An Early John Edwards supporter says "I hate to say 'I told you so,' but . . .

[Krashkopf]

Although, now, I know that John Edwards was "fatally flawed," my early concerns about Barack Obama, and his "compromising nature" are beginning to sound prescient:

Here is a clip of a pro-Edwards speech that I gave back in January 2008:

With all due respect to Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama, I am afraid that both of them have taken too much campaign money FROM the Corporatocracy to bring about the changes necessary to take the Government back from the Corporatocracy and FOR the American People.

And, as much as I like Barack, who is my second choice, NOW is NOT the time to try to build a "Purple America" were Democrats and Republicans work together to find "common ground" on issues.

Today's Republican Party is SO FAR to the radical right wing (having been thoroughly taken over by the "neo-cons and the movement conservatives"), that there is NO WAY to find "common ground" with the GOP without "selling out" MAINSTREAM Democratic principles . . . both “BIG D” Democratic principles and “small d” democratic principles.

As John Edwards said “There IS no common ground between US, and people who would allow a teenage girl to die, because they put insurance company profits OVER her need for a life saving liver transplant.”

The Republicans have tried to strangle Medicare, and to rip down the social safety net that has kept middle class America safe since FDR and the New Deal.

It’s foolishly naive to believe that, come January 2009, we are going to be able to find “common ground” with those Republicans on important progressive social issues like Universal Health Care.

The Republicans are going to fight us, tooth and nail, when we try to implement a truly Progressive agenda. Just yesterday, the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged millions of dollars from Corporate America to defeat populist candidates, and progressive programs.

That is what we are fighting against. There is no way to compromise with that. Not now. Not in 2009.

I know that we’re all tired of the political partisanship that has divided America since Ronald Reagan was elected, but what America NEEDS now is NOT to reach out to Republicans and have a “Kumbaya” moment.

What America NEEDS is an AGGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE President who is going to fight back against big business interests to restore the fundamental balance to the American political scene.

[LWolf]

1. .

The sigline speaks for itself.

[elocs]

13. It's kind of interesting to go back and read old threads.

I wonder what we would all do then if we knew what we know now.

[MercutioATC]

2. I see your point...

...but in light of his recreational activities, we'd have been screwed if Edwards was the candidate.

Kind of a loss either way. At least Obama is doing SOME good.

[Krashkopf]

3. You are right, we would have been screwed.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Hard to imagine a less meaningful voice

Nice going.

[Raineyb]

103. And because you find him meaningless it makes what he said less right how? n/t

[Doctor_J]

5. Edwards turned out to be un-electable however

Kucinich and Feingold would also be good progressive presidents. But they are also unelectable, which is why I supported Obama.

Well-reasoned and well-constructed speech, BTW

[eminentcreativity]

108. Incorrect

McCain's ex-wife drama, affair with current wife, and the economic collapse that would have still occurred would have lessened the effect of Edwards' affair.

Both he and his opponent (McCain) would have been deemed "scum" for how they treated their "sick/injured" wives, but Edwards would have been the scum that had the better economic proposals.

[Teaser]

6. WE HAVE A WINNER: STUPID POST OF THE DAY!!!

thought the awards would take Labor Day off, but candidates like this post don't come along every day.

[KansasVoter]

56. Yours??? LOL

[Teaser]

65. I didn't make a post

I replied to one. posts != replies.

[tledford]

93. Somebody codes in C. eom

[jenmito]

7. Edwards was a phony. He said he worked for a hedgefund "for experience" and he wanted to opt out

of taking matching funds to stay competitive with Hillary and Obama until he COULDN'T raise as much as them and he suddenly claimed HE wouldn't be BOUGHT and therefore WOULD take matching funds. :eyes:

[eminentcreativity]

109. Fortress Investment Group donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and the DSCC

Are they phonies for criticizing Edwards for working for Fortress while failing to disclose that their campaigns accepted political contributions from Fortress?

[Merlot]

8. "There IS no common ground between US..." AGREED.

"There IS no common ground between US, and people who would allow a teenage girl to die, because they put insurance company profits OVER her need for a life saving liver transplant.”

[cyclezealot]

9. I always thought a non partisan approach was naive.

Can we say Ken Starr.. Let's work to put some fire under Obama's belly. He has good instincts..
He better start humiliating the Repukes, or else should they take over Congress, expect the likes of Ken Starr to make life really disagreeable for President Obama.

[Doctor_J]

26. Good instincts for helping pople. For winning a street fight with sociopaths?

Jury's still out on that one, but I don't like what I've sen the last month.

[asdjrocky]

10. Wow.

Not too many people around here who can say they were a bigger Edwards supporter than me. Don't think so? Take a look at my journal which I haven't updated.

Why on earth would you post this right after a very good speech by President Obama?

[still_one]

11. Gee, thanks for your concern, now can we just see what happens rather than the msm telling us

What will happen

as far as Edwards, because of his reckless behavior, we might have lost the supreme court
and what he did to his wife is comparable to ginrich

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Oh if only we had chosen Edwards.

:rofl:

[DrToast]

14. Wow...I didn't realize people still admit to being John Edwards supporters

[Uzybone]

15. Edwards decieved a lot of people

some of them have had the good sense to realize he was a fraud.

[eminentcreativity]

111. The real frauds usually get a pass from the corporate media

Anyone who believes that Edwards is the only politician from the 2008 election cycle to have an affair, doesn't know much about politicians, wealthy people, attractive people, or human beings.

To call Edwards a "fraud" over a "sexual affair" is to suggest that a candidate's sex life should be as important as the Republicans made it about Clinton, which I'm principled enough not to agree with.

What's more to me is the fact that when asked, Corporate America said based on his history as a trial lawyer, he was the politician they least trusted.

I'm sure some will joke and say, "well, I guess he succeeded in uniting the two Americas then (corporate America and citizen America)", but I find the fact that corporate America didn't want him anywhere near the White House and didn't pump money into his campaign like they did Clinton and Obama, to be signs that he was more "credible" as an agent of change than the current occupant of the White House, who got more corporate money than anyone in history, and has shown so in his cabinet appointments and repaying Goldman Sachs with economic appointment after economic appointment.

But, what can I say. Principles matter more to me than personalities.

[Uzybone]

118. Nonsense

Anyone who still trusts Edwards at this point is a fool.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Probably wouldn't be any signs with Pres. Edwards sporting an Hitler mustache....

cause there would be no Pres. Edwards, let alone one pushing health care reform.
By now, you would have gotten your $5,000 McCain tax credit to apply to your $24,0000 insurance policy.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Oh, and one more thing......

How did your words (since this is your pro-Edwards speech) get morphed into what John Edwards said? Riddle me that! :shrug:

[ProSense]

17. How's the campaign to end poverty going? n/t

[karynnj]

74. Well, I bet he wll soon be supporting 2 people with no visible means of support

Reille Hunter and the little Frances.

[Connie_Corleone]

18. Thank God we didn't end up with Edwards.

John McCain and Sarah Palin would be president and vice-president right now.

[eminentcreativity]

112. Link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8633209&mesg_id=8636455

[depakid]

19. As usual, people can't seem to separate the source from the message

I've often thought that if Obama had spent some time as a trial lawyer, he'd have a better grasp on how to use concise, memorable points, how to frame an issue, tell a persuasive story and use pathos to marshal people's will (while cutting the legs out from under his opponents).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Right, because Obama can't give convincing speeches.

Sweet puppy on a hovercraft. What is this shit? A stupidity contest?

[depakid]

41. Depends on the context, topic and objective

And you win the stupid award for not getting what any high school forensics student knows.

Gotta analyze the audience and use appropriate rhetorical tools for the occasion. One size doesn't fit all.

Charles Blow had a bit about that the other day:

Let’s hope someone among these Ivy League oracles will convince the president to come down from his cloud and speak to the Costco constituency. As we witnessed during his presidential campaign, he can have a hard time speaking to everyday people in everyday language.

His opponents don’t have that problem. Death panels. Death books. Taxpayer dollars for abortion. Kill Grandma. Take away choice. Is some of this rhetoric blatantly silly? Yes. But, also brilliantly simple.

Conservatives speak in bumper stickers. Obama speaks in thesis statements. In fact, he sometimes seems constitutionally incapable of concision.

He also seems to display a disdain for irrational excitability and confronts it with either princely dispassion, mocking disbelief or stirring oratory that speaks more to posterity than to the people in front of him.

So, with little coherent opposition, conservatives have feted the public with a campaign of confusion and fear composed of simple sound bites. And, it has worked.

According to a CBS News poll released on Tuesday, 67 percent of respondents said that they didn’t have an understanding of health care reform ideas because they found them too confusing.

Furthermore, the president’s lack of leadership and passion for his plan has translated into a lack of passion among his base.

Epic fail, Team Obama.

In American debates, and particularly in this debate, facts are not sufficient, no matter how eloquently spoken. We want to be moved by passion and conviction and determination and faith. We coalesce around simple ideas like right and wrong, and for many, yes, good and evil.

Some may dislike this simplicity and wish it were different (I am among them), but in politics you have to play on the field where the game is.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/opinion/05blow.html

[asdjrocky]

23. It's a well timed hit and run post.

The author isn't even sticking around to defend his/her position. I gave the Edwards campaign my time, my money and my heart and the entire thing could have went down the drain at any moment.

It'd be like me taking a family of poor people for a ride in my new car and killing two of three of them in an accident and not having insurance to cover the loses.

That fucker was ready to leave us and the entire progressive cause out to dry because of his dick. It's crap like that that makes regular citizens like me weary of getting involved, and yeah, I'm still a bit pissed off.

[depakid]

44. I never liked Edawrds from the outset (thought he was an opportunist) -yet what he said made sense

and things would be looking a whole lot different if that had been the attitude of the administration coming out of the gates.

Town halls might have been overrun with folks who've been abused by insurance companies- rather than the other way around.

As the NY Times columnist bluntly said above- that was an epic fail.

[suzie]

89. +510

[karynnj]

76. If he couldn't do those things, how did he beat HRC and John Edwards?

The skill you speak of is needed more for getting elected. Edwards, though a superb trial lawyer, failed in 2004 losing badly to Kerry, and then in 2008 again failing to compete with Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In 2004, I was impressed that Kerry, who could have made a fortune as a trial lawyer, chose to be a DA. He later was briefly a very successful trial lawyer, but he found it unsatisfying preferring much less money as lt Governor and then Senator. Kerry refers far more often to being a prosecutor - where the same skills are required to make a case.

[Raineyb]

104. Indeed. There was a reason why people were drawn to him as a candidate.

And frankly, I don't give a shit about his personal life. We've got Republicans using state funds or other monies they have no business using to fund their mistresses and they're still in office. It does not change what he said initially. The Republicans are not going to vote for health care reform they only care about helping out their friends in industry and will kill every one of us to do so. Trying to find a compromise with them is like a black man trying to find a compromise with the KKK as they're preparing the noose. It's not going to happen and they win.

We're seeing it come to fruition as people go on and on about how much of a phony Edwards is. The important thing is to win this health care fight. I don't care how phony people think someone is if the man is right, he's right. And he's right.

[lildreamer316]

115. +1

I think that's why he had to fail. I begin to fashion myself a tin foil hat, but I pause...

[Inspired]

21. You will see by the comments that it is difficult separating the rhetoric from the man.

It's sad but there is only Edwards himself to blame.

[depakid]

48. Sorry- it's not Edward's who's "to blame" -but the overrirding emotion inability of Americans

to consider a take objectively, without hollering about the messenger (who in this case, happened to be spot on).

Happens whenever anyone mentions Nader, too. No matter how obvious and factual the statement that he makes.

[sharp_stick]

22. How many people around here

do nothing but bitch and moan? I mean besides the posterboy for bitching and moaning that started this pathetic thread?

on edit: I wish we could count the unrecs, the number here must be astronomical.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Your statements then were as flawed as your judgment then

The only people more pathetic than Edwards supporters are the loony-tunes who thought Kucinich had a chance.

You are permanent political FAIL for not seeing Edwards as a smarmy liar and opportunist. Who could trust anything such a gullible sucker says?

[Skittles]

77. not many Kucinich supporters thought he had a chance

because it's all style over substance - they just knew he'd be a fine president

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Right

He's non-viable because everybody else is an idiot. This, of course, passes for some kind of radical democracy these days?

[Skittles]

81. exhibit A of why we get what we deserve

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. Yes yes yes!

It's super democratic to think that you lose because "the people" are too dumb to know any better! That's, like, really democratic and stuff!

:rofl:

[eminentcreativity]

114. And you are a permanent political FAIL for believing you put Obama in office instead of

the millions that Corporate America blessed him with.

Keep patting yourselves on the back, while the corporate donors continue getting their ROIs to your detriment.

Of course you can focus on the "Edwards" affair because it's out there in the open.

The corporate affairs are broadcasted less.

[CTyankee]

25. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

As much as I now detest John Edwards for his betrayal of many of us who initially supported him, I have to admit he was right on this one. It didn't resonate with many people because they wanted the Obama dream to bring folks together and work together.

Sadly, John Edwards was spot on with his analysis of the situation. He was a knave and a fool and I cannot forgive him betraying my trust (and I still beat myself up over believing him), but he nailed this one.

[ChiciB1]

36. Sorry To ALL of You Edwards Bashers... But I Think Too Many Of You

forget just how many "other" Democrats did the same thing and went on to be quite successful! The HATE here for John Edwards does astound me!

Try to remember not so long ago, that one President in particular had many, many flings here and there. Even in the WH he continued which I could NEVER understand! He is such an intelligent man and I would have thought he knew better!

Edwards' message was picked up by Obama after he dropped out, but I think many have forgotten that and only remember him as a philanderer! There have been quite a few Democrats who have taken the same path.

I realize it would have been a very bad scene had he gotten the nomination, but that does NOT mean his voice and thoughts about many issues were wrong.

And yes, I was big for Edwards, wish it had turned out different, but simply won't vilify him when I know that he's NOT THE ONLY ONE!! The pure HATE here is just amazing to me.

Remember when Hillary said she "would stand by her man?"

You can flame me all you want and I'm sure you will, but I felt a need for this input. And I'm not going to get into a pissing match with ANYONE... I'm just making MY comment!

[dionysus]

61. ELEVENS!!11!11!!11!! CAPS!!11!!11!!11

:rofl:

[Arkana]

64. Those "other" Democrats you refer to did it in an age before electronic media.

Before Youtube, Twitter, and cable news. Before a politician's EVERY MOVE was carefully monitored by unscrupulous reporters.

John Edwards was grossly irresponsible to seek the Democratic nomination for President knowing that he had something like this in his past. Sure, fine, his campaign speeches about poverty and such were admirable, I won't deny that--but there is something disgustingly egotistical in his thinking that he'd be able to cover up a bombshell like an affair AND a kid.

[CTyankee]

70. I hear your frustration. This is a hard thing for all of us who supported JE initially.

I voted for HRC after JE dropped out and our primary was basically between her and Obama. My husband was a HUGE Hillary supporter and persuaded me to vote for her, which I did mainly because at my age I wanted to say at least I was able to vote for a woman for president.

I made my post about JE in a lot of sorrow as well as anger. I thought he had good ideas on poverty in this country and was the only voice to do so. I liked his message on health care as it was the first one I agreed with. And I liked what he had to say about being tough minded with the Republicans.

I am not a hater of Edwards as much as I am a disappointed Edwards supporter. I am angry with him for his betrayal of me and other supporters. I don't think that's so hard to understand, do you?

[karynnj]

95. Obama did not "pick up Edwards' message" when he pulled out

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson etc ALL had proposals for universal health care. It was an issue that played well for Kerry, Dean, Gephardt etc in 2004 - Edwards had a less ambitious plan back then.

I agree that Edwards was not the only man to have an affair and to then le straight faced when he denied it. I think the reason it hurt him more is that his entire 2008 words were backed, not by past actions, but by words. You had to trust that he really believed what he said - over actions that pointed in a different directions. Many believed him as he spoke with wide blue eyes - just as he did when denying an affair.

[Rebubula]

102. Well...

...since those other guys did it...it is OK for me to do it then????

That is the only message that I am getting from your post - as long as there is precedent - then illegal or stupid acts are just peachy.

[Aramchek]

27. Maybe Obama should've had a lovechild. He would seem less compromised to you then.

[stray cat]

29. John Edwards - y es you can certainly trust his word....

:sarcasm:

[grantcart]

30. Yes how much more satisfying it is to fight and not get something passed than

have a leader that actually gets good legislation passed.


good for you in getting a last hit in before the speech on Wednesday when this ridiculous tripe will look even more foolish than it does now.



the really odd thing about progressives is how completely self aborbed they are. we are apart of a political movement that requires organization, solidarity and leaders.


the American progressive movement is seriiously handicapped by a narcissistic compulsion that is frequently seen at DU.



It is seldom shown in such embarassing detail as this OP however.


"I told you so"

I know

I gave

I am afraid

I like

I know


What America NEEDS is an AGGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE President who is going to fight back against big business interests to restore the fundamental balance to the American political scene



No what the Progressive movement in America needs is to understand that in a country that has divided executive and legislative power with one part of the legislative branch requiring super majority votes, that getting progressive legislation passed is infinitely more difficult than a parlimentary democracy where executive and legislative power is concentrated in a single coalition.

What we need is a progressive movement that is filled with people who are less interested in showing off how terribly progressive they are and more interested in fighting a lengthy fight.

How ironic it is that before the fight has even begun and the votes even taken that you feel a need to promote yourself rather than actually getting involved and waiting to see how the President has succeeded.

When the President passes the health care bill and it includes a public option, that will simply be the begining of health care reform in the country not the epiphany that those with microscopic time frames and self promotion compulsions are looking for.


Join the battle or get out of the way, we really are not interested in your self promoting narcissistic grandstanding.

[cliffordu]

32. Hear, Hear!!!!!!

Complete agreement from me and my minions!!!!!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[grantcart]

33. unfortunately they are-- they share the same narcissistic streak

How ironic that having supported the most narcisstic selfish candidate for President in the primaries they don't see that they share the same trait.

[cliffordu]

34. Garsh, if we'd only listened to you back then.

And Edwards could keep his dick in his pants.

And I was filthy rich.

Then the world would be good.

[Baltoman991]

35. Oh boo fucking hoo

It must have been hard for you to watch and listen to the President today huh? He's back with a fire in his belly and you can't stand it.

No, you have to come here with a bullshit thread to try and take away from the strong words spoken today by the man who won.

Get over it. You didn't tell me anything back then and you sure as hell aren't telling me anything now.

[butterfly77]

37. I also had to say that to my friends who loved Edwards...

I never liked Edwards I always thought he was so phony. I got tired of hearing his speeches in the first campaign and I didn't like the fact that Kerry chose him for vp. I could tell something was up as I watched him and Elizabeth as they announce her illness. I didn't like his body language when it came to his wife.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I was for Edwards, too, but I'm sorry. I cannot take him seriously after his sham of a campaign.

I'll just have to take my chances with Obama.

[cornermouse]

39. And of course no one remembers how they

commemorated Teddy, who was guilty of the same thing, a couple of weeks ago. None of them would have voted for J.F.K., guilty of the same thing, had he been alive to run today. Nor would they have voted for F.D.R., also guilty of the same thing.

I find it increasingly bizarre that my parents, grandparents, and even great-grandparents were less victorian than the people scrambling around on this thread to show how righteous...correction, make that self-righteous... they are today.

[ProSense]

42. "commemorated Teddy, who was guilty of the same thing, a couple of weeks ago. "

Kennedy wasn't guilty of being a fake progressive and deceiving the entire Democratic Party while running to earn the nomination for President at a crucial time in history.

[cornermouse]

43. Short memory.

Teddy cheated on his wife and ran for president. You're too busy judging and condemning to see the truth.

[ProSense]

45. Really?

1969 and 1980 are the same years?

Like I said, Kennedy wasn't a fake progressive.

[cornermouse]

46. Your incorrect judgement, not mine.

Edwards wasn't a fake. To borrow the vernacular from others on this board, I give that reasoning an epic fail.

Doesn't change the fact that you're well on the way to developing a more victorian attitude than my great-grandparents, born in 1875 and 1890 respectively, either.

[karynnj]

98. Then you beleve that the best way to learn about poverty is to work for a Hedge Fund?

Edwards made HALF A MILLION DOLLARS for about 2 to 3 days a month, spent doing whatever he wanted wherever he wanted for a hedge fund that had one of the worst subprime mortgage companies. Though I guess their foreclosing on mortgages did have something to do with poverty.

As to Victorian attitudes, I think it was in fact rather commonplace for well connected men of that generation to have affairs. Women simply ignored them. I also do not think that having had an affair would sink any candidate. The fact is that Edwards having an affair continuing after his wife was diagnosed with incurable cancer and was continuing to use the strength she had to support his campaign shows a complete lack of character and morality. Then go back and look at his speech before the vote in Clinton's impeachment trial. I read many Senators' speeches because I found it interesting in terms of the Senators' values and his was one of the most judgmental.

I know Edwards' people posted that speech everywhere - claiming incorrectly it was part of why Clinton was not found guilty - so I'm sure you can find it. (Why incorrect? About half the Senators spoke before him and the Senators following him all had well written speeches, referencing precedent, law, literature and scripture. Obviously written before Edwards spoke. In addition, where Senators referenced Moynihan and others, no one referenced Edwards.

[cornermouse]

105. And Teddy should have given his money away?

Yet more faulty reasoning. When I was referring to victorian, karennj, (thank god you're not in my state) I was referring to the kind poker-up-the-back, prune faced, over to top disapproval, old maidish attitude that I've been seeing for a while now. It would be something I would expect from the religious right rather than DU.

I know from my grandparents and from the writings that he left that my great-grandparents were more forgiving, more tolerant, thought more carefully, less likely to waste time being condemnatory over affairs than the Edwards haters. As far as where you get your idea of what victorians were like, I'd say it was from a work of fiction.

Like I said. The victorian attitude that the democratic party may have been part of the reason Joe Jr. decided to stay out of politics and not run for his uncles seat; something you might want to keep in mind if it turns out that we lose Teddy's seat to a republican next election. I'm not joking when I say that if JFK was running for office, it looks to me like he'd be driven out of the democratic party. Hope you're happy with your handiwork.

Now, I have a cd to listen to, supper to make, and books to study.

[karynnj]

119. Why would Teddy give his money away?

What does that have to do with the already wealthy JRE accepting half a million dollars for very little work from a company that harmed many through its predatory actions. JRE then had the chutzpah to say that he "worked" for them to learn about poverty. Now, I can think of many ways to learn about poverty -- this is not one of them.

I know of the Victorian era from reading history. A town I lived in near where I live now has a celebrated Victorian past and has a museum and local historical records. I read primarily non-fiction. I'll leave the psuedo history of romance fiction to you. The fact is I said in that post that having an affair would not end most political careers. The fact is that JRE spoke more as you describe the stereotypical Victorian in his speech on Clinton, than I did there.

From there, you make the leap that this pushed JRE out of politics. In fact, he was pretty much out as soon as he left the race. It was already pretty clear he could not win a statewide election in NC, the state he lives in. I doubt he would want to be a Congressman - if he could win his district. A third run for President - given he won one primary in the first two - was unlikely even if Obama lost.

You then jump to implying that I think anyone who has an affair can't (or shouldn't run) - the opposite of what I wrote. I also think your view that only Joe Kennedy can hold the MA seat from the Republicans or that it is scandal that keeps him from running are likely not true.

[cornermouse]

47. In case it hasn't occurred to you

They've got you well on your way to setting rules and standards that no one will be able to live up to, leaving you with no one able to run for office.

[karynnj]

96. Her memory is fine - The difference between Kennedy and Edwards as progressives - ACCOMPLSHMENTS

Kennedy had them - in abundance, Edwards had NONE. In addition, Teddy never ran partially on being the perfect family man. Edwards did. I actually never got the reason the media pushed the "perfect couple" as much as they did, because I never saw them as being closer to each other than other couples - nor dd I care. I did care about his record, which was not progressive and I cared that he lied about the 2004 race.

[Bryan]

75. Putting your dick where it doesn't belong doesn't make you Ted Kennedy.

I'm not a bluenose. Many great Democrats have been philanderers, but John Edwards' signal accomplishment in politics was bootstrapping the results of one election into national prominence. If Edwards had had The Goods, he would have been able to work around his infidelity by virtue of his commitment to more important issues. He may yet be able to do that, but he was not the man we needed in 2008.

[cornermouse]

82. What I have seen and still am seeing.

A lot of automatic assuming that Edwards would have lost. None of you know that to be fact.

A lot of outright hate for anyone who dared to support Edwards in the primary which sort of makes me wonder why all the venom but that's beside the immediate point.

A lot of intolerance that is not all that different from what I hear when republicans say they won't let their child be in school when Obama makes his speech; something I consider pure foolishness. Had Bush shown up in person at my child's school I would have told them Bush was an idiot and then I would have sent them to school as usual.

And as I said earlier, my perfectly respectable great grandparents were born in 1875 and 1890. They were nowhere as puritanical, victorian, or rigid as what I see and hear today from democrats. I see Joe Kennedy decided not to run for his uncle's seat and I wonder if the victorian attitude that remains in full flower is part of the reason that he decided not to run. If so, it may have cost Massachusetts and the democratic party a chance to retain Teddy's seat and that is a real shame; a real loss.

I'm apparently more liberal than most of you. 25-30 years ago democratic ideas and ideals seemed to be a pretty good match and since my core political beliefs have remained the same for the last 25-30 years, I'm trying to figure out what's changed and why. I'm also trying to figure out where you think you're going to go with all this new-found democratic conservatism and the litmus tests. For the most part, I think you're going where the republicans want you to go and that's not good.

[Bryan]

83. " A lot of automatic assuming that Edwards would have lost. None of you know that to be fact."

What I DO know for a fact is that time and time again, Obama outmaneuvered Edwards from Iowa on, despite having a résumé that was not manifestly thicker than Edwards', and beat him decisively. Just because we're liberals who admire the lost cause doesn't mean we can't recognize a winner when we see it.

[FrenchieCat]

84. You said....

"A lot of automatic assuming that Edwards would have lost. None of you know that to be fact."

He lost twice.
That's a fact.
period.

[lildreamer316]

116. Are you using the 2004 election as one of those losses?

I personally believe, and so do many, many other people, that election was outright stolen. Lots of info to back it up.
Just like Al Gore 'lost' in 2000.

[karynnj]

99. Joe Kennedy not running is highly unlikely to cause the Democrats to lose MA

You might notice that the legislature is about 90% Democratic. Every House of Representative seat s Democratic. Ther other Senator is a Democrat who got 2/3rds of the vote last November.

Even with a nasty primary, the CW from everything I have seen from MA people is that Republicans have little chance. No one knows Kennedy's reason. When he left the House, he was sad to be fed up with it. He is doing good getting heating oil.

As to Edwards, he lost badly long before the affair was known. He spent FAR more time in Iowa than anyone else. His chances depended on winning there and winning big. Even then, it was thought that an Edwards win in Iowa could help HRC, who was favored to win NH - a place where Edwards had very little support.

In 2004, Edwards was nowhere close to John Kerry in delegates. The media pretended Edwards was viable until Kerry clinched the nomination - pushing him even the week before that after Kerry won 14 contests and Edwards 1. In nether year was Edwards ever tested as the front runner, much less the candidate - because he was NEVER close.

[scheming daemons]

40. Really, dude... the "I Told You So" comments are more for you than for us

If we would have listened to your "advice" back then, John McCain would've beaten the super-flawed John Edwards in a landslide.

[brentspeak]

49. Edwards was always right about this

But, predictably, what you'll get here are non-responses like, "Edwards was a phony!" and "Good thing Edwards wasn't nominated!". And yet, Edwards' personal failings are simply personal failings; his (and Kucinich' and Gravel's) opinions concerning Obama (and Hillary) and K-Street and bi-partisianship are made no less correct; in fact, they're being proved prescient right now.

Then again, much of DU these days is nothing but non-response red herrings from sycophants and the K-Street astroturfers. Their strategy? Marginalize the rational observers of Obama's (further) corporatization-of-the -White House-masquerading-as-"change".

[ChiciB1]

50. And All The While Kicking Howard Dean To The Side To "Fight The Good Fight!"

I'm not all that thrilled with The Rahm's and Geithern's chosen to work HARD for "we the people!"

[brentspeak]

51. And it was Obama's own spokesman, Robert Gibbs

who http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/22/101914/565">personally saw to it in 2004 that Howard Dean's nomination effort got shot down from within the Democratic party.

[ChiciB1]

54. Yes! I DO Recall... And Dean Was Almost NOT The Head Of The DNC, BUT

somehow real people wanted him!

And The River Runs For The Righteous!

[karynnj]

100. That ad, dsgusting as it was, did not shoot down Dean

Dean and Gephardt also had a pretty nasty fight started when Gephardt accused Dean of mscharacterizing his Medicare or Medicaid votes. It also had to do with the fact that Kerry, with his veterans, firefighters and MA supporters won people over. (It likely helped that the weekend before the caucus, Kerry had a heart warmng reunion with the guy he saved in Vietnam and Dean had an angry confrontation with an old heckler.)

[lildreamer316]

117. Dean-Edwards 2016.

Just an idea. *dons flamesuit*

[noamnety]

71. +1

This was a post about the folly of compromise with the right, but you'd never know that from the responses.

This follows a pattern I've seen lately, people on ALL sides have a few favorite talking points they resort to, and if the conversation strays toward inconvenient truths, we retreat back to repeating our comfy memes rather than address the real issues being raised.

Why talk about real flaws in our health care system, when we can march around screaming "DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS! DEATH PANELS!"

Different words, even different levels of truth (death panels don't exist, whereas the complaints about Edwards are valid), but look beneath that and it's the same tactics to avoid the discussions that matter.

[ProSense]

79. What BS. Edwards made money off hedge funds and voted for Bush's bankruptcy bill.

He was a fake and an opportunist.

[Butch350]

52. Yeah yeah yeah....It's easy to state the problem...

but only an Imbecile would think that ANY one man/woman can stand up against a billion dollar industry and win without
compromise or taking a bullet for your efforts.

PLEASE NAME THAT AGGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVE yall keep yelling about and then elect them POTUS and I will bet you a months pay that
that individual will be just as ineffective.

The only thing that's gonna get anything done - is for you whinning keyboard and blog jockies - is to slide your asses out from
behind those dam keyboards and get your asses out and march and protest like we did back in the 60's during the NAM WAR!

It's like buying a fucking house and expect the man who gave you the loan to move you in.

The POTUS can not do it alone with only the support of your constant BITCHING - and the whinning from both democrats and republicans!

(i'll save this fucking post for the future)! Edward's was lier to his wife and he'd probably lie to you.

[kiva]

53. So then why does it matter who is the president,

if no one can accomplish anything in that position?

[Butch350]

58. Eye's are finally opened!

[KansasVoter]

55. This post is 100% correct but anything anti-Obama must be wrong here!

[Zynx]

62. More like maybe 45% correct, which is a failure, though I will say that politics

has a generous curve.

[Apollo11]

88. John Edwards is 100% fake. Just ask his wife.

Why are you applauding something you describe as "anti-Obama" when you have an Obama avatar and a huge photo of Obama and Biden in your signature?

You are sending out mixed messages. So which is it KanvasVoter? Do you support President Obama or not? :eyes:

[Kahuna]

57. Whatever...

:boring:

[dionysus]

59. yes, but edwards was a phoney-ass fraud in the end.

"ahm working here on this hedge fund to study povetty for mah cahmpane"
:shrug:

[Zynx]

60. And Edwards' personal scandals would have ensured a Republican White House.

Imagine instead of investments in education, health, green energy, and transportation we would instead have used the stimulus on capital gains tax cuts, marginal rate reductions for upper income earners, marginal rate cuts for corporations, more deregulation, and cuts in social spending.

The health care reform bill would instead not guarantee anything, but rather focus on the uselessness of health savings account and the BS idea of "owning" your own healthcare, which means in actuality you take on much more of the costs.

Despite what people try to say here, there were profound differences at stake in the outcome of the November election. John Edwards would have cursed us with crippling defeat.

[Arkana]

63. You're right--Obama should have found himself a mistress, had a lovebaby,

and then lied about it.

[ohheckyeah]

66. Anyone who says "I hate to say I told you so" and then

proceeds to say "I told you so" is either deceiving themselves or just lying.

And Edwards is so good at standing up for what's right?

[Cha]

67. Oh hell

yes!

[Jennicut]

68. John Edwards could have cared less about us....his personal actions only showed that.

Thankfully he never got far enough to do any real damage to us. Edwards did more then cheat, he cheated on a wife with cancer, lied about it, had his life lie about it, had a baby with the woman he cheated with, had assistants hide here and most likely gave them money to take care of her. He disgusts me on a level that Clinton with his personal failings could not.

[chieftain]

69. Funny, it never ocurred to me to say I told you so about Edwards.

I'm not sure why Democrats take pleasure in falling for the Corporate media's distortions about the legislative process that our President is attempting to navigate. But I doubt that there is going to be very much of value in statements from people who identify themselves at this late date as Edwards supporters who "hate to say I told you so"

[KingFlorez]

72. And had Edwards gotten the nomination, he wouldn't be President now

That whole scandal would have come out and completely sunk him, so I think your post is a moot point.

[waiting for hope]

73. What Edwards said during the campaign is true -

and what he did in his personal life does not negate that unless the people screaming for his head are willing to ignore the message.

There's a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy. That wall didn't build itself or appear overnight. For decades, politicians without convictions and powerful interests gathered their bricks and their stones and their mortar, and they went to work. They went to work to protect their interests, to block the voice of the American people, and to stop our country's progress. They went to work to protect, defend, and maintain the status quo.

"That wall around Washington, it protects a system that's rigged and guess who struggles as a result? Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles pay-now and pay-later; when they watch the factory door shut for the last time; when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter's face when there's no money to pay for college. Every single day they see that wall when they have to use the emergency room as a doctor's office for their son because they can't afford to pay for health care. This is not okay. That wall has to come down.

Excerpts of Remarks at the DNC Fall Meeting in Washington, DC - November 30, 2007

~Snip~

But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.

~Snip~

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.


"To Build One America, End the Game"

Someone up thread asked how anyone could still support Edwards - I do, and consider myself an Edwards Democrat for the message is truth here. I don't regret a thing and am only saddened that the party I have been a member of for over 25 years has sold it's soul down river in the name of contributions by lobbyists - lobbyists who do not have the American People's good will at heart, only their bottom line to increase their bonus'. The amount of venom here is disturbing, and can't help but think if people refused to listen the MLK,Jr., FDR, JFK or even Johnson - who was able to get Medicare passed - where this country would be today. As for Edwards current activities concerning poverty:

Former U.S. Senator John Edwards visiting The Fuller Center in El Salvador

And he is also serving on the Board of Directors for American Rights at Work:

Board of Directors

And working at the UNC Center for Poverty: Q&A with John Edwards

[WeDidIt]

80. Though I am not at all pleased with Obama these days

I thank the Divine daily that John Edwards did not win the primary as Sarah Palin would be one of John McCain's heartbeats away from the presidency due to the fact that his piss poor judgement would have been on display for all to see before the election ever took place.

And McCain would have replayed the old "Ma ma, where's my pa? Gone to the white house, ha ha ha." saw.

And the press would still be talking about how not a single state went to Edwards.

[struggle4progress]

85. Once upon a time, I worked really hard for Edwards, and then he screwed up. The end.

I still like the guy I supported for Senate years ago. I wish him well. I liked what he said in running for President. It's too bad it fell apart. I got over it

I don't see any reason to compare Edwards and Obama. After Edwards dropped out, I supported Obama. He won, and I'm proud of him

Politics isn't a matter of electing somebody who's going to solve all our problems. It's a matter of electing somebody who could do the right thing -- and then organizing between elections to make the right thing happen. Frankly, I don't think it's entirely up to Obama: I think it's entirely up to the rest of us

[Milo_Bloom]

87. Iraq war voting, Patriot act signing, hedge-funding working Edwards wouldn't have compromised?

He would have dropped the public option like a hot potato and all we would be arguing about his how much we give the insurance companies.

[Jennicut]

97. Shhh...don't let facts get in the way of this blind devotion to Edwards

[whistler162]

90. Brick wall not a door... learn it attempt to remember!

[zulchzulu]

91. That's one big bucket of Crazy... if Edwards was the nominee, we'd be talking about VP Palin....

Good Lawd... what an inane post.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. I also supported him, for his rhetoric, but it was just rhetoric

And as such, what he'd have done in office might have been anything.
He also claimed with great passion, while having his affair, that he had to oppose marriage equality because of his deep seated upbringing as a Baptist, his traditional views that marriage is a Sacramental bond made by God for "one man and one woman." He used the GLBT community as a smokescreen for his own truth. He said one thing about himself while living a wholly different truth. He also chose along with Elizabeth, to play 'Defender of Christian Marriage' and critic of GLBT families in order to distract from his own ongoing affair or affairs. "I'm the son of a Deacon, from the South, and this faith is just a part of me that can not be removed."
That is a window into his honesty and hers as well. Look though it if you dare. It is not pretty.

[avaistheone1]

94. Someone else has been accused of just being all rhetoric too.

That would be Obama.

Obama has not had a great record on LBGT issues as well as quite a few other issues, yet he makes a point of being a relgious man too.

[cali]

101. and? in your mind does that make hedgefund johnny

less of a piece of lying crap. His record in Congress sucks.

[Mass]

106. There are some real longlife people who care about this issue in the Senate like Harkin or Brown.

Contrarily to Edwards, they have a longlife trail of legislation to prove it, not to forget Sanders.

I am not sure why people regret him, rather than supporting somebody like Brown, who really stands for this.

[DCBob]

107. Edwards has zero credibility...

Citing his words makes the argument even less credible that it was already.

[eminentcreativity]

110. If Adolf Hitler said, "George W. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq", who here would disagree with him?

The point of this question is to find out whether people believe that a "fact" matters more than the "fool" who states it.

Hitler committed sadistic acts, so most people will refuse to accept anything that he says as true. Because of who he is, his credibility is questioned.

Reputation over reason.

However, if you know that George W. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, even if Hitler is scum, you know that what he is saying is the truth.

With that being said, even though John Edwards tainted his name by "committing adultery" and then running for President just like the Kennedy boys did and Bill Clinton, and Franklin Roosevelt and a long list of politicians have done, the fact is, there is truth in what he said, and the truth doesn't change just because he screwed a videographer, any more than FDR or Kennedy's speeches mean any less today because they cheated on the beloved Eleanor and Jackie.

Of course the money that Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole took from Corporate America in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles is a huge factor in this healthcare reform process.

And no, Edwards doesn't need their "record" for the truth to still be the truth, any more than then 16-year old Ava Lowery needed an extensive "record" to be right when she criticized the Bush policy in Iraq.

That is, if the truth matters to you more than whose mouth it's coming from.

[Generic Brad]

113. How do you know what happened before it happens?

The President speaks to congress tomorrow. None of us knows for certain what he is going to say or do. Either you have a time machine or have inside info none of the rest of us have.

I'm hoping time machine. If that is the case, could you do me a favor and PM me Wednesday's Powerball numbers tonight?

[WI_DEM]

120. John Edwards is a chameleon. where was this fighting progressive in '04?

I don't trust the man and I doubt he would be in any better shape on health care than Obama is today.