Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Elizabeth Edwards questions Limpball's draft deferment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:35 PM
Original message
Elizabeth Edwards questions Limpball's draft deferment
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 04:36 PM by jefferson_dem
Elizabeth questions Limbaugh's draft deferment

An Air America producer just sent over some transcript from an interview their Richard Greene (not our Richard Greene) conducted with Elizabeth Edwards, in which she questioned Rush Limbaugh's Vietnam exemption:

My classmates went to Vietnam, he did not. He was 4F. He had a medical disability, the same medical disability that probably should have stopped him from spending a lifetime in a radio announcer’s chair; but it is true, isn’t it? If he has an inoperable position that allows him not to serve, presumably it should not allow him to sit for long periods of time the way he does. I think this is a serious enough offense for the people who fund him, who buy ads and allow him to be on the air, need to be asked if this is what they really stand for, do they think it is all right for someone who has never served to denigrate the men and women who have simply because they are expressing an opinion. Frankly, I thought that is what we are fighting for.

In the interview, Edwards also suggested that John Kerry shouldn't have conceded when he did in 2004.

RG: Were you disappointed that Sen. Kerry conceded as quickly as he did?

EE: I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s objection, not to fight.

You can listen to the interview here ---> http://www.airamerica.com/node/5412

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Elizabeth_Takes_on_Limbaugh.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't believe her about Kerry
It's very easy to say. If the Edwards had done anything at all between 2004 and now, I'd be more inclined to accept this claim at face value. Where was "John's objection"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Same place as his doubts about Bush's intentions
in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Has Kerry chosen whom to endorse yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No Kerry endorsement so far nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. On Monday, on an interview with Kudlow
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 07:53 PM by karynnj
he said he has not decided IF he will endorse anyone or who if he did. If so, EE may just have ruled out her husband with this despicable comment. I guess she was not content with having tried to put his wife, Teresa, in a bad light, accuses him of basically being an accessory to a horrendous crime against the country that he clearly loves and continues to serve. (Kerryvision.net has the video of that interview and the Bushonomics speech that he gave just before it -and a very short interview with bloggers.)

Rather than watching this, here's a link to someone dealing with what is real - listen to Kerry speak (SFRC) about Myamar - that was part of the area he oversaw for 20 years until he switched this year to the near east and middle east. Kerry knew what was at stake - and this shows how different he would be vs Bush. He actually would have been a great President - here he is being a great Senator. He has said that if there were proof, they would have fought it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1978272

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. The fact that neither said anything in all 2005 and the first half of 2006
even about voter surpression makes this disingenuous. Kerry spoke of it many many times - and was derided and attacked for doing so.

It also does bring up a question. Kerry said he and the lawyers could not find sufficient proof. Kerry is credited with having been an outstanding prosecutor. If Edwards wanted to challenge it, as excellent lawyer, I would think that means he thought there was sufficient proof. As a citizen, he should have stepped forward with that and demanded it be investigated. He owed it to the country.

I am fed up with Elizabeth Edwards and these cheap shots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That makes two of us fed up
The DNC also sent a task force into Ohio soon after and found some problems with voting machines, but not evidence of widespread fraud. If I remember correctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. True -
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 06:14 PM by karynnj
They did find that there was voter suppression - but it was done by things like not having enough voting machines in Democratic strongholds. But, the bipartisan county elections boards got reports on the number of machines allocated days before the election. No one in any county saw it and grasped what was happening to alert anyone.

Kerry has spoken in the Senate and elsewhere. Even the RFK jr study said that though more people went to the polls to vote for Kerry, the votes "lost" that he tallies include many never cast. Others were lost by the caterpillar ballot. The problem is that neither can be counted - just as Gore couldn't count an estimate of people wrongly turned away because of the felon list or votes lost due to the butterfly ballot. Both Kerry and Gore are the victims here.

Elizabeth Edwards should be ashamed of herself. This is a blatant play for the left, but I think she will find that this backfires. If true, he should have been out there. If false, she has just made a unconscionable charge against a large number of Democrats, not just Senator Kerry and many Republicans.

WesDem,

I can't believe how many threads I have been in complete agreement with you on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I'm an admirer of yours
Because you always go for the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. As do you
thanks for the compliment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
48. What karynnj said.
I'm an admirer of both of you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
37. A turn around on voter fraud might come in handy later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. It's not a cheap shot at all. She's just telling it like it is.
We ALL were disappointed that Kerry backed out so easily but I think he may have done it in part because he knew Elizabeth was sick and that would not stop her.

There're all great. The misunderstanding is just how some people chose to twist the tale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I disagree
The votes WERE all counted. By the law they always are. The issue had been that they conceded when there were still uncounted ballots. Other than with Gore, that has always been the case. Here, they were about 120,000 down with 150,000 provisional ballots left. If ALL the provisional ballots were deemed valid - which would be unheard of and only 15,000 went to Bush - also not likely as some were not from Democratic strongholds, then it would be tied. The numbers were not there. If this absolutely unlikely event occurred, Kerry could have rescinded his concession - as Gore did the one he made on election evening. After the provisional ballots were counted, Kerry was still down by 60,000.

The DNC's own investigation did not find anything that they could have used. RFK jr's analysis included an estimate of votes lost when people abandoned the lines because it IS too much to ask people to wait in lines 4 hours or more. Even using that, you come to the conclusion it was stolen, but not by ways that could be handled by a recount. I doubt Kerry would have conceded due to EE's illness. There would be no reason to. Had there been a case to make, the Edwards could have dealt with her cancer, while Kerry and the Democratic lawyers dealt with the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Oh, now I see how the Hillary camp wants to frame voter fraud.
Maybe it'll come in handy later, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I assure you I am not now, nor ever have been a member of the Hillary camp
Kerry has spoken in and out of the Senate on the very real problems that exist in the way voting is done in this country. Can you show me anything of substance that either Edwards said on this issue in 2005 or even the first half of 2006.

His is what Kerry said on the floor of the Senate:

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes and, following me, Senator Boxer be permitted to proceed for 15 minutes, and following her, Senator Schumer for 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his discussion of an important way of having accountability in voting . I must say that I saw how that works out in Oregon. It works well. It works brilliantly, as a matter of fact. People have a lot of time to be able to vote. They don't have to struggle with work issues or being sick or other things. They have plenty of time to be able to have the kind of transparency and accountability that makes the system work. There are other States where you are allowed to start voting early--in New Mexico and elsewhere.

It is amazing that in the United States we have this patchwork of the way our citizens work in Federal elections. It is different almost everywhere. I had the privilege of giving the graduation address this year at Kenyan College in Ohio, and there the kids at Kenyan College wound up being the last people to vote in America in the Presidential race in 2004 in Gambier, at 4:30 in the morning. We had to go to court to get permission for them to keep the polls open so they could vote at 4:30 in the morning.

Why did it take until 4:30 in the morning for people to be able to vote? They didn't have enough voting machines in America. These people were lined up not just there but in all of Ohio and in other parts of the country. An honest appraisal requires one to point out that where there were Republican secretaries of state, the lines were invariably longer in Democratic precincts, sometimes with as many as one machine only in the Democratic precinct and several in the Republican precinct; so it would take 5 or 10 minutes for someone of the other party to be able to vote, and it would take literally hours for the people in the longer lines. If that is not a form of intimidation and suppression, I don't know what is.

So I thank the Senator from Oregon for talking about the larger issue here. He is absolutely correct. The example of his State is one that the rest of the country ought to take serious and think seriously about embracing.

This is part of a larger issue, obviously, Mr. President. All over the world, our country has always stood out as the great exporter of democratic values. In the years that I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, I have had some extraordinary opportunities to see that happen in a firsthand way.

Back in 1986, I was part of a delegation that went to the Philippines. We took part in the peaceful revolution that took place at the ballot box when the dictator, President Marcos, was kicked out and ``Cory'' Aquino became President. I will never forget flying in on a helicopter to the island of Mindanao and landing where some people have literally not seen a helicopter before, and 5,000 people would surround it as you swooped out of the sky, to go to a polling place where the entire community turned out waiting in the hot sun in long lines to have their thumbs stamped in ink and to walk out having exercised their right to vote.

I could not help but think how much more energy and commitment people were showing for the privilege of voting in this far-off place than a lot of Americans show on too many occasions. The fact is that in South Africa we fought for years--we did--through the boycotts and other efforts, in order to break the back of apartheid and empower all citizens to vote. Most recently, obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the disagreement of many of us about the management of the war and the evidence and other issues that we have all debated here. This has never been debated about the desire for democracy and the thrill that everyone in the Senate felt in watching citizens be able to exercise those rights .

In the Ukraine, the world turned to the United States to monitor elections and ensure that the right to vote was protected. All of us have been proud of what President Carter has done in traveling the world to guarantee that fair elections take place. But the truth is, all of our attempts to spread freedom around the world will be hollow and lose impact over the years in the future if we don't deliver at home.

The fact is that we are having this debate today in the Senate about the bedrock right to vote, with the understanding that this is not a right that was afforded to everyone in our country automatically or at the very beginning. For a long time, a century or more, women were not allowed to vote in America. We all know the record with respect to African Americans. The fact is that the right to vote in our country was earned in blood in many cases and in civic sweat in a whole bunch of cases. Courageous citizens literally risked their lives. I remember in the course of the campaign 2 years ago, traveling to Alabama--Montgomery--and visiting the Southern Poverty Law Center, the memorial to Martin Luther King, and the fountain. There is a round stone fountain with water spilling out over the sides. From the center of the fountain there is a compass rose coming back and it marks the full circle. At the end of every one of those lines is the name of an American with the description, ``killed trying to register to vote,'' or ``murdered trying to register.'' Time after time, that entire compass rose is filled with people who lost their lives in order to exercise a fundamental right in our country.

None of us will forget the courage of people who marched and faced Bull Connor's police dogs and faced the threat of lynchings, some being dragged out of their homes in the dark of night to be hung. The fact is that we are having this debate today because their work and that effort is not over yet. Too many Americans in too many parts of our country still face serious obstacles when they are trying to vote in our own country.

By reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we are taking an important step, but, Mr. President, it is only a step. Nobody should pretend that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act solves the problems of being able to vote in our own country. It doesn't. In recent elections, we have seen too many times how outcomes change when votes that have been cast are not counted or when voters themselves are prevented from voting or intimidated from even registering or when they register, as we found in a couple of States, their registration forms are put in the wastebasket instead of into the computers.

This has to end. Every eligible voter in the United States ought to be able to cast his or her ballot without fear, without intimidation, and with the knowledge that their voice will be heard. These are the foundations of our democracy, and we have to pay more attention to it.

For a lot of folks in the Congress, this is a very personal fight. Some of our colleagues in the House and Senate were here when this fight first took place or they took part in this fight out in the streets. Without the courage of someone such as Congressman JOHN LEWIS who almost lost his life marching across that bridge in Selma, whose actions are seared in our minds, who remembers what it was like to march to move a nation to a better place, who knows what it meant to put his life on the line for voting rights , this is personal.

For somebody like my colleague, Senator TED KENNEDY, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who was here in the great fight on this Senate floor in 1965 when they broke the back of resistance, this is personal.

We wouldn't even have this landmark legislation today if it weren't for their efforts to try to make certain that it passed.

But despite the great strides we have taken since this bill was originally enacted, we have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on this particular component of the bill, there is agreement. Republicans and Democrats can agree. I was really pleased that every attempt in the House of Representatives to weaken the Voting Rights Act was rejected.

We need to reauthorize these three critical components especially: The section 5 preclearance provisions that get the Justice Department to oversee an area that has a historical pattern of discrimination that they can't change how people vote without clearance. That seems reasonable.

There are bilingual assistance requirements. Why? Because people need it and it makes sense. They are American citizens, but they still may have difficulties in understanding the ballot, and we ought to provide that assistance so they have a fully informed vote. This is supposed to be an informed democracy, a democracy based on the real consent of the American people.

And finally, authorization for poll watching. Regrettably, we have seen in place after place in America why we need to have poll watching.

A simple question could be asked: Where would the citizens of Georgia be, particularly low-income and minority citizens, if they were required to produce a government-issued identification or pay $20 every 5 years in order to vote? That is what would have happened without section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia would have successfully imposed what the judge in the case called ``a Jim Crow-era like poll tax.'' I don't think anybody here wants to go back and flirt with the possibility of returning to a time when States charged people money to exercise their right to vote. That is not our America.

This morning, President Bush addressed the 97th Annual Convention of the NAACP after a 5-year absence. I am pleased that the President, as we all are, ended his boycott of the NAACP and announced his intention to sign the Voting Rights Act into law.

But we need to complete the job. There are too many stories all across this country of people who say they registered duly, they reported to vote, and they were made to stand in one line or another line and get an excuse why, when they get to the end of the line, they can't vote. So they take out a provisional ballot, and then there are fights over provisional ballots.

There are ways for us to avoid that. Some States allow same-day registration. In some parts of America, you can just walk up the day of an election, register, and vote, as long as you can prove your residence.

We have this incredible patchwork of laws and rules, and in the process, it is even more confusing for Americans. We need to fully fund the Help America Vote Act so that we have the machines in place, so that people are informed, so that there is no one in America who waits an undue amount of time in order to be able to cast a vote.

We have to pass the Count Every Vote Act that Senator Clinton, Senator Boxer, and I have introduced which ensures exactly what the Senator from Oregon was talking about: that every voter in America has a verifiable paper trail for their vote. How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?

How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it.

Congress has to ensure that every vote cast in America is counted, that every precinct in America has a fair distribution of voting machines, that voter suppression and intimidation are un-American and must cease.

We had examples in the last election of people who were sent notices--obviously fake, but they were sent them and they confused them enough. They were told that if you have an outstanding parking ticket, you can't vote. They were told: Democrats vote on Wednesday and Republicans vote on Tuesday and various different things.

It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague for her forbearance.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Kerry leaves the floor, I want to thank him. The issues he raised absolutely have to be a part of this debate. I will address them after he leaves. The reason I stood up and objected to the Ohio count is because I knew firsthand from the people of Ohio who came and talked with me through STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES that they were waiting in lines for 6, 7 hours. That is not the right to vote. I think Senator Kerry's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from Oregon are very important.

So let a message go out from this Senate floor today that we are not stopping our efforts to make sure people can vote with the very important passage of this very important legislation. I am very pleased to follow him in this debate. "


This is a cheap political trick by EE to try to get votes on the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
34. Maybe Elizabeth and John were preoccupied with something else more
pressing? And, just waiting for a better opportunity? John ws the VP. What could he do back then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. I do believe her. Edwards was visibly upset, iirc, and by all accounts
he disagreed with that decision.

And remember, the Kerry campaign filed suit. It would have been improper for Edwards to say anything in public that put the case at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. The Kerry campaign joined suits
Edited on Fri Oct-05-07 08:24 AM by karynnj
The fact is the Edwards said nothing for a year and a half - and have STILL not said anything substantial.

That Edwards was visibly upset could be easily explained - they lost and his wife was going into the hospital having been diagnosed with breast cancer. None of the accounts that Edwards did not want to concede have any information on what he would base it on. Also, there are accounts that do not say Edwards wanted to anything different. There STILL is no proof that could have been taken into an Ohio court that would have changed the numbers to Kerry winning. Remember that by sometime in December the Republican dominated Ohio legislature, by the Constitution had to designate the delegates to the electoral college. Even if the impossible were done and we had a whistle blower, there is a good chance that at most it would have thrown the election into dispute. The December time frame allows enough time for recounts, but not a trial to prove that there was fraud. There is no provision for a new election. In 2000, there was talk (from John Roberts) that the legislature should say the election was in dispute and vote the delegates directly.

Look at New Hampshire, where the Republicans were caught red handed blocking the GOTV lines in the 2002 race between Sununu and Sheehan. There are people who were indicted and convicted, but not till last year, 2006 - four years into Sununu's term. Not to mention that even though that race was close and it is probable that this illegal action suppressed Sheehan's votes, no one has tried to change the result of the election - Sununu is the Senator. Sheehan is running against him again in 2008 and is miles ahead.

That was a situation where we had proof of what was done and by whom - and it took 4 years to go through the courts. In Ohio, we may, at some point, now that there is an excellent Democrat in the job of Secretary of State, get that needed proof of anything illegal that was done. As in NH, the result would be that people could go to jail and the history books would show that the Republicans stole 2 elections in a row.

Barabara Boxer joined the black caucus in 2005 to get the types of abuses that occurred into the Congressional record and before the public. The MSM downplayed them, which was why they needed to be on record. Look at the coverage of this issue in late 2004 and early 2005, there were very few mainstream Democrats who touched the issue, and John Edwards was not among them, Kerry was. Bill Clinton, less than 2 weeks later, was babbling at the opening of his library of liking both Bush and Kerry and within a month bad mouthing Kerry. In 2000, the entire nation knew the election was in debate. In 2004, the media was immediately speaking of a big Bush victory - focusing on the 3 million (which did decrease when all the ballots were counted in states like CA, well before the absentee, military and ex-pat votes were counted).

Teresa Heinz Kerry was ridiculed and attacked for saying in Seattle in 2005, when asked about the election, that it was a problem IF the machines could be manipulated and that this needed to be fixed.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/214744_joel07.html?source=rss

Kerry spoke as early as January 19, 2005 on voter suppression. Looking for a link, I found this as well - which shows some of the milder flack Kerry got. (do a google and you can find RW accounts that go as far as calling him delusional or worse.)

http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/002929.html (Note that Kenyon College had kids voting after 11 hour waits. The machines were not distributed proportionately - here, Kerry said ONLY what was absolutely 100% provable, as would be expected from someone known for his meticulous work both in Senate investigations and as a prosecutor. Note the comments in the AP article - those are the ones that went into nation-wide articles.

Here's how it was reported in Boston:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?pg=full

I did not hear the Edwardses making this an issue at all, until the climate changed in 2006.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. You're conflating a preference with a case. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. You are arguing that Edwards had no basis to express
his PREFERENCE, which, last time I checked, didn't require a brief. And, fyi, I know the history of that election, thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. I never said that Edwards has no basis to express his preference
I do find it opportunistic that having said nothing - even on the proven voter suppression, that suddenly they are re-writing history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Ah, yes yu did, and you said it again on the other threads where
you are reposting the same post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. She is one person who really has nothing to lose, but her good name. She is not going to lie.
She wouldn't do one thing to hurt her husband.

The love and respect they have for each other, is obvious.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Sadly, she may be losing her good name
She was the only reason I had to trust her husband in 2004. However, I now see her like a grown-up version of a certain type of mean girl. The ones who have the poise and charm to keep a facade of sweetness as they "innocently" say things that stab others in the back, though never so openly that they are perceived as doing it.

Her book took several swings at THK, all designed to re-enforce Republican stereotypes. The worst was the claim that Teresa came close to sending her into a tailspin when she listed one of her doctors as not one to go to unaware that he was one of her team. This scapegoats Teresa - who has hosted an annual conference of doctors and researchers on cancer, environmental toxins and women's health. From EE's account, Teresa did not know he was her doctor, but even if she had if she had heard non-positive things from credible people, do you think she should have stayed silent? Is that what you would want if it were you? The situation itself, where the stakes are so high and the best course not clear is what she reacted to. She could have told that same story leaving without identifying Teresa.

Neither of the Kerrys have ever attacked either of the Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Political campaigns are the very essence of "arguing" a point, the pubic being the
judge and jury.

Elizabeth Edwards is an accomplished attorney, who has stepped up the "arguing" game to make a point, and to score in the debate.

Neither you, nor any other critic will advance the "argument" by calling names.

This is not about what anyone else said (Teresa) or any other way you attempt to take the "argument" off point.

On the night of the election, John Edwards gave an impassioned speech, and gave the impression that "it wasn't over."

John Kerry, conceeded.

What your opinion is of "who should have done what, in what year and at what time" assumes you have first hand knowledge, more so than Elizabeth Edwards.

I think not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Edwards came out and said that because he was sent out by the campaign to do so
Edited on Fri Oct-05-07 11:17 AM by karynnj
That was the campaign's position then. By morning, the numbers looked far worse.

Looking through the comments, EE may be an accomplished lawyer, but I see many more people not happy with this than people moving to her on this. Consider that this is the place of people who read politics on line and who are to the left of Democrats as a whole. Both of those factors make people here more likely to believe the election was stolen than the general public. If it is not a gain here, I doubt this helps Edwards.

Consider that Senator Kerry has not been pushed to say one negative word about the Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. The truth of the matter is that Dem's not supporting Edwards have asserted that he
was a persona non grata when it came to the 2004 election results.

The way I see it, Elizabeth responded.
Elizabeth clearly represents the Edwards campaign. She is a surrogate. I would rather she not turn the other cheek. She has conveyed that there were many controlling elements that took precedent over the entire 2004 mess. John response and or lack of one has been called out, and she has responded.

The candidate and his team need to speak to the larger public, and if they determine that a certain message needs to be addressed, then kudos to them for finding a forum (AAR) to do so. Especially since the MSM treat the candidate with the hightest poll numers as the defacto nominee.

