Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I was wrong about Edwards

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:11 PM
Original message
I was wrong about Edwards
I was wrong. I posted some bad things in the past here about Edwards, that he was phony and complained about his house and stuff.

But I see now I was mistaken. When I have been watching these recent debates Edwards has convinced me he means it when he talks about poverty and the "cause of his life". I don't know how to explain it, but I can tell he is being sincere and truthful. I guess its a sense or something, but watching him closely recently I can tell the things he is saying is coming from his heart. I no longer doubt John Edwards and apologize for the things I said about him in the past on DU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you!
We all have some problems with every politician... it's just impossible to agree with anyone 100% of the time...

That said, I'm glad to hear you're also being "taken in" by John's message, just like those of us who plan on voting for him. :)

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. you're welcome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaLittle Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
55. Thank You For Your Most Sincere Response... Spread Your Message of Sincerity Please!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
105. Or who already did vote for him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. ...
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nice.
People do change. Edwards did humble himself and recognize and apologize for his votes. I think that takes a great deal of honesty.

More importantly for the last few years he has been scouring the country to get a handle on the problems that the working/middle class are dealing with. Edwards has taken what he has learned and has put together a bold progressive platform.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
32. the truth about those votes is hidden
No Child Left Behind passed 91-8. Wellstone, Kennedy, and Leahy all voted for it as did all but 2 Democrats.
Patriot Act passed 98-1. Wellstone, Kennedy, Leahy, and all but one Democrat voted for it
China trade passed 87-10 and was pushed by a Democratic president. Kennedy--the greatest champion in Congress of working folks--voted for it.

And so on. Obamites flyspeck a few votes, twist it and never put it in context. Look at who else voted for those bills. Edwards was wrong on the IWR and bankruptcy but the other bills you hear about are BS. Virtually every Democrat changed on those bills. Does anyone think Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone are/were rethug lite?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronopio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
125. And Wellstone agonized over his vote against IWR.
When he finally did vote against it, he told aides that he believed he just threw away his chances of being re-elected Senator.

As it turned out, he got a 10+% bump in the polls by committing political suicide. So the Rethugs had to resort to covert homicide.

Congress was lied to by the Bush admin, even though many were in on the lie. We all get bad information, and some of us, like Edwards, know what to do when we find that out.

Edwards was once one of the Borg, but he got burned by the DLC in Election 2004, and looks pretty pissed off about it now. That's a sign of hope, and that's the kind of person Americans should be supporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you. That was big of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks - integrity does count
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
7. Very gracious of you. I think all John needs is to have people listen
to him. That's why the debates always help him. Now, why don't you come on over all the way?
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. K & R
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 03:21 PM by longship
on edit: Amen to the post above mine. Listening to people can make a huge difference.

:kick:ed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. That was nice. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. You make an important point ... you came to this conclusion after 'watching' and hearing Edwards,..
... and NOT taking your cue from the MSM.

When Edwards is watched and heard, people move toward him just like you have done.

Welcome to the Edwards Campaign. Let's take back out Government.... Go John Go!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. hold your horses, they didn't say that
lol, I would like it too, but they simply stated that they were wrong about Edwards, not that they support him over another candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
116. "When I have been watching these recent debates Edwards has convinced me..."
how could you miss it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. very gracious apology
and thank you for doing so. You raised the level of discussion here by about 100 points by doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iris5426 Donating Member (697 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thanks its nice to see someone on here have the intergrity to say something like that :-)
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Cool...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. Edwards is the most realistic on health care
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 03:21 PM by Warpy
Yes, expanding Medicare was Kucinich's proposal and is what we need to end up with eventually. However, Edwards proposes being able to dump high priced for profit insurance and buying into Medicare as an alternative.

Kucinich's plan would likely never come to fruition because of opposition from a wealthy and powerful conglomerate of corporations. However, Edwards would slide us into single payer through the back door. The insurance industry would be put into the position of having to clean up their act considerably just to keep attracting the executive class. They would certainly become less wealthy and less powerful rather quickly.

Edwards has the advantage of knowing every rotten trick corporations, their lawyers, Congress, and every other snake in this country is likely to pull and he's smart enough to counter them all. That's how he got rich enough to afford an overbuilt mansion and $400 haircuts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. I think so too.
You say: Edwards has the advantage of knowing every rotten trick corporations, their lawyers, Congress, and every other snake in this country is likely to pull and he's smart enough to counter them all. That's how he got rich enough to afford an overbuilt mansion and $400 haircuts.

