"John Edwards is fighting to Restore Real American Leadership"

[Catchawave]

John Edwards is fighting to Restore Real American Leadership
by jamess

Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 06:38:21 PM EDT

I thought I'd take a few moments to recap some on the most important reasons I'm supporting John Edwards for the Democratic nominee for President.

Restoring true Democracy BY the People, upholding Our Constitution, including safeguarding the Vote, and restoring America's Reputation in the World, matter to me -- as these are essential foundations of our hopes and dreams as Americans.

It's way past time for the People to Take their Country Back, in these all important areas!

And that is exactly what John Edwards intends to do!

More at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/20/164743/27/

[penguin7]

1. Edwards sponsored the war in Iraq

This should disqualify him.

This whole election makes zero sense. There is only one true anti-war candidate and he is not getting strong support. If there was more anti-war candidates, this would make some sense. As it is, this election is rapidly becoming complete nonsense.

[Catchawave]

2. Did you read the diary ?

Why isn't the "true anti-war candidate" getting strong support?

[penguin7]

5. Again, Edwards sponsored the Iraq war

What does that say about his character?

He was either lying about WMDs when he sponsored the war or incredibly ignorant.

I read the diary. It was also about global warming.

If the president of the Sierra club had clear cut a pristine tract of land to build a house like Edwards, how many would take him(her) seriously?

Edward's house gives a message on the environment. The message is that Edwards does not give a damn about the environment.

[Catchawave]

6. Again, vote for your guy, that's ok, really it is :)

Oh, and thanks for kicking my thread :hi:

[jenmito]

14. I have no problem kicking your thread.

If I cared about where your thread was, I wouldn't have posted on it. It's not rocket science. :shrug: See? I kicked it again. I post because I have something to say.

[Hieronymus]

11. That argument about his house is getting old. His house, as is Gore's, is

green.
As for being rich, name a candidate who isn't. How about FDR or JFK?

[penguin7]

19. If Gore had built a house like Edwards two or three

years ago, you can be darn certain he would not have gotten a Nobel Peace prize.

Gore's house is 80 years old and he took heat for it, and it did distract from his message. In Gore's case the criticism was completely not deserved.

Gore's house is a completely different story than Edwards thing.

I truly do not understand how Edwards has such enthusiastic support among a group of people that hang out on the net. They must all be trial lawyers maybe. I do not get it.

[Hieronymus]

23. Do you think the candidate should live like a poor man in order to

get the nomination? Did FDR? Did JFK?
Gore's home is 100% green and I think Edwards' is too.

[Yael]

26. Yep -- and you can hear it from his own lips

I really recommend this video. He explains what was happening at the time and where the information came from. He also stands up to his bad decision and calls it what it was -- WRONG.

http://johnedwards.com/media/video/nh-iraq-vote/

Give him a chance :hi:

[GreenArrow]

33. "it's all about who's trustworthy"

As far as I'm concerned, it's not John Edwards. Don't trust him.

"You won't hear any politic talk out of me on this."

Please. The whole appearance is political talk for political purposes.

"I got information as a Senator, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I got information from the Clinton administration."

Apparently, he didn't pay attention to the information available to him as a member of the Intelligence Committee. Now that Hillary is his political opponent, it's easy to blame the Clinton people for his "mistake". Nor apparently, did he pay attention to his conscience, which might have informed him that there is something deeply problematic about supporting wars of agression and plunder

"I did not trust George Bush, and I was nervous..."

So he decided to co-sponsor the IWR, throw out red meat on the Senate floor, and write pro-war op-eds that ended up being used by Bush. He went the extra mile in support of George Bush. Pretty amazing, considering that he "didn't trust him." In for a penny, in for a pound, I guess.

"Vote on Iran. Biden and Dodd voted against it. That's exactly what I would have done. Hilary Clinton voted for it. I can't imagine how you would give Bush the first step in the authority to go to war with Iran. That makes no sense to me.

Well, it should make perfect sense to him, since he did the same thing on Iraq. More "politic talk." Clinton voted for it, I wouldn't of (nevermind that he didn't have to actually vote.) Why mention three political opponents in a statement that was not going to have any "politic talk"?

"You get to judge whether we're trustworthy... If I weren't running I'd vote for me. But if I weren't running, that judgement would be front and center, especially if I were like you. Cause I think, if I were just a regular citizen, there's probably some of these things about policy I don't get, but I get people, and I'd have a lot of confidence in who's giving me the truth, and who's giving me political doublespeak."

"If I weren't running, I'd vote for me." But he is running, and he knows it, and the audience knows it. "But if I weren't running, that judgement...especially if I were like you." Now, he starts to butter them up. Why, he's just like them! And if he were one of them, he'd vote for himself. Now, his audience may not get some of those "policy things" any more than they may get how he is manipulating them with "political talk," but (speaking as one of them) "I'd have a lot of confidence in who's giving me the truth, and who's giving doublespeak." Let's break that down: If I weren't running, (which I am), but just a regular citizen, like you, I'd vote for me, because, while I might not get some of those policy things, I, -- that is to say, you -- have a lot of confidence in who is telling me, -- that is to say, you, -- the truth.

Coming full circle, and Edwards' statement at the beginning of the clip -- "you won't hear any politic talk out of me about this." The whole four minute spiel was nothing but political talk, in the service of John Edwards' candidacy.

[slipslidingaway]

43. When someone tries to convince me with their words that they

are trustworthy it normally sends up a red flag.

:hi:

[GreenArrow]

44. yep,

it's generally a warning sign.

[slipslidingaway]

45. Listening to that video I could not help but remember what

Edwards said at the Herzliya Conference when asked a question about using military force against Iran :(

Hope I'm just connecting too many dots :)


http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

"Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

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

[GreenArrow]

47. That is a classic,

one of my favorite Edwards quotes.

Not to directly conflate the two, but it always reminds me of the Goering quote:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[slipslidingaway]

51. Yes, that quote is a good reminder for us all, whether or not it

can be directly applied to this situation or not. I would love for someone to press Edwards for an explanation on his answer, but right now he is saying what people want to hear and that is all that matters :(

[Cameron27]

52. I remember the speech he made

at the Herzliya Conference too, and that quote is a killer with the same sentiment he used to pump up Lieberman's IWR. His 'trust me' now leaves me cold.

[slipslidingaway]

54. Thanks, nice to know others are thinking the same way...

I admit that he is now saying all the right things, most of the time anyway, but it is hard to reconcile with past actions and current inactions on some issues.

:hi:

[jenmito]

3. So how does he differ from the other Dems. other than the fact

he co-sponsored the IWR (unlike Obama, who was against it)?

[Catchawave]

4. Have some pie .....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/20/175340/33

There's a wealth of information out there on "so how does he differ from other Dems"...have at it :D

[jenmito]

8. What he says now and what he said while he was in the Senate

are VERY different things. I don't trust him at all.

[Catchawave]

9. LOL. Obama keeps funding this war, but he was against it ?

Whoa.

[jenmito]

12. If it was up to Obama, there'd BE no Iraq war.

Unlike Edwards. Now Obama has to make the best of the situation Edwards, Hillary, Biden, Dodd, and others got us into.

[Catchawave]

13. Is that the only reason you support Obama ?

Goodness, I hope not. According to his state voting record, I doubt he would have showed up to vote for or against the IWR...IF HE WERE IN THE U.S. SENATE at that time. He mostly voted "present" on difficult issues. This will bite him in the butt, if it hasn't already.

Obama's a great guy, but don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining :D

[jenmito]

15. Nope.

There are many reasons I support him. His twenty-plus years of service in govt. and his intelligence, willingness to speak out, and his attitude are more reasons I support him.

[Catchawave]

16. ...sigh....

I look forward to all your future threads driving home some details of your obvious support, but grossly lacking substance, much like your candidate.

Good luck to both of you :hi:

[jenmito]

17. ...sigh...

I just outlined what I like. There is much more detail out there if you'd like a link or two.

Thanks. :hi:

[Catchawave]

20. Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=64008&mesg_id=64008

[jenmito]

27. I saw the show when it was on. I don't believe he's sincere. It's easy for him to

talk like he's doing now that he's out of the Senate. THIS is what bothers me most:

"During his Senate term Edwards cosponsored 203 bills.<17> He cosponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq,<18> saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."<19>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Senate_term

I don't like that he's constantly criticizing those still in Congress who vote the way they do when he didn't "discover" his ultra-anti-war position until the war became so unpopular. I also don't believe him when he claims ignorance about his involvement with hedge funds, saying it was to learn about them or some BS excuse like that.

[Yukari Yakumo]

7. ... Prove it. {nt}

[Catchawave]

10. Thanks for kicking my thread {nt}

[Dewlso]

18. Go Edwards

Edwards is a good candidate. He is the best we got. He doesn't try to pander to the right or big corporations. He has the middle and lower classes in mind. He is addressing the pressing issues in our country. I would like to see Edwards/Obama run on the 2008 ticket. Between the two of them they could do the best job for Americans.

[Triana]

21. ditto that, right here. (n/t)

[calteacherguy]

22. Why does he take options off the table to fight global warming?

"Fighting global warming will also protect our security interests -- a recent report authored by a group of top military leaders said that, if unchecked, global warming could lead to civil strife, genocide, and increased terrorism."

You can't truly fight global warming by taking nuclear energy off the table.

[Yukari Yakumo]

24. What's his plan anyway? {nt}

uguu

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. To quote SNL...

"And you, John Edwards, you phony, two-faced, ambulance-chasing little rat bastard." - "Hillary"

That kinda sums up how I feel about Edwards. He's opportunistic to a hilt and panders like a madman. He talks a lot of rhetoric with very little substance to back it up.

Oh, and Edwards should absolutely not bring up the issue of leadership and experience. Eddy is a one term Senator. Before that, he was a lawyer. And aside from his one term, he has zero experience as a public servant. In short, Obama has more experience in politics than Edwards. Plus, let's not forget who co-sponsored the bill that started the whole Iraq mess in the first place.

[jenmito]

28. YES-that DID sum him up IMO.

:rofl: She took the words right out of my mouth. And yes, he panders like nobody else. At the debate about gay issues, I almost expected him to say he's gay. What a phony.

[surfermaw]

30. he was honest in what he said.

I feel the same way, I have the exact same problems with Gay's, however I know they are humans, and should be protected, and allowed to do what they wish with their lives, love them as other , but I am not sure of what I feel, I do think they should have the same rules if they have partners as straights have when they are married.

[jenmito]

31. How do you know he was honest? I think he was pandering.

What "exact same problems" do you share with Edwards? What did he say in that debate that you're talking about?

[Catchawave]

34. JE defeated a popular incumbent in a red state

and polls show he would have breezed through to re-election.

Is Obama showing up for votes now? I mean the "hard" ones :D

[surfermaw]

29. AdHocSolver...I am with you

John Edwards, the man who knows how the have and the have not's both live, he values the things that made this nation a great nation. People who bring up his home, his hair cuts, his vote for the war, they are just fumbling with small things, evident ally they can't find bigger thing to condemn him with, so they pea pick.

[jenmito]

32. How can you lump together people who bring up his haircuts and

people who disagree with his vote on the war??? I think his co-sponsoring of the war was a SERIOUS blow to his judgement and ability to lead. I couldn't care less about his haircuts. And I bet a lot of people feel the same way. :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

41. Yes, some of us do feel the same way...

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

48. Glad to hear it, slipslidingaway!

Thanks! :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

50. YW, it's easier to remain silent and let someone else question

past actions and language, but sometimes it is nice to know there are others thinking the same thing.

:hi:

Thanks.

[Catchawave]

35. Great summary, too bad it will fall on deaf ears, er, eyes....

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

36. Invading Iraq is a small thing?

"People who bring up his home, his hair cuts, his vote for the war, they are just fumbling with small things..."

[Catchawave]

37. I understood it in the context of the Big Picture....

Blaming Edwards for Bush's War is "small minded". Why not take the high road like Pat Buchanan and blame the WHOLE DAMN CONGRESS, and say "...this war is not Bush's fault".

[jenmito]

38. In case you hadn't noticed,

Buchanan is a conservative. He WANTS to blame it on the entire Congress to take blame off Bush. Didn't more than half of Congress vote AGAINST the IWR? But not Edwards and Hillary. They both voted FOR it, probably thinking it would help them when they ran for president. They're either smart and calculating or gullible with bad judgement. Either way it's a big deal.

[Catchawave]

40. There is absolutely no difference....none, nada....

how conservatives attack Dems, or how some here attack Dems.

Take the high road, or you become "them" :D

[slipslidingaway]

42. A mistake is a mistake, regardless of who calls attention to that

fact. Attempting to categorize and associate criticism as 'coming from the conservative camp' is also a mistake.

[Catchawave]

49. I respect Pat Buchanan more than some DUers......

At least he's honest and I know where he's coming from.

The IWR talking points here come from a website that can't be mentioned. That's good and bad also.

Hard to debunk crap :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

53. Hard to debunk crap and talking points from a website that

cannot be mentioned...how convenient! Not sure where you are getting your talking points from, but my thoughts come from reading what Edwards said and did in 2002 with what others were saying and questioning back in 2002.

Some bought the administration's lies, thought they did not have to read the latest intelligence report and passed their responsibility to Bush. Others read the report, questioned the intelligence and warned about giving broad powers to this administration.

I know who has the better judgement and do not have to rely on anyone else's information to formulate that opinion.

:hi:

[jenmito]

46. What's your point? I just said Buchanan wanted to take the blame off Bush

and spread it among ALL of Congress. The problem for you is that your candidate DOES deserve some of the blame...as does Edwards, Biden, and others. But half of the Dems. voted AGAINST it. You're not going to "guilt" me into the same "logic" BUSH uses-you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. I can think Bush is wrong but that doesn't make me like the terrorists...or DOES it in your eyes? Just as you're implying if I think Hillary and Edwards are wrong just like Buchanan does, that makes me like him. Not gonns work on me.

[slipslidingaway]

39. And I understood that post as an attempt to lump criticism

about his pro-war Iraq stance and subsequent vote with criticism of his home and hair cuts. You know the little things.

:shrug:

"People who bring up his home, his hair cuts, his vote for the war, they are just fumbling with small things, evident ally they can't find bigger thing to condemn him with, so they pea pick."

[Rhythm and Blue]

55. Oh, just ridiculous.

Each of those are spouted by supporters of every single candidate running in both major parties. Do you see Barack Obama claiming he will make America less respected in the world? Do you hear Hillary Clinton claiming she will replace the Constitution with Hoyle's Rules of Card Games? Do you hear Bill Richardson talking about abolishing the right to vote and replacing elections with games of rock-paper-scissors? Sheesh.

[smalll]

56. "John Edwards is fighting for his Political Life"

And It's Not Looking Too Good at the Moment. :shrug: (Don't worry though, low poll numbers are part of his strategy now! Yeah, that's the ticket~!)