Wow, just saw John Edwards wife

[LEW]

on Wolf Blitzer. What a composed gracious woman. I had not seen or heard from her before, and did not know that they lost their oldest son in 1996. Again, I like Edwards and have since August when he announced....

[Dookus]

1. Just saw it myself...

a very sweet woman.

[bigwillq]

2. What were the circumstances

of their son's death?

[DjTj]

3. car accident.

nobody really knows exactly what happenned. just an accident pretty much.

[Lex]

6. One car accident

on Interstate 40. No drugs or alcohol involved. He simply somehow lost control of the vehicle (it was a Jeep Wrangler, known for tipping if you have to swerve). It wasn't clear what caused him to lose control, but it could've been something as simple as swerving to miss a deer in the road or a racoon or something. He could've dropped a CD on the floor and leaned down to get it. Nothing was ever figured out.

This is the event in Edwards life is where he said he decided he wanted to do something different where he could help more people than just one family at a time, so he entered politics to try to make a bigger difference. He says he is doing it for his son, who was always very civic-minded and interested in politics.

[AP]

8. probably wind pushed the car off the road. You get two wheels off the road

in an, uhm, off-road SUV, you lose control.

Their son's friend who was in the passenger seat survived with almost no injuries.

[Kira]

7. Edwards said

a strong wind blew his car off the road one night. They were best friends. That is why they have young children now. They wanted more kids.

[robsul82]

31. Repubs say it HAD to be something about drugs or booze...

Completely nonsensical, it's really one of their most disgusting behaviors this political season.

Later.

RJS

[mlawson]

62. OMG. They keep that up, and they will see Edwards 'impolite' side.

Like most Southerners, he is polite and friendly, but push him to a certain flashpoint, watch out!! And slandering Wade would do it very quickly.

[TacticalPeek]

4. More candidates need to put their women-folk to work in their campaigns.

http://www.JohnEdwards2004.com/elizabeth.asp

[colonel odis]

5. his son's accident

what i read is that they absolutely couldn't find anything wrong. they think, though, that because he was in a high-riding jeep, a gust of wind could have come along and blown him a little to the side. then he, perhaps, overcorrected and lost control.

mrs. edwards was, i think, an english major before law school. they now sponsor a fiction contest in n.c. high schools that provides scholarship money. i believe they've also created a computer lab in their son's name at his high school.

have i got that right?

[anti-bush]

10. Also

I don't know about the computer lab, but they have a couple of after school programs that they started in North Carolina in their son's name.

[atre]

47. I'm also aware they've started a HS Mock Trial or Moot Court competition

in this state (NC) in their son's name.

[californiahippie]

9. Edwards

I just saw her too on CSPAN. SHe seemed a little nervous, she kept tripping over her words and repeating herself, she was in front of a crowd so maybe that had something to do with it.
But all in all she gave a good speech, I am beginning to like Edwards more, not that I didn't like him but I had concerns.
I do think Glen Close was in the audience!

[spooky3]

11. Welcome, californiahippie! And yes, CSPAN said that was G. Close.

[Renew Deal]

12. Welcome to DU!!!

:toast: :pals:

[californiahippie]

18. Thanks!

How'd you know I was Irish? You welcomed me with these two little guys :toast: (drinking Guinness i'm sure)

[JohnLocke]

21. Welcome to DU!

:toast: :toast:

[Dark Star]

32. Yes, I saw that as well.

Glenn Close was indeed part of the audience.

I choose to believe Mrs. Edwards seemed a little nervous simply from lack of sleep.

She has been tirelessly campaigning for her husband. When I saw her in a one-on-one with callers on CSPAN's Washington Journal, she was fabulous. She is incredibly knowledgeable and kind; also refused to criticize any democrats.

[SidDithers]

70. Glen Close?

She wasn't boiling a rabbit in a pot of water, I hope :)

Sid

[XanaDUer]

13. I like the way she explained how Republicans set up public schools to

fail so they could then defend cutting money to them.

Very intelligent person.

[AP]

16. I liked the line "nobody in the history of the world ever took a rented...

...car to te car wash," when she explained that the Iraqis need to have a stake in development (she said that that's why Iraqis take the copper wire after the US puts it up -- they're not the ones who will be profitting from this development -- they profit more by taking the wire and selling it on the black market).

