I *really* hope Edwards wins Iowa...

How telling is it that CNN will plant a question at a Democratic debate insinuating that Clinton is an elitist (not that she isn't, but it's a smear anyway) and allow a Republican operative to ask a loaded question wrongly accusing Democrats of raising taxes, but when a gay veteran asks a question about why Republicans think gays who serve their country deserve to be discriminated against, it's out of bounds? How's that for your Liberal Corporate Media?

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

It is actually funny to watch the Republicans try and field an unexpected question such as the one given by General Kerr. The Republican party has always been about controlling the message and leading their unthinking followers towards a predetermined conclusion on an issue. Watching the Republican candidates respond to General Kerr's question was like watching a robot blow a fuse. If one really looked carefully at the candidates on stage I bet you will see smoke coming from their ears or hear a mumbled "That does not compute." :lol:

Edwards is our best hope of a win in Nov '08. After that, he is our best hope of putting this country back together again. Please considering voting for John Edwards in your state primary.

Being an old time Republican I must admit that I like John Edwards and would certainly vote for him in the general election. Sure hope he get the nomination!

I have to say that I think Edwards could be a fine president!

Has anyone else noticed the lag between Olbermann's questions and Edward's replies? That seems to happen in almost every single interview he does. He asks a question, and it seems like the person he's asking is a good second or two behind. What's up with that?

The Economist noted during the 2000 campaign, before Kerry won the nomination, that Edwards was the strongest candidate to beat the GOP. The Economist endorsed Kerry "with a heavy heart," as they put it.

Now that we're watching Huckabee rise in the polls, how strange it would be if after all the hype and hooha over Clinton and Ghouliania, if we were faced in November 2008 with a choice between Edwards the populist and Huckabee the evangelist wannabe.

I still strongly support Christopher Dodd, and my appreciation for Edwards is lukewarm at best, but if Edwards can convince the Independents and if Repubs consider him a viable option, then let's get this show on the road.

I have to a agree with Johnny2Bad I am not sure John Edwards is all that he pretends to be. he has been telling anyone that will listen to him that he is pro-labor...

Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…

08/07/2007 — Statement from Larry Rasky on John Edwards’s right-to-work record:

Tonight, John Edwards said that he claimed to be a leader on union issues throughout his career. The public record does not square with Sen. Edwards’s memory.
The Facts:

Edwards Supported North Carolina Right to Work Law in 1998:
* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards last spring. Faircloth used that in a TV ad, saying Edwards promised to be a warrior for labor.

In fact, Edwards said he would be a warrior for labor unions only on those issues on which they agreed. One of those issues is right-to-work laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join a union. Unions oppose such laws.

Edwards opposes a national right-to-work law, but favors North Carolina’s right-to-work law. Faircloth has introduced a national right-to-work law. [Charlotte Observer, 10/18/98.

* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, As it turns out, Edwards doesn’t even agree with the labor group on their most critical issue - North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

That law, which the AFL-CIO opposes, means no one can be forced to join a union or pay dues. Edwards says he supports North Carolina’s law. But he opposes a national right-to-work law backed by Republican Faircloth. I don’t think the federal government needs to get involved with it, Edwards said.

That was good enough for James Andrews, the AFL-CIO’s executive director, who has virtually given up on finding a viable candidate who will fight North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

We understand that the Jim Hunts of the world and John Edwards of the world . . . are certainly

not going to oppose the current law, Andrews said. Politically, I don’t expect to have anyone leading the charge to change that. We understand and accept that.

Edwards is not going to be 100 percent with us on all our issues, but he certainly has expressed commitment and understanding of working families. Charlotte Observer, 10/7/98.

[refers to deleted post]

Mr. Edward's public acknowledgement that his wife may not live very long after his possible election was an act of courage. Distorting that into "hiding behind his wife's skirt" speaks volumes about you....Ugh. I want to shower...

It's so simple. All we have to do is all vote for Edwards in the primaries so he can BE the nominee ... then it'll be no more Hillary who would only be a 1 term president anyway IF all the bubbas and their wives would ever let her in the White House in the first place! That will not happen. They crucified her as First Lady without any reason, and there is no way they will EVER let her tell them what to do as POTUS.

We should really stop worrying and just get behind the man who is the best candidate... Edwards. Remember when he debated Cheney. hehe This guy's good! That's why he's being ignored by MSM.

Shade Tail @ 15:

Has anyone else noticed the lag between Olbermann's questions and Edward's replies? That seems to happen in almost every single interview he does. He asks a question, and it seems like the person he's asking is a good second or two behind. What's up with that?

Time Delay. Tom's brother.

JerryM @ 5:

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

I can tell you that THIS American believes John Edwards is the most real and honest candidate we have had in a very long time. When I see and hear his speeches I just feel that he actually means what he says. He would be a friend to the American people in the White House and actually stand up for us.

Rasputin @ 24:

mirth @ 14:

dasands @ 11:

Being an old time Republican I must admit that I like John Edwards and would certainly vote for him in the general election. Sure hope he get the nomination!

Thank you for loving your country enough to cross party lines to vote for a better candidate.

My former wingnut friends have all been talking about supporting Edwards... They finally figured out that they don't make over $300,000 a year and they are getting "left behind."

Most of them have family members who are really hurting... uninsured or can't afford to have their kids go to college or simply not making ends meet.

It was bad enough when 440,000 Americans began filing for bankruptcy last year because they couldn't pay their hospital bills, but now millions of Americans are about to lose their homes with the mortgage resets and millions more are teetering on the brink.

Edwards' message has the ring of truth and more people are realizing it. The Democrats are too.

As he said in the last debate... in 1993 there was a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and President Clinton was in the White House. There were two pieces of legislation that came up... Universal Health Care and NAFTA.

The American people desperately needed Universal Health Care and they didn't need NAFTA... an agreement that sent millions of jobs to Mexico and overseas. So what did we get... NAFTA!

Trading a bunch of corporatist Republicans in for a bunch of corporatist Democrats means that nothing will change!

Rasputin, it's good to say Hi to you. :-)

As justme says above you, we make make it happen. But I suspect that our primary votes will be so scattered that HRC will charge ahead.

OMG, don't let anyone who is not a Fan Boy of the Repugs ask a question of their candidates! They won't know how to respond to such a novel situation. How unfair...

Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…

08/07/2007 — Statement from Larry Rasky on John Edwards’s right-to-work record:

Tonight, John Edwards said that he claimed to be a leader on union issues throughout his career. The public record does not square with Sen. Edwards’s memory.
The Facts:

Edwards Supported North Carolina Right to Work Law in 1998:
* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards last spring. Faircloth used that in a TV ad, saying Edwards promised to be a warrior for labor.

In fact, Edwards said he would be a warrior for labor unions only on those issues on which they agreed. One of those issues is right-to-work laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join a union. Unions oppose such laws.

Edwards opposes a national right-to-work law, but favors North Carolina’s right-to-work law. Faircloth has introduced a national right-to-work law. [Charlotte Observer, 10/18/98.

* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, As it turns out, Edwards doesn’t even agree with the labor group on their most critical issue - North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

That law, which the AFL-CIO opposes, means no one can be forced to join a union or pay dues. Edwards says he supports North Carolina’s law. But he opposes a national right-to-work law backed by Republican Faircloth. I don’t think the federal government needs to get involved with it, Edwards said.

That was good enough for James Andrews, the AFL-CIO’s executive director, who has virtually given up on finding a viable candidate who will fight North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

We understand that the Jim Hunts of the world and John Edwards of the world . . . are certainly not going to oppose the current law, Andrews said. Politically, I don’t expect to have anyone leading the charge to change that. We understand and accept that.

Edwards is not going to be 100 percent with us on all our issues, but he certainly has expressed commitment and understanding of working families. Charlotte Observer, 10/7/98.

Al Hart @ 19:

I have to a agree with Johnny2Bad I am not sure John Edwards is all that he pretends to be. he has been telling anyone that will listen to him that he is pro-labor...

Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…

Why do you keep spamming that into this thread? Do you work for another political campaign?

To top it off it isn't really even that damning... Edwards did the best he could in a VERY conservative state. How is that bad?

BTW, I looked up this "Larry Rasky". He is a PR "fixer" for hire. Do you work for him or his company?

Regardless of how you feel about John Edwards it is striking comparing him speaking to Bush. When Bush speaks I feel as if I've gotten dumber by listening to him. Listening to someone like Edwards you come away with the feeling that he is intelligent, poised, and has weighed the pros and cons of a subject before making a decision. Frankly this is the type of person that the United States needs to be electing as its President and not someone you'd like to have a beer with.

What I'm trying to say is it's time America elects an intelligent President and not someone that meets the lowest common denominator. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't relate to the common American and that's what we need to be hammering home ramping up to the election in 2008.

Al Hart #33, why are you reposting old information? Isn't there a site monitor here?

President John Edwards.

Get used to it.

xoites defends Constitution @ 12:

Australia is leaving too.

Soon it will be: A Coalition of One.

with an 'Army of one!'

dickeatsbush @ 26:

JerryM @ 5:

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

Amen, he sounds kind of soft in talking about the issues, while trying to personify a 'real'
thorn in the side of our (US citizens) current dictator.

Salutes!

You guys slay me with your BS!

Here’s Robert Reich and Stephanopolis and Matthew Bai of The New York Times made up the round table. They were talking economic populism and John Edwards and how he has been driving the policy and issues debate in this election and forcing the other candidates to respond.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/02/george-will-doesnt-think-econom...

Economist Paul Krugman and NYT Columnist, unlike you… he has been following all of the candidates and doing a detailed analysis of their plans… or lack there of! Here are some of the highlights of the last several months.

On Edwards Health Care Plan:

Edwards Gets It Right

What a difference two years makes! At this point in 2005, the only question seemed to be how much of America’s social insurance system — the triumvirate of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the Bush administration would manage to dismantle. Now almost all prominent Democrats and quite a few Republicans pay at least lip service to calls for a major expansion of social insurance, in the form of universal health care.
But fine words, by themselves, mean nothing. Remember "compassionate conservatism?" I won’t trust presidential candidates on health care unless they provide enough specifics to show both that they understand the issues, and that they’re willing to face up to hard choices when necessary.

And former Senator John Edwards has just set a fine example.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&oref=sl...

2/26/07
Substance over Image

First, what do they propose doing about the health care crisis? All the leading Democratic candidates say they’re for universal care, but only John Edwards has come out with a specific proposal. The others have offered only vague generalities — wonderfully uplifting generalities, in Mr. Obama’s case — with no real substance.

Second, what do they propose doing about the budget deficit? There’s a serious debate within the Democratic Party between deficit hawks, who point out how well the economy did in the Clinton years, and those who, having watched Republicans squander Bill Clinton’s hard-won surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and a feckless war, would give other things — such as universal health care — higher priority than deficit reduction.

Mr. Edwards has come down on the anti-hawk side. But which side are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on? I have no idea.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...

6/11/2007
Authentic? Never Mind

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...

8/6/2007
The Substance Thing

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.
Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&oref=lo...

11/5/2007
Wobbled by Wealth?

O.K., some perspective. I sometimes hear people say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans; that’s foolish. Look at the fight over children’s health insurance, and you can see how different the parties’ philosophies and priorities really are. All of the leading Democratic candidates are offering strongly progressive policy proposals; the Republicans are, if anything, running to the right of the Bush administration.

Also, even history’s greatest progressives had to make compromises to win their victories. F.D.R.’s New Deal depended on the support of Southern segregationists. Compared with that, Senator Clinton’s acceptance of lots of corporate donations doesn’t look so bad — though I’d be reassured if she made her views on tax reform clearer, and matched John Edwards’s focus on corporate reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?pagewanted=print

11/23/2007
Banks Gone Wild?

The huge rewards executives receive if they can fake success are what led to the great corporate scandals of a few years back. There’s no indication that any laws were broken this time — but the public’s trust was nonetheless betrayed, once again.
The point is that the subprime crisis and the credit crunch are, in an important sense, the result of our failure to effectively reform corporate governance after the last set of scandals.

John Edwards recently came out with a corporate reform plan, but it didn’t receive a lot of attention. Corporate governance still isn’t regarded as a major political issue. But it should be.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opin...

So please give us a break and cut the BS! Address the issues or give it a rest!

Shade Tail @ 15:

Has anyone else noticed the lag between Olbermann's questions and Edward's replies? That seems to happen in almost every single interview he does. He asks a question, and it seems like the person he's asking is a good second or two behind. What's up with that?

is it ok if edwards takes time to think about his answer?

my problem with edwards is his statement about attacking Iran (options open) at the AIPAC conference. barack Obewon did it too.

What?!? Michelle Malkin hasn't faded into absolute obscurity?! Who listens to that harridan anymore?

mirth @ 29:

Rasputin @ 24:

mirth @ 14:

dasands @ 11:

Thank you for loving your country enough to cross party lines to vote for a better candidate.

My former wingnut friends have all been talking about supporting Edwards... They finally figured out that they don't make over $300,000 a year and they are getting "left behind."

Most of them have family members who are really hurting... uninsured or can't afford to have their kids go to college or simply not making ends meet.

It was bad enough when 440,000 Americans began filing for bankruptcy last year because they couldn't pay their hospital bills, but now millions of Americans are about to lose their homes with the mortgage resets and millions more are teetering on the brink.

Edwards' message has the ring of truth and more people are realizing it. The Democrats are too.

As he said in the last debate... in 1993 there was a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and President Clinton was in the White House. There were two pieces of legislation that came up... Universal Health Care and NAFTA.

The American people desperately needed Universal Health Care and they didn't need NAFTA... an agreement that sent millions of jobs to Mexico and overseas. So what did we get... NAFTA!

Trading a bunch of corporatist Republicans in for a bunch of corporatist Democrats means that nothing will change!

Rasputin, it's good to say Hi to you. :-)

As justme says above you, we make make it happen. But I suspect that our primary votes will be so scattered that HRC will charge ahead.

Hi Mirthy...

Yeah it has been a while. My dad died a few months back and I've just sort of thrown myself into my work. I come up for air once in a while just to see what the minions from hell in the White House have done lately to promote hell on earth and come here to vent! ;-)

How's your corner of the universe been treating you and yours?

Cheers

CoIntelPro @ 48:

Rasputin @ 43:

you inspire awe.

I just stand on the shoulders of others... Krugman is the guy who takes the time to do the research and the number crunching. His new book is amazing!

The Conscience of a Liberal

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Economist and New York Times columnist Krugman's stimulating manifesto aims to galvanize today's progressives the way Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative did right-wingers in 1964.

Krugman's great theme is economic equality and the liberal politics that support it. America's post-war middle-class society was not the automatic product of a free-market economy, he writes, but was created... by the policies of the Roosevelt Administration. By strengthening labor unions and taxing the rich to fund redistributive programs like Social Security and Medicare, the New Deal consensus narrowed the income gap, lifted the working class out of poverty and made the economy boom.

Things went awry, Krugman contends, with the Republican Party's takeover by movement conservatism, practicing a politics of deception [and] distraction to advance the interests of the wealthy. Conservative initiatives to cut taxes for the rich, dismantle social programs and demolish unions, he argues, have led to sharply rising inequality, with the incomes of the wealthiest soaring while those of most workers stagnate.

Krugman's accessible, stylishly presented argument deftly combines economic data with social and political analysis; his account of the racial politics driving conservative successes is especially sharp. The result is a compelling historical defense of liberalism and a clarion call for Americans to retake control of their economic destiny. (Oct.)

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691

I'm giving this to all the remaining wingnuts in my family for Christmas... screw'em!

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 54:

Al Hart @ 52:

The war in Iraq is by far the biggest question on the minds of most U.S. workers. Edwards has presented himself as an "anti-war" candidate, even apologizing for his Senate vote to authorize the war, claiming to have been "misled" by the Bush administration. But let's not forget the facts: in the march to war, the donkeys marched right alongside the elephants.

So you're just going to keep regurgitating weird little sound-bites rather than engaging with people...

You know you're not making any sense to the actual humans here, don't you?

Luv your moniker Swarm!

(don't you hate when silly names stick... ;) )

If you want something to complain about: I think it's funny that Hillary, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich are ALL still in the Senate. Right now!

If they were serious about Universal Health care, why not introduce it NOW? What the hell are they going to do as president about it? They are ALREADY legislators, they can already introduce and pass legislation...

Or why won't they get on board with oregon Senator Ron Wyden's plan? Or try to amend it if they want to change the details? You sure don't hear much about that in the debates.

This, "Oh, wait till I'm president" sounds pretty fishy to me. At least Edwards is not currently in the Senate, so he has an excuse... but what about the rest? Am I just missing something?

I haven't checked out the details completely, but superficially it is similar to Edwards' and Clinton's (and Nixon's!) plans.

mirth @ 56:

Rasputin @ #51

I haven't been here in a long while. I'm just lucky to catch you tonight. So sorry to read about your father; I've been through that and it's very difficult. Besides not having enuf time for all I want to do, everything is good with me.

This thread and its supporters for Edwards is very encouraging. I'm not a bit surprised that you think of him as the cream of the crop.

Cheers to you, Friend.

Same Back at ya!

This guys question was good.
But I liked the guy with the Rebel flag question.
They all jumped like a grasshopper who landed on sarin.

There's a good issue for Democrats.
The natural Democrat base in the South is over the Confederate flag.
The GOP base, not so much.
We know they like to wrap themselves in the flag.
Make them wrap themselves in the Confederate flag.

Good god guys... I thought this was a blog not a club. Sorry to have stepped on someones toes.

Please by all means take as many shots at me as you would like this is the 1st time I tried to get involved with a blog and some people here don't like what I have to say.

How sad is that this not a Republican thread is it. As I had stated #40 the goal in the fall of 2008 is turning this great country around and becoming the Nation that all others look up too.

I'm from Canada and I'd like to give you an outsiders perspective. I believe voting for ANY of the Repulican nominee's for President will end life on this Earth as we know it. Hyperbole, sure, but I wouldn't trust ANY of them, even Ron Paul despite his very logical dalogue on middle east politics and the Unted States foreign policy but his track record on Domestic issues does not bode well.

Up untill now Dennis Kucinich was the most promising candidate but his idea of having Ron Paul as his VP would be a disasterous proposition. One bullet to Dennis' head and hello Martial Law. If you think I'm paranoid, that's fine, but I wouldn't put ANYTHING past these people.

But seeing John Edwards speaking with Keith made me really appreciate just how much class the man has and has cemented my belief that Edwards is the best choice for President. I wouldn't elect Hilary or Obama, not because of sex or race, but because Hillary is Bush Lite and has voted along side Republicans on almost EVERY issue which means she can't be trusted while Obama doesn't seem to be making an impression on the issues and has little or no track record.

I think an Edwards/Kucinich ticktet would be fantastic but my dream is Gore/Edwards2008.

mirth @ 14:

dasands @ 11:

Being an old time Republican I must admit that I like John Edwards and would certainly vote for him in the general election. Sure hope he get the nomination!

Thank you for loving your country enough to cross party lines to vote for a better candidate.

If Hillary gets the nomination, a lot of old time Democrats will vote Republican, myself included.