I am sick of people tearing down John Edwards.

[chimpymustgo]

He is a good progressive Democrat. He is the future our party. And I am just pissed off at "Democrats" who can only smear, and lie about, and slander John Edwards.

Take a short trip to your local library or bookstore. Read "Four Trials". I dare you to read this book and still stand by your venomous posts.

Many Edwards fans have stood by for WEEKS - we have tried to take the high road. When there are celebratory Clark threads - we don't sully them. But absolutely NOTHING can be posted about Edwards that the same sorry voices don't chime in with the same old bullshit.

I'm just sick of it. If you love Wesley Clark - say nice things about him. But your slip is really showing, when so much of your ARGUMENT for Clark is tearing down John Edwards.

Okay. So you've moved your legions into DU. You can lower the level of discourse here, but you will NEVER diminish the things - the people - John Edwards stands for, and will fight for.

Come. Join us in the Democratic Party. Where we celebrate our own. And check your bullshit at the door.

[swag]

1. i like john edwards

i hope either he or W Clark is VP nominee.

Edwards would make a brilliant candidate against gwb.

GO DEMOCRATS! WE MUST WIN!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[chimpymustgo]

9. Well thanks, swag - twice!

Most Edwards supporters are not opposed to Clark at all. But so many Clarkies seem to think oxygen will be removed from the planet if Clark is not the VEEP - ergo, anyone who might threaten that lifeline is - HATED.

It just sickens me to see and read the bullshit being thrown at Edwards. He can handle it, of course. But it does not bode well for our party. We need to seriously grow up.

[MoonRiver]

18. What bullshit?

On this very thread I've already read an anti-Clark post, but no anti-Edwards posts. I have tried very hard not to bash any potential VP nominee, because I want above all for the Dem party to be unified and win in November. Some VP possibilities I like better than others, obviously. If that's bashing, guess I'm guilty. :eyes:

[Andromeda]

74. I've always wanted Edwards for VP...

but obviously I'll have to go along with whoever Kerry picks.

Just hope it's Edwards, but if it's not I hope most of you will be team players for the good of the Democratic party AND for the good of the country. This is a very important election and we need to keep our eyes on the prize.

John Kerry will pick the person HE wants so none of us has any say in it. It's important for the Dems to be unified and to stay on message if we want to take back the White House.

There's been a lot of speculation about Kerry's VP and I wonder if any of you have considered that he might pick somebody that is completely unexpected.

[skooooo]

3. I like Edwards...

...am rooting for him or Clark for VP.

[Delano]

4. Who's tearing down Edwards?

I think he's great, and am personally rooting for him to be VP.

Clark is okay, but I prefer a DEMOCRAT.

[AP]

7. S-Troop.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. This is your answer, chimpymustgo.

Clark is okay, but I prefer a DEMOCRAT.

ok?

[Delano]

21. Pointing out the FACT that Clark has no history as a dem is no smear.

Edwards has earned his credentials as a Democrat.

Thus far in my eyes, Clark has earned his stripes as a brilliant academician and great general. If he really cares about this country, let him run for the senate oir something and we'll see what kind of a job he does.

Sorry, but I am not so enamored of the military as to give my endorsement to a completely unknown person like Clark. He shows a lot of potential, but Edwards has been out there working for US all this time.

[MoonRiver]

23. Good grief.

Clark is a Democrat who's served his country for 30 years. I call that credibility in spades.

I have nothing against Edwards but he's a political neophyte. He's only been in public service for one Senate term. Before that he was a trial lawyer, which the bushistas will use against him big time.

[Jai4WKC08]

24. All this time??

Less than a single senate term? What did he do for the party before that? Donate a few bucks?

That "completely unknown person" whom you want to show that "he really cares about the country" put in 34 years of government service. I guess it doesn't count because it was military service, huh?

Being a "professional" politician is highly overrated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Not to nit pick but

You didn't point out that Clark does not have a long history of working inside the Democratic Party, that is a valid basis for favoring Edwards over Clark if that is important to you. However You said you prefer a Democrat. Which clearly implies that Clark is something OTHER than a Democrat, which is literally calling him a liar, because Clark is now a registered Democrat, he calls himself a Democrat, and he working hard on behalf of our soon to be Democratic Party nominee John Kerry.

It's loose talk like your statement, and also statements made about Edwards by some Clark supporters ("he knows nothing about foreign policy" would be an example. Edwards knows LESS than Clark about FP is the literal truth. Edwards has been a Democrat LONGER than Clark etc.) that riles up so much emotion on both sides.

[cidliz2004]

128. Clark forgot more about FP than Edwards knows is even MORE literal truth

[chimpymustgo]

134. I just have one question: why is it NECESSARY for Clark supporters

to denigrate John Edwards?

Seeing as how we're all DEMOCRATS (presumably), can't you just make your points about your guy without daggering JRE with with slander and lies?

Let's say Edwards is the VP nominee. Who knows what the odds are? But he IS a Democrat and he will continue to work his *ss off to get Kerry elected. Quit HATING!

[Skwmom]

143. Because someone needs to point out why

Edwards is not the great VP pick the corporate media and the republican manipulation machine would have you believe. If you notice, the majority of Clark supporters have said very little about any other VP candidates who have a great chance of being tapped by Kerry.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. If you don't know that Wes Clark is a Democrat

then you just don't want to see it. Edwards supporters can say whatever they want about Wes Clark. Just don't expect it to go unanswered and post threads like this one.

[Delano]

29. He is a democrat...

...like Denise Majette is a democrat.

Republican yesterday, democrat today. My values have been pretty consistent my whole adult life, excuse me for being suspicious of those who "turn" at very opportune moments.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. Clark was never a Republican

Never. And his values haven't changed either. Not one iota.

[Delano]

40. Yeah, he was an "independent" who voted for Reagan and Bush 1

I'm sure there are more than a few freepers who are registered "independents", too.

Reagan and Bush 1 didn't treat the soldiers much better than the current resident. What was he thinking about when he cast those votes? I should really hope that his values HAVE changed if he voted for those scums.

I've gone out of my way to say that I think he's eminently qualified. He just doesn't meet MY definition of a democrat.

[dogman]

42. McGovern said there is no better Democrat

and one of those votes was against him.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Before you say something about Wes Clark

it would be a good idea to get your facts STRAIGHT. Wes Clark was in the military for 30 years. They do not declare a party when they are serving. He lives in Arkansas where you do not have to declare a party when you vote. He was NEVER a Republican and is a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT. Got that?

[Delano]

38. He voted for Reagan and Bush 1 - sounds pretty Republican to me...

I'm not saying he's a right-winger, there's a huge difference.

My point is that he has not shown an interest in LIBERAL activism until last year. That matters to me, even if it doesn't to you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. There's a LOT of DU members

who also voted for Reagan and Bush 1. So what?! How many years ago was that? Good grief! He was in the military for his entire life practically! He COULDN'T be a LIBERAL activist. He had to be neutral. What do you not understand about that?

[Delano]

45. Well, I'll check about that...

n/t

[Delano]

72. My quick survey showed that 87% of us NEVER voted for Reagan or Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1876168&mesg_id=1876168

Not exactly what I'd call "a lot".

