What I am bitter about is Democrats choosing Obama and Clinton over Edwards.

[jsamuel]

[jgraz]

1. Edwards would have been great, but I'm cool with Obama at this point

[Andy823]

2. I am with you on that!

Edwards was my candidate also. I wasn't going to support anyone after he left, but Hillary left me no choice but to go for Obama! I do think that he is the best hope for change that we have right now!

[Deep13]

7. No one took away your choice.

C'mon, get real.

[Andy823]

44. Didn't say it was "taken away"

I said she left me now choice but to support Obama. I want someone who won't lie to me day after day, who won't talk in circles instead of answering a direct question, someone who isn't playing the dirty politics that Hillary is. Since Edwards is no longer in the race the only choice I had was between Hillary and Obama. I chose Obama, can't you see why?:think:

[movonne]

19. This is exactly how I feel...I also was a Edwards supporter, but I feel

Obama will be a very good president..

[jsamuel]

24. I wish I felt the same way.

But I just don't believe it will be so.

[Deep13]

3. You mean two status-quoish centrists to a real progressive?

I say "status-quoish" because neither of them will be the disaster Bush is.

[NJSecularist]

22. Edwards was a DLC centrist his entire term in the Senate. n/t

[Catchawave]

50. Nope. n/t

[NJSecularist]

53. The facts are facts. n/t

[Catchawave]

57. Not if they're dumb facts n/t

[Leafy Geneva]

47. Well, Edwards was SAYING the right things .....

But Edwards' voting record and campaign positions are so very different. I tend to agree with Russ Feingold:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Feingold_Edwards_is_running_on_my_record.html">Feingold: Edwards is running on my record

The one that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

and Dennis Kucinich:

http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/foreign-policy/iraq-war/">John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like?

Revelations in today’s New York Times regarding John Edwards’ staunch pro-war stance as a Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 “raise serious questions about the credibility of his positions on every issue being debated in this Presidential campaign,” Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.“Voters have every right to ask, ‘Were you telling the truth then, John, or are you telling the truth now?’ And Senator Edwards has a responsibility to answer,” Kucinich said.

In a major story today about the relationship between Edwards and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, the Times reported, “Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.” Edwards was a co-sponsor of the 2002 war authorization resolution, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

“Mr. Kerry yielded to his running mate,” according to the Times story, and told reporters early in the 2004 campaign that he would still have voted for the 2002 war authorization even knowing that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Six weeks later, in a speech at New York University, he reversed himself, over the objections of Edwards, the Times reported. A year later, in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post, Edwards reversed his own position, a move that some Kerry aides described as “politically expedient” in the planned run-up to the 2008 Presidential campaign.

“John Kerry was hammered by the Republicans and by many in the media for changing his positions on the war and other issues in the 2004 campaign,” Kucinich noted. “The fact of the matter is that he wanted to come out against the war in 2004, and John Edwards argued against it.”

Edwards' position on the Iraq war most troubles me. He not only voted for the war authorization in 2002 (in fact, he was a co-sponsor), he still supported the war in 2004 - a time when it was obvious that the WMD claims were just LIES. And why? - Because for political reasons he wanted to "show conviction and consistency".

[democracy1st]

60. thank you

for posting that I didn't feel like pulling out my bag of tricks

[Lilith Velkor]

61. At least he gave us lip service

Now, we get bupkis.

[hfojvt]

62. I still say that a vote for Edwards

was a vote for the things he was saying, and he lead the pack when it came to saying them, and he said the same things in the 2004 primary, so it wasn't like a new song. I pretty much wrote off his senate career as representing the more conservative state of North Carolina.

[Arrowhead2k1]

4. You can't expect everything to go your way.

But Hillary is just a mindfuck.

[Deep13]

8. I guess some minds are like that.

:eyes:

[Arrowhead2k1]

11. I guess some people don't mind taking it in the behind

but not me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U

[anonymous171]

5. I was an Obama supporter from the start, but Edwards was my second choice.

I liked his stance on the issues but I was afraid that many voters would just write him off as "Kerry's ex-vp." Also Obama really inspires me.

[Adelante]

6. This has been obvious nt

[Deep13]

9. Would we be fighting like this if Edwards was the likely nominee?

Would anyone feel thrown under the bus with Edwards?

[merh]

51. yeah, hillary would still be as nasty

Edwards complained about hillary going negative in Oct/Nov 07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgSCV1F-76Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2VSrd1pCQA


and Elizabeth called bullshit on all the sexism whines and bullshit feminist movement outrage that hillary and her supporters like to use to portrary her as a victim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzRQxxldBvk">Hillary Clinton plays victim--Elizabeth Edwards fires back

http://2008central.net/2007/07/17/elizabeth-edwards-questions-hillary-clintons-strength-on-womens-issues/

[Deep13]

67. .

[Johnny Battleground]

10. I agree... but I'll take the other candidate...

Obama would have been toast had his baggage been known earlier.

[ej510]

Arrowhead2k1 that youtube clip should be the reason no one and I mean.......

no one should support Hillary!

[flvegan]

12. Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich.

But I hear you. I'd have been happier with Edwards (I think) that with the other two.

[superkia]

48. Yes, would have been happier with my first choice, Kucinich but...

then, anyone besides McCain and Clinton and I am ok.

[Saturday]

13. The media wouldn't give Edwards a chance. nt

[patrice]

23. The Media Aristocracy wouldn't give him a chance.

Alternative media was there for him.

[last_texas_dem]

46. I agree

I know that Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich (and, I guess, Gravel, particularly!) got the media snub even worse, but it really pissed me off how the media had basically narrowed our side's nomination down to a Clinton vs. Obama race, essentially before it had even started. Whereas they continued to treat the Repugs' race as a four- or five-man (how long did they continue to give "Fred" and "Ghouliani" the benefit of the doubt?!) several contests in...

[redqueen]

14. I'm bitter about labor being systematically crushed. (nt)

[chascarrillo]

15. Democracy is such a bitter pill, isn't it?

:eyes:

[Me.]

16. I Would've Voted For Edwards In Our Primary

but he dropped out before it was held. As they say, you have to be in it to win it

[Arrowhead2k1]

17. Edwards voted to authorize the war as well.

So no, I'm not too impressed with him either.

[patrice]

26. That's a prime issue for me > JE apologized for doing the wrong thing,

unlike HC.

Please go easy on this issue; we still don't know what BHO would have done if he had been in the US Senate and all he Really did early on was get on the record with his opposition. He did not assume an aggressive leadership role on the issue because it would have cost him support. All of us understand how that is and like it or not, we have to accept the reality of the situation he was in.

It would have just been real different if some strong regional or national leader had taken the political hit to support national opposition to Bush's IMMORAL War way earlier in the course of events.

[Arrowhead2k1]

33. I see what you're saying

but all I know is that while I was marching in the streets, these guys were authorizing the war hoping that everything would go just peachy. I will never forget that, forgive maybe, but forget? No.

Whatever could have happened if Obama was actually in a position to vote, all I know is that he was on my side in 2002 and ever since while he was voicing his opposition to a war that at the time was somewhat popular.

[patrice]

40. Me too. Catholic Worker House and the Quakers had us out in the streets in 2002.

A bunch of us here locally have been to Washington quite a few times.

War Slavery is my main concern.

I can understand how a person in Obama's position has to weigh things something like this: "I want to do something about this War, but if I do it now, I'll get shut down, so I have to keep my light under a basket until I get into a position in which I can do something more effective about the War without getting shut down." Problem is, all we have is their word on whether that was the process or not. In Obama's case, I'm willing to believe him, that's almost nothing but pure instinct at this point. But the main thing that affects the War issue is what the People do after the GE. Stay committed, active, and responsible? Or go back to sleep?

Solidarity, Arrowhead2k1.

:hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

63. There was one such leader, but he died in a convenient plane crash

BHO, punkass git that he is, dismissed him as a "gadfly."

[Lucky 13]

18. Look, I wanted Edwards to be President too.

But that is done. John stepped aside for the good of the party and because he knew he was beat.

We have to move on and do what's best for the party with the options we have. Obama is clearly the superior choice and I think closer on the issues to John than Hillary is.

John would have been my first choice. But I know Barack is going to make me just as proud to be a democrat.

[BlooInBloo]

20. I'm not bitter about it - I like our deep bench.

[patrice]

21. Me too.

I'm not bitter, but I am quite disappointed.

With a few exceptions the cultural/class issues that are attracting folks to BHO are also true of John Edwards. The finances just weren't there for him, because his natural constituency just didn't get behind him the way that BHO's got behind him and a BUNCH of them were drawn off by HC.

Now that I have listened to him more, I'm fine with BHO, but that doesn't change my disappointment with how "our" system didn't work out for what would have been a WINNING candidate nationally.

[bigwillq]

25. Or over Kucinich (nt)

[NikolaC]

64. Same Here

I'm not there with Hillary, at all, and not quite there with Barack (on the fence with him).

[question everything]

27. When it comes down to it, Elizaabeth was right

Too many voters were excited about the "first woman" or the "first black," looked at the form instead of the substance.

And, as with Howard Dean in 2004 Trippi only hurt Edwards.

At some point Edwards, or Trippi, decided to join forces with Obama against Clinton and he lived to regret it.

Just my opinion. I was an Edwards supporter since 2004, but was dismayed at some of his attacks on Clinton. When one of her campaign people came with the "Obama's drug problem" Trippi joined Axelord in going after Mark Penn.

And I think that when many saw the attacks on Hillary, they decided to go with the new guy.

(k&r)

[democrattotheend]

28. I was torn between Obama and Edwards at first

But I am glad Obama is the one who has made it this far. I liked him before but my respect for him has only grown in the past couple months, especially since his handling of the Wright controversy. He has shown courage, intelligence, and grace under fire that I have not seen from a politician in my (admittedly short) lifetime. I was disappointed that Edwards did not make it further, but I decided to go with Obama after Iowa and am more proud of that decision now than ever. I would like to see Edwards play a role in an Obama Administration though.

[Blu Dahlia]

29. Edwards is all talk. Nothing he has done backs up his rhetoric

[msallied]

31. Frankly, I see little of substance in Edwards.

He seems like a good guy, but I have yet to see how his record reflects his rhetoric.

[NJSecularist]

34. His record doesn't reflect his rhetoric, but his supporters have bought his rhetoric anyways. n/t

[Catchawave]

43. Neither has Obama....

Edwards kneecapped greedy corporations for 20 years before he ran for the Senate and then defeated a wildly popular incumbent in a red state.

And Obama....?

[2rth2pwr]

30. If he hadn't lied about staying in it all the way to the convention

you wouldn't have to be bitter.

[Catchawave]

45. He only suspended and hasn't endorsed....

I'm keeping my powder dry :evilgrin:

[2rth2pwr]

55. LOL!

[Stop Cornyn]

32. AMEN! (K&R#5)

[patrice]

35. So, jsamuel, what purpose do you suppose it serves for posters in this thread to

trash a person who is OUT OF THE RACE FOR THE NOMINATION NOW, John Edwards? Why is JE Troll bait? What conceivable purpose is there in talking trash on someone who isn't even a candidate at this point? Except to Damage the Democratic party. It would be interesting to do a DU search on some folks and see whom they are "supporting".

Very intresting indeed . . .

[jsamuel]

36. There is a certain group who trashes Edwards at every chance.

[Stop Cornyn]

39. Makes you wonder who those people really vote for in the general election. I have my suspicions.

[Catchawave]

49. Gore/Edwards blew away the comp in a recent DU poll....

Way ahead of Gore/Obama, which really surprised me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3087354

[jsamuel]

56. very few Democrats would be upset with a Gore/Edwards ticket

in fact, most would love it

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. 2 months of bitterness.

You should be into the "Movin' On" stage by now.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. Yeah, I'm really bitter about that.

[last_texas_dem]

41. I'm not quite bitter, but still disappointed

I know that John Edwards would not have been the perfect candidate, but I still think he was our best choice to face McSame. He would have had to deal with attacks that he is "phony", but I don't think this charge would have done the same amount of damage as the type of things we will see (or have already seen) thrown at Clinton and Obama. I think that both Clinton and Obama have their strengths (I have become more of an Obama supporter, though, especially in recent weeks) but I feel like, regardless of which of them we have as our nominee, this election is going to come right down to the wire.

[smoogatz]

42. Democracy sucks, dude.

Fucking Democracy.

[backscatter712]

52. Edwards was my second choice...

behind Dennis Kucinich and before Barack Obama.

I guess that's the way politics work - Kucinich and Edwards couldn't make the sale, and Obama did. And Clinton took her campaign right into the gutter.

So I pick the best candidate that is still in the running, and that is Obama. And I'm definitely not dissatisfied with that choice - Obama's really impressed me as a candidate.

[EFerrari]

54. I frankly don't know why I'm not bitter about that.

Maybe it's because my whole life, American politics has moved steadily to the right, and year after disappointing year, my lemonade recipe keeps getting refined.

[jackson_dem]

58. We have a long record of not nominating the strongest GE candidate

Contrast that to the rethugs choosing McSame, Bush in 88', Ford in 76', Nixon in 68', Eisenhower in 52'. 1996 was a lost cause for the rethugs and Dole was just a sacrificial lamb. 1992, 1984, 1972, and 1956 were not contested primaries for the rethugs. The only time the rethugs really nominated a terrible ge candidate was Goldwater in 64'. Dole did about as well as any rethug could have done given the peace and prosperity of the 90's.

[LiveLiberally]

59. Another Edwards supporter here with a different take...

Like it or not (your choice), if Obama wins the nomination, I think history will record that Edwards' candidacy MADE Obama's candidacy in this particular election cycle truly viable. Why? Edwards' progressive policies -- articulated in many cases months before those of Obama or Clinton -- forced both to the left, thereby rocking Clinton off her game as the "inevitable" centrist candidate and requiring Obama to adopt substantive policy positions that later insulated him from charges that he provided "just words." Conventional wisdom already agrees that Clinton's best chance to derail Obama was to define him negatively early on before his charisma, soaring oratory and other political talents could generate widespread support. With Edwards in the race -- garnering his own grassroots support (if not much MSM attention) and successfully lobbing criticisms of Clinton's fundraising practices, stance on the war etc... -- Clinton and her campaign failed to take Obama seriously or to realize how much he had matured as a candidate until it was too late.

I'm not arguing that this was in any way planned, but the fact remains that Edwards may in hindsight have provided the wild card essential to a Clinton loss & an Obama victory in the primaries.

edit: correct typo

[JoFerret]

65. I am bitter we have such mealy mouthed wishy washy candidates

and that is because it only such people get this far.

Grow up America. Stop making fools of the great people who seek to be your president.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Hey, I'm still bitter about their not choosing Wes Clark 4 years ago.

[MrSlayer]

69. Hear Hear!

I agree.

[PVnRT]

68. It sucks, but he bet too much on winning Iowa

I wanted him to win as well, but he put 90% of his eggs in the Iowa basket, and the media conveniently focusing on Obama vs. Clinton to the exclusion of the other candidates didn't help.