Just a reminder: Edwards CO-SPONSORED the Iraq War Resolution

[UrbScotty]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x78180

Our party deserves someone with better judgment than Edwards.

[BeatleBoot]

1. Obama didn't even vote on it - he had NO judgement, except as a Monday Morning Quarterback

Pleasse.

[TheWraith]

5. You do know that Obama wasn't a US Senator in 2002, right?

Holy crap are you reaching.

[BeatleBoot]

9. Of course I know, but the OP said "we needed someone with better judgement"

Like Obama had better judgement? When he wasn't even in the game? Please.

That's like the third string Quarterback saying, "Oh, man, if I were in the game, I would have scored the winning touchdown".

Too funny!

[TheWraith]

44. I suggest you go back and read his 2002 anti-war speech.

Members of the US Senate aren't the only people who are allowed to have an opinion, let alone good judgement.

[UrbScotty]

14. And even then he opposed it!

Why don't some of his detractors get it?

[BeatleBoot]

23. He opposed it without knowing the BS fed to the rest of Congress

He was not seeing the same intelligence that those "in the game" were seeing (and those in the game were being lied to, no doubt).

If the Iraq War went well, his opposition to it would have made him look like an idiot.

Boy, was he lucky it didn't. Now, he smells like roses to some, when he wasn't even in the game to begin with to make a pertinent decision - just took a side and lucked out.

That's all. No more. No less.

And to me, that's the definition of being an Opportunist.

[cali]

40. Oh, please. 21 dems, 1 independent and 1 repub in the Senate

knew the intelligence was a cock and bull story, and they loudly warned their colleagues not to vote for a BLANK FUCKING CHECK.

[Joe the Revelator]

46. You forgot the 1000's of democratic activists that were saying the same thing

and that Edwards and Hillary ignored.

[TheWraith]

41. Really? So the average member of the public had no reason to buy the Bush argument?

There was absolutely no campaign in the press, or leaked information, or statements coming out of congress, to encourage ANYONE not a member of the US Senate to believe in the Iraq War?

And supporting the Iraq War or not is just a toss of the coin, opportunity for political manuvering, with no input from a person's instincts, judgement, or moral sense?

Okay... you're officially sounding like a fool.

[BeatleBoot]

48. Actually, what I am saying is that it was easy for him to take the position that he did...

it required Zero Nads because his decision had Zero consequences.

It was a safe decision to make at the time.

The Iraq War went badly and he has benefited from it. Good for him.

It's just the way the chips fell.

But please don't put words in my mouth.

Oh, and here's a "fool" right back at ya' snook'ems!

[dkf]

50. Yeah so they got taken by Bush...

who else will they get taken by?

I'm surprised how often people in the halls of power are surprised at what we in the public know.

[JackORoses]

55. He wasn't lucky, He was right. Huge difference.

There were millions of us who knew that Iraq was a mistake,
and either Hillary and Edwards didn't think it was or they were to afraid of going out on a political limb.
Either way, they failed us in that vote.

[BeatleBoot]

65. A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day

Just the way it is.

That's all.

No deeper meaning than that.

[JackORoses]

100. so he was just guessing with no real reason for his judgment?

wrong.

He observed the facts and made the right decision.
It's a shame th eothers did not do the same.

They weren't even right once a day, like a clock with no hands. How about that?

[LordJFT]

115. bs that could have been undone if they'd read the NIE

[ihavenobias]

97. I live in IL and have this to say about Obama

Look, I'm not a "detractor". He's my second choice out of the "Big 3".

But it's a VERY fair point that Obama was *not* a Senator at the time. I say the same thing about Edwards not having been in the Senate recently because it provides him with good cover to claim what he *would* do after the fact based on public opinion.

Does that mean that BO or JE are both lying all the time? No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just saying we don't really know either way.

At any rate, being here in IL I can tell you that Obama coming out against the war was not quite as bold as you think. It's not like he was a rep for some super red district in the south.

With that said, he deserves *some* credit for taking the stand regardless.

[JackORoses]

52. actually he gave a speech 9 days before the vote condemning the IWR

p-p-p-please

[ClarkUSA]

59. Obama was running for the Senate when he made his 2002 speech opposing IWR the week before the vote

Obama was an improbable underdog in a crowded field during a time when 80% of the public favored war, but he had the judgment
and guts to speak truth to power despite the real risk to his political career.

[loveangelc]

111. "he had no judgement." yeah. except the fact that he was against it from the beginning...

[TheWraith]

2. Yes, though at least he had the honesty to admit his mistake.

I really do like Edwards a lot, but one has to question the judgement of anybody who supported the war. You have to assume that they are/were either hopelessly naive, or ruthlessly cynical, and either way it's not a good endorsement for high office.

[MH1]

17. When? I have never seen him apologize for cosponsoring the IWR.

He has always referred to his "vote", conveniently ignoring that he did more than just vote for it.

[bobbolink]

31. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you allowed to vote?

[MH1]

73. What are you talking about? In the Senate, no, and neither is Edwards, anymore.

[bobbolink]

76. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[TheWraith]

39. Does the distinction matter?

I interpret Edwards' apology and admission of error as being for supporting the war, period.

[MH1]

72. Everytime I've seen something from him about it, it's been "my vote"

Not, cosponsoring the bill.

Yes, I think it matters, because as cosponsor he was full on board with the bill AS WRITTEN.

Most people understand cosponsorship of a bill as a higher level of support than merely voting for it. So, glossing over his cosponsorship is disingenuous, imo.

[GreenArrow]

83. I think it does.

He's shown no remorse over the consequences of the vote, and his apology, so called, was offered up strictly for the political gain he hoped to gain for it. Lame as it was, it took him long enough to get there, or at least until the polls turned, and when he did, it was offered in a political milieu, for political benefit, with much finger pointing and blaming added in for good measure. His smug sanctimony in throwing his apology in the faces of his political rivals has been simply noxious.

Not included in his "apology" are those who were against the war, either nationally, globally, or those among his own constituents, nor those who have suffered most grievously, namely, the Iraqi people who have been the victims of an unjust, illegal, immoral aggressive war. Not that he has not "apologized" for supporting an aggressive war either. He has not mentioned that the US, not Iraq, has been the wrongful party throughout the entire fiasco in Iraq. He has not mentioned reparations, but has preferred to insist on the right wing buck-pushing canard that the Iraqis take responsibility for themselves, never mind that we intentionally destroyed their country and culture and environment. He has made sure to credit the troops though, one must credit the troops.

How easy three years after the fact (not that the facts weren't perfectly obvious to the majority of the world at the time when the decisions to invade Iraq were made) to say that one has made a mistake, and either he was too naive or stupid to understand what he was voting for, he believed in the principles behind it (aggressive/pre-emptive war against a country that offered us no threat and US primacy hegemony in the Middle East) or he was voting expediently for his own personal interests, or perhaps, some combination of the above. At any rate, his much vaunted "apology" covers none of those bases, and is, to my eyes anyway, a noxious and self serving ploy. Apparently, many are willing to accept it as a real apology, which is as he intended.

My most fervent hope for this political cycle is that he gets his ass booted back to North Carolina, so he can pay a little penance.

[Mz Pip]

3. But he said

he was sorry!

Mea culpa. All is forgiven.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

6. you mean someone who misses votes or votes *present*?

Yeah baby -- THAT'S better judgement. :rofl:

[TeamJordan23]

7. I rather vote present 3% of my votes rather than co-sponsor a War that has killed thousands. nm

[Hobarticus]

33. And continue to fund that same war, as Obama has? Brave! Gutsy! eom

[GreenArrow]

87. Getting us in Iraq was one thing

and a very easy one to accomplish. Getting us out is another thing altogether, and it won't be nearly so easy. Primary blame goes to those who helped get us in the trap to begin with, particularly when the trap had flashing neon signs all over it that screamed "THIS IS A FUCKING TRAP"!!!

[Hobarticus]

11. Brave, bold stance, ain't it?!?

:rofl:

[Hobarticus]

8. No IWR = No Iraq War? You really believe that?

:rofl:

[bunnies]

15. Bush would have attacked Iraq anyway.

I think we all know that. But congress allowing Bush to declare war on his own is an unforgivable mistake.

[TeamJordan23]

18. I guess Edwards strongly agreed with him than if he wanted to co-sponsor the bill. nm

[bunnies]

22. It would seem so.

Either that or he was uniformed and/or naive. And that goes for every single one of them that voted for the IWR, imho.

[Hobarticus]

30. Yep, that's exactly how it happened.

You should run for office.

[ClarkUSA]

53. With Joe Lieberman, no less...

Oy. :puke:

[Cameron27]

106. You're puking all over Obama's mentor.

[ClarkUSA]

113. lol! That red herring again? Every freshman gets ASSIGNED a mentor; Obama did NOT pick Lieberman.

Besides, it's not like Obama teamed up with Lieberman to start a ratings system for video games like Hillary did recently.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. who would have better judgment than Edwards?

Certainly not Obama: who in 130 cases refused to take a stand so he could later claim any stand he wanted; who said in 2004 that he does not know how he would have voted for IWR as he was not in the Senate, who said that Clinton helped to cause the death of Bhutto because of her IWR vote (not knowing enough about the history of Pakistan).

No. He has no better judgment, and less experience.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Dizzy?

1) "130 cases" constitutes 3.25% of all the votes he has cast.
2) Obama opposed the Iraq War while running for his Senate seat in 2002, out loud and on the record, well before the IWR votes were cast.
3) Nice extrapolation of what Obama actually said which is that our intervention in the ME is and as he predicted catastrophic and yes votes for war resonate.

Next.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. He is all over the place on what he would have done in Iraq

130 votes is an awful lot of votes. I don't care what percentage it is. Look at the type of votes and what happened.

YOu can ignore what you don't want to hear. That is fine.

I choose not to ignore it.

next.

[BeatleBoot]

43. You say 3.25% of his votes doesn't mean much ? What about it's content and meaning?

Or doesn't content and meaning matter anymore?

It's easy to take a side on the issue when your decision doesn't matter. It amounts to a roll of the dice for your political future.

It requires no nads - just a flip of the coin - and hope it ends up favorable to yourself.

No sac. no nads. Just shoot from the hip, Monday Morning Quaterbacking and cross your fingers and hope you're right.

That's all.

But a good grasp of opportunism, yes, I'll give you that.

[ClarkUSA]

67. How many votes did Edwards miss in six years as a senator? Betcha it's more than 130.

What about the content and meaning of those votes?

[okoboji]

93. ok ...

"Obama opposed the Iraq War while running for his Senate seat in 2002, out loud and on the record, well before the IWR votes were cast."


ok .. I keep reading this over and over and over, about how Obama opposed the Iraq War, he even gave speeches about opposing the Iraq War.

Personally, I do not find this as a great qualification for a person to be the next President of the U.S. I am so freaking tired of everyone giving speeches as to what they will do for me and this country. I want ACTION. If Obama was so against the Iraq War, why does he continue to vote to fund it? What are his actions, other than speeches, is he attempting to END this war once and for all?

Obama's words do not match his deeds. This is my opinion.

[Armstead]

12. He screwed up royally.....But so did most other contenders

At least he has admitted the mistake.

Obama was against it, but he hasn't exactly been leading the charge to end the fucking thing since he was in the Senate.

[jenmito]

28. That makes Obama's judgement and prediction of what would happen even more important.

And did Edwards make a MISTAKE or a CALCULATION? He also made the "mistake" of being involved in a hedge fund...

[Hobarticus]

35. Self-delete...why bother? eom

[jenmito]

36. Best post of yours of the day.

The facts are the facts. Don't bother to try to spin them.

[Hobarticus]

38. LOL! That's adorable, really...

Obama wasn't in office when the IWR came up. Fact is, he probably would've just voted "present" as he has on damn near every other bill that came before him so he straddle the issue later.

If he's so brave, why has he continued to support funding the war?

Fact is, Obama's a political hack.

[jenmito]

42. Yeah, sure...

He was a state Senator and about to run for the U.S. Senate with his comments on record. He spoke out strongly against the IWR while Edwards co-sponsored it and Hillary voted for it without even reading the NIE and after consulting with her husband. Obama was right. But keep harping on his strategic "present" votes. It doesn't change the facts I just listed.

Fact is, Obama's a brilliant person with great judgement, speaks out against things when it's not popular to do so, and sticks to his guns. Enjoy your spin!

[Hobarticus]

45. State Senator = diddley-squat

And as a US Senator, he has done BUPKUS to end the war, except prolong it....that is, when he bothers to even vote, besides "present".

Enjoy your Kool-Aid!

[jenmito]

47. Really? And what does FORMER Senator=?

Obama tried to pass bills that got vetoed by Bush. It's not HIS fault he has to help clean up the mess Edwards, Hillary, and others voted for.

[Hobarticus]

57. I'll take a former United States Senator to a former state Senator, any day

Obama's simply not ready for prime time, and it shows. End of the day, that's all there is to it.

[jenmito]

60. Don't you realize Edwards, as a Senator, was a HAWK and was NOT the outspoken populist

or war critic until he got out of Congress? Johnny-come-lately. Obama put his future on the line by boldly speaking out against a popular war. You choose to support the guy with the bad judgement and late conversions. I'll support the guy with conviction.

[Hobarticus]

63. Obama doesn't vote against continuing the war, does he?

Let's talk some more about "conviction"....

[TwilightGardener]

77. Yes, he does--he HAS voted to defund, and I'm afraid that might

come back to haunt him, actually.

[jenmito]

95. Yes. But since you totally ignored my post, I'll try again:

Don't you realize Edwards, as a Senator, was a HAWK and was NOT the outspoken populist
or war critic until he got out of Congress? Johnny-come-lately. Obama put his future on the line by boldly speaking out against a popular war. You choose to support the guy with the bad judgement and late conversions. I'll support the guy with conviction.

[Lurking Dem]

104. Edwards 2.0 never served in the Senate.

The beta version was a conservative hawk.

[jenmito]

107. EXACTLY.

Thank you. :hi:

[okoboji]

94. yep

Obama's words do not match his deeds.

[jenmito]

96. That's false.

He's voted to defund the war and set timelines for withdrawal and it's all been vetoed by Bush. Nice try.

[asdjrocky]

13. Your right-

He was one of 15 co-sponsors. Is it his numbers, or the fact that he actually has something to say, that really worries you?

[midnight]

19. My mantra is bring them home. This war is nothing but a

means to collect lots of money. I wish Edwards never listened to those calling for this war. I know he wishes he never did either. He has told us that it (his vote for this war)was a mistake and he will bring them home. Who do you think we deserve?

[Froward69]

20. Why is all the Edwards supporters WILLING TO BUY

His Bullshit? or rather, forgive him of egregious reasoning... because of what he says now???
Flawed reasoning is the only answer.

[mitchtv]

24. maybe it is BS

But Clinton and Obama make the choice easy. Biden? eh he's alright. I like him, Dodd and Richarson, the other two? not so much

[Dems Will Win]

29. Let's not foget Biden and Dodd voted for the war for oil as well

AND LET'S NOT FORGET NEITHER EDWARDS, CLINTON, DODD OR BIDEN READ THE N.I.E. THAT STATED THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ SINCE 1995!!

They ALL wanted to appear hawkish because they knew they were running for President, that's why none of them wanted to read that the WMDs DID NOT EXIST!

Obama said this:

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[asdjrocky]

27. So, am I to take it then, that you support the occupation of Iraq?

Your candidate certainly does, I mean, if you look at his continued funding of this fiasco. Biden talks big, votes small.

As far as buying BS? Buddy, I made a living playing poker for nearly three years of my life, before the internet, and I can smell BS from a mile away. My whole life has been spotting BS from a mile away, it has something to do with what I've done for a living, maybe that's why I smell something funny whenever you show up.

[Froward69]

58. well pokerface

lookup from the cards and pay attention. funding specifically up armored vehicles is supporting our forces. While only the president can remove them from Iraq...
if they were not funded you can go all in, that bushy boy would cash grandmas social security check to keep em there.
as one who was around for the de-funding of Vietnam and saw what a debacle that was. Joe Bidens experience is by far more necessary in todays world. Than John Edwards' Ego.
I play at full tilt poker. as Froward69 after the the elections.

[asdjrocky]

64. Seriously, you make me laugh.

You think if you say things, in this Mr. Authoritarian voice, that people just believe you. Why don't you tell us all about the time you sat in the room with John Edwards and no cameras, I love that one.

[Froward69]

66. Thank you

I try to spread humor where ever I can. The moral of that story was how Edwards is a two faced political pundit interested in being president for his own ego. and how simpletons eat his rhetoric up. those who would cut off their nose to spite their face. That one?

[asdjrocky]

70. And you really think you're funny?

Let's take a vote people.

[Froward69]

68. Here read up a bit

and see who is truly the best choice for America and the world... oh yeah you are for Americans only just like the rethugs... never mind.
well if you do actually want to be informed like Real Democrats do then here.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/12/29/news/metro/e824d5602ad69e31862573c0001d7c50.txt

[asdjrocky]

69. Trust me-

The last thing I need is reading recommendations from someone like you. Save your time.

[Froward69]

74. my time is free for Joe Biden

As his is for me.
unlike your guy.
who charges $55,000 to speak. unless he is going for the big money as president.

[Auntie Bush]

75. If your nose is so good at spotting BS ...

then why are you voting for Edwards? You should know better! Everything he says is calculated to win the election and say what he thinks people want him to say. He's a typical lawyer and politician and has years of practice persuading people to think his way. If your nose is so great...why haven't you noticed this...it's really obvious!

I think Edwards is a nice guy and I love his wife...but I have no faith that he'll do what he says he'll do. Remember, people in SC didn't like him as senator because he neglected his position.

I find it hard to forgive Hillary for voting for the IWR...but ye gads... Edwards was running around and pushing for it's passage. That's much worse in my mind. I can see through most BS. Hillary HAD to vote for it if she wanted to run for president. But, Edwards did not have to push it. He did so because he also wanted to run for president and felt that would make him look like a strong leader on foreign relations. Both of them voted for political reasons. No one who ever voted against it would be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. So no one should be criticizing the other. Also Obama could afford to go against it because he wasn't running for president at the time. So he also gets no credit for that as far as I'm concerned. In other words it's a moot issue IMHO.

[ShadesOfGrey]

79. Um... he was Senator of NC

Some (mostly repugs) were critical of his presidential run while serving as senator but many of us dems were encouraging him to run. Is that what your referring to as neglecting his position? If not, please 'splain.

[Auntie Bush]

90. Sorry, I meant NC.

Yes, when he was senator of NC he neglected that position. I hear from other NC DUers that he was unpopular and wouldn't have won re-election
so he ran for president. They said he never answered their email or cared about his constituents and was just a plain lousy senator who did almost nothing or passed any bills...except push for the IWR. Anyway...that's what I heard around here and I could be wrong...you know how DU is! However, I never heard one single person ever say he was a good productive senator.

[ShadesOfGrey]

101. Actually, it was the other way around...

He lost popularity when he decided to run for president. You've got to remember this is a very red state. Although I'm sure some dems thought he "neglected" his responsibilities by running, other groups of us were actually urging him to do so.

Now you can say that you've met a DUer from NC who supports Edwards. I don't agree with him on every single issue but I don't agree with anyone on everything. Edwards definitely has what it takes to turn this country around. He has the strength and vision needed to shake up the status quo and I have 100% confidence he'll do that! I can't say that about any other candidate - unless Gore decides to run :D

[Auntie Bush]

103. Hi, happy to meet you.

:hi: Well that's a first! I didn't notice you were from NC...so I'll not argue with you. You should know how his constituents felt/feel. Glad to hear it as he could end up being our nominee. Maybe now I won't feel so bad if he does...or at least I'll have some hope he will be a good president. We're so lucky to have so many good candidates. I won't cry no matter who gets the nomination.

[ShadesOfGrey]

105. Nice to meet you too Auntie Bush!

:hi:

PS Love your moniker

[TwilightGardener]

78. Joe knew way more than Edwards, at the time--Joe voting for the IWR is WORSE.

[Froward69]

81. like Joe himself said

"Some things are worth loosing a campaign for." being certain our troops have the vehicles that save their lives. its worth it. once Joe Biden is president. He will bring them home faster than anyone else.

[Two Americas]

108. please start a Biden thread

Biden is a great candidate and is worthy of support. He is not without flaws, but let's emphasize the positive now. The battle ahead is too important to waste time and energy in petty squabbles.

No one is "buying" anything, no one is "selling" anything, no one is glossing over past disappointments and failures.

You may not agree, but sane and reasonable people are seeing their way clear to support Edwards with full recognition of his flaws and past actions. You need not see this as anything against you or your candidate. No need to attack and ridicule others.

[BlueStater]

25. Guess what? Your hero Obama has done nothing but fund the war since becoming a senator n/t

[Dawgs]

84. Yeah, why didn't he just shit on the soldiers like you wanted him to do?

Brilliant!!

[BlueStater]

88. That's your defense of Obama?

Lame.

[Dawgs]

89. Great response to my "lame" post.

Do you care to tell me why he was wrong for supporting our troops?

[no name no slogan]

26. He did, but Nixon didn't

He was too busy pushing up daisies in Yorba Linda.

NIXON NOW.

[Beaverhausen]

32. How many times has Obama voted to keep funding the war?

This Edwards supporter isn't happy about his vote, but I am more concerned now about what the candidates will do when elected.

I agree with Edwards on most of the issues more than I do the other candidates. He is who I'm voting for.

[JackORoses]

56. There is a huge difference between voting to start a war and voting to fund troop operations.

A smart Beaver would know this.

[Hobarticus]

61. And a huge difference between making a mistake, and perpetuating another's mistake

Especially when someone makes a lot of hay pointing out that original mistake, over and over again.

[Dawgs]

86. ZERO!! He voted to fund the troops, or is that wrong?

[gmudem]

34. We obviously all know that.

The more it becomes clear that Edwards has momentum, the more desperately he is attacked. I'm just glad he's not a part of this Billarybama whinefest that I'm sure everybody is extremely sick of right now.

Edwards is interested in winning for the people of this country. Clinton and Obama are clearly more interested in sniping at each other.

[The River]

37. The First 3 Letters

of your nickname tell me all I need
to know about how evolved your judgment is.

Thanks For Playing.

[peoli]

49. But, but.... he said he was sorry

[TeamJordan23]

51. As Edwards has said many times during the campaign: "I made a mistake" nm

[Dems Will Win]

62. Johnny-Come-Lately Made "Mistakes" on Iraq, Free Trade With China, Yucca Mtn, NCLB, the Bankruptcy

Bill, I could go on and on.

Then he flip-flops to run in 08 -- you can;t trust a flip-flopper, they just flip on you again when they get elected to run for re-election!

[bigwillq]

54. That's one of the reasons

why he doesn't have my primary support. I will vote for him though shall he win the nomination.

[Yuugal]

71. Yeah, why vote for the guy who wants to bring all the troops home

When you can vote for the people who funded it this year and want to stay there forever? That makes sense.

[TeamJordan23]

80. Edwards is also for keeping a residual force in Iraq to fight terrorists. nm

[Yuugal]

99. link? nt

[unc70]

114. Not true! Edwards does not leave force "to fight terrorists"; Clinton and Obama do.

Edwards only leaves a larger-than-normal contingent of Marines to guard the embassy, and such.

No combat, no anti-terrorist operations.

Check his web site, transcripts of debates, etc. Don't trust the AP or other MSM spin pieces.

[glowing]

82. Just a reminder... 2001-2003 was a dangerous time to have any

progressive views and disagree with war... Coming from N. Carolina, it was very popular for the war.

[cali]

85. Dangerous? In what way?

Let me remind you that other Senators and reps from red states voted against the IWR- because they had the courage and foresight that Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Dodd, didn't.

[glowing]

117. Dangerous as in life threatening... as in drive me off the road into a

ditch threatening.

[robbedvoter]

110. It's a good thing that courage will not be needed by a POTUS in the next 4-8 years

at any point, right? :shrug:

[calteacherguy]

91. An important reminder, especially at this time of year. K&R. nt

[Two Americas]

92. Our party deserves better advocates

And the country deserves a better Democratic party. That is the task in front of us.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a symptom of something much greater that has gone terribly wrong. We are all complicit. This has been building for decades, and is not a simple matter of this vote, or that policy.

Virtually the entire country has rolled over for the Republican zealots and demagogues one way or another for decades. We hear libertarian every-man-for-himself right wing attitudes and positions spouted and defended every day right here, with too little objection from anyone. Even for those few of us who have spoken out against it and fought it, we too have failed. Being right about this is the consolation prize in politics. It is weak and insuffcient. Our enemies don't care if they are right, just so long as they prevail - they focus on being effective.

To say that we have not all failed, and that any of us can therefore can sit in judgment of others, is to sap our power, to violate our principles, and to deny our responsibility.

We move forward together starting now, or it will be all of us who are judged and judged harshly by future generations.

The fight for peace is the fight for justice.

The fight for justice starts right here at home, right now.

Fighting for justice means fighting for equality of economic opportunity for all.

It is easy to be "against war." How many will fight for justice?

[asdjrocky]

98. When I run for office-

I want you to write my speeches. Nicely done Two Americas.

[pauldg0]

102. Propoganda, and dis-information.

Be careful of all the disinformation coming from the Obama folks about who will win in a General Election against the Repuks.

Check out RealClearPolitics.com. This has a composite average of all the polls in the United States. Compared to all candidates including Obama, John Edwards smashes all candidates by very large margins.

The Obama folks are desperate in the last hours........they have to lie at this point. Listen, I am a republican.....a laid off engineer in Michigan. I'll have nothing to do with the republican party again as they have sold thousands of us out in our state.

I follow the Caucus in Iowa with a passion because I care about this election. I started supporting Obama and changed my mind to Edwards. Edwards is Clear and explains inside and out exactly how he is going to make the changes. Obama does too, but is not as clear and consistant. Hillary never explains how her plans are going to happen.

Vote EDWARDS 08.

[robbedvoter]

109. Timely, as he keeps apologizing for just voting - as if this was his worst action

in the hope that voters do not realize that behind the 2 years old dove hides the biggest chickenhawk of all Dem candidates.
And he didn't reform in 2005 either as this from 2007 proves:

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down."

[Larkspur]

112. Yes, but he's apologized for his IWR vote and I trust Edwards more than Obama

and Hillary to fight corporate corruption and the corporate takeover of our democracy. Obama is too Lieberman-esque for me and Hillary is a brazen whore for corporate interests..

[Stevepol]

116. Let's be honest about this issue. The GWB regime is a well-honed lying machine.

I remember thinking when I heard GWB saying at Camp David in September of 02 (Tony Blair right beside him) that the IAEA had released a report saying that Iraq could have a bomb in 6 months that maybe Bush was right after all about this. An A-bomb in the hands of Hussein did seem like a threat.

Of course in a couple weeks or so one of the "liberal media" (the Wash Times) had the sudden bolt of inspiration to call the IAEA and find out that the report didn't exist, that the IAEA had said in fact in another report that Iraq couldn't even start working on a bomb for 5 years considering the state of their atomic energy industry.

But the point is that AT THE TIME these liars in control were able to conceal and fabricate information such that people could be easily fooled, especially politicians. I give both HRC and Edwards the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what I would have done if I had been in their position at the time, being faced with false and misleading information touted as true inside information from the CIA and so on.

What's important is what people believe as the truth is revealed, once they discover that they've been led around by the nose. Edwards has admitted that he was wrong. I don't see what else could be expected of him today.

[sniffa]

118. are you series?

why hasn't this been pointed out before!? x(

[FrenchieCat]

119. Folks are closing their eyes, clicking their heels and trying hard to forget......

But if Edwards is the nominee.....so much will come out of the woodwork, we won't know what hit us.

Buyer's remorse will be the Democrats new theme song!