[dogman]

46. You should study his past.

Learn how he won an Audobon Award as a base commander. Read reports from those who served under him to learn how he practiced affirmative action, education and family counseling to prevent abuse. I think you would be quite surprised to find such true compassion from a General.

[Delano]

54. I didn't say he was mean.

I said he was obviously pretty politically unaware, and uninterested in liberal activism. Nothing you've cited contradicts that statement.

[dogman]

78. Well if those aren't liberal ideas and

acting on them isn't activism, I hardly think you can give me any examples of liberal activism on the part of Edwards either. Go again, and see the policies he developed as part of his campaign.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. You're dead wrong

First off, voting for a Republican doesn't make you a Republican. If it does, about 90% of the electorate is Republican. Clark has been voting for Democrats since at least 1992.

Second, I gotta wonder how you define "liberal activism"? He filed an friend of the court brief in the case of that universiry affirmative action case. He endorsed and advised Democratic candidates. And while in the military, he advocated for liberal causes to the extent that he could: affirmative action, gays in the military, intervention in the Rwanda genocide and Bosnian ethnic cleansing.

You know, you'd think that fighting Clinton's war for him, to the displeasure of a Republican Secretary of Defense who was against it, and not exactly making friends with some of the radical right in Congress, might count as "liberal activism." Or not. But I bet the million or so Kosovars he saved appreciated it. Beats the hell out of just talking about saving them.

It wasn't because Clark talks a good line that he got the endorsements of folks like Andrew Young, the head of the US Civil Rights Commission (can't remember her name), Native American leaders, Gay Rights activists.

Some people espouse liberal values. Some people live them. Guess who makes the bigger difference.

[Delano]

55. I don't consider Clinton even remotely liberal.

He did very little on the issues I am personally concerrned with, and even signed NAFTA.

Gay rights is a civil liberties issue, not a left/right issue. I'm for them, but I'm much more concerned with the well-being of working people in this country.

While we did better under Clinton than under the previous horrible administrations, it was little more than a thumb in the dike of privatization/globalization/unionbusting that has gone unabated for 25 years in this country.

And that he conducted Clinton's wars also means little to me, since I opposed involvement in Kosovo. (although I never thought it had anything to do with Monica or wagging dogs..)

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Delano]

70. No, I didn't say that, and you're wrong.

Most democrats are well to the left of Bill Clinton and the DLC in many ways.

A person who doesn't support organized labor, thinks a national health care plan should include the same companies that have been gouging us all along, who didn't take the care to protect our environment, labor standards and our laws when entering into Nafta is not a liberal, and not much of a democrat.

An awful lot of democrats think EXACTLY like me, but we go and hold our noses and vote for your corporate-approved candidates every damn election, so you better be damn thankful that we ARE here, or it would be republican presidents every four years, without fail.

[Qutzupalotl]

127. He voted for Clinton, Clinton and Gore.

Sounds pretty Democratic to me.

[cidliz2004]

129. Clark was in the Armed Services where your Comander in Chief

gets your loyalty, whether there is a R or a D by the name. That is the LOYALTY that Wes Clark modeled after. He voted as an Indedpendent. He voted his conscience - which is the sign of a thinking independendant man not a "sheep". Besides which, he voted for Clinton and Gore. Shows preference for the Dems since 92'. Good enough for you?

[OKNancy]

79. Okay, now you show how uninformed you are

Did you know that Majette has a 100% ADA rating? She has the same voting record as Maxine Waters, ie 100% for the Democratic party and the liberal view.

[returnable]

84. Oh, fer crissakes. At least be consistent.

When first running for his Senate seat, Edwards admitted that he hadn't even voted in several elections, and he confessed he couldn't remember if he first registered as a Republican or a Democrat.

Boy, that's a real long history of Democratic activism :eyes:

[MikeG]

5. Point them out to me chimpymustgo. They're going on ignore.

I adopting arwalden's tough ignore standards.

[JohnLocke]

39. Hmm.

There is one person who refuses to vote for a Kerry/Edwards ticket: Scoopie.

[Scoopie]

50. But that has less to do with the fact that I'm a Clark supporter

and more to do with the fact that I'm:
A. An Independent and
B. A person who refuses to vote for someone with less foreign policy experience than I have. (Notice I didn't say Edwards didn't have any but that he had less.)

I happen to think that a strong foreign policy is needed, not only for Iraq and restoring the respect we used to have in this world, but also because of the nature of our changing economy.

I would certainly vote for Biden or Graham or Cleland or a whole host of other Democrats with foreign policy creds out the wazoo. And I won't be voting for Bush.

I really just want a decent choice. Is that too much to ask of the Democratic Party? It would be a waste not to have Clark somewhere in this Administration; however, no one has ever answered where Kerry would put him.
Holbrooke has the line on SoS.
NSA is sub-cabinet and below Clark's abilities; and, because of the 10-year rule, he can't serve as Def. Sec.
So where would you put him?
As president, Kerry is allowed to shape the VP role for whatever possible goals he sees fit.

[GreenArrow]

80. regarding "B"

I'd vote for you before I'd vote for John Edwards.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[AP]

48. You think that's harsh?

I think that very statement is said at least twice in this thread about Edwards.

[chimpymustgo]

13. We don't sully them.

Offer proof, if you have a charge.

Take a moment and just look over the threads. It's night and day.

[MontecitoDem]

52. Well, here's some proof

celebratory thread about Clark, filled with Edwards supporters bashing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=544522

unfortunately most of the really blatant posts have been destroyed because AP and Doosh's posts were deleted and then the thread was locked.

[JI7]

11. it's not just Edwards

but a lot of people want to tear down others including Kerry to build up support for their own candidate. it happens to everyone, maybe to some more than others. but i have seen it happen to many.

[newsguyatl]

12. i like edwards all right

but a "progressive democrat" he is not.


sorry, that's just a fact.

[AP]

15. It just baffles me when people say this. I want to sit down people with

a history of the 20th century with special emphasis on FDR when I hear this.

They guy DEFINITELY has one of the most progressive agendas going.

[Andromeda]

75. Yes, he does!

Edwards is concerned about the middle-class getting the shaft on taxes and wages, healthcare, social security and other bread and butter issues. You can't get more progressive than that.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Jai4WKC08]

34. 31 posts

And still only Clarkies responding to Delano....

[Jai4WKC08]

51. 49 posts

And still not one Edwardniac to call for a halt to the attacks on Clark....

[Delano]

56. Come off it.

I haven't attacked the man. I complemented him highly.

I said he doesn't meet MY definition of a democrat (Bill Clinton BARELY did). That is not an attack. It's just the reason I don't prefer him. I'd vote for a Kerry-Clark ticket in a split-second, I'd just prrefer a Kerry-Edwards, or even a Kerry-Dean ticket.

You Clarksters are WAY too sensitive about your guy. You have your reasons for supporting him, I have mine for not. I never said he was anything but a fine man.

But you'd have to have been pretty damn ignorant of all the things going on to have cast a vote for Reagan or Bush 1, especially in '84 and '88. I don't fault him as a person for that, because he was in the very insular world of the military at the time, and may not have been fully aware of the destruction Reagan-Bush were wreaking on America at the time.

In '88 it was very clear that Reagan-Bush was a criminal administration that sold weapons to our enemies to finance covert ops and murders in central America. Has Clark ever explained why he voted to continue that corruption?

And the reason no "Edwardniac" has rushed to Clark's defense is that there IS no defense. Nothing I've said is untrue. Nor is anything you've said. You choose to extrapolate his implementation of AA or Clinton's "Don'tAsk Don't Tell" policy to be evidence of a long commitment to liberal values, but it doesn't wash with me.

He was a soldier. He followed orders. He made a lifetime of conforming without question. That is NOT what I look for in a politician, much less a president.

Sorry, but you are entitled to your preferences and I'm entitled to mine. Deal with it.

[Jai4WKC08]

64. Oh, what you said was untrue

And it was an attack. As Tom explained above. Wes Clark is 100% Democrat. If he isn't, then he's a liar. No two ways about it. Fortunately, YOU don't get to define the party.

And don't tell me about the military. I was in the Army for 21 years. I know a little bit about it. We do not "conform without question." Clark is very much his own man and always has been.

Reagan was good for the military, overall. Most military people supported him. I didn't, but I have a somewhat different perspective as a woman.

But that's neither here nor there. Chimpy's whole thesis was that only Clarkies attack Edwards, that it never works the other way. Thank you for blowing his argument out of the water.

[Delano]

71. I was in the Navy for three, and I didn't see any maverick thinking...

...or authorrity being questioned at all, at any level.

Reagan good for the military? Good for the contractors, maybe. Enlisted service people continued to make poverty wages throughout the Reagan-Bush years. And I remember a small matter of 300-some-odd marines who were made sitting ducks in Beirut thanks to Reagan's bungling - and how did he respond to that slaughter? After saying we wouldn't bow to terrorists, he pulled us out of Beirut.

Wes Clark oohed and aahed at every "smart bomb" we dropped as a commentator for CNN during "Shock and Awe". He didn't seem to be feeling any of the revulsion I felt watching that senseless slaughter. I never saw him say anything against the war back when it really would have counted - yet another reason I could never endorse him.

And I am not an "Edwarniac". I just hope Kery picks a good democrat with a history of working for progressive causes, so don't take my opinion as reprresentative of them. Most of them are a bit to the right of me. But the thing I admire most about Edwards is the very thing you guys attacked him for - his work as a trial lawyer and opposing tort reform. Tort reform means the destruction of the last redress we as citizens have left to us against the nearly unchecked power of the corporation. I'm very prreoud of his position, and his deft explanation of it.

Or have you swallowed the rightwing Kool-aid that "frivolous" lawsuits are costing our economy billions? (By definition, frivolous lawsuits are thrown out by the judge...)

[Jai4WKC08]

85. Wow, imagine that

A four star general and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO has more freedom to act independently than a Navy seaman on his first tour of duty. Or anyone that seaman is likely to meet in the course of his duties.

Can you entertain the notion that we might just be talking apples and oranges here?

I'm not going to defend Reagan. I'm just telling you he was extremely popular with a lot of the military. Part of it was the 14% pay raise enacted shortly after he came to office, even tho it was done by a Democratic Congress and even tho his promises of continued pay equalization evaporated in the face of soaring deficits.

A much larger part was pure timing. The military had just gone thru a severe if necessary post-Vietnam drawdown, where promotions were slowed to a practical standstill and many dedicated servicemembers were tossed out. Many of those who served in Vietnam were still reeling psychologically from the way they were treated by the populace after their return. Carter got blamed for a lot of that, mostly unfairly (altho his pardoning of the draft dodgers was his own doing--it may have necessary too, but you should understand why it was not well received who had served in Nam). Carter did NOT get credited with beginning the development of all the new weapons and support systems that hit the field during the Reagan years.

If you never heard Clark speak against the war "when it counted" you weren't listening. He had made it clear he did not support the invasion on numerous occassions, even on record before Congress. Approving of the tactics of the ground warfare is hardly the same thing. I for one would have felt far more revulsion if that phase had gone on longer, with more dead American soldiers and ultimately Iraqi civilians too.

And I never said anything about Edwards OR tort reform, so don't jump to conclusions and don't presume to tell me what kind of kool-ade I've been drinking. My problem with Edwards has never been his pre-Senate career, except that it included no public service or leadership as far as I can tell.

[Delano]

91. Enough already.

"A four star general and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO has more freedom to act independently than a Navy seaman on his first tour of duty. Or anyone that seaman is likely to meet in the course of his duties."

Nice way to gloss over the factt that he chose to spend most of his adult life in the stultifying atmosphere I did my best to get out of as soon as I can.

(Feel free to insult me again by saying that Gen. Clark has mad more of his life than I have. You'd be right, but this is not about me.) I prefer non-career military people in office. I liked Ike, but he was no visionary. You, as a career military person obviously feel differently.

"A four star general and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO has more freedom to act independently than a Navy seaman on his first tour of duty. Or anyone that seaman is likely to meet in the course of his duties.


As for Vietnam vets, I'm sorrry for any who were treated badly, but personally I wish that every draft-age American had refused to serve in whatever way possible, since that war was every bit as illegitimate and criminal as the Iraq war. Carter was right to pardon draft dodgers. Nobody should be enslaved and possibly killed merely to protect US business interests in a foreign country. Today US leaders play grabass with those same Vietnamese "commies" they said that we had to fight there or we would be fighting them in San Diego.

I was young and stupid when I signed up. Personally, I'd rather drown in debt sending my kids to college than let them serve in the military. Until a constitutional amendment is passed that says the US military will NOT be used except to protect the US or it's allies from blatant aggression, I would never let my kids participate. It's disgraceful the way we throw our young kids into that meat grinder at an age when they're not yet formed psychologically - god, don't get me started on this.

I've heard other Clarkies claim that he opposed the war. I'll take your word that he did. But all I ever saw when I watched the CNN coverage of that atrocity was clark swooning over our firepower, our vehicles and their armor, breathlessly describing our troops' glorious assault on Iraq.

Anyway, I think we've pretty much beat this discussion into the ground. You think I'm smearing Clark for not preferring his type off leadership. Sorry you feel that way. I think there are any number off wonderful ways he could serve this country, and maybe someday he'll change my mind. Registering democrat and putting his name on a primary ballot just isn't enough for me.

The one thing I do like about the idea of a military person being president/vice president is the idea that a military person would be much less likely to send our troops into harm's way for no reason than a chickenhawk like Bush. So that's one point in Clark's favor, and like I said, I'll gladly vote for the man (and squelch my criticism of him) should be be nominated.

[no name no slogan]

137. Not quite the whole story

you made a good point with this statement, but there's more to it:
And I remember a small matter of 300-some-odd marines who were made sitting ducks in Beirut thanks to Reagan's bungling - and how did he respond to that slaughter? After saying we wouldn't bow to terrorists, he pulled us out of Beirut.

Reagan also declared a WAR ON TERROR™, too! And to distract our attention from our major-league fcuk-ups in Lebanon, he "liberated" 23 American medical students from the oppressive Marxist regime in Grenada-- a "war" which was fought by troops who were given TOURIST MAPS to locate their targets!

Hmm, is there a pattern here? Get attacked by fundimentalist terrorists --> declare a WAR ON TERROR™, and invade an innocent third nation not related to the attack!

