A Comment About Edwards... One Of The Best In Such A Long Long Time.... But

[ChiciB1]

I was up til very early this morning, thinking, thinking, thinking... and HURTING too because it seems America is about to "do it all over again" and go for the Glitz instead of the GEM!

I have an extreme amount of respect for him and feel he's more than capable of being POTUS, BUT PERHAPS it may be a blessing in disguise if he doesn't become the nominee. He's only 54, he still has time and America needs him and his populist message to try and fix the MONUMENTAL problems we are faced with. But since the problems are GIGANTIC and the MOUNTAIN is so high, why not let Clinton or Obama get the nod?? At least THEY have lots of FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES!

You know why? Because any Democrat who should happen to win will get BLAMED for almost everything that has gone on for the last decade! The perception will be... SEE, the Democrats said they had the answers and LOOK... they weren't up to the job. What has changed?? Back To The Repukes We Go!!!

I know the theory seems off the wall, and I'm sure John Edwards doesn't think of it this way, but it IS a factor that needs consideration. I would rather he didn't get the blame because right now he's being panned and blamed for so much anyway! Most of the other candidates have skeletons in their closet just as Edwards has some. But since Edwards wants to "shake it up" in D.C. he's going to be scrutinized like nothing we've ever seen.

That still doesn't mean I'm abandoning him, I will vote for him above all others no matter what, but it IS something THAT I've been giving some thought. If the D.C. Elites and the Powers That Be are so against him now, just think how hard they will work against him if he actually overcomes all odds. They will be going for BEAR... FAIR OR NOT!!

I don't happen to think there are enough people in D.C. who don't have their palms AND claws out for their own self interest. Greasy palms are always so very SLICK!!

And yes, my cynicism is in full bloom today and will probably grow with each passing day!

[ladjf]

1. I believe that up until 2004, Edwards was just another bright young

trial lawyer, scrambling to rise up in money and fame just like so many other bright stars. I think that is why he made several bad choices while in the Senate. However, and this is just pure speculation on my part, I believe that when he put his name in the hat for the V.P. slot, he began to analyze America's problems. In so doing, it became evident to him that the middle and lower income people were being screwed by the rich, a condition that is progressive and self-defeating ultimately. By now, his views are clearly stated in his stump speeches.

Unfortunately, Americans are not politically and philosophically mature enough to be able to recognize what is in their best interest, like a child that eats only junk food because it tastes good and is quick and easy to obtain. For that reason, I doubt that we will nominate our best candidate. We can only hope that the nominee's flaws are as disastrous and were Bush's.

I doubt that Edwards will ever run again. If the Dem's stay in power for eight years and fail, the pendulum will swing back to the Republicans. However, if a Democratic candidate wins in November, there is a small possibility that Edwards might be called upon to help America in some position other than President. Not too likely.

By the way, I don't harbor any illusions that Edwards is some saintly type person. He might be no more honest than any of the other candidates. But, I like his "products" and if would carry out even some of what he has promised it would be a huge improvement over what we have had for eight years.

[ChiciB1]

7. I DO Think He's More Honest... And More Sincere! But Not God!

[ladjf]

9. He may or may not be. I'm not too worried about the answer to

that question. To me, the more important question would be, is he smart enough to know that it would be in his political best interests to carry out the changes he has promised during the campaign. Because if the answer is "yes', then America will profit. Further, it might lead the way for other politicians to see that its better politics in the long term to help Americans than to exploit them.

Currently, a majority of politicians are following the Rove blueprint of grabbing everything you can regardless of how it effects Americans and America. That practice has been working for the Republicans and many Democrats now since Nixon but is nearing the end of its run. Edwards might be the leading edge of a longer headed vision that works for almost all.

[ChiciB1]

12. One Can Wish... Doesn't Look Like too Many Are Taking The Bait...

If CONGRESS isn't willing to work with him, NONE of his plans will even get consideration! Tell me again, how many Senators are supporting him now??

I don't know about the House, but I think the answer to the above is ZERO! Says VOLUMES to me. And I'm not arguing here, I WANT THIS MAN to be POTUS, I just think those out there who don't see his worth are going to be the losers!

Not to mention the fact, that I'm going to have to live with it too! IT IS TIME to re-route, PAST time, and yet nothing of any reality has happened even since 2006. Pelosi & Reid?? Gee, kind of makes me wonder.

[ladjf]

14. Unfortunately, I have to agree with every one of your pessimistic

statements. That grieves us all.

