The winning '08 ticket? Edwards and OBama

[prolesunited]

So, what are your thoughts?

Would you vote for them?
How are they perceived?
What are their negatives?
What are the positives?
Do you think they can win?

[babylonsister]

1. Is Barack

Irish?:silly:

[applegrove]

2. I like - ie very much. But cannot vote. Wrong country.

[On the Road]

3. "O'Bama"

Would definitely get the black Irish vote.

:smoke:

[YOY]

5. Beat me to it!

[prolesunited]

OK

Edited the stupidity out. D'oh! :blush:

[Dark]

4. Uh, Obama doesn't have the experience,

and I don't like Edwards very much.

[prolesunited]

10. Why don't you like Edwards?

I know Obama doesn't have a lot of experience, but as VP, would that be that bad? He's so charismatic and they can't stick much dirt on him yet because he hasn't been around that long.

[Dark]

26. Yes, as many moderates fear someone who doesn't have much experience

being VP. Why? Because the president may, especially in these dangerous times, be killed by a terrorist attack (he is a prime target.) So, people want to be sure that the VP is capable if he becomes the president.

As for Edwards, I heard him speak, and he is very charismatic. So much so that he can say practically nothing at all and still get a crowd cheering. Granted, that was next to Steve Forbes.

Anywho, I don't like Edwards. His stance on marriage, like so many other dems, is built out of fear rather than right.

[AmericanDream]

54. Stance on marriage...

umm... I know he is for civil unions, but I hope you read the letter that Edwards wrote asking crimes againt gays to be added in the definition of hate crimes. He spoke passionately about civil rights for gays describing them in actual, real life terms (talking about how partners can't even see each other in hospitals, etc.) So, I don't think Edwards has been fearful about this issue... though he might be holding back taking it to the next level and supporting gay marriage. Is that your only issue with him, btw?

[karynnj]

36. Edwards has very little experience too

[Brundle_Fly]

137. NOT enough experience??? ONE WORD!

P O T A T O E

[DKStreet]

6. Winning in terms of intelligence, vitality, a bold vision for the future

Oh yeah, but "winning" in terms of electoral votes? Not sure about that but we can always hope, doesn't cost nuthin.

[peace frog]

7. I like Obama in the VP slot

but Edwards as a presidential nominee is not strong enough to counter the best of the Repug candidates, John McCain.

[AmericanDream]

61. But...

In the polls, Edwards is the one who comes closest to beating McCain.. that is he is 3% behind McCain ... I do think he can beat McCain... but then McCain's a tall order for any candidate.

[Leilani]

74. You're funnin us, right?

Edwards closest to beating McCain?

:rofl:

[AmericanDream]

78. Umm, I'm not...

There is a section of the populace ... a lot of whom vote based on the candidate who "connects" with them.. and Bush did win a lot of those... these voters would go for Edwards easily, even some republicans (who I heard say that they would've voted for the democratic ticket if it was upside down) and there are a lot of ppl in rural areas who wouldn't vote for McCain and find Edwards to have more in common with them in terms of personality, if not policy... McCain will not get a lot of those 4 million evangelicals who voted for Bush either... on the other hand, Edwards will energize the base very well and he has the highest crossover appeal (as shown by the very latest pew research poll).

I do think that McCain's age would be a barrier... in 08, after going through this war and a drag of a presidency, people are going to look for a new vision for the country... and frankly, I don't think McCain provides that. Plus, he is on the wrong side of the war in Iraq.

Once again, you don't have to laugh at me... just go look at the polls... I'm not making this up. Or else, I guess you could laugh and be a fool.

[Leilani]

81. I'm sorry to disagree

What did Edwards add to Kerry's run? Nothing.

When the word went out that Kerry & McCain were having talks about the Veep spot, the polls showed Kerry beating Bush by 14 points.

I truly do not see what anyone can find about Edwards that would convince them to entrust him with the most difficult job in the world.

And yes, McCain would be old by traditional standards, but the average age is going up. Hell, 50 used to be condsidered old.

Apart from personal comparisons, I saw Edwards make a speech several weeks ago. He promised pie in the sky: health insurance for all, college education for all, etc etc. Never once did he explain how he would pay for his laundry list. It all sounded great & made no sense.

He does not have the experience or the knowledge to be Prez.

Obama, on the other hand, is quietly learning in the Senate, traveling the world with Dick Lugar. He won't make Edward's mistake. When he runs, he'll be ready.

[AmericanDream]

87. Well, I'm sorry to disagre too...

A) People don't vote for the Vice presidential candidate. How many evangelicals did not vote for Bush because his VP Cheney has a gay daughter? Bush won the anti-gay vote despite running with a guy who has an openly gay daughter. What does that say? It says that the VP candidate has no pull whatsoever. As I went all over the country during the election, I had numerous republicans come up to me and say that if Edwards was on top of the ticket, they would've voted for him. The truth is that this was an important election and people recognized that how important the guy on the top would be... and that is the person they voted for or against.

B) Edwards was the ONLY candidate whose budget added up in the policies he put forth in 04. Did you even care to look or read about it? You should read his speech on Tax reform, here, he lays out how to increase revenues for the gov't by leveling the tax playing field so that it favors work over wealth. I'll try to find a link to it and post it for you to read.

[Leilani]

95. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Choosing a person for President is a very personal thing. And we obviously do not see the same qualities in John Edwards.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, my choice for nominee would be Wes Clark, because he is the only person who could stand toe to toe on foreign affairs, military strategy, including Iraq.

The other person who would be effective against McCain is Russ Feingold. They disagree on almost everything, but they're good friends & it would be an interesting race. Maybe we could have a true debate of conservative govt vs a populist or progressive govt. During campaigns everything turns into soundbites, but I'd love to see a true debate.

[AmericanDream]

96. yeah, we can disagree about that .....

But you should use better facts to refute his candidacy... the idea that he doesn't have a plan to balance the budget is not true and like I pointed out, his was the only policy platform that ADDED up to a manageable total.

[Inspired]

188. You'd choose Wes Clark?

That is the most surprising thing I've read in this thread....NOT. Usually it's the Clark supporters who are first in line to downplay Edwards. Why the obvious rivalry? I just don't get it, don't get it at all.

[TheFarseer]

138. I agree with everything you said

Balance out the ticket with Clark to provide foreign policy experience and you have your winning ticket for 2008 - Edwards/Clark

[asthmaticeog]

8. I seriously don't think so.

All of Edwards' negatives (very short legislative career chief among them) remain with him and that one applies to Obama as well. Plus, legislators running for exec don't do well. In recent decades, Presidential elections have trended strongly towards governors (with Bush I being the sole exception since Carter, and he was a Reagan caretaker/legacy), I suspect precisely because of the perception that prior executive experience translates to the Presidency better than being in the Senate.

Not that I'd be against that ticket, I just have doubts about its electoral viability.

[prolesunited]

14. There certainly is a lot of truth in that

So, no legislators. Then, who among the governors?

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Gore or Clark avoid the legislator trap also. And former Governors.

Which Warner is about to be. Dean too obviously, but I take him at his word about staying at DNC.

[GatoLover]

66. Poppy Bush isn't really an exception

He had been Vice President for eight years, which is an executive position, sort of. Ask Dick Cheney!

[asthmaticeog]

73. Yeah, I know,

but he was never a Governor of a state, I mean he was an exception as far as the gubernatorial thing goes.

[GatoLover]

76. True. My only point was

that being a governor seems to be a good launching pad because it's an executive rather than a legislative position. I'm not advocating him, but Rudy Guiliani could plausibly run as "America's Mayor" while Hilary, in contrast, is still just a senator.

[asthmaticeog]

82. Bingo.

And welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[Lerkfish]

9. conyers/boxer or boxer/ conyers. or edwards to either, my 2 cents.

no democrats have done as much, consistently as conyers, boxer a close second, and maybe mckinney.
they've done it under extreme opposition without buckling.

[prolesunited]

12. I agree that they have done a lot

But, do they have enough moderate/centrist appeal to win a general election? Think of their records and how much can be twisted so easily.

[Lerkfish]

21. honestly? I don't give a flying fig if they have enough "moderate/centrist

appeal"
they're doing the work that needs to be done, doing it heroically and against great odds.
If I wanted to get "moderate/centrist" appeal, I'd just roll over and let lieberman/clinton screw me and get it over with.

DO THE RIGHT THING.

My advice for the "centrists" -- compromising with evil makes you even more evil, because you KNOW better.

[prolesunited]

34. And, if we don't strike a balance

(and I'm not talking about totally selling out here, like Lieberman), the GOP remains in power. So, what does that accomplish. I would favor democratic socialism, but I also realize that most of the country would not. Do I keep beating my head against the wall demanding it all, or work toward incremental changes?

[Lerkfish]

63. like the 'gang of 14"? you cannot compromise with evil.

during normal circumstances, yes, you could be diplomatic and broker deals and work out compromises, etc.

UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

in case you haven't noticed, we have an antichrist wannabe in office, and his surrounding minions piss on compromises.
You can only compromise when you can trust the other party to hold up their end of the bargain.

I have seen no reason to trust these pigs at all.

but I digress.

Sorry, I'm not trying to say Obama/edwards is a bad choice, just saying I think the time is right for a better choice, and for those who have tirelessly fought the evil empire to be the ones we tap to replace them.

incremental changes will kill us, quite frankly. We don't have that kind of time.

[prolesunited]

69. And, I'm just saying that I agree with you in principle

BUT, those candidates have an even less chance of getting into office that Edwards and Obama.

[Lerkfish]

97. maybe its time to take principles and run em up the flagpole to see if

anyone salutes.
We've lost a lot of elections trying to be "electable".
The irony is not lost on many of us.

[AmericanDream]

201. Totally agreed... I've been saying this forever... if only ppl will listen

Vote on your convictions and victory will follow. The Repubs have been doing that ... and it has been working out just fine for them. Plus it is the RIGHT thing to do... whatever happened to living with the choices we make? We criticize our elected leaders for being so "political" , but when we vote based on electability rather than true merits (character and policy wise) of the candidate... we ourselves are being "political" and not honest.

[win_in_06]

11. I think it would be better if at least one of them were re-elected to

the Senate first.

Not a one-termer.

[m_welby]

13. i would doubt it

not that I have anything against either of them.

I have no idea who will be on the top of the 08 ticket, but I know who should be the vp candidate: Murtha! He's perfect for the job.

[Lowell]

15. Obama, not yet

Edwards, not ever.

Obama will make a good candidate, in a few years when he has some real experience under his belt.
I'm not overly impressed with Edwards.
To beat McCain, or whoever the GOP nominates, we need candidates with strong credentials and experience. I think Clark might be able to pull it off this time and Gore looks better every time I see him speak. But then what would I know, I like Howard Dean.

[prolesunited]

17. Why not ever on Edwards?

[Lowell]

29. Don't get me wrong

I think John Edwards is an excellent person for public office, just not the Executive branch. He simply doesn't have the fire in his belly for the job.

I've been life long friends with the Lakey family from NC. Valerie Lakey's grandmother, Rosemary, is a close family friend. I think that John Edwards was terrific when he brought the pool/spa industry to their knees in his injury suit on behalf of the Lakey family. He is a superb lawyer and I believe that is where his real strengths lie. He would be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court and I think would do much more for this country than he ever could as a VP.

Edwards is honest, reliable and trustworthy, but he is not exciting. We need someone who can really move the voters to the polls. I don't think Edwards can do that.

But then what the hell do I know, I like Howard Dean.

[AmericanDream]

49. He doesn't have the fire in the belly? Are you kidding?

I guess you can say that it doesn't work for you.... but an overwhelming majority would agree that one one of his biggest strenghts and assets was his energy and passion. NO one mentioned edwards in the campaign without mentioning the fact that he had tremendous energy and passion... But then you mentioned Howard Dean... so I guess it is the "yell and tell" (and I don't mean that in a bad way) kind of leaders that appeal to you, in that case, yes, edwards won't appeal to you because he has a very polished style, not the raw kind that Dean espoused.

[renie408]

129. That caught my eye, too

Every time I have heard Edwards he seemed so passionate and so FOCUSED. The 'fire in the belly' comment startled me, too.

[guidod]

51. You go it right

Gore and Clark is a good ticket.

[Dawgs]

104. I'm sorry, but Edwards is kind of dorky, and...

he has nothing to offer that will counter McCain.

Barack, on the other hand, would bring out the black voter, the young, and take at least half of the independant votes from McCain.

[guidod]

105. Edwards is beyond dorky..

I think Barack is the most impressive and intelligent politician I've seen since John Kennedy.

[Dawgs]

103. No,

"To beat McCain, or whoever the GOP nominates, we need candidates with strong credentials and experience."

How about John Kerry? He has a ton of credintials and experience. :sarcasm:

We have to quit over analyzing this. We need to pick the MOST ELECTABLE, not the most qualified.

My choice right now is CLARK/OBAMA.

[Parche]

18. 2008

Kerry/Warner
Kerry/Clark

[Imagine My Surprise]

19. I'm sorry, but Obama lost me when he voted to SUPPORT the banking industry

in their 10 year quest to screw bankruptcy protections. Call me picky.

[Withywindle]

Where the hell does this idea come from?

I keep seeing it. and it is simply not TRUE. He voted against the bankruptcy bill - watched it on CSPAN2 with my own eyes. Go to senate.gov and run a search yourself - you'll find the same vote I always find when I do that: NAY.

Primary sources, people.

[Imagine My Surprise]

28. If this is true, then my deepest apologies! But I know that me and a few..

other DUers have heard that he had voted for the bill. That would be beyond utterly insidious if there was intentional misrepresentation on his vote. Again, if this is true, I am deeply sorry.

[wyldwolf]

44. "intentional misrepresentation"

Lots of those on DU!

[1932]

99. There has been intentional misrepresentation.

I don't wonder how people so easily accepted this lie, since the seeds were sown with so many "doubting" posts.

First you vaguely doubt a person. You just say, over and over again, that they give you a bad vibe. Once you've posted that a thousand times, then you start telling the lies, and other posters don't bother to check the facts because they've seen all the "bad vibe" posts before that.

[Withywindle]

107. Just look it up!

www.senate.gov has a search engine where anybody can confirm who voted for anything at any time.

[1932]

98. Obama voted against the final version of S.256

You didn't know that?

[abluelady]

20. How about Clark/Warner?

Warner is no way ready to be Pres but as a VP, he might do well in '16, if we can move the congress in '06. He could help with the south.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I like that!

We need a kick ass Democrat to win the war that the 2008 election will represent. A war to win our Democracy back! Screw the run of the mill politicians.....they've shown us their worth! Time for the Democrats to think "out of the box" and get behind someone who truly cares about this nation first and foremost!

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark

Man this gets old.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Fixate much?

You're right, it does get old.

[PurityOfEssence]

106. Clark threads abound and are left in peace, Edwards threads get slagged

Didn't your mommy teach you anything?

Clark supporters suck endless bandwidth, and they're welcome to it; just let others have a moment of joy too.

This was a pro-Edwards thread started by someone out of what we can only presume to be sincerity. Clark supporters are not being attacked when they mess with their historic rival's threads, they are the intruders.

Congratulations; you're still the most organized and numerous support group on this board, but playing the victim when you demand dominance is tiresome. People have the right to not acquiesce to your demands for coronation as the ascendant defenders of all that's good and true.

The word is hypocrisy: it's a form of aristocracy where one grants oneself greater rights than others and holds others to a more stringent code of behavior.

Or, since this is already at elementary school playground level: your guys intruded, so don't play victim if someone calls you on it.

[Crunchy Frog]

112. Clark threads are left in peace?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

My mommy taught me plenty. Your mommy didn't teach you enough.

Here's a clue for you. You start any thread with _______ in '08 and you're going to get detractors at best and a flame war at worst. With any potential candidate at all, yes even with Clark.:wow:

I have nothing bad to say about Edwards, and I keep out of Edwards threads. I don't make nasty remarks about Edwards supporters either, and if I did, I would expect them to vigorously defend themselves. I'm not posting in this thread to say anything at all about Edwards, but I am and will respond to attacks on Clark supporters, wherever they appear.

I have an interesting piece of information that I will share with you, in case you weren't already aware of it. There are special forums where supporters of various potential candidates can talk about them without any interruptions or negativity. In those forums, only supporters, or people generally sympathetic towards the person in question can post. GDP is a jungle. Post something here and anything goes and anyone can post responses. You may want to consider growing a thicker skin if you're going to swim here with the grownups. Otherwise, you may want to consider staying in the baby pool.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

116. You know what my private agendum is?

Hell, even I don't know what my private agendum is. It sounds kind of dirty.:o

I'm not in this thread to say anything about Edwards, although I would be perfectly within my rights to do so if I wanted to, since GDP is an open forum. I posted in here because I saw an attack on Clark supporters and I wished to respond to it. Attack a group of people anywhere on this board and you are going to get a response. Sorry, that's reality. As I said before, if you don't like it, go back in the baby pool.

I'm not accusing anyone of any faults at all, mine or anyone else's. I do find it absolutely astounding what you manage to read into things. That's alright though. I admire a creative mind. ;-)

[PurityOfEssence]

144. The eye of the beholder

Since, once again, Clark supporters have succeeded in having one of my posts deleted, I'll gently restate the gist of it.

This thread was started by someone musing about the possibility of an Edwards candidacy. Once again, some of the same old stalwart Clark supporters had to rain on his parade and reopen the old rivalry. When called to account, somehow you and others take this as an attack on Clark supporters.

I see it as and attack BY Clark supporters, and it loosed the same old response: any questioning of anti-social tactics are met with cries to the moderators to delete, personal attacks (for which I could have probably gotten some posts deleted if I was a scorched-earth firebrand with a sense of entitlement) and vigorous derision.

If Clark supporters were "attacked", they were done so after they had started the attacking. It's a version of reciprocity. Somehow far too many of his supporters rage when the numerous pro-Clark threads get any anti-Clark posts (which rarely happens of late, mind you) yet they feel the absolute right to slag John Edwards at every turn, and if called to account for their continual combativeness, they seem to have the right of nuclear retaliation.

Recap: a somewhat pro-Edwards thread garners a few negative posts from Clark supporters. Called to account for the tirelessness of the tactic (Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark) the interlopers feel that they've been cruely attacked without justification, thereby warranting attacks, insults, distortions, and gaming the board by getting the moderators to fight as their proxy.

How can you feign being innocent victims in a situation like this?

Can't people just be happy knowing that their candidate has a MUCH more vocal and vigorous support faction on this board than anyone else? Must we all bow before him and kiss his stirrups?

Once again, for all his faults, I have less trouble with him than with the tactics of many of his most vigorous disciples.

[incapsulated]

154. "Must we all bow before him and kiss his stirrups?"

Yes.



:rofl:

Honestly, this is becoming way past ridiculous. I think I've posted more on "2008 Ticket" threads in the past two days than I have in the past year. I generally avoid them like a plague but I was in a talkative mood.

I honestly don't care about Edwards. I don't see him as Clark's "rival". I never wanted Clark to be Kerry's VP, I said so often. I probably clicked on this thread mainly because Obama was brought into the equation. My opinion of the ticket were my honest thoughts, as I was invited by the OP to post what I thought of the ticket, pro and con, not to talk about how much I loved Edwards. I wouldn't participate in such a thread. You are the one making this into an attack on Edwards, himself, and attacking Clarkies across the board. People said they hated Obama in this thread, you know.

There are a lot of Clark supporters here. Just because more than one weighs in on a thread doesn't mean it's some conspiracy to attack Edwards or promote Clark.

I've seen plenty of attacks on Clark in Clarkie threads by Edwards fans, btw. It's pretty predictable, too.

This is all just stupid.

[PurityOfEssence]

159. Whether you do or not, many Clark supporters see him as a rival

The enmity is well documented

[Crunchy Frog]

161. Hey Purity.

There's a really nice Edwards thread right here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2316758#2316851

Why don't you go and post something positive in support of your guy, instead of crapping this thread up with your attacks on Clark supporters.

I swear to God, I've posted more nice things about Edwards on DU than I've ever seen you do.

[incapsulated]

189. You Edwards people

Are documenting your OWN attitude right here in this thread.

Someone dares to mention Clark's name and the entire thread is hijacked by you and your fellow Edwards fans in attacks on both Clark supporters and Clark himself.

It's pathetic the projection going on here.

[AmericanDream]

196. That's because this thread is not about Clark...

I don't understand why every thread about 08 has to have Clark mentioned in it? Gee, not all clark supporters are like that but some of you just can't let the man alone for a minute. Do you have any opinion about any candidate or issue independent of clark? Whether you are opposing or supporting a candidate/issue, Clark somehow seems to make his way into the justification of your opinion. And, then you blame others for getting annoyed?

Last I checked the thread was about Edwards and Obama ....

[Tom Rinaldo]

206. I would like to de-escalate this side discussion

Crunchy Frog noted another Edwards thread in one of her posts somewhere on this thread (and left the link) that was all about Edwards, and no Clark supporter that I knew of last time I looked said a word either for Clark or against Edwards on that thread. This thread really was more open ended in the intent to start discussion, as evidenced by the questions posed in the OP. Clark was not the first leading Democrat other than Edwards or Obama that other posters brought into the discussion here, but it was only the mention of Clark's name that brought a frustrated response from an Edwards supporter.

It's not like I can't understand the frustration. Compared to any objective national average, Edwards currently enjoys more support for a 2008 Presidential run than Clark when Democrats nationally are polled, and yet Clark enjoys more support than Edwards for 2008 here on DU. That means that arguments in favor of Edwards are under represented on DU and those in favor of Clark are over represented here compared to a larger sample of Democratic voters. And that also means, by the same logic, that more DU regulars who support Clark are present on DU reading and reacting to 2008 threads than are Edwards supporters. And that shows.

It certainly is skewed from a national perspective, not that anything is "wrong" with that. DU members are simply not a representative cross section of Democrats. Then again most Democrats getting poled in the large national polls aren't thinking much about 2008 compared to your average DUer either. It just is what it is.

I really do think it would be more constructive if you made a priority of pointing out when you think Clark's or anyone else's supporters (and that includes Edwards of course) goes out of line and unfairly and/or out of context makes a hit against Edwards, or whoever. Repeated posts going negative on the supporters of one Democrat will only fuel animosity and poison the atmosphere further at DU. You know, it is very very rare that I ever hear a non Clark supporter rise to the defense of Clark supporter's participation on DU. It is almost like it is always hunting season on Clark supporters around here. And the best way to test that premise is to watch the reaction almost every time a Clark supporter says something like this. Usually it is along the line of "If Clark supporters would stop being such vicious assholes they wouldn't keep getting attacked". In other words, it usually invites a further attack to even bring this up. This dynamic does not happen to any other group of Democrat supporters. It is almost completely one sided and it has gone on for at least a year.

DU is a fairly wide open discussion board. Too many positive things being said about any Democrat is low on my list of concerns, and that isn't merely a hollow statement. Since the last election Clark supporters have been a major presence on DU. Absolutely true. But since this summer there have been repeated massive waves of support shown other Democrats, including Gore, Kerry, Boxer, Warner, Conyers, Dean, and Feingold. It has been a rare week since this Summer that at least one of the other Democrats I just listed hasn't been the one dominating DU discussion. This last week it has been Dean Feingold and Warner, not Clark. The week before it might have been Kerry if I am remembering right. The two comments made in support of Clark on this thread would have passed with virtually no ripple, like the Boxer comments, if an Edwards supporter had not chosen to focus on them. And now half the posts on this thread involve an inherently inconsequential side show focused on DU members and not on the issues that DU is here to discuss.

[incapsulated]

117. This isn't a "pro-Edwards" thread

It's a thread that put foward a ticket and asked for our thoughts on it. People always put foward their "favorite" on such threads, regardless. This isn't a thread with happy Edwards news or whatever.

No one was whining until you came along. Does just seeing the name "Clark" throw you into a jealous fit or something? :cry:

I couldn't care less about Edwards, frankly.

Suck bandwith, indeed!

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. "So, what are your thoughts?"...

"Would you vote for them?
How are they perceived?
What are their negatives?
What are the positives?
Do you think they can win?"

I think the OP was asking for feedback, both positive AND negative.

"Clark supporters are not being attacked when they mess with their historic rival's threads, they are the intruders."

Um, maybe you can request a new DU Forum where only anyone who does not like Clark is allowed to express an opinion when asked.

[PurityOfEssence]

124. Playing games

What a great idea! Let's have a new forum, since the current ones are inundated with Clark supporters who ritualistically hijack threads. It might be nice to have some solace.

This was a pro-Edwards thread eliciting responses, so for the disproportionate legions of Clark supporting folks to chime in is not too surprising.

If the percentage of partisans on this board was reflected in the general population, Clark would long since have been elected god for eternity. Isn't that enough? Must all other voices be quelled?

[Tom Rinaldo]

126. Rant On! Be my guest, I won't quell you...

Some people above moved the discussion off of Edwards. No problem for you there. They brought up Conyers and Boxer, you remain silent. Someone says Warner is too inexperienced for President, but how about Clark/Warner? To which someone else says "I like that" and you go blow up with "Clark!, Clark!, Clark! Clark!.

I hope you get that new forum, I think you need it.

[Crunchy Frog]

141. Marcia Marcia Marcia!!!

[CarolNYC]

142. heheh

Watch out, any minute now "Jan" is going to start demanding an apology. ;)

[I_am_Spartacus]

135. Clark threads don't always "suck endless bandwith"

I noticed that the Clark threads quoting his "we can win in Iraq" posts at his blog didn't get very much posts or "greatest" votes last week.

[last_texas_dem]

136. This bothers me, too

If I read a post bashing Edwards, it seems like I almost always eventually find out that the poster is a Clark supporter. Now I certainly believe that posters on DU have the right to support or oppose whatever candidates they wish to. But I think it shows a major weakness on the part of, evidently, a substantial portion of Clark supporters that they seem to be uniting in bashing one particular candidate. And while I'm not trying to say that there is some sort of "conspiracy" among Clark supporters to attack Edwards, I do wonder if it doesn't show a lack of independence in one's views that so many of a particular candidate's supporters seem to also unite in attacking another candidate. Certainly it could all be a very strange coincidence, but I can't see some overwhelming reason why so many people who like Wesley Clark would all hate John Edwards, and it puzzles me.

I'm not holding the behavior of many Clark supporters against Wesley Clark himself. I've liked Clark from the beginning, was glad he entered the Presidential race last year, and would have no problem with him running again. I posted in a thread just a few days ago, praising him as an effective potential candidate against John McCain. I think it's silly to let the actions of a candidate's supporters determine your opinion of the candidate. But I think a number of Clark's supporters need to realize that bashing another Democratic leader who a lot of Democrats support is not the most effective way to appeal to other Democrats to support Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

164. No Clarkies bashing Edwards here

Just defending Clark. Amazing how people confuse the two.

There may be a few negative posts about Edwards here, but they're not from Clarkies. We get blamed for a lot of shit we don't do.

[last_texas_dem]

174. No confusion here

I recall a significant amount of Edwards bashing coming disproportionately from Clark supporters dating back to the '04 primaries, and it couldn't have been simply "defending" Clark as Edwards supporters were not attacking him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

178. You have selective memory

There was "Clark bashing" by Edwards supporters back then just like there is right now, on this very thread. And there was also "Edwards bashing" by Clark supporters. Those were heated times obviously. But the loyalty of Clark supporters became clear when Edwards won the VP nod. We rallied behind Kerry/Edwards all the way. From the moment Kerry selected Edwards until the Election you will have a hard time finding one handful of posts by regular Clark supporters that said anything negative about Edwards. I think that loyalty is more relevant than your opinion that more negative things were said about Edwards by Clark supporters than about Clark by Edwards supporters during the primaries and immediately after, even if you managed to do a dissertation on it proving that 1.23 negative things were said on DU against Edwards for every 1 negative thing said about Clark.

The original point though was whether Clark supporters were using this thread to be critical of Edwards, and in fact it has been the exact opposite, Edwards supporters have used it to be critical of Clark AND Clark supporters. Nice twist.

[last_texas_dem]

198. No I don't

At best, I should have worded my previous post better. The point that I was making is that Clark supporters were not simply defending their candidate against attacks by Edwards supporters at the time they began bashing Edwards ('04 primaries). I was not trying to claim that Edwards supporters never bashed Clark, but I do believe (based on reading DU at the time) that this came more out of defense from attacks on Edwards from Clark supporters.

For what it's worth, I cannot recall a time that I ever engaged in bashing Clark on this site, last year's primaries included. The only thing that made me decide to comment in this thread (this sub-thread at least) is simply my observation that a substantial portion (I believe the majority, and no, I have no statistics, only my general impressions, to back up this assertion) of the Edwards-bashing on this site comes from Clark supporters, and has for quite a while. I started thinking this after I began noticing that after I would read a post bashing John Edwards, I would more often than not find out later that the poster who wrote it was a Clark supporter. So, a few posts above, I simply explained why that observation bothered me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

207. Oddly enough the most heated exchanges came after the Primaries

When Kerry had it locked up and had not yet chosen a VP to run with. Edwards supporters often belittled the contribution that Clark could bring to the ticket and Clark supports often did the converse. My memory is that is was essentially equal in both directions. And I think we should both acknowledge that it is part of human nature that people remember attacks on themselves and what they care about vividly, while tending to not view many of their own actions regarding a potential adversary as having been aggressive. One persons defense is often another persons offense. And I think I have done virtually if not absolutely no Edwards bashing myself. At times I have pointed out real problems that I have with Edwards however, I will admit to that and see nothing wrong with it as long as it in honest and in context and not petty. I have also said positive things about Edwards, and I really did work hard to get him elected, and the latter is true of all the Clark supporters that I know.

Edwards having run for VP last time is a double edged sword for him regarding 2008. It vastly increased his name recognition and exposed him to millions of Americans, which is almost any politician's dream. Unfortunately Bush/Cheney got installed rather than Kerry/Edwards. That means both Kerry and Edwards will continually be subject to second guessing as to whether they did as well for the Democratic Party as they should/could have. That goes with the territory, it simply does. "What if" is a traditional American pass time. So Edwards goes into a potential 2008 run with some priceless positives gained from the 2004 campaign, and some dogged negatives that only he and Kerry have to contend with. The scrutiny now over whether Edwards was/can be the best messenger for the Democratic party in 2008 considering the results of 2004 is the flip side of Edwards automatically being thought of as a leading contender for 2008 due to his very high public profile. I am not saying that John Edwards would not merit serious consideration had he not run in 2004. I'm just saying that there would be no guarantee that he would have gotten it. There is no guarantee for Russ Feingold for example.

[Crunchy Frog]

195. ALL candidate supporters were bashing the other candidates.

Edwards supporters sure as HELL were bashing Clark. It's immaterial to me now. It's what I expect to go on during primaries.

I don't see why people feel the need to hold onto their primary grievances, of which we all have plenty. I wish people would start focusing on the future instead of fixating on the past.

[last_texas_dem]

199. It's not about past grievances for me

I brought up the '04 primaries to make the point that my post about noticing that a disproportionate number of Edwards bashers support Clark was not based on this particular thread so much as a trend I had noticed going back almost two years.

As for "past grievances" that's not what this is about for me. I cannot think of any major arguments I was involved in on here during the primaries; for the most part, I stayed away from everywhere except the Lounge on here during that period. I felt like all the infighting was pointless. I have generally liked Wes Clark since I first started hearing about him, and have not taken part in bashing him, despite being bothered by the behavior of some of his supporters. I was not a "purist" Edwards supporter during the primaries, either, for that matter. I held out for Gore to run, liked Dean early on, eventually decided on Edwards and donated some money to his campaign, but even after that I did campaign work for Kerry (in New Hampshire, actually, before it was decided he was the nominee) and in the general election (in Wisconsin) and I actually cast my primary vote for Dennis Kucinich. So it's not as if I'm irrationally lashing out at Clark supporters for attacking "my boy" John Edwards. I simply noted an observation of mine and how I feel about it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

208. Please see my post to you above, plus...

I have no doubt that you are sincerely sharing your personal observations, but I discussed my perspective on them more above. Regarding Edwards, simply put I will say that I see much to like in the man but from my personal perspective his foreign policy limitations as evidenced by the judgment that he showed in that area when his experience was called on while he served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, always left him near "fatally flawed" for me as a Presidential candidate, because of the importance I place on international affairs. Others feel Clark is near "fatally flawed" because he never held elective office for example. Neither position negates the possibility that both men have much to offer our nation.

Those differences in perspective usually play out in ways that leave supporters of the "other man" feeling marginalized. I would love to have Edwards picked to lead a national task force on poverty in America. I would be thrilled to see him in the next cabinet as Secretary of Labor. I would love to have Edwards back in the U.S. Senate. Edwards supporters that I know usually don't get real enthused over those suggestions from Clark supporters, lol, especially when there may be an implication that Edwards isn't right for President. Conversely a lot of Edwards supporters have said that Clark should be Secretary of Defense, or of State, or the next National Security adviser. Somehow Clark supporters don't rally enthusiastically to those proposals either. It is in the nature of the competition, but I honestly see both men having a great deal to contribute to the future of our nation.

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark

Man this gets old.

[FrenchieCat]

41. What's getting old is your lack of defense for Edwards.....

Why don't you try that instead?

[PurityOfEssence]

108. Why don't you address Clark's unscrupulous lies?

Kerry and Edwards did not vote for the Bush tax cuts. In fact, they went out of their way to fight against them, even proposing a smaller one in one case as a rearguard action. This was not only morally indefensible, but he would not respond to being called on it and countered by distorting Edwards' voting record. One's worth as a human is not shown by how one behaves at one's birthday party, but how one behaves in times of crisis; Clark showed himself as an amateur willing to smear and distort in his last gasp in Tennessee, and it was an ugly sight.

It was also idiotic for such a smart man to do: Dean had already done it and been roundly derided for it.

This was also a deeply immoral tack to take: this was and is a core issue for the left, and these men--especially Edwards, from a red state--were heroes in fighting against tax cuts. Clark's actions in Tennessee were deplorable; they're the sign of a person with deep ethical problems.

Clark is a corporatist. Clark tests the waters before speaking, and misspoke constantly in the '04 campaign. Those of us who weren't fawning at a savior on a white charger didn't necessarily swoon when he rode in to save us.

You posted endlessly about how unfair it was that anyone would question his stance on the IWR, and when met with proof that he had said that he probably would have voted for it, was unclear on his stance on it, had counseled someone to support it and more than anything else DIDN'T HAVE TO STAND UP AND BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR A VOTE, you couldn't deny the proof, so you resorted to personal attacks.

Many Clark supporters have shrieked like the wronged when any dissent comes forth on their endless board-clogging threads, and they delete, try to get opponents banned and fight tooth and nail. Threads from his supporters are largely left unmolested; perhaps the more righteous and vigorous of his supporters can learn some decency from others.

If someone demands the right to always be answered on every point she raises, yet feels no compunction to grant the right to others, her shrill form of superiority doesn't grant her the right to make up the rules as she goes along and be tolerated for regular hissy-fits; that person doesn't understand the basic covenant of society or considers herself to be some form of aristocrat.

[FrenchieCat]

111. Whether Dean called Clark a Republican,

or Edwards defended his advisor Gen. Shelton in the Character assasination Shelton tried to make against Clark, or Kerry funded a commercial against Dean on National Security, or Gephard said some nasty things about Dean, or Dean said that he was the only one against the Iraq War (guess he forgot Kucinich and a few others).....that's all primary '04 shit that has no relevance today....except for in small minds.

What does have relevance is this war which is killing thousands and has robbed our treasury of 500 billion dollars. Edwards co-sponsored the bill that made this war possible, disclaimed that he was misled by Bush even after WMDs had not been found and it was widely known that the intelligence had been cherry picked.....and now, 2.5 years later, he's sorry. That's relevant, and you have yet to address that important issue.

You can stay stuck in the 2004 primaries and hold a grudge. Me.....I'm dealing with the real issues and I have explained with sources and links the fact that Edwards is clearly not a fit leader, IMO.

[PurityOfEssence]

115. I address issues, but you are above them

Let's not get lost in the past, but you continually do so when it suits your purpose to muddy the waters. You keep dredging up the statement by Hugh Shelton in a Q & A session of a speech as if done as a proxy for Edwards. Shelton was an adviser of Edwards' because of being from the same University; Shelton was not speaking for Edwards and Edwards did not stand by the impromptu statement. Edwards said as much.

Any holdovers from the '04 campaign should be forgotten, unless they benefit your momentary rants.

Until now, I've answered your screeds, but you've presumed to be above such accountability. When you answer the accusations made against your champion, then I'll respond to the next few volleys of your petulance. YOU are the one in arrears, whether you like the covenant of equality or not.

The sheer inconsistency of your statements leaves you in an ethical debt to those who care about fairness. Why should I answer new accusations when you won't answer old ones? Edwards has admitted his mistake about the IWR vote unequivocally.

What makes you think you're superior? You can demand explanations without ever responding to rebuttals.

Your snippy thread of a couple months ago daring anyone to show that Clark had been anything but against the IWR was met with serious, verifiable facts, and all you could do was huff and go back to your old deceit of Shelton being some big meanie.

What stance of superiority warrants others to bark at your commands while you do as you please?

[FrenchieCat]

123. Your fancy writin' ain't saying much of anything......

Superiority has nothing to do with it.

Clark was not for the IWR....that Edwards co-sponsored. Clark bobbled one question on his first day on the campaign trail...while Edwards defended his vote on 10/11/02 until a few weeks ago.

Your problem is you have no defense for John Edwards stance on Iraq up until he became "sorry".

In reference to Shelton......Edwards obviously admires this Republican Pig....
"For 38 years, General Shelton has served his country. Through his work on the battlefield and in Washington, he has fought to make our armed forces better prepared and America more secure," Senator Edwards said. "He has never forgotten his small town roots, and I am proud to have sponsored the resolution awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to General Shelton."
http://www.congressionalgoldmedal.com/HughShelton.htm

John Edwards's Mudslinging Ways
by James Ridgeway
November 12th, 2003 4:00 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0347,mondo5,48665,6.html

This week Edwards hauled out former Joint Chief of Staff chair Hugh Shelton to attack Clark. As everyone knows the military vote in the South is a big deal, and Shelton, along with a lot of other military people, don't like Clark. The way Edwards sees it, if he can just hang in there with a third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he's got a decent chance of winning South Carolina.

In September Shelton said that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues." He never said what these were.

Then last week Matt Bennett, Clark's communications man, said he was "simply astonished" at Edwards's use of Shelton and "politics-as-usual mudslinging." "General Shelton . . . initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up," said Bennett.

Edwards kept the tiff going with a snooty reply directly to Clark: "Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction." Concluded Edwards: "I will continue to seek his advice," adding, "When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics."

[PurityOfEssence]

145. Oooh, so you're playing the traditional moron card

Americans hate intellectuals, so calling an opponent competetent is the classic playing-to-the-cheap-seats attack.

Dispute this: http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

Clark played both sides of the street on the IWR issue and did it in an amateurish way. You seek to rewrite history with him steadfastly against the damned thing, but that's simply not correct.

The last time faced with this, you fluffed it and resorted to personal attacks against me.

He shilly-shallied and danced a calculated and naive political minuet on the subject, and his position is nowhere near clear. What is OBVIOUS is that in some politically advantageous situations, he supported the IWR.

The man's a liar. Those who refuse to address his stances of convenience should.

Lest we forget, it's very easy for snipers to claim how they would have voted had they had to, but those called into account must be judged on a different set of criteria.

You continually demand responses to your allegations, yet allegations I've leveled--like this one--have consistently gone without response.

Oh, and regardless of one reporter's huge leaps of logic, there is no evidence that Shelton was acting as a proxy for Edwards. The statement that upsets you so was off-the-cuff in a very informal Q&A period after a minor speaking engagement, and Edwards disavowed it. This has been shown again and again, yet it still sticks in the craw of so many Clark supporters despite ample proof.

One might ask herself why so many in the military have personal issues with General Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

156. I'm gonna leave you with this....

You can call me names (tell me I think I am superior) and Wes Clark a liar, but these are just your words and don't make it so.

Those who want to know what you are referring to in my "not" answering the Clark IWR issue can read this thread and judge for themselves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2121094&mesg_id=2121094


1. Edwards did not DISAVOW what Shelton said...IF SO, Please provide that link.

2. Clark was not a "sniper" in reference to the Iraq war...cause Snipers don't testify in separate testimonies to both houses of Congress, nor do they write op-eds and make speeches that read like this days before the vote.

Gene Lyon wrote account on Wes Clark's views on Iraq as far back as the early summer of early 2002....

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

09/26/02- Two weeks before the IWR VOTE
Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail..."
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

10/09/02- Two days before the IWR VOTE
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
"Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

10/10/02 - One day before the VOTE--another OP he wrote
In "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
"In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.

....there is still time for dialogue before we act."
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/


10/10/02 - An appearance, again One day before the vote:

Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html
University of Massachusetts at Boston
Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq (October 10, 2002)
By Michael McPhee
In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration’s preemption policy and striking out.

Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.

Clark stated his view that terrorism is the problem, not Iraq. He also voiced concern that Americans not blame Islam, and spoke of his belief that US interests are best served in reaching out to those who do not embrace the ideals of radical Islam.

ANOTHER TESTIMONY GIVEN ON 9/26/02 WAS PRETTY INTERESTING, AND I POST THIS HERE FOR THOSE IN THE, AS YOU CALL THEM, "CHEAP SEATS"!

Sept. 26, 2002

CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC


We don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That's not our job. We're not very good at it. We're also not any good at police work. Now we're doing a lot of it in place like Kosovo and Bosnia and we have and it's been unfortunate. So we should try to do better in this case.

I think you know with the value of hindsight what you realize is that there are many, you know, ifs, would-haves, and buts in situations like this. The question before the United States of America is whether we think our intelligence system is so faulty and our lack of information so gross that we would feel the need to rush to a military solution before we've taken the time to adequately build up the diplomatic and full military support capabilities that will assure we get a more favorable outcome. And, you know, it's a question of where the weight of the evidence is.

I no longer have access to the information this committee has. You may have information I have not seen, but based on the evidence submitted publicly and my experience over many years of looking at classified information, I would say the balance comes down on time is on our side in the near term. We don't know precisely how long that is and we don't know exactly where we'll draw the line on that risk.
-----------
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingsprepared...

---------
I especially liked this part, same testimony 9/26/02:

Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.

There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.

-----------

Clark never supported this war nor the resolution that passed and that John Edwards sponsored. John Edwards supported this war until it seemed "unpopular" a few weeks back.

John Edwards co-sponsored the IWR:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

and read Edwards' Op Ed on his clear support for the war:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

also See John Edwards' "no, the President didn't mislead me" interview he gave AFTER no WMDs were found in Iraq, and after evidence that Bush had cherry picked the evidence had been presented to the American people and was clear and evident--
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

John Edwards admitted to his mistake on November 1st, 2005. At the time polls, for the first time, were consistently showing more Americans against the Iraq war.

October 2005
Right thing 41%
Should have stayed out 55%

Feb. 2005
Right thing 46%
Should have stayed out 50%

Sept. 2004
Right thing 54%
Should have stayed out 39%

July 2004
Right thing 45%
Should have stayed out 47%

March 2004
Right thing 58%
Should have stayed out 37%

Dec. 2003
Right thing 63%
Should have stayed out 31%

March 2003
Right thing 69%
Should have stayed out 25%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

Those in the cheap seats (your term) can make the determination as to whom played politics and who didn't in this grave issue of war and peace.

[Jai4WKC08]

157. Oh puh-lease

The bullshit lies about Clark and his position on the IWR have been put to bed a million times. You've made it clear by posting them over and over that don't want to accept the truth, so I'm not gonna beat that dead horse again.

But as a veteran, I want to address your last line: "So many in the military have personal issues with General Clark." It was the attack Edwards released thru his press secretary, but it's a lie. You can count on one hand the number of military officers who criticized Clark based first-hand knowledge and on an attribution basis. One (Shelton) was shilling for Edwards, and refused to say one word more against him after that little fact was revealed. One was a rather undistinguished (so much so I can't remember his name) 3-star who was passed over for promotion because the job in Panama went to Clark. The third one (Franks) is a die-hard Repub who endorsed Bush, and the other (Funk) was his good buddy and probably a Repub as well. When the truth came out about Shelton, Schwartzkopf immediately retracted what he said, saying it was based completely on Shelton and that he never knew Clark. Finally, there was an Air Force four-star whose name escapes me but who endorsed Dean and then Kerry, but he had to admit he never knew Clark either; he had retired many years before Clark moved to the Joint Staff.

You think the Repubs can't dig up four people out of anyone's background to say whatever the RNC tells 'em to? Especially when they get help from other Democrats?

I could give you quotes from dozens of generals who did know Clark, liked him just fine, and didn't mind saying so on the record. Just from memory ('cause frankly, you're not worth the effort to dig up old sources): McAffrey, with whom he served in DC, called him a national treasure. Shalikashvili, who was his boss for four years, had nothing but praise. Colin Powell, when pressed, had to admit Clark is "one of the finest officer I've ever known." Jimmy Johnson, one of a handful of black 4-star contemporaries, endorsed and campaigned with him. Of the twelve generals who appeared for Kerry at the convention, almost half of 'em had endorsed Clark first. Shelton was certainly nowhere to be seen.

There are lots more, but I prefer the endorsements of the ordinary soldiers--the enlisted, NCOs and junior officers--who never make the newsprint or airwaves. They're the ones who felt the effects of Clark's leadership up close and personal, many in combat, and they literally flocked to Clark's campaign. And they'll be back if he decides to run again.

[PurityOfEssence]

160. Answer the evidence

Being above answering is simply being above answering. Those who don't accept justification are those who consider themselves above the covenant of pluralism. By what claim of aristocracy they do that is another matter, but we mere mortals stand by our actions.

His stance on the IWR was sloppy, naive and opportunistic.

He did not have to stand for ANY votes, and he played the field praising the Bush team for its foreign policy well after it had shown itself to be crushing corporatism and world dominance. He attempted to profit from corporate involvement while hiding behind the fear of post 9-11 terror, and he did this as a "journalist".

You claim to be able to be able to dredge up quotes from "dozens of Generals" who love him. Let's have them. You bluster with certainty, let's have a few.

[Jai4WKC08]

162. The evidence speaks for itself

Let anyone read the original source material, and not the out of context quotes provided in your little fact sheet.

As for the generals, I gave more than "a few." You want more? Do your own fucking research.

Yes, I'm above wrestling in the mud with you.

[1932]

163. Yes. Start with Winning Modern Wars and Waging Modern Wars.

In those books, Clark tells us several times that Vietnam was winnable (and the fact that we didn't win it encouraged small countries to take advantage of us -- have the last 30 years really been a triumph of the powerless over the powerful?). He says that he thought soft empire would have been a better way to achieve our imperialist goals in Iraq. He says that Rumsfield did a very good job of planning the war. His favorite word for describing the feelings evoked by the invasion is "euphoria." He says that he thinks the media shouldn't criticize a war once it has started. The few times he "voices" the criticisms of imperialism, he does just that -- he voices it in the third person (eg, "some might say...") either because he doesn't want to upset conservatives, or because he's thinks that nodding his head to these arguments will fool liberals into thinking that he believes them.

Clark reiterated most of these sentiments in his recent securingamerica.com blogging.

[PurityOfEssence]

165. Wow, that's a much more damning condemnation of Clark than I'd make.

Not only are many Clark supporters lovers of an imperial champion, they're anti-pluralist and terrifyingly thrilled by the concept of a simple solution. The last thing we need now is Caesar.

[FrenchieCat]

167. So sorry to see your blatant prejudice against Clark shows up

so clearly in the manner that you can so quickly agree and buy what someone is selling if it is anti Clark without nada a source...

yet you keep asking Clarkies for evidence. :eyes:

Look down, quick!

Your slip is showing!

[Tom Rinaldo]

169. So let me get this right

Here you are posting yet again on this nice friendly Pro Edwards/Obama thread that you were being oh so protective of, (except for when lots of people posted negative things about Obama of course), and what are you constantly posting about? Clark Clark Clark Clark. And what were you complaining about? Clark supporters looking for any chance to attack Edwards. And what are you doing? Attacking both Clark and Clark supporters. And how did this all get started here again? Two posters said something positive about Clark without going negative on Edwards, AFTER other posters already had talked up Warner, Conyers, Boxer etc. with nary a peep from you.

And you are the one acting outraged? Uh huh.

[FrenchieCat]

166. 1932, you are fabricating.....in your attempt in coming to the rescue of

John Edwards by attacking Clark.....again.

1932, We've had this conversation already, and the contents of the threads here show that you like to "interpret" what Clark says and rarely provide any links......you just kind of show up on the scene with your biased inacurrate disingenious book reviews. I read the books.....so I know!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1969632#1975685

and here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1923748#1927638
Please provide page numbers of the books from where you find what you are saying Clark is telling us ...I already know that in reality you are merrily interpreting what Clark said according to you. Clark's favorite word for the invasion was not "euphoria".

on page 157, paperback edition of Winning Modern Wars, General Clark writes this about Rumsfeld (and clearly calls him by name) in reference to the "only almost success" Rumsfeld could ever really claim; the War Afganistan. This is a critique of Rumsfeld...cause he didn't even do the one thing that the Bush Administration is trying to call a success....

In the provinces the warlords remained in charge. The first effort to kill the poppy crop largely failed, and civil works and assistance foundered due to chronic lack of security. Paving the road from Kabul to Kandahar, the centerpiece of the reconstruction program, was delayed repeatedly, and overall internal assistance levels were pitifully low; for efforts comparable to those in Bosnia and Kosovo, fifteen to twenty times more aid would be required. Visiting Kabul in May 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld declared that the major combat activity had ended and that the campaign would enter a new phase (of "stability and stabilization"), but the facts on the ground seemed to belie his optimism.

Shit, looks like General Clark is calling Rumsfeld a liar to me...
and saying that even Afghanistan was F*cked up, and not at all handled correctly.

In addition, please find these book reviews written by those who are informed about such things.

Those pesky reviews of Clark's book, for you, AGAIN (Since I imagined you didn't bother reading those the last time I posted them, when you going on and on about what you think Clark meant in his book)!

Review from the Gardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091...
The first 100 pages analyse the recent war in Iraq. Clark commanded US troops in the Iraqi theatre in the early Nineties, and provides useful insights. The true problems for senior commanders are supply lines and troop deployment timetables, not battle tactics. The secret of American military superiority, Clark shows, is, in addition to massive transport capability, a hitherto unheard of degree of co-operation between ground troops and air power. Only recently have the secure communications been developed that allow concepts of 'battlespace' rather than 'battlefield' to become a real-time reality.

He is scathing about the failure by war leaders to plan properly for the post-conflict period. This he attributes to a natural tendency of the American political and military establishment to play to their strengths. A marine in Iraq told me his job was to 'shoot people and blow things up'. Moving beyond that has proved difficult for a conservative Pentagon and civilian leadership suspicious of anything smacking of 'social work'.

The latter part of Clark's book is devoted to a sustained attack on the conduct of the 'war on terror'. Clark says the current administration's bullish unilateralism, dependence on military force, disdain for international law and institutions have been profoundly counterproductive and run against everything that made American great. He says, rightly, that military power should be the last resort and can only succeed when used in combination with diplomatic, social, political, economic, cultural and developmental measures.

America, he says, risks winning individual battles, even campaigns, but losing the war and losing itself. His analysis, manifesto or otherwise, is accurate, timely and important.

Review from Asian Reporter
http://www.asianreporter.com/reviews/2005/22-05winningm...
Drawing on his deep military experience at home and abroad, General Wesley Clark analyzes the U.S. invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq and its relationship to the struggle against global terrorism in Winning Modern Wars. According to Clark, the American war machine is a dominant force unlike any the world has ever seen, except perhaps the Roman Empire at its apex. Yet the mess in Iraq should be a clear warning that we have much to learn about wielding our power effectively.

snip
In this age of embedded reporters, Internet bloggers, and instant news, "Public opinion itself has become a weapon of war," Clark explains early on. Winning Modern Wars shows that this supposedly retired general is still ready to fight, delivering a "Take no prisoners" assault on the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.

General Clark knows what an effective military force looks like, and has nothing but praise for the amazingly competent American soldiers who delivered the decisive victory over Saddam Hussein. But if success results from the work of soldiers on the ground, it is unfortunately errors at the highest levels of leadership that lead to ultimate failure.
Snip
Worse, the whole fiasco in Iraq was nothing but a grave misjudgment by the Bush administration in the first place. There should have been no need for a postwar plan because there should have been no war in Iraq at all. On top of a laundry list of American mistakes laid out by Clark, including spurning of allies, lack of focus on Al-Qaeda, and coddling of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Bush’s September, 2003, statement that Iraq constitutes "The central battle in the war on terrorism" encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the American response to 9/11.

snip
Most of Clark’s criticisms have been raised before, first from protestors on the street and later from disaffected staffers at increasingly higher levels inside the U.S. government. But Clark is no partisan shill, and has real credentials to back up his arguments; he has served as both European Supreme Allied Commander and Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Pentagon. The knowledge he displays of the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the U.S. Army is so thorough that anyone who wishes to understand the campaign in Iraq and the larger war against terror has to sit up and take notice. We can choose to ignore Clark only at our own peril.

"Powell's Books Review"
http://www.powells.com/biblio?partner_id=27104&cgi=prod...
General Clark criticizes George W. Bush's handling of the American Empire, especially as it concerns the War in Iraq. He argues that the war was conducted with brilliant tactics but flawed strategy and that vital opportunities to go after Al Qaeda were missed. Larger questions of Empire are discussed in concluding chapters, with Clark arguing that the "very idea of a New American Empire in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire created since the end of World War II" and calling for a "more powerful but less arrogant" foreign policy.

Review by Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?file=art...
This is actually three books in one, tied together by the common theme of the leadership failures of the Bush administration. The first three chapters recount the history of America’s preemptive strike on Iraq. The next two show how those actions have distracted us so badly from the true battle, against international terrorism. The final chapter could serve as a draft inaugural address, as Clark details his vision of a collaborative American strategy for success in an interdependent world.
snip
As a veteran leader with a global view, Clark also decries how the Bush administration broke treaties and denied international obligations with impunity. Such a unilateralist approach caused us to lose so much of the international sympathy and support which had arisen after the 9/11 attacks. By casting aside more than fifty years of strategic alliances, we have left ourselves at risk legally, financially, and militarily.

The Nation - Book Review
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzger...
Most of Clark's views about the general direction of US foreign policy will sound familiar, for most are shared by the other major Democratic contenders. However, this book is nothing like the goo usually served up in campaign literature, for he is also a very good writer: logical, lucid and concise. Moreover, he has much of interest to say about military operations and the relationship--or lack of it--between specific campaigns and the overall US security strategy. He is well qualified for the task.
snip
In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us, there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste for empire, and the international community had turned against the war. As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched, and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.
snip
In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.

[CarolNYC]

170. heh....

I've still not seen any evidence that 1932's actually read Clark's books....

[wiley]

197. That's all and what 1932 does

Why do you even respond to it?

[FrenchieCat]

168. Here's some evidence...Essense/taskmaster!

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


LT. GEN. JAMES HOLLINGWORTH, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738


GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY :"(He) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."

McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1047429,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html


DEFENSE SECRETARY WILLIAM PERRY: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Gen. JOHN SHALIKASHVILI, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

COL. DOUGLAS MACGREGOR: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

COL. DAVID HACKWORTH: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

ANDREW YOUNG: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&lastConvSeq=9789

There was also Gen. Kathleen Kennedy, highest ranking woman in the military (3 stars). Further, even Gen. Powell and Gen. Haig had nice things to say about Clark.

Gen. Schwartzkopf had to retract what he attempted to insinuate by piggy backing off of Edwards' buddy, Shelton. Shelton never clearified the comment he made....beyond calling it "just politics".

So what General endorsed or had nice things to say about John Edwards? I mean, if he wants to be Commander in Chief, guess he's gonna have to command some respect. Hell, I don't even think that Shelton bothered to support Edwards...although Edwards sponsored Shelton's medals.

[Tom Rinaldo]

171. Here's a few letters from some who served under him

They were urging Clark to run for President back during the Draft Clark movment. I started saving a few at the very end. I wish I had saved all of them:

FirstName: Tony
LastName: Jones
City: Mandeville
State: LA
Date: 09/13/2003
Time: 09:42 PM
Comments
Dear Sirs, As a former military officer myself and having served under Clark, I can attest to the fact that Mr. Clark is a strong leader and a truly innovative thinker. Not afraid to make decisions but wise in mechanics of diplomacy as well. I applaud his stance and feel that as any American, he has the right to question the current administration and it’s policies. As a member of the military you do not enjoy these rights only the heavy often dangerous burden of protecting them. My hats off to him and any other American who has the courage to be a free thinker and not ignorantly mimic those who choose to use political spin to support a very flawed policy for the US. I fully support Mr. Clark’s ability and his courage to take a stand for what many millions of Americans believe in but are afraid to express – a strong nation with a solid foundation capable of operating with tact and discretion a global society. I am disgusted with the current administrations tactic of wrapping their poor decisions in an American flag and declaring those who challenge them as unpatriotic. How dare them and any other citizen who is a true American to believe that free speech is something to be suppressed. I, like Mr. Clark and millions of others, have spent a large portion of our adult lives defending this great nation and it’s constitution and fully support the right of each and every American to express his or her rights of free speech. Good or bad, pleasant or not, these rights are what make this country great. I and all my friends will be behind Mr. Clark should he decide to make this very important decision, one which I know will be of great benefit to this country and the entire world.

FirstName: (I am editing out this persons name to protect him/her from possible retaliation, since s/he probably still works for the government).
LastName:
City:
State: Vermont
Date: 09/12/2003
Time: 06:55 PM
Comments
Dear Sir, you may or may not remember me. I served under you in 1987 with the 3rd Brigade Headquarters at Fort Carson when you were a Colonel. I was the S3 71L who typed many of your Op Orders and letters. I had great respect and admiration for you then and to this day following your career. I am currently working for the Dept of Home Land Security, Immigration and Customs Enf, Law Enforcement Sup Ctr in XXXX and a large % of Vermonters are not supporters of Dean. This country is being carelessly and negligently led down a tragic road with no end in sight! Please run for President! I know you will gain the support of the American people, win the Democratic nomination and defeat Bush! I feel you are our only hope! I would be honored to serve under you again and help in any way I could to see that you are elected!

FirstName: Frank
LastName: Adams
City: Spanish Fort
State: AL
Date: 09/12/2003
Time: 09:57 AM
Comments
General Clark was my last boss in the Army. He was the J-5. I never worked harder, but it was clear that what he had us doing was important. He is the smartest, fairest man I have spent time around. If he runs, it will be for the good of the country, not for any type of self aggrandizement. I am prepared to actively work for his election. I am also pledging $500 to his campaign. General, duty is calling you once again. Please answer the call.

[FrenchieCat]

172. Also....

Through the Eyes of a Young Soldier
By LRB21
Posted to California (Firsthand Accounts)
on Wed Dec 31st, 2003 at 12:46:42 AM CST

As young man of 22, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting, then Major General Wesley K. Clark, when he became the commander of the First Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. Just four days after taking command of the division he oversaw the deployment of more than 3,500 soldiers to the Emirate of Kuwait for Operation Intrinsic Action.

Over the next 20 months, on numerous occasions I was given the opportunity to work, not only for, but with Major General Clark. My job as a photojournalist and the narrator for division ceremonies afforded me these opportunities.
snip
The day before the ceremony Gen. Clark was going to visit a unit on camp and I was ordered to photograph the event. I rode in the back of the Generals car with him and we spoke on during the 10 minute (appox.) drive. He asked me question about me and how I was. Was I excited about upcoming tour in Europe? Was I going to miss the Cav and Fort Hood? How my family back in California was?

I was 23 and an E-4 (junior enlisted) and Generals, no matter how many times I had stood in front of them with my camera in hand, or interviewed them for the post newspaper, were intimidating. However, General Clark made me feel that I was an important, integral part of our Army. Here I was, a lowly junior enlisted soldier and this 2-star General spoke to me, I emphasize, TO ME. He never spoke down to me. He didn't ignore me, as Generals tend to ignore a lower enlisted solider.
snip
In the video, 'American Son', a Retired Army Major (Williams I believe her name was) described General Wes Clark perfectly in saying that he always treats people, regardless of age, sex, race or rank, as an equal.

Being able to speak first hand of this man makes me proud as I sit and write the commentary.
Sincerely,

Larry R. Butterfas
http://california.forclark.com/story/2003/12/31/14642/315

and

General made believer of wary aide
Thursday, November 27, 2003
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

[AmericanDream]

192. Well, also this...

Now, like I said Edwards didn't work in the military, but what and where he worked, this is the impression:

Hi, this is Valerie Lakey. I was just looking through Google and happened upon your site. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the way you've portrayed John Edwards; as a passionate, caring and intelligent man with a strong voice. I truly believe that without him, I would not be here. At least I would be much more unhealthy, both physically and emotionally.

I think the most important part about my trial was not the amount of money John Edwards and his firm received at the end of the trial, but how much perseverance and devotion he portrayed throughout the entire duration of the trial, as said in what you've posted. What is also extremely important is that this was NOT an easy trial; he did not take it simply because he thought it would earn him some easy bucks. In fact, when it was first introduced to the court, it was thrown out. His confidence in us, my family and I, his confidence in himself and in his morals was what won the case, and essentially what saved my life.

I truly believe that John is one of the strongest people out there and is a wonderful choice for VP, and John Kerry made a very smart decision choosing him his running mate.

I only hope that people can look past the lawyer bashing comments made by Republicans about his being an "ambulance chaser" and other such remarks. I hope people are open enough to see his unique ability to push for what he feels is right and what he feels is best. I wish I could make them see him as I see him: as an intelligent, charismatic, caring, passionate, and heroic man. Something I feel this country needs more of.

--------

Valerie Lakey was the girl whose case was the last one EDwards faught and who was caught in a swimming pool drain as her intestines were sucked out... she lives a life where she is artificially fed through tubes and she remains on tubes for about 8-10 hours a day. Once again, sure Clark is a good man... but I don't understand why you have to pull down Edwards to show that Clark is a good guy. I don't see why they can't be both great people, yet you support only one...

[AmericanDream]

181. Shelton was Edwards' advisor...

You don't publically endorse someone that you are working behind the scenes with. Also, didn't he say that Clark had character issues... oh well.

Btw, how many generals endorsed Reagan, Clinton, etc.?

These are people that Clark has worked with and that is why they are able to endorse him... the right comparison would be, do lawyers endorse edwards, because that is the profession he comes from... and yes they do so overwhelmingly. The comparison you are trying to make is idiotic... these people don't know Edwards, once they do, they'll respect him.

So get off that propaganda meter and take a sip of reality... would these people be endorsing clark had he not been in some other profession... no, because then they wouldn't have known him. You don't say "nice things" about ppl you don't know. Edwards will command respect when he is the commander in chief and these ppl get to know him. There is no rule that you have to come into office knowing every guy that serves in the pentagon.

Lincoln was a lawyer from Illinois ... yet presided over and guided us through our toughest internal battle... so keep your "getting endorsements from the generals" crap to yourself... if being endorsed by generals is a presidential qualifier for you, then great... but for those of us who value people's merits more than others' opinions of them... give us a break.

[FrenchieCat]

182. Shelton didn't "work BEHIND the scenes" for Edwards.....

Shelton and Edwards were both quite "up front" about their relationships......as it was a well known and A publicized fact. Considering that Edwards sponsored the Congressional Medal Resolution for Shelton....

As for "Character issues" coming from Republican Pig Shelton who was working for Edwards at the time......Oh well, it was a bunch of bullshit and Shelton had to "admit" it once Milosovic started quoting Shelton on Clark!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C16F834580C748DDDAB0994DB404482
FOREIGN DESK | December 17, 2003, Wednesday
By ELAINE SCIOLINO (NYT) 1341 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - snip
ex-Pres Bill Clinton reportedly sends letter to court lauding Clark's role in halting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo after Milosevic reportedly attacked Clark by citing former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen Hugh Shelton's stand that Clark was asked to resign early from NATO post because of 'integrity and character issues'

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm#LA%20Meetup%20with%20Wes%20II
LA Meetup with Wes II
By ccobb
Posted to ccobb's weblog on Tue Jan 6th, 2004 at 01:10:59 AM EST

Wes III couldn't make it, so he sent his father instead.

Schwatzkopff retraction (never knew him)
- 9 Jan. 2004
Wes mentioned that Schwarzkopf tried to get the General kicked off the West Point debate team. Makes me assume that Schwartzy's current animus goes back to college frat boy stuff.

During the General's testimony in The Hague, Milosevic used Shelton's quote smearing Clark's character and integrity to impugn the General's testimony. The prosecutor Carla de la Ponte called Shelton to confirm and to evaluate whether he should come to testify on Milosevic's behalf. Shelton backpedaled, saying it was 'just politics.'

Some of Clark's '04 endorsements.... The first 55 are ambassadors, cause they knew that Peace could be achieved supporting Wes Clark, while Edwards was sounding just like George Bush!
(Partial Listing)

1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo Verification Mission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations
Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL)
Ex-Governor Don Siegelman (D-AL)
Congressman Marion Berry (D-AR)
US Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
State Democratic Chair Ron Oliver (D-AR)
Ex-US Senator David Pryor (D-AR)
US Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Congressman Vic Snyder (D-AR)
Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR)
State Rep. Denny Sumpter (D-AR)
Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Ex-State Democratic Chair Mike Beatty (D-CO)
Ex-State Senate Minority Leader Mike Feeley (D-CO)
Ex-State Democratic Chair Sheila Kowal (D-CO)
Ex-US Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor (D-DC)
State Rep. Ken Gottlieb (D-FL)
Congressman Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
Ex-Governor Joe Frank Harris (D-GA)
Ex-United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young (D-GA)
Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
Congressman Bill Jefferson (D-LA)
State Sen. Brian Joyce (D-MA)
Congressman Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Ex-US Attorney Todd Jones (D-MN)
Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Congressman Gene Taylor (D-MS)
US Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Ex-State Democratic Chair George Bruno (D-NH)
State House Minority Leader Peter Burling (D-NH)
DNC Member Dudley Dudley (D-NH)
'02 Governor Nominee Mark Fernald (D-NH)
State Rep. Marjorie Smith (D-NH)
State Sen. Glen Cunningham (D-NJ)
State Assemblyman Lou Manzo (D-NJ)
State PRC Commissioner Shirley Baca (D-NM)
Ex-Lt. Governor Roberto Mondragon (D-NM)
Ex-US Ambassador Ed Romero (D-NM)
Ex-NYC Mayor David Dinkins (D-NY)
Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY)
State Sen. Seymour Lachman (D-NY)
State Sen. Valmanette Montgomery (D-NY)
State Senate Minority Leader David Patterson (D-NY)
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Ex-US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (D-NY)
Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman (D-OH)
US Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
Ex-Governor Jim Hodges (D-SC)
Ex-US Senator George McGovern (D-SD)
State Rep. Joe Armstrong (D-TN)
State Rep. Stratton Bone (D-TN)State Rep. Kent Coleman (D-TN)
State Rep. Charles Curtis (D-TN)
State Rep. Gene Davidson (D-TN)
Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
State Rep. Joe Fowlkes (D-TN)
State Sen. Thelma Harper (D-TN)
Ex-State Democratic Chairman Doug Horne (D-TN)
State Sen. Doug Jackson (D-TN)
State Rep. Ulysses Jones (D-TN)
State Sen. Tommy Kilby (D-TN)
Ex-Congresswoman Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN)
State Rep. Mark Maddox (D-TN)
State Rep. Larry Miller (D-TN)
State Rep. Johnny Shaw (D-TN)
State Rep. David Shepard (D-TN)
Ex-State Democratic Chairman Bob Thomas (D-TN)
State Rep. Gabi Canales (D-TX)
State Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)
State Rep. Norma Chavez (D-TX)
Ex-US Navy Secretary John Dalton (D-TX)
State Rep. Juan Escobar (D-TX)
Congressman Martin Frost (D-TX)
State Rep. Pete Gallego (D-TX)
Ex-Congressman Bob Gammage (D-TX)
State Rep. Ryan Guillen (D-TX)
State Rep. Mark Homer (D-TX)
State Rep. Jesse Jones (D-TX)
State Rep. Glenn Lewis (D-TX)
Ex-State Democratic Chair Molly Beth Malcolm (D-TX)
State Rep. Jim McReynolds (D-TX)
State Rep. Rick Noriega (D-TX)
Congressman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
State Rep. Robert Puente (D-TX)
State Rep. Richard Raymond (D-TX)
State Rep. Jim Solis (D-TX)
Congressman Charlie Stenholm (D-TX)
State Rep. Barry Telford (D-TX)
State Rep. Carlos Uresti (D-TX)
State Rep. Miguel Wise (D-TX)
Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT)
State Rep. Spencer Black (D-WI)
State Sen. Bob Jauch (D-WI)
Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton (D-WI)
Ex-US Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI)
State Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-WI)
State Rep. Lena Taylor (D-WI)
State Rep. Dave Travis (D-WI)


Clark is listed on John O'Neill's WALL OF HEROES!
Curious...but I Don't see "hero" John Edwards'name listed there--Could it be he didn't make a difference at a time when leadership was crucial and dissent risky?: :shrug:

http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/heroes.html
Richard Clarke
Rand Beers
Joseph Wilson
Greg Thielmann
Eric Schaeffer
Colleen Rawley
Sibel Edmonds
Paul O'Neill
Roger Cressey,
Robin Cook
Glenda Jackson
Clair Short
Michael Meacher
Dr. David Kelly
Katharine Gun
Andrew Wilkie
Judge Guido Calabresi,
Nicole Rank
former U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers
Sandy Berger
Michael F. Scheuer (aka "Anonymous") US CIA
Congressional Black Caucus
Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. Richard Shelby
Rep. Henry Waxman
Rep. Jim McDermott
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Former Senator Max Cleland
Sen. Paul Wellstone
Rep. Doug Bereuter
Howard Dean
Sen. John Kerry
Al Gore
former Senator Gary Hart
Warren Rudman
Former US President Jimmy Carter
Former US President Bill Clinton
Former Lt. Gov. of Texas Ben Barnes
Former Minnestoa Governor Elmer Anderson
Col. Lew Tyree,
Spc. Clinton Deitz
Air Force Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski
Pfc. Isaac Kindblade
Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki
Ray McGovern
Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander
Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East
Colonel David Hackworth
Larry C. Johnson
Bill Moyers, PBS NOW
Walter Cronkite, retired CBS anchor man
Helen Thomas, UPI correspondent
Charles MacArthur, Harper's Publisher
Bernie Ward KGO Radio
Ray TalieferoKGO Radio
Amy Goodman Democracy Now, Pacifica
Christiana AmanpourCNN
Howard Stern
Rick Mercier of the Free Lance-Star (Fredricksburg, VA)
9/11 Families and Families of US GIs in Iraq
four New Jersey women widowed on 9/11
Ellen Mariani, widow of 9/11 victim, who is suing the _resident, the VICE _resident and others under the RICO Act
Cherie Block, whose husband Wallace is a sergeant with the 129th Company.
Jane Bright, whose son died in Iraq,
Jill Kiehl, widow of Army Specialist James Kiehl
Lila Lipscomb:
George Soros
George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate Gore Vidal
Arundhati Roy
Carlos Fuentes
Michael Moore
Dixie Chicks
Bruce Springsteen
Sean P. Diddy Combs
Eminem
Ron Reagan
Margaret Cho
Linda Ronstadt
Bonnie Raitt
Madonna, for endorsing Wesley Clark (D-NATO)
Laurie David & Julia Louis-Dreyfus
Cher
Merle Haggard
Sean Penn
Barbara Streisand
Robert Redford
Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins
Martin Sheen
International Leaders and Officials:
Nelson Mandela, South Africa
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
Jacque Chirac, France
Helmut Schroeder, Germany
Pope John Paul
Jacque Cretien, Canada
Hans Blix, former UN Weapons Inspector
Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba , Hiroshima, for calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called 'useable nuclear weapons,' appears to worship nuclear weapons as God"
http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/heroes.html

[AmericanDream]

183. once again...

I really don't care who is listed on whose "wall of heroes"... like I said, I don't know how many such lists were some of our greatest presidents listed on.... hmmm.... I make my mind on what I see you. If your opinion is formed on how many lists a person makes to, then that's great... don't bother convincing me with such superficial aspects of a person's life, merits, and character.

[incapsulated]

190. Give it up

Every "point" or piece of garbage you put out, Frenchie has slapped down.

You say that Shelton worked behind the scenes.

She proves this was hardly the case, the relationship was out in the open.

You repeat his lies and slander against Clark.

She provides evidence that Shelton was forced to retract his statements as the fucking lie he spewed for purely political reasons.

You say you aren't impressed by military endorsements.

She provides a list of 55 ambassadors that endorsed Clark, not military people, foreign policy people, diplomats.

You display your lack of reading comprehension by claiming he is on her "list of heroes", when it is clearly a very impressive list of diplomats that endorsed Clark. This would be like, oh, a list of judges endorsing Edwards, not a bunch of lawyer friends.

How long is this attack on Clark going to continue?

Do you have any other hobbies?

[AmericanDream]

191. Dude, I did not even attack Clark... get a brain...

I did not once attack Clark... I was simply stating that military credentials are not a must for me to choose a person I think will serve us well as President...

You are the one who needs to give up and get into the real world.

"You say you aren't impressed by military endorsements.

She provides a list of 55 ambassadors that endorsed Clark, not military people, foreign policy people, diplomats."

And, I still say I'm not impressed by endorsements.... I've never picked a guy to support because of who supports him... and never will.

As far as I know, I come here once in a while... however, for the clarkies, the internet and defending Clark is their life. Esp. since my point was more about Edwards than clark. You guys are so obsessed that you feel the need to bring down everyone else just to give a round of kudos to your guy... you guys see everything through the prism of defending clark.

As for shelton, my point still stands... you don't "endorse" a guy that you are working with... public or behind the scenes. Because that would just be silly....

Her posts focused on how the round of endorsements clark was getting somehow makes him a superior guy than edwards... well, clark has been in public life for years, Edwards got into a public career six years ago! Once again, endorsements mean nothing to mean, whether they are for clark, edwards, or dean... now, you need to go find a new day job because the discussion (or my answers to your pitiful "piece of garbage") here is obviously over.

[incapsulated]

194. First off

Don't call me "dude".

Second, you aren't attacking Clark:

"Also, didn't he say that Clark had character issues... oh well."

Give me a break. Yes, I consider that garbage. It's a slur that's been refuted countless times.

I don't care about endorsements, she was answering your "they all worked with him". Clark has a lot of experience, but I don't think he has a personal experience with every single one of those people. He does have a reputation in foreign policy and diplomatic circles, that was the point.

"As far as I know, I come here once in a while... however, for the clarkies, the internet and defending Clark is their life. Esp. since my point was more about Edwards than clark. You guys are so obsessed that you feel the need to bring down everyone else just to give a round of kudos to your guy... you guys see everything through the prism of defending clark."

This is typical. Go back and reread this thread. Someone, one person brought up Clark and another chimed in their support. No mention of Edwards was made. What followed has been a steady attack on Clark supporters and now, Clark himself. I didn't bring down anyone. I don't "live here". All I did was defend myself as a Clark supporter and Clarkies in general when the attacks against us started. I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't posted in this thread at all. Which I wish I hadn't.

But we are "obsessed" with "defending him". We didn't start this shit. But yes, we will answer attacks made about us as a group, ie: "however, for the clarkies, the internet and defending Clark is their life." Bugger off. Are we supposed to sit on our hands as we are attacked without provocation as we have been here, or if lies about Clark follow? No. Sorry.

[renie408]

205. What I don't understand

Does either one of them have to be a jerk? Or unqualified? Or a loser? I get that some people will be drawn one way and others will be drawn another. Different things are important to different people. So, that some of us want to support one candidate while others of us support another makes perfect sense. What I don't get is why some people's idea of supporting THEIR guy is to say that somebody else's guy is an incompetent loser. The fact is that neither Edwards nor Clark are incompetent losers. They are BOTH strong men who would make strong candidates. For different reasons.

[Tom Rinaldo]

209. Post #210 below was supposed to respond to #205 by renie n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

210. I essentially agree. See my post #208 above for details n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

212. Put to bed?

Maybe you're satisfied, but can you read? He played both sides of the street in the run-up to the vote, and he did it very badly. He also didn't have to stand and be counted, and like a political scientist friend likes to say "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".

Read this and tell me it's been put to bed. If you claim history as your ally, then talk your way out of this morass of shilly-shallying crap.

Clark supporters hate hearing this, so they tend to resort to personal attacks and joyous reveling in the supposed humiliation of those who dare to question their champion. This guy has problems, but so do most candidates. Nonetheless, to the extremists, he is perfection itself, and that justifies them to crush all opposition and hijack any threads praising others. Somehow certain of his followers demand responses to their accusations long after they've refused to answer questions of fact.

Fact: he played both sides of the street on the IWR resolution before the vote, and he's been very cagey since then about it. If you think this has been "put to bed", then read this:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

It also gets into stuff about how he tried to profit from his corporate involvement with Axium to sell private information on U.S. citizens after 9-11, using his position as a journalist as cover.

Fact: he changed his stance on school vouchers, then swore up and down that he'd never been for them. Recently, he's drifting back toward the land of nebulousness.

Fact: he deliberately lied about Kerry's and Edwards' votes on the Bush tax cuts to try to sway voters in the Tennessee primary, did it repeatedly, and ducked retracting it when called to account. His response was to distort Edwards' voting record and keep up the attack. This was not only a series of calculated lies, it was a stab at the heart of what most of us liberals hold dear: fairness in society. Although Kerry didn't take much heat at home for his stands, Edwards certainly did, and he stood up with great courage.

Not only is Wes Clark far from perfect, many of his actions in the primary season were downright nasty. Still, I have more respect for the man than I do for many of the scorched-earth supporters who demand to dominate all dialogue and especially rain death on John Edwards.

If the historical record of Clark's stance(s) on the IWR have been "put to bed" among his supporters, it's because they're either unwilling to address facts or are morally stunted to the degree that they'll ignore misbehavior out of some kind of belief in inherent superiority. The feeling of aristocracy palpable from the more strident Clark supporters is disgusting and anti-democratic. The tactics of personal ridicule smack of conservative ditto-head idiocy, and keep recurring: after a few volleys are fired, there always seem to be the same suspects coming out to laugh at the sour grapes of their detractors, insult the personality of any ingrate who deigns to question their superiority, and generally pat each other on the back and trumpet the party line.

Wes Clark played both sides of the IWR leading up to the war, and his record is as clear as it is sloppy and amateurish. For him or his supporters to paint him as the steadfast champion of all that's good and true is disgusting, childish and simply incredibly wrong. Go ahead and get huffy, but read the attached document in full before you claim that it's been "put to rest". It hasn't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

213. I can't believe how much hypocracy has been shown here

to hijack a thread that you described as being "Pro Edwards" in order to make a continuing series of attacks on Clark and Clark supporters, with the only pretense being two positive comments about Clark made here that followed a number of positive comments about Democrats other than Edwards that didn't bother you in the least.

I will gladly take you on around your assertions. Out of principle however, (you do remember principles don't you) I will not honor your flagrant manipulation of this thread in order to do so. And at the same time we can talk about Edwards role on the Senate intelligence committee, his sponsorship of the IWR, his defense of the Iraq invasion even after no WMD's were found inside Iraq, and his sponsorship of the original Patriot Act, just for starters. That is if you insist on having this war. But I won't play ball with your self righteous attacks followed by a street brawl assault as evidenced on this thread. I just tried to help de-escalate the tension on this thread with three posts offered toward that goal. And this is what you come back with.

So, is this how other Edwards supporters want to see this nice pro Edwards thread used? I'm just curious.

[PurityOfEssence]

215. Clark supporters attacked; how can you play the victim?

Hypocrisy is based on a self-proclaimed superiority, and this is precisely what the strident extremist wing of Clark supporters have done.

Whether this is a pro-Edwards thread or a neutral one, the extremists within the Clark camp demand to do as they please and bellyache like mewling children when they don't get granted the good graces of the community to crush anyone who disagrees. My responses to this thread were when the more vehement Clark supporters had to interject themselves to hijack discourse.

How dare you play the victim. This thread was attacked by those with a planned agendum.

Those who throw rocks at the heads of others don't have the right to snivel and try to suck pity from those who duck. This thread was not an attack on your godking; it had nothing to do with him. The usual spoilsports came in to kill the joy of any others.

There is no group supporting any candidate on this board with the resources and resolve matching the Clark supporters. If others want a moment of respite, is it an attack against the holy majority to not want to hear the same old ditto party line?

Not only were you not the innocent victims who were attacked, you were the attackers.

No candidate has anywhere near the support of Clark on this board. How can you play the victimized minority? Somehow any resistance to his ascendancy is tantamount to an attack on him, and somehow his followers have the right to dominate EVERYTHING.

[Tom Rinaldo]

217. And with your post, I rest my case. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Obama's too green and Edwards was horrible as a VP candidate.

Plus, I have no faith at all in a populace that has been voting against gay marriage by a margin of nearly 60% that they can be non-bigoted enough to vote for a black man.

And Edwards disappearing act as VP and subsequent absence from politics should be enough to remove him from consideration.

[benny05]

125. I'm confused by your claim that Edwards disappeared

Unlike his running mate, JRE believed he (and subsequently) and Kerry had a good chance to go to the top. Maybe Kerry didn't; that was his choice.

Edwards did everything Kerry's handlers asked of him; some of the choices were not strategic enough. For example, JRE should have been campaigning the South, just as LBJ did for Kennedy, but Kerry's staff were too focused on the midwest.

I like JK and I am glad he invited Edwards to the table.

And it's still too early for 2008. If Elizabeth Edwards or their kids are affected by catastrophic circumstances, Edwards will not run for public office in the major leagues, I believe. He truly loves his babies and Elizabeth. He was by her side for almost every chemo treatments in the early stages of her breast cancer. She is his rock.

Once in awhile, when I am down and really blue, I think of his "hope is on the way" speeches and to lift people up.

[AmericanDream]

139. Umm...

The fact that he was by her side, getting her through the chemos.. would mean that he is her rock (which I believe she stated in her convention speech too) ... anyway, I don't know, it didn't follow the way you put it.

Other than that, I think Edwards is going to run and his family would hopefully be fine.

[benny05]

147. My response

Was to the comment that started with "Edwards disappearing act as vp"

[AmericanDream]

148. I was just picking on something that seemed odd to me... nt

[FrenchieCat]

23. Why Edwards/Obama? What is it that you see in that ticket?

Edwards totally supported the war which has made this country poorer than was required (billions spent on the war machine, while programs for the most needy are being cut), and yet he is touted as a "populist" for the cause of the poor? How ironically contradictory!

You see, Edwards not only supported the Iraq War
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
but he actually "co-Sponsored it"
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution
....and by October 2003, Edwards still supported the reasons we went in, and felt that he had not been misled (this is having not having found WMD and understanding that the intelligence had been cherry picked) by this President.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

How does making a big ass mistake as he admits he did, and then seeing the error 2.5 years later makes one qualified to become President? I realize that some see the "admitting" part as been "honorable".....but I beg to differ. Edwards saying "sorry" 2.5 years after the fact is just not anything more than a political move based on following the polls....otherwise, he would have been "sorry" after the facts were known.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html

Why would we want to elect someone this naive or this caculating (whichever applies)?

On the positive side, I will say that Edwards has an excellent PR machine and a great mate and working partner.....but he couldn't even win his own county during the '04 elections.....so why think he would do better in '08? :shrug:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/

North Carolina, Edwards' home state, voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket by a margin of 13 percentage points the same as in 2000. And Edwards skeptics are circulating a sheet to Washington insiders showing the November election totals in Wake County: It shows Bush/Cheney beating Kerry/Edwards in Edwards' home county by a 51 percent to 48 percent margin, even as Democratic Gov. Mike Easley carried the county with 58 percent and Democratic Senate candidate Erskine Bowles won the county with 51 percent. Democratic U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge carried his portion of Wake County with 74 percent of the vote.

In reference to Barack Obama, I like him very much. Whether he will be ready to run as VP in 2008......I don't really know the answer to this question.

[saltpoint]

25. Only a few months ago, Obama was a state senator --

-- wasn't he? He's only been a U.S. Senator a short while and there would be the perception, fair or not, that neither of these two guys have fat resumes in public service.

I'm not sure Dubya's work governing Texas did him anygood, of course, so maybe I'm raising the wrong point.

As for likability, I don't know if you could argue with either Edwards or Obama. And I would rather live in their America than Dubya's and Dick's America.

If they happened to wind up as our ticket, they would most certainly have my vote.

[janx]

214. Obama probably won't run--YET.

I'd love to see him do so eventually.

[nickshepDEM]

27. Id vote for em', obviously.

[AzDar]

30. Edwards in a heartbeat. The whole Obama thing...I don't get it.

What has he done to deserve a nod? Look good in a suit? Make a lovely Convention speech? Last time I heard him speak he was waffling on the war, and didn't he vote FOR Bankruptcy "Reform"?

[prolesunited]

35. From some quick checking

I think Obama's record on the bankruptcy bill is misleading.

If you look at the roll call vote, he clearly voted against it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

However, his vote on an amendment apparently is being misconstrued by such people as Ariana and DailyKos. One of the responses:

I was taken aback by the distortion in this column. I normally enjoy and respect Ms. Huffington's work, but she's utterly misrepresented Senator Kerry's position. Senator Kerry, along with Senator Obama, voted *against* the abomination of a bankruptcy bill -- something you would never guess from reading this column. Senator Kerry voted for all of the amendments which Democrats proposed to protect consumers (all of which were shot down by the Republicans). The problem with the 30% interest cap, which Senators Kerry and Obama voted against, is that it would have superceded state laws, and in many states there is already a limit on interest in the neighbordhood of 21%. Senators Kerry, Obama and other Democrats were right not to vote for what would have been an *increase* in the maximum allowable interest.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-21452.html

If this information is incorrect, would someone please show me something countering it. If it is, I would hope that people who are perpetuating this would stop.

[karynnj]

38. Thanks for your nice explanation of the vote

against the 30% cap - I remember watching the votes while reading the comments on it here and in the Kerry group. Both places mentioned that there was clearly a problem with that amendment - judging by those voting against it, but I didn't see such a clear explanation.

[prolesunited]

39. Well, please pass it on then

next time somebody posts this falsehood. Thanks!

[karynnj]

64. Will do, I have been correcting the statement that

either of both or them voted for the bill itself, but had never seen anyone post anything about the amendment. (other than when the votes were occurring.) The speeches, esp. Kennedy's on the various amendments were incredible - he tried so hard to fix the bill. (It must hve been hard on him knowing that the whole thing could have been avoided if Ohio went a little more Kerry.)

[incapsulated]

33. Two Senators with one or less of a term under their belts.

Edwards spent half of his single term in office running for President. Obama will have the same if he was on the ticket.

Not enough experience in any area between the two of them.

Two Senators is really tempting fate, don't you think? The record of failure for Senators running for POTUS is pretty bad.

They would have plenty of charisma but I'm afraid they would be open to attack for being high-gloss, low-substance. Especially against a McCain kind of candidate that has experience up the wazoo. And national security, the war? Forget it. They also both look like they are 21, which doesn't give an image of the reassuring father figure to make up for a lack of real experience with foreign policy when the country is "at war". Maybe in '92 or 2000 this could work.

Obama is for the future. He's a very gifted politician and I don't want him screwing up his chances down the road with a wasted effort that can tarnish him as an opportunist.

[LeftNYC]

37. Gore/Obama '08 nt

[MrSlayer]

40. Great, two guys with no experience.

Edwards didn't finish his only elected term and would have lost his seat even if he hadn't run for President and Obama would be the same. No foreign policy experience between the both of them and very little domestic policy experience. You might as well have me run for President.

[incapsulated]

42. Hey, I'll vote for you!

Well, if you change your stance on the DP, lol.

[MrSlayer]

62. Heh. I'll pander to you if it gets a vote.

I'm declaring a moratorium on the death penalty until we can sort out the absolutely guilty from the "maybes".

[last_texas_dem]

43. Here's what I think

Would I vote for them? Hell yes, proudly!

How are they perceived? I think Edwards has a general likeability that he has maintained while being in the public life. Although I haven't seen any recent polls, I recall that during the '04 election there was a poll in which he had substantial higher approval ratings than Bush, Kerry, or Cheney. I think he's a true public servant who went into politics to do the right thing, and is right on most of the issues. In terms of negatives, some see his demeanor as too slick, he looks young, and is criticized for being too inexperienced. As for Obama, well his positives are that he was elected to the Senate by a wide margin, is very popular in his state, gave a great speech at the DNC, and is, like Edwards, a very charismatic leader with, mostly, the right priorities. Negatives: lack of experience and his candidacy would likely get the right-wing very up-in-arms as if there's one thing they hate more than an outspoken liberal Democrat it's an outspoken black liberal Democrat.

Do I think they can win? Possibly. Much will depend on the political climate three years from now and who the Republicans decide to nominate. They are two of my favorite Democratic politicians, though, and I think they inspire passion in a lot of Democrats.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[jackpan1260]

46. I have never understood the demands for lots of "experience"

Eisenhower was probably the least experienced (at least in public office) of the last several republicans and, in my opinion, the most tolerable one.

We have had decades of "experience" and I don't see it doing us a ton of good.

[incapsulated]

48. Eisenhower

You really can't compare the experience of the man who organized and ran the allied effort to win WW2 with half a senate term. In addition, it was the start of the cold war. He also promised to end the Korean war, and as the General who won the last war, people believed him and he did. He was the perfect candidate under those circumstances.

[jackpan1260]

50. I am not comparing Edwards to Eisenhower

But can you show me how politcal "experience" correlates to how good a president is?

[incapsulated]

58. I wasn't really talking about how "good" a president is

I'm talking about getting elected. Clearly experience doesn't predict competence. But I was discussing why Eisenhower was a great candidate, despite the fact that he wasn't an elected official with so-called political experience. (although he and anyone in his position in government have tons of political experience, in reality). Edwards and Obama would have to win, first. I don't think they could because of the lack of *any* experience and I was making the point that Eisenhower didn't compare on that score, he was a candidate with his own unique experience that worked well for him in that climate.

[AmericanDream]

47. Edwards, definitely ... but Obama... let's wait. n/t

[LSK]

52. too soon for Obama,

Lets get him a few years of experience on a National level 1st. 2012 yes.

[PaDem]

53. Why Edwards??

I don't get the Edwards appeal. I like him well enough and I'd have no problem supporting him, but he can't win. I feel the same way about Wes Clark. It's time for something new and different and non-Clinton.

[LSK]

55. because of the belief that we need a southerner on the ticket

Not sure how true this is, but thats the idea.

[AmericanDream]

56. Actually, some of us like what he stands for & don't care about S factor n

[PaDem]

59. Plenty of other Southerners who'd have a chance to win

Again, I like Edwards, but he's a total non starter. If were talking Southerners, at least Warner wins a Southern State (Virginia), Edwards would get swept in the South.

[AmericanDream]

60. What makes you think so?

If you studied the Cook Political report, you'll notice that the Kerry/Edwards ticket made great gains in southern rural areas... the study particularly showed that poll numbers after Edwards campaigned there were much higher than after any of the three other men on the national ticket. I don't think we have tested Edwards' winning appeal in the South yet... he was hardly visible during the campaign... they sent him to those stupid 5 people porch talks rather than something more concrete. Also, Edwards went in and came out of the election with higher favorability numbers than any other candidate on the national ticket. And, he has the highest likability factor amongst independents and republicans, according to the pew research poll. Heck, amongst democrats, he even trumps Bill Clinton in the favorable view category. So, once again, I don't know what you are basing your view of Edwards not winning in the South on.

[snowbear]

77. I think Edwards was better than anyone on the stump...

And it does seem that most Americans have forgotten that (according to polling data) he beat Dickhead Cheney in the VP debate.

Too bad Clark and Edwards didn't team up.. :shrug: How could they though? Iowa got to make the choice.

Senator Edwards with daughter Emma Claire

[HR_Pufnstuf]

65. pretty strong ticket

Bigger Obama fan than I am Edwards. Dems have the East and West. Running a midwesterner and southerner would work.

[GatoLover]

67. Obama yes, Edwards no

Edwards' class warfare act doesn't wear so well with me. Every time I listen to him, all I can think is, "This guy made fifteen million dollars bamboozling juries with this nonsense." Obama, on the other hand, is very smooth. He comes across as thoughtful and reasonable. He's "cool" which works well on television. Edwards is "hot".

[prolesunited]

68. Class warfare act?

Do you not think class warfare is taking place in this country?

Bamboozling juries? Care to elaborate? Do you believe in capping awards damages? Should consumer's be at the mercy of corporations?

[last_texas_dem]

72. I've seen no evidence that this is an "act" with Edwards

He wasn't born into money, and from what I have heard about his career as a trial lawyer, he made his money by doing the right thing. I've heard of no case that reveals him to be of questionable ethics or simply some money-hungry ambulance-chaser, and I'm pretty sure if there was an obvious example of this the right-wingers would have dredged it out to beat him with it during the '04 campaign.

Edwards has been advocating on the part of the economically disadvantaged throughout his political career. I was a supporter of his campaign last year in large part because he seemed to be the only candidate focusing on economic issues and the growing gap between the rich and poor in this country. Since the 2004 election, he is devoting himself to this issue.

Is Edwards slick? Maybe. Does his demeanor rub some the wrong way? Sure. But I have a hard time believing his focus on the "two Americas" is disingenuous or some kind of act.

[GatoLover]

79. Here's my response, if you can wade through it!

This article expresses many of my reservations, albeit at some length. (Sorry.) I hasten to say that I have no idea what cnsnews.com is, so i don't know whether they have any political ax to grind. In general, Edwards just struck me as oily and insincere from the first time I laid eyes on him. I find Obama to be a complete contrast.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html

Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich?
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 20, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The superstar trial lawyer accomplishments of John Edwards, which allowed this former millworker to amass a personal fortune, finance his successful U.S. Senate run in 1998 and catapult himself into the 2004 race for president, may have been partially built on "junk science," according to legal and medical experts who spoke with CNSNews.com .

Edwards, who with a late surge finished second in Monday's Iowa Caucuses, continues to cite one of his most lucrative legal victories as an example of how he would stand up for "the little guy" if elected president.

Edwards became one of America's wealthiest trial lawyers by winning record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop cerebral palsy, a brain disorder that causes motor function impairment and lifelong disability.

Although he was involved in other types of personal injury litigation, Edwards specialized in infant cerebral palsy and brain damage cases during his early days as a trial lawyer and with the Raleigh, N.C., firm of Edwards & Kirby.

Edwards has repeatedly told campaign audiences that he fought on behalf of the common man against the large insurance companies. But a political critic with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career in North Carolina told CNSNews.com a different story

"Edwards always helped the little guy as long as he got a million dollars out of it," said the source, who did not want to be identified.

The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century. Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said it is conceivable for a doctor's incompetence to cause cerebral palsy in an infant. "There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," Goldstein said.

"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," Goldstein added.

The medical and legal experts with whom CNSNews.com consulted said each case of cerebral palsy had to be evaluated on its own, but that medical science was increasingly exonerating the doctors involved in the labor and delivery where cerebral palsy resulted.

Eldon L. Boisseau of the Kansas-based firm Turner and Boisseau, specializing in defending doctors' insurance companies from medical malpractice lawsuits, agreed that physician-caused cerebral palsy "occurs only rarely."

"At the end of the day, I verily believe we will find all genetic," Boisseau said in an interview with CNSNews.com.

Dr. John Freeman, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., also believes there is little obstetricians can do to prevent cerebral palsy during delivery. "Most cases of cerebral palsy are not due to asphyxia," Freeman told CNSNews.com.

"A great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child before birth," Freeman said. "That is the cause of the premature labor and the cause of the damage. There is little or no evidence that if you did a section a short time earlier you would prevent cerebral palsy," he added.

'Heart wrenching plea'

But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.

Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. " inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.

"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Olson told CNSNews.com .

"These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift," Olson added.

However, Olson believes trial lawyers "have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation," by excluding certain scientific evidence.

" have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room," Olson said.

'Junk science in the courtroom'

Peter Huber, a lawyer and author of the book, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, believes juries are typically manipulated with emotional arguments to aid the plaintiff's case.

"The jury sees the undisputed trauma first, the disputed negligence second, the undisputed cerebral palsy third. It is a perfect set-up for misinterpreting sequence as cause," Huber wrote.

According to Boisseau, the growing body of scientific studies showing that obstetricians are generally blameless in cerebral palsy cases has done nothing to alter the trend of multi-million dollar court settlements. Those settlements are reached, Boisseau said, even though "a lot of the plaintiff's expert science is unsupported, essentially junk science."

Many juries never even get to hear about the medical science or the origins of cerebral palsy because "90 percent of suits for obstetrical malpractice are settled" out of court, noted Freeman of Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Huber does not expect cerebral palsy cases to fade away, despite the growing body of scientific evidence exonerating doctors.

"Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these claims, cerebral palsy cases remain enormously attractive to lawyers," Huber wrote.

The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms. Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time he worked there.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win "more than $152 million" based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone. The legal profession recognized Edwards' achievements by inducting him into the prestigious legal society called the Inner Circle of Advocates, which includes the nation's top 100 lawyers. Lawyers Weekly also cited Edwards as one of America's "Lawyers of the Year" in 1996.

'The kids and families I've fought for'

Edwards has shifted his emotionally charged speeches from the jury box to the presidential campaign trail and is fond of re-telling the story of how his firm sued on behalf of a cerebral palsy-afflicted boy named Ethan Bedrick in 1996.

Ethan, born in North Carolina in 1992, allegedly developed cerebral palsy after a botched delivery. Edwards has explained to audiences at presidential campaign rallies that suing Ethan's insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance Co., to cover the boy's physical therapy was necessary because "Ethan's family had no choice.

" forced to go to court to get their son the care he needed," Edwards has said of the case, which his law firm won.

Edwards has repeatedly cited Ethan's case as an example of "the kids and families I've fought for," and in the minds of many political observers positioned himself as the classic David against the insurance industry's Goliath.

However, Edwards has also repeatedly failed to mention that he had represented Ethan Bedrick in a lawsuit against the boy's obstetrician a year earlier in 1995. Edwards had alleged that the doctor was negligent in failing to prevent the boy's oxygen deprivation during labor and therefore had caused the boy's cerebral palsy.

Edwards settled the malpractice case with the doctor's insurance company less than three weeks into the trial, enabling Ethan's family to get a reported $5 million for medical and living expenses. The case was reportedly the largest medical malpractice settlement in North Carolina history.

'I'm proud of that'

Edwards is not shy about defending his legal career and says he would gladly put his record up against that of President Bush in this year's general election.

"The time I spent in courtrooms representing kids and families against, you know, big insurance companies and big drug companies and big corporate America -- I'm proud of that," Edwards told the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes in December 2003.

But Edwards' critics have a different view of the man; they say he has repeatedly acted to enrich himself.

"John Edwards' spin is always -- I am helping the little guy. But he screened his cases to the point that he only helped people that were going to make him richer," said the CNSNews.com source with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career.

Dr. Lorne Hall, one of the physicians with whom Edwards reached a confidential settlement in a malpractice case involving cerebral palsy, agreed, telling The Charlotte Observer in 2003 that " knows how to pick cases, and he knows the ones he can win."

Hall said Edwards was "very polished, very polite, dressed to the T's, smiling at the ladies." But the anonymous source for this story said Edwards displayed a "belligerent attitude" toward the medical profession.

"He sued nurses, doctors, hospitals. The reputation he had was -- he never wanted to hear that nobody did anything wrong. If you even walked by the door of an alleged malpractice incident, you were gong to cough up money too," the source said.

But John Hood, president of the free-market, Raleigh, N.C.-based John Locke Foundation said Edwards tailored the evidence in his court cases for maximum impact.

"In pursuing his client's cases he did what many other trial lawyers do. He bent the available evidence to fit what he wanted to say," Hood told CNSNews.com . "That is the nature of an advocacy system," Hood added

Hood does not fault Edwards for the strategies he used as a trial lawyer.

"He was an advocate for his clients. It was his job to make the best possible case for them," Hood said.

Many legal observers agree that Edwards was simply doing his job and doing it very well.

A North Carolina newspaper, The News and Observer, said Edwards "forged a reputation as one of the most skilled plaintiff's attorneys in the business."

Retired North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, who heard many of Edwards' arguments in court, had nothing but praise for the abilities of the former trial lawyer, turned senator.

"He was probably the best I ever had in the 21 years I had on the bench. Lawyers would come in to watch him, to see what he does," Farmer told the Chicago Tribune in December 2003.

'Scientifically unfounded'

Olson said lawsuits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other infant brain damage "may constitute the single biggest branch of medical malpractice litigation." Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in about 8,000 infants annually in the U.S.

But the recent scientific studies may make those lawsuits "scientifically unfounded," Olson explained. He contends that the medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery.

"A few years ago every neurosurgeon in Washington D.C., had been sued, and it can't be because the nation's capital gets only bad neurosurgeons. It's because it's too tempting to file against the competent ones because so many terrible things go wrong with their patients," Olson added.

Edwards, who opposes legislation that would cap damages in liability lawsuits, would not respond to repeated requests through his campaign offices for comment.

[AmericanDream]

83. CNS is a self-proclaimed RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA AGENCY...u kidding me?

Yeah, I judge candidates based on what the right wing has to say about them too.... CNS.com is a branch of (as stated on their website), Media Research Center, which is a conservative watchdog whose website says it is the "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias"... go to their website and check it out: www.cns.com and www.mediaresearch.org.

I've read thousands of mainstream articles about Edwards, from very conservative sources included, that can't find a fault in his legal record. I can go through the whole article and refute it, but the source itself has no credibility, so i'm not even going to try...

I think if you are not some nutty conservative hack, it might serve you well to research before forming opinions. Read Edwards' book, The Four Trials... it is a good read and you'll learn something about him... or simply read the numerous articles written about his cases.

By the way, the cerebral palasy cases were based on "negligence" .. the medical statutes in every state required that the doctors deliver babies through c-section where there is a danger of losing oxygen supply to the brain... and the doctors that Edwards sued ignored that medical statute and certain medical protocols. Since then, these statutes have changed due to new developments in science... edwards was going by what was established in the scientific community, he wasn't making things up.

Lastly, do you really think the right wing would have kept quiet if they had some mud on Edwards. No Way! They would've run ads about this like Launch Faircloth did but it never worked because his cases were meritorious and not fictional, even his opponents say that.

[GatoLover]

85. Well, I'm serious about not knowing anything about cns.com

I googled and copied the first article I saw which contained the case information I'd read years ago from multiple sources. When Edwards first ran plenty of mainstream news sources reported his cases and more than one reported that he had more-or-less caused the number of unnecessary c-sections to rise nationwide. I wasn't sympathetic then and am not now.

[AmericanDream]

88. Well, a few thoughts....

I'm sure that as a consequence of some of his cases the rate of c-sections might have gone up (though I don't see how one lawyer could do such a thing single-handedly). However, a bad side-effect doesn't change the fact that those doctors were being negligent and there has to be some accountability. You seem to have formed such a firm opinion even without having done your research. I'm guessing that you support some other candidate and do not even want to like Edwards... or just something about him ticks you off... that's a guess though and it seems natural enough... otherwise, you would at least do some homework before judging. I'll still suggest Edwards' autobiographical book for a good read, it is personal and not political but his side of the story at least deserves to be heard, right? :)

[GatoLover]

90. My homework

Look, I did a lot of homework two years ago and formed an opinion of Edwards then. I've haven't spent much -- actually, any -- time in the past year thinking about him, but I didn't think his cases were worth a hoot then and have no reason to think so now. I don't necessarily support liability limits but I don't support junk science either.

[AmericanDream]

91. Would you mind...

giving me specific instances of where Edwards used "junk science" ? I guess you have the right to have an opinion, informed or uninformed... but if it is an informed opinion, I guess there would be some factual support for it... it would be nice to share that with the rest of us too.

Anyway, I don't think Edwards supports junk science either... *shrugs*

[GatoLover]

92. This probably won't convince you but that's OK

From Time Magazine, July 19, 2004, referring to the famous case in which Edwards melodramatically channeled the baby:

"The jury award caught the attention of obstetricians everywhere. It and similar cases have contributed to the increased use of caesareans when a fetal-heart monitor indicates even minor signs of trouble. Today more than one-quarter of U.S. births are by C-section (up from 5% in 1970), though fear of malpractice suits is just one factor in the trend. Meanwhile, medical research has been challenging the conventional wisdom that birth trauma was the principal culprit in cerebral palsy. "There seems to be no scientific question that most of that injury occurs prenatally and is not related to the delivery," says Dr. H. David Bruton, whose partner was a defendant in a lawsuit argued by Edwards and who later served as North Carolina's secretary of health and human services."

[AmericanDream]

93. I'm not sure what you are trying to convince me of....

I don't think you are getting what Edwards sued for... he sued for "negligence" on the basis of the medical statutes that existed at the time... those have changed since. At that time doctors thought that cerebral palsy could be prevented by c-section and so doctors were expected to adhere to that standard... now, that due to further research, that statute has been changed and c-sections have been ruled out as a preventive measure. But side-effects (like increased number of c-sections) does not change the fact that their was malpractice involved in ignoring the established medical statutes.

By the way, you say that edwards melodramatically channeled the baby, and you are right, he did ... but in his closing statement. You have to read the case history to see how he built the case from concrete evidence and expert witnesses.. it was an extensive trial and the closing statement was only putting the lid on it.

So, this really doesn't prove anything and frankly, I don't even know what you are trying to prove. If you are trying to prove that some of his cases led to increased number of c-sections, then I don't deny that... however, that doesn't mean his cases were based on so-called "junk science" because the science he used was the one established by the medical opportunity at the time but has changed ever since. But at that time the doctor WAS ignoring the statute!

[leesa]

70. Not interested in either. Both are very weak and blow with the wind.

[GatoLover]

102. Blowing in the wind

Obama was a prominent member of the Illinois Senate for many years and he did not have a reputation for blowing with the wind. He was regarded as a very smart and effective progressive voice.

[renie408]

131. Could you flesh that out a little bit?

When you say they 'blow with the wind', what are you referring to?

[TankLV]

71. Not Obama - he's a BIG TIME disappointment.

don't like him at all since his false build-up to his election.

Utterly disappointing in words and deeds.

[mtnsnake]

80. He's got one of the best progressive voting records of all senators n/t

[1932]

100. ...which might be a disappointment for some.

But it isn't for me.

[TankLV]

140. Don't see it.

Sorry.

Try peddling fantasies to somebody else.

I KNOW what he's said and done, and it ain't pretty.

He might have said one or two good things, but the majority of his utterances leave me very dissatisfied.

[1932]

143. Do you believe the lies, like that he voted for S.256 (bankruptcy bill)?

It seems that some of the evidence most often cited for not liking him is the fantasy.

[TankLV]

175. Nope - just what I hear from his lips.

Very VERY disappointing. At times he sounds like bunkerboy himself!

We can do SO much better!

[1932]

176. So, he could be one of few senators vote against bankruptcy bill, CAFTA,

and against the entire neoliberal, imperial project, and vote for fair trade bills and for the working class and for the middle class and you would not like him because of your (mis?) interpertation of what's coming out of his mouth?

[GreenArrow]

75. Obama I'd consider, maybe, possibly, concievably...

If Edwards is on the ticket, I won't be voting for him. Yuck.

[Leilani]

84. Obama for the Future.

Edwards is the Past.

[AtomicKitten]

86. GORE/OBAMA for me, please.

[barb162]

89. sounds good to me

[election_2004]

94. Clark/Feingold would have more experience.....

Warner/Stabenow could be a potentially attractive ticket as well.

Obama should at least complete one full Senate term before running for the presidency or V.P.

[Stockholm]

101. Does it matter?

My tealeafs says:

McCain/Diebold

[DCal]

110. OK, let's cancel the election and give up. It's so much easier.

[SharonAnn]

109. Neither strong enough on defense or foreign policy, I like them, but...

[rd_kent]

113. Edwards, yes. Obama, No

[Sparkly]

118. I see it the opposite way.

Obama for VP might be okay; Edwards, no.

Different strokes for different folks! ;)

[rd_kent]

120. I dont know enough about Obama

but I do know that Edwards was a much better candidate that Kerry. Still mad about that.
Besides, I'm not sure the country is ready for a black or a woman in the executive branch. Not that there arent fully qualified blacks and women, I just dont see a majority of people voting for them. Still to much predjudice out there.

[AmericanDream]

122. Yup, same here.... though I like 'em both at different levels. nt

[Catchawave]

121. Vote for them today?

Yes indeedy!

Lovely boys, and an 8-year Obama VP job description would make him a shoe-in for Obama 2016 !!!

[imlost]

127. Yes Obama, no Edwards

I feel Obama has a lot of potential and could be a great leader. Will see what he does in the next couple of years.
I just hope he doesn't get lost or misguided by other losers we have for leaders.

You should never say never, but Edwards, I can't see myself supporting him in any way, shape, or form.
He backed the IWR resolution. He continued backing it until he saw it was becoming unpopular. Soldiers dying, Iraqi
citizens dying! I saw his apology, that was all fine and dandy but too much at stake.
I feel his stance becomes whatever he feels will get him elected.

The only thing I can respect him for is his lovely wife.

[Sparkly]

128. I agree

Elizabeth Edwards, in a townhall forum toward the end of the campaign, really knocked my socks off. She answered every question directly, fully, and clearly. I was quite impressed with her!

[0007]

130. I'd vote for 'em in a heart beat.

[The Judged]

132. Cheney/ Rice? Will they win the Democratic nomination? (Diebold)

[robbedvoter]

133. "This time, every vote will be counted". End of story.

[The Judged]

134. did you mean countered?

[robbedvoter]

150. I did, but Edwards meant to deceive us.

[AmericanDream]

151. he actually fought very hard from conceding...

Did you read the latest book that says that kerry believed the election might have been stolen. It also clearly states that edwards did not want to concede... and Evan thomas' newsweek report also said the same. He couldn't have done anything if the presidential candidate wanted to concede.

[robbedvoter]

155. I have yet to see proof of any fight...then, or afterwards

Someone stopped him from speaking up the truth? Tied his mouth off for over 1 year? Sorry, don't buy secret "fights"

[WI_DEM]

146. give Barack a few years, he is only in his first senate term

he has alot of years ahead of him. If your looking for possible problems with that ticket it would be "lack of experience" Edwards only served a single senate term and Barack is in the middle of his first term.

[warrens]

149. I'd back that in a heartbeat

Two very bright guys with a populist message.

[Township75]

152. No - Edwards didn't do sh!t for Kerry, and now he is out of the spotlight

OBama - we will see how he does between now and 07/08, and then we can decide...but we don't need to wait to see about Edwards...he had zero positive impact on the Kerry campaign.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

153. Neither has national security experience or much senatorial experience

The scared little Merkins won't vote for anyone withour National Security experience.

[depakid]

158. Two inexperienced one term Senators

I don't think so.

[mourningdove92]

173. I would JOYFULLY vote that ticket.

[Rich Hunt]

177. NO WAY!

Could we PLEASE have our Senator for a few more terms?

Find someone else, please. We are not going through another traumatic Senate election just for you people, nor are we going to let you end his Senate career. That is the dumbest idea I've heard in a while.

Edwards: most definitely. He might seem too conservative for your taste, but he puts the fear of God into a lot of people.

[stubtoe]

179. Edwards and Obama, eh?

A couple of hotties for sure! :)

[LWolf]

180. I prefer others.

I hope I'll have other choices on the ballot.

I perceive them as better than republicans, but not really with me on many issues.

Negatives: I'm uncomfortable with O'Bama's voting record since entering the Senate. Confirmation votes, bankruptcy votes... Edwards' positions on war and foreign relations are troublesome.

Positives: They are young, photogenic, and charismatic.

Can they win? :shrug: Can we get a clean election?

[imagine1989]

184. Think big picture

While each of us, I think, would like the perfect candidate to step forward, it's not realistic. Each candidate is going to have his/ger own views, and those views will probably differ from the party platform somewhat. If we find a candidate who supports, I'd say, even 80% (I'd even go as low as 70% if it was a really close election) of the party platform, that's a candidate I'd support. Let's remember that an presidential election will not cause change, but provide the opportunity for change to occur. So if we can get a candidate who believes in change, a lot can happen, even if they aren't completely in support of the party platform.

[LWolf]

186. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate.

There are just potential candidates whose views and records are closer to where I want to go. That's why I prefer others. While "perfect" isn't available, "better" is.

[prolesunited]

200. Please read my posts in the thread

It explains that Obama voted AGAINST the bankrupcty bill.

[LWolf]

211. I'll browse through the rest.

:hi:

[zulchzulu]

185. Repugs will paint them as The Inexperienced Ticket

Both have one term as Senator...it ain't gonna happen....

[Inspired]

187. Edwards yes....Obama no

I like Obama but as someone mentioned before we can't have 2 one term senators. Edwards will win if you nominate him...he would have won if we had.

[rpannier]

193. I supported Edwards in the '04 Primary

I'd vote for him in '08.

[bklyncowgirl]

202. Great guys both but too green.

We got big problems. We need experience.

As long as Gore has learned to talk like a human being on TV, I'll support him gladly. He's right on most of the issues--is an expert on global warming and was against this misguided war from the gitgo. Not to mention the fact taht he won once before.

Other than that something in a nice innovative governor or ex governor would suit me just fine.

I'm also liking Feingold a great deal these days and could maybe get over my prejudice against Senators for him.

[sduncang]

203. Edwards...maybe...

It's too early. Edwards, maybe. Don't know enough about Obama. Just have doubts Edwards could win.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

204. Oh Puleez

What in the name of all that's holy (or not, as your inclination leads you) makes Edwards qualified to be president of these United States?

Is it his one term as senator...you know...the springboard for a presidential run with no intention of seeking a second term in the senate? His legal skills? His "poor" childhood? What?

Obama is likely a future candidate and quite possibly a good one, but it's too soon to tag him for the race yet.

Just MHO.

[janx]

216. Edwards ran in the last election with Kerry, and they lost.

It's probably too soon for Edwards to enter another national election. Obama won't run for president yet, but I'm hoping he does so in the future.

[trixie]

218. I like them both, are they the best for us?

I do have to weigh in that sometimes Obama is too religious for my taste. I don't care for all the prayers and comparisons to the bible. He spoke at a convention for librarians and I was a bit ticked that he used the bible so much. Just my opinion.

[janx]

219. Obama is UCC, a church that emphasizes

church/state separation.

So there's no need to worry. In any case, he won't be running for president just yet.