I can't wait for the next terra attack. I bet we'll invade Canada then!!!

[shraby]

20. Stop being typical Democrats

and putting the firing squad in a circle. It really makes no sense to argue who Kerry decides to have as v.p., last time I checked it was his call. Our job is to stand behind his choice and carry Kerry into the white house and trim the bushes on the way in.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Just made a "friendly" reply to you on another thread

But I also need to comment on what you just wrote. First, here is the text of my reply:

"Nasty things have been said about both men by supporters of the other, sometimes slurs against one or the other seem predominant, but it goes back and forth. Clark and Edwards share many basic Democratic Party values of course, but they do present different strengths and weaknesses. It is natural to discuss them, and probably inevitable though not desirable that sometimes that discussion slips into a less than friendly tone. We're Democrats after all. Strong feelings come with the territory. But I think we will be largely united once the tension over the VP pick ends."

So I am sympathetic to your concern, but then you go ahead and said something that I suppose was not meant to be inflammatory, but certainly is to me. "OK. So you've moved your legions into DU."

What the hell is that supposed to mean? There is no way to read that other than as an insult, really. First Clark wasn't even supposed to have legions, remember, he was a party boss puppet. Then his supporters supposedly only participated at DU to take on and take down Dean. Now people (people like me, this becomes personal Chimpymustgo) are invading legions here, I suppose, to deny John Edwards the respect he deserves. I'm here because I am a Democrat who cares about the country and my Party, who happens to also be a Wes Clark supporter. Currently I am working to elect John Kerry as are almost all Clark supporters that I know, and I am working to elect him whether or not John Edwards, or Wes Clark, or Gep or Graham or whoever is his running mate. So, if it's Edwards, are you suggesting that Clarkies will melt away? Or do you accept that we are here at DU for the same reasons that you are?

Sorry, I just had to say that. Like I said, I am overall sympathetic to your basic point.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[cosmokramer]

30. No, the Dick Cheney way is to accuse another group of kicking you out of

"your" house. Your little banter above is petty. Blame the Clark supporters for Deanies leaving????? RIDICULOUS! This is a House for Democrats, and if more Clarkies are in the house, so fucking what? You don't own the site, and it doesn't say on the home page: "Only Enter If You Are Going to Praise Edwards--all others go away"

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Again

You used highly charged terms to describe the Clark presence at DU. Going way back, there were past accusations that Clark supporters are essentially astro turf, and acting with a secret manipulative agenda, under some type of orchestrated control. Those things were said here, and not infrequently, during the flame war period of the primaries. I don't know if you ever had, or now have, that belief, but it is highly insulting to be described as part of a legion that was "moved in here." I have a hard time believing that you can't see that. Especially when your basic point is the need for civility and respect toward other Democrats, a point that you know I agree with, so you know I am not just cynically using that part of your post as a way to attack you or Edwards. I really am offended by what you said. Really.

What reasons Deaniacs had to support Dean or abandon him, to become more or less active at DU, or whatever, are interesting and meaningful even to discuss. Same for supporters of any Democrat really. People do gravitate toward places where they find common ground with others. Basic human nature at work. Whether or not Clark supporters at DU are more or less perceptive about what is best for the Democratic Party compared to larger groups of Democrats elsewhere is also a valid issue for discussion. You don't mean to tell me that Edwards supporters don't frequently raise that issue, do you? How many times have I heard it trumpeted here that Edwards is "the people's choice"? OK, maybe he is, or maybe he isn't. He certainly has greater support among democrats statistically away from DU than here at DU. That gets pointed out here, a lot, and you know it. Fine. It's a valid point. It doesn't shut down all meaningful discussion though over whether Kerry should pick Edwards, and I know that you don't think that it should.

So yes, I do refrain from denigrating another good Democrat, John Edwards. I understand your concern. But you have just denigrated me, and I don't think overall that that is helpful. When Dean was the Man at DU, I found it tedious to read all of the wildly enthusiastic Dean threads also. That didn't mean I thought less of Dean because of it, NOR did it mean I thought less of the enthusiastic Dean supporters, unless I felt they were unfairly attacking Clark (or sometimes someone else). Probably there are significantly more Clark than Edwards threads here at DU right now. But there usually are more pro Edwards than pro Kerry threads here as well. That is out of whack also, but there are a lot of enthusiastic Edwards supporters here who like talking about him, and there is nothing underhanded about that either. So if Edwards is being treated unfairly in your opinion, I fully expect you to respond. What I don't expect is to be dismissed by you as belonging to some legion that cynically moves around.

[Fed Up]

19. If a Kerry/Edwards ticket couldn't win, which one could?

IMO, if somebody says a guy like JE would hurt K's chances, which running mate would not? I can't understand why anybody would attack Edwards. He has many great attributes. I know a lot of independents that love him. They are not crazy about Kerry but with JE on the ticket that would be enough for them.

[CalebHayes]

26. Welcome to DU

[dogman]

32. Welcome to another of the Edwards legions at DU.

What you have said could also be said about many of the other potential choices for VP. They all also have their drawbacks. A lot will depend onthe arena that this election will be played in. Since Kerry has time to decide, I'm sure he will have a better picture as the election nears.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. I appreciate the good humor in your post title. Way to go n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. I am in favor of cooling down the rivalry passions

You know that. I wish you had apologized for getting carried away with your rhetoric about Clark supporters at DU. I think you have valid points, it's just that you stepped on them a bit in your rush to make them, still there is a valid point to be made. Time to restate this one, from another thread I started:


"Pretty soon there will be a lot of disappointed partisans

Kerry can't name everyone to be VP. A whole lot of us are just going to have to get over it. We've been through this before with the top slot, it's doable. This time though there will be less time available for the losers to nurse our wounds, the real campaign is about to go into full swing. So yeah, I still want Kerry to pick my guy, but I'm tempering that feeling with an acknowledgment that whoever Kerry picks will obviously have a lot going for him (or her), and America AND the World badly needs us to win this November. I'm swinging into unity mode, we are going to have a GREAT ticket!"

[dogman]

44. Kerry wasn't my first choice

and Edwards wasn't my last choice, Lieberman holds that honor. But you are quite correct, we need a Dem in the White House. The direction the Party takes beyond that will provide plenty of spirited discussions down the road.

[sandnsea]

47. I agree with you

My observation has been that the Clark people are cruel regarding Edwards. They will also tear down Kerry in some weird attempt to build the need for Clark. It's bizarre and harmful. They've caused alot of problems in alot of places with these tactics. At the same time though, I have seen some Edwards people do this so its tough to say it's just one group. Other candidates' supporters do the same to try and keep a following as well.

We need to come together without all this antagonism. Everybody on DU said all the fighting would stop once a nominee was chosen. A nominee has been chosen and he will choose his VP and nobody here is going to influence that decision one little bit. It's time we come together and remember that in September 2003 we were trilled with ALL the candidates. They were a great bunch then and they are now and we ought to be ecstatic that we've got them all out their campaigning. They're all pretty much on the same page, saying the same things and wanting to take this country in a direction completely the opposite of George Bush.

