I have Edwards fatigue....

[coco77]

I was tired of hearing him in the last election so now, I just blank him out completely. What is so wonderful I don't see it. He seems to take from everyones talking points and then plays on it and he just seems to be so PHONY.

[Chipper Chat]

1. Seems to me I remember Cheney dismissing him too.

Treating him like a spoiled child at the VP debate.
Hang in there John.

[dogman]

101. The irony there,

Edwards had supported his policy on Iraq until Kerry picked him for VP candidacy. Maybe Cheney felt spurned since John left his team.

[Cameron27]

102. He was supporting his vote even after that.

As the VP candidate, he was arguing with Kerry not to admit their error in voting yes. Kerry didn't go along with him though.

[coco77]

108. Yes, that is the problem ...

he changes like the wind..He jumped out there to say that he was sorry because he knew that this would be an issue, if he was going the other way he would be going that way...

[gateley]

130. I watched the intro to the Univision debate

and as the moderators were explaining the set-up, a light behind them became brighter (the moderators were standing in front of the candidates). I just saw the torso and chin, but I knew it was Edwards who straightened up, chest out, readying himself for the cameras.

So the moderators are seated and begin introducing each candidate -- the camera was on the candidate during the introduction. It struck me that the first three candidates -- Obama, Clinton, Gravel -- were listening to the goings on and smiling at the moderators. Move from Gravel over to Edwards and Edwards's eyes were looking up to his right-- like at a monitor -- and as soon as he saw himself on camera he turned DIRECTLY TO THE CAMERA (as opposed to the others kind of interacting with the moderators) and plastered THAT LOOK on his face. His Presidential look. I hadn't realized it before, but he does the same thing during each debate or when he's being interviewed on TV. I didn't go looking for this, it may have just been because it was such an UP feeling watching the others being introduced, then that practiced, official look of Edwards was a glaring difference.

I've said before that he's growing on me this time around, but I've always had a feeling or a sense that he's too polished and rehearsed -- too perfect.

[GreenArrow]

133. Try watching Edwards with the sound turned off sometime.

Three dollar bill.

[JDPriestly]

2. I have the opposite opinion. To me Edwards is the only one who is real.

He is the only one that holds my attention. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[superkia]

55. WOW! I think Kucinich is at the top of the real category.

But he only stands up for the constitution and our rights as Americans, so hes unelectable. :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

76. That is not why he is unelectable.

He is unelectable because of his personality. His message is great.

[superkia]

78. LOL, come on and Bush was electable. The guy cant speak sentences.

[JDPriestly]

87. Look. I would vote for Kucinich.

As a matter of fact, I will vote for any Democratic candidate, probably even Hillary, unless the candidate does something really, really terrible. Bush is an idiot. Kucinich is brilliant. But Bush is the kind of guy who knows how to pull the wool over peoples' eyes and charm when he needs to. Bush knew how to sound like he knew what he was talking about when he did not.

Kucinich knows what he is talking about, but he can't convince ordinary people that he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't have the ability to present his complex ideas in a simple way that ordinary people understand and like.

Edwards can present his ideas in ways that people understand. It is not just his choice of words. It is his style, the way he focuses on the person who is speaking, the way he listens and responds. That is what makes him electable. He makes people feel that he cares about them personally, and I think he does care about the people he meets very personally. Kucinich probably does too, but he does not convey his caring to the people he speaks to. He appeals to very smart people, but he does not know how to appeal to a lot of people that Edwards can appeal to. It is unfortunate but true. They are both great people. Edwards is more electable. The polls reflect it.

[GreenArrow]

95. Kucinich does know what he is talking about

and actually, I think he does convince people he knows what he's talking about. They just don't want to vote for him, because frankly, most aren't ready to accept the sorts of fare he's bringing to the table. Edwards, on the other hand, charms people into believing he knows what he's talking about; he's all about emotional manipulation. It doesn't matter if he actually does care about the people he is talking to, so long as he makes them feel he does. He doesn't ask them to think. Politicians like Reagan, Clinton, and even baby Bush were and are masters at that sort of thing. Good politics, maybe, but it makes for bad policy. Personally, that sort of glib charm is utterly transparent and repellent to me.

[gateley]

147. I think he's in a tie with Gravel. n/t

[AnotherGreenWorld]

125. It's a fact that Edwards has changed his positions.

On what basis do you think Edwards is real?

Telling Americans to stop using SUVs...and upon hearing this, who doubted that it would be revealed that John Edwards himself has SUVs?

Owning a 28,000 sq. ft. mansion while pretending to care about poverty and global warming?

$400 hair cuts while pretending to care about poverty? How many lives could he save with one of his haircuts?

Investing in a hedge fund that foreclosed on the homes of victims of hurricane Katrina while pretending to care not just about poverty but especially about the very victims he made money off of?

Voting for NAFTA and now pretending to be against?

Voting for the IWR and now because it's politically expedient apologizing for it?

Not just voting for the Patriot Act, but helping write the Patriot Act, and now pretending to be the left's candidate in the race?

Not doing anything about poverty while in the Senate and then having poverty as the central theme of his campaign?

And on and on.

Where was Edwards when we needed him? Well, he was doing what was politically expedient...just as he is now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

143. So has Obama and every other candidate. As to your list, it is hard for a lawyer to vote on NAFTA

Edwars is amazing. He voted for NAFTA when he wasn't even in Congress (which says something about the credibility of your list)! :crazy:

As to your list, we can discuss them point by point in another thread. How about a thread on each specific talking point?

[buff2]

3. I have Obama fatigue........

and his big mouthed wife telling personal things about her candidate husband is sooooo uncouth. I wish they would both go away. It's an embarrassment for the Democratic party.

[Clintonista2]

12. Me too

He gives one good speech at the 2004 convention, and he's suddenly superman.

[Colobo]

38. He's not Superman. Just better than Hillary.

[coco77]

42. I think that Hillary can stand up to the repugs in the debates...

as well as Biden...I don't want to see a candidate looking like a deer getting caught in the headlights I am waiting for the next debate and I will be watching Edwards especially, if I can stand it, I may have to change the channel if he keeps going on and on about some proposal. Just give the damn answer and shut up!

[Catchawave]

45. Damn that Edwards and his attention to detail.....

This is more fun than my thread :D

[coco77]

46. He may think that he is giving attention to detail,...

it begins to sound like rambling....

[Clintonista2]

63. Sorry, I meant he's seen as superman

Trust me, I know he's not superman.

[Colobo]

39. The only place Obama will go is to the White House in Jan. 09.

[Cha]

61. Yeah, real "embarassment"..

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: The EmbarASSment to the Democratic Party are the dinos who want to continue the spilling of BLOOD AND TREASURE.

[jillan]

4. At the beginning of the campaign Edwards was talking about 2 Americas

and I thought "Oh boy, here we go again" zzzzzz.

But have you heard him lately?
Give him another chance. He is talking like a man
that could actually lead this country in foreign and domestic affairs.

[coco77]

9. Even though, I agree with him about the two americas

that is what wore me out last time hearing him repeating it over and over. Now, when I hear him he seems to be attacking as though it will get him ahead, it may in the long run. I am wondering how he will stand up against the CONS and if he or obama will be able to stand up when most of the talk will be about foreign policy.

I knew that this was what would be the problem when bush stole the election. I told my family he would begin to cause problems all over the world, I was watching and waiting to see how he would act when it came to dealing with foreign leaders and then I watched in amazement when no one said anything when he kept sending Colin Powell and others to speak about world problems.I am not saying that Edwards or Obama would have the problem with world leaders. I am talking about the Debates.

[jillan]

28. I heard him on Cspan the other day - he said that he would

hire people as cabinet leaders that are strong in their field, and would not be afraid to
tell him that they disagree with him. He said that way the two of them could discuss it and come to an agreement.
I could of kissed the tv when he said that.

I agree with his 2 Americas - but it was getting to be the same old speech.

I worry more about Obama standing up to the cons than Edwards, but that is just me.

[saltpoint]

14. What I love about being a Democrat is when Democrats of different camps

are enjoined to a larger cause and call on the strengths of their respective candidates to help in the problem-solving.

That is the essence of your post here, IMO, and I stand and applaud it.

Thank you.

[Xipe Totec]

5. you blank him out completely,

so much so that here you are, talking about Edwards...

:shrug:

[coco77]

11. I am hearing talking about him because ...

I am have been watching all of these posts about how wonderful he is and I have been wondering what everyone is seeing because, I don't see it and I didn't see last time.

[venable]

13. kind of lost about what the point of this thread is...

'he's so phony'.....?

excuse me:

'he's so PHONY'.....?

astute analysis. bravo.

[coco77]

17. The point is ,...

he out of all of the candidates seems to be saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear, and he won't be doing half of what he is saying and neither will the others. He and gravel are the weakest of the candidates.

[Nutmegger]

6. That's too bad because he's been really speaking truth to power lately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3477829
Daily Kos- John Edwards- "You Have to Take them On" (by TomP)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3506118
MSNBC's Craig Crawford: " Edwards Leads with 9/11 Specifics"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3492585&mesg_id=3492585
Democratic Underground - Edwards- -...No more secret prisons, no more illegal spying on the American people...-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x52755
John Edwards - A New Strategy Against Terrorism (9-7-07)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x51334
John Edwards - Ga. Southwestern State Univ. w- Jimmy Carter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3479241&mesg_id=3479241
Democratic Underground - John Edwards- -My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food!-

[femmocrat]

7. I have Hillary fatigue....

the sound of her voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. eeeeeeeeek!

But I can watch Edwards and Obama over and over... never get tired of either of them. I'm not tired of Biden either... he usually has an interesting point to make.

[FormerDittoHead]

56. Me too.

I was so tired of seeing and hearing about her continuously for 8 years, so now, I just blank her out completely.

What is so wonderful I don't see it. She seems to take from everyones talking points and then plays on it and she just seems to be so PHONY.

[Catchawave]

8. Why? Because I asked you a hard question ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3507817

You can answer it here :hi:

[saltpoint]

10. I like him more than ever.

Thanks for the cheap shot, though.

[coco77]

15. There is no cheap shot..

I am telling you how I feel and I have felt this way since the campaign in 2004..

[saltpoint]

19. Well by all means get yourself some Mountain Dew.

Plenty of caffeine in those suckers. Perk ya right up.

[coco77]

22. I guess so ...

because Edwards sure in the hell is not going to do it...

[spooky3]

24. why don't you tell us what is wrong with his specific policy proposals, or

better yet, what you like about your favorite candidate?

[coco77]

25. He and all of the candidates can spout ,...

all of the proposals they want, they will not be doing most of them. I don't have a candidate...

[spooky3]

30. Yeah, really Bush is basically the same as all of them too.

I mean, who cares what the proposals are, right?

:sarcasm:

[coco77]

33. Oh, I care about the proposals but,,,

Edward is not doing it for me, quit trying to convince me. Are you trying to tell me that I like your asshole of a president.

[spooky3]

37. I'm not interested in attempting to convince you. I'm asking you to do a

better job of making your case by pointing out one of its weaknesses.

[coco77]

40. How about I don't see what you and some of the other posters see..

and you can criticize Obama and Hillary or any of the others, I don't see what you see in Edwards. I have tried to listen and in the debates he irritates me so bad the way he keeps going on and on trying to convince the audience. I don't see it..

[saltpoint]

26. There's a proverb that goes, "The girl who can't dance says the band can't play."

[coco77]

32. Here is another one...

The guy who is getting desperate says anything possible knowing he can't do half of it, so that he can win...

[saltpoint]

35. No, that's not a proverb. That's a bias.

[coco77]

44. No, that is looking at a situation or person ...

and summing up what I have seen so far, but I may change my opinion...

[venable]

51. do you have ANYTHING to say about his positions? nt

[Catchawave]

59. ...but he slept at a Holiday Inn last night and got 7 votes :)

:rofl:

:hi: venable

[coco77]

109. He doesn't have any ..

he takes a little bit of everyone elses..

[Lucinda]

140. examples please? nt

[saltpoint]

146. What a darn cute piece of reductionist

bullshit.

Darn cute, mind you.

But bullshit all the same.

And increasingly and visibly, a minority view.

[jenmarie]

16. Really, it's only here

and kos where one can feel the fatigue you talk about. Corporate Press barely mentions him except when he makes a silly mistake, and he seems to do that fairly regularly. I don't know if JE fans have different polls, but the ones I see posted at kos usually have him in 3rd, and usually HRC is way out front. Now to me, THAT'S disturbing. She's the one they want to go up against, and if we can't stop it, I'm afraid we're looking at a President Huckleberry -- uh, I mean Huckabee. Theocratic States of America, here we come. :(

[reality based]

18. I think he's a good man with a good message and would make a good

president. I have to admit to being a little put off by the sweet soft southern accent but that's my problem. I would like to see a yankee Democrat get elected president again just to prove it can be done.

[DURHAM D]

20. JE has been campaigning for the presidency for 7 years.

Perhaps that explains it.

[coco77]

23. That sounds about right...

I can't stand to see Hillary or Obama either...

[Catchawave]

29. What lucky candidate has your support then?

:shrug:

[coco77]

34. none at the moment but,,,

I am will vote for Biden in the primary, just because I am tired of everyone trying to convince me that the so called top tier candidates are the best. I will vote for any of them if nominated except Gravel...

[Catchawave]

58. I like Biden, tell me why I should support him?

I have all night, expecting a lady named Gabrielle soon :)

[gateley]

60. Just start checking out his coverage on YouTube and the debates...

I'm not articulate enough to succintly state the 'whys', but for me, the more I see him, the more impressed I become. I'd rather he speak for himself, no way could I do justice to that.

[rurallib]

21. I seem to have only RepubliKlan fatigue

Love to hear what all the Dems have to say. But RepubliKlans never seem to change their tune. Exceot Ron Paul who is a scary scary feller.

[saltpoint]

27. Agree on all counts. Nice post, rurallib.

[gnvresident]

31. I could never grow weary of Edwards

I could could never grow weary of him or his speeches. He is out there getting his message out and he is the leader we need. Even though he lives in the wealthy America he knows that the majority of us do not. He knows he was lucky to get where he is. He knows if you let the big corporations, the insurance companies and the drug companies sit at the table they will eat all the food! He is not afraid to speak his mind and display his frustration with the current administration. Our country needs him in the worst way!

[coco77]

36. I think that some people are just voting for Edwards..

because of his looks...

[Catchawave]

43. Wow, we're getting somewhere

/snark.

[coco77]

48. That is not why I am say I have Edwards fatigue,,,

I have stated the reasons, but some people are not listening to anything they are just looking at him and voting because of his looks, they don't know anything about any of the candidates and they may get angry because others look at more than looks and won't say that they will vote for edwards because he states some proposals...

[saltpoint]

52. Do you think he's hotter than Fred Thompson?

That's a tough call here at our house.

[coco77]

110. Who gives a damn,,,

I am not voting on looks...

[saltpoint]

142. Maybe you should. A fair assessment and evaluation of candidates'

positions doesn't seem to attract you as a process.

[GreenArrow]

96. I think you're right

.

[illinoisprogressive]

41. I have Billary fatigue. Have for years.

they keep talking like it 1999.
They don't seem to understand it's 2007, Their time has come and gone and that they come off as phonies.
They still think the politics are the same as in the 90s.
And with the msm plastering Hillary all over every single day with constant gushing like she actually says anything except for alot of empty retoric. And then, she thinks spending 8 years flying around waving is real experience.
Of course, the press plays along. They seem to think a subway series would be fun. oh gee!
I just wish the Clintons would take their corrupt dealings and go and exit the stage gracefully. oh, wait, we are talking about the Clintons. nothing they ever do is classy.

[Skink]

47. Check out Kucinich for a bit. Edwards/Kucinich 08

[penguin7]

49. Edwards is not electable

His vote for the IWR is an absolute disaster. This point cannot be overemphasized. He will lose any election on this point alone.

His huge house and his talk about Americans sacrificing is a TV campaign right there in itself

His health care plan requiring a tax increase makes him a big spending liberal with big government programs. And he has other programs that require raising taxes such as his college program and all that.

His other bad votes in Congress make him a flip flopper.

He lost the debate with Cheney. He is not good at debating.

As John Nichols writes in the nation,
"Edwards may be "the angry populist" now. But he has not always been on labor side. Edwards -- who supported North Carolina's anti-union "Right-to-Work" law when he ran for the Senate in 1998 -- broke with the AFL-CIO to cast several key votes in favor of the Bill Clinton administration's free-trade agenda when he served in the Senate."

Edwards mansion will undercut his environmental and populist themes as this quote from FOX news shows:
"But the candidate doesn't believe Americans are doing a good job of living like Jesus. Edwards — who has drawn fire from some for his new $6 million, 28,000 square-foot mansion in North Carolina — says, "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually."

Also his rapid eye blinking is another disaster. THis indicates that someone is shifty and is lying.

[venable]

54. good grief - I just saw the bottom of the barrel:

I disagreed with everything in your post (ie 'he would lose the election because of his IWR vote' - this is patently absurd. you may not vote for him because of that vote, but most americans recognize this as what it is: bush's war. period). You quote FOX news, etc... You decide that he is not good for labor because of some past votes, in spite of the fact that ACTUAL labor rank and file, as well as labor leadership, find him the best candidate....and on and on:

but then you wrote the following:

'Also his rapid eye blinking is another disaster. THis indicates that someone is shifty and is lying.'


and I realize I don't need to take your post apart point by point, you do it by yourself by writing such a preposterous sentence.

[penguin7]

57. People are calling Kucinich

not electable for physical characteristics, but it is not fair for Edwards?

This is a worse physical trait than any that Kucinich has.

It may be a low blow to go there, but it is there.

I also forget to mention that Edwards is a big time trial lawyer which is not at all popular with Americans.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. The IWR disqualifies Edwards in many minds...

And is one of the things that makes him unelectable.

[Catchawave]

68. Many minds? A.N.S.W.E.R. ?

Big help they've been.

[penguin7]

71. The GOP will hone in on that IWR vote

The GOP will show Edwards statements campaigning for the war against his later statements. It will be a mess, and this will be the issue of the campaign.

[1932]

81. They will? That would hurt them more than Edwards. What Republican running will be agains the war?

[Milo_Bloom]

105. Its a matter of "flip flopping".

They can easily paint his "change of heart" of being one of convenience and not of principles (because it was).

[coco77]

111. Correct!

and this is the reason why I think that we all should have it out here, and talk about what is not being talked about before the candidates are chosen...

[penguin7]

84. How is it Bush's war if Edwards was calling the dogs of war also?

[GreenArrow]

85. It's America's war

Pretending otherwise won't change that.

[saltpoint]

77. Just one person's take here, penguin7, but I think your dismissal of

John Edwards is bordering on counter-productive. Integrity of purpose has never been a problem for Dennis Kucinich; getting elected president on integrity alone is another story. We're talkin' 3 or 4 % in the polling, roughly no higher than he received in most contests in 2004. I believe he did well in Hawaii and in Ohio, but Ohio, his home state, he finished at 9% in the 04 primary, with Kerry winning that one and Edwards a respectable second.

I wish you had responded to the notion I posited to you a short while back on DU regarding the affinity many Kucinich supporters and many John Edwards supporters feel for each other.

The mutual respect is genuine and pervasive. I see it at rallies and county events all the time, since 2004's primary calendar.

Bush has left a huge mess. We're going to need a lot of good people to clean it up and either your guy or my guy might be our nominee, or perhaps neither will be. Either way, the mess remains and the more dedicated people we have to clean it up the better we'll all be sooner.

[penguin7]

83. Edward's supporters are dismissive of Kucinich

I have a problem with that also, but I do not think it would hurt Edwards in the general election.

If somehow Edwards wins the nomination, my posts here won't hurt him. The GOP is well aware of all this stuff much better than I am.

Kucinich has a real message, Edwards does not. Edwards is a corporate candidate just like Clinton and Obama. Maybe you need to be a corporate candidate to have a shot. I hope not.

It is not smart to pretend that Edwards does not have serious elect-ability problems. I see too much pretending here and especially over at DailyKos.

[venable]

86. to call Edwards a corporate candidate is absurd

and Dennis would be the first to tell you that, I wager.

the reason that Edwards and Kucinich get along is that Kucinich was a strong supporter of Edwards in 04. Edwards is now even more in line with DK's policies, so I suspect that holds.

This IWR vote will be held against Edwards is equally absurd. It is held against him on DU, but almost nowhere else in the universe, as it should not be.

Unless you just dislike Edwards you see it for what it is - he got intel from Tenet, flat out unambiguous intel that was not proven wrong until later. He voted the right way if he believed tenet, and at the time he had no reason not to.

(for the record I was an Edwards supporter then and I wrote to him regularly saying don't believe tenet, believe Ritter, but that was not his choice. He was wrong. He said he was wrong and fights every day to end the war. This is exactly how the country will see it, not through the hateful lens of a number of DU posters. Of this I have no doubt whatsoever.

Get out, look around.

[Cameron27]

91. Edwards didn't have to rely on Tenet ...

that's completely disengenuous, and so is the statement that the intel was unambiguous. Edwards was a member of the Intel Committee, he never bothered to read the NIE documents, the only Democratic member of the committee to chose NOT to read them. The documents pointed to the lack of evidence for the Niger yellowcake, the aluminum tubes and the entire "Saddam WMD" story.

He went to the SAME closed door sessions that his Democratic colleagues went to, and while Durbin & Graham came away shocked that the intel was clearly being cooked, Edwards, on the other hand, stepped up not only to vote for, but to sponsor Lieberman's IWR.

Edwards, of course, has said his vote on the war was “wrong,” but he wasn’t simply wrong about the war. He behaved irresponsibly. Edwards’s failure to read the National Intelligence Estimate prior to the vote was more egregious than Clinton’s. Edwards was a member of the Intelligence Committee and was AWOL when the committee’s leading Democrats were voicing skepticism about the war’s justification. In June 2003, when it had become clear that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, I asked Edwards’s staff whether he would be interested in discussing what Spencer Ackerman and I were discovering about the administration’s attempt to deceive the public and Congress. I was told that Edwards didn’t want to touch the issue, and he didn’t. Instead, as the insurgency in Iraq began to rage and Americans began to suspect they had been bamboozled about the war, he continued to talk about the “two Americas.”

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w070604&s=judis060407

And as soon as he could, Peter Zimmerman the scientific adviser rushed to the US capital to read the CIA’s classified NIE on Iraq weapons of mass destruction. He read the NIE twice. He was, he later said, astonished. The document offered bold and definitive conclusions in its key judgments. Iraq, it said, “has chemical and biological weapons” and is “reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.” But the actual evidence, he thought, was hardly overpowering.

Deeper in the NIE there was information that undercut those dark conclusions on critical points - the aluminum tubes, the unmanned aerial drums, the nuclear program. Some government agencies had argued that the NIE was wrong. “The dissents left out. They are in bold, almost like flashing lights they are called.” He had read on NIEs before and never seemed to sense as striking as these. I remember thinking he later said, “Boy, there is nothing there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they cannot believe there actually are major WMD programs.


http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1383/trans ...


“INR’s Alternative View: Iraq’s Attempts to Acquire Aluminum Tubes

Some of the specialized but dual-use items being sought are, by all indications, bound for Iraq’s missile program. Other cases are ambiguous, such as that of a planned magneti-production line whose suitability for centrifuge operations remains unknown. Some efforts involve non-controlled industrial material and equipment—including a variety of machine tools—and are troubling because they would help establish the infrastructure for a renewed nuclear program. But such efforts (which began well before the inspectors departed) are not clearly linked to a nuclear end-use. Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf

[venable]

92. no, you don't have to rely on tenet, but why wouldn't you rely on the person

overseeing the entire intel operation, which produced the NIE.

Let me ask you this: did everyone who read the NIE vote against the war? did every dem? why not, if the NIE was so clear that there was no threat.

If we agree, then, that the NIE was not that unambiguous, then would you not rely on the head of the CIA? His face-to-face word to you?

Who is being disingenuous here?

[Cameron27]

100. I don't know if every Democrat who read the NIE

then voted for against the IRW. If they read it and voted yes, then their judgment should be questioned. The problem is that Edwards didn't read it. He's a lawyer. That's like trying to argue a case without researching all the evidence available, and relying on the word of one supposed expert. It's a laughable argument, and you're the one being disingenuous here.

[venable]

141. I think you're barking up the wrong tree

the error in judgement is not that someone did or didn't vote 'yes' after reading the NIE.

the NIE said, basically, 'there's a big problem with saddam and wmd', even if nigerian yellow cake ain't one.

for some reason, DUers have developed some myth that the NIE told the truth for anyone bothering to read it.

that's simply not the case.


the tree you should be barking up is that those who voted yes put too much trust in w to follow the process outlined in the IWR. that trust was misplaced.


and, again, Edwards did or didn't read the whole NIE (my take on the various statements is he skimmed it)...he had already heard, been told in committee and in face to face meetings with Tenet, the contents of the NIE. So he didn't read it. Sure, he should have, just in case there it might contain some kernel of info that had been purposely withheld from committee, but he didn't. I really don't think it's quite the shocking, shocking I tell you, fact that many here treat it as. He hardly went ignorant into the vote. He went wrong, but he didn't go ignorant of the american intel assessment at the time. If fact, he probably was considerably less ignorant than those who ONLY read the NIE.

I really don't like being called disingenuous, and I don't suspect you do, either.

[saltpoint]

94. The owner of the dailykos site is on the record as being anti-Kucinich.

He's been challenged on that point many times and doesn't hesitate to dig deeper. Don't look for much pro-Dennis commentary from Kos, cuz it ain't gonna happen.

John Edwards has a lot of supporters on a lot of sites, not just on Kos. I'm not into Kos's site much. It's by no means the worst out there, but there are better ones, and we're on one of those right now.

Trial lawyers who take on big corporations -- and win -- don't carry the mantle of pro-corporate candidate in the way you claim. I'm not trying to make this personal, but you simply have that point wrong, IMO. Edwards is drawing fire from the Right and from mainstream media because the corporate state senses, accurately, that his presidency would mean significant reform in the way business is done. If the mainstream media, which is the corporate mentality manifest on a tv screen or in publications on-line and in newsboxes etc. is seen as favoring one candidate over another, it isn't a long trip between that awareness and realizing that interests are being threatened.

In degree, someone is going to be threatened with all of our candidates. The farRight fundies are not going to like any of our candidates' judicial picks, but I'm likely to like all of them. Senator Clinton is not my first choice in Democrats but give me her judicial appointments over Mitt Romney's or Mike Huckabee's any day, any day, any day.

I urge you on the Kucinich/Edwards matter to go to a John Edwards event and wear your Kucinich button. My prediction is that you will be welcomed. They're Edwards supporters, so you may get some joshing, but I doubt seriously you'll be booted out or ostracized. Go to find some commonality, and I'm betting you'll find some.

[penguin7]

104. Edwards health insurance plan is a huge gift to

the corporate insurance companies.

As John Nichols writes in the nation,
"Edwards may be "the angry populist" now. But he has not always been on labor side. Edwards -- who supported North Carolina's anti-union "Right-to-Work" law when he ran for the Senate in 1998 -- broke with the AFL-CIO to cast several key votes in favor of the Bill Clinton administration's free-trade agenda when he served in the Senate."

And he voted for the bankruptcy bill and some bank bills.

Edwards now has much anti-corporate rhetoric but I do not see much substantive. The guy changes so much who the hell knows where he really stands? He certainly does not have strong core convictions.

He has also gotten reasonably good press, but the press reports on the candidates that have the big campaign funds. Edwards has had weak fund raising, his lawyer buddies aren't giving like last time.

I am not at all impressed by Edwards trial lawyer anti-corporate credentials.

[saltpoint]

134. You're resolutely obstinate on being confused, evidently.

Treatable but not curable, politically speakin'.

[venable]

144. this is such a bizarre accusation that I wonder what you're really doing?

ask the insurance companies if they want Edwards health care plan.

really, i don't know if you're joking or not at this point.

[Telly Savalas]

50. Edwards fatigue already? It's only week one.

I know it was a really poor effort by the Chiefs against Houston, but I think Herm Edwards can get more out of this team.

The defence wasn't too bad -- with one of Houston's TD's coming from a big play, one could say that the Chiefs only allowed two sustained drives which resulted in points for Houston -- and both of those were only field goals.

The offence looked pretty weak, but there's a number of new guys and given a few more weeks together, they will hopefully improve.

[coco77]

112. Its not just Edwards..

its the whole campaign, it started too early..

[Telly Savalas]

132. Football season started the same time of year it usually does.

I don't see that being an issue.

[question everything]

53. But if he is the nominee

you will vote for him, right?

Think of the Supreme Court. This is what counts.

[Milo_Bloom]

65. I wouldn't even consider voting for him.

[gateley]

62. He's grown on me since the last time around...which really surprised me.

I still find his reference to Cheney's daughter during their VP debate pathetic. It was so obvious that his handlers told him to get in a jab about her -- I thought his bowing to that showed what a weasel he was.

This go-around he sounds like more his own man. I'm to the point where I wouldn't be devastated if he receives the nomination.

My gut feeling, though, is that he wouldn't be the best one to lead the country. (My gut feeling is that Biden would be the best.)

[Milo_Bloom]

64. He seems phony, because he is.

This is what makes him the easiest candidate to beat, John Edwards doesn't agree with anything John Edwards has to say.

He cares about the poor BUT voted for the bankrupcy bill and represented funds that profited from Katrina.

He is anti-war, but voted for the war AND in 2004 (after all lies had been revealed) stated he didn't regret his decisions and would vote the same way again.

He is against lobyist money, but accepted 13,500 from lobbyists and then made a big deal about giving back only 3,500 of it.

He makes a statement (mandatory checkups) then claims he didn't mean what he clearly said (It wasn't an isolated slip of the tounge if you listen to the speech).

John Edwards doesn't have princpled positions, he has positions based on popularity and that is what makes him the easiest candidate for the GOP to defeat.

Luckily, if the democrats go insane and give the nod to a snake oil salesman like Edwards, there will likely be a viable third party challenge.

[tkmorris]

67. So, you're saying that

President Giuliani would be better than President Edwards.

Gotcha.

[Milo_Bloom]

69. Would be exactly the same.

Edwards is a follower and capitulator, has been his entire career.

If you want a candidate who will bow to pressure, Edwards is your man.

Guliani would be a waste of 4 years... an angry, ineffective leader who would just cause gridlock and be easy to defeat in 2012.

Edwards would be a waste of 4 years... a capitulating, eneffective leader who would give in to whowever makes the most noise and would be easy to defeat in 2012.

In reality, i would trust Guliani with the Supreme Court more than I would trust Edwards.

[tkmorris]

72. Edwards and Giuliani are equilavent?

Sir, I couldn't disagree with you more. The idea is sheer lunacy. I think it best we just leave it there.

[saltpoint]

73. I'm counting two similar traits between the two men. Both are bipeds. And

both have political careers east of the Mississippi River.

After that, the ravine dividing them is wide and deep.

[Milo_Bloom]

74. The effect is equivalent.

Both would be ineffective leaders who would be booted out of office in 4 years.

The difference is that having a capitulator like Edwards in office would lead to a more radical right wing wacko in 2012.

[venable]

90. you would trust rudy more than edwards?????

bye-bye for good, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. life is too short for this stuff.

[Catchawave]

70. I was going to guess a Fredhead....:)

He's got a hotter wife /snark.

[elizm]

75. I have DU GD Politics fatigue. nt

[struggle4progress]

79. Yeah, it's tiresome listening to all these worn-out folk whine about their fatigue

[1932]

80. If you have fatigue now, you're going to be in real trouble when he's president.

[PurityOfEssence]

82. Note the Clark avatar...

Man, this gets old.

[last_texas_dem]

89. I saw that

Surely nothing more than a coincidence, right?

[coco77]

114. Could you tell me what that coincidence might be?

If don't like certain things about Edwards so what, is he automatically suppose to be crowned presidental nominee for the party, is it that hard to hear some criticism about your candidate? If he or his supporters can't take a little criticism, what in the hell is he going to do when the CONS get a hold of him...

[last_texas_dem]

148. Just commenting on something I've noticed here for the last several years

A majority of the Clark supporters on here that I've observed (at least the prominent ones) are strongly anti-Edwards and a majority of Edwards's harshest critics on here are or were Clark supporters. Like I said in my earlier post, admittedly being sarcastic, it could all be coincidental. It has just become quite predictable and gotten very old after a while.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[coco77]

115. Oh, you are so funny

:rofl:. NOT!

[QC]

98. The Clarkintologists are the most consistently negative people at DU.

And it's a pity, because Clark himself is a good man and would make a fine president.

[coco77]

117. So you have a name for people with certain avatars..

or who disagree with your candidate what are you a Edwardologist do you specialize in Edwards or do you have others... I am not a specialist on Clark or anyone else, but I know phonyness when I see it... Negative about what? I state what is obvious to a lot of people and I am given a title because I disagree with what I have seen and heard as it relates to Edwards,it is what it is maybe he will sharpen it up before the candidate is chosen..

[draft_mario_cuomo]

99. The funny thing is the bitter Clark fan line of attack on Edwards

Of all things supporters of a guy who was not even a Democrat in 2001 and was flirting with the GOP* (before 9/11 and Iraq gave him an opening to run for prez as a Democrat), which was courting him to run in Arkansas, are obsessed with painting JE as a phony opportunist. :rofl:

*To be fair, the principled progressive Democrat was flirting with both parties in 2001. I am glad he saw the light in a span of just 2 years--just in time to run as a progressive Democrat for president. :rofl:

[coco77]

113. So, the Clark avatar is suppose to mean what?

what it means to me is, I voted for Clark in the primaries in 2004 and I WAS hoping that he would get in earlier in this campaign but I don't believe that he will,that doesn't have anything to do with Edwards. I haven't really paid attention to if you have any other posts in response to my fatigue but,I am quite sure that you have a problem with some of the other candidates just as I do with Edwards.

I have been watching Edwards for a while now and he is really getting tiresome and it has nothing to do with wanting Clark as a candidate. There are some here who are waiting for Gore if they had his avatar would that mean that they couldn't state their opinion on another candidate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

137. lol every Clarkie claims his/her dislike for Edwards has nothing to do with Clark

It is just a big fluke that virtually every Clarkie here is anti-Edwards. :rofl:

[PurityOfEssence]

152. It goes like this:

No candidate's supporters on this board are more vehemently opposed to Edwards as a group than Clark supporters. The Edwards supporters are not as harsh as a group in return, and there’s no other rivalry that compares. Not even the Obama-Clinton squabblers can keep up.

Maybe you haven't been a part of that. Maybe you haven't seen it. Since your post count is as low as it is, perhaps I wrong you by the association, but the antipathy has been ENDLESS and RELENTLESS since the primary campaign of '04. There's no other rivalry that even comes close.

Since, for a long time, Clark had the biggest group of supporters on this board, and since the Edwards supporters were such a small group until sometime earlier this year, it was a tiresome cliche. Note how many agreed with my observation. Even people who don't much care for Edwards notice it.

To many of the Clark supporters, Edwards should have bowed down and bowed out when the Savior rode in to our rescue late in the season. Edwards' wicked egomania thwarted their very dreams and justified Clark's lies and greasy tactics, even if to no avail or apology.

Since then, the scurrilous impediment to the General's rightful triumph has met with well-deserved hounding to no end, and as just punishment for his baseness is to be henceforth hectored throughout eternity. So rank are his crimes that his tormentors are released from any bounds of comportment and needn't even admit their fixation. They smite with the certainty of the saintly, and it just makes the rest of us puke.

Clear enough?

[calteacherguy]

88. Me too. I think a lot of folks are really tired of his shenanigans. K&R. nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

97. Another bitter and broken Clark fan who blames Edwards for Clark's spectacular failure 4 years ago..

As if Edwards caused Clark to blow a national lead in a matter of weeks... After all, it was Edwards who forced Clark, who ran as a progressive Democrat in 2003, to speak at a Republican fund-raiser in 2001 (and the bitter Clark fans are obsessed with calling Edwards, who was a Democrat in 2001, a phony opportunist of all things :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ), one of the key revelations that caused Clark to quickly fade once people learned things about him.

[coco77]

116. That is so funny,,,

let me laugh too :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:. Bitter about what! If Edwards is desperate how is that my fault... I can't help it that you have a problem with my avatar, Clark isn't running. I have a problem with all of the candidates in one way or the other but, Edwards stands out more than the others and it is not good..

[Catchawave]

121. Can't be a Clark supporter, Wesley loves him some Edwards now...

http://securingamerica.com/printready/transcript_061228.htm

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I like John Edwards. I think he has to be taken in as a very serious contender for the Presidency in 2008. He's a man who is clearly shown his motivation and his determination and, and one of the things that I think all Americans want and I think people all over the world want is they want the American President to be fully committed, his whole life, being and essence to the job and the public responsibilities that come with the office of the Presidency.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

138. Ouch! So I guess Clark realizes Edwards had nothing to do with his former boss dissing him...

...when asked about him by a student after giving a speech at a college...

[Tom Rinaldo]

131. So it just takes seeing a Clark logo on some anti-Edwards poster

to put you back into this shit again, eh d_m_c?

Personally I think the most negative people posting on DU are those who keep deflecting discussion off of a topic they don't want to talk about onto Wes Clark or some of his supporters. You are being pathetic when you act like this and I really am disappointed. You act as if you don't have high respect for Wes Clark personally but of course you really do. That is why I used the word pathetic, I am not just throwing around words. Because you still get steamed if anyone who identifies him or her self with Clark in any way says anything negative about Edwards, you recycle attack lines used against someone who you know is a good Democrat who is fighting for what you yourself believe in. That is what I find pathetic.

Look around, Wes Clark is not a candidate competing against John Edwards, and you and other DU supporters of JE focus on your bitterness with some Clark supporters will not help John Edwards win the nomination one whit by passing off critisism of your candidate as some evil Clarkie plot. Edwards is running third currently. Defend him, explain why people should vote for him, explain why no one is perfect if you have to, but this crap will not help you get John Edwards elected.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

136. I don't understand why 90% of Clarkies have chosen this perverse line of attack on JE

#1 it can't be denied that virtually every Clarkie here is anti-Edwards (with you being one of the few exceptions). Is that some sort of fluke?

#2 The line of attack is perverse. They don't attack his platform. They attack his character and paint him as a phony opportunist. Am I supposed to ignore the obvious irony of Clark supporters using this line of attack against Edwards? They act as if Clark was Mr. Democrat and has a consistent Ted Kennedy-like record. I am pointing out the obvious. How can someone obsess with Edwards being a fraud for changing his mind on a few issues and then accept Clark's switch from 2001 to 2003? I know he was never a Republican--but he was not a Democrat either in 2001.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[coco77]

118. Don't compare me to that crazy,demon bitch...

If anything I am bringing up the level of debate here at Du. If we keep beating around the bush and don't really discuss what is going with the candidates we will have a candidate that is not up to fighting back CONS. I have been here for some years now, and the other week I thought I would go crazy looking at all of the posts on Craig while other important issues should have been being discussed. Don't get angry with me I am trying to bring up the level of the debate, sometimes.

[Catchawave]

145. ..what crazy, demon bitch...?

This is just blowing my mind you're responding to a "deleted message"....and I'm not privvy to that, but to your "bringing up the level of debate"....JUST KILL ME NOW...:rofl:

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Visigoth1]

106. His comments about accepting lobbyist cash is so hypocrtical

as an attack on Hillary of course isn't he DLC also?

[Dinger]

107. Oh I Have Fatigue Alright, But It Ain't With Edwards

Guess who?

[coco77]

119. Sure couldn't be me...

since you are answering my post.

[Dinger]

126. No No No, Definitely Not You (nt)

[surfermaw]

120. I think you might be leaning Rep, or other Dem

You message doesn't hold water...John Edwards is the real thing and is going to be President, he is the only one that can win in 2008

[Catchawave]

122. K & R !!!!1!

For no donor star and a disabled profile.

:patriot:

[spooky3]

123. have you had your hug today?

:hug:

[Catchawave]

124. LOL....you noticed ?

...back 'atcha, even though I know this is also kicking this sorry ass thread...snork.

[huskerlaw]

127. How could he possibly

take from everyone else's talking points when he's consistently the FIRST candidate with a public response to pretty much everything?

Oh, wait. You're blanking him out. That must be why you're so woefully uninformed.

[PresidentObama]

128. I have fatigue of ignorant threads that are posted against our great Democratic candidates...

n/t

[PresidentObama]

129. I have fatigue of ignorant threads that are posted against our great Democratic candidates...

n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

135. that's mean!

give the poor man a chance. He's not phony.

[LynneSin]

139. I just have fatigue - perhpas it was the Lunesta I just took

:boring:

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

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

[Turner Ashby]

151. Edwards has great support from trial lawyers

and the campaign has some of the best past presidents of the American Trial Lawyers Association working for him because he has a great reputation for standing up to corporations. That is not a fraudulent claim. And regardless of the money he may have made as a lawyer, the type of law he practiced would have kept him constantly in touch with average Americans, rich and poor, black and white, etc. Of the Lawyers running in the field, only Obama comes close to this.

[Moloch]

150. Thats not exactly how it works..

John takes the talking points that seems to score well in focus groups, and Elizabeth gets the unpopular stances.

[Adelante]

154. This is a funny thread

Dozens of Clinton fatigue threads, any number of Obama fatigue threads, and ONE Edwards fatigue thread - the place turns into a wailing wall.