Does anyone here actually dislike John Edwards

[Catch22Dem]

There's always some degree of candidate bashing going on here, but I never see any aimed at Edwards. Personally, I love the guy. Can't get enough of him. Is ther anyone here who genuinely dislikes the man? Why?

[mot78]

1. Just the NB-ANTI-IWR folks

Nobody But Anti-IWR.

[ecstatic]

7. I'm anti-war and I like Edwards

so much for stereotypes. :shrug:

[mot78]

14. I don't mean everyone who was anti-war

Just the people who said they'll automatically vote Green/stay home if someone who voted for the IWR is nominated.

[Skip Intro]

11. Count me as one of those

You know, we were lied into an invasion, instigated by bushco, and a lot, a helluva lot, of damage, death, and destruction has been the result. That may be something others can overlook and say "no big deal" - but its not something I can overlook.

Kerry, who I can live with, has backed away from his vote saying he was mislead by the bush regime. Edwards still says invading, lies or not, was the right thing to do.

Sorry, I hold that against him, like I hold it against Lieberman and Gep. If he's the nom, I'll vote for him, but I won't be happy about it.

[AP]

34. You need to reread the post that misinformed you on this issue.

Do you know why they had to start a separate thread with this claim? It was because the first one disproved it.

Go back to the MSNBC transcrip and read what Edwards said.

Repeating this claim about being 'for' the war over and over is not going to make it true.

[Skip Intro]

43. Not sure what you're referring to

Have no idea what MSNBC transcript you're talking about. I've said, and asked for input, in recent posts that the last I saw Edwards speak on the IWR issue, he said it was the right thing to do. To the best of my memory, anyway. It may have been a speech, but I believe it was in one of the early debates.

I'm going to try to find the specific quote, so bear with me.

If you have a link to something where Edwards backs away from the IWR, I'd really appreciate it if you'd post it here.

Thanks.

[AP]

76. MTP

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s turn to Iraq...
SEN. EDWARDS: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: ...an issue very much on the minds of the American people, and I want to refer you to something you said in September of this year, Senator, and get your reaction to it: “We have young men and women in a shooting gallery over right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what’s necessary to support them. ...I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops that are on the ground.”
The president asked for $87 billion to support those troops, money for body armor, armed Humvees, and you voted against it. Why?
SEN. EDWARDS: Because, Tim, I said from the very beginning that in order for this operation to be successful—and remember, I supported the resolution. I did think Saddam was a serious threat, one that needed to be dealt with. But I said over a year ago that for this to be successful, it needed to be an international effort, and there needed to be a clear plan. The president came to the Congress without either of those things, without a clear long-term plan for success, still just an American occupation. And my view was we needed to send a clear message to the president that we had to change course. I do support, I stand by what I said there. I do support money for the troops. I support us playing a significant role in the reconstruction. What I won’t do is give this president a blank check to continue with a policy that I think has failed.
MR. RUSSERT: But if every other senator voted the way you did, there would be no body armor for our troops, no armed Humvees. What would happen then?
SEN. EDWARDS: What would happen then is the next day, the president would be back to the Congress with a different plan. He would come to us, he would respond to the Senate and the House saying to him, “The Congress of the United States says your plan and what you’re doing in Iraq is not working.” None of us would allow our troops to not get what they needed to do. But we can’t say to this president, “Yes, here’s $87 billion. You can come back next year and ask for another 100; the following year, another 100,” without giving us some indication, Tim, that you’re going to change course and take the American face off this operation, internationalize it, which is the single -most critical component that’s missing.
MR. RUSSERT: Your home state paper, The Charlotte Observer, had this observation. “Edwards’ ‘No’ Vote Will Alter Position, Candidacy Requires Distance From Costly War, Other Liabilities. ...this particular vote—a ‘no’ on President Bush’s $87 billion request for efforts in Iraq—has become a linchpin in bid to revitalize his lagging campaign for president. It’s also the latest example of Edwards’ distancing himself from a few of his own previous ‘yes’ votes—on the Iraq war the Patriot Act...that have since become unpopular with Democratic primary voters.”
SEN. EDWARDS: My response? Not true. What I have done on this $87 billion is perfectly consistent with what I’ve said from the very beginning. Tim, it would have been wrong—it’s fine for all the Democratic presidential candidates to criticize George Bush about his failed policy in Iraq right now, but this was a chance where I had to stand up and do something. If I had voted yes, my view is all that criticism would have just been words. I think I had to stand behind what I was saying, say this policy in Iraq is not working, and we have to change course.
MR. RUSSERT: What specifically would you do? The United Nations has pulled out of Iraq. The Red Cross has pulled out of Iraq. The president has gone to the French, the Germans and the Russians, they’ve all said “no.” What would you do differently?
SEN. EDWARDS: But the problem, Tim, is the president goes to them and asks for assistance, but he’s completely unwilling to relinquish control. That’s the critical thing that’s missing from this process. What I would do, to answer your question specific ally, is I would turn over the Iraqi civilian authority to the United Nations tomorrow. You’re right. We’d have to convince them to take that responsibility. But I believe that could be done if, in fact, we went and talked to them, told them we’re going to relinquish our control over what’s happening there. The second thing is I would make this a NATO security force instead of just an American security force. This gets to be a fairly simple thing at the end of the day. For this operation to be perceived both by the Iraqi people and people in that region of the world as one that they can respond to and embrace, it’s going to have to be two things. One, an international effort, and two, an international effort that’s moving toward Iraqi self-governance.
MR. RUSSERT: As you know, the French could veto any United Nations involvement. Any nation that’s a member of NATO could veto NATO involvement.
SEN. EDWARDS: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: And, in fact, the French have been rather insistent, they do not want to participate in this from day one. If they did that, what would you do then? You’re in the Oval Office. The U.N. and NATO have said “no.” Do you withdraw U.S. troops?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I don’t accept that proposition. The answer is, first of all, we have a responsibility there. I believe it’s a shared responsibility, one that we need to embrace along with the rest of the world. I would never suggest that America could simply leave, take our troops out and walk away from that responsibility. I don’t believe that. But I also believe if we were—also, let me be realistic about this. Because this president has done things the way he has, this is not easy. I’m not naive about this. I understand if this had been done months ago, the likelihood of success would be much higher. But I still believe if this case were made the way it needs to be made to the United Nations, to NATO—and, for example, I think the members of the United Nations and NATO want this operation to be successful. They have a vested interest in this region of the world being stable for world peace, for their own stability. So I think there’s a great chance of being successful. But it would have been much easier if we had done it a long time ago.
MR. RUSSERT: In the interim, Senator John McCain, the Republican from Arizona, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat from Delaware, are saying, “We need more American troops in Iraq. Our guys are being attacked 30 times a day. We have to go after the insurgence in the Sunni triangle. Let’s send more American troops.” Do you agree?
SEN. EDWARDS: I understand what John McCain’s saying. He’s looking at a security situation on the ground there that’s very hazardous for our troops. Is it possible we need more troops? Of course. Now, I would give some deference to our commanders on the ground there who are saying they don’t need additional troops. The key thing from my perspective is if, in fact, it becomes necessary to bring additional troops in order to provide better security for our troops who are there, I think those troops need to be international. I don’t think it necessarily requires that we bring American troops to this effort-additional American troops.
MR. RUSSERT: The Turks wanted to send troops. They’ve been told “no.” Where would you find the other troops?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: As long as the French, the Germans, the Russians say “no,” where are you going to find them?
SEN. EDWARDS: But the Turks, Tim, that’s a perfect example of what’s gone wrong with this operation and what the administration has done wrong. They went to the Turks, they asked for troops; the Turks said eventually they were willing to give the troops, but they hadn’t cleared this and worked this out diplomatically with the Iraqi people. That ended up being the problem with trying to bring Turkish troops in. I really believe that if—and, again, being realistic, this won’t be easy, but I really believe if we made this case to the United Nations, to NATO, to our friends and allies, that we can put an international face on this operation and we can get others to participate. Now, I’m not suggesting we won’t continue to need to have a serious presence there. We will. There’s no doubt about that.
MR. RUSSERT: Will you recommend that the president go to the French and apologize for the way he’s treated them?
SEN. EDWARDS: No. No. What I would recommend is that we as a nation go to the French, the Germans, all of our friends and say, “This is important. It’s important to the security of the world. It’s important for that region of the world’s success over the long term. We have the real potential of having a foothold for democracy in a part of the world where one’s desperately needed where the only democracy now is Israel. We have the chance for having democracy in an Arab country which is obviously important for precedence purposes.” So what I would say to them is, “We need you. We need your help. And we’re not asking you just to participate and follow our lead. We’re asking you to sit at the tape, have a decision-making authority and take responsibility with us for moving this forward.”
MR. RUSSERT: And if they say “no,” we are there alone.
SEN. EDWARDS: Yeah, but I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that they’ll say “no” if, in fact, we give them some decision-making authority and give them a seat at the table.
MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about the lead-up to the war and what happened, what you and the Senate were told, and why you voted the way you did. On October 10th of 2002, you put out this press release:
“Senator John Edwards supported a resolution poised for final passage that would authorize President Bush to use military force to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. ... ‘I believe that the risk of inaction are far greater than the risks of action... We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. ... We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.’”
In March on the 15th, four days before the war, you went to California and spoke to Democrats out there, and you raised the whole possibility of a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein.
Let’s listen:
(Videotape, March 15, 2003):
SEN. EDWARDS: I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and I believe he must be disarmed including the use of military force if necessary. We cannot allow him to have nuclear weapons.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, you have said that you thought that Saddam Hussein could have nuclear weapons within six to nine months. What did you base that on?
SEN. EDWARDS: Over a decade of efforts of Saddam Hussein to gain nuclear capability. As you know, Tim, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee and there’s a significant accumulative body of evidence about his efforts over an extended period of time to get nuclear capability, and I might add-you heard the booing in the background. I will say that I do—and I’ve continued—you asked me about the $87 billion earlier. I think it is enormously important for any candidate for president of the United States to be consistent and stand behind what they believe in no matter who their audience is and I knew when I said—I brought this issue up. I wasn’t asked about it, at the California Democratic Convention. I raised it myself because my view was these people, even though I knew would disagree with me, deserved to know where I stood on this issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret your vote in giving George Bush in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq?
SEN. EDWARDS: No, I voted for what I believed was in the best security interests of the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: Where are the weapons of mass destruction that you spoke about? Biological, chemical, and a nuclear threat within six or nine months—Where’s the evidence of that?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, that’s a serious—that’s a very good question. What we know is that a lot of what the intelligence and the information we were given before the vote on the congressional resolution has not been found, has not been found on the ground. Which means we, those of us who not only are candidates for president, but those of us in the Congress, we have an enormous responsibility here, which is to find out why is there a discrepancy between the information we were given beforehand and what we’ve now found. Did, in fact, somebody misrepresent what was there? Did, in fact, somebody exaggerate what was there? Is this just a failure in intelligence? All those are important questions because if either of the first two are true, we have to hold responsible and accountable the people who did it. If the latter is true, it’s enormously important going forward.
I mean, right now, Tim, you were asking earlier about the security situation on the ground in Iraq. One of the critical things that we’re missing in trying to be successful in providing security is we don’t have an adequate intelligence operation in Iraq right now. We need to strengthen that operation. So what went wrong before the congressional resolution, and why did it happen, and how do we make sure that it doesn’t happen in the future because we depend, not only on our military operations, but in our policy-making, on the information that’s given to us by the intelligence community. It has to work.
MR. RUSSERT: There were dissents with the intelligence community, the National Intelligence Estimate, which, as a member of the Intelligence Committee you see, had this from the State Department. “...The activities we have detected do not...add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what” the ” would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.” Why do you believe that? And why weren’t you more demanding of the administration to provide evidence that their notion of a nuclear threat was real?
SEN. EDWARDS: Because you can’t look at any isolated piece of information, Tim. You have to look at what Saddam Hussein had been doing over the course of a decade. I mean, there was a long and very powerful body of evidence that this was a brutal, sadistic dictator who had been doing everything in his power to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and, ultimately, his goal was to have nuclear capability. And that would have completely changed the stability of that region of the world. And I’m—I was convinced then, I’m convinced now, that for a long period of time he was trying to acquire nuclear capabilities.
MR. RUSSERT: But if we cannot find the biological or chemical weapons, or evidence of an advanced nuclear program, what was the threat and why did we have to go to war when we did?
SEN. EDWARDS: The threat was that this was a man who we knew was going to do everything in his power to acquire nuclear capability. And he was a different and distinct, unique kind of threat, because of his history, because of having started a war. We know that over a long period of time we made the effort, whether he, in fact, has them, had them at the time the war began or not, we know that over a long period of time he had been trying to acquire that capability. It is an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world. And Saddam Hussein, Tim, with nuclear capability, completely changes things.
MR. RUSSERT: The French were saying at the time of the vote in the United Nations “Let’s give inspections a few more months, and if you, Mr. President Bush, do that, we will then go along with you, ultimately, in fact, if Saddam does not cooperate.” In hindsight should the president have gone along with the French and allowed inspections to continue?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, we don’t—those of us who have responsibility for making these enormously important decisions, we don’t have the benefit of hindsight. I mean, that’s a great luxury, looking back now. I did what I thought was right at the time. I still believe it was right. We’ve had almost 400 young Americans lose their lives in a cause that I think is important. Saddam Hussein is gone. That region of the world, if we pursue the right policy, can be much more stable than it was before he came there. And I will not say to the mothers and fathers of those young men and women who lost their lives that it wasn’t important because I think it was enormously important, and I think they deserve to know that.
MR. RUSSERT: So President Bush was right in invading Iraq in March?
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, you know, I didn’t make the decision about the timing. The president of the United States made the decision about the timing. What I voted on...
MR. RUSSERT: But his policy’s right?
SEN. EDWARDS: His policy about going to war at that time?
MR. RUSSERT: Going to war at that time.
SEN. EDWARDS: I believe, based upon—I voted for the resolution. I stand by that decision. You know, whether, if I had been president of the United States, I would have done this exactly like him, probably not, you know? Because if I had been in a decision-making position, I would have made more of an effort to build a coalition over a much longer period of time because, as I’ve said from the beginning, I think having this be an international effort was enormously important. But, having said that, I still stand by what I did.

[ariellyn]

101. The interview is damning...

It sets off bells for me. It ties Edwards to Bush and, should Bush ever be called on the carpet for his lies, Edwards will be right there with him. The first thing they will do, if Bush is criticized, is point to Edwards' claims like they do Clinton now. That's why they like him so much. If Edwards is elected, they would bring him down too--particularly because he was so close to the information as part of the Senate Intelligence committee.

I can't believe he repeatedly threw out the line about acquiring WMD over a decade, and then added the point about Saddam doing everything to get nuclear weapons...

This really clarifies my position against Edwards. I don't want him to become the next president.

[AP]

104. It isn't for me, and it's the reason Kerry took heat and Edwards didn't

However, I understand why this isn't enough for a vocal minority.

[ludwigb]

134. And this is supposed to make us like Edwards?

Essentially he says he voted for the war resolution not because of their was any evidence Saddam had any chance of going nuclear, but because he believed Saddam was unstable and thus a long term threat. I don't buy it. That said, I do respect the intelligence Edwards shows in the interview, even though I think IWR was more of a political desicion for him than he lets on.

[Rhiannon12866]

130. Gary Bauer is just evil

I don't know how he continues to exist, he is just so full of hate.:shrug:

[childslibrarian]

2. I like him

I just don't think he has enough experience. I like his message and I'd vote for him, but he's not my first choice.

[Indiana_Dem]

3. Last summer, he was my first pick

but I'm still undecided. He is a clean running guy who doesn't trash the other supporters that badly. He runs on his own issues and stick to the anti-Bush rhetoric. I think that's why people like him. I think the older folks will be attracted to his clean good guy image. i do think his intentions are good and he means what he says. He appears very honest but not a fighter.

His negative aspect might include too much of a "politiciany" look and act. Then again, it might just be how he is. I became really tired of his "son of a mill worker" speech. He tends to say the same things over and over again but then again I've been listening for a long time, too, and it is new for some people who haven't heard him.

[anti-bush]

68. He hasn't said "son of a millworker" in a while

This isn't part of his stump speech anymore.

[AP]

94. He only had to say it enough times so that everyone knew it.

Doesn't anyone remember Clinton in '92? He repeated things over and over again until a critical mass had it ingrained in their heads. When you've achieved this...it's a sign of a winning campaign. Then you move on to the next idea you want people to think of when they think about you. Psst. "Two Americas" is Edwards's next phrase which will become deeply ingrained.

How can anyone deny that this is the most successful campaign? Which other campaign has DU'ers repeating phrases from the stump speech.

People who think their disparaging the campaign by mocking 'son of millworker' are actually proving the effectiveness of the campaign.

[Democrats unite]

4. I like Edwards...

He's one of my choices.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Not him personally. Just his lousy vote for war.

Hell, I don't even dislike Lieberman, Kerry or Gephardt, personally. I just don't want them to lead the party or be president.

[dreissig]

6. He Voted for the War

Eligibility for my vote is fairly minimal: don't be a Republican and don't be a thug. Edwards voted for the war, knowing (as we all did) that the evidence favoring it was bullshit. But he went and voted for it anyhow! That makes him a thug, IMO.

America's military power ought to be used with more discretion than we've seen. Democratic candidates who approve of Cowboy George's unnecessary wars don't appeal to me; in fact I won't vote for them. That doesn't mean I'll refuse to support Democratic candidates. If a thug is nominated, I'll vote a straight line Democratic ticket, but I'll leave the top spot blank.

[AP]

8. I can think of three DU'ers who REALLY don't like him.

However, they can never manage to identify what policies they don't like.

Bascially, he's a bad pen pal is their criticism.

[BurtWorm]

57. What do you mean "bad pen pal?"

I'm someone who is not impressed by him and who doesn't get what people see in him. I find him bland and uninspiring. I hope he is not the nominee. I could tolerate him as VP, but I think it would be a waste. I think he needs more seasoning. Is this what you would call being a "bad pen pal?" To me it seems more like uninspiring candidate.

[AP]

95. The only criticism I get from a handful of peole is "he didn't write me...

...back." Or, "I didn't like the letter he sent me."

Obviously it's more important to know if he pursued a bad policy.

There a couple people who make this complaint, however, when asked, they can't even be bothered to go into any detail about what they were writing about or how Edwards addressed the issue in the letter.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. I Dislike Him Retaining Hugh Shelton

Because Shelton is a scumbag. Many Clark supporters I know feel similarly.

If Edwards dumped him, however, I'd have no problems with him.

DTH

[robsul82]

21. Same here.

And I'm a DEAN supporter.

Later.

RJS

[xultar]

22. Ditto! He blew his VeeP slot with that dumb move n/t

[Loren645]

86. I sorta doubt Clark would will pick Edwards as VP anyway.

He doesn't need another Southerner on the ticket.

[AP]

96. You mean like Clinton didn't need another southerner on ticket?

[Loren645]

107. ...What? You totally lost me AP.

Clinton won twice.

Wha?

[AP]

110. With another southerner on ticket. Why wouldn't Clark benefit from that?

It seems like the post to which I was responding needed to do a little more explaining.

[AP]

24. He went to the same college. They've been friends for years...years before

Edwards went into politics. He's been talking to him about foreign affairs since when they were all working for Clinton.

I don't like Shelton myself, but I have longtime friends who are asshole Republicans with whom I talk, and if I became president, I'd probably talk to them still.

It's not like Edwards sought this guy out because they're in philosophical agreement. It was chance that they started out at the same place and ended up not for from each other (geopraphically and employment-wise).

[beaconess]

29. He has RETAINED Gen. Shelton

Shelton has advised him on military matters from time to time.

[arewethereyet]

51. he was chairman of the joint chiefs and a friend, who better ?

its not as if the guy is not a font of information regarding the military.

Think he's not democrat enough ? His intersest as with all guys who have his job is to be able to interact effectively with whoever happens to be president when you happen to advance into that position. If they worry about politics then they get nowhere.

Upset about his Clark comments ? I posted why he said that many times and he was fair in his chacterization. See for yourself again...

http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/kutija/nw000515.htm

[mikehiggins]

92. That makes no sense

What do you think that article is saying, and why do you think that it is the basis for what Shelton said?

I read it and I can't make the connections you seem to.

And didn't Shelton tell the Hague himself that his comments were political in nature?

I just don't get your point.

[Skwmom]

47. Agree. In addition, Edwards constantly talks about

how he has run a positive campaign but I remember him taking some cheap shots at Clark earlier on. In addition, it's been easy for him to stay above the fray. The other candidates have basically ignored him.

[beaconess]

50. What cheap shots did he take at General Clark?

And were those before or after Clark stepped all over his announcement and had his communications attack Edwards in an "open letter?"

[elfin]

10. I don't think it is possible to dislike him

Every time I see him, I just smile. I am a Clark supporter, but Dang! Edwards just makes me feel good. That photo of him looking out the bus with his son both with ear to ear grins just is a kicker.

[BurtWorm]

58. Reality check: It is possible.

I don't trust this talk about Edward's likeability, anyway. Isn't that what people said about Bush's "qualifications."

[arewethereyet]

62. anything is possible, this would be more like unlikely

the guy is a natural

[BurtWorm]

63. That's what they said bout Reagan too.

"Naturals" don't impress me.

[AP]

93. TR, FDR, JFK and Clinton were all naturals too.

[BurtWorm]

135. Edwards is not in their class!

Don't make me laugh!

[ima_sinnic]

12. I don't like him

He is too "nice" about the Patriot Act. Every time I've heard him interviewed, when the subject of the PA comes up, he always starts off by saying, "Wal, there are good parts of the Patriot Act, it's not all bad." That leaves the casual listener thinking, well it couldn't be all that bad, as he walks away without hearing what might be wrong with it. The Patriot Act should be fought tooth and nail, without compromise or apology. It should be condemned and exposed. He voted for it and I believe he wrote parts of it. NO THANK YOU!! I want someone with GUTS to fight it, to point out exactly what it is and what it is doing to Americans.

He also indicated, back when Dean campaigned down in South Carolina, that "we in the South don't need some Northerner coming down here and telling us what we need or don't need" (paraphrase), basically (literally? I can't remember) calling Dean a "carpetbagger." This was a big turn-off that told me that he didn't care about or relate to the rest of the country, that he was running as a regional candidate. So win the South, John, but there are about 43 other states in this country. And don't bother coming up to New England and "carpetbagging." sheesh.

He's a politician and not particularly special is how I feel about him. He doesn't appear particularly p-o'ed about BFEE/PNAC or to display a passion about fighting that evil.

on edit: forgot the obvious IWR vote--just one more indication that Edwards is just "same old same old" politics as usual: don't rock the boat, don't question anything, don't take any risks, just go along with it

[mlawson]

13. We did have two posters who absolutely despised him.

But they haven't posted lately. Odd.

And I am not referring to the ones that you are in 8, AP.

[Loren645]

15. Personally? He's a charmer. If I had kin killed in Iraq I'd dislike him

Quite a bit.

Not crazy about that vote.
I'd only vote for him if the viable anti-war candidates
are gone.

[DemNoir]

16. A good point

I am really coming around to the idea of John Edwards. He would be very tough for the Republicans to attack. His like-ability factor is so high, attacks on him would probably backfire.

If we are able to make the election about Bush, he loses.

[ariellyn]

74. The fact that he'd be tough for the Republicons to attack is the problem

for me...he's just like them. Of course they can't attack one of their own, but I don't want want of them running this country for the next four years. Edwards is a last choice for me. He's good looking, a charmer and all, but he's all evasive and doesn't really have a platform either against the war or for the country. Too middle of the road.

[SadEagle]

17. He is an amazing schmoozer.

He offended me a bit in the beginning w/his "your kind" comment, but climbed up. The funny thing is, I think the fact that schmoozer's do so well is part of what's so wrong w/politics today, but hey, I may not agree w/him on some things, but he is on the same team

[IndianaGreen]

18. Gee, Edwards has run a clean and positive campaign

I don't see how anyone would hate him.

[Endangered Specie]

19. hes a nice guy, but Rove would crush him... Make a great Att. Gen.

[mlawson]

25. ???? Rove has nothing on him. Nothing.

No one has. Edwards went against the helms machine here in NC in 1998, and beat their senator Faircloth. If there had been anything in his 'closet', they would have used it on him. But they couldn't, and they are masters of the art of dirty campaigns.

Sure, Rove will invent somehtng, but Edwards is a skilled litigator, an no one's fool. He is ready for anything.

[AP]

28. Furthermore, how bad would it look to go negative on him? Dean was so

scared of the repercussions, he had to get CMB to do it for him in the debate and she would only do it after she decided to pull out!

[beaconess]

33. And her attack fell flat.

By the way, where IS Carol Moseley Braun these days?

[mlawson]

36. He would turn it on them, fighting back with a smile on his face.

But leaving a dagger in their guts... He knows what he is doing.

[AP]

38. And it would refelct negatively on the attacker.

It would force Bush to compete on ideas. Lamb to the slaughter.

[Dr.Phool]

20. I like him

He comes off as very genuine. I'm a Dean supporter, and never gave much thought to Edwards until I heard him speak at the Florida Democratic Convention last month.

I was very impressed. He has more passion and intensity than Bill Clinton. Has the right background, and is right on all the issues.

I've said since then that I'd like to see him as Deans VP, but if things unravel for Howard, he'll get my shoe-leather support and vote.

[fishnfla]

23. A civil trial lawyer and a politician is a hard combo to like.

But its nice to see someone bust down that stereotype, put a human face to both. I heard how james Carville said he was the best stump speaker ever.

[nannah]

80. as a lawyer, he sued corporations on behalf of

the little guy and he was effective and won millions for people hurt by corporate greed. to me, that is a significant element of who he is. a judge who presided over one of his trials said that Edwards spoke for two hours without missing a point , making a compelling case for his client. he is intelligent and able to understand and present complex issues with coherence. his two tiered america is a concept that many Americans can relate to; he is speaking to them, putting the huge elephant of eliteism, that I believe has dominated the white house for years, squarely on the table. and he is credible as a representative of the many rather than the elite (IMHO)

I was also swayed by his connection to Dennis Kucinich who would have been my first choice based on his ideology and focus.

[patricia92243]

26. I LIKE him, he just doesn't have any domestic or foreign experience

[AP]

30. "domestic or foreign"? That doesn't leave much. Kinda like Lincoln, maybe?

[mlawson]

32. Recent presidents without foreign experience.

FDR, Truman, JFK (the same amount as Edwards), Carter, Ronnie, Clinton. I would add Junior bush, but he is not really president.

Domestic??? He is a senator.

[AP]

37. Only secretaries of state could run for president if this were so importan

How man SoSs have become president? None?

[mlawson]

39. (raising hand) I know !! I know!!

Thomas Jefferson. :-)

[AP]

40. Wow.

Have there been any since?

[SEAburb]

27. He has been given a free pass until now,

because nobody saw him as a threat to win the nomination. Those days are gone.

[bitchkitty]

31. I don't dislike him,

but he's too vanilla. Leaves me cold.

[Dr Fate]

35. I like him and I'm proud that I never underestimated him...

...great DEM and great candidate!

[creativelcro]

41. I ten to like Edwards. But only based on superficial things

I have not heard him much, besides superficial comments... his smile is kind of fake, but that means nothing, again...

[GreenArrow]

42. I can't stand him

!@^%$ phoney. He's waaaaaaayyyy too conservative for my tastes. Yuck. I really don't like him. Stereotypical which way is the wind blowing politician. Slick.

[kcwayne]

44. I don't trust him

1) He is part of the problem in Washington. He believes that Saddam and terrorism are linked, in spite of absolutely no evidence. He is either stupid or an Bush enabler/supporter, and I believe it is the the latter.

2) He is selling a message of "hope" that has no substance. He spoke of a nation where no one who works full time will live in poverty. This is a great goal. He, along with all of the candidates, don't have a plan for how to bring this about. There is absolutely no one talking about the major threat to the standard of living in the US, which is the lack of investment and export of jobs. Tax incentives or minimum wage policies, which are the standard tools politicians promise to use have no possibility of solving the problem. As such, Edward's message of hope is an unattainable campaign promise that will go unfulfilled should he be elected. The destruction of our economy should be a central theme of a presidential candidate, and it is time for new thinking on what we can do to avoid the coming collapse. I see no candidate prepared to deal with this, and I take Edwards play on emotional needs to be nothing more than a skilled lawyer playing his jury. I resent this.

3) Edwards makes a big deal about how he, as a Southerner, is the best one to win in all areas of the country. As a Midwesterner, I take offense to this. I am tired of the South dominating the political landscape and pushing their social agendas which have historically been dominated by racism, the melding of religion into the public arena where it does not belong, and a strong desire to insert "morality" though the sledgehammer of government coercion into private life. I want to see a Western, Midwestern, or Northeastern exert a balancing influence on government to counteract the assaults we have sustained from the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, George Bush, and Tom Delay. IMO, Edwards is much more aligned with culture of Falwell than the philosophy of Franklin, and I want to see more Ben than Jerry in the future.

[DjTj]

59. Number 2...

The centerpiece of Edwards' platform is his economic plan, which is a comprehensive proposal to lift up hard-working middle class people. It starts by protecting jobs through fair trade agreements and giving a 10% tax credit to corporations that keep jobs in the United States. He will also raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment benefits, and strengthen labor laws. Most importantly, Edwards will create a tax code that rewards hard work instead of pandering to the rich. He will provide a tax credit to first-time homebuyers and match funds in retirement accounts while cutting corporate subsidies and closing corporate tax loopholes. He will reduce capital gains for 95% of Americans, helping them invest and save for the future while raising capital gains for the richest Americans that are living off their investments. This is not class warfare; this is a new way of thinking about taxes: shifting the burden from work back to wealth. In his own words: "I believe the way a rich nation gets richer is by giving all its citizens the chance to get richer, not by only helping those like me who've already succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

[kcwayne]

127. Exactly, and the centerpiece is inoperative

Fair trade agreements are subjective and inexact. The globalization movement is running at full steam, and there is no set of trade policies that will be enacted to change this. The steel tariffs that Bush recently rolled back are a prime example of what happens to fair trade agreements. American corporations have massive investments overseas based on the premise that they can bring goods and services back into this country at low tariff rates. They will not allow their investments to sour on the basis of a populist trying to improve the lives of the citizens in this country that they are abandoning.

A 10% tax credit is not as valuable as a 90% reduction in labor costs, the ability to operate without environmental regulations, and the lower costs of litigation in societies that won't hold companies responsible for liability to workers.

Since most businesses operate on a 15-20% pre-tax margin, and labor costs run 25-35%, the 10% tax credit is applied to a lower number to begin with. A company that has the ability to outsource will always pass up the tax credit because the outsourcing returns more to the bottom line.

Raising the minimum wage is pure stupidity in this environment. American corporations are running away from labor costs, they are not trying to invest in this country and build reliable labor forces. Raising labor costs is just fuel to accelerate the pace at which corporations abandon this country.

This is the tragedy that America faces in a global economy where the rest of the world is so much poorer, and corporations are able and anxious to exploit the misery of disadvantaged and uncapitalized. In There is an unlimited supply of people throughout the world willing to work for $3 or less per day. Why would any corporation that can move its means of production or service into a market where they can pay people what Americans made in 1890 want to operate under regulations that say at a minimum, they must pay people 250 times more than that?

The answer is evident in that giant sucking sound that Ross Perot talked about 15 years ago. Hoever, Ross was partially deaf because he was primarily worried about Mexico. Now even Mexico hears that sucking sound as their $10 per day jobs are being sucked out to China and India. Hell, I even know about companies planning on moving out of India and going to Thailand or Africa because they think Indian labor is too expensive.

Edward's plan is no more effective than spitting into a hurricane.

[spooky3]

129. What are your proposals for better solutions?

[kcwayne]

133. I don't have a complete solution, or I would run for president

America needs a project or set of projects that will engage people here in an effort that will generate economic activity. One such project should be R&D and technology development for alternate energy sources. Overhauling energy and fuel manufacturing and distribution in this country could generate huge economic activity and benefits as we retrofit automobiles, gas stations, power plants, electrical grids and such.

Rather than spending 100 billion repairing countries that we destroy, and how many billions more defending against terrorist threats from the people whose families we have killed, we could deploy money and resources that would eliminate our dependence on the perpetually unstable Middle East.

But I would throw a caveat into publicly funded R&D of this type. The public should own patent rights in the technology they fund, so that when companies engage to license the results of this spending overseas, the public gets a ROI.

This is not a campaign platform, it is a single idea. I think we need more ideas like this to tackle the problems we face.

We need ideas that do not pit American workers against child labor in impoverished countries.

We need ideas that are not just tweaks on tax codes and economic policy.

We need ideas that recognize that we face a life altering crises and that we need a paradigm shift to get off the race to the bottom of the labor pool.

We need to see the vaunted American ingenuity put to good use to create a new economy, and new economic relationships between our population and the corporations that own us.

As was true with FDR in the 1930's, we need a new deal.

[spooky3]

70. re: Number 1

deleted--I misread your claim, and Djtj's comment is better than mine was.

[DjTj]

73. Number 1...

He is most definitely NOT part of problem in Washington. His anti-lobbyist stances are the strongest of any candidate:

John Edwards is a relative newcomer to the political scene and when he came to Washington in 1999, he found a lot of things that need cleaning up. He has never taken money from a PAC, and he wants to ban all registered lobbyists from contributing to campaigns. He also wants to shine a bright light on lobbying activity by forcing lobbyists to disclose who they met with and what bill they discussed every two weeks. Edwards wants to do more than campaign finance reform; he wants to rewrite the rules and shut down the entire system of buying influence in Washington.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

If you think he's stupid, then I can't help you, because I know he's one of the smartest candidates we've ever had.

If you want to call him a Bush enabler and cannot look past a few votes, I also can't help you.

Saddam and terrorism are linked. Remember, he once fired scud missiles at Israel and he has gassed his own people. Saddam and 9/11 are not linked, and Edwards has never said that.

[kcwayne]

125. I disagree

When directly asked about his position on the war and whether he was misled by poor intelligence, he stated that his main concern was that Saddam was in a position to receive nuclear materials, and that he thinks it was the right move to stop this from happening. He reaffirmed his support of the invasion of Iraq on the basis of preventing Saddam from committing a terrorist acts against the US.

The point about Saddam and terrorism linkage is not that Saddam doesn't support terrorism. But the war on Iraq was sold on the basis that this terrorism was an immediate and catastrophic threat to the United States. No such threat existed, and the administration lied about the evidence, and were enabled in their lies by the likes of Edwards, who through their silence or complicity led the American public to believe that the government had compelling intelligence that warranted their claims.

If you don't see willing compliance or deliberately lying about matters that cause the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people to be a problem, then I can't help you.

[HuckleB]

45. I'm definitely not a fan, but I wouldn't say that I dislike him.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. He's to the right of Lieberman according to that graphic thing....

He's to the right of Clark, Dean and Lieberman. Anybody know why?

[NashVegas]

48. I Do

For the first few months of the campaign, I thought he seemed sincere and without a trace of the arrogance you see among many "southern gentleman," and he was actually my #2.

When he pulled the "we don't need people like you coming down here ..." crap, twice, the mask slipped off and stayed off, AFAIC. A little dog marking his turf.

[Jacobin]

49. I don't like him much and think he has some funky ideas

"Department of Peace". It's idiotic and demonstrates a graphic lack of understanding of the government we have. The Department of State is charged with working out issues through diplomacy without war. A department of peace would do...what? Go debate with the pentagon?

It's lame.

And damn, I'm from the south, but jeeze that drawl....its almost as bad as Gore's and almost as annoying.

[arewethereyet]

52. isn't that Kucinich ?

n/t

[mvd]

56. Yes, it's Kucinich

And anyway, the goal of his Department of Peace is not just to help undo all the damage Dubya has done (in that way it could oversee the State Department) - it also would strive to prevent domestic violence and help in educating the public about peaceful solutions.

I like Edwards. His drawl seems warm to me. He's not the most liberal candidate, but he seems like a very nice person and he hasn't forgotten his roots.

[Dr Fate]

53. the "funky" Dept. of Peace is Kusinich's concept, not Edwards...n/t

n/t

[AP]

60. Refreshing that people who don't like E have no clue what's what.

[spooky3]

71. yes, AP, that has become apparent in a number of posts in this and

other threads. It is interesting how silent some people become once you ask them for evidence or provide a link to evidence that is directly contrary to their assertions.

I don't have a problem with anyone's pure opinion about someone, but I do have a problem not challenging misstatements of Edwards' positions or unfounded allegations about what he's done.

[eridani]

123. 'Funky' Dept. of Peace? Sez who?

Not George Washington, who proposed legislation for one in 1793.

[Jerseycoa]

54. I do not dislike John Edwards

I like him a whole lot and this happened in the course of the campaign, because I knew little about him when it started. I was a supporter of sorts during the summer and donated money, but moved to Bob Graham for his foreign policy and national security creds. The main objection I have to Edwards as president, at this time, is I believe we are going to need a trained commander in chief for some time into the future. (I also don't like the Shelton connection, but that's personal, as far as I'm concerned, and I let that slide.) If it were the 1990s, I would have no hesitation at all over John Edwards as president. I hesitate to say this, because I know how insulting it is to say about a presidential candidate, so please forgive me: I think John Edwards is a perfect vice president at this time and the perfect president for another time. Again, I am not looking to offend with that statement, but it finishes my thoughts on his candidacy.

[Clark Can WIN]

55. EDWARDS SUCKS!

Ha ha. I love Edwards too. I lived in NC for 6 years and just the sound of his voice is like sitting on the back porch of that old house. I loved my time there.

Edwards is what is good and right and hopeful about the south. He's a good man I admire much and rotates with Kerry for my #2.

[John_H]

61. I don't dislike any of the candidates but I worry about JE's electability

He's dozens of times more qualified than Dean, but Edwards is way too susceptible to the "untested" meme.

[copithorne]

65. I remember...

When people were protesting the war and trying to stop it.

And Jon Edwards said we needed to go to war because Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons.

Mohamed Idabedi knew that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons. He had testified that in the UN a week earlier. I knew Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons. The whole world knew that Saddam Hussein didn't have nuclear weapons.

But Jon Edwards only got his information from Dick Cheney and Fox News.

Let me tell you, that made me angry. Luckily, I threw something soft at the television screen.

Has he apologized for this? Has he undertaken an ordeal of atonement like Robert Deniro in The Mission? Has he acknowledged error? Has he said how he as president will not be fooled in the future by any spook with an agenda?

Other than that, I love the guy. Great future. Maybe a good VP for Clark.

[Doomsayer13]

64. I like his positive campaign

he's waging a positive campaign and I like that. Maybe he can heighten the level of debate.

[Walt Starr]

66. I wouldn't let him babysit my niece

if that's what you're asking.

[lcordero]

67. I do have trouble with his IWR vote but he seems alright.

[Aunt Eunice]

69. Everyone who's met him in NC...

...loves that boy to death.

Those that haven't met him here in NC, feel he has misused his Senate seat. He's spent most of his first term, running for President.

[AP]

77. Being a D. Sen in minority in Bush America and wanting to change the ...

...world must make one ache to be president, especially when you look around and see that if you don't run the alternative is another 4 years under Bush being in the minority in the senate, not changing the world.

You can't play defense forever if you're goal is to move forward.

[in_cog_ni_to]

72. I wouldn't say I "dislike" Edwards, I know NOTHING about him.

I don't like his retaining General Shelton...even if they are friends, there are many other General's to go to for "foreign policy" advice. That was nothing less than a slap in Clark's face, done on purpose, for that very reason. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that Shelton let his little slanderous remark about Clark fly in order to help his "friend" Edwards.

His IWR vote is bad for me also and he still believes we did the right thing by going into Iraq, he just "disagrees" on how Bush went about it. Not good. IMO.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. I like him, but

I think that he may not be ready for the Presidency. One term in the Senate is the only experince that he currently has. He needs to get some more experience on his resume. I am disappointed that he is not running for reelection.

[DjTj]

78. His time is now.

Says the Des Moines Register:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=526

I agree:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

[Terwilliger]

79. I don't like a LOT of his positions

but he seems earnest and sincere enough

[AP]

97. at least you think he's earnest and sincere.

[Terwilliger]

111. not easy for me to bestow that on a politician

:-)

[thebgrkng]

81. I dislike the thought of him as the Dem nom.

I want personal experience and gut feelings on dealing with the rest of the world. He doesnt have it. He's better than bush, they all are better than bush. But he doesn't have what I'm looking for.

I'm a left-leaning independent who would love Clark as president, and would settle for Kerry. I would vote for any other Dem not out of motivation, but out of fear for the Supreme Court.

-TheBgrKng

[DjTj]

82. ...so I wrote this essay...

In 1998 and in Iowa this year, Edwards has changed minds by using the skills that made him one of the best trial lawyers in America. He explains economic and political ideas in language everyone understands. He'll never talk down to you or pretend he knows what's best for you. John Edwards listens to your concerns and takes the time to explain why his policies are the best. He doesn't attack other Democrats.

His foreign policy reflects this personality. Edwards believes that America must treat other countries with respect in order to gain their respect. He stresses engagement with our allies and he'll make America safer by restoring its image and making us a country that is looked up to and respected by the world. One day after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, John Edwards stood on the Senate floor and urged President Bush to share this vision: "A free Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. And if done right - with humility, patience and cooperation - this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world together and return America to a place where it is respected and admired."

Winning this election is not about firing up the base and it's not about pandering to the middle. It's not about winning the Midwest or the South, although Edwards can do that. The people who will decide this election aren 't single issue voters and they don't listen to the pundits. The votes we need to win this election are in the hands of people who are looking for a message to believe in and a person they can trust. They want someone that can lift this country up and give them hope for the future. They're looking for real solutions to their problems. They're looking for a President that will make them proud to be Americans again. They will find John Edwards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

[spooky3]

83. 20 years fighting for families harmed by big companies and

bad doctors, added to a term as a Senator and service on important committees, doesn't qualify as "personal experience"?

I still have not heard a good explanation for why Clark's experience, which includes no years in positions in which he must cooperate rather than command, and no years in public office, renders him as more qualified than Edwards. I could understand Kerry's supporters making this argument, though I would disagree with it. But I just don't get how Clark's experience counts, but Edwards' does not.

[thebgrkng]

91. No disrespect...

but i said;

'I want personal experience and gut feelings on dealing with the rest of the world'

This was not a knock on Edwards domestic experience. It was a comment on I don't feel he has been thinking of America's role in the world for a large portion of his life. That's critical for my support.

I can accept that some people don't like the fact that Clark has no legislative experience. I can deal with that.

Now as for the idea that Clark can only command and not cooperate, I think that overlooks him getting 19 countries on board to agree on a agenda/warplan in Kosovo. And to keep that alliance together when things didnt go according to plan. He might be able to dress down a US Private, but lets not pretend he wasn't diplomatic working with Tony Blair and the rest.

-TheBgrKng

[AP]

98. Then you have a wide selection of former secretaries of state.

Would you like James Baker? Or George Schultz?

[thebgrkng]

Sec of State...

...doesn't do the trick for me. I think Powell is great. I think he's in the Admin trying to help balance the Admin as best he can. I think that he can't undo the damage being done by GW.

The Pres is the leader. I don't want a Sec of State that is respected more abroad than our own President is. I think the US can and must be the leader of the free world if we hope to see a successful century. I think its going to take a globally-minded President to be that leader.

-TheBgrKng
(edited for spelling)

[AP]

109. Not my point. You have a wide range of FORMER SoSs to ELECT PRES.

Do you think only SoS's are qualifed to be pres? Did our best presidents all have FP experience?

I think saying this is your litmus test is really just chosing criteria in order to arrive at your pre-selected result.

There are better reasons to advocate for Clark other than he has experience with hostile nations.

[thebgrkng]

113. Well i appreciate...

...you telling me that I skew my 'litmus test' so i can arrive at my pre-selected result. Well not really.

Now for your ?'s/statements:

Only SoS's qualified for Pres: No, def not. But as I have said I would like a Pres with his own ideas and beliefs on how the US fits into and leads the world. And I want it to be a priority to them.

Taking this back to Edwards, I don't feel it is his priority. He seems to be focused on poor people. Thats fine and quite democratic. Its certainly better than bush who seems to be focused on screwing poor people. If you read my orig message you know i'd vote for him over bush.

Did best pres's all have FP exp?:I don't know, prob not. im wary of the word all. But that being said I think FP is more important now than it ever has been before, and it will only get more important.

better reasons to support clark than exp with hostile nationsI think you have attempted to place me in a place I have never been. I've never said his appeal to me was because he knows how to deal with bad guys. I'd rather keep this not focused on Clark, im not trying for a back and forth on my guy vs. your guy.

-TheBgrKng

[AP]

116. Edwards is focussed on people who work for a living (earned income earners

...) by the way.

[thebgrkng]

119. I apologize...

I worried that was too broad a stroke to paint. I think Edwards focusing on people who work for a living is a great thing. Not trying to take away from that focus.

Im just saying its not my focus, and I find him lacking in respect to world-view.

-TheBgrKng
(im off to bed, and this will likely be buried by morning, but it was nice chatting with ya)

[Shanty Oilish]

84. Here's my beef with Edwards

He advocated giving grants to states that require students to participate in some form of community service to graduate.
I don't like mandatory service, no matter how it's prettied up.

[DjTj]

85. Was this a particular bill?

Which one? How did other people vote?

[Shanty Oilish]

88. Link

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2003/0606-pr.html

He's not the only one advocating community service, and at least he's upfront about it. Clark's ideas are much more expansive and he uses the word volunteer all too often.

I'm sort of old-school about cs, I think you ought to go bust a window first, then be put to work against your will.

[DjTj]

89. thanks.

I suppose my response to you is that if we require mandatory attendance to graduate from high school, why can't we require community service?

What is the difference between schoolwork and community service?

[AP]

99. MANY schools do this already.

And it's a good way to create social value.

It's better than going home from school at 3:30 and getting high until mom gets home at 5:15.

[Shanty Oilish]

106. Individual freedom is a social value

It's not a question of either forced community service or getting high. Idle hands are the devil's playthings? Not necessarily.

[Shanty Oilish]

102. Well, if there's no difference between education and labor...

...let's give the little miscreants extra homework instead. I hear the scores are real low in some quarters.
Education and servitude are two very different values. I think most educated people resist involuntary servitude. They may even be inherently incompatible. Just my opinion. :shrug:

[AP]

103. Why is it labor in HS, but "practicals" in college and "clinics" in law...

...school?

Why does it suddenly become learning when you graduate from HS?

And you know what you learn when you get your first 21 year old in the office? that they've never been in an office environment before. Irritating learning curve there.

Maybe they should learn which way the fax paper goes into the fax machine when they're 17.

[Shanty Oilish]

105. Learning

"Maybe they should learn which way the fax paper goes into the fax machine when they're 17."

Yes, and how to hold a baby. I have a lot of complaint about what is taught in schools, required or elective. However, once you pass 16 or so, you're entitled to choose---and so is your employer. Generally speaking. Choice, good. :thumbsup:

[AP]

108. I'm not sure choice is the sin qua non. In college, if you want to be a

biology major, you don't have a choice for ALL your classes. If you have to take a clinic, your choice is limited to what they offer. In HS, you can chose which APs you take, or which track you take, and if you could chose which practical you take, does that solve your problem with this?

[Shanty Oilish]

112. Nope, doesn't solve my problem

Once you start enlisting people into involuntary servitude, AND generously offering them a choice of what kind, you're on the wrong track. You soon conclude that your slave's preferences aren't really very important anyway.
Where you go to college is a choice. If you don't like their requirements for biology majors you can choose another school.

We're getting off the subject of Edwards' advocacy of community service for high schoolers. Kids have less choice in the matter of education. That's reasonable, because they're kids. Putting them to work---gee, I thought we were past that stage. Child labor is not ok with me. Calling it a lofty name like community service does not deodorize it.
A century ago, people exploited child labor while the govt looked the other way. Now the govt wants to exploit it while we look the other way.

[AP]

115. You draw some pretty bright lines between right and wrong.

[Shanty Oilish]

120. Why thankya

They are drawn freehand. It's a gift. :)

[flaminbats]

87. I like all of the candidates' personalities...

Kerry reminds me of a close personal friend in my church, Dean reminds me of my hyperactive uncle, Clark reminds me of one of my stern former Karate instructors, Edwards reminds me of a Congressional candidate I worked for in 1996, Kucinich remains me of a public school vocational teacher I knew..Mr. Hamm, Lieberman reminds me of the dad in Alf, and Sharpton reminds me of a college roommate.

I hold no grudges toward these candidates personally. However..I do dislike the way Edwards has run his campaign. He always provides glib answers to every problem, but never goes into detail. On health-care Edwards could be pushing something better, like the Breaux plan. But instead he is taking the Al Gore-lite approach to that issue. Finally..if he had pushed an agenda similar to what Kucinich or Dean support, he would be unbeatable. He could take the Gephardt approach to healthcare and taxes, support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq as Kucinich does, and speak out in favor of repealing NAFTA and the WTO. He has a great personal story to tell, but so does everyone! People vote for an agenda as well as the individual..and both are needed in November to defeat the repukes.

[mikehiggins]

90. Somebody called him a Breck girl somewhere a while ago

JE is just possibly not quite as popular in North Carolina as he is out here in the big country. He seems like a good enough guy and he has a very good delivery but he does not, at this point, have the kind of credentials the Big Dog did when he ran.

JE worked his way up from a low income childhood and became very succesful in his field. Then he broke into politics and now he's running for President. He has some very detailed plans on paper and he's quick on his feet and very witty.

There doesn't seem to be much more after that.

In this country, that may be enough.

[AP]

100. He's VERY popular in NC now. 93% approve of his senate run.

That's from memory.

He will almost definitely beat Bush in NC. He's been closer to Bush than Clinton was to Bush I in Ark at equivalent times in 91 and 92.

The only way he could have been the lawyer he was in NC was to have the conviction he clearly has about what is right and wrong.

I want a president with that kind of conviction. Every great president has had that convinction.

[spooky3]

128. that "someone" was Rush Limbaugh

[annagull]

114. I'm from South Carolina, he rubs me the wrong way

Too much preacher man, not enough juice. I think if I hear him one more time with the "son of a mill worker" crap I'm going to puke. I am still picking my candidate, thought it would be Dean but he seems tone deaf about politics lately.

[AP]

118. Did you see Iowa caucus -- old guy making argument about Edwards...

...talking about selling corn from wagon during the Depression?

Looks like Edwards's accurate depiction of what's wrong with America is getting a foothold in people's imaginations.

[Khephra]

117. Yep

His attacks on Dean. People keep on forgetting that.

[Cheswick2.0]

121. yes

yes he is from the appeasement wing of the democratic party. He voted too often for bad legislation. I think the Pretty boy thing he has going is way overrated.

[Rhiannon12866]

122. I think John Edwards is great. I cannot imagine a more positive candidate

I just don't know if he has the experience or popular support to beat George Bush*, which is what we need. Though my idealogical favorite is Kucinich, I was rather hoping for a Gephardt/Edwards ticket, to appeal both to the midwest and the south. If Edwards gets the nomination, he surely has my vote, though anyone but Bush* does, as well.:shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

124. The darling of the DLC. Watch out for those"perfect" guys

who are "above it all". I see nothing bold or daring from this one. Business as usual, safe and centrist with that tired 1979 John Ritter "Three's Company" haircut.

[ima_sinnic]

126. couldn't agree more

It appears the American sheeple aren't yet ready to take back their government and will choose safe, boring, bland, middle-of-the-road uncontroversial vanilla over all other flavors.

[arwalden]

131. I'm Looking Closer And Liking Him More

-- Allen (still undecided)

[Native]

132. I read that he never did any pro bono work.

Is there any validity to that claim? If so, that would bother me tremendously considering the fortune he amassed and the clients he represented.