I agree. We need someone with his experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrbluto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
60. A word about $400 haircuts
I'm just curious: what do other candidates spend? is the entire cost accounted for?

So what my thinking is is that, much like TV News anchor people, any politician probably has to shell out some serious dough for their hair cut, make up, whatever. And considering the microscope they're under it's probably a justifiable cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. I've always thought the same thing.
Personal expenses don't matter to me. I really don't care that Condaleeza Rice spends a lot of money on shoes - I intensely dislike her for what she's done to the country, not her shoes.

I figure that most politicians spend a lot of money on their appearance. That's just part of politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wake.up.america Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #63
82.  Bush looks as if cuts his own hair with his eyes closed and a pair of dull scissors...
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 01:07 AM by wake.up.america
But that is not the reason I don't care for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #60
65. the $400 haircut myth
that's been on my nerves for a while. The way I hear it is that JE needed to have a barber come to the plane because of his schedule, whatever...and the barber was cool enough to do it, but he lost clients because of all the time he spent getting there, whatever. So he was losing like $400 on the deal.

So Edwards makes up the extra bread for him so he won't lose money. He does the right thing and now he gets the $400 haircut thing thrown at him.

I don't remember where I heard this, maybe on Thom Hartmann. But anytime you hear about the $400 haircut from somebody who listens to the Oxy Moron or Feigned Insannity or whatever right wing jerkoff, please straighten them out.

These kind of thought viruses should be countered wherever they are found. Like the stuff with them saying 'Democrat' party instead of saying 'Democratic'. Fight that shit wherever you find it.

My 2 cents
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #65
103. Hear it anyway you want - it's NOT a "myth."
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 08:25 AM by AlertLurker
CBS interviewed the stylist quite extensively. Edwards wanted that particular stylist and was willing to pay $1100 for the stylists's airfare from California, put him up in a nice hotel and give him $400 per haircut to compensate him for lost business.

It wasn't ONE haircut, it was several, at $400 a pop.

Obviously, I am no fan of Edwards, but if you are going to say SOMETHING about the haircuts, please get your FACTS straight. Edwards wanted THIS particular stylist and was willing to pay AND compensate him (NOT merely $400, but $1100 PLUS $400 / haircut) for both his work and inconvenience.

The other inconvenient truth is that this money was paid out of campaign coffers and he actually compounded the problem by failing to correct the matter and reimburse until the press got wind of it.

Personally, I believe it was a bad move, purely because of the optics and seeming hypocrisy (anti-poverty activist). The right has had a field day with it and will continue to do so until Edwards is nothing but a footnote.

The 28500 sq. ft., $5.3 million house is another problematic meme, irregardless of how "green" it may be. The Fortress Investments fiasco is troubling as well, but mostly because he explained his employment ($459,000), investments ($16 million) and acceptance of contributions ($189,000) INADEQUATELY.

Explaining his Senate Voting Record is another matter in which I believe that he as responded INADEQUATELY, as is his responses to the hamstringing of Kerry in 2004 and the conspiratorial (with Sen. Clinton) attempts to marginalise less popular candidates in the debates.

Usually, I bash Edwards mercilessly on this stuff - not merely because I dislike overcoiffed, smarmy, hypocritical, asshole politicians, but for the singular reason that:

If DEMOCRATS can so easily bash and dismiss his message and persona simply because of the seeming hypocrisy of his actions in comparison to his rhetoric, what will the REPUBLICANS make of it, should Edwards run in the GE?

I firmly believe (and have said this before) that the 'Pubs will pass him around like a drunken cheerleader at a frat party. He will OBVIOUSLY lose in the GE (again).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #103
123. And YOUR candidate NEVER spends money like this?
sHill doesn't spend biiiiig bucks for her dye and perm jobs?

sHill doesn't have money from the corporations spilling out of her pockets?

Obama doesn't have all kinds of $$$ rolling around in the background, if only some enterprising journalist would have the guts to poke around and discover it?

Come on.... you can dislike Edwards all you want, but be honest.... ALL politicians have all kinds of money, and basing your decision on that would discount them all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #103
127. ok, ok. Like I said,
that's what I HEARD. If what you're saying is true, it's a fair criticism. I can't help wondering how much the same criticism can apply to not only the other Democrats, but also Repubs?