Ok, so she got the line from Thomas Friedman, but it's true.

[Benhurst]

14. I like John Edwards. I have already voted for him as a

constituent of his in NC. BUT ...

I wish he would stop defending his vote for Bush's war. The pope was right and Bush was wrong. Is it too much to ask for Edwards to simply state that he was mislead?

And I wish he would stop defending the so called "Patriot" Act. It shreds the Constitution. It was passed by a Congress in panic which didn't even bother to read it. It was a tragic and dangerous mistake which gives dictatorial powers to the executive.

He is a good man. But as long as he defends the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, I cannot support him.

[Bombtrack]

20. He didn't "vote for Bush's war"

he voted to a number of things that were in the language of the bill, not one of them being any agreement that a rushed, non-UN, non-NATO, regime change was a good idea unless clear evidence of an imminent threat presented itself

[Benhurst]

23. When he voted for those things, he should have known what

Bush was up to -- thousands of his constituents did, and were begging him not to support Bush by doing so.

And. by the way, he and all the rest of the Democrats on the Hill should have followed the Black Caucus out the door the day Bush* was certified. Doing so would have sent a strong message to the American people that even though they couldn't stop the theft, they were not going to honor it.

As I said, I like Edwards and I will support him if he gets the nomination.

But his support of the Patriot Act is quite troubling. His enabling Bush with his votes on the Iraq confrontation was tragic, and I have tried repeatedly to get him to acknowledge the threat of Black Box Voting (which we have in my area of NC which has gone from one of the traditionally "toss-up" districts to solidly Republican since they were put in-- maybe a coincidence, maybe not, but there is no way to tell), only to get back stock replies that he voted for the very legislation which will place the damn machines in every precinct in the country.

[mmonk]

24. Yes

with Edwards you'll get no real challenge to GW's foreign policy concerning Iraq and projection of power, just spin to make it appear there is a big difference.

[AP]

25. If you can't tell that Edwards is as anti-US imperialism as the rest, then

I don't know what.

The guy in his Afghanistan answer to last debate and in all his statements about Iraq is saying that it's his goal to have middle classes all over the world benefitting from their own nations' wealth. This is the antithesis to Bush's imperialist PNAC goals, and it's better for America and for people around the world than Kucinish's isolationism.

I don't know why this is such a big mystery to people.

[mmonk]

28. OK

projection and war with US power to empower subject country's middle class.

[AP]

29. You think if Edwards was president, he'd have started a war?

In the Afghanistan question in the debate, he didn't say "we need to drop bombs and home that the earth that's blown into the air falls down in the shape of a public school."

Obviously Bush has given us lemons. It's not the job of Democrats to tell us we hate lemons. Republicans would make lemons the national fruit and call Democrats communists for being anti-lemon. It's time for Democrats to strategize the lemons into lemonade.

It's amazing to me that so many Democrats don't understand that that is what's going on.

[mmonk]

30. I can't be sure

I don't take such risks. His defence of that conflict was unwaivering during the early campaign. The only modification he has made might be the vote against the 87 billion. Quite frankly, if someone like a think tank came to him to convince him to do it, I think the answer is yes.

[AP]

33. Right.

I think that something that happens to primary supporters is they latch on to a candidate and they close their ears and eyes to the other candidates. They don't listen to what a candidate other than their own is saying. They just try to find a word or two that they can spin into something that will cast a positive light on their own candidate.

I have to make an effort to pay attention to what other candidates are saying. I have to make sure that I'm always being honest with myself and that I'm using my critical faculties.

[mmonk]

35. Not dissing Edwards

This was my opinion based on letters I sent him concerning the war and early in his campaign. As much as I would like for someone from my state becoming the nominee, I could not go with him. I first went for Howard Dean but about three weeks before Clark announced, I joined the Draft Clark movement. So I was not influenced by other candidate positions in determining if I would support Edwards or not.

[AP]

36. This is an oddly persistent criticism of Edwards: "bad pen pal"

What did he actually do? What was the legislation. Frankly, I've never gauged the candidate by quality of correspondence. The best, most personalize correspondence I ever got was a series of responses to very pointed criticisms of a Republican congressmen. (I got the last word.)

