John Edwards is a progressive candidate, who is starting to resonate with voters.

[Ninga]

What I like about John Edwards is that he has elevated his thinking and has offered true progressive platforms.

As world events unfold, and each campaign responds and puts out policy statements, John Edwards has been extremely responsive and very comprehensive.


Taken from a diary at:
wwww.mydd.com


-snip-

Here are the ways Edwards foreign policy positions have actually been much more forward thinking and innovative than Obama's:

Edwards has rejected the Global War On Terror frame, Obama has accepted it.
Edwards has rejected the training farce in Iraq, Obama has not.
Edwards has lead on Iran, Obama co-sponsored a bill to declare a part of a foreign government a terrorist organization (the Revolutionary Guard) for the first time in US history and knowingly missed Kyl-Lieberman.
Edwards also proposed a formal multi-lateral organization to Counter-terrorism Intelligance Treaty Organization, CITO, Obama has no similarly innovative counter terror proposals.

Yesterday Edwards became the first major Democratic candidate to explicitly reject the preventive war doctrine, and specifically for Iran.

As a part of this strategy, I will ask my National Security Advisor to remove President Bush's explicit endorsement of a preventive war doctrine from my National Security Strategies. And I will ask our Joint Chiefs of Staff to form military plans in accordance with proven national security strategies that we know can keep us and our allies safe -- not discredited and dangerous ideological fancies.
This strategy will keep America and our allies safe -- while showing the world we are once again a strong country that can always win war, but that prefers peace over war. Most importantly, it will restore our legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Everyone knows we're powerful. The question is what we use our power for -- and whether the rest of the world will once again see us as a force for good, rather than the bully we've become under Bush.

No doubt Obama has been marginally better than Clinton in this campaign, he voted against Iraq funding for the first time this spring moments before Clinton, for example. And Obama adds more equivocations to his support for continued training missions in Iraq than Clinton. Edwards, however, has been the leader. His CITO proposal, for example, helps re-frame the fight against terrorism into multi-lateral effort focused on the activities, such as intelligence that will actually help combat terrorism. Edwards is the only one of the top three to pledge to remove all combat troops from Iraq in a year.

The real test is what is produced by that team and that campaign. And by that test Edwards has been the clear choice for progressives.

[KittyWampus]

1. No, Edwards is NOT a "Progressive". He has a history as both a Senator and former candidate

that are absolutely CENTRIST.

He can run towards the Left in the Primary but his past is his past.

I want a candidate who doesn't have to pretend or who is running counter to their actual record.

[Blackhatjack]

3. Sorry, your conclusions are not supported by the record...

Sorry the facts are so inconvenient since you had already made up your mind to try and paint Edwards as a 'Centrist.'

Given that Edwards has already run the gauntlet once before in 2004, don't you think the MSM and other political strategists would have already announced your position as being the true one IF IT WERE SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS, WHICH IT IS NOT.

[KittyWampus]

6. The FACTS are his record. Oh, and the MSM called Dean a liberal too. He was also actuallya CENTRIST.

and believe me, if Dean or Edwards had won the nomination the Media would have suddenly noticed their actual records as centrists and helped the GOP exploit the contrast.

To a large extent, that's why I support Biden. It's not idealism. It's appreciation of the fact he is running as what he actually is. He isn't pretending to be Mr. Populist Progressive like Edwards.

[Blackhatjack]

9. Thanks for clearing that up for us --Dean is not a liberal either? LOL

Your view of the world and the meaning you have attached to the label "liberal" are unique to you.

BTW I like much of what Biden has to say, but there is an ample record of major mistakes by Biden in the past that will sink him. He withdrew from his last Presidential campaign effort after being exposed for using plagarized remarks without attribution. He has also said many things he had to retract and apologize for, which Repubs would absolutely terrorized him with if he were the Party Nominee.

[KittyWampus]

15. Dean was, in fact, a moderate governor. And this thread is not about Biden.

[Basileus Basileon]

22. As a governor? Not particularly. nt

[Debi]

69. Dean is not a Liberal - he's a fiscal conservative who was more aligned with the DLC

As for Biden being terrorized by the GOP...he seems to be the only one clearly taking them on rather than attacking his own Party's candidates, like you have so proudly done in a thread about John Edwards.

[surfermaw]

32. Wouldn't they have more on Biden to come after him ! Edwards all the way

Biden for VP

[surfermaw]

106. Biden tried once a long time ago, and was stoped in his tracks

EARLY) can't remember for what. I remember because he was my choice then, but was stoped cold. Over something he had done during maybe college, can't remember,

[Hawkowl]

113. You're not serious?

Biden? A progressive? Senator MBNA? The Senator who as the CHAIR OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, refused to believe Anita Hill and approved Clarence Fucking Thomas? One could argue, that his piss-poor judgment is what gave us the current right wing nut jobs on the SC which gave us Shrub! I am frankly stunned at the level of superficial support this clown has.

You are going to put Edwards record up against Bankruptcy Biden? Good luck.

[Clark2008]

49. Blind to the facts of his record, eh?

:eyes:

He's a centrist. He's always been a centrist. He was DLC, for Pete's sake.

[Renew Deal]

4. I'm confused about your criticism of Edwards.

If you support Biden. Biden is no progressive either, and his bankruptcy bill vote is heinous. Is your issue with Edwards ideological or political?

[KittyWampus]

7. Biden isn't pretending to be something he's not. And his record is solidly liberal albeit

towards the center.

MOST Democrats will vote for a Centrist, as will Independents and also some disgruntled GOP'ers.

[Blackhatjack]

10. See my post #9 regarding Biden. n/t

[Renew Deal]

18. That's fair,

Most Democrats will vote for a Democrat. Most Republicans will vote for a Republican. Independents will usually vote for the best candidate.

[JDPriestly]

60. Biden's donor is MBNA. They are linked at the hip.

Be careful of Biden. He is a bank in a senator's clothing.

[Yael]

70. MBNA was bought by Bank of America

BofA now runs the purse strings in Delaware.

I like Biden, but ever notice that all credit cards seem to eminate from South Dakota or Delaware?

It is because of the VERY lax banking restrictions on ccard issuers in those states.

Just sayin'

[JDPriestly]

90. You are correct. And the laws of the state in which the bank is

located govern in collection actions in the courts -- so we need to change the laws of Delaware and South Dakota if we want debtors to get fair treatment from courts with regard to banks.

[Debi]

78. Will you please provide proof that the majority of Biden's support

comes from MBNA and the banking industry.

Oops, not here... :shrug:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?cid=N00001669

Looks like finance/credit companies come in sixth for contributors for Senator Biden's career and banks come in 16th. Maybe we should look at his campaign for President, that must be where you looked to get your cute 'bank in a Senator's clothing' quip.

Let's look here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/candidates/joe-biden/

Nope, Delaware comes in third for the state with the most contributions...but wait, I thought all the evil credit card companies were in Delaware? This makes no sense at all.

Why don't you provide the source you used to make your post?

Thanks in advance. :hi:

[JDPriestly]

89. I did not say that the majority of Biden's support is from MBNA.

But, he takes large amounts of money from banks and other large corporate donors. Edwards does not.

[Debi]

101. Again, please show me where you've found that information

Show me where banks give Joe Biden 'large amounts of money' and where Joe Biden has 'large corporate donors'.

I don't think you'll find it, but since you are so sure of yourself, I would like to see that information.

I'll wait here.

[Debi]

103. Sorry, forgot to add the link for John Edwards donors by sector

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.asp?CID=N00002283

You'll note that comercial banks come in 14th for Edwards as compared to them coming in 16th contributing to Biden.

[venable]

26. don't tell the countless thousands of progressives, who know both his record and

his current statements and positions and courage, and support him passionately and in large numbers.

do tell the corporate forces arrayed against his candidacy - ie, I was told by someone very close to Paul Krugman that his consistent mentions of Edwards in his column, his favorable mentions of Edwards as the one who is right, in a progressive way, on many issues, is consistently removed by the editors. I'm assuming you recognize, as I do, that the NYT is a corporate shill.

There is a reason the MSM and even those in DC who crave the status quo are aligned against him.

He is the most progressive candidate (other than Dennis) in a very long time.

Have you ever heard of candidates evolving, ie Howard Dean, John Edwards.

[Ninga]

30. Kick this through the goal posts !

[KittyWampus]

38. I am a Progressive and that's why I find it disgusting his supporters can't admit the Edwards of 08

is way to the Left of Senator Edwards and candidate Edwards of 04.

[Ninga]

42. Be as disgusted as you wish..but Biden eviscerated Anita Hill. But I bet Biden HAS CHANGED

and would not demean and dismiss Anita Hill if he were to question her today.



I ADMIT Edwards is way to the left of where he was in '04. And I am happy to see he has evolved.

[JDPriestly]

61. I admit it readily. He spent the last four years studying

poverty and trying to understand just how economics works. He is ready to lead the nation because our biggest challenges in the next four years will be economic. Pay day is coming and it is not the American people who will be paid. We will be doing the paying and it is going to hurt if we get somebody like Biden or Hillary or any of the other candidates. Edwards is the only one who is focused on the economic issue that counts -- the disparity between rich and poor and the debt that oppresses the poor and the entire country. Read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

[rinsd]

41. LOL...now you've traveled down the road to conspiracy?

"I was told by someone very close to Paul Krugman that his consistent mentions of Edwards in his column, his favorable mentions of Edwards as the one who is right, in a progressive way, on many issues, is consistently removed by the editors"

:rofl:

"Have you ever heard of candidates evolving, ie Howard Dean, John Edwards"

Dean didn't pretend his career as governor never happened. He ran on his career.

John Edwards runs on the smoke he is blowing up your ass.

[Ninga]

46. Your problem is that you spend too much time on the floor. It is charming, however, how

you are able to include various body parts in your responses.


John Edwards is running on a progressive platform.


You spend so much of your time being angry and demeaning that the smoke you see coming out of your ass is of your own doing.

John Edwards does not have the time nor the need to be involved with your ass.....it's your heart and mind he is trying to reach.

[rinsd]

52. By all means, vote for a guy who pretend his career in government never happened.

[Ninga]

68. Your anti-Edwards statements are amazing in their vapid emptiness.

:shrug:

[Clark2008]

54. "John Edwards is running on a progressive platform."

Of course he is... but he's not ever actually worked as a progressive.

Big difference.

Personally, I don't find him all that bright outside his given field. He doesn't know shit about foreign policy, for example.

[Ninga]

58. I don't know you personally of course, but unless you would like to share your

work history......I would bet that John Edwards has more practical experience working in behalf of the average person, than say, you do.

[laureloak]

114. Hee-hee!

[Hieronymus]

36. So, in your mind no one can have a change of heart? Good luck with

your candidate, Biden, who has no chance at all.

[KittyWampus]

37. Then Edwards and his supporters should be HONEST and admit he's running way to the Left

of his record as Senator and as a candidate in 04.

[Ninga]

??? I don't think Edwards supporters deny he is different from '04.

[Ninga]

48. dupe. self delete

[Ninga]

50. dupe. self delete

[JDPriestly]

59. Go to Edwards' website. He studied poverty and has worked

on issues over the past four years. Robert Kennedy is viewed as a star in the spectrum of liberals. But I assure you, his thinking evolved over the years. Edwards is like Kennedy in that respect. He pays attention and learns. His thinking is still evolving. He is far more flexible and moving far more to the left than any candidate other than Kucinich. Edwards is going in the direction that we need. Please check out his website, his issues and videos and other statements. If you do not want a centrist, Edwards is the best candidate.

[Yukari Yakumo]

64. And what about the years before that?

I'm sorry, Edwards is a flip-flopper and panders like a maniac. He's a phony to the core who'll say anything to get elected. I trust Clinton and Biden many times more than Edwards.

[Ninga]

66. Simple question. Everything you have ever done in your life, would you do it

exactly the same, and over again?

Do yo wear the exact same style of clothing as you did 15 years ago? What about hair cut? What about food preferences? What about taste in music? What about religious/political views?


What do you call a person who does not change their views???
Ridged? Dogmatic? Conservative? Mentally stunted?

[Yukari Yakumo]

71. Ah the usual tactic of deflect and redirection when you know you have nothing to counter with.

Everyone changes. But when it's clearly done to score political points, it's pandering. The truth is most candidates hold certain core beliefs that they will usually never change.

What issues has Edwards taken a stand on that he has remained consistent throughout his entire career?

What anti-war/pro-peace activities has Edwards ever engaged in?

The simple truth is Edwards is a man who can't be trusted on the issues, and is all bluster, no substance.

[Ninga]

76. Edwards first avocated publicly for the poor and working class in 1998. He hasn't waivered

from that position and been consistent since 1998.


Edwards is very Progressive, dedicated, and most trustworthy.


:toast:

[JDPriestly]

88. He represented plaintiffs against careless corporations

He has always stood on the side of the little guys against the big guys. I respect your opinion, but I do not think he is phony at all. We shall just have to agree to disagree. Biden is great, but he is indebted to MBNA and other corporations.

[Ninga]

109. Time to say "nighty-night" to all of the dear anti-Edwards thread rats. Hope you

sleep well and have pleasant dreams.


Really, you are all sweet hearts :loveya: ......get your rest now.

[mtnsnake]

2. When Edwards actually worked in the senate he was way to the right of most Democrats

for the most part of his career in terms of progressiveness. I'm not saying he can't change, but all anyone has to do is check his past record to see he was not considered progressive by any means when he was in Congress.

[Blackhatjack]

5. Sure he was progressive --DID YOU FORGET his work on "Patients BIll of Rights?"

He worked with Ted Kennedy on Education initiatives. He added amendments to bills to blunt their effect on working people.

You are perpetuating a myth saying that he was 'right of most Democrats.' I live in North Carolina, he was my Senator, and we know what he did.

[KittyWampus]

8. We all know what he did. And he is ranked as a centrist. It's been gone over so many times

It disgusts me that people still try and pretend otherwise.

[Blackhatjack]

12. Yes 'we all know what he did' --except of course you.

[DangerDave921]

23. Populist

I think Edwards' calculated use of jeans, pick-up trucks, and good ol' boy charm has fooled some people into thinking that he is a populist with progressive ideals. I believe in looking at a person's record, not his campaign speeches. As the old saying goes, "Deeds, not words, will decide this issue."

[antiimperialist]

11. Edwards lags in the polls. He's not starting to resonate

Not true.

[Blackhatjack]

13. Edwards just started running tv ads in Iowa this week. HRC & BO have run millions of dollars of ads

Edwards has a first class grass roots ground operation in Iowa, and his events in Iowa have been met with hugely popular results. Edwards has visted all 99 counties in Iowa, and been to the most outlying areas where candidates have never gone before.

When it comes to who will actually show up for the caucus in Iowa, Edwards is in great position.

[robcon]

16. He's in 3rd place in Iowa.

He's not resonating in Iowa, he's in severe decline there. He used to be #1, now he's #3.

See the graph of the poll results...

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

[robcon]

14. Evidence that he is resonating, please.

He is mired in third place, with 12-15% of the vote in the last ten polls. His highest recent level of support, 18%, was last achieved in the second week of September. His highest level of support for all of 2007 peaked at 20% in March!

Where is the resonance with voters? The graph of his support among voters is trending down.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

[GreenArrow]

83. I agree with you.

He's been there off and on since 2001; it's not as if the people of Iowa don't already know who he is.

[Sweet Pea]

17. No Way

His wealth, his haircuts, his house, his hedge funds, his fake "Poverty Center", his vote for the war...none of that spells "Progressive" to me.

If none of that bothers you, knock yourself out. I want someone who walks the walk.

[Ninga]

29. From that description, you could be talking about JFK. By the way, his votes as a Senator

were reflective of the state he was representing.

He won a very tough race against a very popular republican....which was amazing.


The initiatives and programs Edwards proposes as a presidential candidate are progressive and forward thinking.

I would imagine that his personal wealth falls well below someone like John Kerry's.

You remember John Kerry and his lovely rich wife don't' you???


My whole point is that your rant and platitudes are meaningless when it comes to determining who is the most fit to be president.

[Sweet Pea]

40. Wrong

It isn't John Kerry's wealth, its his inherited-multi-millionaire wife's. Kerry didn't become a multi millionaire that ol' Progressive way, that is chasing ambulances - he married into it.

And like I said in the other post, if the haircuts and the house and the "Poverty Center" and the associated political conventions that said "Poverty Center" "employees" were sent by jet to discussions on how to stop the war and how to raise money for campaigns and his hedge fund and more - if all those are the real marks of a real progressive, we have different definitions.

[laureloak]

74. And who would that be that "walks the walk"?

I don't hear them "talking the talk" so who cares about the walk.

[subsuelo]

19. Kucinich has always rejected the preventive war doctrine

The question for me is: why has it taken so long for the other candidates to come around?

Only yesterday Edwards rejected it? Where has Edwards been?

[Czolgosz]

20. I would quit my job to volunteer full time for an Edwards-Obama ticket!

[asdjrocky]

45. Sixteen Years

is how long we would hold the whitehouse with that ticket. Why won't people wake up and smell THAT coffee.

[Debi]

104. Welcom to DU asdjrocky

:hi:

[saltpoint]

21. The man has my vote.

He certainly is running a progressive campaign, speaking to progressive issues, and the people in charge of the Edwards effort are absolutely top-drawer folks.

Go, Johnny, go.

[Ninga]

31. Yes, he is!

[DeeDeeNY]

24. Edwards said something at the last debate that made me take notice

It was something to the effect that we should all know better at this point than to trust this administration or take them at their word because of how much they've lied. Finally, a candidate being honest and realistic!

[Yukari Yakumo]

65. And it is something everyone else has been saying *for ages*.

It isn't leadership, it's pandering.

[Ninga]

25. Edwards presidential platform is ABSOLUTELY progressive. His presidential platform

is not required to be an extension of his Senate voting record.

A Senator is beholden to those who put him in office. Edwards represented SC and SC only. He did not come into Michigan or New York or Illinois to find out what the voters wanted.

He got elected in a very Conservative state and beat a popular republician....which was very impressive.




Me thinks you great protesters are major stock holders in wool.

[waiting for hope]

44. Psst - it's NC, not SC....

:)

[Ninga]

53. Thanks...but here is the deal.....NC or SC , both conservative, both tough places for Dems to get

elected.

[waiting for hope]

75. You have that right -

For my job (I live in NC) I scan the coastal online newspapers and a lot of them in SC.....I always feel a bit ill after reading some of the headlines.

[Ninga]

27. Edwards progressive statement today regarding writer's strike.

Edwards Statement In Support Of Striking Writers Guild Members
Nov 5, 2007 6:44 AM

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards released the following statement in support of the striking Writers Guild members:
"The striking Writers Guild members are fighting an important battle to protect their creative rights. These writers deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and I commend their courage in standing up to big media conglomerates. As someone who has walked picket lines with workers all across America and as a strong believer in collective bargaining, I hope that both sides are able to quickly reach a just settlement."

[leftyladyfrommo]

28. I would support Edwards but I am not sure he even has a chance

now.

[surfermaw]

33. Remember the last election with 5% prediction in IOwa

And he came in 2% points behind Kerry, even with Clintons Buddy,Clark in the race to block Edwards

[waiting for hope]

43. Dean was the front runner at this

time in the Primary season last election - what I'm hearing in Iowa is that Edwards has more ground support then the media is letting on or even cares to know about, remember, it's been the Hillary/Obama show now for almost a year, writers have gone on strike and they wouldn't know how to handle anything else.

[JDPriestly]

62. His chance will be improved if you support him.

I table for Edwards. He is the best candidate. It is up to us to let him know that we support him. You can join One Corps as an Edwards supporter.

[leftyladyfrommo]

111. I think he is the best candidate, too.

And I do support him whenever I can. But I hardly ever even see his name here in Kansas City. All we get is Hillary and Obama. It is like Edwards isn't even in the race.

[bpeale]

91. it is a sad day indeed

when whether someone "has a chance of winning" or not takes precedence over the the one you want. that's whats wrong with america. everyone wants to be on the side of the winner before the contest even takes place. this makes me sick.

[Stop Cornyn]

34. Edwards is running on the most populist progressive agenda since FDR, and Independents are TOTALLY

on board.

If Edwards gets the nomination, we rescue the Democratic Party from the corporate lap dogs of the DLC and also greatly expand the party by joining the independents who respond to the Edwards message of economic justice.

[Ninga]

35. Darn it.....wish I said it as well as you just did.....thanks.

:bounce:

:toast:

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Edwards a progressive? LOL

War candidate John Edwards? I don't think so.

[Ninga]

47. Presidential candidate '07....ABSOLUTELY PROGRESSIVE.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. That's right, I forgot.

With Edwards we have to judge him by what he SAYS and not what he has DONE.

[Ninga]

57. No one is saying you "have to" do anything.

[Milo_Bloom]

73. In order to believe him to be a progressive I do.

[Ninga]

79. OK, would you know a progressive if one knocked on your door? What does a

progressive look and sound like?

:shrug:

[asdjrocky]

51. War Candidate?

How do you mean?

[Milo_Bloom]

55. Edwards voted for the war, right?

Thus, he is a war candidate.

[JDPriestly]

63. Here is Edwards stance on the war

As president, I will immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops to jump-start the political solution that will end the violence, launch a diplomatic offensive with all local, national, and regional parties, and completely withdraw all combat troops within nine to ten months. If Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the debate with the Republicans will be about how much war we will have in Iraq. If I'm the nominee, the debate will only be about ending the war. We can't be just a little bit better than the Republicans. We have to win this election and bring our brave men and women home to the heroes' welcome they deserve.

"And so today, I am calling on Senator Clinton to offer specific answers to five questions of most concern to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and all across America."
Five Questions on Iraq that Every Candidate Should Have to Answer:

Question #1: Do you have a specific plan to end the war in Iraq?

Edwards: YES
Senator Clinton: ?

Question #2: As president, will you withdraw all combat troops?

Edwards: YES
Senator Clinton: ?

Question #3: Will you withdraw all combat troops within the first nine to ten months of your presidency?

Edwards: YES
Senator Clinton: ?

Question #4: Will you conduct combat missions with troops stationed inside Iraq?

Edwards: NO
Senator Clinton: ?

Question #5: Will you leave permanent military bases in Iraq?

Edwards: NO
Senator Clinton: ?


http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071106-five-simple-questions/

[Ninga]

67. Great response.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. And we can believe him because?????

He's been SO reliable in the past, right?

The rhetoric of a war candidate means little.

[JDPriestly]

77. Because you listen to his videos, you read his website.

He invites you to decide for yourself. He has said this many times. You have to decide for yourself who you trust. I do not trust Hillary. I do not expect candidates to be perfect. I vetted each candidate and decided on Edwards. I think he will be a great president. You have to decide for yourself. But it is important to be really honest with yourself about staying open to changing your mind. We all want the best for our country. Each of us is responsible for taking a good look at the candidates and deciding for ourselves. You have to throw away prejudice and favoritism. I decided against Hillary after carefully looking at her current stances on things and her personality and past. I don't like the fact that Biden is so closely tied to MBNA and banking, but I would vote for him and support him as a candidate if he is the nominee. My distrust of Hillary is so strong that I will probably vote for her but very reluctantly. I might just stay home and out of politics if she is the nominee.

Please take a good look at some of Edwards' videos and see what he is saying and especially what he says about the changes and the corruption in D.C. He suggests but does not state outright that he did not run again in part because he was disgusted with what he experienced in the Senate. A senator has to vote yes or no. The Senate does not permit a senator to stand that tall for a particular point of view. It is a cooperative effort. It is compromise 24 hours a day. That is a difficult environment in which to make big changes. Edwards wants to make fundamental changes. All I can say is check him out.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. So, Rhetoric over actions, right?

I have checked him out, most importantly his RECORD and I would never ever consider voting for the man responsible for that record.

To suggest that a Senator HAS TO compromise is not true. No Senator HAS TO compromise their principles at any time. They may choose to for personal gain, as I believe Edwards has done and will do again if god forbid he became president.

To suggest that Edwards is a true progressive in any sense is to ignore his record, ignore how he actually voted and ignore who he was and believe he underwent some fundamental change in his make up. But he hasn't. This is the same person who has existed for years. He expects you to believe what he says, rather than what he does. Believe his doing a job he was hired to do was somehow heroic and believe he stands for something that even his recent history proves he does not (no one dedicated to poverty and against "predatory lending" should have been involved where he was).

This is and has always been a fundamental disconnect between who Edwards SAYS he is and who Edwards IS and because of that, there is no need to watch his videos or read his current statements... they are just rhetoric.

[Stop Cornyn]

81. How far back in his record did you go? Did you go back to when Wes Clark was a Republican, back to

when Kucinich was pro-life, or back to when Hillary was president of the college Republicans for Goldwater?

[Ninga]

82. You have just stated the obvious. Edwards detractors are purist, demanding and

unforgiving.

It is their absolute right.

Thank goodness John Edwards is not as absolute, demanding and as unforgiving as his detractors.


His evolution is a good and positive thing, and I for one recognize and accept it.

It is the exact qualities that will make him a stellar President.

[Stop Cornyn]

84. Actually, they're NOT purists (because they back impure candidates). They just find fault in past

votes because they cannot fault his platform because their candidates platform is invariably mores (unless they support Kucinich, whose platform is -- frankly -- better but who is not very electable).

[Milo_Bloom]

86. But the "evolution" was only in rhetoric.

[Milo_Bloom]

85. So what part of his record should I ignore?

At what point do we find the "real" John Edwards?

The "real" John Edwards didn't vote for the war, the bankrupcy bill, limiting liability for nuclear power plants, free trade with China, Patriot Act, etc...

The "real" John Edwards didn't work a hedge fund that made money from predatory loans.

The "real" John Edwards didn't fail to champion poverty ending legislation while in the Senate.



You suggest I ignore EVERYTHING he has done and only listen to things he says today. There is a reason for actions, they are the things we can judge these people by. This is how intelligent people knew bush was LYING when he said he wanted a "humble" foreign policy and didn't believe in nation building. It was because we could look at his RECORD and see a history of a fundamental disconnect between his RHETORIC and his ACTIONS.


John Edwards has not had one single act of politic courage in his ENTIRE career. He has NEVER stood up for what was "right" over what was "popular". John Edwards has never shown a princpled stance on an issue when his opinion actually mattered.

All John Edwards has ever done, his ENTIRE career is state what he THINKS people want to hear.

I have asked several times on this board for someone to show me something BEYOND his doing his job or his rhetoric. Show me an act of political courage. Show me the Howard Dean moment, (Howard Dean signs the civil union bill 6 months before an election when it is at 35% in the polls). Show me a Russ Feingold moment, being the only Senator to stand up against the Patriot Act. Hell, show me the Lincoln Chafee moment when he stood up to his ENTIRE PARTY and voted against the IWR. Don't show me the cheap rhetoric of a political candidate or the success of a lawyer getting paid to win. Show me a moment in John Edwards' history where he took a principled stance on an issue, despite the fact that issue was unpopular or risked being interpreted in a very negative way.

[FrenchieCat]

87. Nope....just went back to when Edwards was an elected official......

a mere 3 years ago!

Edwards' "Mistake" assessment was only 2 years old this month......while his IWR sponsorship and vote were a longer 3 years from his "I made an Oops, so sue me" public statement.

Wes Clark's not running although he has consistently voted for Democrats for at least the past 15 years.

Hillary's Goldwater days are decades old, so it seems ironic that you would talk about going back into time.

And Kucinich has been pro-choice longer than Edwards has been anti-war.

[JDPriestly]

93. Edwards was the first to propose a plan for health insurance

that is realistic and that will be acceptable to Congress and the American people.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. You mean his insurance industry gift???

[Stop Cornyn]

95. You're kidding, right? Read "In a crowded field, Edwards' health plan sets him apart" by Christensen

“What we have is a dysfunctional health-care system in the United States of America,” Edwards said at a recent Democratic presidential forum on health-care reform. “We need big, bold, dramatic change, not just small change.”

But what kind of plan is Edwards putting forward? Who would it help? Who would pay for it? And does it have any better chance of getting through Congress than the plan backed by the Clintons more than a decade ago?... Edwards is the only major candidate who has laid out a specific plan for making sure that everyone is insured. (Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed extending Medicare to cover everyone.)... The Edwards plan would require every American to have health insurance by 2012 - the last year of Edwards’ first term if he were elected. The plan would first make health care available to everyone and then require people to carry health insurance, just as motorists must have liability insurance.

The plan is a mix of public and private strategies. Employers would be required to either provide insurance to their employees through a company policy, or to help fund coverage for their workers by contributing to regional nonprofit government entities that Edwards calls health markets.... The health markets would use the economy of scale to negotiate affordable policies through insurers. Uninsured individuals could obtain coverage through a health market. So could employers seeking to provide group policies for their employees.... Health markets would offer traditional plans from private companies such as Blue Cross-Blue Shield, Aetna and Cigna, as well as a government-run plan similar to Medicare, the federal health-insurance program for the elderly. The public-sector plan would resemble Canada’s single-payer system, in which insurance is publicly funded to control costs but doctors and hospitals remain private.

“The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer or whether they would rather have a government-run ... single-payer plan,” Edwards said. “We’ll find out over time where people go.” The mix of market and government initiatives makes Edwards’ plan much harder to attack than Clinton’s early 1990s plan, said Leif Wellington Haase of the Century Foundation, a liberal-leaning think tank. “In this plan, the changes happen much more gradually,” Haase said. “Each element has a market element that deflects the attack. I think it’s a very smart political document.”

Although Haase thinks the Edwards plan does not go far enough, conservatives fear it would take the country too far toward government-run care. “It sets up a slippery slope to move toward a single-payer, government-run health care system,” said Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. “He realizes that Americans are not going to take that in one bite.” Tanner contends that under Edwards’ parallel system, private insurance would be unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system. The single-payer system, Tanner argued, sounds good. But it would not be popular with citizens because it would ration treatment for expensive and long illnesses, and would discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new drugs. “Single-payer systems are good if you are not sick,” Tanner said. “They provide routine care at low cost. But they don’t provide intensive, expensive medicine for people with serious illnesses.”...

Edwards is the only candidate to put a price tag on his health reforms - $90 billion to $120 billion per year - which he proposes to pay for by repealing the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush on families with a taxable income of more than $200,000 per year. “I do not believe you can have universal health care without finding a source of revenue,” Edwards said.

read the whole article

[Milo_Bloom]

96. People always miss the obvious.

"The health markets would use the economy of scale to negotiate affordable policies through insurers. "


Worse, it doesn't label health care a right, but instead a requirement.

[Stop Cornyn]

97. Odd, isn't it "Health markets would offer ... a government-run plan similar to Medicare, the federal

health-insurance program for the elderly. The public-sector plan would resemble Canada’s single-payer system."

Go figure.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. Not odd at all.

Just not solving the actual problem and ultimately giving tax payer money to insurance companies.

You are talking about a government run plan being offered as an alternative to the private plans, which would be offering negotiated rates for a piece of the "health market" aka taxpayer pie.

In the end, you wind up with people being REQUIRED to have health insurance as an obligation, instead of a right and then you take tax payer money and give it to insurance companies to make that requirement a reality.

[Stop Cornyn]

110. Other than Kucinich's better plan (which we cannot pass) it is by far the biggest step to universal

single-payer health care.

[laureloak]

115. Health care ISN'T a right. Life, liberty and the p of happiness is.

But not health care.

[Critters2]

99. He did more than that...he was a sponsor of the IWR.

It was popular at the time, so he jumped on the bandwagon. Now he's going to end the war he started?! Not likely. And not what I call leadership.

[More Than A Feeling]

92. Kick!

That was a good diary!

[maximusveritas]

100. Edwards is better at pandering. Yes, that we all accept

The question is whether we're stupid enough to fall for it or if we'll actually turn a critical eye toward what he's saying. The number one thing that seperates people politically isn't their self-described ideology, but their willingness to question what is told to them.

This is the same man who cosponsored and voted for the Iraq War Resolution, while voting against almost all mitigating ammendments, just a few years ago. He's the same man who defended that vote into the 2004 Presidential election and only apologized when the politics had clearly turned against it. This is the same man who had a very centrist record in the Senate, speaking at the 2002 DLC National Convention, and voting for one bad piece of legislation after another.
It's only now, when running against the moderate Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary that he's tried to cast himself as a progressive.

Any person with any critical thinking skills whatsoever should be able to see right through Edwards. That's why, despite what the headline of the OP may say, Edwards is losing voters left and right. People are seeing through him and he's dropping fast in the polls. He's even losing support here where Biden beat him in the head-to-head matchup. No way that happens a month ago.

[Nutmegger]

102. R&K!!!

:kick::applause::thumbsup:

[smalll]

105. Not quite. He plays one on TV though. /nt

[MethuenProgressive]

107. Fauxgressive, With the Senate voting record to prove it.

He's changed his spots after years of polling and focus groups, but few are fooled.

[dugggy]

108. Is this the same John Edwards who voted for IWR?

If yes, how is he any more progresive than Hillary?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

112. Only half right.

John Edwards is the most progressive of the Big Three.

He's not starting to resonate with voters.

I would like to see him win the Democratic primary; I think it very unlikely that he will.

[laureloak]

116. Other boards I frequent say Edwards IS resonating, esp

with Independents.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. Let me clarify, sorry.

There are undoubtedly some people Edwards is "resonating with", i.e. who plan to vote for him in the Primary.

Polls consistently show that there are not all that many of them, and they are significantly outnumbered by the supporters of Clinton and Obama.

There may well be discussion boards where they're a majority, though.

[Czolgosz]

118. Agreed!