You seem to have a good handle on some FACTS (emphasis yours), so add it up for us, if you will:

Are you saying that the Repubs won't be able to pass Hillary or Barack around like a drunken cheerleader? Will we be able to pass around the Repub candidate the same way with the same criticism?

And PLEASE keep the HEAT down. I don't want to get into a pissing contest. Truth exressed in a civil manner will do just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dragonlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. To clarify: $400 was not the price of his usual haircut
The whole thing has been taken out of context. The price was high because on this occasion it included the hair stylist coming to the candidate's location and having to wait around for a while, so naturally it would be a lot more than a normal haircut. John Edwards favors paying workers fairly for their time and skill, and that includes hair stylists. And to clear up another part of the story while we're at it: the bill was sent to the campaign by mistake and got paid by mistake, It was repaid out of their personal funds when this came to the Edwards' attention.

This incident has gotten way more publicity than it deserves, but I think it's worth setting things straight once in a while for people who are just now starting to get more involved in the primaries and may not have heard the truth yet. And you're right to point out that the whole matter of appearance for politicians is getting more important these days. I doubt Eisenhower and Stevenson gave much consideration to their haircuts (not that either of them had much hair!).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9119495 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #60
107. Here is what I heard...
His busy schedule of meetings required someone to come out to his airplane at the small airport he was at. The expense for the hair stylist included travel and hassle pay. I'm not sure if that is true but it is what I heard. If someone had to come out to cut his hair and be away from other clients, I see $400 as reasonable.

In the future, I'm sur he will get $20 haircuts (and leave $380 dollar tips).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucognizant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #60
121. Laura Bush's hairdo.......
for the 2005 inaugural cost $750.00. Since my son-in-law, wws doing rennovations for the hairdresser, it trickled down to me in the form of car repairs................
ONLY trickle down in 7 years!
Why isn't anyone trying to find out what Hillary CLinton spends for hair & make-up? She looks VERY good for a woman her age! That doesn't come cheap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
122. Bingo! It's *NEVER* compared with the others! What about Hillary's dye and perms?
I don't suppose ANY of the RWers pay much for haircuts, either, right?

And, we certainly don't hear/see comparisons with the rest of 'em on their houses.

NONE of the politicians are poor. Picking on one is silly, and downright damaging to the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrbluto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #122
131. Right wing expenses
I wonder how much the putty they use to keep Thompson looking ambulatory costs.

I bet Guliani's comb-over is fairly cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
129. Well I want fair treatment for John Edwards for sure but
I can't simply ignore what alert lurker has to say. Because the point seemed valid when he/she said the Repubs will use this stuff against him.

I'm not saying I agree!! BUT we need to know what we're dealing with is tnis thing, that's what I'm thinking. Right? I felt like John Kerry was gonna kick Bu$h's ass in '04. I don't want any screwups this time.

If my thinking is wrong anywhere, please feel free to edify me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. That's how I see it as well...
that was the reason I first switched from Kucinich to Edwards... healthcare.

His other wonderful policy positions are icing on the cake. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
98. bingo
All too many miss the point that Edwards endorses single payer in principle and has laid out a strategy to get us there, not by negotiating with the bastards, but by pulling and end-around.

Essentially he says call their bluff - all the naysayers who claim the govt will screw it up can keep buying the high priced commercial stuff until they are proven wrong. Instead of arguing and debating them endlessly, just put them out of business by providing a working alternative. It becomes single payer by default as they dinosaurs go extinct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R for that. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
17. This Edwards supporter...
thanks you from the bottom of my heart.:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thank you for seeing the truth of Edwards. It's been so long since we've see sincerity that it's
hard to recognize.

Yes, John and Elizabeth Edwards are sincere and have integrity.

We're simply not used to that degree of honesty.

Please, continue to talk about what you see in him now!

And, thanks for posting, cuz not many people who make a change of opinion take the time to say it!

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
96. Edwards seems to be driven by one overriding theme and that is fairness
in all things and therefore justice. He's also brilliant enough to make a career out of honing in on the truth and making his case.

I just wish he'd tackle certain "controversial" issues with even more ruthlessly honest candor. But I suppose he can't do that as a candidate for Prez...

We need someone who can fight the 'effing Beast, people. Not someone who believes they can suck up to it and make it less lethal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #96
126. What "controversial" issues do you have in mind?
"We need someone who can fight the 'effing Beast, people. Not someone who believes they can suck up to it and make it less lethal."

Now THAT'S quotable!!

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #126
130. "Controversial issues", Bobo? Uh, start with impeachment very much on the table
for - what? - a good 70% of US. Despite Nanny Pelosi et al. Then go down the list: the official 9/11 story being obviously preposterous; spying on everyone and their mom; assassinating Senator Wellstone and his family... Jeez, the list is so long, and we're not even mentioning rogue elements running the State and Justice Departments or how we came to authorize genocide in Iraq.

If Edwards gets elected Prez, I'll be fearing for his life every few hours or so. Damn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
20. Reading the responses, its appreciated, but I don't want wrong
impression given.

I still want Hillary to be president and she is still number one to me.

But I just wanted to say John Edwards is a great candidate and that I was wrong about him.

Now that will be my final word in this thread, so thanks for the kind responses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. Thank you
for your refreshing honesty. You have discovered what we Edwards supporters already know, that there is a diamond in this bunch of silt.

Edwards has always been committed to his Two America's vision, this time honed to attack the CORPORATISTS he has identified as the "enemy". Unfortunately, both Hillary and Obama speak for that Corporatocracy.

Maybe , on further reflection, you will join us all the way.

:kick: and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
23. This is nice to hear, quinnox. Thanks for saying it. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
24. How was that koolaid? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Heck of a lot better than your acid. Did you just HAVE to post that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Sorry
The Edwards koolaid tastes cynical and hypocritical to me. I prefer a more honest flavor like Denis-punch. Just ignore if you don't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. A lot fresher than what the others are serving.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
45. Do you have a life?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. That's a nice post to see on here, amidst the virtriol...
Thanks.

I believe Edwards, too, when he talks about poverty and truly caring about changing our country. I think he's a good man, much in the way Jimmy Carter is a good man. We don't get too many of those running for president.

If he doesn't become president, I hope he finds an effective way to help.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
29. But what about his Senate record and
his votes on the Iraq War? The 2001 bankruptcy bill? No child left behind? His two votes to store nukes at Yucca mountain? The Patriot Act?

The man seems to have done a 180 on a number of issues. Do you believe that he simply got all those prior votes wrong? Or that he's changed? Or that he's pretended he's changed? I can't get a straight feel about the guy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. More Obamite bull about Edwards' record
Take a look at who voted with him on No Child (wellstone for one and Kennedy wrote it), Yucca, and the Patriot Act (everybody but Feingold. That includes WEllstone and Kennedy). They all now oppose No Child and the PA. Yucca is the biggest BS issue of them all. Where do YOU say the waste should go?

Every politician changes positions. Name me one that doesn't. I have a thread on that subject. Reveal us this saint there.

Here is the truth about his record.

Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Sorry but no
It's not Obamite bull. It's actually quite factual. And as for your laundry list of Edwards' other votes, I guess I don't have 20 hours a day to spend on research. Working and family take up a good chunk of time. Thanks for the lengthy response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. "I guess I don't have 20 hours a day to spend on research"
Sadly most don't... so they just get the sound byte version... which is never good.

Hope you take some time to consider that John's record is made up of more than a few bad votes...and that he's not only come around, but honestly discussed the same, rather ten attempting to explain it away and avoid admitting he was wrong. Dunno about you, but I've had more than enough of politicians who never admit a mistake.

Peace.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. So he admits he doesn't know Edwards' record and just accepts the Obamite Big Lie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. So the "good votes" don't count and you can't be bothered.? I assume you know nothing about your
candidate either? What do you base you preference on then? Speeches with no backup?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
102. Feingold also said
"The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war. He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.”


So the question remains, why has Edwards changed his position on all of these issues, so suddenly and so recently, if not simply political expediency? People talk about his sincerity and how that "can't be faked", but was he also sincere when he called the Patriot Act a good bill? It's not like he was young, inexperienced and naive when he cast those votes. He was a grown-up then and he's a grown-up now. If Feingold knew that all of those votes were wrong at the time, why didn't Edwards? Should we mistrust his judgement, his courage or his sincerity?

And when, BTW, did Edwards start fighting against poverty and for the poor and downtrodden, and in what public offices did he leave a record of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #102
132. Feingold
Well obviously, Feingold has also bought into the Obama Lie Machine. LOL

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
104. Obfuscate by "burying the message" all you want...
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 08:45 AM by AlertLurker
It will not hide the fact that on several KEY VOTES (Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Bankruptcy Reform, China Trade, Intelligence Reform, Military Authorization, FCC Media Ownership, etc.) Edwards "fell down," and "fell down" BADLY. It does not matter to many here (including myself) how he voted on Supplemental Appropriations Bills or Infrastructure, or how OTHER Dems voted. It simply matters how HE, John Edwards voted on the KEY ISSUES of the day.

I also notice that you fail to post anything Edwards said regarding those votes at the time. Good idea, because many of us have forgotten just how "gung ho" Edwards was regarding war and the pending police state at the time. His current rhetoric, disavowing these votes as aberrations and mistakes, does NOTHING to help his cause, either, as it merely shows him to be hypocritical.

The Democratic Party needs a LEADER badly at the moment.

We cannot afford another "Flip-Flop" flap, "HaircutGate," "HouseGate," or "InvestmentGate."

The next President of the United States of America MUST come from the Democratic Party, or the United States of America may very well cease to exist as we know it. Many of us believe this. Edwards has already shown ONLY that he can LOSE TWICE. To put it more simply, the USA needs a winner, and John Edwards ain't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #29
101. The way to avoid any smirches on your record is to just vote "present"
whenever a controversial or difficult vote comes up.

But no politician would do that, would they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
31. Very nice to see a change of heart for the better
Enough of this kind of post and we'll have the heebie-jeebies on the run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
35. Very gracious post. I'm behind Edwards as long as he's in it
but I will switch to supporting Hillary if Edwards drops out. I do NOT want to see Obama get the nomination
and it has nothing to do with his color. I don't trust him; I have no idea what he'd give away in order
to 'bring everybody together'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
38. That took guts, and humility. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I agree. Thanks for sharing (hope we're not being punk'd again though...lol) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
40. It takes courage to change
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
41. K&R. Thank you, as well, but I understand. The MSM doesn't portray any of our candidates accurately.
They have been critical of the Edwards campaign, his legal background, his expensive haircut, and have even accused him of using Elizabeth's grave illness to his advantage. But the man came from a poor background and has worked hard to get where he is, and he has had his share of heartbreak. Now that DK has dropped out, Edwards is my candidate.:patriot:

He's come a long way since 2004, worked tirelessly and learned a great deal. He's a brilliant speaker, think that his speech at the 2004 convention was the best that there was, and agree that his heart is in exactly in the right place. I think he'd make an exceptional president, if only the MSM doesn't now dismiss him, as they did Kucinich, out-of-hand...:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
42. I believe Al Gore "changed"
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 05:45 PM by lastliberalintexas
Until evidence to the contrary arises, I will believe that Edwards has also "changed". And by "changed", I mean that they seem to me to have experienced a great deal of growth after seemingly unsuccessful runs for political office. Contemplation, experience and ignoring the pundits of our party often results in growth, and I think it probably did for both of them.

Edwards may or may not get my vote, but I won't be voting *against* him either way.

Oh and, this was a great post btw. It takes a great deal of strength to admit the error of our ways, even on an anonymous message board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Good post.
I agree. Though Edwards was never the Republican-lite that his detractors characterize him as (he had a relatively good record re: liberal issues), I do believe that since retiring from the Senate, he's changed for the better. It is my opinion that Elizabeth's illness had something to do with that. The prospect of a grievous loss can be extraordinarily life affirming and can force a person to think outside themselves. Of course, some people will do the opposite; that is, become more insular. But it appears that the Edwards', both of them, decided to throw caution to the wind and live their lives on an ideological edge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrbluto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
61. A very good point
In 2000 my vote for Gore would have been an anti-bush vote. If he ran today it would be a pro-Gore vote.

Remember that point a while back where Faux News and Limbaugh & Co. were all saying "He's fat and look - he's angry."? I took a look at the speech where they said he was acting looney and it struck me - Gore is right on the money here, and even where I might not agree with him at least I believe that he belives, that it's not some canard. He's got a passion about this and hell yeah he's angry - rightfully so!

He changed.

And that's what I see in Edwards too.

Sometimes you go along in a negotiation and then it dawns on you what the hell the other side is doing, just how little respect they have for the shared dialog, and then you realize that it is a real conflict, practically a war - not merely a negotiation. You realize that those you thought you had a philosophical difference with actually plan to extinguish your ability to present your argument with no regard for whether theirs is true or not - then you realize you really have to fight.

This is something a trial lawyer knows: You have to, in fact, not in theory, be prepared to fight.

And then actually fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
47. Thank you.That is very gracious of you. And refreshing.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 07:53 PM by saracat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynthia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
48. apology accepted
Thank you for saying it. I hope more people are open-minded enough to take a good look at John Edwards. They might like what they see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
49. quinnox, what are you trying to do here?
Injecting reason, generosity and humility into this forum? Are you trying to wreck everything???!!???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. Your post took a lot of guts and I applaud you for it. I, for one,
appreciate your apology - now, let's get John in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
51. K & R
Very classy of you, quinnox. Thanks. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stravu9 Donating Member (945 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
52. Thanks!
appreciated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sojourner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
53. thank you for posting this. it's that same sense of his sincerity that
wins me over... (plus he puts his plans IN WRITING before anyone else did so)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Extend a Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
54. all the Democratic front runners
have committed to providing tax relief for the "middle class"
but John Edwards has is the only one who has a plan to pay for it (and that plan would likely close to double his own tax bill)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
56. Kick. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
57. Wish I could believe in the sincerity and truthfulness of the other candidates as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
58. Very nice and classy.
Providing that you are not faking this, like some other DUer did recently, I thank you for this post.

R&K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
59. HEY......what about Kucinich?
Not that I supported him but it HAD to be said by somebody or it wouldn't be a D.U. thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
62. Good for you. I also think that John Edwards is sincere.
Coincidentally, today I decided to support Hillary Clinton. I had been supporting Edwards since Biden dropped out and Kucinich became obviously unelectable. Now I feel that the race is tightening between Clinton and Obama, and I've chosen Obama.

If Edwards is the candidate, I will vote for him with enthusiasm, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
64. thank you
It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. It takes a smart person to keep an open mind to other alternatives. If you should change your mind and choose to support Edwards, your support would be welcomed. Thanks for raising the level of discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
66. I love nice people!
Classy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
67. I love nice people!
Classy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allinktup Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
68. I like John Edwards but.......
The most daunting task has been figuring out which candidate will serve most of our purposes well. I've always liked Edwards. He's sincere and would make perhaps a fantastic president. He is my second choice for president after Obama (Hillary comes in third) and here's why. Edwards has used some of his past votes in the most politically calculated way. He voted for the dumb war. Kucinich was right in one of the earlier debates when he said he didn't vote for the war resolution because he actually read it. Everyone had their crack at it. Obama wasn't in the senate at the time but he still stood against this war. Authorization is giving your consent to go forward. Everyone is at fault when it comes to funding the war but that is a really complicated issue to deal with and though I don't like that any candidate has voted to fund it, in some measure people have their reasons. Authorization occurs when you have the choice to start something that will take funds. If you don't start one there won't be one. And this matters when you are voting on life and death issues. Edwards apologized. I accept it but it was a political calculation just like Clinton's war vote.

Second, if you are anti-poverty why would you vote for the bankruptcy bill that was pushed by bureaucratic thieves who want to undermine poor people? I wouldn't. Edwards DID. Why didn't he use his commonsense on this? It goes against his core beliefs and to me the only one on these issues that has shown the most good commonsense is Obama. I'm thinking about how Edwards and Clinton jumped on Obama for voting present on a pithy "4%" of his votes in Illinois but John was never taken to task for that yes vote on the bankruptcy bill. Why? Obama didn't go after him on it because he's trying not to be a politician like the ones in Washington. But he should have taken Edwards to task on it. This vote against the bankruptcy bill would have solidified his standing with people who believe he is passionate about helping the poor. This would have left no doubt in my mind. As it were he did not vote against it.

On things that really matter to me, poverty and wars that didn't have to be waged, Edwards failed because he was either listening to his handlers or he was playing politics. This is in part why Clinton or Edwards don't get my vote. They play politics on issues that Americans care about at crucial times and Obama has been mostly on the right side of the American people on these key issues. Edwards and Clinton are good people but they don't seem to have the degree of good commonsense to lead us to a place Americans say they want to go. If change is what people want then the only candidate that has the vision to do it is Obama. Clinton and Edwards have come to rely on politics at times when people don't want the politics of destruction. We had that under Bush. Why do we need to keep it going?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blutodog Donating Member (291 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Calculating
I agree. As much as I like Edwards your right his judgment on some issues in the past has been less then ethical. Hillary parses everything for political advantage for herself 1st. Nevertheless, if she's the candidate I'll hold my nose and vote for her and Bill. I won't be happy. Just please let this yr. go by quickly so we can get rid of this nightmarish regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #68
88. "Authorization" of the war occurs every single time someone votes to continue funding it.
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 02:41 AM by Seabiscuit
Edwards is the only candidate that learned his lesson and moved on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
71. Thank you!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
72. What a great post.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
73. I really appreciate this - it takes serious guts to
make a post like this about the candidate who's not your #1 choice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
74. I wish I could see it
But I've known too many lawyers who were the nicest people you'd ever meet when they were in front of witnesses, then as soon as the witness would leave the room they'd be badmouthing them like you wouldn't believe.

I'm not saying John isn't sincere, but I think he's very skilled at making us believe he is.

That said, I like all his policy proposals. I just wish I felt I could really trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
7horses Donating Member (143 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
75. Thanks
I wish more people would listen to John Edwards, and that the media would give people a chance to hear his message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allinktup Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. People hear the message
They love the message but they don't like the votes that undermine his core beliefs. He voted for the war. He voted for the bankruptcy bill. These votes were not in his best interest or the American people's best interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
77. k + r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
78. I find it very sexy when a man can admit he was wrong..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. I was wrong..
so very, very wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. there. there dear man...
let me soothe away all your worries..


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
79. THANK YOU quinnox ..he is all of what you have seen and more ...
much much more!!

fly a volunteer for Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryRN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
81. K & R :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smokey nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Hey you!!!!
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PervezClinton Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
85. Thanks. Very informative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
86. Cool. I too think he means what he says and is a good part of our primary runs.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisainmilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
87. That was so very nice....thank you very much!
:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
89. Thanks mate!!nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
90. Thank you.
Welcome to our little corner of the world. I voted for Edwards already absentee in California. I am convinced he would make an earth shatteringly wonderful president. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacock Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
91. Thank you! I urge anyone who
supports JRE and who has not already donated, who has not donated the limit and who has a few spare dollars, to donate to the campaign ASAP. Go to http://johnedwards.com/
Donations up to 250 dollars will be doubled. Make your tax dollars work for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
92. I believe in his vision.
He gives me hope.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gg55 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #92
124. Edwards gives me hope for real change.
Something I don't feel with Hillary. Having her as prez would just be more of the same crap we've had the last couple decades. Obama hasn't really shown me anything yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
93. What a great post, quinnox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennifer C Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
94. Very classy, quinnox.
Rec'd (100th) :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
95. It's because people change, evolve and grow. It's clear Edwards has.
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 04:44 AM by Political Heretic
Having spent so much time actually listening to the man he has convinced me of his sincerity as well. Saying that doesn't mean that I ignore poor senate record, though his poor record in the senate had little to do with the issue of poverty directly. Still, it seems to me that Edwards has come through some personal evolution not unlike that of Al Gore. Al Gores record was not all stars either, and yet in recent years he has really become a powerful voice on many issues beyond even the environment. I credit a lot of that to his experiences in 2000, which I feel served as a wake-up-call to the folleys of the washington insider, dlc-type politic.

Whatever has happened to Edwards, I don't feel you can fake that sincerity. Quite frankly the people who claim that he is phoney don't seem to make a lot of sense to me. If Edwards only cared about winning an election by saying anything, he sure as HELL wouldn't pick POVERTY as his primary platform issue! He wouldn't attack corporate america. These aren't the easiest ways to win election. These are the ways to tell the TRUTH.

EDIT - I need to make an important edit. I used the phrase "poor senate record." That is categorically unfair. Actually, his record includes a long, long list of excellent actions and votes. However, what I should have said is that it is true he made some very, very bad votes while in the Senate. I'm not trying to white wash those votes, was my intended point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUlover2909 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
97. It takes character to admit when you were wrong.
Bush can't do things like that. You show more character than any Repukelickass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
99. Thank you for posting this
Without meaning to sound preachy, it is an object lesson to all. The masses and the MSM's fixating on the stuff like the house, or Biden's "plagiarism" etc. has left us with a short list of marginal candidates.

It is why Gore is not running. And Feingold.

sigh


Thanks again for your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corkhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
100. I took you off "ignore" just so I could see what you had to say here.
Your comments about Edwards had earned you a coveted place on my ignore list, along with about ten other sycophants.

I'll leave you off my ignore list... for now. :evilgrin:


I greatly respect you for making this admission.

welcome back. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
106. K&R Edwards headlines through SC. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
108. He's a politician. He may be phony...
...but less so, I think, than any other candidate left standing. Edwards seems to screw the pooch only on same-sex marriage, the Achilles' heel of the entire field.

I can see how someone could find his manner smarmy, but I don't, and i don't think that should be important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
109. Take all the comments about sincerity. They might be overruled
by this single one - Republicans don't want him and the order appears to have been given to corporate media - keep him down, keep him silenced, keep his name out you punditry. That's a good reason in itself since we give so much credence to the skills of the Republicans to turn, spin, and spit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
110. Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
111. Don't blame yourself.. you fell for the media's bullshit....
The media refused and refuses to give him air time, the media began by airing the bullshit about his haircut costing too much when they all get haircuts that cost even more than his does, the media said that because he owned stock he was not really "for" the poor, the media did everything to narrow you and everyone else's opinion down to two. And now the two that are ahead are petty, right wing and unelectable. We have to do something about this media. They're OUR airways. They don't even have to pay us to use them, and should have to, they don't even give the candidates free and equal segments of what is OUR air time and they should have to (INSTEAD THEY POCKET BILLIONS IN MONEY THE CANDIDATES HAVE TO PAY FOR OUR AIR TIME), they don't even allow a debate without some media asshole to ridicule the whole thing. When are we going to demand that Congress go after all corporations, and put them in line, INCLUDING MEDIA CORPORATIONS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
112. John's the REAL DEAL. And that's why the powers that be are so
afraid of him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kajsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
113. Thank you, Quinnox.

It takes a person with integrity and maturity
to admit he made an error in judgment.

You have both.

Your OP is very much appreciated.

I wish more DUers followed your example.

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
114. My gosh, an apology.
Are you trying to set an example or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
115. We all make mistakes, it's what we do with them that counts. It's called integrity. Go Edwards.
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 12:06 PM by IsItJustMe
edit for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nightjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
117. Very gracious....
DU has been such a cesspool of hate lately and a sincere post like yours is a sight for sore eyes. I wish we had more people like you around here.

I came around on Edwards for the same reason you did. I am a recovering Gore for Prez supporter and I decided on Edwards a couple of debates ago. I can't explain it but I KNOW HE IS SINCERE. I just did not want to do a "I'm for JE Now" thread because of the inevitable flaming.
Thank you. You added a big smile to have with my morning coffee!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
118. Trust your first instincts.
Kevin Trudeau is also very convincing. The First Amendment allows him to peddle his wares in spite of reality. Edwards would have a briliant carreer in the infomercial business if his candidacy fails. Your first impression of Edwards seems in line with Feingold's assessment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html

Snip>"I don't understand how somebody could vote, five or six critical votes, one way in the Senate and then make your campaign the opposite positions," Feingold said, expanding on comments he made a week ago to the Appleton (Wisconsin) Post-Crescent. "That doesn't give me confidence that if the person became president that they would continue the kind of policies that they are using in the Democratic primary. I'm more likely to believe what they did in the Senate."<snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
119. Hey! Who let an adult into GD: Primaries?
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 12:40 PM by 11 Bravo
Thanks, quinnox, for the classy and gutsy post. This Edwards supporter welcomes you.

:toast: :hi: :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beregond2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
120. Wrong
Setting aside the issues, what a pleasure it is to see someone say "I was wrong, and I've changed my mind." It seems to be a crime to do that in today's climate. Thanks for your integrity. I hope I have as much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronopio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
128. There are much better reasons to vote for Edwards than "I don't know, I got this feeling ..."
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 01:52 PM by OmelasExpat
A lot of people voted for Bush in 2000 on the very same feeling. A lot of people turned off on Dean for the same reason.

What concerns me is whether your unexplained feeling will change if the MSM engineers a "Dean scream" for Edwards.

I hope you do your homework on Edwards' votes (even the wrong ones, like his vote for the bankruptcy bill), so you can speak up for Edwards with something better than "He just *seems* more honest to me ...".

EDIT: Here's one of the main reasons I'm supporting Edwards ... he's making the right enemies. If he got better treatment from the MSM, I'd be more wary about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC