In terms of enthusiasm, IF Edwards is the nominee, you will . . .

[LSdemocrat]

[BurtWorm]

1. Edwards could really push me over.

I live in a "safe" state. I think. Unless a lot more New Yorkers feel about Edwards as I do. I'm not so sure how safe any of us will be if Edwards wins. It seems we'll be just marginally better than we are now. Marginally!

[Syrinx]

3. you honestly feel that Edwards is only marginally better than Bush?

Geez, I cannot fathom that concept. It's mindblowing.

[RafterMan]

4. Yes, it is mindblowing

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

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

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[BurtWorm]

7. He's got an awfully weaselly way of talking about this war.

[RafterMan]

8. I wish he would weasel more

I'll bend myself into a pretzel to vote for the Dem nominee, but in the Hardball interview, Edwards advocates a lower threshhold for then invasion than Bush did.

The policy is clearly terrible. If he could just say that an move on, I'd probably find a way to vote for him. But he doesn't see it.

[DjTj]

25. The Hardball interview was 4 months ago...

...and being a rather aggressive interview, does not present a complete picture of Edwards' policy.

Saying that he advocates a lower threshhold than Bush is a clear exaggeration.

...but we've already had this conversation.

[RafterMan]

It was four months ago

But he spells out his threshhold as he saw it a year and a half ago.

Are you suggesting the views he held *at the time of his decision to vote for the resolution* have changed in the last four months? How is this possible?

[DjTj]

29. His threshhold is consistent

...but the Hardball interview doesn't provide a complete picture of his threshhold because in later interviews he does mention other things. An interview like that isn't the best place to define someone's policy on something as complicated as the Iraq War.

I still don't see how it is a lower threshhold than Bush.

[RafterMan]

31. Lower threshhold

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

His pro-war argument does not depend on the phony Niger reports or phantom mobile bio-labs -- it is the collective body of intelligence on SH's nuclear dabbling from the 90s. Thus I judge it lower than Bush's own, which included those other elements.

[DjTj]

33. So because Bush claimed to rely on phony intelligence...

...and Edwards relied on other more reliable intelligence, you claim that Edwards had a lower threshold?

Edwards has also mentioned many things that weren't prominent parts of Bush's SOTU in 2003 - do all those things not count?

When you exchange some parts of a case with other ones, it is arbitrary to claim one is "lower". What is your metric for that?

[RafterMan]

40. .

Your first point is incorrect. If Bush felt the JE position made a sufficient case for war, why did he push so hard for more, even at the expense of reliability? Clearly he did push for the less-reliable intelligence, so he must not have considered the JE case sufficient.

Your second point also fails -- Bush's case used evidence of a current nuclear program (Niger, aluminum tubes) as opposed to a historical one. I don't buy either argument, but I do admit that a current nuclear program is a greater cause for action than a historical one.

So it's "Saddam is building bioweapons and gathering nuclear materials RIGHT NOW" vs. "Saddam went atom trolling back in the 90s".

I can see no imminent threat in the Edwards position, even by the twisted Bush definition.

[DjTj]

44. Edwards did not present a case for war.

It is an unfair characterization of the content of that interview.

Tweety only asks Edwards about the case for his vote, which is NOT the same as Bush's case for war. If the IWR were sufficient for invasion, Bush would not have had to argue his case again 3 months after the IWR. He could have just waved the Resolution and gone straight in.

Show me where Edwards is asked to make a case for starting a ground invasion of Iraq, and then we can compare Bush and Edwards' cases for war.

Bush and Edwards are answering two different questions at two different points in time, so there is no comparison to be made.

[RafterMan]

51. I could accept a kind of temporal argument...

If his case at the time included Bush proof-points and he does not back away from his conclusion given their falsity, then he stood with Bush when both thought the other points were true, and stands with Bush now that both understand them to be false. Fair enough.

But he does mention that *at the time*

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

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled. "

We'll never know if Bush's real pre-war feelings can be boiled down so succinctly, because Bush is a liar. So it is possible to argue that Edwards' case is only as weak or weaker than Bush's, rather than being strictly weaker. If it makes you happy, I will change my language to read "as weak or weaker" in future posts.

But your hairsplitting on IWR vs. sending in the troops is silly: "Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution ***and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country***". Come on, the question is about the war. The question he's being asked is "Why did you support the war?", and unless Edwards is Clinton II, that's what he's answering.

But I don't understand why you're trying so hard. The best you can hope for is that I'll agree his policy is the same as Bush (as you recently agreed). Would you call that a victory?

I don't support the war, you didn't support the war and JE did and apparently does. Why not argue with him and try to get him to come out and say it was a bad idea, if you think that's what he really believes now? You've posted some allegedly different statements about his recent feelings on the quality of the intelligence, but he mentions that he wants to get to the bottom of that stuff on HB, too. So let me hear him say it was a bad policy. I won't hold his IWR vote or past statements against him if can show he understands the error. But since I can't think of a worse US policy since slavery, I can't just let it slide.

As it stands, Edwards turns me Green.

I have to go to bed, so you get the last word.

[DjTj]

53. I'm not sure why I try so hard...

...I just want to fight for every vote I can get, because I really want to get Bush out of office and I think Edwards is in the best position to do that. I also think Edwards is the best person to move the entire country in a more progressive direction in a post-Bush world ... I just feel it's very important that John Edwards gets elected President.

I actually did send a direct e-mail to Elizabeth Edwards in November and got a pretty long personal response. The tone of it led me to believe that Edwards is not likely to make the kind of open criticism you're looking for, so I suppose this is hopeless.

I can just say that I believe Edwards will have a drastically different foreign policy from Bush. I believe that there is no Democrat - not even Zell Miller - that as President would have gone to Iraq as swiftly and as unjustly as Bush. The moment Bush entered office he stopped going through the regular chain of command of foreign policy think tanks in Washington and in DoD and the State Department - these were people that Bush I and Reagan at least listened to. Bush has implemented such a radical policy that I just can't conceive of any Democrat following in his footsteps.

Unless there is some significant event or major change in the public opinion, I think Edwards is going to hold back on criticizing Bush's foreign policy for political reasons. He believes, and I believe, this election will be won in the center, and that the center will not be won over by appearing at all soft on terrorism.

I believe Edwards has remained ambiguous and has refrained from attacking Bush for purely political reasons. I believe an Edwards administration will never engage in a preemptive war. I know I've said this to you before, but if I get the last word tonight I would like it to be this. I believe this is what Edwards' America would look like:

"America's also had two different images around the world over the last 30 or 40 years. It used to be the image we were all proud of: America this great shining light, this beacon of freedom, democracy, and human rights that everyone looked up to. And now the image George Bush has given us: America acting on its own, unilaterally, disrespecting the rest of the world. It doesn't have to be that way. You and I can build a world and an image of America around the world where we are once again looked up to and respected and the truth is this: Every child, every family in America will be safer and more secure if they live in a world where America is once again looked up to and respected. That's the world that you and I are going to create together."

[Guaranteed]

45. The guy's consistent. I actually GIVE that to him as a PLUS.

Going up against Bush it'll work better for him than Kerry's position of voting for the war but being against it but not really being against it.

Even if a candidate has the wrong position he's got a much better chance of beating Bush if he's just clear about whatever it is.

[boilerbabe]

34. I went to the link, it was very good!

I was not familiar with Senator Edward's thoughts on a lot of things, this interview with Tweety gave me a lot of insights. I will be definately considering Edwards when I go to vote, then...I do like what he has to say.
XXXOOO

[DjTj]

39. Glad to hear that!

The more people learn about Edwards, the more they generally like him - I can feel the 'mo growing!

...and for those who are critical of the position of Iraq he takes in that interview, please read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=364897

[BurtWorm]

6. It could be a passing phase

based on a lot of disturbing things I've been reading about Edwards lately. I'm a Dean guy. I like my politicians to give it to me more or less straight. I really don't like politicians who fudge. I think Edwards is addicted to keeping his record nice and hazy.

[wtf]

9. .

I understand you don't agree with his position on the war (I don't either) but I don't see how he isn't being up front. Just because you don't like his position/s, it means they're hazy?

[BurtWorm]

11. He seems to want it many ways at once.

He wants to blame faulty intelligence...for getting us into a war he would have supported to get rid of Saddam anyway? I don't get his position. I don't trust him on war and peace issues at all. I actually trust Kerry far more on those issues.

[wtf]

17. .

He wants to blame faulty intelligence...

I don't think he's blaming faulty intelligence for his vote, he's just pointing out the obvious failure of the intelligence, and the importance of making sure something like this never happens again. Now, I think it makes even LESS sense to still support the war even after we find out the intelligence was wrong, but again, that's not him having it both ways or being hazy, it shows poor judgment more than anything.

[BurtWorm]

22. He's racking up a lot of strikes against him.

I'm not saying everyone should do as I do, although if Edwards were nominated I would honestly hope for a viable third party candidate who would whup both their asses. But I can't stomach people talking about his phony "positive" message and "humble roots" and "populist oratory." He's entirely full of shit as far as I can tell.

[DjTj]

23. If you have a concern about Edwards & Iraq Intelligence...

...please read this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=364897&mesg_id=364897

[Syrinx]

12. did you notice what happened to Dean?

I like "straight shooters" too. But when have they actually won an election? Elections are a con-game that have winners and losers. And at this particular point in history, it is much more important that we win the game, than it is to play clean. All chips are down on this one, my friend. If we lose this one, it's all over and America is closing up shop. It is over.

[BurtWorm]

15. I think I see through Edwards' con, and I don't like what I see.

I don't like that kind of con being pulled on me. If by some miracle he becomes the nominee, I am going to need to see some serious evidence that he's not the most full of crap politician on this side of the aisle since I don't know who.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[BurtWorm]

20. Some Democrats really are better than others.

Kerry at least has progressive bonafides, even if he's betrayed them a bit in recent years. I can better stomach a progressive pretending to be a "moderate" than a conservative pretending to be a "populist."

[DjTj]

24. What about Edwards leads you to believe...

...he's a conservative?

[BurtWorm]

27. What leads anyone to think he ISN'T conservative?!

His votes for the war...the way he talks about the war...the way he talks about foreign policy...his votes on IWR, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill...the fact that I've never seen an ounce of passion out of him.

PS: I haven't had this negative a reaction to a candidate since Lieberman was in the race. Not that that says much, except that I'm even a little surprised at how strong my negative reaction to him is. My phony-detector picks up big vibes whenever he comes into range.

[DjTj]

30. Trade, Taxes, Health Care, Social Security, Campaign Finance, ...

...Welfare, Poverty - I think there's a whole lot of evidence showing Edwards to be far from conservative...

[BurtWorm]

54. His Israel-Palestine policy is emblematic of my problems with him.

It is essentially Bush light. He, like almost all establishment pols, puts every demand on the Palestinians and none on Israel. None!

His policy toward Iraq is similarly lacking in vision. It's more of the same old shit.

[tobius]

43. see board rules #6-

</snip>
"Please do not post messages or jokes that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president, or that could be construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government of the United States. The Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[tobius]

19. how do you want the Dem nominee to con the electorate?

Do you believe they should come across as pro-war but secretly be against it?

or

Should they be anti-war but secretly be for it?

or

Should they fuzz it up real good so everyone is confused?

Which is the winning hand?



re: this Iraq war

[RafterMan]

28. Well put

nt

[countmyvote4real]

38. Very smart, tobius.

I was trying to reserve my comments on this poll/thread until I read them all, but I had to tip my hat to your post.

[Syrinx]

42. I don't want nobody to con nobody...

But I want people to realize this election is about the survival of an idea and a country called America. This isn't an election about ideological purity, which Democrats could never win anyway. This is simply put a referendum on classic American ideals. Is America going to be a free country, or is it going to be a fascist state? The choice is ours, and I'll be damned if I'll give the wrong answer.

[boilerbabe]

35. They Reamed Dean in a Big Way

I guess that we have to only choose between Kerry and Edwards, now as much as I hate to say. I can't even say how badly the media treated Dean, it's just another expample of tabloidism. But as a reformed Repub (my excuse is that I didn't know what I was involved in, but once I found out...all heck broke loose....and I made a spectacle of myself!! my national rifle people ain't been the same haha and fuck em)
XXXOOO

[Syrinx]

46. I agree the media screwed Dean

I don't see why so many people here don't see a difference between Edwards and Bush. The ignorance is scary.

[boilerbabe]

48. Do you think that Edwards is the soporific for Dems?

It would make some sense, since he seems to be vacillating on his postions. The thing I miss being a Deanie-Weenie is that at least Howard was unequivicoval (I think I made that word up haha) about where he stood on any position!! I am still on the fence as far as who to support now that the person I was supporting is now officially out of the race...I don't see a good alternative, but I sure am not gonna vote Republican!!

[Syrinx]

52. soporific means sleeping pill, doesn't it?

The nomination is obviously Kerry's to lose, but I think Edwards might be a stronger opponent in the fall.

[Skip Intro]

55. I agree

In the same way Leiberman would have been a marginal improvement.

Edwards says he wasn't mislead on invading Iraq.

Huh?!

[Syrinx]

2. who are the Bush lovers here?

"Vote third party" equals a vote Bush. Who the hell are the traitors here?

[wtf]

5. .

I don't even think * is the problem, he's a moronic tool, sure, but it's the bloodthirsty psychopaths who surround him that makes ABB so important.

[corporatewhore]

10. Purge Purge Purge!!!!!!

[Syrinx]

14. care to expound on your message?

Do you want to live in the United States of Bush? I certainly don't and I'll die before I do.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

32. No but how would you like your domination?

With a smile or a smirk?

This is not directed at any candidate in particular, only at the question asked.

TWL

[Zhade]

13. Does it equal a vote for b*sh in a "safe" state?

I'm mighty leery of people who throw the term "traitor" around without looking at all the aspects of the situation. Want to calm down on the Stalinism there, pal?

[Syrinx]

16. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about

People who vote Mr. Bunnypants into office (or don't vote against him) are the Stalinists.

[Zhade]

21. Then allow me "the fuck" to clarify.

To automatically assume those who will vote third party are traitors, because in your mind - with clearly no consideration of relevant factors, such as living in a heavily-Democratic-voting area - such a vote equals a vote for b*sh, is to practice McCarthyism.

If the voter lives in an electoral "combat zone", then the third party = b*sh rule applies.

Simply declaring that all third-party voters are traitors, and backing up that assertion with faulty, unexamined logic, puts the accuser in the same mold as Stalin and others who would not tolerate dissent. It is a grossly un-American concept. A will to purge, if you like, does not bode well for democracy.

And yes, I understand that b*sh bodes ill for democracy. I'm just pointing out this specific argument for the dumbed-down "yer with us or agin' us" fallacy it is.

[Syrinx]

36. I'll ignore your condescension

And ask if you realized the name of this website is "DEMOCRATIC Underground?"

[boilerbabe]

41. I don't know if Stalin is the contributing factor here

Just let's say that those who don't vote, are f#$%ing themselves as well as others. Do not bring up references to McCarthyism or allusions to Stalin if you want to make a point, main reason being that most Americans will associate this with something that they do not want to be linked to, so if you want to oust the current admin., just say, NO!!
You need to realize that most of our electorate is just waiting for some guidance, and they will take it if it sounds reasonable and not too crazy. Sorry but true. It's not like the American people are stupid, so much as they are going to follow what seems to make the most sense and will follow that idea which they will get from the media sources....mainly because they don't have the time to delve more deeply into it. I work anywhere from 48-80 hours a week. So I don't think that I have any more knowlege than anyone else, except that i look for it. I am too tired at the end of the day to even bother, just think of the others who don't even look that far. There you have it...most of the people are going to take what they see and read at a surface look...and take whatever they are fed for what it's worth.
That's what you are up against if you are going to take on the endeavour that I think you are...
Keep that in mind that you may be well-informed, but most of the rest of us are just work-a-day people with no time and no energy to find out the truth...
XXXOOO

[tobius]

37. Penalty for traitors is the death penalty.

Your emotions are obviously very strong on this, careful you don't damage the keyboard.


Remember this-that there is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD - 180 AD)

[boilerbabe]

49. Bush makes my sphincter sphink..haha

ooh ooh ooh. That smirk just makes me go errk.
Cut it out, hopefully you are on the wrong discussion board...but you never know....if you think a woose like George W. would bring back my long lost sex drive...well, hunny....I have to make up some even better stuff....

[Shanty Oilish]

26. Tepid support here.

He gives a great speech, most inspiring, but he's still a rookie. We are in too much trouble to be sending in anyone but our best.
Edwards will be president eventually.

[countmyvote4real]

50. Here''s my take on the two senators, since all the comments are here

in this thread.

In general, I think they both blow in whatever direction the wind will take them.

They both creep me out a bit on TV...
Edwards: I hate seeing him putting on his mask in the few seconds before and after a live interview, but he is a great speaker.
Kerry: Oh man, what a lousy speaker. Whatever truth he has to say is droned to the point that he might as well be speaking to Tibetan monks. Totally loses me.

Their records...
Edwards: only has six years as a senator, but I don't dismiss his prior paid service fighting for the "little people."
Kerry: Has a history of public service we can examine and pull apart. His Vietnam experience and resulting epiphany does resonate with me, but I still have problems with his IWR vote. (And Edwards voted the same.)

What's missing from both...
I want to hear them support universal health care for the rest of us who aren't children or seniors. I'll never have children or be a senior if I don't get something to cover me because I don't have a full time job.

And if either are serious about civil rights, how about some support for gay "marriage." I'm not talking about the term, but about all the equal rights (SS, IRS, etc.) granted to heterosexual couples that are married under the law. I know it's a polarizing issue, but I can still remember my grandmother snatching me away from a water fountain marked "colored." (I thought I was going to see some water that wasn't clear.) Equal is equal or it’s not.

Bottom line...
I'll take either over *. But they need to convince me which one I want to spend the next eight years of my country with. And I do mean the full two terms. If they set it straight up front, they will get them.


Bottom line...
They'd both be better than *.