If Edwards had been as aggressive with Bush in '04 as he is with fellow dems in '08...

[Clintonista2]

President John Kerry would have us out of Iraq by now.

On edit: Gotta go, I'll respond to you when I get back.

[Virginia Dare]

1. Or if the press had bothered to notice like they are now...n/t

[jgraz]

2. Yep, it was all Edwards fault that Kerry lost.

Except for the fact that Kerry actually won. :eyes:

Find a less ridiculous meme. Oh wait... none of those support Hillary. Sorry.

[texastoast]

3. Hopefully, he learned his lesson

I wish we could have our people home.

On edit: The war is the thing. And on this one issue, Bill Richardson has it all over the rest of the candidates.

[asdjrocky]

4. He was running for VP!

And his hands were tired in many ways by the Kerry campaign. More bait from the Hill-Nippers.

[Clintonista2]

5. It's the job of the VP candidate to go on the attack

While the presidential nominee stays "above the fray."

[Hippo_Tron]

14. It's the VP candidate's job to go on the attack when the Presidential candidate tells him to

I'm not an Edwards supporter, but this is ridiculous. Edwards was as aggressive as Kerry told him to be. No more and no less.

[Clintonista2]

20. Blame Kerry for JE's mistakes- How typical.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. The Prez candidate and his team call the shots, the VP does what he is told

The only way Edwards could have failed is if he did not do what he was told. If you can give me evidence of that, I'll believe what you're saying.

[H2O Man]

50. It was the Kerry camp

that decided upon the strategy. Kerry was at times ill-advised by those around him -- the classic example being his failure to respond correctly to the "swift boat liars." In the end, the presidential candidate bears the responsibility for the tone of the campaign.

[JNelson6563]

22. But the head of the ticket calls the shots

Just an FYI for those not in the know.

Julie

[Kolesar]

36. And it is the job of the "chunk in the chair" bloggers to do what?

?

[Capn Sunshine]

6. Well, he wanted to...there's ample evidence he was restrained

by the DNC General Election organization , who included.........
The SAME advisors who now work for Hillary Clinton.

[blm]

29. The DNC said THEY'D handle the attacks.

But it still comes down to the corporate media DELIBERATELY distorting that entire election.

Dan Rather has admitted the newsmedia needed Bush to stay in office for the legislation they expected in his next term.

[blm]

7. Kerry-Edwards was more aggressive than corpmedia allowed public to see.

Dan Rather can tell you about that.

And the Clintons did MORE than their share of PROTECTING Bush from Dems attacks from 2001-2007.

Bill during his June2004 book tour interviews:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary smearing Kerry in Oct2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[truedelphi]

9. Bingo! Election weekend, The MSM was only showing film footage of Kerry as

He moved from his airplane to the ground in sad state of exhaustion.

Meanwhile nary a word about the rousing speeches he made in Madison WI where the sports arena was packed to the overflow with people - this in a town of only 250,000.

And days later, Edwards was vitriolic (rightly so!) about the sham of an election.

Our gal pal Hillary told him to quit grandstanding. And shut the Fugg up!

[ChiciB1]

18. GREAT LINKS!! Too Bad So Many FORGET!!! n/t

[Beaverhausen]

8. So now, Edwards is responsible for Bush stealing another election?

oh, that's a good one. :rofl:

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Edwards as VP was a terrible mistake. We needed Wes Clark.

Wes Clark wouldn't have shied away from Cheney and the Swiftboaters, plotting his thumb-sucking "next campaign" instead of fighting for the Party.

[Clintonista2]

19. I agree. He was just horrible.

[blm]

30. Clark and Cleland DID take point on the swifts. Corpmedia hit the ignore button

for the most part, though both men did do more than enough to counter the swifts.

Funny how so many people FORGET about the media's complicity regarding swifts.

[Kolesar]

35. Wes Clark has essentially endorsed Hillary's incompetent assessment of the IWR

read my sig line

[surfermaw]

37. If Clark had stayed out, Edwards woud be Presidnt now

He would , with the help of Dennis won Iowa.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Clark stayed out of Iowa

A better cawe can be made that had Clark entered Iowa he would have been President now.

[karynnj]

51. Clark wasn't in Iowa

How would his not being in the race have made Edwards the winner in Iowa? Edwards benefited by the agreement with DK and the endoresement of the Des Moines Register. Kerry got about 15% more votes than Edwards - 38% vs 32%.

If Clark were not in NH, it wouldn't have made Edwards the winner either - if all the Clark voters went to Edwards, which they wouldn't, he would have had 24% to Kerry's 45%. (Dean would still have beat Edwards.) Many people who voted for Clark did so because he had military and foreign policy experience - that rather than the fact that he was Southern would suggest where his voters would go. (In fact, in January, Kerry was gaining voters - and they were coming from those who earlier were for Clark. After Iowa, in polls Kerry was polling as much as 3 times higher than Edwards.

[Ninga]

11. If the Yankees played in the post season like they played all year, they would

have beaten the Cleveland Indians.

[durrrty libby]

13. Nah, The Yanks choke when it counts, just like some politicians

[CTLawGuy]

25. for about 55% of the season

they played like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays - sorry, the "Rays".

[asdjrocky]

12. And if Ross Parot had not run in 92....

We'd all be saying: "Clinton who?"

[Hippo_Tron]

15. The OP is bullshit as is this reply

Study after study conducted shows that Perot took away votes from Clinton and Bush about equally. Clinton's electoral college victory likely would have been narrower but he still would have won.

[karynnj]

52. You would need to look at all the dynamics

Perot being in the race early on, greatly increased Bush's negatives.

But, it is very hard to argue that a President below 40% approval could win. By election time he was at 33%. You could argue that, contrary to CW in mid 1991, 1992 was an extremely easy year for a Democrat to win.

[Cha]

16. Yeah, and if hillary was

as aggressive with bushite as she was with attacking John Kerry in the back we wouldn't had such a cover to go into Iraq.

[ChiciB1]

17. Don't Forget The D.C. Elites.... Who Want To Run The Show.... This

time out more than ever! They have always gotten lots of what they want, now they are greedier than EVER!! Yeah, let's just help out all those people line their pockets with more POWER AND MONEY!!

That's the AMERICAN WAY... and money DOES TALK LOUDLY!! I hear it ROAR and see the consequences of corruption too!!!

[Beaverhausen]

21. Do you think you are winning any Edwards supporters over with this crap?

Are you under the assumption that you endear your candidate to anyone reading this crap who still hasn't made up their mind?

[Clintonista2]

23. Wow, you must hold me in high regard!

If you think my posts will have the slightest impact on the outcome of this race. I'm flattered.

[Beaverhausen]

26. don't kid yourself

You are more like an annoying little gnat. You keep coming back with your little pokes, It isn't doing anyone any good.

[Clintonista2]

27. So if my posts will not impact the outcome in any way, shape, or form...

Then why would I care who my posts are "bringing in"?

[Renew Deal]

34. I don't think that's the intention.

There are a few people that post sniping, petty bullshit. It's often done to kick supporters of other candidates. It's bullshit and everyone knows it.

[madmunchie]

38. No it isn't Bullshit and it isn't petty. Trying to shake some sense into

JE supporters is hard work and we take this hard work seriously. And we will keep up the great old tradition of FREE SPEECH whether you like it or not, so there.....unless those rights were some of those taken away from us when JE joined the Pubs (like he did most of his short Senate career) when he voted YES for the Patriot Act.

[waiting for hope]

43. S/he's Canadian -

Declared in another thread - my question, how is the outcome to our 2008 election and the primaries running up to, relevant to s/he?

On Edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3747590&mesg_id=3747642

[CTLawGuy]

24. K&R

NT

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. Nah....

This ignores the fact that more people went to the polls intending to vote for Kerry/Edwards than for Bush/Cheney but they were disinfranchised by either suppressive or manipulative means. Kerry/Edwards won fair and square. Bush/Cheney & Co. couldn't allow that.

[Basileus Basileon]

32. Probably true. The same goes for Gore in '00 (as compared to post-9/11 Gore)

[OwnedByFerrets]

39. How can you say such %$#$%^ statements....

he took it all the way to the SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF else could he have done....stood outside the whitehouse and stomped his feet?????:mad:

[Basileus Basileon]

40. Calm down. I'm referring to his demeanor on the campaign trail.

He fought the theft as much as any man could have. However, he played the boring, "safe" candidate in '00, instead of the firebrand he's been since.

[emilyg]

33. K&R

[robbedvoter]

41. In all fairness, Kerry won - no thanks to Edwards though

Your point stands however - both our candidates ran supporting the war throughout that campaign. A whole other year would pass before edwards would have the epiphany that it was "wrong to vote for war" - although the clock is still ticking on how he feels about sponsoring the IWR

[w4rma]

44. In all fairness Kerry would have lost outright if he hadn't chosen Edwards for his running mate.(nt)

[robbedvoter]

47. How was a pro-war VP helped kerry get more votes? 'splain it to me

[w4rma]

48. Because the war isn't the only issue that is important to Americans.

In fact most of the folks around here would have been more supportive of the ticket had Edwards been at the top of it, instead of Kerry.

[robbedvoter]

49. Riiight! That's why both party machines propped Joe that year. War? What war?

(Joe - Edwards' co-sponsor of the IWR that is)
It's the same reason the party machine wanted edwards on the ticket.

[karynnj]

53. Is that why Edwards won your primary?

I saw some of the coverage on the VA primary on CSPAN. Kerry won that primary pretty convincingly.

[Vinca]

45. Edwards was "disappeared" by the MSM in 2004.

I'm surprised they're covering him now. After all, Hillary is their choice.

[mtnsnake]

46. Edwards is only aggressive with ONE fellow Dem, the one who's a lady, what's her name?

and he got pasted by her when she finally had enough of his tacky personal insults. To add insult to injury, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd also peppered Johnny Boy's phony ass, practically making him cry at the last debate.

As far as being Kerry's running mate, Edwards was supposed to be the "personality and charisma" part of the ticket. What a mistake THAT was. Edwards all but disappeared and was no help at all. Most people today don't even remember who Kerry's running mate was in 2004, Edwards was such a no-show. Chrise sakes he couldn't even beat Cheney in a debate. In fact he got his ass handed to him by that ugly fucker.