If John Edwards does not win, it is because he lacked in leadership and the abiltiy to sell his vision and programs. It is as simple as that. And it is the whole package the voters will buy, or not. This includes his life and work and accomplishements, his personal growth, his roots, and his wife.

ie.

RG: Were you disappointed that Sen. Kerry conceded as quickly as he did?

EE: I was very disappointed, not just because we did not count the votes, but because we promised people that if they stood in line and fought for the right to vote, that we would fight with them. And I was very disappointed that the decision was made by the campaign, over John’s objection, not to fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. The votes WERE counted
This is a lie - this entire statement is disingenuous.

I can see why she is doing it - they are desperate. My guess is that it will backfire. If JRE had a real way to make a case he should have gone to the press himself. How he thinks there was a case, when all the more experienced people in the room didn't should be addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
32. What exactly did she say? That she was disappointed. As we all were.
I didn't read any rough attack on Kerry. She was just speaking the basic truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. Who cares about Druggie Limbaugh?
Jaysus, we got more important things to talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beberocks Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Go Elizabeth! I've wondered about the same thing (re Rush's disability)
How long do anal cysts last, after all? Of course the real reason might be that Rush IS an anal cyst, then I can see how it can be incurable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. well, for most people, an anal cyst would mean sitting on it
Rush just has to be careful wearing mouthguards or other masks apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. What is funny is that my first husband had the same affliction and was drafted anyway.
This was during the Cold War, not a real shooting war like Vietnam. Things must have changed. You would think it would be more necessary to draft during a real war, wouldn't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Damn I was all excited until I read the Kerry slagging. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. I know, the bad mouthing is getting old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I know what you mean. I'm tired of thread stalkers myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I was talking about Elizabeth & John,
which is allowed here, you on the other hand, continue to go after DUers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-06-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
51. I agree with you both n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forrest Greene Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. Well, See, That's Why
...he needs all that wetbrain jailbird hillbilly heroin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-04-07 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. Doesn't she have a good thing to say about anybody? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. Which branch did her husband serve in?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. What does that have to do with it? John Edwards doesn't go around bad-mouthing soldiers like Rush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-06-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. When someone questions another person's military service
or lack thereof, I take a look at THEIR service (or lack thereof).

Edwards was 18 in 1971. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-06-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Elizabeth grew up in the military.
John was registered for the draft but was never called up.

Are you on Rush's side? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-06-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. So *neither* served?
Interesting.

How about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
26. Something else that poor John cannot say on his own and for which he has to hide behind
Edited on Fri Oct-05-07 07:16 AM by Mass
his wife. BTW, Elizabeth, what about going on MSM and say that the election was stolen. Rather than preaching that to the choir. This would show some leadership from you or your hubby.

Come on. Kerry spoke on this issue many times in 2005 and 2006 (we may have preferred that he spoke more, but at least he spoke). John Edwards stayed silent until he thought it was politically opportune.

BTW, did she tell us whether they were for or against public financing? Or for when it is opportune and against when it is not.

Good thing I never considered John Edwards as somebody I could support, because by now, he would have lost my support otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. Let me guess, you support Hillary "focus-group" Clinton instead?
Someone that wouldn't know a principled stand if it hit her in the head mid-cackle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Hillary - Yuck. You are very far from the truth!
Edited on Fri Oct-05-07 09:55 AM by Mass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. It's pretty hilarious that people defending Kerry get accused of being Hillary supporters.
There are a few Kerry supporters who have gotten past Hillary's vileness in backstabbing Kerry last fall, but not very many.

As far as I'm concerned, it's become a race to the bottom between Hill and EE. Hill's in the lead, but EE is catching up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. very true -
You would think the detail on Kerry and the words used to describe him would give them a hint. Frankly, this pre-primary session has been different from all others as the candidates that impress me has declined instead of increased. In 2004, there were 3 candidates I could have been happy with - this year there are maybe 3 I can tolerate and none I am really happy with.

In the past there have been candidates that I didn't like - at this point we're getting to the point that there are 2 that I can not stand. That has never happened before. I already recognize that if either of them win, I cannot canvas or phone bank, because I will not lie and my lack of enthusiasm would be obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
31. hee, hee. Go get 'em Liz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
38. Amen! Rush is an asswipe and Kerry failed us!
Amen sister, amen!

:toast:

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-06-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #38
52. Nope. WE failed Kerry.
And we are doing a good job of doing Rush, Rove and the GOP's work for them by continuing to tear good Dems down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC