Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Imagine Edwards/Bredesen '08

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 12:52 PM
Original message
Imagine Edwards/Bredesen '08
I haven't made any final decisions about who I'll support in '08, but this thought just passed my mind.

Phil Bredesen is the popular Democratic Governor of Tennessee. He got elected with help from voters in East Tennessee, one of the most Republican areas in the nation. Bredesen isn't as liberal as I like (very few Democrats are) but he's no conservative like Bayh or Warner.

Remember what happened last time we put to Southerners on a ticket? Of course you do. Making the Republicans fight for the South gives us a powerful advantage. If Democrats are able to win two or three Southern states then we are guaranteed victory.

These two would have a compelling populist message that will appeal to rural and working class voters across the South and Midwestern battle ground states.

I'm sure there's more than one ticket that would win, but I bet these two together would win back the White House again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Frankly
I'm tired of southerners. I know I'm generalizing, and I will support Edwards or whomever the nominee may be, but I'm damn tired that the "media" propogates this horseshit that a Northeastern democrat or a Western democrat can't win the WH.

We've had somethinng like four southernors out of the last five presidents. It's time to give other regions a shot at leading this country.

No more southernors. (Border states are fine).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. We have given other regions a shot
at winning the White House, and they lose.

I'm all for giving candidates from other regions a shot if they know how to appeal to the South. Sadly, that was not one of Kerry's strong points. Feingold may be able to pull it off with the right running mate. He seems to understand what kind of message will work in the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Don't worry. It's still people from Boston, Washington and NY who
Edited on Mon May-30-05 02:29 PM by AP
ultimately decide to run southerners. And they pick them because they can win.

People from the south don't actually have as much power as might be suggested by the number of winning Democrats from the south, so there's nothing really to be afraid of if your not from the south. And if you're from NY, Boston or DC, you probably live very close to the people who really decide the fate of the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Very true.
Its one reason the party has gotten so out of touch with people in the "flyover" states, as they would call it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. And it looks like John Edwards's policy goals would shift more political
and economic power away from the power centers and to the people, which is the most important thing...and it shouldn't matter that he happens to be a southerner, but he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. I see your point...
Edited on Mon May-30-05 11:27 PM by zulchzulu
...and frankly, I find Southern politicians to be more corrupt tht those from other regions.

Maybe it's the Good Ol' Boy Network Below the Mason Dixon Line that roosts the Southerners to have to jump through a series of wackazoid hoops to get into power...and by that process, become hypocritical Faux-Jesus-Freak Shucksters...after all, many Southern males in the South still think they won the Civil War and call people like me Yankees behind my back*...either way, if you're a Southern politician, you have to have really "good" hair and prove you go the church. We know what that spawns.

Enough of the Southern Cuisine. Let's go to another restaurant. West is the best.

* I've lived in the South
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #21
46. If appearance of corruptibility/corruption is your litmus test,
you've got one in the hand in NC you'd be giving up for two in the bush out west.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
59. To me
Edwards has fine hair and Bredesen is okay. Here's a photo of him if you're curious:

(him and his wife Andrea)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. It doesn't really matter who it is or where they are from....
Look at George W Bush. It's a popularity contest and whomever has the best PR or propaganda wins. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Then it does matter...
If its a popularity contest then we need to pick a good candidate that people will like and can do good PR. That's why Clinton won too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. You can't have Bredesen yet! TN still needs him!
Besides, according to the TN Rethuglican website his favorability ratings are in a "downward spiral". That's right, his favorability dropped an amazing 10 points from 62% to 52% (still a LOT better than B*, eh?).

Of course, the reason it dropped is because he made a campaign promise to save TennCare witout raising taxes. Our former Repuke Gov (who is still under investigation by the FBI and TBI - the local station NewsChannel5 won a Peabody award for their expose of many of his dirty dealings) left TennCare in such a mess that the only way to save it without raising taxes was to make some drastic cuts.

So, some people resent Phil for actually keeping his campaign promises. But, he is making a lot of progress. He even manned a customer service phone line to get an idea of how to improve service. It was interesting to watch him on tv in the call center answering the phone like the barely above minimum wage folks and saying "Thank you for calling TennCare Customer service. This is Phil, can I help you?"

He will easily win his second term. After that, the rest of the country can have him. But he's got too much work to do in TN, yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I agree. He belongs here.
He has been a good governor for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I have to agree with you here.
Don't take Bredesen away from us, yet!!

And, I won't support Edwards for any ticket for some very personal reasons - so... nope, I don't want to see this ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
60. I love Phil myself
Edited on Tue May-31-05 02:11 PM by FreedomAngel82
I think it's great he's actually keeping campaign promises. That means a lot I think. Too many politicians now days make promises and then turn around and have to break them. I'm the type of person who has been burned in the past personally with promises so I alwyas say not to make a promise you know you can't keep. I didn't know that about the phone line. Very cool. I love how down to earth Mr. Bredesen is. You get this warm fuzzy feeling of him. I love to see him with people and doing conferences and stuff. I so hope he gets re-elected next year and it would be great if he someday ran for president. Here's a great photo of him:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
123. thanks....
Edited on Tue May-31-05 09:56 PM by CarolNYC
That's a great picture, FreedomAngel. Thanks to you and the others who posted info about Gov. Bredesen. I've heard good things about him but really don't know much about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. Great!
Since we lost on the National Security/Foreign policy issue last time....let's just do that again!

I'm sure that things on that front will be honky-dory by the time the 2008 election comes round. After all, the GOP that is currently in charge of the message will make sure that the Democrats strong point is the issue in 2008.

I feel so relieved!

Oh, Wait! If things are Honky-Dorey...and we are at peace with Iraq, Iran and North Korea....and we've caught Osama, and the GOP stop using the War on Terra to gain their edge....the GOP will get the credit.

I just wish it was 1992 again, that way we could run two southerners on the ticket! Ah yes, the Spirit of '92 lives on in many of our astute political observers.

But what about 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Other than Clark, who do you think meets your NS/FP litmus test?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. None surpass Clark... but there are some out there with more experience
Edited on Mon May-30-05 02:35 PM by FrenchieCat
than others.

The two named in this thread have most likely the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Do any of the others have names?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I can think of several with little or no foreign policy experience
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Carter, Reagan...it doesn't appear that most voters care as much about foreign policy experience as you do. We don't need to nominate a General to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. Not a general, but someone with foreign policy credos
on the ticket as #2 at least.

Bush the lesser and Clinton both got in during peacetime, war politics are a whole different dynamic. And come 2008 there will still be US troops dying on foreign soil, and national security will be a huge issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #31
45. I'll take simply creed and conviction.
And that's why Clinton was not only perceived qualified so soon after Gulf War 1, it's why his FP was good, despite only having been a governor of a small southern state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #45
88. National security was not on the radar in 1992....
The war in Iraq was won and finished as far as the American public was concerned. No 9/11 had occur.

Please, can we just be real here. Do we have to pretend that things were different from how they really were?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
79. In fairness, Clinton was elected in a different political climate (pre-911
Voters weren't focused on foreign policy nearly as much as they are now. The attacks freaked people out, understandably. And the military is stretched thin, people are growing aware of threats from other countries, etc...

No, we don't necessarily need to nominate a General to win. But I do think we need some real experience with foreign policy, diplomacy, military, national security, etc. It definitely matters now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
62. Not necessarily true
Bredesen has been mayor before he was governor. How much more experience can you get with being a governor of a state? You have the same type of priorities a president does only on a smaller level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Last time
we ran a war hero who stuck it to Bush on foreign policy...and it didn't work. Why do you want to use the same failed strategy again?

We need someone who can give people a reason to vote Democratic that isn't about foreign policy. Clinton won in '92 by moving the focus from the last war in Iraq to domestic issues, where Democrats are on firmer ground. Edwards would do a great job of that. Running a general with no domestic policy experience keeps the debate focused on foreign policy, which doesn't help us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Ain't nobody talking about Clark's war heroism.....
That's part of the problem with our voting populace....even those that would claim of being informed and understanding politics and what it takes to win.

Case in point; some are so uninformed, they don't know the difference between a Vietnam Hero who fought a war 35+ years ago during a short stay on the front lines, and one who (might also be a war hero) less than 6 years ago led and won our last war; is the most decorated officer since Einsehower. These same folks that want think they have the perfect plan as to whom could win an election also don't know the difference between holding a 19 nation alliance together during a war RECENTLY, working on National Security issues while being chief of strategic planning, negotiating peace treaty....and what that has to do with NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.

So sad. really.

No wonder we keep getting our asses kicked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. To Karl Rove, there is no difference.
He can slander one just as easily as the other. McCain, Kerry, Clark...Rove/Bush can slander them all just as easily. Length of service or the quality of that service has absolutely nothing to do with it. If Clark had been the nominee he would have gotten exactly the same treatment that Kerry got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Well, you should just keep ignoring the elephant that's in the room....
Edited on Mon May-30-05 11:19 PM by FrenchieCat
NATIONAL SECURITY.....and keep rationalizing that Vietnam service 35 years ago equates to experience in National Security...cause Karl Rove says so.

One day soon, when the National Security issue rears it ignored GOP head to slap you in the face....don't say that I didn't warn you.

And may the mighty spirit of '92 live on, and on, and on, and on, and on...coz you wish it.

Curiousity never hurt a cat...but Reality hurts Democrats every election cycle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Could you possibly be more condescending?
Edited on Tue May-31-05 12:40 AM by Radical Activist
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them uniformed, or nonsensical.

The article you posted proves my point. Bush wanted to keep the focus on the war on terror and it worked. How is Clark going to shift the debate to something else if all he has to offer is foreign policy experience? You still haven't addressed that.
I never said we ignore foreign policy, as you disingenuously accuse me of doing, but we do have to provide a positive alternative on domestic policy, which is something Kerry never did effectively or consistently.

And the point of discussing '92 is that we should learn from the past. Its foolish to ignore what has worked in the past and what hasn't worked and not try to learn from it. You seem too stubborn to learn anything from '04 or '92 if it doesn't make Clark look like a shoe-in.

This will be my last response to you unless you learn to discuss things like an adult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. Pot still calling the kettle black.....
Edited on Tue May-31-05 01:22 AM by FrenchieCat
But I'll ignore your condescending statements about me, such as.... Its pretty clear that you'll make any argument that paints Clark in the best light no matter how far fetched or ridiculous it is.

And in the end, I will agree to disagree with you...

So keep cheering for Edwards and his Domestic policies issues as what can win an election, although they didn't the last time...nor the time before....

And I'll keep reminding folks that 9/11 did happen and we did lose the last election due to the lack of faith from voters about Democrats handling America's National Security.

Clark has more Domestic experience than Edwards has National Security experience by far. Clark has a Oxford Master in Economics. Does Edwards? Clark was a White House Fellow in the Budget management office. Was Edwards? Clark called the shots on by his lonesome on a 4 billion budget as Supreme Allied Commander. Did Edwards? Clark was an Investment Banker for 4 years...and still does some of that work today. What about Edwards?

So you can try to underestimate Wes Clark, to your advantage...but it's bullshit and not much more. He may not have been a Senator...so there are not votes for the GOP to twist....that's true.
-----------

We lost because we did not fight an effective fight on National Security against the GOP .... and understand that no matter how much we talked about Domestic policies...no one was truly listening. That's why we need someone that will neutralize the GOP on the National Security front.....and then we will be heard on the domestic front.

It's really not that complicated. We just need the right candidate. And it is my opinion that the right candidate is not one that doesn't have any foreign policy/national security experience, because this means that that candidate will not be able to take that fight to the Republicans....and therefore, will remain on the defensive (I'm sick of that one, aren't you?)

We can run....but we cannot hide from the issues....
Dems will not be the ones calling the shots as to what issues will be important(coz they don't run the White House nor the media)...they haven't since "it's the economy stupid"....which was a long time ago, in a far away time in our history.

National Security will have to remain front and center....whether you like it or not. I say, attack the GOP at their strength.....and only then.....will we be able to have our own strength break through.

That's my winning strategy and I'm sticking to it.

so again, I agree to disagree with your strategery.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. "Clark has more Domestic experience.....
"Clark has more Domestic experience than Edwards has National Security experience by far."

You know, actually, I'm thinking that Clark has more domestic experience than Edwards has domestic experience at this point. I loved reading in Ginger's account of her meal with Wes on Saturday how he spoke of plans to help alleviate poverty and to help raise up those in need...and they weren't just plans in theory but were based on programs he'd actually implemented while caring for the health care, education, etc of soldiers and their families while in the military....We're talking not only book learning or speechifying here but implementation of actual programs...pretty cool. The more I learn about him, the more the man impresses me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #27
40. I'm really glad
Edited on Tue May-31-05 07:31 AM by CarolNYC
that you and others here have been so seemingly unaffected by the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, that's not exactly the case for the rest of us. :(

Also, if you think that all Wes Clark has to offer is foreign policy experience, perhaps you need to learn a little more about Wes Clark....

I hope that doesn't come across as condescending...I'm writing quickly...late for work...

Later.. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
64. Did you forget a little thing
called voting machine's? I still believe Kerry won 3-5%. Don't forget Rove and their smear team had more power and money to run ads and had all the networks on their side to paint the democrats as weak and "flipfloppers" when it's really the other way around. Do you honestly think Clark would've won with them too? That's living in la-la land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #64
68. I realize what the CW is on the election results..........
But I know that kerry is not in the office...and I try not to theorize how Clark would have done...cause we don't know. I don't and neither do you....one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #68
176. Exactly
Edited on Thu Jun-02-05 01:32 AM by FreedomAngel82
So why keep going on how "Clark would've done better"? You don't know! And people care about other issues too. What can Clark show experience for health care, for helping to get jobs, for tax's, for education? All people know about Clark is he's a general. I think he'd make a great SOD personally. I think by the time 2008 comes people will be ready for jobs and health care. Bredesen was a mayor of a "red" city for two terms and is now governor of a "red" state. Plus he can be the "person to have a beer with" too. Visit http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/ and watch his state of the union and the other video. Learn more about someone before bashing him. Bredesen does kick ass and people like him on both sides of the isle. His rating in January was 70% and his rating last month was 52%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnowerOfLogic Donating Member (841 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
152. Nominating a general will just confirm that dems suck on natn'l sec.,
and therefore need to 'compensate' for it. As long as dems are in their current lapdog mode, Rove will rip any nominee to shreds, general or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
63. The only thing I wonder
is if Rove will back any other nominee the republicans put up for 2008 or just Bush? We all know he just likes Bush so I wonder. Maybe if he's paid tons of cash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #19
194. You've got to be kidding me.
The Republicans work overtime time to pick the Democratic nominee because they are smart enough to realize that it is a heck of a lot easier to take out a phony, political opportunist than a man who has selflessly served his country for many years. Clark scares the crap out of them because he provides a VIABLE and attractive alternative to those fed up with the Republican party. Furthermore, they realize that trying to smear a man like Clark is extremely risky because of the backlash that can occur.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
98. Comparing Kerry to Clark is like comparing apples to oranges.
Edited on Tue May-31-05 07:28 PM by Skwmom
Clark's strengths go far beyond foreign policy. His brilliance, integrity, and love of country will get the Democrats much further than some nominee espousing domestic rhetoric that Rove can easily combat by portraying the messenger (Democratic nominee) as a political opportunist who is espousing said rhetoric for pure self-serving political gain.

The Republicans successfully portrayed Kerry as a political opportunist who would say and do anything to get elected. At the Clinton library dedication, Bush Sr. praised Clinton for being a fast talking, political schmoozer. Hmmmm.... could this be how the Republicans plan to paint the Democratic party in order to ensure a "generation of dominance?"

The Democrats need to put forth a candidate that people can actually believe in, otherwise Rove is right - the Republicans will control for a generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
61. How do you know
Mr. Bredesen isn't tough on security? How do you know how someone will do just because of their location? Last election I've talked to too many rightwingers who said "oh Kerry is so rich" blah blah blah being from up north. They couldn't "relate" to him. :eyes: Of course when you point out Bush is rich too they ignore it because they can "relate" to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
86. Kerry and Edwards both were going to be "tough" on National Security...
so my point is NOT whether Mr. Bredesen would be tough on National Security, as I am sure to no one (I repeat), no one will say that they wouldn't be "tough" on national Security.

My issue is the actual experience one has in any given arena. Some folks have some experience, some have lot's of experience, and some have NO Experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #86
177. Bredesen is a governor
and was a mayor. So of course he has experience with security. What would that show if Bredesen didn't? Check out http://www.tennessee.gov and read more about him and his accomplishments and stances on things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #61
127. Freedom, being a Tennessean, I can say with all honesty and
conviction that I love Phil Bredesen, but do I think he has tons of FP experience? Ummm... no.
Do I think he'd make a good candidate, yes. But I think Clark would make a BETTER presidential candidate.

I MIGHT let Phil go if it was a Clark/Bredesen ticket. :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #127
178. And what is it to say
Edited on Thu Jun-02-05 01:37 AM by FreedomAngel82
all you have to run on is protection? By the time 2008 comes do you think people won't be ready for jobs and health care the way Bush is running? Of course Bredesen hasn't shown any signs of doing anything but governorship, but still. I didn't follow the primiries so maybe you can answer. What place did Clark come in in the primaries? Did Clark make it to the Iowa Cacus? I'm not trying to be smart, I'm really wanting to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
82. We tried that... in 2004
We nominated Kerry, who along with Bob Graham was the only Democrat other than Wes with strong national security credibility, and who, unlike Clark, was an experienced politician.

Look where it got us - nowhere. 2004 showed us that a candidate must connect to the people, or else he's no good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #82
124. "2004 showed us that a candidate must connect to the people"
How true...It doesn't matter how much smarter, better, more compassionate, more thoughtful, more experienced, more courageous, etc, etc, etc, all the things that John Kerry was that W isn't....if the people don't feel the connection.

And, of course, if nothing is done to ensure a fair elelction next time around, even connecting with the people may not matter. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnowerOfLogic Donating Member (841 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #124
154. Kerry's flip-flopping was 90% of the problem. How can you connect
with a candidate, when you don't even know what he stands for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #124
179. The problem was
Edited on Thu Jun-02-05 01:38 AM by FreedomAngel82
the media didn't give people a chance to get to know any of them. They're all great and can connect with the people. I like them all from Clark, Dean, Kucinich, the whole gang. But the media painted everybody as "angry", "weak" or a "flipflopper." Just wondering for my fellow Tennesseeans, is there anything in Bredesen's past or present they could get him with if he ever did decide to run?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inspired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
117. You are wrong
We didn't lose the 2004 election because of national security/foreign policy issues. We lost the election because Kerry voted "for the 87 billion before he vote against it". That one statement alone cost us the election.

By the way,

"It was announced that The Council launched an Independent Task Force today to review current U.S. policy toward Russia and make recommendations on future policy-from global security to Russia's evolution as a democratic state. The Task Force is chaired by former Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards and former Congressman and Housing and Urban Development Secretary and vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp. Council Senior Fellow Stephen Sestanovich, former ambassador-at-large and special adviser to the secretary of state for the new independent states, directs the Task Force........."

So much for foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #117
128. ONE task force and he's a FP expert?
:rofl:

Sorry... not buying that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inspired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #128
185. Big surprise
I didn't expect YOU to buy it. Your comments are very predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. It also balances out nicely because
Bredesen was a Governor and Mayor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
180. And in "red" areas too
As someone else mentioned the east side is very republican compared to the left side of the state. Plus Nashville was supposed to have been "Bush Country" and he was mayor of that for TWO terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-05 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. What is it about folks that just toss names out
(whether they're qualified, or interested or suitable or not) just to see if some name sticks?

I've had that dream ""Imagine Edwards/Anybody 08" and have woken up screaming. Those touting JRE in '08 keep talking about "Edward's eloquence' on economics.... Would somebody please explain to me how being a plaintiff's attorney, then a freshman Senator makes him qualified to discuss economics on a serious level?

Please do not tell me he was the 'son of a mill worker'.... my Dad was a roustabout (unskilled oil field worker), so that argument gets you nowhere. Don't tell me he 'earned' 40 million dollars because he 'worked hard'. I usually work 12-14 hours a day for a lot less money. Don't tell me he has compassion... there are a lot of American who have more.

I want facts. Where has he studied economics? Who are his economic policy mentors? (And I don't mean who are his economic speechwriters). Has he actually ever managed a budget for more than 20 people.

I'm tired of people who just talk for a living. Give me some facts... give me some qualifications... give me anything that tells me he has knowledge (his OWN knowledge) of economic systems.

These two would have a compelling populist message that will appeal to rural and working class voters across the South and Midwestern battle ground states.


It's obvious to me that you're not one of us "rural and working class voters across the South"

I'll wait right here while you go scare up a resume or two.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_King Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Give you some facts???
Who has to give you anything???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Well hon, that's the way the game is played here..
The OP wants us to "Imagine Edwards/Bredesen '08". He seems to think that an economic message is a winner for 08. (Apparently the OP seems to think that that's the strong point of the ticket).

If he's going to toss names out, I'd like to see some reason that Edwards has real qualifications to manage an economic policy. I've seen nothing in JRE's background to make me think he has those qualifications -- either from experience or from schooling.

The "2 Americas" speech was excellent rhetoric, but if that's it , I'd rather hire Edwards speechwriter ('cos you know he didn't writee it himself, don'cha?) for the job. At least then the passion (and the words) would be his own.

BTW, I have the right to ask anyone a question and expect an answer.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_King Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Yeah
"Expect" an answer not "Demand" one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #26
47. What's wrong with people who come out of the middle and working class
and who know how people actually live life (and care about how they live their lives)?

Is our society so anti-egalitarian and so fucked in the head by images like George Bush that we think we need to be ruled by people who are not like us?

(Furthermore it's not like he doesn't know how the world works. His senate voting record was great, the policies he talks about are brilliant, as was his Real Solutions -- no other candidate set out what they believed in the way Edwards did. Which other Democrat running for president made it clear that studnet loans shouldn't be guaranteed profits for the banking industry and came up with a plan that didn't give the banks such a big cut of people's attempt to enter the middle class? Which other candidate had a professional career that was so much about shifting wealth back to people from who that wealth was taken through negligence? Furthermore, the guy went to a pretty decent law school, did well, and was Federal Clerk. Law school isn't exactly a total waste of time -- you learn about how government works, you learn about tax law. The guy clearly didn't skip classes in law school. I can't believe that people would ignore what Edwards is talking about just because they don't like the resume (which is pretty good!). That's like the opposite of saying that you give credibility to what Bush says because he went to Harvard and Yale, was a governor, and has been around people at the top of government all his life.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #47
53. Nothing is wrong with people who come out of the middle and working class
but it doesn't make them competent to handle the complex issues our country has to face.

Please don't change the subject.

I don't care if he "knows how the world works". So do a lot of people.

He went to law school? Okay, he knows how to win lawsuits. Law school isn't the London School of Economics--regardless of who you clerk for.

Which other Democrat running for president made it clear that student loans shouldn't be guaranteed profits for the banking industry and came up with a plan that didn't give the banks such a big cut of people's attempt to enter the middle class?


Well, one candidate to do just that was Clark with grants, tuition support and tax credits. Kerry's plan was not quite so generous, but 'forgave' loans by requiring public service after graduation. Kucinich proposed free tuition for all four years of college for all students in public colleges. Dean's plan was somewhat complex but just as generous.

Here's a link comparing the former candidates' positions

http://www.theeagleonline.com/media/paper666/news/2004/01/29/News/Candidates.Spar.On.Higher.Education-591603.shtml

JRE didn't invent help for families trying to send their kids to college.

Which other candidate had a professional career that was so much about shifting wealth back to people from who that wealth was taken through negligence?


In plain language, JRE's career wasn't about 'shifting wealth' it was about compensating people for damages. That's a worthy goal, but since he didn't forgo his 30% - 40% contingency, I wouldn't call it altruistic either.

I can't believe that people would ignore what Edwards is talking about just because they don't like the resume,


I'm not ignoring what JRE says, I'm certainly not ignoring his talent for delivering a message. I've asked what (beyond his well-delivered speech) he has to offer.

I'd like to examine your response (sentence by sentence) in plain language:

1.JRE is middle/working class and knows how we live
2.Politicians who are from upper class backgrounds need not apply
3.JRE is brilliant and had great policy/speech writers
4.JRE thinks the banking industry is gouging parents trying to send their kids to college
5.JRE was a successful plaintiff's attorney and won (lots of) money for his clients
6. JRE went to a good law school and clerked in the federal courts
7. Law school teaches government and tax law
8. JRE went to classes during law school.

I'm sorry, I don't see anything here that would make me think JRE has any special knowledge of economics or deep understanding of economic policy. (THAT was the question).

Your comment on Bush highlights why I've asked this question. Bush had no personal knowledge or experience in any of necessary areas to run the country, but (obviously) his rhetoric connected with somebody 'cos....

I'm tired of candidates who just talk a good game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
72. The idea that John Edwards can't handle complicated situations is absurd.
Edited on Tue May-31-05 05:14 PM by AP
There's absolutely nothing in his background to suggest he cannot.

And just as a Democrat, I have to strongly object to the idea that there's some class of individuals far far above my own level of competence and above John Edwards's (or Debbie Stabenow's or Ruth Ann Minner's, or Paul Welstone's -- a former college professor without a single Ivy League degree -- or Robert Kennedy's or Bill Clinton's, or Jennifer Granholm (if she were born in the US)... should I go on?) who has been admitted to the inner of sanctum of those qualified to be president.

I'm not saying that president merely needs to be able to spell and know the difference between "disassembling" and "dissembling," but Paul Welston, John Edwards, Debbie Stabenow -- by virtue of their convictions, their skills in making arguments to the public and relating those convictions in a way that truly resonates, and by virtue of their actions as private and public citizens, they CLEARLY have the qualifications to be president, and many many more do too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. Debbie Stabenow, Ruth Ann Minner or Paul Welstone (sic)
(I believe that is Paul "Wellstone" - deceased) are not the subject of conversation here.

They also are not positioning themselves to run for President in 08. If they were, the same question would be in order.

Please do not drag every Democrat (and/or deceased Democrat) in the country into this discussion.... we were talking specifically about JRE's qualifications in economics.

You said "I have to strongly object to the idea that there's some class of individuals far far above my own level of competence"

As for me, I'm hoping that whoever gets elected in 08 IS " far far above my own level of competence" because I (for one) know how much I need to learn.

But then, hubris has never been one of my failings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:48 PM
Original message
Don't miss the rest of my spelling errors! There are lots of them! As for
the "issue", Wellstone, Stabenow (that was the reall challenging name to spell, btw!) and Minner ARE the issue. Just because they haven't declared for 2008 (who has?) doesn't mean they're not relevant to the discussion.

I am not willing to define qualifications for president so narrowly that it wouldn't include those people, and I think Edwards is as qualified if not mores o than them (and he has definitely shown that he knows how to run a campaign for president, which the others haven't not).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Don't miss the rest of my spelling errors! There are lots of them! As for
Edited on Tue May-31-05 06:05 PM by AP
the "issue", Wellstone, Stabenow (that was the reall challenging name to spell, btw!) and Minner (two "n's" -- and to think I got that right, but only put one 'l" in Wellstone -- what was I thinking!) ARE the issue. Just because they haven't declared for 2008 (who has?) doesn't mean they're not relevant to the discussion.

I am not willing to define qualifications for president so narrowly that it wouldn't include those people, and I think Edwards is as qualified if not more so than they are (and he has definitely shown that he knows how to run a campaign for president, which the others haven't not).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. When they declare their candidacy, I'll be here to ask similar questions.
But I guess your answer seems to be, 'He's qualified..... so there".

Uh, okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Please do. When you become the person who defines "qualifications"
Edited on Tue May-31-05 06:18 PM by AP
so narrowly that only one person passes your test and so many good Democrats don't, it'll put the qualifications issue into a persective that will probably help people with qualifications like Edwards's, Stabenow's, Minner's, Wellstone's, Warner's, Sibelius's, Napolitano's, Boxer's, etc. etc. etc.

And just so that we have this clear, those questions you'll be asking all candidates will be:

(1) Where has he studied economics?

(2) Who are his economic policy mentors? (And I don't mean who are his economic speechwriters).

(3) Has he actually ever managed a budget for more than 20 people?

Now, just so we know, what are the acceptable answers to these questions? And if the Republican has better answers, will you be voting for the Republican?

(By the way, I understand that Edwards does write his own speeches -- no doubt a skill he developed writing all his own opening and closing arguments in all those trials.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. I wasn't giving a test, but asking about JRE's qualifications in economics
Edited on Tue May-31-05 06:37 PM by Texas_Kat
Here are various definitions of the term "qualification":

Merriam - Websters = "A quality or skill that fits a person (as for an office) "

Dictionary Online = "A quality, ability, or accomplishment that makes a person suitable for a particular position or task."

Cambridge dictionary = "An ability, characteristic or experience that makes you suitable for a particular job or activity"

Encarta ="Essential attribute: a skill, quality, or attribute that makes somebody suitable for a particular job, activity, or task"

Each of the individuals you named has a different set of qualifications.

JRE is touted as having the strongest case on economics policy as a qualification, so I wanted to know what you base it on.

Changing the subject is a tactic, not an answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. Spelling. Timeliness. Too long. Table turner. Now dictionary definitions?
Edited on Tue May-31-05 07:02 PM by AP
You realize that you don't have to do that, don't you. We can talk about the issues without resorting to seventh grade debate tactics. I'm willing to do that.

FDR had a great economic program. What were his qualifications?

I honestly don't know what Edwards was reflecting on when he decided he was going to propose economic policies which appear to address exactly what the problems are with the American economy (ie, -- very generally speaking -- rewarding work with wealth rather than wealth with more guaranteed wealth).

Maybe he's just standing on FDR's shoulders?

In many ways, this stuff is very obvious and the reason we don't do it isn't because nobody in government got the right economic degree, had the right advisor in grad school, and managed a budget for at least 21 people. It's because there are vested interests that are so powerful the prevent government from doing what everyone know is right. Not only does Edwards not work for those vested interests now, he seems to have the courage and the skills to speak up in favor of shifting a lot of wealth away from those vested interests and to the people.

Gotta love that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #95
101. I didn't intend to upset you.
" I honestly don't know what Edwards was reflecting on when he decided he was going to propose economic policies which appear to address exactly what the problems are with the American economy"

Okay, that's an answer.

I don't agree that his "policies ...appear to address exactly what the problems are with the American economy", but then, I'm not an economist either. Perhaps you are?

I have opinions, but no qualification to demand that my opinion about economic policy be enacted. Thus my question about JRE's qualifications. What makes his opinion any more valid than say.... mine or yours or the guy down the street?

"Rewarding work with wealth rather than wealth with more guaranteed wealth"

Which Democrat doesn't believe this? I suspect even the nastiest RWingers would agree with this platitude.

I doubt he's really calling for 'shifting a lot of wealth away from vested interests and to the people'. That's essentially socialism and no serious candidate would admit it and expect to be elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #89
97. You must remember the absurdity of politics.
Giving a canned speech on domestic issues = being qualified to resolve the very difficult domestic issues that face this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #83
93. He didn't write the "Two Americas' speech
Here's an article from Prospect.org about his " his carefully manufactured message"

Wendy Button, a former speechwriter for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), took the basic concept and wrapped a speech around it -- the "Two Americas" that Edwards delivered on Dec. 29 in Des Moines. Edwards then took the speech and spent the next several days tinkering with it, giving it personal touches and more of a narrative arc. This, he figured, was his last chance to answer any questions or doubts voters might have about him, so he added a section to the end that headed common questions (his age and experience) off at the pass.


http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=1450

As to the rest of your edited message (which added everything after "etc. etc. etc.") yes, I will ask 08 candidates supporters questions about their candidates' purported strengths in the hope that I can get some evidence that they have a clue.

As for voting for a Republican, I haven't yet, and I've been voting in every primary and general election since 1972.. but there's always the next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. Whoa. That's a pretty decpeptive selective edit there. Edwards did write
The Two America's speech...your article says so. This article is ABOUT Edwards writing his own speech.

Incidentally, that article is an argument about the importance of "speechifying" -- so thanks for supporting my basic argument about qualifications.

It aslo says this about a focus on national security in relation to Dean's campaign: "But that speech, heavy as it was on foreign policy and Iraq, increasingly failed to resonate in media-saturated Iowa after the capture of Saddam Hussein."

So why'd you leave out Robert Gordon's participation in writing the speech from your quote? Is it because if only Button wrote the speech, then nobody else did, but if it was a colaborative effort including Gordon, than that also implies Edwards's participation in writing the speech?

And why did you leave out the next paragraph?

Policy director Robert Gordon, an attorney who came to Edwards' office from the latter's Senate staff after some clerking at the Supreme Court, and speechwriter Wendy Button, a former speechwriter for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), took the basic concept and wrapped a speech around it -- the "Two Americas" that Edwards delivered on Dec. 29 in Des Moines. Edwards then took the speech and spent the next several days tinkering with it, giving it personal touches and more of a narrative arc. This, he figured, was his last chance to answer any questions or doubts voters might have about him, so he added a section to the end that headed common questions (his age and experience) off at the pass.

He planned to use the new speech right after the new year. "Then on Jan. 3, we were driving to Nashua to give the speech," says Palmieri, "and he took my notebook and wrote down an outline of what he wanted to say," just as he would outline, but not memorize and recite, a closing argument. "And that was the first time he delivered what you now recognize as the stump speech."


In other words, he wrote himself the Two Americas speech he gave every time except between Dec 29 and Feb 3.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #99
107. Okay,
I could never tell that he changed it from Iowa to the end of the primaries.

It always sounded the same to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #108
112. "I'm done with you."
Good, I feared for your blood pressure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #113
115. I wasn't arguing I was asking a question
Just FYI, I was an Edwards supporter early on. January 2003.

The more he spoke, the less he said..... I had to find someone who didn't always speak in platitudes and empty phrases.

So I did.

A former Edwards supporter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. After post 93, why should anyone believe that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #120
126. What you posted upthread in #99 says...
"Policy director Robert Gordon, an attorney who came to Edwards' office from the latter's Senate staff after some clerking at the Supreme Court, and speechwriter Wendy Button, a former speechwriter for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), took the basic concept and wrapped a speech around it -- the "Two Americas" that Edwards delivered on Dec. 29 in Des Moines.

Edwards then took the speech and spent the next several days tinkering with it, giving it personal touches and more of a narrative arc. ...


(I didn't include the rest 'cos frankly it's not relevant.)

In other words..... Gordon and Button wrote the speech and Edwards edited it. So far as I can see, no where in the article does it say differently.

If you think the word 'wrote' and 'tinkering" are the same things, that may be the root of your over reaction. (No, I won't burden you with dictionary definitions this time) .

You can believe that I thought Edwards was our best shot back in early 2003, or not. It doesn't matter to me what you believe one way or the other.

I never could (after several months of searching) find any "there", "there" in JRE. He never took a risk, never cared about grassroots organizations, never indicated that he could provide any real 'from the gut' belief in anything.

I asked the original question about qualifications in economic policy because early in the campaign he NEVER talked populism... never talked economics at all ... never took a stand against Bush's policies that were dragging us further and further into the loss of civil liberties, a war we couldn't get out of and a solution to the REAL economic problems we're facing. (That would be a whole 'nother thread by itself) Edwards is very slick and charming the first (or even second) time you see him. I've had enough of slick and charming.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. Personally, I've seen too many politicans stamped from the same mold to be beguiled by that for long.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #126
134. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. Sorry if the syntax wasn't clear
I am tired of slick and charming politicians stamped from the same mold (as JRE).

Hope that's clearer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. No credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #139
143. "So there!.... right?"
See post 140.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #143
144. In a hole...and still shoveling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #93
100. Hello? Very curious about your response?
Edited on Tue May-31-05 07:43 PM by AP
Am I going to have to write something about how willing I am to give people time to respond since nobody is on-line 24 hours a day?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #100
110. Sorry, stopped to watch Keith Olbermann
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #111
114. Okay, now you've become unpleasant
I have indeed watched Keith as I do every evening.

I think that you have passed the point of civility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #114
121. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #111
129. Ummm... I can attest that she DID watch KO because she
Edited on Tue May-31-05 10:39 PM by Clark2008
commented on something about the show elsewhere.

But... keep going with your argument.

(BTW, every good Dem who is paying for cable or satellite should stop to watch KO! :hi: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. Thanks, 2008!
Can't imagine NOT watching Olbermann.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #129
136. Watching Olberman is no excuse for the selective editing.
That should be obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #136
140. I left out Robert Gordon (my apologies to him) as the coauthor
"Policy director Robert Gordon, an attorney who came to Edwards' office from the latter's Senate staff after some clerking at the Supreme Court....

I found a copy of the Edwards' Two Americas speech... Want me to post it to see if you can tell the difference between the before and after he edited it versions?

They sound so similar (except for the "Somewhere in America, a 10-year-old little girl will go to bed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, She's one of 35 million Americans who live in poverty every single day, unnoticed, unheard." section) it was hard for me to tell the difference.

BTW have you noticed, ... its' a riff on J. William Fulbright's Two America's speech circa 1966

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/usa/fulbright_2usa.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #141
145. Okay here it is... along with the link...
Tell me what he changed, except for the aforementioned "hungry little girl section" and obvious references to place). To others, sorry this is so long, but AP is a bit.... uh .... literal.


http://www.mintruth.com/wiki/index.php?Two%20Americas
Speech: "Two Americas"
Remarks of Senator John Edwards
Des Moines, Iowa
Monday, December 29, 2003
As Prepared


Full Text
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is an honor to be here at Creative Visions. Since 1996, your doors have been open to thousands of young people in need of a safe and caring place. Whether it's an after-school program, a job training class, or a Sunday night meal at the drop in for homeless young people, the work that you do every day is nothing short of heroic.

This is the time of year when we remember what matters to us: our family and loved ones, and the hope we all have for a better new year. For Democrats - and for all Americans who work hard and deserve a better life -- we have three more days until the clock strikes midnight and the calendar year changes to our year 2004! I know we all thought that it would never come, but here it is just days away.

Can you see the light at the end of the tunnel? Can you see the ending of the Bush Presidency and a new beginning for America? Can you see that in a few short months, once again America will no longer work for just a privileged few, but for all of us? Can you see that bright future for all of us because I sure can!

Last week, I visited my 99th county in Iowa, and the people of Iowa have been extraordinary. They have welcomed me into their homes, along their Main Streets, and in their schools. I have been listening to them over the course of the last year. They're worried about their country, and they want America to change course.

In a few weeks, George Bush will make his State of the Union Address -- and let this one be his last. According to press reports, White House aides are desperately searching for a vision -- and that one of the leading ideas is to propose that America go back to the moon. Well, I'm all for the space program, but Mr. President, if you're looking for a vision, it's time to solve the middle-class problems you've forgotten here on earth.

This President has done a lot of damage in the last four years, and he'll do a lot worse if we let him have four more. More American jobs getting shipped overseas. More seniors who can't afford the prescription drugs they need. More young people getting into trouble because there's no safe place for them to go after school.

We have 21 days until caucus night. The people of Iowa have had enough of George W. Bush. In three weeks, Iowa has a chance to prevent four more years!

Just like the work you do here at Creative Visions, I believe the 2004 election is about hope. It is about changing America to build the country we all believe in. This contest has been going on so long, it's easy for some to forget how much is at stake. Too often, politicians forget this isn't about how we're doing; it's about how you're doing. Too often, when politicians don't have faith in their ideas to confront the tough issues, they attack. That's why you have seen attack ads on Iraq. Attack ads on Medicare. Attack ads about attack ads.

Today, I want to talk about what really matters. Something much bigger, more disturbing, and more important is at stake. Four years ago, George Bush came here to Iowa as a candidate and promised to be a uniter, not a divider. But four years later, we are divided, not united.

Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.

2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas - one privileged, the other burdened - has been his agenda all along. Just look what he wants to do to our tax code. From the beginning, this President has had one solitary goal: to shift the tax burden away from the wealth of the most fortunate and onto the work of the middle class. He wants to cut the capital gains tax, eliminate the dividends tax and the estate tax, and create new tax shelters for millionaires' stocks that are bigger than most people's salaries. By the time he's done, the only people who pay taxes in America will be the millions of middle-class and poor Americans who do all the work.

That's wrong. It's wrong for a millionaire who sits by the pool on the phone to his broker to pay tax at a lower rate than the cop on the beat or the waitress working two shifts.

What's more, by dividing us into two Americas, George Bush is hurting our economy, cheating our future, and undermining our very way of life. The engine of our economy is not that guy sitting by the pool. It is millions of guys and gals in factories, fields, and offices across America who go to work every day trying to do right by their families. When we invest in those Americans, our middle-class grows, and our whole economy grows. That is the simple truth George Bush will never understand.

Look at what has happened to the middle class over the last 4 years of George Bush. In this state alone, since George Bush took office, 22,000 Iowans lost their health care, 23,000 Iowans lost good paying manufacturing jobs, 59,000 Iowans fell into poverty, and the number of people filing for bankruptcy increased by more than 50 percent. 12,000 Iowans filed for bankruptcy last year, most of them men and women who lost their job or who suffered a medical emergency. Their backs were breaking, but they could no longer make ends meet.

Middle-class families have gone from being able to save for retirement or buy a house, to now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. These aren't poor Americans; they're the working middle-class. And they are terrified that if something goes wrong-a lost job or a health care disaster-they're just one bad break away from falling off the cliff. For these families, the American dream of building something better is being replaced by the hope of just getting by.

If the current trend continues, one out of seven middle-class families with children will go bankrupt by the end of the decade. Think about what it means that 1 in 7 middle-class families could go bankrupt by the end of this decade. It means the middle-class-the foundation of our country-is sinking. Increasingly we are divided between those who live by the 1st and the 15th every month and those who don't ever look at the calendar when they write a check.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the largest corporation in America, Wal-Mart. The New York Times reported the other day that Wal-Mart's own figures show that sales go up around the 1st and 15th of every month. Across America, millions are literally living from one paycheck to the next.

Of course, it would help if Wal-Mart paid its own workers higher wages, instead of driving down the pay scale for everybody. But in George Bush's Two Americas, workers don't matter. Only owners matter.

Next month, George Bush will roll out yet another set of new tax breaks for the wealth of the wealthy, to be paid for down the road by the children of the middle class. The President has a new name for this: he calls it the ownership society. After four years, we know what George Bush means by an ownership society: an America where those who own the most get the most, while those who work hardest own less and owe more.

We cannot go on as two nations, one favored, the other forgotten. It is wrong to reward those who don't have to work at the expense of those who do. If we want America to be a growing, thriving democracy, with the greatest work ethic and the strongest middle class on earth, we must choose a different path.

As President, I will put the government, the economy, and the tax code back in line with our values. No more tax breaks for corporations that move their headquarters overseas or buy life insurance on janitors and make themselves the beneficiaries. No more tax breaks for CEOs who give themselves millions in top-hat pensions while giving no pensions at all to ordinary workers. No more playing games with the budget and driving up deficits. And no more of the Bush administration's war on work. When I'm President, we'll be one America, not two.

I have a plan to make America work for all of us, by creating 5 million new jobs in my first two years, making health care a birthright for every child just like public education, reforming Washington to end the dirty politics as usual, saving Medicare, and securing our world from terror and weapons of mass destruction. But most important, I'll give every American the chance to build their future again. Under my plan, every American will have the chance to be an owner - to buy a home, save for college, or put money aside for a secure retirement. The ownership society should look like American society, not George Bush's secret society.

First, we'll give struggling families a chance to realize the American dream, with a $5,000 tax credit toward the down payment on their first home. There is no better way to build a strong, secure nest egg, and get ahead for the long haul than owning a home.

I was the first member in my family to go to college and it was a big deal. But today, hundreds of thousands of young people-who are qualified to go to college-give up on their education because they believe that they can't pay for it. So second, I want to make college affordable with my College for Everyone plan. For those young people who are willing to work 10 hours a week and can get into a university-you'll go tuition free for the first year. And I will increase funding for Pell grants and financial aid so you can stay in school.

Third, we need to reward family. We can start by offering a family leave newborn child tax credit of up to $2,500. This will give new parents some financial help so that they can spend the time they need to start life with their new son or daughter. This benefit would help more than 120,000 Iowans and give those families the peace of mind to take off work or pay for other expenses.

Fourth, when the time comes for Americans to retire, I want to help families who can't afford to put money away now by giving them a helping hand, a match of up to $1 for every $1 they save. A waitress who starts putting away a few dollars each week at age 25 could retire with $250,000 on top of other savings. And I'll help families invest in the stock market by lowering capital gains and dividend rates for the middle class.

Finally, while we offer tax cuts to help families save, we also need to take on the big financial interests that eat away at families' savings. Predatory mortgage lenders and irresponsible payday lenders and credit card companies are robbing families blind with their outrageous fees and penalties. When I am President, we'll pass tough laws to stop them.

I believe we need to ease the burdens on the middle class. And for the life of me, I can't understand why some other candidates in this race want to raise taxes on work and make life harder for the middle class. We know that President Bush's tax cuts did not do enough for working people. But our answer cannot be to raise taxes on the people who make the least, especially families with children.

We cannot say to an average family of four in Iowa, your taxes are going up by more than $1,700. To the average elementary school teacher here who is supporting two kids alone, your taxes are going up by $1,500. To an electrician and a nurse's aide who together make $40,000 and have no kids, your taxes are going up by almost $1,000.

These are men and women whose backs are already breaking. They are hungry for us to lead in a way that helps them get ahead and pulls our whole country forward. That money means a lot to them Means they can buy clothes for their kids. Means the mortgage payments are made. Means the bills get paid.

Now, we do need to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent. And I believe we need to go further and raise the tax rate on the unearned wealth of the top 1 percent, so they don't pay any less than the middle class. But my plan restores fiscal discipline by asking more from those who have the most, not those who need help the most.

I am proud that one of the Democrats' core values is to protect working families. This is a value I will never abandon. It is at the heart of what makes America the best place on earth: where individuals can take a great idea, mix it with ingenuity, might and muscle, and build a future and a country better than the one we found.

I have benefited from this middle-class dream because I have lived in the shining light of America. My life has been blessed with extraordinary success. My story should not be an exception-it should occur every single day and these opportunities should be available to every American.

These steps I proposed would change America. They would not only strengthen our middle class; they would strengthen our economy. You see, I have a much different economic vision than this President. I believe the backbone of the American economy is the hard work, determination, and ingenuity of the middle class, not the insiders. I believe the way to grow the economy is to grow and strengthen the middle class, not shrink its size and add to its burdens. 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. I believe the way to create new wealth is by rewarding work and responsibility, not coddling the privileged and going soft on executives, accountants, and analysts who squander other people's money.

We cannot let that handful of big corporations and insiders keep us from making the middle-class stronger. And I want to say this as directly as I know how to say it. Some people have said, now wait a minute Senator Edwards, you haven't been in Washington that long. You haven't spent your whole life in politics. How do we know you'll take them on? Because I spent more time than anybody in this race fighting these powerful interests.

I've been fighting this fight my whole life. For 20 years, I have sat in courtrooms across from these people. I have been an advocate for families and their children against armies of lawyers. I've won most of those battles. In the Senate, I fought for the Patients' Bill of Rights, against big HMOs, against big insurance companies. I fought to bring down prescription drug costs for every American, against big drug companies. I fought to do something about drug company advertising on TV when others weren't willing to do it. I fought to create energy independence in this country. I have been fighting this fight all my life, and will fight harder as President.

And together, we can build the America of our dreams. Standing here at Creative Visions is a lasting reminder of how great things happen all across this country. When you combine an advocate like Ako Abdul Samad, an idea, and the hope to improve people's lives-this country-there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

Throughout our history, whenever America became a place that was divisive and divided along economic or racial boundaries, we all suffered. And whenever we worked hard to lift up everyone and close our great divides, we prospered.

For every man and woman who is worried about paying their bills; for every child who needs health care and a strong school to go to, and for every American who waits for the 1st and the 15th of every month-together we will end this era of anxiety. We will replace the crass politics of greed and the current politics of rage with a new politics of opportunity.

We are all angry at what George Bush has done to our country, our values, and our way of life. But we all know in our hearts that our anger won't change America; our actions will. Democrats are the party of optimism and action, and I am in this fight to keep that tradition alive, and to build on our country's great successes.

Because I believe in an America where every man, woman, and child can reach his or her God-given potential. I believe in an America where the family you're born into and the color of your skin should never control your destiny. And I still believe in an America where the son of a mill worker can beat the son of a president to win the White House in 2004!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #145
147. Now find my a version from after Jan 3, and we can compare.
Why didn't you go the extra inch and get us a post Jan 3 version?



Thank you. Now, you know why Elizabeth is so amazing.

I am a lucky man: to have the love of my life at my side. We have been blessed with four beautiful children: Wade, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack.

My mother and father, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards, are here tonight. You taught me the values that I carry with me in my heart: faith, family, responsibility, and opportunity for everyone. You taught me that there's dignity and honor in a hard day's work. You taught me that you look out for your neighbors, you never look down on anybody, and you treat everyone with respect.

Those are the values John Kerry and I believe in, and nothing makes me prouder than standing with him in this campaign. I am so humbled to be your candidate for Vice President of the United States.

I want to talk about our next president. For those who want to know what kind of leader he'll be, I want to take you back about 30 years. When John Kerry graduated college, he volunteered for military service. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and to captain a swift boat, one of the most dangerous duties you could have. And as a result he was wounded and honored for his valor.

If you have any question about what he's made of, you need to spend three minutes with the men who served with him then and stand by him today.

They saw up close what he's made of. They saw him reach down and pull one of his men from the river and save his life. And in the heat of battle, they saw him decide in an instant to turn his boat around, drive it straight through an enemy position, and chase down the enemy to save his crew.

Decisive. Strong. Aren't these the traits you want in a Commander in Chief?

We hear a lot of talk about values. Where I come from, you don't judge someone's values based on how they use that word in a political ad. You judge their values based upon what they've spent their life doing.

So when a man volunteers to serve his country, and puts his life on the line for others -- that's a man who represents real American values.

This is a man who is prepared to keep the American people safe and to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

John is a man who knows the difference between what is right and what is wrong. He wants to serve you -- your cause is his cause. And that is why we must and we will elect John Kerry as our next president.

For the last few months, John has been talking about his positive, optimistic vision for the country -- talking about his plan to move this country in the right direction.

But we've seen relentless negative attacks against John. So in the weeks ahead, we know what's coming -- don't we -- more negative attacks.

Aren't you sick of it?

They are doing all they can to take this campaign for the highest office in the land down the lowest possible road.

This is where you come in. Between now and November -- you, the American people -- you can reject the tired, old, hateful, negative, politics of the past. And instead you can embrace the politics of hope, the politics of what's possible because this is America, where everything is possible.

I am here tonight because I love my country. And I have every reason to love my country because I have grown up in the bright light of America.

I grew up in a small town in rural North Carolina. My father worked in a mill all his life, and I will never forget the men and women who worked with him. They had lint in their hair and grease on their faces. They worked hard and tried to put a little something away every week so their kids and their grandkids could have a better life. They are just like the auto workers, office workers, teachers, and shop keepers on Main Streets all across America.

My mother had a number of jobs. Her last job was working at the post office so my parents could have health care. And she owned her own small business -- refinishing furniture to help pay for me to go to college.

I have had such incredible opportunities in my life, and I was blessed to be the first person in my family to go to college. I worked my way through, and I have had opportunities way beyond what I could have ever imagined.

And the heart of this campaign -- your campaign -- is to make sure that everyone has those same opportunities that I had growing up -- no matter where you live, who your family is, or what the color of your skin is. This is the America we believe in.

I have spent my life fighting for the kind of people I grew up with. For two decades, I stood with families and children against big HMOs and big insurance companies. And as a Senator, I fought those same fights against the Washington lobbyists and for causes like the Patients' Bill of Rights.

I stand here tonight ready to work with you and John to make America strong again.

And we have so much work to do. Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can build one America

We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems. One for people who get the best health care money can buy and then one for everybody else, rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, and HMOs -- millions of Americans who don't have any health insurance at all.

It doesn't have to be that way.

We have a plan that will offer everyone the same health care your Senator has. We can give tax breaks to help pay for your health care. And we will sign into law a real Patients' Bill of Rights so you can make your own health care decisions.

We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else.

None of us believe that the quality of a child's education should be controlled by where they live or the affluence of their community.

It doesn't have to be that way.

We can build one public school system that works for all our children. Our plan will reform our schools and raise our standards. We can give our schools the resources they need. We can provide incentives to put quality teachers in the places and the subjects where we need them the most. And we can ensure that three million kids have a safe place to go after school. This is what we can do together.

We shouldn't have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life, their kids and grandkids will be just fine, and then one for most Americans who live paycheck to paycheck.

And you know what I'm saying. You don't need me to explain it to you, you know -- you can't save any money, can you? Takes every dime you make just to pay your bills, and you know what happens if something goes wrong -- a child gets sick, somebody gets laid off, or there's a financial problem, you go right off the cliff.

And what's the first thing to go. Your dreams. It doesn't have to be that way.

We can strengthen and lift up your families. Your agenda is our agenda -- so let me give you some specifics.

First, we can create good paying jobs in America again. Our plan will stop giving tax breaks to companies that outsource your jobs. Instead, we will give tax breaks to American companies that keep jobs here in America. And we will invest in the jobs of the future -- in the technologies and innovation to ensure that America stays ahead of the competition.

We will do this because for us a job is about more than a paycheck -- it's about dignity and self-respect. Hard work should be valued in this country and we're going to reward work, not just wealth.

We don't want people to just get by; we want people to get ahead. So let me give you some specifics about how we're going to do that.

To help you pay for health care, a tax break and health care reform to lower your premiums up to $1,000. To help you cover the rising costs of child care, a tax credit up to $1,000 to cover those costs so your kids have a safe place to go while you work. And to help your child have the same chance I had and be the first person in your family to go to college, a tax break on up to $4,000 in tuition.So now you ask how are we going to pay for this? Well, here's how we're going to pay for it. Let me be very clear, for 98 percent of Americans, you will keep your tax cut-that's 98 percent. But we'll roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, close corporate loopholes, and cut government contractors and wasteful spending. We can move our country forward without passing the bill and the burden on to our children and grandchildren.

We can also do something about 35 million Americans who live in poverty every day. Here's the reason we should not just talk about it, but do something about millions of Americans who still live in poverty, because it is wrong. We have a moral responsibility to lift those families up.

I mean the very idea that in a country of our wealth and our prosperity, we have children going to bed hungry. We have children who don't have the clothes to keep them warm. We have millions of Americans who work full-time every day for minimum wage to support their family and still live in poverty -- it's wrong.

These are men and women who are living up to their part of the bargain: working hard and taking care of their families. Those families are doing their part; it's time we did ours.

We will do that when John is in the White House. We will raise the minimum wage, finish the job on Welfare Reform, and bring good paying jobs to the places that need them. And we will say no forever to any American working full-time and living in poverty -- not in our America, not in our America.

Let me talk about why we need to build one America. I saw up close what having two Americas does to our country.

From the time I was very young, I saw the ugly face of segregation and discrimination. I saw young African-American kids sent upstairs in movie theaters. I saw white only signs on restaurant doors and luncheon counters. I feel such an enormous responsibility when it comes to issues of race and equality and civil rights.

I have heard some discussions and debates about where, and in front of what audiences we should talk about race, equality, and civil rights. Well, I have an answer to that question. Everywhere.

This is not an African-American issue, not a Latino issue, not an Asian-American issue, this is an American issue. It's about who we are, what our values are, what kind of country we want to live in.

What John and I want -- what we all want -- is for our children and our grandchildren to be the first generations to grow up in an America that's no longer divided by race.

We must build one America. We must be one America, strong and united for another very important reason -- because we are at war.

None of us will ever forget where we were on September 11th. We share the same terrible images: the Towers falling, the Pentagon in flames, and the smoldering field in Pennsylvania. And we share the profound sadness for the nearly three thousand lives lost.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight terrorism and protect our country. And we can do that. We are approaching the third anniversary of September 11th, and I can tell you that when we're in office, it won't take us three years to get the reforms in our intelligence we need to protect our country. We will do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to make sure that never happens again, not to our America.

When John is president, we will listen to the wisdom of the Sept. 11 commission. We will build and lead strong alliances and safeguard and secure weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security and protect our ports, safeguard our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers and EMTs. We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.

And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.

John understands personally about fighting in a war. And he knows what our brave men and women are going through in another war -- the war in Iraq.

The human cost and extraordinary heroism of this war, it surrounds us. It surrounds us in our cities and towns. And we will win this war because of the strength and courage of our own people.

Some of our friends and neighbors saw their last images in Baghdad. Some took their last steps outside of Fallujah. And some buttoned their uniform for the final time before they went out to save their unit.

Men and women who used to take care of themselves, they now count on others to see them through the day. They need their mother to tie their shoe. Their husband to brush their hair. And their wife's arm to help them across the room.

The stars and stripes wave for them. The word hero was made for them. They are the best and the bravest. They will never be left behind. You understand that. And they deserve a president who understands that on the most personal level what they have gone through -- what they have given and what they have given up for their country.

To us, the real test of patriotism is how we treat the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to defend our values. And let me tell you, the 26 million veterans in this country won't have to wonder if they'll have health care next week or next year -- they will have it always because they took care of us and we will take care of them.

But today, our great United States military is stretched thin. More than 140,000 are in Iraq. Nearly 20,000 are serving in Afghanistan. And I visited the men and women there and we're praying for them as they keep working to give that country hope.

Like all of those brave men and women, John put his life on the line for our country. He knows that when authority is given to the president, much is expected in return. That's why we will strengthen and modernize our military.

We will double our Special Forces, and invest in the new equipment and technologies so that our military remains the best equipped and best trained in the world. This will make our military stronger so we're able to defeat every enemy in this new world.

But we can't do this alone. We have to restore our respect in the world to bring our allies to us and with us. It's how we won the World Wars and the Cold War and it is how we will build a stable Iraq.

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people and our soldiers. And we will get this done right.

A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it -- a stable Iraq and a real chance for peace and freedom in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel. And John and I will bring the world together to face our most dangerous threat: the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon.

With our credibility restored, we can work with other nations to secure stockpiles of the world's most dangerous weapons and safeguard this dangerous material. We can finish the job and secure all loose nukes in Russia. And we can close the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows rogue nations access to the tools they need to develop these weapons.

That's how we can address the new threats we face. That's how we can keep you safe. That's how we can restore America's respect around the world.

And together, we will ensure that the image of America -- the image all of us love -- America this great shining light, this beacon of freedom, democracy, and human rights that the world looks up to -- that that beacon is always lit.

The truth is every child, every family in America will be safer and more secure if you grow up in a world where America is once again looked up to and respected. That's the world we can create together.

Tonight, as we celebrate in this hall, somewhere in America, a mother sits at the kitchen table. She can't sleep. She's worried because she can't pay her bills. She's working hard to pay the rent and feed her kids. She's doing everything right, but she still can't get ahead.

It didn't use to be that way in her house. Her husband was called up in the Guard and he's been serving in Iraq for more than a year. She thought he'd be home last month, but now he's got to stay longer.

She thinks she's alone. But tonight in this hall and in your homes -- you know what? She's got a lot of friends. We want her to know that we hear her. And it's time to bring opportunity and an equal chance to her door.

We're here to make America stronger at home so she can get ahead. And we're here to make America respected in the world so that we can bring him home and American soldiers don't have to fight the war in Iraq and the war on terror alone.

So when you return home, you might pass a mother on her way to work the late-shift -- you tell her... hope is on the way.

When your brother calls and says that he's working all the time at the office and still can't get ahead -- you tell him... hope is on the way.

When your parents call and tell you their medical bills are through the roof -- you tell them ...hope is on the way.

When your neighbor calls you and says that her daughter has worked hard and wants to go to college -- you tell her... hope is on the way.

When you talk to your son or daughter who is serving this country and protecting our freedoms in Iraq -- you tell them...hope is on the way.

And when you wake up and sit with your kids at the kitchen table, talking to them about the great possibilities in America, you make sure that they know that John and I believe at our core that tomorrow can be better than today.

Like all of us, I have learned a lot of lessons in my life. Two of the most important are that first, there will always be heartache and struggle -- you can't make it go away. But the other is that people of good and strong will, can make a difference. One lesson is a sad lesson and the other's inspiring. We are Americans and we choose to be inspired.

We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems; optimism over cynicism. We choose to do what's right even when those around us say, "You can't do that." We choose to be inspired because we know that we can do better -- because this is America where everything is still possible.

What we believe -- what John Kerry and I believe -- is that you should never look down on anybody, that we should lift people up. We don't believe in tearing people apart. We believe in bringing people together. What we believe -- what I believe -- is that the family you're born into and the color of your skin in our America should never control your destiny.

Join us in this cause. Let's make America stronger at home and respected in the world. Let's ensure that once again, in our one America -- our one America -- tomorrow will always be better than today.It is an honor to be here at Creative Visions. Since 1996, your doors have been open to thousands of young people in need of a safe and caring place. Whether it's an after-school program, a job training class, or a Sunday night meal at the drop in for homeless young people, the work that you do every day is nothing short of heroic.

This is the time of year when we remember what matters to us: our family and loved ones, and the hope we all have for a better new year. For Democrats - and for all Americans who work hard and deserve a better life -- we have three more days until the clock strikes midnight and the calendar year changes to our year 2004! I know we all thought that it would never come, but here it is just days away.

Can you see the light at the end of the tunnel? Can you see the ending of the Bush Presidency and a new beginning for America? Can you see that in a few short months, once again America will no longer work for just a privileged few, but for all of us? Can you see that bright future for all of us because I sure can!

Last week, I visited my 99th county in Iowa, and the people of Iowa have been extraordinary. They have welcomed me into their homes, along their Main Streets, and in their schools. I have been listening to them over the course of the last year. They're worried about their country, and they want America to change course.

In a few weeks, George Bush will make his State of the Union Address -- and let this one be his last. According to press reports, White House aides are desperately searching for a vision -- and that one of the leading ideas is to propose that America go back to the moon. Well, I'm all for the space program, but Mr. President, if you're looking for a vision, it's time to solve the middle-class problems you've forgotten here on earth.

This President has done a lot of damage in the last four years, and he'll do a lot worse if we let him have four more. More American jobs getting shipped overseas. More seniors who can't afford the prescription drugs they need. More young people getting into trouble because there's no safe place for them to go after school.

We have 21 days until caucus night. The people of Iowa have had enough of George W. Bush. In three weeks, Iowa has a chance to prevent four more years!

Just like the work you do here at Creative Visions, I believe the 2004 election is about hope. It is about changing America to build the country we all believe in. This contest has been going on so long, it's easy for some to forget how much is at stake. Too often, politicians forget this isn't about how we're doing; it's about how you're doing. Too often, when politicians don't have faith in their ideas to confront the tough issues, they attack. That's why you have seen attack ads on Iraq. Attack ads on Medicare. Attack ads about attack ads.

Today, I want to talk about what really matters. Something much bigger, more disturbing, and more important is at stake. Four years ago, George Bush came here to Iowa as a candidate and promised to be a uniter, not a divider. But four years later, we are divided, not united.

Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest Ameri

ca - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.

2004 is a make-or-break election because we need to create one America again. And that is the one thing George Bush will never do. Dividing us into two Americas - one privileged, the other burdened - has been his agenda all along. Just look what he wants to do to our tax code. From the beginning, this President has had one solitary goal: to shift the tax burden away from the wealth of the most fortunate and onto the work of the middle class. He wants to cut the capital gains tax, eliminate the dividends tax and the estate tax, and create new tax shelters for millionaires' stocks that are bigger than most people's salaries. By the time he's done, the only people who pay taxes in America will be the millions of middle-class and poor Americans who do all the work.

That's wrong. It's wrong for a millionaire who sits by the pool on the phone to his broker to pay tax at a lower rate than the cop on the beat or the waitress working two shifts.

What's more, by dividing us into two Americas, George Bush is hurting our economy, cheating our future, and undermining our very way of life. The engine of our economy is not that guy sitting by the pool. It is millions of guys and gals in factories, fields, and offices across America who go to work every day trying to do right by their families. When we invest in those Americans, our middle-class grows, and our whole economy grows. That is the simple truth George Bush will never understand.

Look at what has happened to the middle class over the last 4 years of George Bush. In this state alone, since George Bush took office, 22,000 Iowans lost their health care, 23,000 Iowans lost good paying manufacturing jobs, 59,000 Iowans fell into poverty, and the number of people filing for bankruptcy increased by more than 50 percent. 12,000 Iowans filed for bankruptcy last year, most of them men and women who lost their job or who suffered a medical emergency. Their backs were breaking, but they could no longer make ends meet.

Middle-class families have gone from being able to save for retirement or buy a house, to now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. These aren't poor Americans; they're the working middle-class. And they are terrified that if something goes wrong-a lost job or a health care disaster-they're just one bad break away from falling off the cliff. For these families, the American dream of building something better is being replaced by the hope of just getting by.

If the current trend continues, one out of seven middle-class families with children will go bankrupt by the end of the decade. Think about what it means that 1 in 7 middle-class families could go bankrupt by the end of this decade. It means the middle-class-the foundation of our country-is sinking. Increasingly we are divided between those who live by the 1st and the 15th every month and those who don't ever look at the calendar when they write a check.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the largest corporation in America, Wal-Mart. The New York Times reported the other day that Wal-Mart's own figures show that sales go up around the 1st and 15th of every month. Across America, millions are literally living from one paycheck to the next.

Of course, it would help if Wal-Mart paid its own workers higher wages, instead of driving down the pay scale for everybody. But in George Bush's Two Americas, workers don't matter. Only owners matter.

Next month, George Bush will roll out yet another set of new tax breaks for the wealth of the wealthy, to be paid for down the road by the children of the middle class. The President has a new name for this: he calls it the ownership society. After four years, we know what George Bush means by an ownership society: an America where those who own the most get the most, while those who work hardest own less and owe more.

We cannot go on as two nations, one favored, t

he other forgotten. It is wrong to reward those who don't have to work at the expense of those who do. If we want America to be a growing, thriving democracy, with the greatest work ethic and the strongest middle class on earth, we must choose a different path.

As President, I will put the government, the economy, and the tax code back in line with our values. No more tax breaks for corporations that move their headquarters overseas or buy life insurance on janitors and make themselves the beneficiaries. No more tax breaks for CEOs who give themselves millions in top-hat pensions while giving no pensions at all to ordinary workers. No more playing games with the budget and driving up deficits. And no more of the Bush administration's war on work. When I'm President, we'll be one America, not two.

I have a plan to make America work for all of us, by creating 5 million new jobs in my first two years, making health care a birthright for every child just like public education, reforming Washington to end the dirty politics as usual, saving Medicare, and securing our world from terror and weapons of mass destruction. But most important, I'll give every American the chance to build their future again. Under my plan, every American will have the chance to be an owner - to buy a home, save for college, or put money aside for a secure retirement. The ownership society should look like American society, not George Bush's secret society.

First, we'll give struggling families a chance to realize the American dream, with a $5,000 tax credit toward the down payment on their first home. There is no better way to build a strong, secure nest egg, and get ahead for the long haul than owning a home.

I was the first member in my family to go to college and it was a big deal. But today, hundreds of thousands of young people-who are qualified to go to college-give up on their education because they believe that they can't pay for it. So second, I want to make college affordable with my College for Everyone plan. For those young people who are willing to work 10 hours a week and can get into a university-you'll go tuition free for the first year. And I will increase funding for Pell grants and financial aid so you can stay in school.

Third, we need to reward family. We can start by offering a family leave newborn child tax credit of up to $2,500. This will give new parents some financial help so that they can spend the time they need to start life with their new son or daughter. This benefit would help more than 120,000 Iowans and give those families the peace of mind to take off work or pay for other expenses.

Fourth, when the time comes for Americans to retire, I want to help families who can't afford to put money away now by giving them a helping hand, a match of up to $1 for every $1 they save. A waitress who starts putting away a few dollars each week at age 25 could retire with $250,000 on top of other savings. And I'll help families invest in the stock market by lowering capital gains and dividend rates for the middle class.

Finally, while we offer tax cuts to help families save, we also need to take on the big financial interests that eat away at families' savings. Predatory mortgage lenders and irresponsible payday lenders and credit card companies are robbing families blind with their outrageous fees and penalties. When I am President, we'll pass tough laws to stop them.

I believe we need to ease the burdens on the middle class. And for the life of me, I can't understand why some other candidates in this race want to raise taxes on work and make life harder for the middle class. We know that President Bush's tax cuts did not do enough for working people. But our answer cannot be to raise taxes on the people who make the least, especially families with children.

We cannot say to an average family of four in Iowa, your taxes are going up by more than $1,700. To the average elementary school teacher here who is supporting two kids alone, your taxes are going up by $1,500. To an electrician and

a nurse's aide who together make $40,000 and have no kids, your taxes are going up by almost $1,000.

These are men and women whose backs are already breaking. They are hungry for us to lead in a way that helps them get ahead and pulls our whole country forward. That money means a lot to them Means they can buy clothes for their kids. Means the mortgage payments are made. Means the bills get paid.

Now, we do need to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent. And I believe we need to go further and raise the tax rate on the unearned wealth of the top 1 percent, so they don't pay any less than the middle class. But my plan restores fiscal discipline by asking more from those who have the most, not those who need help the most.

I am proud that one of the Democrats' core values is to protect working families. This is a value I will never abandon. It is at the heart of what makes America the best place on earth: where individuals can take a great idea, mix it with ingenuity, might and muscle, and build a future and a country better than the one we found.

I have benefited from this middle-class dream because I have lived in the shining light of America. My life has been blessed with extraordinary success. My story should not be an exception-it should occur every single day and these opportunities should be available to every American.

These steps I proposed would change America. They would not only strengthen our middle class; they would strengthen our economy. You see, I have a much different economic vision than this President. I believe the backbone of the American economy is the hard work, determination, and ingenuity of the middle class, not the insiders. I believe the way to grow the economy is to grow and strengthen the middle class, not shrink its size and add to its burdens. 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. I believe the way to create new wealth is by rewarding work and responsibility, not coddling the privileged and going soft on executives, accountants, and analysts who squander other people's money.

We cannot let that handful of big corporations and insiders keep us from making the middle-class stronger. And I want to say this as directly as I know how to say it. Some people have said, now wait a minute Senator Edwards, you haven't been in Washington that long. You haven't spent your whole life in politics. How do we know you'll take them on? Because I spent more time than anybody in this race fighting these powerful interests.

I've been fighting this fight my whole life. For 20 years, I have sat in courtrooms across from these people. I have been an advocate for families and their children against armies of lawyers. I've won most of those battles. In the Senate, I fought for the Patients' Bill of Rights, against big HMOs, against big insurance companies. I fought to bring down prescription drug costs for every American, against big drug companies. I fought to do something about drug company advertising on TV when others weren't willing to do it. I fought to create energy independence in this country. I have been fighting this fight all my life, and will fight harder as President.

And together, we can build the America of our dreams. Standing here at Creative Visions is a lasting reminder of how great things happen all across this country. When you combine an advocate like Ako Abdul Samad, an idea, and the hope to improve people's lives-this country-there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

Throughout our history, whenever America became a place that was divisive and divided along economic or racial boundaries, we all suffered. And whenever we worked hard to lift up everyone and close our great divides, we prospered.

For every man and woman who is worried about paying their bills; for every child who needs health care and a strong school to go to, and for every American who waits for the 1st an

d the 15th of every month-together we will end this era of anxiety. We will replace the crass politics of greed and the current politics of rage with a new politics of opportunity.

We are all angry at what George Bush has done to our country, our values, and our way of life. But we all know in our hearts that our anger won't change America; our actions will. Democrats are the party of optimism and action, and I am in this fight to keep that tradition alive, and to build on our country's great successes.

Because I believe in an America where every man, woman, and child can reach his or her God-given potential. I believe in an America where the family you're born into and the color of your skin should never control your destiny. And I still believe in an America where the son of a mill worker can beat the son of a president to win the White House in 2004!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #140
142. Which I'll post here:
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 12:13 AM by AP
He planned to use the new speech right after the new year. "Then on Jan. 3, we were driving to Nashua to give the speech," says Palmieri, "and he took my notebook and wrote down an outline of what he wanted to say," just as he would outline, but not memorize and recite, a closing argument. "And that was the first time he delivered what you now recognize as the stump speech."

Feel free to cut and paste it into your next post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #142
146. I believe post 145 answers your argument
What 'new ideas' did he incorporate into his 'new speech'?

Did he shorten it? yes.... did he add the hungry 10-year old little girl part? yes.

Want to explain how this 'new speech' he supposedly wrote is substantively different from the one written for delivery in Dec 2003?

Credibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #146
149. To what are you comparing that 12/29 version? Your memory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #149
153. I thought you might be able to tell us what he added
Since the December 2003 version is supposed to have been re-written by him... in outline form... not memorized...in a car.

I told you earlier that this verison written by Gordon and Button sounded the same to me as any speech he gave during the primary--with a few minor tweaks.

And you made such a big deal out of the unposted text.

"He planned to use the new speech right after the new year. "Then on Jan. 3, we were driving to Nashua to give the speech," says Palmieri, "and he took my notebook and wrote down an outline of what he wanted to say," just as he would outline, but not memorize and recite, a closing argument. "And that was the first time he delivered what you now recognize as the stump speech."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #153
156. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #156
161. "Your quote was incredibly inaccurate"
No it wasn't..... and I haven't misrepresented anything.

You post a July speech and tell me it's from January?

How inaccurate could you possibly be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #161
191. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #142
150. This relates to post #147
Posting a reply to your "January 3rd" note here because replying just repeats all the text of the speech and I don't want to torture other DUers with the length.

This is not a speech from January 3rd.

It is his speech from the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. There are such obvious references to date and time ("Those are the values John Kerry and I believe in...", etc)

Who knows what it morphed from... that is, unless you're saying he didn't change his speech from December through the Democratic Convention in July. Now that would be worse than I thought!

http://www.yuricareport.com/Campaign2004/TextJohnEdwardsConventionSpeech.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #150
155. I'm still waiting for any Two Americas speech from after Jan 3
And don't try to turn the tables. If I thought it was fair to compare that speech, I would have run document comparison on Word and told you it wasn't the same sppech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #155
157. And here, I thought you knew your candidate so well....
You're the one who kept insisting he wrote it himself... that it was substantively different than Gordon and Button's version... okay... how so?

I don't think it was different except with a bit of wordsmithing.

Look for it yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #157
162. I'm not asking anyone to trust my memory, like you are.
The 12/29 speech definitely sounds different to me...but I'm VERY FAIRLY giving you a chance to prove your claim, which apparently can't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. It's your claim that they're different
I'd have thought a partisan such as yourself would have kept a copy of all of (or at least one of) JRE's versions of "THE SPEECH".

After all, it was his signature accomplishment in the primary, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #163
170. I think the Prospect Article shifts the burden of proof on to you.
It says that he wrote a new speech on Jan 3rd.

Your only argument is that the speech sounds like the one he gave on Dec 29th. You say he only changed two parts. Your memory -- especially after post 93 -- is definitely not sufficient evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #136
171. It wasn't the so-called "selective editing" she was apologizing for
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 05:59 AM by Clark2008
It was the stop in conversation because she was side-tracked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #72
85. Amen.
The guy has an intellect; that can be seen from his successful legal career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. It can also be seen in the way he conducted himself as a...
...senator, and as a presidential candidate. And I don't see how anyone could read his book Four Trials and not think he is a person qualified to represent their interestes as head of the Executive branch of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #47
105. "What's wrong with people who come out of the middle and working class?"
Edited on Tue May-31-05 07:51 PM by Clarkie1
Absolutely nothing. In fact, I prefer them as leaders.

That's something Clark and Edwards supporters have in common. Although, I believe it would be accurate to say that all things considered Clark did not have as economically fortuitous early life as Edwards. That's really irrelevant though; Edwards has been a very successful personal injury lawyer and one-term senator, and he had a great speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Excuse me?
Edited on Tue May-31-05 12:40 AM by Radical Activist
You wrote: It's obvious to me that you're not one of us "rural and working class voters across the South"

And how many Southern political campaigns have you worked on and how many Southern states have you lived in? For me the answer is 3 and 2. You don't know a thing about me.

Why are you so threatened by this post?

On edit: and yes I am working class. My father was a union member for over 20 years and I've been a union member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. 6 US Congressional, 1 for US Senate, 2 for Texas House, 2 US Presidential
Edited on Tue May-31-05 12:42 AM by Texas_Kat
We won them all (except a Democratic primary in 1977, my guy lost by 30 votes out of 83,000)

So what have you been doing lately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Very nice
And you still don't know a thing about me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. "Union member".... me too.. used to be a shop foreman.
Unfortunately the Union Reps at the shop I was in turned out to be corrupt. We wound up kicking them out and bringing in another union.

BTW, Welcome to DU,  Mr_King .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_King Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Thank You
I've been here for monthes though, more of a reader then a poster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. But the real question is....
are you going to provide an answer to the original question posed?

I am asking, not demanding ....pretty please, WITH sugar on top.:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. I'm asking also....
I think it's a fair question and yet every time I see it asked it's answered in the same manner...either it's ignored or it's answered with an answer similiar to the one given here. YMMV, but IMHO "I don't have have to give you anything" kind of weakens the case for the candidate you're touting rather than strengthening it, no? I'm open to hearing a real answer to this question which, as I've said, I've seen asked before....Thanks much!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #38
49. I have my own question:
Why are posts that promote Clark filled with friendly posts by Clark supporters, and are free of criticisms, yet a post that merely mentions Edwards filled with posts by Clark supporters telling people they could never vote for him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. I can only speak for myself...
but I never said that I could never vote for Edwards and I didn't realize that this thread was filled with posts by Clark supporters that said such. Maybe I just haven't read it carefully enough.

Your post is an interesting way to answer the question posed, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. I didn't say that I would never vote for Edwards
I'm asking why I should.

Voting for President is essentially hiring someone for the toughest job in the country, I'd ask for real qualifications for a job before I 'hired' anyone for anything. Wouldn't you?

I think it's a valid question and I have no doubt that supporters of most all other potential candidates in 2008 could give me chapter and verse about why their particular candidate is qualified in their strongest areas of expertise. I'm not even asking about areas where THIS particular candidate for 2008 might be weak.

Why is there such difficulty answering a straight question with a straight answer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Perhaps, Kat, there is no answer.
Edited on Tue May-31-05 01:24 PM by CarolNYC
...and sometimes a non-answer is, in its own way, an answer of sorts, I guess.

Also, upon closer perusal of this thread, I see that Clark2008, obviously a Clark supporter, says they will never vote for Edwards. lojasmo also says they won't vote for him as he doesn't pass their litmus test. Is lojasmo a Clark supporter? I can't tell. Even if lojasmo is a Clark supporter, two posts hardly fill this thread...so I'm missing something there also.

And I don't mean to bash John Edwards, AP. I think he is a good man. My mom and sister-in-law went to see him at one of those back porch things. He held my little niece and was very sweet to her. I don't think asking for some specifics on qualifications of someone you're asked to back for President is bashing or criticizing. It's just looking for information, a request to be persuaded. I'm sorry if you feel like your guy is getting piled on....and I mean that sincerely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. I thought I'd give it some time for an answer,....
not everyone has lots of time to check in at DU frequently. Thought I'd give it at least 24 hours before I gave up waiting.

I didn't intend to 'pile on' anyone. I've seen politicians come and go, and the only ones who last are those who contribute more than an eloquent speaking style.

Being married to a wonderful spouse isn't enough either -- unless (like RightWingers who complained about Hillary) you think the spouse will be the one pulling the strings. (An argument I still hear from RW repubs about Hillary being "co-president" with Big Dog).

Except for Dennis (Bless his heart), every one of the candidates in 04 (and probably in 08) are married to terrific people -- each with their own strengths.

In the meantime, I'll wait ... patiently... for someone to give me something substantiative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
73. One more qualification: showed how a presidential campaign should be run
once, and I bet he can do it again, and coninue on the upward trajectory his life has been on from the start and right through the presidential primaries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #56
130. And I have a very personal, painful reason for my decision.
I actually had my son push the Kerry/Edwards button while I held my nose. I liked Kerry fine and wanted Bush gone and hoped Clark would be in the cabinet, but I certainly didn't want to vote for Edwards. Once was enough - it was gut-wrenching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #55
71. Displaying your convictions through words and deeds are qualifications
I value highly. I think experiencing life as many have experienced it is a fantastic qualification too. I think Bill Clinton having been raised by a working (and occasionally single) mother is an important qualification. I think being able to reduce complicated ideas about liberalism and compassion and the value of work to simple statements which resonate with many many people is an incredibly important qualification. Hell, not being part of the power structure is probably a pretty good qualification for being president too, because you know there are no divided loyalties.

Twice during Kennedy's presidency he resolved political problems by going directly to the people and making an argument, and twice that single act made a huge difference in the political and economic and cultural landscape of America.

One was with the steel companies' price fixing. They wanted a bigger piece of the the profit that was being created by economic development so that raised their prices. Kennedy was more interested in helping the middle class and the entire economy than he was in letting any one powerful industry make a huge profit. Either the back room brokerings didn't work, or Kennedy didn't waste his time trying to solve the problem among DC politicians.

IIRC, Michael Beschloss includes in one of his Johnson books a transcript of LBJ actually complaining about how JFK had no use for the DC power games because he was so appealing to the public that he could circumvent the back rooms and go right to the people any time he wanted something done. That's exactly what he did with the steel companies. He went to the public with a speech ("speechifying" as I think an Edwards critic in this thread calls it). He made such a compelling (and obvious) argument about why the steel companies were fucking over everyone in America that they stopped price fixing the next day. With words, JFK took millions and millions of dollars out of steel company execs pockets and put it back in the economy, where it would make many more (hard working) people wealthier.

The other time JFK did this was with his second Oxford, Miss speech on civil rights. He went right to the people, made his case, and logic won over. Things JFK that were heard for the first time from the POTUS -- ideas about racism that were brilliant -- still form the core 40 years later about why racism is bad for society.

You could be a Rhodes Scholar, you could have commanded armies, but unless you can make a compelling case to the people that appeals to people's sense of right and wrong ... well, you can have a certain kind of qualification, but there are other qualifications and skills that can be much more powerful. The job of president is not the job for the best man born with the longest resume. It's a job for a person with powerful convictions who can persuade others that it's best to do the compassionate thing, it's a job for a person with experiences which give them insight into how the people actually live their lives, and it's for the person who words and deeds stand as a symbol of what America can and should be. In no way is Edwards lacking in any of those qualifications, and clearly from the powerful response to him from everyone except for a small, vocal minority of Democrats who have their hearts set on especially one candidate in particular, lots of people recognize that he is qualified to be president.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. Thanks for the treatise
I'm quite surprised that you are using (as an example) one of those "upper class ( read "non-middle and working class' --not one of 'us') politicians that you've indicated in earlier posts cannot effectively represent 'us' because they don't "who know how people actually live life".

Be that as it may, your evidence draws many erroneous conclusions.

"Twice during Kennedy's presidency he resolved political problems by going directly to the people and making an argument, and twice that single act made a huge difference in the political and economic and cultural landscape of America."


If you believe that JFK went directly 'to the people' in the steel issue, you've misunderstood the context. Just FYI, Kennedy used all the resources at his disposal to bring steel back in line with his economic policies, including this excerpt from an April 11 1962 New conference

http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk_press_conference_620411.html

The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy. The Department of Defense and other agencies are reviewing its impact on their policies of procurement. And I am informed that steps are under way by those members of the Congress who plan appropriate inquiries into how these price decisions are so quickly made and reached and what legislative safeguards may be needed to protect the public interest.


Looks to me like he intended to get results by 'browbeating" steel using the power of the federal government. 'Going to the people' apparently wasn't sufficient to win over those nasty steel moguls, but 'in your face' negotiating with steel was. Effective negotiating tactics? Yes... they got results, but didn't depend on speechifying (your word, I believe)

In the summer of 1962, James Meredith wanted to enroll in the University of Mississippi at Oxford MS. I believe that here's a copy of the "speech" you mentioned:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/meredith/days_b_04fr.html

More riots broke out an hour and a half later that eventually climaxed in a fourteen-hour battle and the lightning invasion of the state by 30,000 combat troops ordered in by President John F. Kennedy. The riots injured over 300 and killed two.

So far as I can tell, the riots didn't stop and the south wasn't integrated the next day. So much for "appealing to the people'.

Let's assume for the moment that all candidates have best intentions. Their words are heartfelt and sincere. Their hearts are pure. Their motives are unimpeachable. (Okay, we're imagining here, right?)

Words can be powerful, particularly in the hands of the President of the United States. BUT, words can be just noise (Bush is a prime example). I'd rather know that the individual speaking those words actually has the background and knowledge to speak them with some personal authority. ... some personal experience and qualification rather than just reading a well-written script (no matter how well delivered).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. First I can't respond fast enough for you, and now I can't write a short..
..enough reply and I can't spell well enough?

What are we arguing about here? Are we arguing about qualifications? Are timeliness, spelling, and length of argument really are so important to you that you have to foreground your complaintes about those things?

JFK gave the steel speach and the steel co's backed off. Feel free to google some more if you don't believe the direct appeal to the people wasn't so important. Feel free to read Beschloss's book if you don't think LBJ noticed this and that he didn't like that Kennedy was able to circumvent Washington and connect directly with the people.

JFK's second speech about Oxford was the one I'm talking about. The first one was luke-warm, the riots didn't stop. Then he laid it down. The speech is unbelievably powerful, and his arguments in that speech became the arguments that drove civil rights to the point they're at today. No speech was going to stop racism in its tracks, but listen to that second speech and look at the way the arc of history bent towards justice on terms so close to the argument JFK made, and then contemplate that this was an American president making these arguments in the early '60s...

Words aren't just noise. Ulitmately, the president is mostly an advocate, and he or she has to make his or her case to the public, and the public has to get on board. Republicans don't worry about this as much because they have every other aparatus on their side, as Bush proves. That's why the primaries are a great forum for picking Democratic nominees. The skills that Clinton used to secure the nomination -- the ability to connect directly with the people -- were the same skills that allowed him to make it through two terms and end it all with great approval ratings, despite Republicans trying to tear him apart with every other aparatus in society (media, Congress...) -- that skill was the ability to talk directly to and connect with the people.

(BTW, How did speechifying become my word? I was quoting some Edwards critic in this or another post -- by no means is that "my word" -- I think it's use was a lame attempt to demean what is obviously one of the most valuable skills and qualifications a president should have -- the ability to be a persuasive advocate for progressive causes, and the ability to connect directly with the people).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #80
90. I don't get this....
Is John Edwards the reincarnation of John F. Kennedy now?

Or is it FDR?

I mean....WTF?

John Edwards is John Edwards...a very personable, charming, smooth talking (to some) and handsome one term former senator and personal injury attorney....and (please don't let me forget) the son of a mill worker...who was very much pushed in our faces by the Corporate media because he came in second in Iowa.

The Corporate media have compared him to many or our great politicians....based on the delivery of his 2 America speech...a well received populist speech written by the same speechwriters who wrote the 2 New York speech for a New York politician a few years before.

He was well funded during the campaign by a slew of trial attorney's groups, and he was selected as Kerry's VP due to his optimistic appeal (cos Rove said that Kerry was pessimistic), and the fact that the Corporate media ordered it.

And now the Corporate media has moved on to pushing Hillary Clinton to us.

Same shit, different candidate.

Just like Wes Clark ain't no eisenhower.....Edwards ain't no JFK nor Clinton.

We need to keep it real....here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #90
103. The argument is about the power of a good speech.
And not that JFK and Edwards share anything other than the ability to move people through a direct personal appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #80
96. I guess I wasn't clear
JFK sent the Justice Department after the steel industry.

He sent 30,000 troops into Oxford MS.

(Since I hadn't seen the word 'speechifying' in any of the posts, I assumed it was your term. I've always referred to Edwards as eloquent)

Speeches can define goals, they cannot accomplish them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #96
104. According to your Prospect link, they can help you win primaries.
And I can't wait to see your response to the fact that your own link disproves your claim that Edwards didn't write the Two America speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #80
125. It was me!
I used the word "speechifying". Didn't mean it to demean anything and I'm sorry it's bothered you so much that you've brought it up a couple of times since I used it. Not my intention. I guess I'm an Edwards critic because I said that I too would like to hear a real answer to the question Kat asked...which I'd seen asked before but never answered?? I really had no idea that asking for clarification of Edwards' qualifications in a specific area would be taken with such offense. Live and learn, I guess...Again, a very enlightening conversation.

And, while JFK has been brought into the mix here, for whatever it's worth, Ted Sorenson, longtime speechwriter for JFK, was a strong backer of Wes Clark's in 2004. I saw him give Wes a lovely introduction before a fundraiser in Grand Central Station during the primaries. Very nice, very personable, very funny. I liked him a lot...I only think of him now because someone in another forum recently brought him up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
65. Yep
I've noticed that myself so I tend to stay away from the Clark threads. I do like him but I like to check out other threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #38
50. I have my own question:

Why are posts that promote Clark filled with friendly posts by Clark supporters, and are free of criticisms, yet a post that merely mentions Edwards filled with posts by Clark supporters telling people they could never vote for him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #50
91. Cause lately you've been staying out of Clark threads.....
for the most part?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #91
102. I haven't been attacked personally in any recently.
Edited on Tue May-31-05 07:35 PM by AP
And I don't think I have ever weighed in in any of the puffery posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #102
118. Like what is a puffery post, anyway? Have seen you in quite a few
Edited on Tue May-31-05 08:33 PM by FrenchieCat
Clark threads, AP...though
here's a few....which of course doesn't include statements made about Clark in thread that were not titled with Clark as the main title.

:wow:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1762931
The two best Democrats we could run in '08 are Wesley Clark and Al Gore,


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1758685
How Will Karl Rove Smear Clark?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1736396
How did Wes Clark loose the huge lead the media gave him in 2004?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1675566
Clark wouldn't have quietly slithered away if the election were stolen f


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1642865
Does Clark have any weak spots?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1643737
Is there any evidence that Clark is even running in 2008?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1638580
Does Clark have a special appeal in the West/Southwest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1625983
Wes Clark

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1582225
What does Wes Clark do for a living? Does he have a job?
:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #118
122. Save me some time and tell me which of my posts you think was
Edited on Tue May-31-05 10:05 PM by AP
inappropriate.

Incidentally, posts that ask questions and expect reasonable answers aren't puffery posts. Notice that all but one of those threads is a questions. Most of those threads have only one post by me, and none were controversial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #122
148. Well just looking at one, you've got
16 posts in this here thread, AP. That's a lot of posts for a thread simply titled "Wes Clark"....considering....doncha think?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Wes Clark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #148
158. Hard to defend myself on that one when the link doesn't go anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #158
164. see post 118 for unbroken link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #148
160. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #160
165. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #165
169. Are you going to make an argument about how I'm no different
than the people who support Clark and criticize Edwards every chance they get, or are you going to just insult me personally?

It's not enough to provide links or count posts in the one thread in which I posted more that three or four times. You actually have to cite the text and make an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
133. Who are you asking?
Frenchie? Because that is who you replied to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #133
172. I was asking anyone who could answer....
I replied to Frenchie's post because I was trying to convey that I was asking the same question as she was. Does it make more sense to you now? I've since discovered that it's considered quite the offensive question so I won't ask any more...I think the responses since the question were asked tell enough anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
84. Edwards has vision, and that is more important than expertise.
Yes, I'll say it again, vision is more important than expertise.

Look at Clinton - the smartest President that we've had in a long time. Yet he did not have a firm liberal vision, just some centrist ideas. And as a result, we had a smart President who had a few pleasant accomplishments. Look at Kerry - a pretty smart guy as well. Yet I'm not really sure what he set out to accomplish in his campaign, other than get Bush out of office. He had no vision, or at least no vision that he communicated. Look at Bush - an idiot, arguably, but if he was smart, would that make him less evil? Those around him are smart enough to enact Bush's vision and create policies that accomplish what they want (which are just bad for America).

A President has to have more than smarts. He's got to have a strong idea of where he wants the country to be. He's got to have central tenets (like the fact that everyone should have equal opportunity and that the government should help the poor, not just the rich) and the policies, with the help of his advisors, will flow from those tenets. If it came down to whose vision I want to take hold in Washington, that's John Edwards hands down. I'm sure that with Vice-President Bredesen or Vice-President Clark he'll accomplish a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. Well, I think in the end...it appears to be a matter of opinion.....
A President has to have more than smarts. He's got to have a strong idea of where he wants the country to be. He's got to have central tenets (like the fact that everyone should have equal opportunity and that the government should help the poor, not just the rich) and the policies, with the help of his advisors, will flow from those tenets. If it came down to whose vision I want to take hold in Washington, that's John Edwards hands down.


You see for me, the same holds exactly true about Wesley Clark.

Your statement can replace John Edwards' name with whomever they feel fit the bill (to some, that might even be George Bush). Based on your paragraph, the choice is a subjective one based on where one comes from; what's important to them; what they believe the important issues to be; if they beleive the life experiences, education and all around backround; and what will win an election considering the opponent.

Therefore, at the end....we are all right, as far as we are concerned. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #84
94. Is it a vision or a political ploy?
With very little effort, I'm sure Rove can portray it as the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #84
135. Republicans are smarter about this.
Reagan wasn't qualified to be President and neither was Bush. But when they found someone that could win, they went with it. Edwards is easily more qualified than either of those Presidents were, and here we are in a pissing match over who has the longest resume.

Reagan changed the political landscape in America because he had the ability to inspire and connect with people. Clinton had that ability as well, but Clinton's vision wasn't as transforming as Reagan's. If we want to win we need someone who can inspire people.

In '04 we nominated someone based on their very impressive resume. That isn't enough to get someone elected President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
37. Drop Edwards, and maybe I'll look at Bredesen
I'm really not too interested in a one term senator that spent half his term running for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. Agreed. Especially since Edwards fails my litmus test.
Yea on the patriot act+
Yea on the IWR+
Yea on NCLB=I won't vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. And you will vote for Bredesen??
What makes you think he would have voted differently on these issues.

I am not an Edwards's fan, but I am far from being a Bredesen's fan either, and I do not think they are different at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #44
52. Dunno about Bredesen....I'll have to research.
I do know I won't vote for a candidate who fails my test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #52
69. Here are some articles on Bredesen for you
I found a couple to get you started on him.

http://www.polstate.com/archives/001948.html (from 2003)

http://www.tbr.state.tn.us/board_members/Governor%20Phil__Bredesen.htm (biography)

http://philbredesen2008.blogspot.com/ (a blog featuring Bredesen)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9209 (about Bredesen and 2008)

But Bredesen, from my reviews, is more so on the economic factors and education and health care and not quite as much about foreign affairs since he's only been a mayor and governor. (he was mayor of Nashville from 1991-1999).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
66. I would support
it if Bredesen was the front ticket. I'd like either: Bredesen/Edwards, Bredesen/Clark or Bredesen/Feingold. I do hope he runs for re-election here in Tennessee though. Isn't that up this year? According to his website he was elected governor in 2003. Wouldn't he be up again in 2007?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #66
193. Hey FreedomAngel, could you live with Clark/Bredesen?
I hope you don't take the suggestion as a knock against your guy. As I said, I don't know much about him and I thank you for the info you've provided in this thread. I've heard good things about him and you obviously support him as your Governor with a passion which speaks well for him, IMHO. I'm stuck with Pataki! :(

I just don't see how he could have gained the experience with national security and foreign policy and international affairs that I think will be needed to straighten out the mess W's creating.

You suggest upthread that all that Clark has to offer is security but he's got experience in dealing with things such as health care and education and such. He was responsible for these things in caring for the families of the men and women he commanded while in the military...down to being responsible for the pampers on the store shelves. If you read the account I posted of Ginger's lunch with Clark last weekend, you'll see that he's not only thinking about domestic issues but has plans for lifting up the most downtrodden, plans that come from his experience implementing them in the military. When he got out of the military, he was asked to be superintendent of schools in Cali. Though he didn't take the job, he did proceed to study the school system there. He's not unfamiliar or uninterested in these things.

If you ever get the chance to talk to him, at one of these talks he gives at colleges, or an appearance with someone running for office in '06 or elsewhere, ask him about some domestic issue and see if he doesn't blow you away with the depth and breadth of his knowledge on it and his plans to solve whatever problems are associated with it. I think you'd be surprised.

I also just don't see Clark as VP. I'd love to see him as President but, if not that, I'd prefer he be SOS or something like that. I didn't like the idea of him as Kerry's VP either although he arguably may have helped us win in that position. I wanted him to have a cabinet position in Kerry's Adminstration.....aw well....

Back to the national security issue, I don't understand people who say that Clark supporters are pushing national security as an issue just because they want to push Clark. Did it ever occur to anyone that the opposite might be true, that people might want to be pushing Clark because they view national security as an important issue? People who think that the world will be in such a place by 2008 that we won't have to worry about national security or international affairs have a lot more faith in W's ability to straighten things out than I ever will. From where I sit, I can only see him making things worse.

I had more than one conversation with neighbors and acquaintances of mine in the runup to the election, people who I thought for sure would be voting Democratic, and was surprised to hear them say they were going to vote for Bush because he would go after the bad guys and keep us safer. ARGH! I wanted to scream but instead I just argued with them a little and then let it go. They were hopeless I could see and Kerry would win NY without their votes anyway....Better to spend time and energy trying to convince someone in, say, PA to vote for him....(And I guess I convinced enough of them because that was one small triumph on election day, that the county that I worked in in PA went strongly for Kerry and helped put him over the top in that crucial state.)

When I see people unconcerned with national security and the state of the world I sometimes get jealous and I sometimes get mad. Shortly after 9/11, I went through a period where I just really had no interest whatsoever in the future. I felt like, what's the point in going on...like the Cure song "It doesn't matter if we all die". Things just seemed so fucked up it didn't seem worth it to go on. Then I started to think that maybe we'd wake up to the state of the world now, maybe, somehow, we'd do something to create a better world for all of us, where we could all live in peace. I even trusted W. to do it, which shows how truly stupid I can be at times. But I guess I needed to believe that. As I watch the mess he's created get bigger and bigger I can't help but despair again.

Am I getting sucked in by the fear-mongering of this Administration? I hope not. All I know is that something really, really bad and terrible happened in my city on a beautiful September morning when I thought my biggest worry was how late I was going to be for work, I still cringe when I pass the "big soldiers with the big guns" (as my little niece calls them) and bomb sniffing dogs some mornings on my way through Grand Central, I still occasionally dream of things like trying, on the subway shuttle platform, to outrun the poisonous gas that's been released in Grand Central Station, and I see that we've not only not progressed at all toward making the world a better and safer place in the last few years, but we've actually made things worse and scarier...and I want someone to fix it for me.


Sorry for highjacking this thread that's supposed to be about Bredesen and Edwards as much as I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #37
181. If I could choose the nominee in 08
I'd like it to be Bredesen/Kuicinich (sp?) or Bredesen/Clark. Of course I haven't heard anything of Bredesen running for the presidency. Someone was interviewed earlier this year (Jan) in a Jacksonville paper on Bredesen and asked about him running, since his name has been thrown around a lot, and the person said he wasn't interested. :( I wish he would though. I think he could do well with moderate's and independents. He's clear, strong on the stance, not a "flipflopper" and he was governor and mayor twice of a "red" state. I think he would be great competition for someone like McCain or Frist (he could whoop Frist's ass I'm sure).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illbill Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
41. McCain 08.... we're gonna get fucked regardless.
Edited on Tue May-31-05 08:06 AM by illbill
...Hilary can't overcome McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. Edwards does well against Jeb, McCain, and Giuliani, unlike Kerry & HRC
according to May 6 Marist Poll.

He's the only Dem who beats Giuliani, and he's the only dem within the MOE vs McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darkamber Donating Member (507 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #48
189. that's interesting...and about McCain...
He's going to have a problem getting his parties nomination which has moved so far to the right. McCain would grab independents and conservative Dems, but he would have problems with the Core. Much like the problems Edwards had.

It's still way early in the game but I'm happy to see Edwards working on getting more Foreign policy experience in the mean time. We really need a southner...though I wish Joe Bidden would think of a run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #41
182. I think Bredesen would have a good chance
He's done pretty well and so far he hasn't raised tax's and he's trying not to. Of course TennCare is still blah but the previous governor left everything a mess. I'm really flipped on this. On the one hand I want him to stay in Tennessee before running for president (if he ever does) and the other hand I would love him to run for president. Here's a biography of Bredesen that lists his accomplishments.

Here's some info on Bredesen and his accomplishments. There's more at the link:

Link: http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-wfsection+article+articleid-226.html

PHIL BREDESEN was born in Oceanport, New Jersey. He grew up in Shortsville, a rural farming community in Upstate New York, and earned a bachelor's degree in physics from Harvard University in 1967. Bredesen and his wife moved to Nashville in 1975. Doing research at the public library, he drafted a business plan in the couple's small apartment that led to the creation of HealthAmerica Corp., a health-care management company that grew to more than 6,000 employees and traded on the New York Stock Exchange. He sold the company in 1986. Elected mayor of Nashville from 1991 to 1999, Bredesen restored confidence in city government and charted a course that made Music City one of the best places in America to live. He brought the NFL's Tennessee Titans to the state, built a new local library system, and drove down the city's crime rate. As mayor, he infused nearly $500 million into the local education system - adding more than 440 new teachers, building 32 new schools and renovating 43 others. He also implemented a back-to-basics curriculum to teach students what they need to know. During his tenure, Nashville saw record economic growth and recruited high-quality jobs with major corporations. He oversaw the renewal of Nashville's downtown entertainment district, and spearheaded public-private partnerships that led to development of the new Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum and the Frist Center for the Visual Arts. Bredesen is a founding member of Nashville's Table, a nonprofit group that collects overstocked and discarded food from local restaurants for the city's homeless population, and he served on the Frist Center's board. He founded the Land Trust for Tennessee, a nonprofit organization that works to preserve open space and traditional family farms.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
43. Isn't Frist retiring - what about Bredesen running for that senate seat?
Personally, if this guy is popular, then let's get him into the senate. Especially with Frist retiring, this might be a good chance for us to pick up a republican seat.

Personally, I don't want two southerners on my presidential ticket. And this time, I'd like to see a Vice Presidental candidate that could win president when his/her time came.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
70. Yes his seat is up and he's not returning (on Frist)
Edited on Tue May-31-05 02:42 PM by FreedomAngel82
I don't think Bredesen is much of a Senate type personally. :shrug: There's already a nice handful of people running for the seat. I think Corker will probably get Frist's seat (he's a republican who was mayor of Chattanooga from 2001-2005). He's not too bad. Certainly much better than the looney Frist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArtVandaley Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #43
76. Rep Ford is running for it
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
54. For Me It's Edwards...
Even though I FULLY supported Kerry and really haven't been one to criticize him since the election, I've become a HUGE supporter of Edwards. I also like Bill Richardson as a running mate.

When you dissect it, you can see that it will cover many bases. Edwards has charisma, location and Elizabeth. Richardson has experience and his location is also good. He will also be a boon for the Hispanic vote. He's very popular and he's been around for quite some time. I trust his instincts a lot.

It's Edwards/Richardson for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
58. I personally really like Bredesen
Edited on Tue May-31-05 02:05 PM by FreedomAngel82
I think he's doing a fine job. In January his raiting was 70% and last I looked his raiting was 52%. Still higher then W. He was also mayor of Nashville which, this last election, was supposed to be "Bush Country." I think he's just a moderate. I also really like Edwards. I remember back in January reading a blog that mentioned Bredesen and it was an article from a Jacksonville newspaper and someone asked someone who works for Bredesen if he was ever going to run for president. According to this person a lot of people have asked him to but he isn't that interested in something that national like being president and not that big into campaigning and everything. Of course things can always change and I would fully support Bredesen. Also with Bredesen he's orginially from up north (New York I believe) but has been living down here for a good long time. He doesn't pretend to be a fake person like Bush though and he's more of a southerner then W and his family because he doesn't hide or fake he isn't orginially from the North. You can find out more about him at the following site: http://www.tennessee.gov/governor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gyre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
67. Imagine getting our asses whipped again
regardless of who we put up. Since nothing has been done about electronic voting. Just sayin.

Gyre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArtVandaley Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
75. Screw the south, look West
Edited on Tue May-31-05 05:42 PM by ArtVandaley
I'm sorry, but the republicans aren't enacting a "Northeastern strategy", so why the hell are democrats under the impression that we need to campaign in the heart of conservative country in order to win? The West and Midwest are where the swing states are and have changing demographics. We have a far better chance in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Montana than we could even dream of having in Alabama, the Carolinas, Mississippi, ect.


On EDIT: I would be open to the idea of Gov B running, for I know little about him. But honestly, the south is one of the last places the dems should focus on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #75
187. Utah and Idaho are the two most Republican states
Both in the west. There are several Southern states that can go Democratic if we have the right nominee and actually make an effort there like Arkansas, Louisiana and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
109. "Bredesen less conservative than Warner or Bayh" WTF???
Edited on Tue May-31-05 08:19 PM by nickshepDEM
He just terminated health coverage for 200,000+ Tennesseans.


By the way, Warner isn't that conservative. He supports parental consent forms and is fighting the good fight against illegal immigration, but that's about it.

Here are some of Governor Warners accomplishments...

-"Navigated Virginia through a $6 billion revenue shortfall, and making choices and investments in education from pre-school to graduate school to create a Commonwealth of opportunity for all."

-"Education for a Lifetime." The pre-school through grad school and beyond into workforce training measures are designed to move students another rung up the ladder of educational achievement, demonstrating the linkage between degrees and other markers of academic achievement and economic prosperity. The Governor also committed to fully funding the $525 million needed to re-benchmark the Standards of Quality for K-12 education, as established by the State Board of Education."

-"Governor Warner has also brought common sense business principles to the way the state purchases goods and services, manages its vehicle fleet and real estate holdings, and maintains information technology functions, with an appropriate emphasis on including those who own small, women- and minority-owned businesses."

-"Governor Warner is working hard to build a foundation to bring economic prosperity to all corners of Virginia. Economic development and job creation are top priorities for Governor Warner. Since January 2002, during difficult economic times, he has helped recruit more than 100,000 jobs and $9.5 billion in new investment in every region of Virginia."

-"He helped found the Virginia Health Care Foundation, which has provided health care to more than 476,000 underserved Virginians in rural and urban areas."

-"In 1997, he developed the Virginia High-Tech Partnership, which helps students from Virginia's five Historically Black Colleges and Universities pursue technology careers through a summer internship and job placement program."

-"Provided the largest increase in education funding in Virginia history."

-"Increased the personal income tax exemption and standard deduction enabling 140,000 to no longer have to file any state income tax, and will cut the food tax from 4% to 2.5 %
in July, 2005."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #109
116. You have to understand the situation of TennCare
Right now he's trying to save it and make compromises without raising tax's. It's hard enough as it is in Bushworld living. Here's the final report on health care you can look over yourself.

Link: http://www2.tennessee.gov/health/newsreleases/52405.htm

You also have to understand the previous governor left the state in a mess and Bredesen is trying to clean it up without raising tax's and keeping campaign promises. I'm not making excuses for him, I was pissed too, but just trying to show the situation. The link I gave though hopefully will help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #116
131. Thanks Freedom.
People not living in Tennessee don't understand the full picture.

And it wasn't 200,000 Tennesseans, in the first place. But, I digress.

The fact remains that Tenensseans are poor and don't want their taxes raised FOR ANY REASON. Our sales tax is abyssmal (9.5 percent - even on food) and, because our schools aren't properly funded, people actually believe that a sales tax is better than an income tax (that, and the fact that they're scared that the politicians would just keep raising any reduced sales tax until we were paying both an income tax AND a high sales tax on top of our low wages). Bredesen already gives his salary back to the state's general fund since he's a multi-millionaire and doesn't need the pay, but he cannot fund the entire TennCare program on his own.

We have to reform our media in the state if we're ever to make headway out of the income tax=bad, sales tax=OK mentality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #131
173. 9.5!?!?
You guys pay 9.5%!? That's more than we pay here in NYC. That's nuts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #173
174. We don't have an income tax, though. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #131
183. You're right
Edited on Thu Jun-02-05 01:56 AM by FreedomAngel82
I remember hearing a few months ago they (politicians in Tn) were talking about taking away the tax's on sale's items like they have in Georgia. I haven't heard anything else about it. On the one hand it'll help people with items living in Bush world and the other hand it's money towards the state that can help. So I'm really torn on that. I think we should wait on that personally until we're okay again. I thank God everyday for Bredesen and my current mayor Mr. Littlefield. Everything here is really sucky public wise unless it's a private school or a Christian school or whatever. My alma mater (Hixson High) really has gone down hill since around 1999 or so. :( I haven't been back though to know what it's like now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #109
188. Did you cut and paste that from his website?
Or do you just work for Warner?

It has the bland and uncompelling tone of your typical blue dog Democratic press release.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArtVandaley Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #109
190. I very open to Warner as a candidate
Not committed, by any means. I know very little about him, other than reading about his stances on a few issues, seeing him at Kerry rallies on cable news, and reading one speech by him (which I found amazing).
In an above post, I said that the idea that we needed the south was absurd, and I stand by that. There are many more friendly areas we could pursue, but I'm also still open to a southern candidate. And I'm going to keep my eye on Warner.
Of all the potential candidates usually mentioned, him, Feingold and Richardson are the ones I'll be most interested in. One or all three could turn out to be bad candidates, but I'm sick of the usual wrung of losers/regulars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-05 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
137. I guess we can't talk about anyone but Clark
without being told how vastly inferior that person is to the god-like general and being given the millionth lecture about how long and impressive Clark's big resume is. Zip it up already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #137
159. I am "uninvited" from commenting in "your" thread?
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 01:00 AM by FrenchieCat
Is that's so...wish you would have mentioned it right after my first post. Since it's so unusual to see an Edwards thread go more than 30 replies...I thought you'd welcome the participation.

There is a difference with stating that our next candidate needs National Security Experience (that was done) and calling the General "God" (that was not done). Try not to exaggerate. It's really not required to stretch the truth just to make a point.

Actually, if you were to re-read your thread, you'll find that Clark's resume was talked about very little...and Edwards' resume was mentioned only in asking about it....

Personally, I think that JFK got the most lines! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnowerOfLogic Donating Member (841 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
151. I won't vote for any war supporters. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
166. Radical, I'd like to apologize
for the extensive 'back and forth' between an Edwards supporter and myself.

There was obviously no new information to impart on either side, and it degenerated pretty quickly.

BTW, I like Bredesen... he has a lot to contend with in a state that's deep purple and he's doing a great job.

Democrats can win in deep purple (and even red) states with the right candidate,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #166
168. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #166
184. I think so too
It's all about the right person. I like all of our democratic people who ran this past year. The problems are mainly the media and voting machine's. I still believe Kerry and Edwards won. If Mr. Bredesen can at one point have a 70% raiting in a "red" state and have friends and supporters on both sides of the isle then who knows. I haven't heard anything of Bredesen running though for anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-05 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
167. When I look at a candidate, I'm looking at ability, not location
Edited on Wed Jun-01-05 01:55 AM by Hippo_Tron
True, the last three democratic presidents have been from the south. But the one before that was a self proclaimed Massachusetts liberal, who did rather well in the southern states and would've done better if the dixiecrats weren't so strong in Mississippi and Alabama. Sure, the GOP didn't have as much of an establishment on the sotuh back then, but Jack Kennedy and also Bobby Kennedy were both incredible politicians and incredible leaders.

I don't think that it matters what region of the country they are from, if Jack or Bobby Kennedy were alive today, they could crush any of the big name Republicans in a presidential election. My point is that if I see a Jack Kennedy running for the nomination in '08, I'm voting for him no matter what region of the country he or she is from.

On the other hand, that's not likely to happen. If I have to choose between a bunch of second raters then I guess geographical location will have to be a factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #167
186. JFK needed LBJ
Edited on Thu Jun-02-05 09:45 PM by Radical Activist
He played regional politics too. He wasn't above that.

And there's nothing second rate about Edwards or Bredesen. They would make good candidates and office holders. There's no reason to dismiss them because of geography either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-05 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
175. If you're wanting to know more about
Bredesen personality wise visit: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/ and check out the video section and watch his state of the union and the video on losing someone to homocide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-03-05 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
192. I love Edwards as a candidate
and I think he'd be a great president too. my first instinct is Clark for VP but I'll study up on Bredesen. I really hope Edwards gets the nomination - I think he'd win easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 04:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC