A question for Carolinians and others who know about John Edwards

[Armstead]

I have a serious and honest question for those from North Carolina, and others who have either had dealings with John Edwards or know of him on a more 3-D basis "behind the scenes" than his national public image.

What is he like as a person? What is his reputation like as a person?

Here's why I'm asking.

I'm liking John Edwards as a potential nominee more and more. I think he's evolved into exactly the type of candidate the Democrats need in 2008, in terms of his positions on issues. he's also very appealing on TV as a politician.

I think he could be a "bridge candidate" who could attract enthusiastic support from both the left wing and from more moderate elements of the Democratic coalition and independents. He seems like a liberal moderate who realizes that to be a liberal moderate these days requires more than moderation. He recognizes the real issues of poverty, corporate power and the growing gaps of income and power today.

I also think Elizabeth Edwards would be a GREAT First Lady.

HOWEVER one thing concerns me. It's a nagging question that arose for me in 04. Although I'm a Yankee, my "roots" are in North Carolina and Virginia, and I have numerous friends and relatives down there.

Through that grapevine, I heard a couple of people say that Edwards was not very popular there, and the problem was not his politics. Rather, it was, as one relative put it, that "He's not a very nice man" on a personal level. It was said that he tended to be arrogant, rude and dismissive of people, and was an opportunist.

I realize that being "nice" is not a prerequisite in politics, and that arrogance, rudeness and opportunism are basic character traits for many politicians, regardless of their ideology.

However, I find it hard to square Edward's image and public persona with those characterizations. Is it a mis-characterization? Or, if true, is it something he has outgrown since then?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Sounds like a Democratic version of Bush

re: the personality part. But I have also been thinking that Bush is a great example of someone with little to no relevant experience for the office, who now allows someone as relatively inexperienced as Edwards to become president.
I like Edwards and think he would be great, but I had been thinking Bush has now paved the way for the less experienced to become president.
I'm sorry for the comparison but this is one real way Bush has helped Edwards' chances.

[KoKo]

2. He wasn't popular with many dems who worked for him in NC towards the end.

Lots of people worked hard to get him elected and then he seemed to dump them when he voted for Iraq war and refused to meet with folks from his own party who urged him not to vote for the resolution. His staff member threw the son of a peace activist out of his office when he brought a petition against the Iraq Invasion to the Raleigh office. (he was not there at the time...but that a staff member did that...says something)

From the time he was elected Senator (replacing a horrible RW Agribusiness jerk) he seemed to be running for President. He refused to meet with those of us who were against the Iraq War who protested outside one of his fund raisers. We were Democrats who had donated to him and he refused to come out and tell us why he had voted for Iraq Resolution. In the crowd there was one activist who was almost in tears saying he had walked the streets in Raleigh for Edwards and raised lots of money door to door and that Edwards refused to talk to him about the War.

He gave up his Senate seat and it was lost to another vile right winger Richard Burr...so NC has Liddy Dole and Richard (tort reform Burr). It was said he was pressured to give up his seat so that Erskine Bowles (former Clinton COS) could run once again (but Erskine had already lost to Elizabeth Dole four years before) so Erskine ran for Edwards seat and LOST AGAIN!

Elizabeth should have run instead of Edwards...She's wonderful and I've heard good things about her. Edwards to me is an opportunist...but I know there are DU'ers who feel his "populist message" should make him a good candidate. I think he's slickly packaged and his heart might be in the right place but he hasn't got the political experience ...only being a one term Senator with no other Political experience would make a very weak President, I would think...

That's what I know ....(And I have several "form letters" from him that I've kept in my files where he gave a "non-answer" to issues I wrote to him about.

[ultraist]

7. Oh, here we go again...

Are you going to tell that same old tired story, again?

Of course he refused to walk out on dedicated Democrats who had donated their hard earned money to the Democratic party and were there to hear Senator Edwards speak. You are not conveying the story in the same way that I've heard many others tell it.

I volunteered almost every day in the Kerry-Edwards headquarters and most everyone that volunteered, was there primarily because Edwards was on the ticket. Kerry had said early on, that he didn't need to win a Southern state and people didn't forget it nor did they overlook the fact that Kerry pulled the ads in NC, early in the campaign and invested very little here.

Volunteers were in tears when the Kerry-Edwards ticket lost and were not pleased, that Kerry refused to fight for the votes as Senator Edwards encouraged him to do.

[KoKo]

16. I was in tears when Kerry/Edwards lost, too....and I worked for the ticket

donated, phoned and walked the streets...yard signs, everything. I was a precinct Co-Chair.

As for my experience protesting the Kerry fundraiser...your complaint made no sense. You said he refused to walk out on Dems that had donated their hard earned money to talk to protestors. What about "this protestor" and others who had given their hard earned money to get him elected? I was invited to that $1,000 a plate fundraiser (because we were big donors to Edwards--only the big donors got that invite) and there I was out there protesting because he refused to talk to the Dems who supported him about why he supported that war.

The gracious thing to do would have been to stop on his way in or his way out for a few minutes and acknowledge us out there and give his reasons. Instead he acted like Bush....too above it all to speak to his constituents who had worked and donated to get him elected Senator.

I was there...were you?

[ultraist]

48. Now it's up to $1000?

Previously you had written that the cost of the ticket was a lot less than that and that people pooled money together to get one person in. Whatever.

The gracious thing to do would have been to work WITH the NC Democratic party who put the fundraiser on, rather than against them.

And no, I wasn't at that fundraiser but I've talked to people who were.

You are claiming that Senator Edwards is not accessible based on that one situation at a fundraiser put on by the NC Democratic party when in fact, he is very accessible to regular people:

Vlog DailyKos diary: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/24/84530/8735

[KoKo]

55. No.....I never wrote that...you are confusing me with someon else...

It was a $1,000 a plate dinner, fundraiser. The cost is only important in that I thought it was ironic that I was invited but was standing outside protesting because of his Iraq War Resolution Co-Sponser with so many who had donated lots of money to him...who could have been inside, but felt it was more important to express our concern and to ask him to talk to us about why he did it.

He ignored us. What would that mean he would do if he was President and some in his own Dem Party wanted to meet with him about a policy issue they were concerned about. :shrug:

[ultraist]

59. Edwards is very responsive to his constituents and supporters

The protestors outside of the Democratic party fundraiser might not have gotten the response they wanted, but to take that one incident and make the claim Edwards is not responsive is silly.

The fact is, if we want to be effective, we need to work together, as Democrats of North Carolina and undermining a Dem fundraiser is not a good approach, imo.

[KoKo]

67. Our "Business" gave him a very large donation....so don't trash my post

like I don't know what I'm talking about.

[ultraist]

76. You were trashing Edwards

And I pointed out that your that Edwards is not accessible to regular people, based on that one incident with the protestors, was not a fair claim.

Why did you make a big donation if you don't support him?

[PresidentWar]

180. Edwards supports the Iraq War Crime

So he won't be getting so much as a passing thought from me.

[ultraist]

185. Edwards does not support "the Iraq war crime"

Where do you get your "info?"

Edwards has said we need to IMMEDIATELY pull out 40,000-50,000 troops from the most stable areas. He has spoken out about what a mess it is in Iraq on many occassions.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060823/NEWS01/60822086/1099

Asked about the war in Iraq, though, Edwards spoke like a man who has carefully considered his positions on world and national political issues.

“Anybody with any sense knows this isn’t working,” Edwards said. “We need to change. We need to make it clear that we’re not going to stay in Iraq forever, and the best way to do that is to withdraw 40,000 or 50,000 troops from the areas of Iraq that are most stable, which can clearly be done, and to formulate a plan that will allow the Iraqis to provide their own security and be able to govern themselves.”

He also has clearly said his vote for Iraq was wrong.

http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wp20051113/

The Right Way in Iraq

An Op-Ed by Senator John Edwards
Washington Post
Nov 13, 2005

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and what many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong — and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. con't...

[CollegeDUer]

87. John Edwards plays the Establishment game on many things

He speaks up for the poor in a way, but I know who he keeps company with and it weakens his rhetoric. He tries to be both a Bush and Kucinich in personality.

He's niether, for better or worse.

[citizen snips]

88. Edwards is no Bush

and in the 04 primaries Kucinich said a lot of good things about Edwards.

[1932]

139. And didn't Kucinich say on the Daily Show that he liked

Edwards?