Somehow, Americans have been conditioned to disbelieve the objective and to believe the subjective.
Truths are fabricated rather that proven or at least examined objectively. Science is out. Fairy tales are in. Hot button issues rule and real issues that effect the basics of survival are ignored.

Edwards platform seems to clearly favor the interests of most Americans and yet he has less that 10% of the backing from his own party. I agree that his stump speech sometimes sounds a bit too much like a salesman. But, he's urgently trying to get his message out there. He thinks that since the majority would profit from his programs, his message will resonate. He might have overrated American's ability to determine what is in their best interests.

By the way, the other two Dem candidates promise most of the same things as Edwards but in a way that is less convincing to me. Further, both of the others have shown signs of certain positions that may decrease their chances to be able to serve all Americans best.

[ChiciB1]

16. Yes, Sounds Pessimistic... They Say He's Angry... I Say He's Determined!

And the other two... maybe they want something a little different from Repukes and a little like Edwards, but I'm not sold.

I see they HAVE picked up his talking points and are running with them. That must hurt John Edwards a lot! He has been first out of the gate on most issues. Flaws and all!

[ladjf]

17. I see nothing wrong with being "angry". Anyone that isn't angry

about the "rape job" the Bush and company have committed upon Americans is sleep walking.

I like the way you think. Keep on writing. We'll be reading. Don't waste time apologizing to anyone.

[ChiciB1]

20. Thank You... Guess I'll Be Around For A While, Even If I Am Angry...

And I'm NOT apologizing. When I see John Edwards talk, there are times a song comes to mind. Tom Petty sang it and I believe he wrote it regarding Ronnie Rayguns...

The title was "I Won't Back Down!" Petty meaning he wouldn't back down when it came to fighting against the WRONGS Reagan foisted upon us. Don't misinterpret... don't want to do the Reagan thing again. Just a memory and a song!

[saracat]

2. The power elites are going to be working against anyone who tries to make change.

The difference is Edwards would actually try.Obama and Hillary are both creatures of the Establishment.They want to work "within" this broken system and even campaign about how competent they are within it.Edwards is the only one that recognizes that the system needs to be replaced. With either Hillary or Obama as Potus, there will be no change.The sum total of change will be that the race or gender of the Potus will be different, and call me nasty but so friggen what? I need more than that.Nancy Pelosi has shown us that putting a womans face on Speaker didn't do squat to make anything better.There was zip improvement.A different race won't matter in a President if the inner workings are the same.

Both Hillary and Obama have repeated shown their respect for the Establishment and boast of reaching across the aisle.Both has supported Lieberman, and both praise their Republican colleagues even now.BTW, what Republican is ever praising a Democrat ? Anyone? When do they reach "across the aisle"? Both Obama and Hillary have mentioned the Republicans, McCain in particular, flatteringly on the stump.When has McCain ever mentioned them?

John Edwards is the only candidate with the guts to even "try" to take on the system and the corporations and because of that he is marginalized. My cynicism is in full bloom today as well, and I can only say that it may be that John Edwards is too good for us, but I am supporting him every step of the way!

[ChiciB1]

4. You Say Exactly What I'm Saying... But I Didn't Say John Edwards Is

too good for America! Forgot that one!! Glad you added it, and I AGREE! And I agree with all that you said.

And sure, I hardly think anyone is perfect nor should they be put up on a pedestal! Getting up on a pedestal means you have further to fall when the time comes!! The Idiot, Decider is your PRIME EXAMPLE!!!

But for me, he's head and shoulders above the next two! I've said it here many times before... America!!! Be Careful Of What You Wish For!

Call me out, slam me, flame me... WHATEVER! I don't think I'm talking trash, but I'm sure I'm going to see lots of comments who say I am!!

[ClericJohnPreston]

8. BRAVO SARACAT!

EXCELLENT POINTS!

[ChiciB1]

11. Oh, One More Thing... About Reaching Across The Aisle... Repukes

are going to be in such a snit IF a Democrat becomes POTUS, all you're going to see is their back-ends! And most of them STINK!!

[ladjf]

15. I agree totally with your post. This has been going on globally

for several thousand years. What is there to suggest that their stranglehold on the "under class" could now be broken?

The possible answer:

The power of electronic mass communication.

It's not a done deal, but the potential is there for the masses of the world to "storm the Bastilles of elitist power" and kick the blood suckers off of us. It will take courage, intellect and luck to pull it off.

[terisan]

3. I think he can make a difference economically for most people.

But you are also right about his having time.

