President John Edwards...

[dubeskin]

Sounds nice, don't it?

[Liberals Rule]

1. It Sure Does!

I for one would love o see it happen! It would scare the Hell out of the Republicans!

[Solar_Power]

14. Hillary-is-inevitable

Never forget that :)

[Blackhatjack]

17. LOL... We needed a good laugh! Thanks! She won't even win Iowa...

... and there is a good chance she won't even finish 2nd in Iowa either!

[saltpoint]

52. Hey, Liberals Rule -- welcome to DU.

I like your choice in candidates, too!

[surfermaw]

81. Got that right John

[asdjrocky]

87. Welcome to DU fellow Edwards supporter.

[underpants]

2. Yes it does

:patriot:

[rwheeler31]

3. Looks and sounds good.

Could we elect a real Democrat?

[Generic Brad]

4. He has my support

But by the time my state holds its primary the durn thing will pretty much be decided.

[Maccagirl]

5. Please let it happen

No one is claiming he'll "fix" everything that * has screwed, but with our help and support life in this country can turn for the better. I personally will be able to have "hope" again.

[waiting for hope]

6. That's one of my favorite pics!

And it sounds just wonderful! Thanks for the pick-me-up!

[MissDeeds]

7. Works for me n/t

[Pastiche423]

8. No, it doesn't

The last thing our country needs now is a former DLCer and a Bilderberger that co-sponsored and voted for the genocide of a people that never did a thing to the citizens of this country.

Has anyone even checked on his voting record in the only elected office he ever served? Checked out his ADA record?

P.S. Did you know that there is a GD Political forum on this site?

[Blackhatjack]

11. Welcome Pastiche423, What Positive Edwards Thread Would Be Complete Without You? LOL

There is something about Edwards that just draws you in, right?

When Edwards becomes the Democratic Nominee will you be casting your vote for him in the General Election?

Inquisitive Minds Want To Know?

[Pastiche423]

13. After the pain I went through in 2004

having to vote for him then, no fucking way will I ever vote for the snake oil salesman again.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Well I am sure Edwards would have only nice things to say about you too!

I was not aware that anyone made you 'vote for him ... in 2004.'

Who were these people?

ANd do I understand you to say you won't be voting for Edwards if he is the Democratic Party Nominee?

THis is still Democratic Underground right?

[Pastiche423]

18. Who We Are:

Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[Blackhatjack]

20. I didn't ask you to reprint the DU mission statement, I asked you direct questions. Answers?

WHo made you vote for Edwards in 2004?

Will you vote for Edwards if he is the Democratic Party Nominee in 2008?

[Pastiche423]

23. The fear of another term for little lord pissypants

was why I voted democratic.

I've already answered the 2nd question.

[Blackhatjack]

25. Well if you won't vote for Edwards If He is the DEM Nominee, Who Will You Vote For?

[Pastiche423]

28. Say g'night Pastiche

[Blackhatjack]

30. And once again the direct question drives another anti-Edwards poster to flee without answering...

Maybe in Slumberland the question will go away...........

[Pastiche423]

31. I answered your direct question

There are other anti-edwards posters?

Way cool!

[silverojo]

44. No you didn't

You were asked whom you'd vote FOR. You didn't answer that.

[Jim Sagle]

86. And they're even more talented than you!

[Clark2008]

61. I'm anti-Edwards and I won't flee.

If he's the Dem nominee, I'll be voting third party.

Thanks.

[waiting for hope]

69. Wow - Great Choice!

:sarcasm: and a great big :hi:

[sellitman]

80. Very smart!

That third party vote worked so well the last few times out. I am sure there are Freepers on this board that wish they could thank you in person.

[silverojo]

43. Great idea--let a Repuke win

THAT would show 'em!

[LTR]

48. She wants Lieberman to run again

:evilgrin:

EDIT: If ya can't say anything nice...

[madmunchie]

93. They don't care!!!!!!! So friggin what if he was the Democratic Representative of

Bush's programs........he is a Democrat for God's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Pastiche423]

96. They also don't care that he co-sponsored

little lord pissypants invasion, based on now proven lies. And it's too bad for his constituents that he was just too busy running for president to represent them by voting for their needs and concerns in the senate.

Wow! That's all it takes to be considered presidential material! Hell, as long as you have a D after your name, you can do anything your heart so desires. (Like voting to commit genocide on a people that did nothing to us.)

[midnight]

9. How do you spell relief? President Edwards....

[shadowknows69]

10. Not just yes, but hell yes.

[Blackhatjack]

12. "Let's Get Ready To RUUMMMBLEE ..... In Our Corner is John Edwards!" n/t

[Tinksrival]

15. John Edwards has morphed as much as Mit!

I've watched Edwards for a long time and the transformation is real pretty!

Here's a quote from Dennis Kucinich:

"And people have had a chance to see all of the candidates now, and they understand that I am the only one running that voted against the war and voted against funding the war. People get a chance to study this and as the elections draw near the awareness is becoming more and more clear.
There is a moral equation here which history, morality and human decency requires that we look at. What gives the United States of America or our leaders the right to wage war against innocent people? By what law do we assume the right to attack Iraq, a nation that did not attack us and had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda's role in 9/11 and neither the intention or the capability of attacking us? In what right do we assume the ability to launch a grandiose attack against Iran, using 30,000 lb. bunker busters, dropping them down on nuclear research labs, which will create Chernobyl in effect? What right do we have to do this? What right do we have to even think about it?
There is a moral dimension to this that needs to be looked at because it characterizes our times. We've got leaders that feel they are not bound by the law, that proceed in a way that is unconscionable, licensed by the media that becomes complicit in their lack of straightforward analysis and criticism. Our nation is being stained by this. They don’t get that the Patriot Acts took away our rights, they all voted for it. Edwards was a co-author. They don’t get that eavesdropping and wiretapping is against the very fiber of this country."

I remember the old Edwards! Same as the new Edwards? :shrug:

[silverojo]

45. Old Kucinich...same as the new Kucinich?

Old Kucinich:
When he was on the mob's sh*t list, he carried a handgun.

New Kucinich:
He wants to stop us from carrying handguns, no matter who might be threatening us (abusive partner, stalker, even the mob)


At least when Edwards changes his tune, he IMPROVES. Dennis the Menace is trying to disarm Americans, bringing us one step closer to the state of fascism we're rapidly approaching. No, thanks.

[Tinksrival]

58. I'm not for Dennis but thanks for the info

I'll add him to the list with Edwards. :evilgrin:

[madmunchie]

90. Intelligent debate and facts do not work with JE supporters. They will

just viciously attack you personally and if need be hit the alert button to shut down a thread that goes against JE.

[cali]

19. Sounds fine to me

I don't support him in the primaries but I'd be thrilled to see him sworn in. On the other hand, President Obama sounds even better to me. Obama got it right on Iraq. Edwards got it about as wrong as you possibly could.

[Blackhatjack]

21. Edwards AND Obama have something in common that Hillary never will....

They both have admitted they made mistakes. Edwards admitted his IWR vote was wrong. Obama admitted his use of marijuana and cocaine and alcohol as a youth was wrong.

Has Hillary ever admitted she made a mistake? (ie. her IWR vote?). I don't think so.

We need a President with enough confidence to tell us the truth, and tell us when he/she made a mistake and what he/she is going to do to fix that mistake.

[maddiejoan]

26. Yeah she did.

As far back as November 2005. Next.

[Blackhatjack]

27. Quote and Link Please? Where she admitted she made a mistake and was wrong. n/t

[maddiejoan]

33. Earliest link I can find is Dec 2006

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/12/hillary_clinton.html

However, in e-mails to her constituents as far back as the year prior there was this:

November 2005 - Hillary posts a letter to constituents in NY. (sorry no link)

"If Congress had been asked , based on what we know now, we never would have agreed,"

I'm aware that many paint this as a dodge or attack her for never "apologizing" for her vote, but I don't think she has a damned thing to apologize for.

and I post her 2002 speech prior to her vote for her frame of mind.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[JTFrog]

53. No she didn't.

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

I'll accept her invitation to vote for "other".

[cali]

32. huh? Why are you bringing up Clinton?

and sorry, Edwards apology for sponsoring the IWR and cheering going to war and NOT the use of diplomacy, is waaay different from Obama's apology for using drugs in high school. Too bad you can't see the difference. (and maybe you should try and get over your hang up about Clinton. Weird to bring her into the conversation when she wasn't part of it)

[madmunchie]

91. Did JE admit that co authoring the Patriot Act was wrong, how about supporting the Bankruptcy Bill

as well as the H-1b Visas, free trade with China...

[deacon]

22. The only way to go. Edwards '08 n/t

[davidinalameda]

24. let me throw something out

$400 haircuts (whether true or not)

preaching about poverty while working for hedge funds

taking $55K for a speech on poverty at UC-Davis

and per an email I received from his campaign, he just opened a northern California campaign office in Marin County-not exactly the more poverty stricken place in the area

and his national HQ is in a expensive area of Chapel Hill?

while I believe that he really believes that poverty is probably the most important issue facing this country, he's just going about it in what I think is the wrong way

he's leaving himself open to being swift boated if he's the nominee

[Blackhatjack]

29. I hope these are the issues he is 'swiftboated' on by Repubs, because he can handle these...

Let's put up a chart, OK?

List the issue on the left, and columns with each Candidate's name above.

I have spent $400 or more on my hair, appearance or clothing, yes or no.

I have received campaign funds from a hedge fund, yes or no.

I have received $55,000 or more in compensation or campaign contributions for appearing and giving a speech in the past, yes or no.

I have opened a campaign office in an area which is not exactly the more poverty stricken place in the area, yes or no.

I have a national HQ located in an expensive area, yes or no.

I believe poverty is important and that is why I mention it at every campaign stop, yes or no.


If you were to create such a chart with honest answers from each of the candidates, you would find that Edwards is being wrongfully singled out for persecution on the baseless argument that because Edwards thinks poverty is important he is to be held to a higher standard than the other candidates.

By all means bring it on, because none of these issues address graft, lying, corruption, bribery, stealing, criminal activity, etc. THis is all the opposition has on Edwards and this is nothing. Let them try to keep this alive through the summer and all the way to November.

Edwards is squeaky clean compared to any of the Repub nominees.

[cali]

35. boy are you wrong. First of all, you need to know more about your

candidate: It's not the receiving of campaign funds from Fortress that's problematic for him, it's the that he worked part time (very part time) for them in 2005, and took $500,000 grand in payment. Hedge funds are one of the slimiest pieces of the the financial world, and Fortress was no exception.


You're painting everything in the rosiest of colors; the repukes won't. And they're not above exaggerating either.

And JK was squeaky clean compared to bush.

[davidinalameda]

36. you misunderstand

he's not my candidate for one

and yes, I know that he worked for the hedge fund

[Blackhatjack]

66. OKAY let's put an end to the lies once and for all... HERE IS A LINK, read it and weep

The Edwards Campaign continues to be the MOST OPEN AND HONEST reporters of their financial dealings as compared to ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES. Even Fox News has had to admit that the Edwards Campaign often goes BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW IN REVEALING THEIR FINANCIAL DEALINGS. THEY HIDE NOTHING, even when it would be easy to skirt the technical compliance provisions of the law.

Because a campaign worker paid for the infamous $400 haircuts out of the campaign operating account the Edwards Campaign reported it on their campaign financial disclosure, even though Edwards was unaware of the payments and he reimbursed the campaign in full out of his own personal funds. Had they not done that, in all likelihood there would have been no penalty and nobody would have ever known.

The linked story below shows just how much detail the Edwards Campaign has released.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273133,00.html

"The disclosure forms do not provide a precise accounting of the candidates' assets and investment income, requiring only that filers list those amounts in ranges. However, the Edwards campaign supplemented its reports with more detail, including the value of the couple's total assets.
Edwards, who has made fighting poverty a signature element of his campaign, said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the way financial markets operate. Fortress paid Edwards $479,512 for his consulting services.

The candidate and his wife had $1 million to $5 million in the Fortress Investment Fund III, a Fortress subsidiary that invests in businesses in the United States and Western Europe. He had lesser amounts in other investment funds.

Edwards received about $395,000 in paid speeches — most of them at colleges — and was paid $40,000 salary for work at the University of North Carolina Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.
The Edwards family donated more than $350,000 to charity, including the International Rescue Committee and Habitat for Humanity.

Edwards' largest holding was a conservative investment: $5 million to $25 million in a money market fund, Columbia Cash Reserves. Edwards also received $333,334 in royalties for his book "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives." The money was donated to charity. The former North Carolina senator owned several properties in his home state, including buildings in Raleigh worth $500,000 to $1 million each. He also owned land in Raleigh valued at $50,001 to $1 million. Edwards listed only two liabilities: a variable line of credit from Bank of America of $500,001 to $1 million and a mortgage on one of his Raleigh buildings, worth $15,001 to $50,000."

MORE

*******

NOW TO ADDRESS YOUR ALLEGATIONS:

John Edwards worked for Fortress Investments, a financial services company which as part of its offerings operated a Hedge Fund. Fortress is NOT A HEDGE FUND.

John Edwards was associated with a financial services company on a part-time basis because he was also associated with the Anti-Poverty Center in Chapel Hill where he was heavily involved. Part-time means you do not work exclusively for one employer. So quit denigrating his 'part-time' status with Fortress.

Hedge Funds are not necessarily "one of the slimiest pieces of the the financial world, and Fortress was no exception" as you allege. Hedge Funds invest in a multitude vehicles, some good and some bad. Hedge Funds have the ability to accomplish great good with the sums of money they have to invest. After John Edwards became associated with Fortress Investments, it decided to withdraw the privilege of upper-management employees to invest in a hedge fund operated outside the United States. Also after John Edwards became associated with Fortress Investments he brought to their attention that they needed to concentrate investments that helped working people, and when he learned that some of the funds which were made up of hundreds of stocks(like most mutual funds) were foreclosing on Katrina victims, Edwards pulled his investments in those funds AND pulled $100,000 out of his own pocket to help Katrina victims so that they would not be foreclosed upon.

NO rose colored glasses needed. I am not exaggerating... I don't have to ... John Edwards is 'squeaky clean' as he always has been.

ANd yet people on this thread and elsewhere continue to post lies(ie. Edwards built a 28,000 square foot house, etc.).

I will go toe to toe with you anytime regarding what each of us knows about John Edwards as I have followed his career for over 20 years. I might just know a little more than someone who repeats inaccurate information and then suggests I don't know my own candidate.

When may we expect your retraction and apology?

[gtar100]

84. Glad you're here

:hi:


I don't have the time or resources to stay on top of these details. So, many thanks!

[cali]

34. yep.

And you can add the 28,0000 sq ft house juxtaposed against his call for Americans to make sacrifices and stop driving SUVs. If I was a repuke strategist, I'd start there- and move to his sharp shift in positions since his senate days.

[Turn CO Blue]

64. 28,0000 sq ft house? You put too many zeroes.

I did a tiny bit of research. Bill Gates lives in a 60,000 sq ft house?
Did you know that Donald Trump is currently building a 200,000 sq ft house? Buckingham Palace is over 800K sq ft. And, the Prince of Bandar lives in a 1.2 million sq ft house.

Oprah's house is 23,000 sq ft WITHOUT counting ANY of the other buildings on the 45 acres! And of course, Oprah speaks about poverty ALL the time! And yet, and yet, and yet, nobody calls her a hypocrit. But isn't she, by your terms?

More power to all these self-made Americans (obviously excluding EII and the Prince of Bandar) who can build and maintain these homes!

Oprah, Donald, Bill and John are all SELF-MADE. Good for them if they can have those homes! And if I should ever have that kind of money, I will probably have my main house have square footage of at LEAST 10,400 - which is the REAL square footage of John Edward's main house. I'd want to be able to have a lot of room to be generous and for many guests or be able to have some of my family or friends come to live with me!

I can tell you this for a FACT. In Colorado, you may not count any area as living space that is not "living" space. Meaning that you may not count walkways or any unheated areas or areas that have a separate heating system -- must have connected vents back to the central heating, or any areas that are separated by a walkway. So Mother-in-law apartments and separate parking etc. and walkways MAY NOT be counted as square footage and must be listed separately in any listing or tax evaluation.

I'm not sure I'm for Edwards - I am undecided, but this point you keep making about the square footage of his home is BLATANTLY incorrect (you've been corrected and will not yet admit how very wrong you are) and yet you keep bringing it up over and over again.

[Blackhatjack]

68. Why don't you educate yourself before exposing your ignorance about a provable fact?

Edwards' new home he built in Orange County, North Carolina has 10400 sq ft. THe County tax assessor's records back this up. And yet you continue to perpetuate the myth that Edwards's built a 28,000 sq ft home.

Or do you have another agenda, and this misinformation assist you in carrying out your nefarious attacks on Edwards? May we expect you to use ACCURATE information in describing Edwards' home size in the future??

LINK to Orange County Tax Assessor's Office Records regarding John Edwards' Home

http://gis.co.orange.nc.us/land/queries/Building.asp?PIN=9768257495

"Assessed Building Value: $3101577 Assessment Method: RESIDENTIAL
Year Built: 2005 Total Rooms(Excludes Baths & Utility): 10
Total Bedrooms: 5 Style: CONVENTIONAL
Story: 10 Total Fireplaces: 1
Total ESTIMATED Square Feet: 10778 Total Bathrooms: 6.5
Building Description: 10 F RES (10-1 Story, 20-2 Story, F-FRAME, M-MASON, ETC.)"

[FatDave]

70. 10 stories?

Man, I've never heard of anybody building up like that. I'd love to see a picture.

[Blackhatjack]

77. There is something funky about the assessor's formatting I copied, only 1 story.

[FatDave]

79. OK, that makes more sense.

I thought the man built himself a high-rise!

[Lex]

38. EVERY nominee is open to swiftboat.

No one is immune. Because lies count for the repukes and the stupid.

[silverojo]

46. Name ONE Dem candidate

Who won't be swiftboated when they become the nominee. It's the Republican way.

As for Haircut-gate, all Edwards has to do is proclaim, "I want to improve our country and its economy until we can ALL afford $400 haircuts!"

[Clark2008]

62. I don't want a $400 haircut - and Edwards can't accomplish

that feat, anyway. He's not that skilled.

[sellitman]

82. I'm very sorry but....

Repeating the right wing BS on the haircut and your vow to vote 3rd party if Edwards wins gets you a lifetime of Ignore.

Congrats!

[flyarm]

92. Mitt had $300.00 makeup lessons..the hair cut is over..eom

[bobbolink]

72. I'm in DEEP POVERTY, and I believe he's "going about it the" RIGHT way

In many ways, he's following the footprints of Bobby Kennedy.

My only problem with him is that he stresses "the WORKING poor" too much for my taste..... and leads me to feel left out.

BUT... he's doing a HELL of a lot better than any of the other Dems, including Kucinich! (Like Ron Paul as VP is really going to be good for poor folk.... DAMN!)

[Whisp]

37. No

he seems to have everything going for him except That Awful Big Mistake with lots of blood attached. in going along with the Iraq War.

he cannot be forgiven for that. Ever. Ever.
He is not a leader, but a follower of lies. or something else even worse.

[Lex]

39. As is Hillary?

nt

[Whisp]

40. there is only one democrat in the race. Kucinich.

i.e. while the definition has any relevance.

[dysfunctional press]

59. too bad that he's a ron paul-loving gun-grabber...

who doesn't stand (or deserve) a chance at the nomination.

[silverojo]

47. Oh, I get it

F*ck the poverty issue, because there's no blood attached to that. Yeah, right. Maybe you ought to have a look first-hand at the people who are sick and dying RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA because they can't get enough food to eat, let alone medical care.

I'm sick of hearing about the Iraq war vote. Bush lied, people got sucked into it. We can't go back in time and change that.

What we CAN change is our future, and Edwards is the only candidate who includes the poor and working class in that future.

Anyone who doesn't give a damn about these people...THEY are the ones who aren't deserving of forgiveness.

[Whisp]

50. well boo hoo if you are 'sick of hearing about the Iraq war votes'

poor baby.

I will never Ever Ever forgive him for that. Ever.

[cali]

55. no way will i forget the AUMF vote

and the crap that people got sucked in is no excuse whatsoever. Voting for it speaks to the judgement of the person voting. And there were many, many dems who didn't get suckered and warned their colleagues not to before the vote.

[Clark2008]

63. Kucinich has actually done more - or tried to do more - for

the poor and working class than Edwards ever has. I cannot believe how duped so many people are on this board!! Check his record vs. his rhetoric and get back to me.

And, no, I don't believe him when he apologizes, backtracks, says he's changed, etc. It's too convenient.

[Nutmegger]

41. Sounds fan - freaking - tastic!

Edwards will lead, and start to change this nation for the better.

Edwards 2008!

[silverojo]

42. It would sound even better

Coming out of the mouths of people like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, mAnn Coulter...just watching the veins in their foreheads start to throb painfully would be soooooooo sweet!!

[LTR]

49. I think he'd make a great president

I also think he stands a very good chance of being the nominee.

[saltpoint]

51. It sure does.

:toast:

[Inspired]

54. Sounds inspiring to me! n/t

[B Calm]

56. Out of all the democratic candidates, he's our best shot to win the next election.

The most electable guy in the field!

[Froward69]

57. If you are looking forward to

MANDATORY health insurance. and a Greater divide among the Monetary social classes. extreme poverty worse than now...

If you want a president based upon personal ego, then continue to support John "used car salesman" Edwards.

edit= spell check

[bobbolink]

73. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! "worse poverty"...... That's gotta be some koolaid!

Like purty Joe is gonna give a shit about me......

:rofl:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

60. Not really. No.

Not for those of us interested in leadership abilities.

[Blackhatjack]

67. When Edward is the DEM Nominee, and wins the General Election, EVEN YOU WILL BE GLAD!

People who are overly critical of John Edwards will be surprised at his competency and compassion as our President, and even those who oppose him now will be won over.

At the very least his present opponents will respect him --which is what he earned from corporate defense counsel who went up against him in the courtroom.

Sometimes people don't realize who would be best for them. Edwards will win you over.

[huskerlaw]

65. Best. Thread. Title. EVER.

:yourock:

Yes, it DOES sound good. Better than good. Fabulous, even.

From your keyboard to God's ears? eyes? Whatever...may it be so!

:woohoo:

[mb7588a]

71. sounds beautiful. nt.

[Buns_of_Fire]

74. I could handle it. Lord knows, the country could (and HAS) done a lot worse.

[rainman99]

75. We should have gone with him in '04.

[Triana]

78. YES! YES!!

Y E S ! !

[vanboggie]

83. President Edwards :-)

I like it. He gives me hope, which would be a great beginning for those of us who can't get much more discouraged about what's going on in DC.

I've almost forgotten what it's like to have a President who spreads hope instead of fear....who can complete a sentence for that matter.


Kickety kick.....:kick:

[Jim Sagle]

85. Fuckin' A.

[deacon]

88. k + r

[MrSlayer]

89. It does. Certainly sounds better than President McCain or President Romney.

Or any of the other undesirables running in this cycle.

[syberlion]

94. As someone new to all this...

I have some basic thoughts on all this. First, Edwards has the "pretty factor" which will carry him some distance.

Second, he has the "gosh factor" which got Reagan elected. From what I've seen of his speeches, he has all the "right moves" which keeps his audience engaged in whatever he has to say.

Third, just as Clinton patterned himself from one of the last known populist democratic families, the Kennedys, Edwards is using that as well. Let's face it, the pr people are pushing that for all it is worth, and it's working.

Fourth, his youth is a strong factor as well. Democrats, the ones that want Camelot back; the original Camelot which was shot out from under all of us, well here is a man that strikes a familiar chord with those wanting to believe in America again.

Question is, can he generate the same level of fervor generated 40 years ago? Can he motivate and get a fire under enough people to assure nothing like 2000 and 2004. I believe anyone running that can only garner marginal support from those wanting to see that person elected, will see a repeat of the past two elections.

There needs to be no question, no doubt left, no margin for guessing, none. There is a lot riding on this next election. I watched last time when better candidates were passed over for someone who turned out to be related to the other candidate, making the last election a "family affair." Not to say Kerry would of had Prince George over for tea... Just the whole thing smelled and being the cynic I am, I had my tin foil hat firmly planted on my head when Kerry didn't fight for the election.

I don't see Edwards going out with a whimper in the face of something like 2000 or 2004. So, that's a positive. However, getting him past the "planned" democratic choice. The last successful person to do that was a peanut farmer from Georgia and he, being the complete outsider, was totally frozen out by the insiders inside the beltway. Even from those within his own party. He was not allowed to do what he wanted to do to help America.

I don't see that happening with Edwards. His lawyering skills will allow him to work his way through the labyrinth that is Washington. Were he able to pull the rabbit out of the hat, the next trick is being able to stay alive long enough to first, take the oath, and second, live out his first term. If he's not the "planned" democratic choice, there will be a lot of very rich, very powerful people and corporations that will want a different outcome for the governance of this country. Here is where I would suggest someone like Kucinich as VP. This would assure that those wanting to get rid of Edwards, would be facing someone even more anti-corporate.

I was a supporter of Paul Simon, when he ran for the democratic nomination back in '87. His ideas and what he wanted to do for America. He didn't have what Americans were looking for back then. He didn't have the ability to smile and lie. People were looking for superficial and that's what they got and are still getting. Buying the product for the package and not the other way around.

Edwards has the packaging, is what's inside worth buying? I honestly don't know yet. Again, I am looking past the packaging and when I do that, Kucinich is the one person I keep picking.

I've read here on DU he's the only true democrat running, etc. It isn't about labels. Labels is how we got where we are in the first place. The issue is, this country's in a world of hurt and the leadership needs to be there. It isn't and hasn't been for quite some time.

Guess what, the leadership has to come from the people. Without the people leading, there is no leadership. You want proof? Look at the apathy in local elections. Look at how the far right has taken it upon themselves to start locally; with school board elections, city council, county seats, justice of the peace, etc. Where is the concerted effort from the left? This is mission critical, since the right has had this plan for so many years, it will take many hard-fought years to regain all the lost ground.

Edwards or Kucinich would be a good start, but that is all, a start. After they are elected it is not the time to go back into our soft lives with wi-fi and dish tv. It's time to keep the momentum going and not let the entropy build again. Those mobilized for the presidential election, keep them mobilized for the local elections. It starts from the ground up. They understood that back in the 60's and the right figured it out in the 80's.

So, instead of bickering about one's choice, unite and go forward. For those talking about third-party-ing their vote, that's fine, you have every right to do so. At least for now, and for how long we don't really know. This is an imperfect system and it is made worse with the advent of the parties. Also strained by the evil of money to get noticed. This is the system we have at this time. Again, for how long we don't know. What we DO know is, it is changing and for the worse.

If we do not unite and use our voice as one strong voice, then they have won, because they will be able to keep us divided. That is the way they want it. Brown against Black, Native born against immigrant, and us against them. They succeed because while we are looking at each other, they walk out with everything. They walk away untouched and we are left inside the burning building filled with their hate and we are the ones who suffer.

Just some thoughts on all this.

[B Calm]

95. and some good thoughts too... Great post!