]

152. Too bad for you.

[Colorado Progressive]

88. Huh. After reading the thread I'm wondering why suddenly....

its not ok to be rich and run for President. Who the hell runs for president that ISNT rich??????

His house size? His pool size? Who gives a shit, at least he earned it himself. I like Edwards because he is pro-union, pro-US workers, anti-Iraq. I know he fucked up his vote, so did Hillary. Obama is not speaking out about US workers right enough, thats why he wont win.

Edit: if Gore runs I'll pick Gore

[cali]

134. I don't give a shit that he's rich

It's about what I see as hypocricy. Having a 28,000 sq ft. house and preaching environmentalism is cognitive dissonance or hypocricy. And no, buying indulgences- oops, I mean carbon trading credits- just doesn't cut it. Live the change you want to see happen. Investing in hedge funds that foreclose on Katrina victims while preaching about poverty is either cognitive dissonance or hypocricy.

And here's the thing: I like Edwards. I like a lot of what he has to say. I'd vote for him. I just don't can't overlook the dispaities between his rhetoric and his actions.

[Colorado Progressive]

156. They all have flaws. I'm voting for whoever the D nom is. Enough Hitler already!

[Kurovski]

89. K&R.

I find Edwards to have more substantial things to say than any other top-tier candidate. Kucinich and he would make a great team.

[Imagevision]

91. Edwards truly is a fine stateman, but I'm much more impressed with Obama.

[calteacherguy]

100. Edwards? Statesman?

:crazy:

Whatever.

[Midwestern Democrat]

93. I'm with Edwards all the way.

One of my all time favorite political quotes is this one from Hubert Humphrey: "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

Edwards is that kind of Democrat - he's willing to draw attention to the plight of the nation's poor, in spite of the fact that the all-important "suburban swing voters" probably could not care less about their plight; in spite of the fact that the beltway pundits deem the issue so terribly unfashionable and oh so 1965. I respect that kind of stand - the kind that transcends political calculation - a great deal.

I'm with Edwards because he stands for the things I stand for - staunchly pro-union, staunchly pro-worker, boldly against the Iraq War, and staunchly against job-decimating neoliberal "free trade". He's also been the most specific, by far, on what he intends to do.

Maybe his detractors are right - maybe the wheel has gone so far in the opposite direction that Edwards is, in effect, pursuing the path of Don Quioxite, but if he's willing to lead on the issues I care about, the least I can do is offer him my support.

[LSK]

95. K&R

[Nutmegger]

96. Crap...

I can't recommend this thread because I already done so.

I can give you a :kick:!

[snot]

98. All I care about is, he voted to authorize the Iraq invasion.

It was obvious to me at the time that that was a huge mistake; I don't see how anyone else who was paying attention and had any judgment could have thought otherwise.

Remember, the issue wasn't whether Hussein had WMD -- though the evidence of that was tenuous enough.

The issue was, was Hussein so close to having the ability and will to inflict them on us that we couldn't even afford to give the U.N. inspectors a few more weeks to complete their work.

There was never any credible evidence that that was the case.

Anyone who voted for the authorization -- I don't know what they thought they were doing or why, and at this point I don't care. They should be fired, not promoted.

[FrenchieCat]

104. John Edwards was fortunate enough not only to vote for the IWR,

he co-sponsored it! That's like he voted for it with an exclaimation point at the end instead of just a period (Clinton) or a comma (Kerry).

[Yukari Yakumo]

122. I can trump that

Edwards co-wrote the damned thing that let Chimpenfurher have his misadventure.

[Qutzupalotl]

105. Good, perhaps the best, but NOT the only.

This time we're blessed with many fine candidates.

[Mythsaje]

129. We are, actually...

I've said as much on a number of occasions.

But THIS post was about why Edwards is my choice.

[tomp]

144. you said ONLY choice. now you're bactracking. nt

[Mythsaje]

160. It was a title to attract attention...

Worked, too.

Jesus Christ, people are more interested in the goddamn title than the body text.

You'd think this place was populated by nitwits or something.

[tomp]

238. obvious provocation.

and then you complain when people get pissed off. oh, there surely are nitwits here.

[Mythsaje]

241. People have no reason to get "pissed off."

It's a single person (me) speaking for himself. Never ONCE did I claim to speak for anyone BUT myself. I expected more than knee-jerk semi-literacy from DUers, but I suppose I should have known better.

[tomp]

271. i don't know what the hell you're talking about.

who said you were speaking for anyone else. perhaps you posted in the wrong place, or maybe YOU'RE illiterate.

here's my point, me to you: your title was provcative, and judging from your general attitude, deliberaltely so. you even admit that you wanted to "get attention". your title is factually incorrect. if you had said "i believe our only choice is..." you'd have been on absolutely safe ground. but no, you opted for the provactive declarative ONLY. the title assumes that you've done all the thinking that needs to be done and the issue is decided. provocative. when anyone qustions you on it you take an attitude like, "how stupid of you to think that." again, provocative. and , you don't even realize that you're just plain wrong about edwards anyway. kucinich is the ONLY choice (that's a joke, son).

and lastly, you either don't have the intelligence to know when you've lost an argument or don't have the grace to say so.

so here's the answer: just say, "tomp, you're right, i was provocative and wrong. i'm sorry. i apologize to all those people who i unnecessarliy slammed on my own provocative thread." i think people will understand you were just a little overzealous.

[bjobotts]

106. He's on it...always just one step behind Kucinich...together they are

the truth ticket. They don't owe any lobbyists and cannot be bought, but Kucinich has always been there and done that before Edwards and his plans are slightly better and more progressive. Really, keep an open frame of mind and compare records and plans and you will see. Together they can't be beat for what they will accomplish for this country.

Kucinich/Edwards '08...the truth ticket. Perfect for America

[bjobotts]

118. Kucinich has voted right all the way down the line. Introduced legislature

that is the best on Iraq withdrawal, healthcare, and impeachment.

Voted against the War authorization as well as war funding, FISA, Patriot act and reauthorization of Patriot act, Military commissions Act, Only one calling out Cheney and Bush about their Iran war rhetoric and spying on American citizens, voted best plans to deal with global warming, dressed down Rumsfeld for lying about the Tillman ordeal. He's the best candidate out there. The only way to not know that is to not want to know that.
Go, take a look at all he's done and all he plans and you'll see what an excellent president he will be.

Kucinich/Edwards '08...the truth Ticket. Get behind it and we can make it happen

[krj44]

127. slap wes clark on

that ticket and you have my vote.

[Mythsaje]

128. That's my dream ticket, actually...

16 years of great Democratic leadership. :)

[MethuenProgressive]

130. The besotted and befuddled have their candy-date: Johnny Edwards

Edwards, successful smarmy trial lawyer that he is, has convinced many small groups before.
42 recs? Is the DU/Edwards email loop really that small?

[sellitman]

132. I will vote for Dennis Kucinich thank you.

He is the most Progressive and anti-war of the viable candidates. Edwards might be an option down the road. He is less offensive than the 2 MSM choices.

[hurricaneric]

151. Except he's not viable.

Kucinich has a bunch of grand liberal rhetoric, but he's no leader. We need him in Congress not the White House. He'd only divide the country further along partisan lines.

[sellitman]

276. You are drinking the Right Wing kool aide

I have listened to Dennis up close and personal and everything you said is wrong.

Everything!

[cleveramerican]

133. "opportunist" sticks to him like velcro

[Mythsaje]

161. And that makes him different from the other candidates HOW?

[NastyDiaper]

136. He's a good choice. Certainly not the only choice on the menu.

I'm ordering the special anyway.

[dogman]

137. "Right or wrong" says it all.

Unfortunately for Edwards the first choice on critical issues has been wrong. His ability to follow the people brings him around to the right choice eventually, but he is clearly not a leader. Unlike w he has the ability to change course and that is a good thing, but that is not what we need. We need a leader who makes the right choice first.

[Mythsaje]

163. And that would be? n/t

[dogman]

178. IWR, Patriot Act, war with Iran.

Check out his speeches before and after criticism on the net. See how quickly he adapts terms and phrases used by others. He really is a political windsock. I believe without his wife he would have disappeared from politics a few years ago.

[durrrty libby]

138. "The only choice" hahaha Delusions of Grandeur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

[JohnWxy]

140. keeps his cool when hassled by Republican punks and their friends in the media

first of all i like his policies, but i like the way he handles himself when heckled by 'news-media types' and Repub punk politicians. Dems being sincere people (well, for the most part) can be made to get mad when pointlessly hassled by the low life politicians of American Taliban (Neo-Cons) and there boot licking boys in the corporate media.

[hurricaneric]

147. Edwards is the man

I can't understand why he's not polling higher. He has the ideas, values, experience and intellect to run this country. I've been wavering as to whom to support for a while but Edwards is looking better and better all the time. He has tangible policies to combat poverty, the healthcare crisis and now terrorism. He's also in favor of a minimum wage for teachers, awesome! This man should be running at least neck and neck with Hillary and Obama.

[BrainGlutton]

157. Kucinich has plenty of substance in his speeches too, you know.

I've heard him speak. He says nothing vague and you KNOW he's saying exactly what he thinks. No opportunism, no hidden agenda.

Which is one reason why he has no chance of winning.

I'll vote for Kucinich in the primary (assuming Florida's primary votes will be allowed to count), but I'll get on board with Edwards if he wins the nomination. At least he understands that different social classes exist in America, and that they have conflicting interests in some respects, and he's not afraid to say so.

[Fabio]

162. LOL.

[Mythsaje]

172. I notice most of the worst detractors here

are "the usual suspects."

I don't see any of THEM effectively arguing FOR a candidate.

You all know who you are. Same shit, different thread.

[AtomicKitten]

176. no, we are just voters that give a crap about the repercussions of bad decisions

-- made by our elected officials.

If you choose to turn a blind eye to the facts, that is your prerogative, but that makes you "the usual suspect" in my book of someone that chooses brow-beating to counter legitimate discussion. Good luck peddling that here.

On edit: If you are going to introduce a thread telling us Edwards is the ONLY choice, expect to get some feedback.

[Mythsaje]

196. I did expect some feedback...

But I have yet to see any of YOU folks posting anything positive about any candidate worth reading.

It's all well and good to jump into a thread and slam someone else's candidate, but what else you got?

[AtomicKitten]

202. You erected the "ONLY CHOICE" monument.

You proposed the notion that Edwards is the ONLY choice. I beg to differ. So do others.

Sorry you aren't happy with the discussion, but discussion isn't cheerleading. If you are looking for cheerleading, you night choose your words more carefully in the premise/title of your OP.

[Mythsaje]

233. Point out where I said I spoke for anyone but myself...

I find the faux outrage at the title (enough that it spawned a whole 'nother thread) to be WAY over the top and more than a little disingenuous.

[AtomicKitten]

247. Your thread title employing absolute superlatives begs rebuttal.

If you don't like the caliber of discussion you created by stating Edwards is the best and ONLY choice, I would suggest you choose words that will solicit the kind of response you are looking for which apparently is cheerleading. This is a discussion board and this is a discussion, not cheerleading. We have a serious decision ahead and this is the time to talk about it.

[go west young man]

177. Edwards-Gore and we're walking away with at least 65% of the vote

in the general election. If the DNC goes with Hillary it will be close to 50/50 in the general election and the RNC will have enough of a margin to pull off a rigged election again.

[Baby Snooks]

183. Edwards-Gore?

Surely you meant Gore-Edwards.

[go west young man]

184. I would love to have Gore as the prez but I think the South is the

problem there. You have to carry the South to win. hence Carter and Clinton. Plus it has become obvious under the current dictatorship that the office of VP has more power. Gore could probably implement more of the plans to solve the country's problems as VP than as prez. I believe Gore won in 2000 but only by a small margin. We need to crush em this time.

[Baby Snooks]

187. Oh, I don't know..

Gore didn't do too badly in 2000. In fact, he won the election in 2000. By popular vote anyway. Or you have forgotten that Bush was installed, not elected?

[go west young man]

189. Believe me I know Bush was installed.

Once again though we need a larger margin this time around to ensure no manipulation of the votes. To be honest though I think it's all a lost cause as the DNC will run Hillary anyway and it will end up close and we'll probably have it stolen again. I think the DNC did Dean in in 2004 with the yell. They cost us the election by having no real guts. I don't expect it to be much different this time around sadly. Who knows I've been wrong before though I was convinced the Republicans were gonna pull off another election fraud during last years Congressional elections and I guess I was wrong. Of course they may have underestimated the amounts of people voting Dem so who knows?

[Mrspeeker]

188. LOL! Yeah well cept for everyone else running

So guess hes not the ONLY CHOICE, Because there is not a choice if theres only one...NO DUH!

[Mythsaje]

197. Well, considering I'm speaking for myself and not anyone else...

"Only" is fitting enough.

[gnvresident]

190. Wake Up!- We need Edwards!

It is true John Edwards has made a few mistakes- Mistakes he is willing to admit- Mistakes that will only make him a better leader- Has Bush ever admitted his mistake in the war? Don't you want a man in office who shows the potential for learning and growth?
To criticize his wealth, his hair and his house is to allow the tabloid-like headlines invade your brain. Watch the man speak, evaluate the issues and you will come to the same conclusion.. Edwards is the man we need in office. He could lead us into a new direction, down the path to One America. He values the individual, each person in this country would be important to him. How do you think he would handle a disaster like Katrina? We need someone we can be proud to call our leader.

With regards to his house consider this:


The implication seems to be that if you're rich - as John Edwards certainly is - you can't be sincere about wanting to fight poverty.

This makes no sense at all. I've yet to hear anybody complaining that Bill and Melinda Gates are hypocrites for the excellent work that their foundation does, for example.

It is, of course, the kind of non-story that political opponents - whether they're other Democrats seeking the 2008 presidential nominations, or Republicans who'll face him if he nabs it - like to see out there. I'm just surprised that the so-called "liberal media" is giving it play.

Generally anybody running for president is going to be wealthier than the average American - often considerably wealthier. Whether that's a good thing, a bad thing, or just how life works is sometime we could debate.

Why should his extravagant home make us think he doesn't care about poor people? Should we demand that everybody running for president give away their own wealth? Edwards has talked about how he came from a modest background and achieved success... and if anything, the house is a sign of that story, which seems to be true.
http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2007/02/john_edwards_has_a_really_big.html

[gaspee]

191. I've made it through

about 15 comments and all they are is about how Edwards sucks and Obama's the one. Nice thread hijacking, there, Obama supporters.

I don't support Obama after meeting him in person. Before that, it was a toss up between Obama and Edwards. Not that my vote counts or anything. Sigh.

I hate the primary system. We should have a national primary all on one day, then maybe more of us would feel like we have a stake in it.

[ripple]

198. It's not a hijack

Many Obama supporters favor him due to his opposition to the Iraq war. Given that Edwards was a very vocal supporter of the war and a co-sponsor of the resolution that took us to war, it stands to reason that many Obama supporters take issue with the fact that he's trying to claim the moral high ground on that issue.

I like your idea about having primaries occur on one day. That would definitely help to reduce the media manipulation that occurs after the first few primaries.

[AtomicKitten]

204. I take issue with him being touted as the ONLY CHOICE --

which is absurd on so many levels.

That proclamation was begging for rebuttal.

[ripple]

213. Agreed, particularly when the rationale has to do with terrorism

Given the fact that the Iraq fiasco has diverted our attention and resources from the real terrorism threats and has served as quite an effective recruitment tool for al qaeda, it's astounding that anyone would think that the guy who eagerly helped to steer us into this mess is THE ONE CHOICE to get us out. Unbelievable.

[AtomicKitten]

214. This should be a no-brainer --

and the answer lies within that statement.

I will not reward any of the Democrats that voted to abdicate Congress' war-declaring powers to Junior. Period. I am Irish and can hold a grudge til the end of time. I will gladly roll the dice on someone who has been right all along rather than endorse anyone that already PROVED their poor judgment in grave matters.

[Mythsaje]

223. I'm Irish too...

And that, in a word, is our WORST failing as a culture. Grudges benefit NO ONE.

[AtomicKitten]

236. I will hold my elected officials accountable with my vote.

We would be remiss as citizens to let this slide.

[ripple]

254. Their record is the only thing tangible

on which to base our vote. It amazes that people try to label Obama supporters as 'fans' who are enamored with someone to the point that we will overlook his shortcomings, yet many of these very same people don't have any problem marching in lock-step with a man who has shown detestable judgment that has resulted in horrific consequences. All because they trust his word.

I think I'll stick with the guy who spoke up when very few politicians would, out of fear that it would interfere with their political ambitions. I want a principled leader, not a political puppet.

Oh, and I'm half Irish, AK. Cheers! :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

257. Cheers.

[Mythsaje]

224. Where, precisely, did I claim to speak for anyone but myself?

Care to point it out?

[AtomicKitten]

248. your thread title for a start

And my responses reflect my POV.

:shrug:

[Mutineer]

200. The ONLY choice?

Funny, I think there will be quite a few names on that ballot besides his on my state's primary day.

[Mythsaje]

222. Where in the post as a whole did I claim to speak for anyone but myself?

I'm curious, because that seems to be a sticking point for entirely too many people responding.

[tomp]

273. you are so utterly clueless it makes me wonder...

...what drugs you are doing. it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the title of your thread is where you claimed to speak for others, becuase if edwards is ONLY choice, then the debate is over, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. you're speaking for them by stating the debate is over.

[rndmprsn]

207. K+R...

[Lucinda]

220. ...

[The Count]

246. I bookmarked this other Edwards "miracle" to add to this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3258629&mesg_id=3258629
Does Bill and Hillary owe their legacy to John Edwards?
because these euphemisms didn't start yesterday.

[Catchawave]

264. Here sweetie, another one to add.......

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Catchawave/252

[derby378]

263. I'm sticking with Bill Richardson

John Edwards only pays lip service to the Second Amendment. Bill Richardson actually supports it.

It would help Edwards greatly if he stopped listening to the Third Way/Brady Campaign crowd.

[tomp]

274. so now let's do the litmus test.

was ANYONE convinced to switch their support to edwards as a result of this thread?

was anyone convinced to switch their support from edwards to someone else as a result of this thread?

[PresidentObama]

275. I think you should change the thread title.

As an Edwards supporter, it really angers me to see a thread like that. Because all it does is turn away undecided voters and is bait for those who want to attack Senator Edwards. He's NOT the only choice, maybe the best choice, but certainly not the only one. It pisses me off to see words like "Only" and "Best" being used in the same sentence about a candidate, because all that will do is turn this thread into a flame war.