Forget it

[JohMunich99]

Didn't mean to cause a fire storm. All I was suggesting is that Ned Lamont is a more powerful character than Edwards at this point and Edwards just seems to be popping up like the "Hey me too guy!" everywhere. If other people disagree to the point I think they think I should be banned (while someone else in this very thread reply said that Clinton, Schumer, Byah were sell outs and that Salazar was so bad that it would be okay if he backed Lieberman but no one said anything to that), I'll lay off it. I guess I just need to get my post count up before I can start saying critical things.

[lonestarnot]

1. Now what would you know about John Edwards?

[sandrakae]

2. He is doing it to help himself, however I am sure it will help Lamont.

[jpgray]

3. Eh?

I'm glad for any support Lamont can get, and that includes moderate/sellouts such as Hillary or Schumer or Bayh, etc. People like Feingold and Kucinich and others are already supporting him--in the main I just don't want Joe to net any moderate support, Salazar excluded. x(

[saltpoint]

4. Respectfully disagree. Larger-fish pols come to stump for smaller ones

since I was born, and that was a while back.

Nothin' new about it.

Who gains? Lamont, right off the bat. Big-fish Dems who might not have been asked to stump for Lieberman because ordinarily Joe would have waltzed to re-election as a Dem are now in the state and on the docket campaigning for Lamont, who whipped Joe bad in the primary.

Joe loses, Lamont gains.

Edwards may boost his image as a party player, but he's already earned hi stature, and his goal is to shore up support for the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate.

I love the whole deal of the big fish helping the little fish and the party is the chief beneficiary.

[Shakespeare]

5. You obviously haven't been paying attention to Edwards lately.

You're also mistaken if you don't consider him a progressive. It's not a desperate move in the least.

[jpgray]

8. Yeah--as one of the only people actively talking about the impoverished

I feel Edwards deserves a little more respect. Granted there are issues with his foreign policy record, and his domestic as well (patriot act issues).

[saltpoint]

11. Thank you for mentioning Edwards' emphasis on poverty.

It is traditionally a huge theme for the Democratic Party, and properly so. The Republicans? Tax cuts for the filthy rich. If that isn't a monumental and historical distinction, I'll be damned if I know what is. Edwards is carrying the torch here and you are right to say that he deserves respect for it.

[jpgray]

20. Ignoring the rich-poor gap is ignoring the root of most domestic problems

And not a few international problems. I wish the party as a whole would spend more time on the issue.

[saltpoint]

22. Bartender! A beer for my pal jpgray, and it had by god better be COLD.

[Inspired]

Thank you....

I appreciate your response. I would respond myself but I wouldn't sound so reasonable. This kind of bullshit really pisses me off. I think I will do something more productive and donate some money to John Edwards' One America PAC.

Lamont is lucky to have John Edwards campaign for him. There is no better speaker in America today.

[Shakespeare]

35. Heh....it pissed me off, too....

...I just enjoy sounding as obnoxiously condescending as possible but simultaneously nice and helpful. :evilgrin:

Frankly, the OP was incredibly stupid and uninformed (or deliberately flamebait, which is what I suspect).

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. What's the problem?

Edwards has been campaigning all over the country for various Democratic candidates. He's an effective speaker and he's still pretty popular with a lot of grassroots Dems. It certainly can't hurt Lamont at all, and if it incidentally helps Edwards, so what? I expect many other Dems to come and try to help Lamont, too. Whether they might have other motives for doing so really doesn't matter if they can help Lamont squish Lieberman.

[JohMunich99]

12. Yeah, if it would help Lamont, that would be great

But I think at this point Lamont has higher name recognition in CT than Edwards. If not, I really don't see Edwards bringing anyone over to Lamont's side that isn't already there. I mean kudos to him for trying, but it's a shame the only reason he's doing it is for his delusions of grandeur Presidential aspirations.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Well, since Edwards ran for President only 2 years ago, and

did fairly well in the primaries -- not to mention the fact that he ended up as Kerry's running mate -- I'd be willing to bet that his name recognition among Connecticut Democrats is pretty good. And who cares what his reasons are if it helps, which it probably will? And what have you got against Edwards, anyhow?

[pinto]

19. Edwards is a Democrat, Lamont is a Democrat. Edwards

ran on a national ticket. It's pretty customary to add your name - and face value - to the Democratic candidate. :shrug:

[saltpoint]

7. Just an afterthought here, JohMunich. You've been on these DU boards

for 18 or 19 posts and already you're slamming Democrats.

That's not a smart move.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[JohMunich99]

15. Nice nice

Go after the newcomer. Look, the reason I came to DU was because of Ned Lamont. Why do you think I know so much about where his campaign is going? I heard about this website from Mydd, Kos, etc. I heard it was a tough crowd over here at DU, but this is kind of absurd.

[saltpoint]

21. Your post was a slam. Start there. Then reconsider your

position.

You like Lamont?

Edwards just endorsed him.

Deal with it.

[Shakespeare]

36. Well, if you read those sites regularly, then you should already know....

...why it's a good thing for Edwards to campaign for Lamont.

And the crowd at Kos is much uglier; there's little to no moderating there for "civility" rules like there is here.

[klook]

9. The public benefits! (n/t)

[globalvillage]

10. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I think as many Dems as possible should show their support for the CT Dem candidate.
Lamont is going to need them all. Important race.


edit to say Welcome to DU.

[Rainscents]

13. What's wrong with it?

Edward is one of good guy, I have no idea what is your problem with Edward. I would much rather have Edward campaigning for Lamont then, Hilliary. I think it's good that, Hilliary is supporting Lamont and donated to his cause.

BTW: Edward is well know! He was running VP for Kerry. What make you think, people don't know him?

[sandnsea]

16. Bashing Dems does not help

Why do you think it's helpful to Lamont or the Dem Party to bash Edwards??

[saltpoint]

18. John Edwards' REAL motive for campaigning in CT for Lamont is:

___A. To stroke his massive, unquenchable ego;

___B. To hold up as many gas stations as he can before his return flight leaves;

___C. To stuff kittens and puppies into microwaves and then laugh maniacally about it;

___D. To recruit new members to neo-Nazi hate groups;

___E. To vandalize graveyards and other public property;

or

___F. To wench his way from Westport to the Massachusetts border in a drunken rage.

+++++++++++++++

If Edwards is on any ballot in any state for any office whatsoever, he'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

[globalvillage]

23. What, no "all of the above"?

kidding.

[saltpoint]

26. Hey there, globalvillage. I'm in a hang-the-Republicans mood

tonight.

And I'm talkin' oak trees, old ones, rugged-bark ones, and TALL ones.

As for Dem-bashing, they get thrown in the same pile.

_____

How ya doin'? I hope things are going your way in these last weeks of summer. We have a great big fall election coming up, and I'm getting psyched.

[globalvillage]

29. I agree. Hang 'em high..

But I'm feeling kinda generous, and think the new guy got the message.
Things are good, but they'd be better if I didn't have to fly on Monday. Sigh. I have to re-learn how to pack, and I had it down to a science.
I think on the homefront Rendell's in really good shape, but we need to put some extra daylight between Casey and Santorum. The gap's just not wide enough for me to be comfortable.
I'm counting the days till we take back Congress. Just counting the days.
:hi:

[saltpoint]

31. I hear you on those Pennsylvania races. It looks like Swann is pretty

much running on empty. He was a better receiver than he is a Republican.

As for that tightening Casey-Santorum race, hey -- there's PLENTY of room on those oak branches and all kinds of rope. Just signal me.

Good luck on your flight. I think it's going to be safe and I'm sorry about the inconvenience. I'll face the same thing in a week and a half.

Go Dems!

[Clarkie1]

24. Certainly not Republicans. nt

[Eric J in MN]

25. It helps Lamont a little.

John Edwards is a national Democratic figure, and this underscores that Lamont got the nomination, not Lieberman.

An endorsement can't seal it for Lamont, but the more support he gets, the better.

[mnhtnbb]

27. The irony alone is great. Last VP candidate campaigns

against the previous VP candidate. Can't you imagine how much that pisses off ol' Joe?

[Dover]

28. What I don't get is, if Lamont is supposed to be so anti-war

why is he claiming that his and Lieberman's views on Israel are virtually the same? So does that mean that he approves of Israel's current invasion of Lebanon? I'd sure like to hear him articulate his position on this more. Or maybe he has and I missed it.

Here's the interview I'm referring to:

Colbert: Who's a greater friend of the state of Israel? You or Joe Leiberman? Is there a greater friend of the state of Israel than you?

Lamont: Look, I believe the senator and I both are commited to Israel's security and well being, so.. I think Israel, that's part of our bi-partisan tradition it goes back a long time that's not going to change.

Colbert: So there is no difference there between the two of you?

Lamont: No great difference, no sir.


http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14027

[Clarkie1]

32. He never said he was anti-war.

He said he believes Iraq was an unnecessary war and has expressed support for some kind of "timetable" (although I'm a little unclear on exactly what his position is on this).

Edit: Isn't every sane person anti-war? What sane person would want war unless as a last resort?

[Dover]

34. Perhaps, but motivation and one's interpretation of what constitutes a

"last resort" is up for grabs. And how do "pre-emptive invasions" fit?

[JanusAscending]

30. OOPS !!

Too late now! (to forget it, that is!)

[alittlelark]

33. JM99 - you appear to be a 'hit and run'

I have yet to see a response from you.

[Bluebear]

37. Mods, lock this thread, can't discuss!

(innocent, vacant look)

[Broken_Hero]

38. Locking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html