If we want to start hearing the news report that the Democratic Party is FOR Kerry, then we need to stop putting him down to boost the VP choice and just get behind him. Nothing will turn this election quicker than a strong unified voice FOR the Democratic Party.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. I'd like to see an example please

I take exception to the idea that Clark supporters tear down Kerry. We are almost to a man (or woman) behind him, and have been to one degree or another since about 2 days after Clark dropped out.

We may point out that he is "perceived" as weak on defense. That's just a fact--look at the polls. Most of us probably agree that it's more because ALL Democrats are perceived that way.

Maybe I'm all wet--with as many of us as are at DU, I suppose there's bound to be someone who dissed Kerry at some point. But by and large, you'll find no other group here or in the party as a whole who has been more strongly behind Kerry than the Clarkies.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[MontecitoDem]

58. Why all this generalizing?

How many "Clarkies" are you really talking about? Most of the folks who worked on the Clark campaign with me are working their butts off for Kerry. And have only posted positive Kerry messages here on DU. Being lumped together like this is offensive. And that's a fact!

[sandnsea]

61. See #60

Talk to the ones you don't want to be lumped with. It's time for this stuff to stop. It is harming the campaign. Like I said, believe it or don't, it's up to you.

[Protected]

59. Hurt in more ways then we can imagine: A fact?!

It's feuding on a internet message board for crying out loud! Edwards supporters are probably never going to undestand Clarkies and vice versa. That just seems human.

[sandnsea]

60. It's all over

I've seen it and heard it in alot of places, online and offline. Putting down Kerry to build up the need for Clark. Horrible slams against Edwards that have put those supporters off. It is bad, it really is. It has caused harm in the unity of the campaign. Believe it or don't, up to you.

[MontecitoDem]

63. Gee, I guess we are saying that we are Clark supporters

and also Kerry supporters. That many of us think Kerry will make a great President and are working hard for him. That most Clark folks are not tearing down either Kerry or Edwards. In fact with the exception of a handful of very passionate Clark supporters, most have stated they would be fine with Edwards as VP.

I've also seen lots of horrible slams against Clark by Edwards supporters, and Edwards folks describing Kerry as pessimistic, old and boring and explaining that he needs Edwards youth and charisma and optimism. And Dean supporters, and Kucinich supporters making complaints. What's the diff?

If you are really concerned about "the unity of the campaign" maybe you shouldn't be making generalizations against a whole group of fellow dems? Just a thought.

[sandnsea]

65. No diff

It's just my observation that the Clark supporters are the worst. I've confronted a few other supporters and their garbage as well.

If you're not part of them, don't worry about it. If someone said something about a Kerry supporter doing something I don't do, I wouldn't need to start a fight over it. Maybe there's a reason you do? :shrug:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

69. Deep denial

I guess. Read this forum. There's slams at Edwards all over the place. And a constant quoting of polls or news reports to keep the "Kerry isn't good on defense" line running in order to boost the need for Clark. I've seen it online, I've heard it offline. Worried tones, people who don't know the dynamics of the whole thing. You think people out there aren't saying and hearing the same thing? You think that it can't affect the polls?

Clarkie's came on and they were great. Until Edwards supporters came on. Then it was instant war. It's time for it to stop. I'm not out of touch with what's going on at all, I do think some people are in deep denial though.

[MontecitoDem]

67. I don't believe I've started a fight, nor do I want to have one

I am asking that if you do care about unity, which I believe you do since that was what one of your posts was asking for, why are you generalizing about all Clark supporters? Perhaps you could acknowledge that it is a small group of individuals you are talking about.

I suppose I am tired of being painted with a broad brush and belittled and criticized because of the candidate I supported in the primaries.

And I'm tired of people who talk about the need for unity but don't do their part to assist it. That's all.

[sandnsea]

68. Here's what I said

"My observation has been that the Clark people are cruel regarding Edwards. They will also tear down Kerry in some weird attempt to build the need for Clark. It's bizarre and harmful. They've caused alot of problems in alot of places with these tactics. At the same time though, I have seen some Edwards people do this so its tough to say it's just one group. Other candidates' supporters do the same to try and keep a following as well."

Now if you chose to interpret this as me saying every single solitary Clark supporter in the U.S. does this and nobody else, then that's your problem.

And if you choose to excuse, justify or rationalize comments like "We may point out that he is "perceived" as weak on defense" in post #53, then that's your privilege. I see this sort of comment generally made in an effort to boost Clark's credentials for VP, but what it does is spread negativity about Kerry. And usually, these kinds of comments are also made with digs at Edwards.

As I said, I've seen it online and offline with both Clarkies & Edwards people, but mostly Clarkies. I've seen Dean & Kucinich people contribute their own garbage into the mix. It HAS caused serious problems and it really does need to stop.

Stating that a problem exists does not create the problem, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.

[LandOLincoln]

73. This is ludicrous. Your insinuation that

Clark supporters are somehow manipulating national polls to give Bush the edge over Kerry re national security/foreign policy issues so Kerry will be forced to choose Wes Clark as his VP is just dotty.

By your loony logic, Kerry himself is "spreading negativity about Kerry," since he has made it clear that his VP choice MUST have major foreign policy/national security chops, as well as the ability to step into the presidency without missing a beat should something happen to Kerry...both of which descriptions fit Wesley Clark to a T, and neither of which descriptions fits John Edwards in the slightest.

Edwards--along with Barack Obama, Harold Ford and others--is the future of the Democratic party, and will make a fine president one day. This is simply not that day.

In the meantime, he'd serve his country and President Kerry superbly on the domestic front as Attorney General, while Secretary of State Holbrooke and Vice President Clark combine forces as they have before, this time to clean up Bush's messes abroad and to restore our country's standing in the world.

[MontecitoDem]

87. Since your post has been deleted

it's harder to re-analyze in the light of day!

I disagree that a post saying Kerry is perceived as weak on defense by someone is some sort of proof that Clark supporters "tear down Kerry." Clark supporters ARE Kerry supporters. End of story!

Again, you seem to be spreading the negativity more than those you criticize. Describe it as "spin" if you like, but you're just flat wrong.

[x_y_no]

125. I talk to many dozens of Clark folks regularly ...

and I've never heard a single one of them tear down Kerry. Never. Not even back during the primaries when Clark was still in - absolutely not ever since Clark endorsed Kerry.

[Adelante]

77. sandnsea, this is so out of whack...

I can't even believe you're saying it.

"My observation has been that the Clark people are cruel regarding Edwards. They will also tear down Kerry in some weird attempt to build the need for Clark. It's bizarre and harmful."

[sandnsea]

107. Look at these posts

Twisting what I'm saying. Saying I'm just supporting Edwards. All kinds of crazy stuff to justify the continued Clark rant. I'm sick of it, I've been watching this stupid fight for months now.

[Skwmom]

81. The Democrats are Doomed?

So the Democrats are doomed because we won't rally behind Edwards and we point out the fact that the Dems need a strong national security ticket. It's ludicrous to accuse the Clark supporters of tearing down Kerry by pointing out the fact that he needs to pick a VP with national security/foreign policy credentials in a time of war (as one paper pointed out the other day - you're sure not a friend of Kerrys if you try to get him to buy into the contrary). If you want to see trashing of Kerry (and his wife), take a visit to the Edward's blog. Furthermore, I’ve seen Edwards supporters on this board make less than flattering comments about John Kerry.

I think the Democrats are doomed (and our entire country) if the Democrats can't win in November. The corporate media, Bush supporting talking heads, and right wing radio nuts have been cheerleading for Edwards ever since the primaries became Edwards v Kerry (he really should be at the top of the ticket but if he can’t he should definitely be Kerry's VP). The press is already setting it up so that if Kerry does pick Edwards he will be hammered for putting an unqualified person a heartbeat away from assuming the role of commander in chief. At the same time, they try to goad him into picking Edwards, accusing Kerry of being insecure if he doesn't pick the charismatic Edwards (even though later on they can surely hammer Kerry for being so insecure that he picked a lightweight).

There are many lines of attack that the Republicans can take against Edwards (and enough facts, yes FACTS) to make these attacks very successful. The VP position matters (if it wasn’t Rove wouldn’t care so much who was on the ticket). They are hoping to use the VP to negatively define Kerry. Edwards gives them plenty of ammunition.

Do I like Edwards? No. Our country is in crisis and all Edwards seems to care about is Edwards and his own political aspirations. Furthermore, I find his populist image to be less than genuine and he is totally unqualified to be sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency. I know people that voted for Edwards in the primary, got a better look at him, and now are very distressed at the thought of Kerry picking Edwards for VP.

I've noticed the trend in trying to silence any opposition to a Kerry/Edwards ticket (and not just on this board). Sorry, this election is just too important to remain silent while the Republicans continue to manipulate the VP process.

[Skwmom]

100. You should really check out the Edwards blog.

They are really trashing Kerry today. I find it ironic that Edwards supporters want to silence anyone speaking out against Edwards, while Edwards own blog is used to trash the Democratic nominee.

[Padraig18]

101. URL, please? n/t

[Skwmom]

105. Here's the URL

http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/

And some of those great pro Kerry comments.

The most telling sign is the Chris Heinz story, then another one that says Kerry feels everyone should sit and wait their turn quietly, like he has. He's a prick, an arrogant prick if you ask me. An arrogant, elitist prick.

Also, Mrs. Kerry is supposedly cool on Senator Edwards. About as cool as the public is of her when it comes down to who they like more, her or Laura Bush.

conservative andrew sullivan's piece in the Sunday Times (of London) can be found at anerewsullivan.com, entitled "the human antihistamine, Kerry bores upward", last lines are "if he is smart enough to pick John Edwards, he can immediately both add adrenaline to his campaign and also once again let someone else steal the show a little, staying in the background is kerry's best bet"

In support of Sullivan's piece: I can accept this "endorsement," considering the fact that it highlights the fact that Kerry is a pathetic nominee.

If Kerry does not select JRE, it is going to look like a serious lack of judgement and a huge amount of arrogance and egotism.

Whether Kerry likes it or not, he has to think about whether he wants to go against the will of 43% of Democrats. It's NOT HIS PERSONAL CHOICE, he represents the Party and should put its interests ABOVE his petty personal issues.

[Padraig18]

106. Where is this stuff you're talking about?

:shrug:

[Skwmom]

110. Did you read the blog comments included in my post?

I think making disparaging comments about his wife is really a low blow (and it's hardly the first time). So what if she's rich. At least she has "put her money where her mouth is" unlike others who just preach about Two Americas.

[Padraig18]

112. It's just an internet blog, not CNN.

So what? Any lunatic with a computer and an ISP can post any stupid or outrageous thing they want online; I'm quite certain that Sen. Edwards does hasn't posted anything like that...

:shrug:

[Skwmom]

115. It's EDWARDS internet blog w/moderators.

Doing a great job aren't' they.

[Padraig18]

117. What are the posting rules?

They may well be doing a good job enforcing the rules. Again, I'm quite sure Sen. Edwards isn't posting anything like what you're complaining about...

[Darkamber]

121. If I recall it's mainly about language

You can't use F*ck and words like that. Only in the last few weeks did they did add new moderators. There are still no restrictions against anonymous posters. Some of the worst stuff is posted by them and we don't know who they are. You don't if they are GOP or Anti-Edwards or what.

Try to listen to only those who actually have registered. And a few of them are still anti-Kerry, but the vast majority are not that way.
Many times it's better to drop it then start a war which brings even more negs against Kerry and the anti-person gets to post more and more and more.

[AP]

123. The Edwards blog was FANTASTIC during the primaries. They never deleted

anything, all the regulars said brilliant things, and the Freeepers were argued into submission regularly.

There are a couple insane people there now -- mostly anonymous posters -- who turned up after super tuesday.

To the credit of the blog they still never remove posts (AFAICT) and leave it to the posters to rebut the crap.

I've always suspected the anti-kerry people were anti-edwards too, since they say such stupid, unhelpful things. There's one anti-kerry poster who isn't anonymous and who clearly has emotional issues and is way too attached to Edwards.

[Darkamber]

126. Exactly...it was a great place during the primaries..

It was very positive and very inspiring. Quite frankly I think most of the best people left for Grassroots...which is much calmer and much more positive and much more informative.

I guess they are starting to remove some posts over there. But the negs over there just are not what Edwards is all about and that is why many of us don't post over there very much.

[Darkamber]

113. Are they all or just a few? I'll go over there and talk to them..

There are a very small and very vocal minority who do not like Kerry. And we get hit with GOP trolls all the time. We don't have a means of deleting posts unless they use bad language.

Personally I don't hang out over there especially when I saw that Random Logic was starting to post again. It turns into a flame war and these are people who are not democrats to begin with.

Check out the Grassroots site...We are almost 100% pro Kerry and there is never this kind of posting there...

http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/index.php

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Understood Darkamber. Keep up the good work n/t

[Skwmom]

124. While you're over there

please tell them I really enjoyed their latest posts. I haven't laughed so hard in quite awhile.

[Skwmom]

135. I want to clarify that this comment is in reference

to the uproar over the DU board, not anything posted about Kerry.

[sandnsea]

109. Well here it is

This is exactly the kind of post I'm talking about. Twisting what I'm saying, putting thoughts in my head that I don't even have, attacking Edwards. It's stupid. The odds of either one of them being picked are no better than Joe Biden or Richard Holbrooke or Dick Gephardt or a host of other people being considered. You have your opinion but it's no excuse to use it to trash the Democratic Party, John Kerry, John Edwards or his supporters.

"Do I like Edwards? No. Our country is in crisis and all Edwards seems to care about is Edwards and his own political aspirations. Furthermore, I find his populist image to be less than genuine and he is totally unqualified to be sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency."

One of these days I'll get to have my sig line back, when I quit hearing that the Democrats are doomed if we don't appeal to Nader, appeal to Deanies, appeal to Koochies, choose Clark, choose Edwards, run to the right, run to the left, whatever the fuck.

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Be Relentless NO Surrender. That's all I've ever been about, no matter who was on the ticket. I'm suggesting that there are quite a number of people who might consider putting that goal above their own personal agendas.

[Padraig18]

111. "1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Be Relentless NO Surrender."

Hear, hear!

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[Skwmom]

144. ???

"You have your opinion but it's no excuse to use it to trash the Democratic Party, John Kerry, John Edwards or his supporters."

Since when does criticizing Edwards and questioning his populist image or his qualifications = trashing the Democratic party, John Kerry or Edward's supporters? Though I do find myself wondering what has happened to the Democratic party.

I do have a very hard time buying into Edward's populist rhetoric. Where are the facts to support this? In addition, there are things in his record which indicate that he is anything but.

[Skwmom]

145. Tear down Kerry?

Edwards supporters on this board constantly complain about Kerry's lack of charisma (a criticism I don't agree with), inability to appeal to the common man (which is really surprising since I know a lot of common people who like the man) etc.

Clark supporters point out a very well known fact - that Dems are viewed as being weak on national defense and since it's hard to unseat a sitting president during a time of war, we need as strong a national security ticket as possible. Furthermore, I don't want a VP lacking in national security credentials sitting a heart beat away from stepping into the role of commander-in-chief.

Furthermore, if you want to advocate unity then why post comments like this: "Edwards would be a breath of fresh air. Clark would remind them of the depressing state of the war and the country."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x557842#558563. To me this is advocating form over substance. I happen to like candidates of substance.

[Adelante]

76. Well you know this is not true

"When there are celebratory Clark threads - we don't sully them."

It's just not true. I rarely go into an Edwards thread, but I go into every Clark thread I see and there are Edwardians pissing on every one of them.

However, I agree with your sentiments, and would add they should go both ways.

[BootinUp]

83. Agreed n/t

[spooky3]

82. I largely agree. It's quite tedious and juvenile.

[JohnKleeb]

86. like wise

I support anyone for VP but I don't understand why people dont like Edwards and more importantly why he has quote no national security experience, isnt he the ranking dem member of a commitee? and the senate brings foreign policy experience. Edwards also technically has more foreign policy experience than RFK did, and also, the inexperienced arguement is kind of moot, he was considered highly by Gore in 2000 actulaly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Edwards brings stuff to the ticket other than national security experience

And if a Kerry-Edwards team were to get nominated and elected, within 4 years Edwards would likely have ample national security experience. And I am not saying that he has none now. Speaking for myself, I would have been far happier had Edwards stayed in the Senate for one more term, and I would have liked him to use that term to bulk up his National Security background and experience by throwing himself deeper into matters of foreign affairs. Edwards could have developed into a National leader of the Democratic Party using the U.S. Senate as his base. Afterall, that's what Kerry did. It is hard to attain that stature in the Senate as a one term Senator, and in fact Edwards didn't. Given another term I think he would have, for the overall good of the Party and the nation. Then Edwards would have been positioned to not seek a third term, and instead spend two years building a campaign for the White House in 2012.

Yes Gore considered Edwards in 2000 and I think that was premature, maybe Gore ended up feeling that way also. If the world felt today the way it did in 2000, Edwards having spent another 4 years in the Senate might have been enough (in MY OPINION) to season him enough for the Vice Presidency now. But the World does not feel the way it did in 2000 any longer. I do not apologize for believing that the Democratic Party today needs to project leadership in National Security and Foreign Affairs. That is why I am more comfortable with Kerry as our nominee than with Dean, who I emotionally feel a deep debt of gratitude to. I believe a Kerry-Clark ticket, or even a Kerry-Graham ticket, offers the right seasoning for this election year, and in all honesty, offers the right seasoning for the Nation in terms of the leadership abilities we need at this point in our history. That is not a knock against John Edwards. I would like him to serve prominently in a Kerry Administration. Any Cabinet level position would fully involve Edwards in the full range of policy debates regarding America and the World, and that will fill out his resume. Edwards is a relatively young man with a very bright future.

[JohnKleeb]

90. a Kerry- anyone ticket is fine with me

I just dont see how he has no foreign policy experience, hes in the senate, that gives you experience.

[Tom Rinaldo]

92. I never say Edwards has no foreign policy experience

I say he doesn't have as much as I think our Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee this year should have. It's an honest matter of opinion. I will enthusiastically support a Kerry-Edwards ticket if that is who John Kerry chooses.

[JohnKleeb]

140. you dont but plenty of people do

[Darkamber]

141. Thank you Tom...I can respect your oppinion...

Sometimes it is nice just to see a Clark supporter mention that they would like to see Edwards in the administration and that he does have a bright future.

In the end, there are 50% or better odds that Kerry won't pick Edwards for the VP spot. And if he Kerry does look to experience and Foreign policy it will not be Edwards but Gephardt that Clark supporters will be looking to. And the full rounded picture including a long time personal friend in Gephardt.

Alot of people on both sides of this debate should take a deep breath and look at Gephardt and decide if they can support that ticket. I will...funny thing was before I ever heard of Edwards it was Gephardt who was my first pick of all of the names mentioned.

Anyway...I can do respect your belief that a VP should have strong FP experience at this time. I don't agree with it, but I can respect it.
And I am equally certain that Wes Clark will have a firm place in Kerry's administration no matter who is VP.

Kerry would be a fool to loose either Clark or Edwards and I certainly don't think that Kerry is a fool. Thanks for being the voice of reason...

[Padraig18]

89. Can we just stop ALL of this, please????

Good GOD! Both of these men are FINE Democrats, and either would be a FANTASTIC VP! I have seen vicious attacks on BOTH men by a small handful of supporters, and it's time for them all to put a sock in it! The fact of the matter is that Sen. Kerry doesn't give a rat's arse what's said here pro OR con, and nothing anyone posts is going to sway his decision one iota! The only thing that such attacks are accomplishing is to drive a wedge between people who are SUPPOSED TO BE on the same team.

JEEBUS!

:wtf:

[democratreformed]

93. Well, at least there is one good post on this thread.

Actually, there are others, but yours is the best I've seen. I agree. What's that old saying: "If you can't say something good, don't say anything at all". That's the way I feel about the candidate bashing on here.

[Padraig18]

96. Thanks!

There are times I'd like to send all of the bashers to bed without their suppers, just like you do with any disruptive child...

:P

[democratreformed]

98. LOL! Me too!

On edit: I hereby apologize for those few times when I would have been one of those children.

[Nashyra]

97. I don't dislike Edwards

but I have repeatedly said that he is a marked man by the repukes because they will use his trial lawyer experience against him in every commercial they can. They will tie higher healthcare cost, Dr's leaving there practices, huge payouts etc to "trial lawyers" and those cost are big issues. The problem is not Edwards per se as a person but but how he will be presented and he does not have enough longevity to effectively combat the "crap" that will be thrown at him and the ticket. Healthcare will be huge in this election, we can not give the repukes any free amunition, the American public does not pay any attention to reason, they vote on soundbites and Edwards on the ticket plays right into there dirty hands. Better he would be an awesome AG, think of what he could do in Asscrofts position, along with the fact that he has friends of the repuke party in the Senate, he could bring more real change to this country by tackeling the rights we have lost under Asscroft. He would be positioned very well for the 2012 election with a record of accomplishment along with longevitiy for service.

[AP]

102. And Edwards has the skill to turn everyon one of those attacks around into

a condemnation of Republicans.

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Edwards does have skill.

He obviously couldn't have gotten this far if he didn't.

[tishaLA]

119. No they cannot Padraig

they simply cannot stop. It is like breathing and shitting for some people. And it's incredibly discouraging.

[Dr Fate]

94. I support Clark, and I dont like it either.

You would think that we would learn to hang together- Edwards just might be picked as VP, and I would not be disappointed if he was.

the main argument seems to be "the Right wing will tear him appart"- well I watched him during the primaries and he looked like an ass-kicker to me.

Leave that smart, polite Southern boy alone!!!

[WI_DEM]

95. Good post

Too many supporters of the other major VP favorite on DU see him in as a God that I think it hurts their arguements in favor of him.

[Joe Fields]

99. I don't hold any ill will toward Edwards, or his followers.

I just happen to think he isn't the right man for the veep spot. I prefer Bill Richardson.

[surfermaw]

103. I think some are republicns in democrat clothing...see the same things

and it is the same candidate,supporters on the other board.Don't know just guessing?

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. Of course there are Republicans in Democratic clothing

Don't know who you are referring to specifically but I don't even want to know, that only starts witch hunts. But one would have to be pretty naive to think that Republicans especially would hesitate to try any dirty trick in the book to sow discord in Democratic circles. You just have to assume that, and be careful not to ever play into it, which is one good reason why I am also against Democratic candidate bashing here at DU. I prefer some Democrats over others, sometimes by a great deal, but it is rare for me to prefer any Republican over any Democrat.

I like all the potential Democratic VP's being talked about well enough, and I feel fine with Kerry at the head of the ticket.

[Darkamber]

116. My goodness this opened a can of worms...

I'm sure that Chimpy is as frustrated as I get at times about the amount of tearing down of ANY person who is out there fighting for John Kerry and other democrats.

We need to remember that those who have a vocal negative view are not the majority of the supporters of any group.

And I know there are few Edwards supporters who make some off handed comments about Clark. Chimpy isn't one of them. She has always been positive in everything that she posted.

Hopefully, we can remember that these fine men would not want us to attack each other and tear each other down.

I know John Edwards wouldn't want it...read my signature...I think it says it all. If all we do is attack each other then we will not win in Nov and we don't deserve to.

Both Edwards and Clark are fine man and Both add excellent qualities to the ticket and both would be excellent VP's. So would Gephardt and so would Graham and I'm sure that Vilsack would be great as well.

Keep focused on the goal...to REMOVE BUSH FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

We are not enemies of each other. If we become enemies of each other then we will loose and more important it will be harder to come together once someone like Richardson is VP.

One thing I will do is support Kerry's choice. Because our future is too important to allow Bush another 4 years in the White house.

[democratreformed]

118. "One thing I will do is support Kerry's choice"

Second that for me. We absolutely MUST win in November. I don't even want to think about the possibilities if we don't.

[Padraig18]

130. "One thing I will do is support Kerry's choice"

Put me down for that choice, too. The horror of '*: The Sequel' is too awful to even consider!

:scared:

[Darkamber]

132. You got that one right!

We don't want a repeat of the last 4 years. This country can't surive another 4 years...

[chimpymustgo]

131. Thanks, Darkamber, for your knowing words.

I was beyond frustrated when I started this thread. I had not been online, then came on, and read a series of lying, bullsh*t posts about JRE, and I did go off.

It's just a handful of egregious offenders, but they post relentlessly, and unfortunately the some RW talking points over and over and over.

We are Dems. We are better than this.

[Darkamber]

133. I understand how you felt...

Believe me...I know exactly how you feel. Just think of Edwards when you get down and what he would say.

I know it sounds dumb, but I know that Edwards is about bringing people together and not tearing them down. And no matter how hard it is to take, just stay above the fray as you have been doing so well.

Remember...there will be a future for Edwards even if it isn't this year. The man inspired me with the politics of hope and because of him I started doing things and becoming involved in politics.

I want the this election to be about Health care and Education and environment. These are matters that effect me personally and my family. I can't help those fighting in Iraq besides pray for them and pray that somehow this will turn out right and their deaths will have meaning by helping the people of Iraq.

But I do know we can not win this election using hate alone. That will never win. Offering a better plan will work. That was something that Edwards did offer and Kerry has many of the same elements.

So keep your chin up! We can support each other anyway...

[chimpymustgo]

136. You are really kind, darkamber.

"Edwards is about bringing people together and not tearing them down."

That is what usually guides me. But last night, I may have gone beyond the pale. Day after day of biting the tongue, of turning the other cheek. And a nice dinner with a little wine didn't help.

Many many months ago, I posted something a tad harsh about Howard Dean. "PurityofEssence" pm'd me.

Just wanted to know a little about me. Made the observation that Edwards supporters seemed to be more the kind, compassionate sort.

It was a very gentle rebuke, which I took to heart. We are better than this. I am very proud to support John Edwards - to believe in the economic ideals of work vs. wealth. To believe in the essential goodness of man.

If someone else is named VP, it won't rock my world. It will, IMO, be a sadly missed opportunity. But I will continue to support John Kerry. And John Edwards. And the ideals of the Democratic Party.

Regardless of who is on the ticket.

[Tom Rinaldo]

138. There's hardly a one of us who hasn't ever gone beyond the pale

You are usually a very positive voice, fervent in your support of Edwards of course, but positive, and not everyone at DU is. Like I said above, I can sympathize with what set you off, and I can sympathize with getting really frustrated by the tone of debate here sometimes. There is room for honest disagreement, but sometimes it strays over the line. Saying any more than that runs the risk of reopening possible sore points, so I'll just leave it at that. Most of us have strong feelings for the right reasons even if they sometimes come out wrong.

[Darkamber]

139. Now always remember to never drink and then post...LOL

Also...listen to Tom's words to you. He makes a lot of sense and is probably my favorite of the Clark supporters.

Oh and if you haven't come and join us over at JRE Grassroots..

http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/index.php

Everyone there I think you would really like. No trolls so far and it was started by a bunch of us after Edwards dropped and we didn't know what would happen to the Blog. Grassroot supporters put their money together and their talents and started the site. The main moderate isn't even a Democrat, but an independent who was inspired by Edwards.

They are great people and very positive and informed. You'd like it there if you haven't joined already.

[spooky3]

146. Thanks for letting us know about this, Darkamber.

[tishaLA]

122. What does that mean though...

you've moved your legions into DU. You can lower the level of discourse here

I didn't come to DU because of any concerted effort by other Clark supporters nor have I lowered the level of discourse here. You pain with a very broad, and largely inaccurate, brush.

[Skwmom]

142. A search through the archives could disprove this statement.

"Many Edwards fans have stood by for WEEKS - we have tried to take the high road. When there are celebratory Clark threads - we don't sully them. But absolutely NOTHING can be posted about Edwards that the same sorry voices don't chime in with the same old bullshit."

This is simply not true.

Furthermore, watching the VP selection is like watching the primary process all over again (with the republicans trying to manipulate the VP process). Sorry, if I don't feel like jumping on board and cheering for their candidate of choice. The stakes are just to darn high this year. Even Edwards on Imus, wondered why the rabid Bush supporters were singing his praises.

I'm also sick of people trying to silence any criticism of Edwards on this and many other boards.

[incapsulated]

147. Playing the victim while smearing Clark supporters

Doesn't do much for your "argument" now does it?

:eyes:

To quote William Burroughs: There are no innocent bystanders. There has been enough shit slung by both sides to fertilize the all the farms in the Midwest already.

Enough.