[jeanruss]

5. congress

I am so struck by the lack of support for Edwards in the Congress. It really shows the sham progressives for what they are. Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold are phonies. They are always lamenting about how hard it is to get anything passed. Now when a candidate shares their platform they don't support him. There is no one in Congress for the people.

[ChiciB1]

6. Welcome To DU!! And I Wrote Feingold Last Week Myself Telling

him the very same thing... when I told him to stop asking me to support his "Progressive Patriots" KLAN! And then I "Un-Subscribed" myself!

He sure made me do a Linda Blair!!

[cali]

18. First of all Bernie hasn't endorsed anyone and he's not even

a dem. Russ hasn't endorsed anyone either. As for calling Bernie and Russ sham progressives, they've done more for progressive causes than JE has my multiples of 100 or more. It's just disgusting to see people slamming REAL progressives who've proven how hard they'll fight for progressive causes for fucking years, just because they didn't endorse John Edwards. Russ and Pat worked with him. They know him. If they don't want to support him, it sure as shit isn't because they're corporate whores. Both of them have actually fought corporate control and influence. JE? Not so much when he had the chance. Who the hell do you think wrote and sponsored the War Profiteering Prevention Act? Who fought against the Patriot Act? Not John Edwards. Maybe they just don't trust him.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

[jeanruss]

19. Feingold could have kept quiet with his views before the Nevada caucus

Feingold didn't have to attack Edwards right before the Nevada caucus. He did it when it would do the most damage. I think he's a small man. I don't care where any of these candidates were, I'm interested in where they're going. It's obvious that Edwards has deeply changed his views. Somehow that is considered a negative. Do you think it's a positive that Bush still thinks exactly the way he did when he took office? Intelligent people CHANGE. Edwards has seen the light and is telling us where he wants to go. I don't think he's a liar about this. I think if he was given the chance he would be one of our best Presidents. No one here wants to admit the reality of America. There is a reason progressive views are not mainstream. Most voters are not progressive. When it is time to vote the majority of Americans will not vote for a black man. When it comes time to vote most Americans will not vote for a woman. Sad but true. There is a reason the msm has more viewers and listeners. More people identify with their viewpoint. It stinks, but it's true. Millions of people voted for Bush TWICE. Millions would STILL vote for him today. Disgusting, but a fact. If the dems have a woman or a black nominee, we will have another Republican President. The proof is the BLACKOUT of Edwards. If he is so inconsequential, why do they have to resort to this extreme behavior? Because he can WIN.

[cali]

21. What utter nonsense. Russ' comments reached a tiny audience and the

idea that his remarks effected NV is just silly. If you don't know what Feingold, Leahy and Sanders are doing, that's easily remedied: Pay attention. They're all working their butts off on PROGRESSIVE issues. And how the hell does anyone know whether or not Edwards has changed his pov out of ambition or genuine conviction? You don't know. And neither do I. One thing I do know is that Leahy and Feingold know JE well. And I'll tell you something; Bernie hasn't changed in 25 years. I live here in Vermont. I've been to dozens of town meetings with him and his populism and passion for the poor and working people is as undimmed now as it was when I first heard him 2 decades ago. Pat? Hasn't made a thin dime off being in the Senate for 34 years. No stocks, no bonds, no book deals, nada. He's the 96th wealthiest Senator out of 100.

You think JE would be a great president. Well, maybe, just maybe Feingold, Leahy and Sanders don't. They're still true progressives- even if they disagree with you. Furthermore, you're not some oracle who knows how America will vote. You have an opinion. That's it. I have another opinion. They're both just opinions. My opinion is actually based on facts. And the facts are that far more dems have turned out for the primaries than repukes and dems are sweeping up most of the indie vote. In addition, dem party membership is growing, repuke party membership shrinking. Dems have vastly outraised repukes. There are lots more objective facts pointing to the dems having a very good shot at the White House- no matter who the nom is.

As for bush, he couldn't get elected dog catcher.

[ChiciB1]

22. Take YOUR Shame And Stick It! And Don't "Presume" For Me!

I know Sanders is a SOCIALIST, AND I also know exactly WHAT Feingold said!! And I know that hints have been made that he feels the same way as Feingold does. At least Sanders is willing to call himself a Socialist, I'll give him that much. However, thinking that people don't change is a bit ludicrous to me.

I knew very little of John Edwards in '04 and had some reservations back then. I was "more" Howard Dean, but look what THEY did to him! There have been many first time "novice" Senators and Representatives that could have gotten swept up in the rarefied air of Congress. Some who honestly believed the "old coots" had real knowledge and wanted to be part of becoming one of those leaders. How many of those Senators are STILL making mistakes??? I don't really want to attack Obama, but we will NEVER know for sure "how" he would have voted on Iraq. He seems to keep voting for it's funding. And what about Clinton's oh, so recent faux explanation about what SHE "thought" she was voting for?? This doesn't seem to be a problem with Feingold now does it? If I didn't know better by the way the people in D.C. are acting when it comes to Edwards, I might think there's a dead body up there somewhere and everyone KNOWS John Edwards buried it somewhere.

The John Edwards I see now, IS NOT the same person he was back then, and IF you are unable to see that, then so be it. If I recall correctly, MOST Americans couldn't get ENOUGH of going to War with Iraq! Anyone change their mind now?? I knew BEFORE The Idiot got himself appointed POTUS that he intended to go into Iraq, did anyone listen to me?? I can't think of one person! PNAC basically "advertised" it in the late 90's. I would like to think that MOST people can now see what kind of destruction it's caused! And do tell, how MUCH are we hearing about THAT war today?? MSM is doing such a fine job of keeping us informed. One would almost think it's forgotten. I DO AGREE it was a monumental fiasco! But it's not ALL the fault of John Edwards, no matter what role he played. His message now has changed and it's much more in line with what I feel this country needs, but one that far too many in D.C. don't REALLY want to happen. So if Feingold has no problem with Clinton and how she explains it, it does make me wonder.

So, what do YOU think Feingold's purpose was when he made ANY statement IF he didn't intend to endorse ANYONE? He could have said NOTHING, and yet chose a "put down" on John Edwards. Did he just want to "say something" because he wasn't getting attention? I don't think so. I believe there was some "intent" involved. EEWWWW, conspiracy theories!

As for Progressives, some of us prefer being called Liberals, but seeing as Ronnie Rayguns INTENTIONALLY used and abused that word, Democrats decided to run away from it. I wonder who came up with THAT idea?? Was it the DLC when they "decided" that being called a liberal meant you ALSO supported "welfare queens!" You remember them don't you?? I won't swear on a Bible it was them who felt "liberal" was no longer a viable word, but seems so.

So you can take that Shame Finger and shake it at someone else, you seem to be very good at it, but I don't have to accept your opinion or your outrage, nor do I!!

[ChiciB1]

23. Yep, Hard To Look At Reality... Hard To See America Miss One Of It's

best chances for real change, his debates are always very good... HOWEVER... tomorrow it will be Clinton/Obama again.

[avaistheone1]

24. Edwards may have more time, but we don't. American is becoming more of a corporatocracy each day.

We need John Edwards for president now.

[Generator]

10. Yep I agree

My prediction: Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

If it takes a little vote "juggling" from the Repukes so be it.

The Clinton presidency is a "win-win."

They get to bash Hillary and the past Clinton administration-(whether deserved or not-they always bash about the things that actually matter least) for the next four to eight years. They get to blame everything AGAIN on the Clintons and yes, the Democrats.

Hillary will get nothing done because as was the sad case in Bill!s presidency the senate will block everything she tries to do. She will triangulate. She will back down. She will give them everything they want (save probably a right wing Justice-though the justice she picks will definitely be "moderate" because they will block and throw a tizzy fight over anything less-filibuster will be THE word of the next four to eight years) and still she will wonder why giving them everything they want and backing down gets US nothing. The Democratic party thanks to the philosophy of Bob Shrum and Mark Penn and countless others has been going further right and further bacwards for decades now.

And YES they will blame the crashing economy, the endless struggle to get out of Iraq on the Democrats.

Still, she will play whatever war games are demanded of her-either to look tough-or because she actually believes this stuff-I think she's more in line with Lieberman than most here want to admit.

So yes-that is the future-drop me a line in a couple of years and let me know how my prognostication worked out.

They (the Republicans, the power elite in Washington and the Pentagon) want Hillary more than we do.


I know Edwards or Obama doesn't stand a chance in HELL of being president. I support Edwards-and would be thrilled to vote for Obama just because if he can beat the machine-he deserves it. But Hillary was selected LONG ago-and another plus she has for the Republicans-she will make sure the last eight years go down the memory hole. It WAS a nightmare folks-because only we know exactly the level of travesty committed against our Democracy. Those guilty will never be held accountable.

[ChiciB1]

13. Again... I Agree With Yet Another Point... She WAS "Selected" A Long

time ago. Two of the biggest "behind the scenes" (or not so) companions are Rahm Emanuel and CHUCKIE Schumer!! I have no links, I have no fact sheet... but I KNOW it!