[mmonk]

39. Sorry you feel I'm a bad pen pal

I'm giving my opinion based on my experiences and observations. I know he is DLC and I know Shelton is an advisor (yes, I know Shelton knows him). That being said, other than that issue, I would most likely be in Edwards' camp. At least he's taking on the corporate grab on policy.

[AP]

40. Other than Elizabeth Edwards, I've never received a personalized response

from a Dem EVER!!!!

The only personalized responses I've ever received from politicians were Republicans.

It's a ridiculous guage for measuring the quality of a politician.

I measure them by policies.


And you don't know Edwards is DLC becuase he ISN'T "DLC" in any sense other than his name is on the list (as far as I know the DLC isn't selective about membership, so long as you're a Dem).

Edwards ran against NAFTA in '98 (which you should know as a NC'ian!!!). Dan Schorr said on NPR that the DLC didn't like Edwards because the DLC loves NAFTA and Edwards doesn't.

Edwards did not attend the DLC convention last summer which Dean and Kerry not only attended, but at which both gave presentations. They were featured!

And Shelton make a point of saying he's not endorsing Edwards. Someone here posted that Shelton looks like he might endorse Kerry.

[mmonk]

43. I got a handwritten response from

Bill Clinton one time and Edward's was typed with a hand written signature. I consider those two legitimate, not form letters. Anyway, good luck.

[AP]

45. "bad pen pal" is about the lamest criticism I've heard. I don't know

how many ways to say this.

Bill Clinton gave you a handwritten reply once. Did that make him a great president? Did that translate into you agreeing with him on every single policy decision?

And all we have by way of criticism is that Edwards voted for a bill to give counties money to make lines shorter for democrats at the polls in some districts and, which requires people to be a little vigilant about preventing Diebold from taking advantage of the money in the system (which seems to be happening -- the vigilance part).

You have anything else?

[mmonk]

49. No, I never expect that. My questions are specific in issue.

Clinton's was in relation to children with disabilities. Edwards with his reasons with the vote.

[AP]

50. What vote?

[mmonk]

54. The resolution

authorizing GW the latitude to go to war with Iraq.

[AP]

55. He gets asked that question EVERY day. I've heard him answer it literally

100 times. You wrote him a letter asking him that question, and you're upset that he didn't hand-write you a response, when you know that he's asked and answers that question on national TV at least twice a week?

You're tough.

[mmonk]

63. We must be having a different conversation.

I don't care if his response letter was in sanscrit. I disagree with his position and defense of the war in Iraq.

[AP]

64. Then you're complaining about his position, and not the fact

that he didn't lay it out in enough detail in his letter?

Then why do we always talk about the kinds of letters he writes?

[mmonk]

72. Detail? Who cares about detail? It was detailed enough

to know my position is incompatible with his. That is the sum total of my message. He said we had to do it. Fact is, we didn't have to. And we didn't have to do it without debate

[AP]

74. What confuses me is why you phrase your complaint in terms of an inadequat

letter, without discussing its contents (until pressed).

And then when pressed, it turns out to be the issue he's asked about more often than any other issue. And the fact is, he does give a more detailed response to that question oraly than you might expect in a letter.

So, again, why did you say (and I'm presuming you're one of the three who make the letter comment all the time) that it was the nature and stucture of the letter that was the problem?

[mmonk]

80. The letter was fine in its construction

I wasn't assessing the structure of a constituents letter. Sorry you are hung up on that. Do I need to go back and edit?

[AP]

27. What US Senate legislation will put BBV in every NC precinct?

[Benhurst]

34. It's not just NC-- it's the whole country. I can't remember the

stupid name of the law just now, it's something deceptive like the "empowering the Voter act"-- and is the one paying for those damn machines to be placed in every precinct in the country. When I wrote to Edwards about the dangers of Black Box Voting, he replied (via a form letter) citing his support for the very act which will turn the elections over to Diebold et al.

Voting machines WITH NO PAPER TRAIL are an issue all our candidates should be addressing-- not just Edwards. If we're not careful, the Bush Crime Family is going to steal the election again. And with Black Box Voting there is no way to challenge their chicanery.

I was shocked and discouraged by his response. I wrote again and got no reply.

[Benhurst]

37. It's the “Help America Vote Act of 2002”

And it also mandates computerized voting lists-- which might be all right; but also could be used to disenfranchise voters by purging them the way they (mostly African American Democratic voters) were in the Florida 2000 election. And somehow we're supposed to believe that the "mistakes" of that election can't be corrected until 2006. Yeah. Sure. Democracy, BushAmerica style. :argh:

[AP]

38. If I remember correctly, it was a bill to give counties money to switch...

from bad paper ballots.

In principle, it's a good idea. That corporations took over the next step is not a good reason not to allocate the money to try. (In counties controled by Democrats, the money probably helped do good work.)

I'd love to see the vote on that bill. I highly doubt there were many Democrats who voted against improving the method votes were counted.

Citizens have to be dilligent about what's done with the money. But they can't say, 'let's not try to do the right thing because we're too lazy to take the next step."

[Benhurst]

42. I think you'd better look into Black Box Voting. Many excellent

threads have been posted about it here on DemocraticUnderground.

Paperless voting is NOT a good idea.

As for most Democrats in the House and Senate voting for a bad bill, does that really come as a surprise to you after the last three years?

I'm not sure I understand your point about the machines being placed into counties controlled by Democrats necessarily being a good thing, since our party is not without sin when it comes to fixing elections.

I don't want the elections fixed, as it is far too easy to do with paperless voting, by either party.

I think a fair count in the long run will always be to our party's advantage, and, whatever the result in a particular election, in the best interests of the Republic.

[AP]

44. I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone said this bill CAUSED the

problem with BBV. This bill provided money so that communities could improve voting. A big problem for Democrats has always been that poor, Democratic neighborhoods get the worst equipment, which creates long lines, which then causese hourly employees to get in line, and get out of line if the whole process takes too long.

This bill provided money to fix the problem. It was up to counties to decide what to do with the money.

Of course the ones that are republican are going to buy Diebold machines. But that's a separate battle that is being fought and slowly won.

And when it is, we'll still have the money to help Democrats to vote.

I might be wrong, but I've don't recall Bev Harris ever complain about the fact that money is there to improve voting. In fact, she lists machines which have no softward and print receipts. The money in that bill can go to buying THOSE machines.

BBV isn't about maintaining the status quo. It's about improving things so that Democracy works.

And it's just a smear to imply that Edwards voted for a bill in order to help Diebold.

[AP]

46. Benhurst, show me at the BBV site where Bev Harris is criticizing Dems

who voted for this bill. I could be wrong, and I'll admit it if I am, but I don't think the problem is that this money is there. The problem is that the money could be spent on Diebold machines if citizens aren't vigilant. Nonetheless, citizens should be vigilant about getting the crappy machines, and the long lines out of poor, largely Democratic districts, and this legislation can also achieve this.

[Benhurst]

56. I have no reason to believe the Bev Harris has singled

out the Democrats for criticism, nor for that matter do I. I think most who voted for the "reform" did so in good conscience, both Democrats and Republicans. I will not be so generous with the Bush* Junta.

The act, with its deadlines for the purchase of new equipment, puts pressure on ill-informed precincts across the country to rush out and unknowingly buy machines which are easily prone to being manipulated and cannot be audited. I do not think this was the intention of many who supported the legislation, but it is the result.

My complaint on this issue with Senator Edwards is his failure to address this problem (which fortunately others in congress are addressing) and his sending me a form letter in reply stating that he had voted for the flawed law in question.

I worked on Capitol Hill too many years to give a tinker's dam about getting a personal reply from any politician. But, as a constituent of Senator Edwards, I was not satisfied with the thinking behind the form letter I received.

As it stands, I'm afraid if you liked what went on in the 2000 election, you're going to love the election of 2004.

[Benhurst]

51. I certainly did NOT mean to impugn Senator Edwards' motives,

nor, if you reread my post, do I think I did. The act he voted for and continues to support unamended, however, is unfortunate and does not reflect well on his judgment.

Voting machines, provided by companies run by partisans of either party (although the current ones are almost exclusively run by Republicans), with proprietary software and no paper trail are perfect for manipulation and fraud.

We already have such Black Box Voting here in my part of NC, as does the whole state of Georgia.

However good the intentions of many who voted for act, it is still a tragically flawed piece of legislation which potentially does more harm than good. The fact that the Bush* Junta enthusiastically helped push it through Congress should have been a warning to our Democratic members that something was terribly wrong.

[AP]

53. Diebold gave more money to Fairlcloth in '98 than they've given to just

about any other politician ever, so there must be a bigger story underlying this bill.

Any theories?

I suspect that John Edwards is on the side of good in whatever that story is.

[Benhurst]

57. On the issue of the necessity of a paper trail for voting machines,

I think it may just be a matter of Edwards being behind the curve on this particular issue. He has had a fair amount on his plate this past year. Certainly as one who may be our presidential or vice-presidential nominee, it is in his interest for there to be a fair vote, especially with Republican corporations controlling the voting machines.

My greatest fear, though, is that if Bush* manages to steal the election in 2004, and these machines are in place across the country, just how are we going to mount opposition the next time around?

And then there is always the "Patriot" Act, which gives dictatorial powers to the executive. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do. True, most of its provisions haven't been implemented so far. But why was such a bill, one which shreds the United States Constitution, ready and waiting to be pulled out in final form and passed unread by Congress within days after 9/11 without going through the normal series of Congressional hearings, if there are no plans for it to be put into full force?

[AP]

58. PA is actually sunsetting before Jan 2005.

How does your concern for the PA relate to Edwads?

You do know he didn't author any of it, and like all the sensible candidates, he's for retaining the parts of it that addressed changing technolgies, like including voice mail under the same warrant procedures as an answering machine, and money laundering investigatory tools, and that he wants to get rid of the things that infringe on constitutional rights of people who aren't even being accused of crimes.

You can listen to his arguments here: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_wj012404_knoy.rm

[Benhurst]

60. This means he has changed considerably since the reply he sentThanks, AP!

This means he has changed considerably since the reply he sent when I wrote him some time back Good news!

I've been paying more attention to the other candidates with whose records I am not not familiar. Your update is quite encouraging.

As I've said, Edwards is a good man. I've always liked him. And I'm glad to hear he now has reservations over the act's excesses.

[AP]

65. Can you scan that letter and post it so we can see what it

said?

[Benhurst]

69. I would have to go to the landfill to find it. I'm sure I crumpled

it up and threw it in the trash as soon as I got it, which is probably just as well from your perspective since I don't see posting any his earlier positions on this site would do the campaign any good.

I've dealt with politicians long enough not to hold a grudge if they change positions, especially if the movement is in my direction.

Senator Edwards has been in an understandably awkward position in NC in so far as he owes his election in a large part to persons such as myself who would fit in more comfortably with the national Democratic party than the local one; but he still has had to garner the votes of North Carolina Democrats who would be considered Dinos in the rest of the country.

However he fares in his presidential campaign, he shall be missed as a senator here in NC, which all too often elects a Helms or a Dole over an Edwards.

[AP]

76. It seems that you're making an allegation that he changed positions upon

evidence you can't produce. I'm not ready to accept that he changed his position without evidence.

[Benhurst]

78. He VOTED for the disgraceful "Patriot" Act --evidence enough n/t

[AP]

79. Nobody who voted for it will ever be elected president

unless we elect one who did now who can change the mood in America enough so that Democrats don't have a built in liability on the issues of national security and crime.

Why do you want to fight Republicans on these issues, which most Americans already think Democrats are weak on rather than fight them on the issues we know Republicans are weak on?

[beaconess]

59. Edwards is all over BBV

Edwards: Every Vote Will Count In 2004
December 6, 2003

ORLANDO, FL - Senator John Edwards (D-NC) Saturday called on President Bush to return donations from a voting machine manufacturer who said he would help "deliver" Ohio's electoral votes to Bush and asked Florida Democrats to lead the fight against other voting schemes that threaten our democracy. http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=414


Fact Sheet: John Edwards Protecting The Right To Vote
December 6, 2003
The equal right to vote is the most fundamental right of American citizenship. In the 2000 Florida voting fiasco, flawed voting machines undermined that right, especially for African-American and poor voters. Congress responded by passing election reform legislation to ensure that every vote is counted. Yet today, the equal right to vote is at risk-in the Michigan Democratic Party, and across the country. John Edwards today addressed two major issues in voting rights.
ELIMINATE UNFAIR INTERNET VOTING IN MICHIGAN
Edwards Calls on Michigan to Abandon Unfair Internet Voting Scheme. In America, everyone should have the right to vote, and everyone should have the same chance to vote. Yet our country also has a shameful history of blocking the polling place to people based on their race or poverty. Because of that history, we have a special responsibility to make sure our voting rules do not discriminate against minorities or the poor, intentionally or not.

Michigan's Internet voting scheme does not live up to that responsibility. The Digital Divide is simply a reality today. Wealthier families are more than twice as likely to have Internet access at home than poorer families. Whites are 50 percent more likely to have Internet access at home than African Americans and 90 percent more likely than Hispanics.

Until we have closed the digital divide, Michigan's Internet voting scheme will reduce the influence of poor and minority voters-the very groups who have historically suffered discrimination at the polling place. John Edwards believes this is wrong. He asks the Florida Democratic Party to join him in calling on the Michigan Democratic Party to abandon its Internet voting system.

MAKE SURE COMPUTERIZED VOTING HAS INTEGRITY
Edwards Calls on Bush to Return Contributions from His "Pioneer" Who Is the CEO of a Voting Machine Company; In 2004, 8 percent of voters are expected to use voting machines manufactured by Diebold, Inc. Numerous computer scientists have charged that Diebold's machines can easily be rigged in ways that voting officials could not detect. Diebold's CEO, Walden O'Dell, is a "Pioneer" for President Bush who has raised more than $100,000 for his campaigns. O'Dell wrote a letter inviting friends to a $1,000 per person fundraiser at his home and asking them to raise at least $10,000 for the Republican Party. He stated, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Edwards believes the appearance of impropriety here is intolerable. The people who make voting machines subject to tampering should not be promising to "deliver" elections. Senator Edwards calls on President Bush to return the donations from O'Dell.

Edwards Calls on the National Election Assistance Commission to Identify Heightened Security Standards and Make Recommendations for Touchscreen Voting Machines. Very serious questions have been raised about the integrity of machines that millions of Americans will use to vote in 2004. For example, the Secretary of State in Ohio has ordered Diebold and other electronic voting device vendors to resolve 57 security weaknesses. Other states, with similar voting machines, need similar guidance prior to the 2004 election. Edwards calls on the Election Assistance Commission, formed by the 2004 election reform legislation, to identify heightened security standards for these machines and make other recommendations as appropriate. Edwards supports congressional appropriations to enable states to comply with any new standards identified by the EAC. http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=415

Edwards Empowers SC Voters For February 3rd Primary
January 23, 2004
COLUMBIA, SC: Just 11 days before South Carolina's First-in-the-South primary, Senator John Edwards (D-NC) today joined the Voter Education Project in Columbia to stress the importance of the historic voting opportunity ahead and to vow that "every vote will count in 2004." Launched in the late 1960s, the Voter Education Project is a nonprofit civil rights organization specializing in voter registration, education and participation.

"In America, everyone should have the right to vote, and everyone should have the same chance to vote. Those are principles on which we all agree," said Edwards. "Those of us from the South have a special responsibility when it comes to civil rights and voting rights. We cannot follow - we must lead. Here in South Carolina, we need to keep registering voters, we need to keep getting voters to the polls, and we need to make sure every vote counts in 2004!"

Edwards praised South Carolina for its strides in election reform and urged the audience to continue to make the state a model for the rest of the nation. South Carolina will use paper ballots in the upcoming February 3rd primary and voting machines in the general election this fall.

To ensure that every vote counts in 2004, Edwards vowed to:

Fund the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) so that we do not see a replay of the Florida fiasco. Unfortunately, President Bush passed HAVA and then did not support adequate funding for it. This means that many states and localities do not have the money they need to upgrade their equipment.

Support increased voter registration under measures like the Motor Votor Act, and all efforts to impose new burdens on voting.
Edwards opposes measures that use the prevention of fraud as an excuse to impose undue obstacles on the right to vote. Edwards supports simplified registration under measures like Motor Voter.

Fix the Major Problems with Computerized Voting.
Serious questions have been raised about possible manipulation of some computerized voting systems. The head of one major computer voting system, Diebold, Inc., has rasied more than $100,000 for President Bush and said he would "deliver" Ohio for Bush in the 2004 election. Edwards calls on Bush to return the donations from this executive, and would enact new legislation to ensure that votes cast on computerized voting machines can be verified so games cannot be played. http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=570

[Benhurst]

61. Good! This is very different from the response I got

when I wrote him a while back on this issue. It is the kind of response I had originally hoped to get.

Thanks, this makes me feel better his positions.

Now, for all our sakes, may the best man win in the coming months-- and Bush* be sent packing!

[AP]

66. Can you scan that letter and post it so we can see what is said?

[Benhurst]

68. I rarely keep such letters. I this case, as a very disappointed

and angry constituent, I'm sure it went directly into the trash.

[AP]

75. Perhaps you misremember the contents. I see a lot of confusion about

what Edwards has said which correlates highly with enthusiasm for another comment.

I don't know how many times people who really like other candidates a lot have to read that Edwards authored no part of the PA before it sinks in.

[Benhurst]

77. I did not misread his statements and I remember them all too

well. To his credit, Mr. Edwards expresses himself reasonably well, a rare talent these days.

He did not author the Patriot Act; but he voted it, which was inexcusable for a lawyer of his caliber. At the time he wrote me, he expressed no reservations about the correctness of his vote. If he has had second thoughts, good. But his voting for the Patriot Act was shameful, and no attempt to rewrite history will change it.

[fairfaxvadem]

15. she is great up close and personal...

saw her speak in someone's home in December. She knows her stuff and is as much a politico as he is...

I believe she was a top-notch law student and no shrinking violet in her own right as an attorney. She is as smart as Hillary without being the lightening rod for the right that Hillary is. (Although, even if she were, I wouldn't care since I happen to like Senator Clinton quite well and always have.) I offer that only for some context or frame of reference and not Hillary-bashing, by the way.

I came away completely impressed with her. She has an amazing command of the issues and had some very direct things to say about Bush. I asked her if she and the Senator were prepared to be "Gored" by Karl Rove if the Senator became the Dem nominee. I said I thought it would be even worse this time since Shrub will be in the fight for his life to get a 2nd term. She said, "John has beat them all for 20 years as a trial lawyer. We're ready for that fight."

[AP]

17. She was a bankruptcy lawyer, so she's got some up-close knowledge of what

Bush has been doing to the country.

[IndianaGreen]

19. She is a lawyer

Of course she is going to be composed, all lawyers are good at that.

[AP]

22. Royal Tanenbaum wasn't composed.

[oasis]

26. MSNBC's Chris Janke interviewed her this a.m.. Impressive. She

would be a wonderful addition to the White House.

[trumad]

41. WOW

A nice thread about a candidates wife and the rabid opponents chime in with their crap. Give it a fucking rest in threads like this...:eyes:

[Jerseycoa]

48. #26?

"would be a wonderful addition to the White House."

What's bad?

But I agree with your general sentiment about family-bashing that's been going on.

For the record, I think Elizabeth Edwards is terrific. A good field of Dem first ladies all around.

[Poseidon]

52. She is a great woman

It's too bad her husband looks young enough to be her son, or maybe she looks old enough to be his mom. I can't tell which it is, maybe it's both.

:evilgrin:

[tryanhas]

67. First of all, she IS OLDER

She's 54 year sold, and he is 50. She'll be 55 this summer and he'll be 51, so she is older.

Secondly, she has always looked older than him, and she jokes about it all of the time. But she is still brilliant. She smiles great and is a treasure chest of knowledge.

[spooky3]

71. there are a lot of 40 year olds who look older than JE :-)

Elizabeth Edwards has wonderful warm eyes and she is brilliant and sincere, with a good heart. That is what matters to me.

[mmonk]

73. To lose a child is such a hard thing