[MontanaMaven]

174. They are friends

They were allies in Iowa. If Edwards supporters didn't get enough votes to get the 15% needed in the caucus, then Kucinich supporters would go to Edwards and vice versa. It happened in the caucus I was at. So again, no one thinks Kucinich is a weasel and he likes Edwards. Ergo, Edwards is not a weasel.

[KoKo]

196. Just because "Edwards is no Bush" we DU'ers need to support Edwards

"against all others?" :shrug:

What the Heck is THAT????

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I cannot speak from personal experience, and as an emigree

of only 15 years I am not really entitled to call myself a North Carolinian (I think 5 generations is the minimum qualification), but I have not heard those comments from unbiased sources -- though there's been plenty of it from people with an exe to grind. As a lawyer he's gone up against some powerful interests and made more than a few enemies who, of course, claimed he was taking these cases for self-aggrandisement. They might be called sore losers.

My only misgivings are that in the VP debates I really expected him to tear Cheney a new one, but he came across as downright restrained and gentlemanly - I was more expecting our attack dog to go after *'s attack dog. I don't know if that is a liability or not.

[blm]

4. I think Edwards gets mixed reviews because many people misinterpret

him.

I think much of it comes from his striking looks and expectations of those who have that type of look.

Edwards the person is a very serious-minded man. But people rewarded him throughout life based on his exterior presentation and whenever he fulfilled their expectations of charm to go along with the looks.

I understand, because I lived it. Because of my looks I was always "let in" but never "fit in" because I wasn't the jokester or one who charmed people with fluent small talkiness. I was always very serious-minded - The Debbie-Downer type. No surprise to most longtime DUers. ;)

I think Edwards is caught up in alot of that - He's touted as a Bill Clinton-type, but he doesn't have the attention to charm naturally, as Clinton does. I think strategists are wrong for trying to sell him like that.

In Walter Shapiro's book on the Dem primaries, he points to Edwards' serious nature as who he really is. Personally, I appreciate that actual nature of the man and wish more Americans were less attracted to glibnesss and charm and regularness as the media has been telling them they want.

[Armstead]

12. You? A debbie Downer?

Actually some of us have the opposite problem. We don't have the superficial packaging, but people assume we have the depth.

I'm always told how "intelligent" or "poetic" or "artistic" I look. I always hate to disappoint them with how shallow I really am. :)

[blm]

14. Yep - How many people do you know who warned their families/friends about

the Taliban and their ties to terrorists in 1996 and 97? Heheh

[Clark2008]

27. I don't get the "striking looks" thing.

To me, he looks like a Ken doll.

Sorry - must be an "in the eye of the beholder" thing.

[GreenArrow]

31. well, lots of people like Ken dolls

which are very, very safe and non-threatening. They can be dressed up however one wishes.

[blm]

37. It's not my type, at all, but I have to base it on what MOST people notice

first, and that is his appearance which "strikes" most people as attractive.

I was never attracted to the Tom Cruise type of looks, even as a schoolgirl - I always liked the guy wearing the glasses. And when I was in high school I had an enormous crush on Dennis Kucinich who was making his first run for office at the time.

[venable]

39. I know him well

and this is right: He is very serious, very thoughtful, and this can come off as arrogant to those who are inclined not to like him. He is often lost in thought, and has the capacity to follow a thought, be it a legal matter, a personal one, or a political one.

There are some people who just want to not like him...and so he is attacked as slick and opportunistic.

He is neither. He is extraordinarily kind, extraordinarily principled.

Elizabeth could have had her pick of men when they met, and she saw in Edwards a kind, decent man.

One way to answer the question in the OP is to ask: What kind of man would Elizabeth marry. You can also look at the quality of their marriage, and the kind of family they are.

[blm]

65. It wasn't hard to figure out for me.

Almost everywhere I went in my early adulthood I was faced with the female versions of what Edwards went through. It can get downright ugly when you turm out to be someone other than what "they" want you to be.

[Texas_Kat]

82. Rumor has it that he's much more like Bill

than you could possible imagine.

[venable]

83. if you mean philandering, that is ridiculous

and offensive to even post, since it's so profoundly the opposite of how he conducts his life. I can't take much more of Rove World.

if you mean something else, forgive my tone, and please explain.

[KoKo]

5. Armstead....why not post this in the NC State Forum, here. You might

get more opinions that would be helpful.

[Armstead]

10. Good idea.

I didn;t know if outsiders are welcome in state forums..

But maybe my roots would give me status as an honorary North Carolinian. :)

[KoKo]

15. Oh yes....anyone can post in there.....

Good way to find info if you are visiting a state, too. Just to get the spots that are good to go...restaurants and stuff like that.

I imagine you will find a few folks who like Edwards there. ;-)

[ultraist]

50. Armstead

I think it's better you posted here, it gets more exposure. I would not have seen this in the state forums because I rarely go there.

[ultraist]

6. North Carolina LOVES Senator Edwards!

I was just at an event with Senator Edwards and Heath Shuler this past Tuesday and vlogged the event.

I will be posting a diary on that here on DU, this evening. There are four videos which may give you some idea how rural Western North Carolinians feel about John Edwards. ;)

John Edwards is well respected and admired in the area of NC that I live in as well, RTP. He has lived in this area for years (aside from his time in DC) and has strong community ties here.

I can assure you, "he is not a nice man" is a mischaracterization!

[Libby2]

8. I love him too.

He is my first choice.

[ChiciB1]

23. ME TOO! Has Been Number One For Me For A Very Long Time!

I would LOVE to see Gore/Edwards, but if not then it's Edwards for me. I have many reasons why, but if he actually did serve as a VP first we would be building toward the next election.

I only saw him once, but he sure was GOOOOOOOD! And his wife Elizabeth is simply fantastic!

[citizen snips]

9. I agree

I live in Raleigh and Edwards is the best NC democrat there is.

[Armstead]

11. Thanks -- That's what I'm trying to get a handle on....

When the criticisms of him comne from Right Wingnuts, I dismiss it.

The reason behind my question is that most of my relatives there are basaically liberal Democrats, who don't have an ideologicval axe to grind.

Maybe it's kind of like Kerry here in Massachusetts. The image of him personally ranges from those who think he is remote and disconnected from the homefolks to those who have stories about how he has been very generous and helpful to local people and groups behind the scenes.

[KoKo]

18. NC is such a huge state that there are many types of Dems. It's also

conservative. I grew up in SC lived in the Northeast most of my life (CT, NY and NJ) Came back here and am now in NC. SC has gotten so RW since I grew up I don't recognize it so NC is far better for Dems. Still, the Dems in NC aren't as Progressive as the Dems I knew in the Northeast. That's probably why I'm hard on our politicians. I'm more progressive than most folks I meet and compare politicians here to my experience in the Northeast.

I still say that Edwards lack of political experience in governing would be a big minus if he decides to run. We are going to need a really experienced person at the helm of this sinking ship in 2008. I don't think Edwards has the political experience to knock heads in the House and Senate since he was only a one termer and he has no governing experience. He would be great in the cabinet of a new Dem President, though. He would be an asset to our Party serving in a new administration. I'd even think he might make a great VP candidate if he wants to try it again. Just more of my 2 cents...

[ncrainbowgrrl]

111. I'll politely disagree.

I'm from NYC originally. Grew up in a democratic-party loving family. While many NYC dems (and I'll argue that only PARTS of NYC) may be more progressive than NC dems. However, I'm not sure the same holds when you compare NY progressive democrats with NC progressive dems. We don't have the luxury of being able to take anything for granted. We know what's at stake, and I'd venture to say that more progressive democrats in North Carolina are willing to do more than checkbook activism than their NY State counterparts to create the change that we wish to see in our respective states.

Remember when Kerry and Edwards came to NC State? I've never seen a crowd like that- willing to stand for HOURS without water, crammed into predetermined sections so that most people couldn't move?



I agree that he'd be an EXTREME asset to our party in a new administration (Attorney General, perhaps?) He's an asset now, as he's campaigning for other dems. He's an asset to dems and americans in general working on the poverty issue- even if he's just keeping the isssue in the news via his celebrity, which some may claim. (I don't agree with that assessment, personally)

There is definitely a progressive movement in North Carolina. And I'm proud to be part of it.

[saltpoint]

113. ncrainbowgrrl, thank you for posting that photo of the 2004 campaign,

the one where Kerry-Edwards won in Ohio and where Bush-Cheney cheated in Ohio, throwing the election to a vacuous numbskull instead of the gleaming champions who deserved the mantle.

I am, even at this late date, jealous of every single one of those people at that rally. I attended one in Tampa a couple of days before the election, and it was a charged and happy event (opening with a great set from the Goo Goo Dolls), but it wasn't as large as the one you just posted.

Thanks for that.

[citizen snips]

119. I did not get to attend that event.

But Edwards came back and had another big event that I attended.

[saltpoint]

120. Hi, Mattman. I tend to get stuck these days on the 06 Congressional

races but that photo put me in the mind of presidential races.

I think you were right to go to the Edwards event. He's already been on one national ticket and I think he's going to be on another one real soon.

[citizen snips]

127. It is very memorable to go to events like that.

I shook Edwards hand so it very memorable for someone as young as me can be involved in events like that.

And I have a feeling we can take back the congress this year.

[saltpoint]

129. Mattman, it doesn't matter if you 19 or 119 -- by going to events like

that one you are doing it right. Thank you for showing up and for shaking the rightly-elected Vice President's hand. (I hold that Bush cheated in Ohio.)

Memorable. You said it. The decades are going to soar by and I have a hunch you aren't going to forget that handshake.

Go, Democrats.

:dem:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

124. Are you talking 'bout the Bon Jovi event?

That was another awesome one. Our "team" of volunteers got assigned reserved seats...

We were picked to be part of a very calculated photo op and then after were done with that, we were to head over to the event...

The photo op used very strategically picked volunteers (age, gender,class, race, veteran status, ...and also those that had worked previous events and were known entities to the advance staff)

We stood outside the Pullen Park voting station to cheer for Edwards and shake his hand after he voted. However, the freepers also showed, and there were more of them than us, so the photo op was scratched for PR reasons... However, we were all on the news.

Our "advance guy" made sure to get us into the limo/police escort/menagerie- so we zoomed down hillsborough st- going through ALL the red lights at 45mph!!

[citizen snips]

128. Yep.

I got better tickets because I promised to canvess the next day.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

121. You're more than welcome!

I volunteered at the event, and was passing out free water bottles to people in the sections reserved for state democratic elected officials and other "important people". The volunteers had to get there before 11am, IIRC, and K/E didn't get there until after 2 or 3pm. People started showing up at 1pm, barely after we had finished helping set up the facility- carrying bike racks and locking them together to manage crowd control (homeland security's answer to real security- interlocking bike racks.)

I got a mild sunburn- was out in the 90+ degree heat until the rally started to break up (5:00pm?) At one point, it felt like I was drinking one bottle of water for each time I went into the crowd with a backpack filled with waterbottles.

It was such an awesome crowd- about 25,000 persons there- from all walks of life. I have to say- it was one of the best days I've ever had doing anything political. Both Johns spoke, and so did Teresa and Elizabeth. The crowd was captivated- especially by the wives of the candidates. Teresa's stories about the background that she came from, and thus her love of democracy and freedom was inspiring. It felt like Elizabeth connected somehow with EACH person in the crowd. I don't remember what she said. All I can remember was that the hot dog vendor stopped selling his wares so that he could listen to what she was saying... and people in line for food didn't seem to mind, as they were also drawn to the stage in some weird way.

[saltpoint]

122. O god that was a Day of Democrats and it makes me homesick for

missing it. I was nowhere near North Carolina at the time, but I'm homesick for it anyway.

Thank you for getting sunburned and for passing out water to people in the heat.

I see what you're saying about Teresa Heinz and Elizabeth Edwards. They are dazzling.

[ultraist]

170. The Raleigh rally in the photo

That rally was awesome. I was one of the lucky volunteers upfront.

It was a homecoming rally for Senator Edwards, right after the VP announcement. NC was fired up! North Carolinians were so proud that one of their own made it on the national ticket. Nearly 30,000 people showed with only a few days notice of the rally! Amazing.

[saltpoint]

171. Thirty-thousand people. That's a pile of folks. Long after the fact I

congratulate them. It's great that you were in that throng, ultraist. Way to go.

And I don't think their cheering days are over. Elizabeth Dole is monkeying with the works over on the Republican side, and I just don't see her running for re-election. Also I think she loses her recruitman Chair job for the GOP Senate.

I would consider North Carolina a battleground state, and a strong Democratic ticket might do the trick.

[ultraist]

187. Yes, NC is definitely in play for 08!

We have a good shot at swinging the state in 08 with the right candidate at the top of the ticket.

I recently read that Charles Meeker, Raleigh mayor, may run for Dole's seat. If not him, there are other Dems that could take back that Senate seat.

It might be a very good year for NC in 08!

Thanks for the congrats.

[KoKo]

197. You mean "Mr. Meek" who ran on making "Real Estate Developers"

ACCOUNTABLE for the stuff they build that makes taxpayers pay for more schools that the "Developers" BUILD (employing needy Illegal Mexicans) and where he was ELECTED to STOP THIS SHIT...and Raleigh has had the BIGGEST BUILDING BOOM OF OVER NEW DEVELOPMENTS catering to those who can afford the over $500,000 (low mortgage price range) NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN IT's HISTORY just MUSHROOM under "Mr. Meeker/Meek!" This guy DID SHIT for those who ELECTED HIM!!! He was no better than a RAMBO REPUG...in destroying Raleigh with these "New Developments" that bring in more kids that we can't fund in the school system all because Raleigh depends on REAL ESTATE OVER EVERYTHING ELSE for EMPLOYMENT!!!!!

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I guess our NC Dems who aren't members of the "Dreaded Progressives" would say: "THAT'S A GOOD THING!"

:puke:

[ultraist]

204. "employing illegal Mexicans"

You sure don't sound like a progressive. "Illegal Mexicans?" Hmmm...And trashing yet another NC Democrat? Are you really a Democrat?

With the growth that Raleigh is seeing, primarily due to RTP, there has been a high demand for more housing. With the jobs, come the families, who need homes to live in. Meeker is not in control of our entire RTP job market and economy. lol! Get a grip.

[PeaceProgProsp]

205. Are you sure you're a Democrat?

I second ultraist's comment.

[Divine Discontent]

203. yes, but the Goo Goo Dolls didn't do Iris!!!!

lol...

Kerry waved at me leaving the event, me and my best friend were the only people within 100 feet of the SUV he left in, and we waved and he smiled heartily and waved back, I about cried.

They are both good men.

I also saw Sen. Nelson there, and called him "moon man", he laughed, and probably thought, you lil bastard. lol


that was a great event, but I was on the back side behind the stage on the road between where you were and the arts center. I saw the Dolls leaving their trailer, Kerry come in and go right to the 'john'. I so thought they'd win, that damn osama tape bush put out, and the theft of Ohio prevented us from having them as President & Vice. We're all really cowards I fear, for not stopping the obvious theft of democracy... I cannot sit by this time if it's obvious again we win, I will protest day after day if they steal it again.

[saltpoint]

214. !! That's wild that you were there! It was a balmy night there by the

Hillsborough River, wasn't it? I watched Candy Crowley set up her CNN station and do a few preliminary reports. I also saw her talking with people in the audience and was struck by how polite and humble she was toward them. Sometimes on CNN I get a powerful GOP vibe from her, but she was the soul of bipartisan protocol that night.

Kerry-Edwards would have been SO much better than the two shitheads we have in there now. It's not measurable, even with Bill Nelson's NASA gauges! Bush has been a disaster and Cheney is a soulless lizard from the word 'go.'

You're right on the Goo Goo Dolls' playlist -- but they did sound great that night. There were some people around me who were laden with Kerry-Edwards buttons and hats and when the Goo Goo Dolls kicked in, they were thrashing around in a delirious joy. Some of the happiest, most fluid Democrats you ever saw in your life!

[mnhtnbb]

13. Opinions are varied about John Edwards among North Carolinians

There's a very strong progressive group in NC--at odds with the
Governor's good 'ole boy style politics. Gov. Easley never once
attended a Kerry/Edwards event--he always had an excuse. There are Dems who think John is terrific, there are others who resented his focus on campaigning for the White House once he was elected Senator.

Personally, I think Edwards plays well in front of a crowd. I don't know how he is one on one. Among the candidates, I think Edwards would match up
well against any of the Republicans. I think he could actually win some
Southern states.

[KoKo]

17. I'm one of the "Progressives" you speak about. Easley didn't even

attend the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner..a huge Dem Fundraiser and he never showed up at any big Dem Event I've been to. The "Independent" newspaper even did a "teaser headline" awhile back asking where Easley hides because he's either out of town or somewhere else when a Dem Party event happens.

And...he never did a thing to help Kerry-Edwards. I hope Elaine Marshall goes for Governor. She attends EVERYTHING!! and is down to earth and a sweetheart!

[dsc]

71. In fairness to Easley

His rep appears to be that he really hates the gladhanding side of politics. It may well be that he just didn't want to go period.

[citizen snips]

19. I am still glad Easley won.

This state would have gone to hell if what's his name was elected.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

30. Oh, gosh- Ballentine. I hadn't thought about him since that election.

:scared:
I think that was the only good news from that night... that man (Ballentine) was like a used car salesman with a full dealership of crap to unload!

[Jamastiene]

133. Ballentine was creepy and came off as

a phony kind of nice to me. I don't trust repubs to begin with but then that guy came off like that. He was never getting my vote. :scared:

On Easley, he seems mostly moderate to me. He doesn't seem all bad or anything like that. I basically like him. I sure couldn't vote for a repub, but I like to feel at least somewhat positive about the dem I am voting for instead of ho-hum about it. I'd say Easley has more good points than bad points. There does seem to be a nice progressive movement on track in NC right now. I'm not predicting a blue state switch yet, but if this momentum keeps up, who knows? Easley may know that if he allowed himself to be associated with anything progressive in this red state, it would be political suicide for him here.

I've never met John Edwards personally, but I have read a lot about him. I tend to be a good judge of character. He doesn't seem arrogant or un-nice to me at all. I am only speculating on that though.

[ultraist]

49. Easley was at Senator Edwards farewell tour event

Easely was at Senator Edwards farewell tour Raleigh event, right after the election. I happen to think Easley is doing a pretty good job for our state.

But you are right, as far as I know, Easley wasn't at any of the major Kerry-Edwards event. Kerry was in NC only twice during the campaign. He wrote the state off which is a shame, because we could swing NC and it would pave the way to take back the South in general.

[MontanaMaven]

20. Edwards is a serious guy

He is not Mr Sunny front guy like Reagan or Clinton who were optimists, but also both very gregarious. Edwards is more like a Robert Kennedy. Optimistic too like Clinton & Reagan, but more of a serious roll up your sleeves and let's get to work kind of guy with little time for small talk. I have never had a one on one chat with him. Was going to two weeks ago. If I get the chance, I will have a better idea. As a former Hollywood agent, I have a pretty good eye for talent and now as a cattle rancher, I have a pretty good nose for bull sh*t. What I can tell you is that I campaigned in Iowa with his nieces, his law school friends, his law partner and the Judge that tried the Lackey case. I liked them all. They were fun and smart and down to earth as were the young people and old who came from all over the U.S. to Iowa. I campaigned with a 19 year old who was going into the Army. He came on a bus all the way from Albany, New York on his own dime. He said, "I want John Edwards to be my Commander in Chief." He trusted him. I'll never forget that.

And I always say, "Look to the wife". Can't imagine Elizabeth Edwards married to a schmuck. He also keeps growing and learning. He admits mistakes and then moves quickly to fix things. I like that. I want someone wicked wicked smart and I want someone to lead a whole movement not just win an election. He's the only one with a vision for America. The only one that wants to make us all proud to be from the USA again. So far, this Yankee is still convinced that this man's time is now. I could care less about the "having a beer with the guy" litmus test. There are too many fake populists around. What I call warm folksiness disguising the same old boy bullying which doesn't really believe in small "d" democracy. Edwards does believe in it and use it. Look at his blogging. He gets it. He believes in inclusion, not exclusion.

[AspenRose]

21. I agree about the RFK thing

He really reminds me of RFK.

[ChiciB1]

24. You Just Said It All! I Was Going To Go Into More Detail With

my first post, but you pretty much nailed it. I really think he wants to do some good for America and isn't the opportunist many say he is.

He went right out after the election, rolled up his sleeves and went to work for those less fortunate. I see that Kennedy thing here... help those less fortunate even though you have "made it" yourself.

And coming from scratch I think he DOES understand about "hard work" that The Idiot talks about, but never did in HIS life!!!

[chimpymustgo]

35. MontanaMaven, welcome to DU!! You hit the nail on the head about JRE.

Excellent post...

"...And I always say, "Look to the wife". Can't imagine Elizabeth Edwards married to a schmuck."

Have you read "Four Trials"? To know him is to love him (and Elizabeth!).

:hi:

[MontanaMaven]

61. I've read 2 of the 4 trials -

Thanks for reminding me that I should read the other two. Judge Farmer and his lovely wife Martha campaigned for Edwards in Iowa. Judge Farmer tried the "Lackey Case". He said that Edwards summation was "the finest he had seen in his 30? years on the bench. And that's why he was in Iowa. The Judge and his wife manned the phone lines and went door to door! Inspiring.

[bobbolink]

47. He's like RFK? OK, then, sign me up! ^_^

In 2004, he was too conservative for me, but given that he is the ONLY DEM now actively working for poverty issues, he had my attention.

When I heard that he had a talking with Lamont, and made Lamont realize that he MUST include poverty as a priority, well, that did it for me!

Go, JOHN!!

[MontanaMaven]

62. I consider myself quite a leftie, so I was surprised at my choice

But I did a lot of research and read all his speeches and watched him in the debates and in the town meetings in Iowa. His eloquence instead of the mind numbing speech of the rest of the candidates (except Al Sharpton)was the first plus for me. (I'm a theatre/film person and hate management speak.) His quickness on his feet in town meetings was impressive. His emphasis on jobs, poverty, reducing crime, reducing prison population all were not politically sexy, but so important. Then his practical ideas for getting things done nailed it for me and my rancher husband. We "trusted" him. You have to have vision, but you also have to be able to pitch it to the public and to Congress and to the World. He can do that. A good movie has a great team behind it; the lead, the scriptwriter, the producer, the director, the money people, the grips, the gaffers. We all have a place on his team. It's like hooking yourself up to an amazing power generator. It's power sharing, not power grabbing.

[LWolf]

84. As an Edwards-neutral voter, I appreciate your input.

Most of it, at least. I have no real opinion on Edwards either way, at this point.

My one area of dissent is this statement:

He's the only one with a vision for America. The only one that wants to make us all proud to be from the USA again.

I am really turned off by "the only one" campaign rhetoric. It's not true, and it's divisive. To be honest, that's the tactic that I have not forgotten, or forgiven, from the '04 primaries. It's a quick way to turn me from serious consideration of any candidate this time around.

[MontanaMaven]

172. Thanks for the "only one" critique

Typing too fast. Hyperbole and generalization is not my usual style. Rewrite:
In 2004, I saw Edwards as having a vision for a different kind of America than one consumed with consumption. Bobby Kennedy, my first candidate, asked us to not judge progress by the GDP, but by the quality of life for each of its citizens. That's what I see in this man who asks us to be better; to care about one another; to "care about the least of these" like Jesus taught. And in so doing, we help ourselves. I want a leader who will put the "can do" back into the description of Americans. A leader that makes us proud again to be a worker and not an investor. I want a leader who wants our help and who includes us in the vision. And I want a leader who can communicate that vision with clarity and conviction. My choice was and still is John Edwards.

I think each of us can and should make reasoned and passionate appeals on behalf of the candidates that we like.
There will be times that we must point out differences. There are times for partisanship. One thing we all must try not to do is act like "Conservatives without Conscience" like John Dean talks about. We should never resort to lies to get our point across.

So thanks again for the "only one" critique. Very lazy of me, especially that terrible second sentence. Yuck.
Everyone that runs for the Presidency "wants to make us all proud to be from the USA." Heck, that's what George W. Bush ran on. He thought Clinton had sullied America. Still thinks so. And he probably still thinks he's made us proud to be Americans, the flag waving kind. This is why I love blogging. Makes me think and makes me a better writer.

[1932]

176. Anyone who wants to read a good book about how GDP should NOT be the

only measure of progress should read Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom.

[Catchawave]

22. His book "Four Trials" is a good read.

I've been an Edwards supporter since 2003, and continue to remain inspired by him,we love him in Virginia too :hi:

Here's some jacket notes with hopes you'll enjoy this book one day!



Here's what Sen. John McCain wrote:

"In Four Trials, John Edwards has written movingly of people who were terribly wronged, and whom he helped seek some measure of justice with great skill, determination, and genuine compassion. He shows a perceptive appreciation in these accounts for the strength of his clients' character. And, the loving portrait of his son, Wade, and the deeply touching account of his loss, John reveals the strength of his own character and gives the reader a look beyond a political biography into the heart of a good man."

***

Also Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote:

"I've known John Edwards since his election to the Senate in 1998, and I'm always impressed by his background as a successful lawyer and his reputation as a fighter for the underdog. But nothing prepared me for the power of this book and its moving stories. Anyone who reads Four Trials will have new respect for the genius of our legal system -- and instantly understand why lawyers are so indispensable to the 'little guy' and so hated by those in corporate America who are held accountable."

***

[NCarolinawoman]

25. I slowly became disillusioned with him.

I was a big supporter of his when he first ran for the senate. I really talked him up to my many relatives in Eastern NC who are a bit on the conservative side. But about three years into his term, I just stopped taking John Edwards at his word.

I guess my loss of faith in him started when he said he was going to lead the fight against North Carolina off-shore oil drilling. Not only did he fail to make a speech about this on the Senate floor, he didn't even show up to vote. As I remember, he went to a Presidential fundraiser for himself in Tennessee.

Then, of course, there was the IWR which he co-sponsored with Leiberman. One of the things that bothered me about this is that he refused to acknowledge his supporters who were against the war.

Then after that there was his response to Hurricane Isabel. I have relatives in the area that was effected, and his lack of response to the people of this region really hit a nerve with me. Here is a link to what that was all about:
http://www.newsobserver.com/573/story/304886.html The article is entitled:
"Couldn't get to Ahoskie from here"

I think John Edwards is very intelligent and quite calculating. From what I have heard from people who are acquainted with him, he is said to be a bit shy. I know that sounds strange, but actors are also a bit shy and many good trial lawyers are actors. Frankly, the shyness doesn't bother me one bit. I don't care if he is shy in real life. So what. I do care how he has conducted himself as a Senator. It is there that I do, indeed, think he has been dismissive. I feel that a first term Senator, who uses the campaign words, "I will remember each and every one of you", owes his constituents one solid term before he starts spending more time in Iowa and NH than in his own state. It shows that he honors the institution and the people that put him in there. One solid term could also be a great learning opportunity, which could then be applied to a run for the Presidency in the future.

I will also say that it is worrisome to me that he went to Israel in June and stated that he would support a military attack on Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. I know he mentions that he would use diplomacy and an embargo first, but at this stage of the game, I don't think a military attack on Iran should even be brought up.

I just want to ad that I really wish I COULD support a Presidential candidate from my beloved state of North Carolina, But the times are so darn serious now, I just don't think he is up to the job to do all the things that need to be done to fix W's horrendous mess.

[citizen snips]

85. Hurrican Isabel was so scary

it was so horrible that my power went out for two hours. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

110. I'm really glad that Hurricane Isabel didn't affect YOU.....

Guess that no one else counts?

Sounds great from one who supports John Edwards and the Poverty/2 America talk!


About 525,000 customers in North Carolina and 1.8 million in Virginia lost power during the storm. The Virginia total was almost double the number affected by Hurricane Fran in 1996. It took six days to completely restore power after that storm.

As the storm weakened, it moved through several states as a tropical depression, leaving at least 27 dead in seven states.

release from Pepco, which powers the Washington area, including parts of Virginia and Maryland, said "unprecedented damage" would take "a week or more before everyone's service is restored." Pepco reported Friday more than a half-million of its customers were without electricity.

Both companies said they had organized large work forces of repair crews to take on the job and recruited workers from faraway states to help.

Dominion has 7,000 repair workers on the job, Staton said, double the usual number. Pepco said it had more than 700 crews working 12-hour shifts.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/09/19/isabel/index.html

[citizen snips]

112. have you every been in a hurricane?

Hurricane Iseabal was nothing compared to hurricane Fran and hurricane Floyd. It did hit the coast the heardest. But from my perspective it was not as bad as some of the other hurricans that have hit my area.

[FrenchieCat]

125. Well.....

You really don't have to "minimize" a Hurricane's damage in order to defend John Edwards....! :eyes:

Anyways, to some degree.....I'm really just giving you a bad time at this point.

I really don't care about any of this much beyond the fact that Edwards' just not the guy I would want in the White House cause I really do believe that he leads from the rear. Beyond that, I don't think that he's a bad guy or anything.

Plus, none of what I might say mean that Edwards won't end up in the White House anyways.... :shrug:
It's not like he needs my stamp of approval prior to visiting Iowa 10 times or anything!

[citizen snips]

132. well it has been a lively debate.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But at this point I will have to say good night FrenchieCat.

[Jamastiene]

135. Hugo was big for us.

There is even a night club, named Hugo's, in my hometown, after that hurricane. Floyd devastated areas in eastern NC with flooding. Fran was a monster too.

[citizen snips]

145. I would have to say that Fran was the sacriest.

[Jamastiene]

148. Fran was very scary too.

It still amazes me how one hurricane can affect one group of cities and another can affect another. I don't trust hurricanes at all.

[citizen snips]

149. I hope we never have another Fran

Isabel is tolerable but Fran was ruthless.

[lildreamer316]

208. I remember that.

Pretty bad. Without power for days; which is VERY weird here in the Piedmont.

[Clark2008]

26. I can tell you the vast majority of North Carolinians don't love him.

People of non-white ethnicity, Arab-Americans, people of color, non-Protestants, etc.

After 9/11, my former brother-in-law, who headed a NC State Muslim group, begged and pleaded with Edwards' office to meet with him and other Muslim representatives to ask the senator's help in exposing the average American to Islam and what it REALLY teaches and how what the hijackers did was not in the spirit of Islam. In other words, they wanted Edwards' help to educate their fellow citizens and form an alliance with other religions to help prevent terrorism and future attacks.

He not only blew them off, he went onto support the wrong war and the PATRIOT Act.

Most North Carolinians I know called him "Senator Gone" because he was always off promoting himself instead of taking care of his constituents (I'm in neighboring Tennessee, btw, and have a number of friends who moved to NC after college).

When I first sat down in the summer of 2003 to find a primary candidate I liked, I researched Edwards both online and by asking those North Carolina friends and family members - most of whom were Democratic, left-leaning or, in the least, thought Bush needed to go - and that's the word I got.

[venable]

42. according to polling and voting patterns

you are wrong about NC African-American voters, who support Edwards in large numbers.

[Catchawave]

52. Camp Lejeune Marines like him better than Bush !

...trust me...I know !

[ultraist]

53. According to what?

What are you basing your claim on again? Talking to a few friends? Funny, because I happen to talk with a whole lot of Black folks that are both friends and acquaintances and they love John Edwards.

"Most North Carolinians call him Senator Gone." Wrong.

[citizen snips]

86. I live in NC

and I have never heard Edwards being called senator gone.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Well I guess that you are not listening as closely as you could.....

it would seem....

http://www.ncpress.com/frontjumpPilotJohnEdwards.html
PILOT EDITORIAL: Edwards Should Do His Day Job
June 25, 2003 edition.

During his 30 years in Washington, Jesse Helms was known as Senator No. Four and a half years into his first term, John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone.

That's because Edwards, North Carolina's senior senator, has developed a habit of missing floor votes while on the campaign trail in pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination. He missed every vote last week, and since the beginning of June, he has cast 14 votes while missing 16.
--------

[citizen snips]

114. Do I hear echoes of Dick Chaney in here?

That is the same criticism that Dick Chaney made against Edwards in the VP debates.

[FrenchieCat]

123. Guess he got it from somewhere.....

By the way, what was Edwards' response when Cheney said that to him?

[citizen snips]

131. I don't remember.

but I Bush and Chaney did spend a lot of time campaigning instead of in the white house.

[ultraist]

188. What's up with parroting right wing smears?

It seems to me, Democrats, should not be relying on rightwing smears to support their claims. Interesting.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

115. I HAVE heard it...(As you might guess, I'm also in NC)... HOWEVER...

I've only heard it from republicans and supporters of other candidates in the 2004 primary living in NC.

:shrug:

I personally wish that the "Senator Gone" title could have gone to our other senator! (at the time)

[citizen snips]

116. Do you think Dole deserves that title?

[ncrainbowgrrl]

117. Who? Oh, right- she's our senator...

Well, at least when not working hard for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. :rofl:

She's great at that job :rofl:

[citizen snips]

118. she even sucks at that.

The DSCC is kicking their ass. :dem:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

126. Exactly. IMHO, she's doing a great job (for OUR interests- for once!)

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

130. LOL! Liddy's gone from the Red Cross to the Red Loss. If we take

back the Senate, we'll have to all send her thank-you cards.

[Jamastiene]

136. Same here.

I live here too and have never heard that one either.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. Shocking: a Clark supporter slagging Edwards

This is so beyond tiresome.

Go ahead, alert the moderators; that's the standard tactic.

[chimpymustgo]

72. Hi Purity!! Long time...

:hi:

I'll just say again...it's great to support a candidate who gives you so much positive to say about HIM (or her)...so much confidence and optimism...that you just don't feel the need to try to tear another guy down.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

29. I just spoke this evening with a handful of Democratic county chair-

persons.

They say that Edwards behind the scenes is giving and open, and even more so when he and Elizabeth are together. Two of these folks know them from Edwards' Senate campaign in North Carolina.

Edwards climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro with his then-15-year old son, Wade, who died later in an automobile accident. That gives me an insight to the sort of person Edwards is.

I think the warmth that Elizabeth and John exude is genuine.

[Catchawave]

54. Hi OC !

As always, a wonderful post, no matter *who* the subject is :hi:

I posted earlier on this thread his book titled Four Trials w/some jacket blurbs, which proves more than a political biography, it's also a peek into this man's soul. From both sides of the aisle :)



:yourock:

[saltpoint]

57. Hi, Catchawave. Nice to see you. I'm behind in my reading

as always, but will try to get to the Edwards book.

I love that Webb insignia in your post. The numbers are starting to turn in Webb's favor in Virginia, at least according to the latest poll, and that has us salivating for a big Democratic win in the Old Dominion. Keep up the good work!:toast: :hi: :dem: :dem:

[FrenchieCat]

32. I am an "other"....not a Carolinian......

I do think that John Edwards has many pluses that gives him the edge over many other politicians interested in presidential politics; good press, a good PR team, a smart and well reputed mate, a youthful image reminiscent of JFK as well as an artfully crafted message and image, and the ambition and assertiveness to be good at playing the game required.

I do not believe him to be as positive as many others do, however. Instead I find him to be quite cunning and calculative, and I understand that he oftentimes has others doing his dirty work while he keeps his hands clean (not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to politics and the art of winning).

In the end, I do not consider him a leader (Based on his measurable actions; he did co-sponsor and vote for the IWR and the Patriot Act)....but do consider him as someone who could get to the White House based on doing his homework on "election strategy"; adopting issues as his own that he believes will get him the votes with the audience that he is after (take his letter on Darfur just a couple of days ago--and then read this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2599431 -- It is excellent that Edwards is raising the awareness on this issue--but he is not a leader on this but rather a "Johnnie come lately"...although many won't remember his late "timing" later on). Whether or not he truly believes that he can "do" and will "do" something about his "pet" issues remains to be seen.

Unfortunately, I personally don't think that Edwards has the gravitas and the executive experience required to lead this nation at this time. I also don't think that his track record concerning his instincts on Foreign relations are sound. I also fear that the national security issue is his weak point that his inexperience in the subject matter could possibly cost Democrats the Presidency in 2008 if he is our nominee...as this is still an issue that can and will be easily manipulated by the Republican at "crunch" time.

Further, I don't think that he actually was as big an asset on the 2004 ticket, no matter the excuse given by his supporters.

This video helped me see what I do believe may be the true character of John Edwards, as opposed to what he often presents-- I certainly could be wrong, but to date....this is how I see him.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

[Catchawave]

34. Meow...

Didn't the Bush Campaign coin "The Breck Girl" nickname? That vid is very popular on the wingnut websites too :hi:

[chimpymustgo]

38. Call it out, Catchawave! I love talking MY guy up. No need to tear anyone

down. It's a good feeling.

[Catchawave]

43. Thanks....

I just get so frustrated to see swiftboating on DU, no matter who the candidate is. I'd really rather work *with* other Dems than against them !

Sidebar: George Allen has the strongest political resume in Congress right now, should I support him for President ?

[venable]

40. Frenchie Cat, shame on you, and shame on Green Arrow

so the guy is about to go on TV and he tries to get his hair out of his face. Good grief. If you use this a a criterion for how you feel abou the guy, you should be ashamed. I'm surprised, really, because your posts are often very smart.

I would think you would be beyond what the RW tries to do to the guy.

I say the same about GreenArrow's (another usually smart poster) post calling him a Ken Doll. I could use your technique, then, and compare you to Rush Limbaugh, who attacks Edwards in precisely the same way. I won't make that comparison, though, because it is shallow and incorrect.

So is your comparison, and so is Frenchie Cat's video. Shame.

I know the guy, and he has a tremendous amount of gravitas, seriousness, kindness, and compassion - and so says anyone who knows him well. He also is well beyond this silly kind of attack, ie he is operating - I'm pleased to say - at a much more sophisticated level of thought and analysis. Check it out, mates, you might see something you like when you get past his hair and his looks.

[FrenchieCat]

44. I am not "ashamed" of anything I said in my post.......

The question was asked in the OP, and so I responded on how "I" felt about John Edwards. I hope there is nothing "wrong" with me providing an honest answer. DU is NOT a rubber stamp on what's what....but rather it is a political forum in which debate and dissent is allowed, last I checked.

In reference to that video, it is not a Right Wing video....nor is it "my" video. It is on the "Slate" site, which is considered a moderate progressive site, which is what John Edwards considers himself.

My statements were not attacks....they were opinions and facts. To call it silly without responding to any of my statement except to call the Slate Video a Right Wing attack does not suffice and saying that I should be ashamed does not either.

To call me a Rush Limbaugh because I dared link a video that does show, uncut, the amount of time John Edwards fussed with his "looks" prior to presenting himself is what is silly. It is John Edwards in the video.....and he did what he did. I didn't comment on the video beyond stating that I believe that, FOR ME, FOR NOW, it does provide some insight on his character (the video doesn't mean that the man can't be vain and compassionate at the same time, cause I guess he could be). What you miss is that you don't have to agree with my interpretation of what, FOR ME, the video reveals.....but equating me as a right wing hate monger for my opinion is actually more of a Rush Limbaugh technique than anything I posted in my posts....here and the previous.

You see, not everyone is going to conclude that John Edwards is Presidential material.....(and I know many a times when I have had to provide facts about the potential candidate I support, when posters stated things that I didn't think were true of him....however, I just tend to respond with facts that offset or rebut whatever criticism are posted--with links and sources at that!)

If you are going to respond to reasoned criticisms about John Edwards, I suggest that you do away with the name calling and use more rational debating tactics. I think it will work better in actually allowing others to understand who John Edwards is according to you.

In the end, just because you don't like something...doesn't make it not so.

[venable]

45. Your quote is

"In the end, just because you don't like something doesn't make it so".

Let's agree on that, and recognize that this truth cuts both ways, for both of us.

I would not call linking a hair brushing video "reasoned criticisms". I am responding strongly to you linking the video, as if it has anything to do with anything. You even say it 'says it all', or something like that, regarding what you think of Edwards.

Also, I did not compare you to Rush Limbaugh. I pointedly said that I would NOT make this comparison because it is shameful to say that someone is like someone else because they use the same 'critical' device, a device which ignores substance. In any case, I was referring to Green Arrow there, and his Ken Doll comment, and how it echoes Limbaugh's Breck Girl. I know that Green Arrow is as far from Limbaugh as I am, so I would not make the insinuation. I ask that the same respect be shown to Edwards, and that you guys not make judgements about him because he had the audacity to comb his hair before a tv appearance.

I am not trying to pick a fight. And I can respect opinions about Edwards that differ from mine. But this Ken Doll and hair brushing stuff is so low and irrelevant, and it comes up all the time, and I just think you (and Green Arrow) are much more sophisticated than that, based upon your usual postings. Let's lift this debate up a bit.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I respect you not wanting to pick a fight....and please know that

neither am I. However, I will say that in your choice of choosing to only comment on the very last sentence of my original post while ignoring the bulk of everything else I stated there in reference to John Edwards allows me to also conclude that your reaction to my post was selective in you questioning it's "reasonability".

Sure, you can determine that folks shouldn't form any opinion based on that video......superficial or otherwise--however, the link to the video does add support to my view that to some degree John Edwards certainly does pay close attention to his superficial positive qualities...enough so, that one could be perfectly justified to consider the notion that his image is a carefully crafted one (regardless as to whether his talk is sincere) and that he certainly is aware that his appeal is not just based on words coming out of his mouth....but also the fact that he is, to many, an attractive fellow.

The truth of the matter is that a part of John Edwards appeal is his appearance (regardless of those who would deny it), and the video speaks to his understanding of such.
Is that a bad thing? No, I don't necessarily think so.....

So why you would want to minimize the fact as to what one might surmise when viewing that video is understandable....but minimizing it as though the length of time and care spent on his coif is not unusual for a man (who I'm sure would prefer that we regard him as low maintenance and more likely concerned with more serious matters) would not be truly honest, IMO.

[venable]

64. Frenchie Cat, the point is well taken

and the main thing is that supporters of decent, progressive democrats understand that there are going to be personal gut reactions to any one candidate. This is normal. I have little bad to say about any serious, progressive Democrats - except when they triangulate on issues (I'm talking to Hillary here). Some rub me the wrong way personally, but so what? I can maintain that gut reaction as a personal dislike, be it large or small, and still look at what they say and do. As for their sincerity, that is mainly a 'felt' thing, and there is little one can say to change someone's gut feeling.

As you know, my objection was only with the video link.

Your other points are well taken, but I would disagree about his experience. I think he has gained, in the Senate and in his travels since, the experience and the weight to carry himself and the country well in all affairs, both foreign and domestic.

The one question mark is, of course, national security...BUT there is not a single Democratic candidate, whether they be a general or a lawyer or a governor, who has any real experience in national security (of the Homeland Security type). We've been out of power since the Agency was formed. I agree that this is an electoral challenge. Just as it is for every single other Democrat.

As to the OP - I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here: JE is an extraordinarily fine, thoughtful, genuine person. Look at Elizabeth for an idea of what I mean. Also - someone mentioned his personal shyness. It's true. But only with people he doesn't know well. Publically, he is strong and eloquent and principled. This is the guy that those close to him see always.

[Catchawave]

56. I like Wes, but

his supporters (generic) are killing him on DU. Fortunately, I've found other progressive blogs that aren't as threatening !?

Your post would be eaten alive on Kos. So sad :cry:

I also would still like to consider Wes for my Dream Edwards Cabinet, but it's getting really toxic here, so no thanks.

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

60. If "his"supporter can turn you off from a politician....so be it.

and instead of being "put out" by your comments, I will thank you for your honesty in how you feel, and how you determine your support or non-support for a given politician. If that is what politics means to you.......so be it......

Me, I will continue to measure any politician, based on what they have done and what they have actually said.....in particular to determine whether they are qualified to hold the highest office in this land.

If criticizing John Edwards and not supporting him 100% is considered "threatening" to you.....there's not much I can say about that.

[Catchawave]

66. ..so be it....

..let's "criticize" republicans for a change, literally. That would be refreshing!

[ultraist]

51. More right wing smears...

You use a 3 second right wing smear video to determine what someone's character is? LMAO!

You might want to look for something with more substance and creditability. ;)

[PurityOfEssence]

70. Clark, Clark, Clark. Must destroy Edwards.

Edwards didn't know his place and bow, scrape and leave the race when the great hero rode in on his charger. Clark has every right to lie about Edwards' voting record because he's superior.

This is an endless refrain from you. If you have moral outrage at any of Edwards' actions, you can't possibly like Clark; Clark's shown himself to be an extreme opportunist, a total narcissist, a fellow-traveller with the Republicans and deceitful on many issues. He's for vouchers, then he's always been against them. He's always been against the Iraq War Resolution although he was for it and advised others to vote for it before the die had been cast.

Once again, most of us Edwards supporters stay out of the endless Clarkfest threads, but the extreme Clark partisans find no parade too small to be rained upon.

[1932]

75. And it's not like

Clark doesn't care about his hair. In the army, you can be court-marshalled for having the wrong style hair.

RW'ers (and strict father "Democrats") love the hair thing with Edwards because it feminizes him, which they think will keep him from being president so long as they can convince Americans that in a climate of fear, we need strong men wearing flight suits with socks stuffed in the crotch, or ex-generals with medals on their chests making decisions for the masses, whom, if they don't exactly serve them, at least they keep them safe.

It's like when Ann Coulter said Edwards had soft, small, feminine hands. The guy was a walk-on wide receiver as a freshman at Clemson (before transferring because he didn't get an athletic scholarship sophomore year) and he beat a Tar Heal at a game of horse last summer. So, why would Coulter say that? Because it feminizes Edwards.

So, that's why some people love the hair video. They'd rather vote for a guy whose meticulous about keeping his hair at 1/4 inch, or who is meticulous about spraying it into the "Trent Lott" -- the trademark, Republican helmet hair style because that's masculine?

[FrenchieCat]

79. Great that you continue to "focus" on the hair situation.....but,

No one really seems to want to volunteer to rationalize John Edwards vote and participation on the Patriot Act, nor his co-sponsorship and vote on Lieberman's IWR.

Is there a reason why you think that those who consider those actions taken by John Edwards to put him lower down on their list (or remove him all together) for 2008 should be compelled to just "fugit about it"..... and join the ranks of those who want to reward John Edwards with the presidency although it appears that his instinct on doing what's right are not in his track record....regardless of his hair?

[1932]

140. How can this be your litmus test when Clark said that he would have voted

for IWR?

In one of his books he says that, all things considered, Iraqis are better off because of the invasion. Was that good instincts?

And if these are your concerns, why did you link to the picture of the hair? And why do you accuse me of focusing on the hair situation -- as if it's a sign of weakness of my argument -- when you're the one who brought it up? You want to have your rhetorical cake and eat it too? You want to invoke RW smears and then accuse people who respond to you of avoiding the real issues?

[FrenchieCat]

147. Please cite page number and quote of what Wes said......

Remember, I don't go for the Okey-Doke...."coz you said it, must be true".

You, in fact, are the one that used to be found in every Clark thread attempting to summarize and paraphrase what Clark didn't say or write. If there was any Edward poster to be found in "Clark" threads....it was you.

Further, Clark testified against giving a blank check, testified that we needed to concentrate on Osama, and that Iraq was the least of our problems, and that we would be opening up a Pandora's box going there, and that we would be supercharging Al Qaeda recruiting in starting something there.....and he said these things many times publicly, openly and on television. He was quoted by name by three of the 23 senators who ended up with the better instinct to vote AGAINST the IRW.....and wasn't quoted by any Senator who voted for it.

Meantime, John Edwards was saying something quite different.

Hope you don't want to compare what Wes was saying in 2002 vs. what Edwards was saying in 2002 in reference to an Iraq invasion and a possible vote on it. If you do, I'm ready.

Lemme know.

[1932]

150. There used to be such interesting discussions in those Clark threads

about things that were so different from what Clark said about himself in those two books which I had read so recently before posting in them. I've moved on to different books and have different discussions now. But I'm always willing to go back and check my underlinings in those books.

Read from the last paragraph on page 100 to the last paragraph on page 101 of Winning Modern Wars: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=Is7UW5d6X2wC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&vq=%22better+off%22&dq=wes+clark+winning+modern+war&sig=qon2fMSPM4dSLwf1Gf6KYd_4IqQ

Note the sentence surronding the words "surely a success". Note how Clark hedges his bets with "all things being equal...the Iraqis are better off."

And for the vote:

Clark Shifts Position on Iraq War Resolution
On Hill Vote, 'Never' Replaces 'Probably'

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 20, 2003; Page A10

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark reversed course yesterday on the issue of Iraq, saying that he would "never have voted" for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war, just a day after saying that he likely would have voted for it.

On a campaign trip to Florida on Thursday, Clark told reporters, after some equivocation, that he "probably" would have supported the Iraq resolution approved by Congress last fall, though he went on to say that he was "against the war as it emerged" and that he did not believe the war should have been launched when it was.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org /

That was from this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2773250

[FrenchieCat]

154. You again interpret Clark's words for him.....

To begin with.....Wes writes, "all else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people were better off without Saddam."

I agree with that......it's not like Saddam was Santa Claus or anything, or do you think otherwise....or does John Edwards, John Kerry, Howard Dean, or anyone else for that matter?

That doesn't mean he is saying that what had been done was the right thing.

His next sentence states as a matter of fact...."BUT the US actions against old adversaries like Saddam have costs and consequences that may leave us far short of our objectives of winning the war on terror--or in themselves may distract from our larger efforts."

Further he is discusses on page 101 the fact that attempting to democratize Iraq would bring on specific problems, including terrorism, cultural, political and economical challenges.

His book prophesied exactly what was and what ended up happening. His books states the facts that had happened, and what would.....

You sir/maam are attempting to have him make statements in a vaccum.....which is why you support John Edwards.

In addition, Clark did support a specific resolution.....but it just wasn't the one that Edwards co-sponsored which was considered the blank check resolution.

Clark stated specifically the issue of giving Bush a "BLANK CHECK" via a Resolution. This was an issue he discussed on the Al Franken Show recently.....

Here's the exchange.....
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I went to several Senators, including I think a couple who later ran for office, and, for the Presidency. I said, "Don't believe him." (laughs) "He's made up his mind to go to war. Don't give him a blank check."

Al Franken: Mm Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But they gave him a blank check. I said it on CNN, "You can't give him a blank check." And I said it in the testimony that you have to make sure that there's a resolution. It's got to be a broad resolution so we can go to the United Nations, but it doesn't and shouldn't be a blank check.
http://securingamerica.com/node/932
===============

On August 2, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "We seem to have skipped some steps in the logic of the debate. And, as the American people are brought into this, they're asking these questions." CNN, 8/2/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."CNN 1/23/03
http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

-----------
There were some of our prominent leaders who chose to listen to the words of Wes Clark, and reacted the better for it!

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[1932]

155. You're not going to touch "spectacular success"?

Clark said that he would have voted for the Congressional resolution when asked in Sep. 03. Then he said he wouldn't have.

How can you say that anyone who voted for it shouldn't be president? Would you have said that Fulbright, McCarthy, Humphries and Gore Sr had no business being president because of their Tonkin Gulf Resolution votes?

[FrenchieCat]

157. Of the armed forces........

in where he specifically praises the soldiers, not the policy? Where he writes of the bravery of our soldiers? Their willingness to give up their lives?

Why would the General find fault with the soldiers....who's job is simply to do what they have been ordered?

Hell Naw! Are you? Is John Edwards? :eyes:

[1932]

159. He says Iraq was an antidote to Vietnamitis. Not carrying through

with a mission because of political apprehension was put to rest in Iraq. (He says in another part of the book that he wrote a masters thesis on this issue, so Vietnamitis is something he has thought alot about.) He says in another part of the book in his tick-tock of the invasion that there was a moment when the media started to have second thoughts about a week in, and he suggests this was remedied by embedded reporters sharing the human drama of the invasion -- a good thing in his mind. (This is in, about, page 69-72.)

In my opinion Clark's attempt to separate the problem of war into "soldiers-good; bush-bad," and "Iraq bad; virtual empire good" isn't working for me and the reason can be partially encapsulated in this: it is not wrong that Vietnam ended due to political pressure. Vietnam was wrong. And going off about the masculinity of the troops, and heady atmosphere of the triumphalism (a good thing), and imaginations being fired by mobile, virile troops may help Clark with his project of finding the antidote to Vietnamitis, but it's bad for democracy, in my opinion.

No one should spit on any American soldier. But what Clark does at the beginning of his "virtual empire is good" chapter (when he talks about how masculine and practically erotic it is for soldiers in Iraq to speed across the desert to kill Iraqis is, in my opinion, just wrong. I have a hard time squaring that with the theory that Clark is anti-Iraq war. Criticizing how Bush is executing this war doesn't give me comfort that Clark really has any perception of how neoliberalism is destabilizing the world and can't continue -- and this is particularly true when I hear him say and read his books which say that we could have won in Vietnam if politics didn't prevent the armed service from dropping more bombs on Vietnam. Even if we won in Vietnam after dropping all the bombs the armed service (and defense industry?) wanted to drop, we would have lost. (IIRC, WelshTerrier2 really exposed this issue in his exchange with Clark at TPM Table for One.)

In any event, Clark really tries to balance two sides of this issue. He wants to be the commander -- the guy who knows everything about war and loves the troops and wants to protect the missions from political influence because he knows America is masculine enough to win -- but he also wants to criticize the war as Bush is executing it. This ambiguity manifests itself in his books and in all the quotes where, in one instance the invasion is great, and in the other, there was a better way to do it. It's a confusing message of a guy who doesn't want politics to get in the way of the armed services carrying out their mission, yet a guy who wants to use politics to win an election on the issue of mishandling war so that he can be president. (Would "irony" be the word to describe a guy who wrote a masters thesis on politics undermining Vietnam but is now a politician who is criticizing a war?)

IIRC, there was a Judy Woodruff-moderated debate in 2003 where this confusing dichotomy was laid bare after the two of them went back and forth for almost 5 minutes while clark tried to explain how he could laud the execution of the war in one moment and criticize it the next.

This ambiguity is hard to resolve especially considering Clark believes that US empire is good, so long as its virtual, which is great if you are an America because you don't feel like you're killing people with armies to get what you want, but it's a distinction without a difference when you're a victim of a virtual empire that is killing your nation with poverty while Americans get rich.

As I said to you a year and a half ago, I read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man shortly after reading Clark's second book and it established a much more compelling argument about what is really happening in the world. They both address the same period of American history -- WW2 to the present. COAEHM says that US foreign policy has been consistent throughout this time, the invasion is the third step in the process of empire, where virtual empire (which Clark likes so much) is what leads to it. Clark says that American empire has been generally executed well and that Iraq is an aberration that could have been handled "virtually." I don't find that view compelling at all. I think it's wrong.

[FrenchieCat]

164. Your problem is that you assign your own meaning to

"Virtual" empire and attempt to morph it with Bush's New American Global Empire.....all in the name of making Wes Clark appear ambigious, when it is you who is attempting to have it both ways; to distort the meaning of his words by making up the meaning of words and then throwing them out there as though you have actually "come up with something".

As noted in the Nation's Book Review of Clark's book....(and they obviously understand the distinction between "Virtual" empire and the Neocons' "new" "American" Global Empire), there is a difference between the two, just like there is a difference between Soft power and Hard Power. Duh!

Here it is again....

In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion.

Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031208/fitzgerald

John Edwards is the one that supported the War but now doesn't. He is the one who said one thing, and then changed his mind 3 years later and said another, after the damage was done. John Edwards is the one that thought that invading Iraq was for National Security purposes...but also admitted that it was to make Israel safer.

and further......John Edwards in this statement basically "bought" Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.--Me, I don't want a President like that....cause I didn't Buy Colin POwell and his vials of powder and his cartoon drawings! :eyes:

Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

In your attempt to "explain" John Edwards is by throwing stones at Wes Clark.....you only make John Edwards seem even more clueless at a time when he should have known a whole lot more.

As you are one of his supporters, considering.....I'm not surprised that you don't know of what you speak of.

[FrenchieCat]

165. A few things....First, Soldier, good/Bush Bad.....is also how I would

sum it up.

are you and John Edwards saying "Soldier/Bad, Bush/Good" or is it "Soldier/Bad, Bush/Bad", or is it "Soldier/Good, Bush/Good"?--You see, you make very little sense.

Apart from the Virtual Empire reference (although you don't know what it means, obviously)...the rest of the stuff you mention is made up shit that isn't in Clark's book in the way that he wrote it.

In reference to Vietnam, Clark felt that part of why we lost there was due to this gradual high altitude bombing. He was correct!

You crack me up....cause in one part of your post you have the nerve to even say..."A good thing in his mind"....like how in the hell did you get into Clark's mind to know?

Let me provide those reviews again...cause it is painfully obvious that either you read a different book then all of the able reviewers who write for progressive medias did.....or you just don't want to interpret what Wes wrote the way most sane folks would!

Review from the Gardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091...
The first 100 pages analyse the recent war in Iraq. Clark commanded US troops in the Iraqi theatre in the early Nineties, and provides useful insights. The true problems for senior commanders are supply lines and troop deployment timetables, not battle tactics. The secret of American military superiority, Clark shows, is, in addition to massive transport capability, a hitherto unheard of degree of co-operation between ground troops and air power. Only recently have the secure communications been developed that allow concepts of 'battlespace' rather than 'battlefield' to become a real-time reality.

He is scathing about the failure by war leaders to plan properly for the post-conflict period. This he attributes to a natural tendency of the American political and military establishment to play to their strengths. A marine in Iraq told me his job was to 'shoot people and blow things up'. Moving beyond that has proved difficult for a conservative Pentagon and civilian leadership suspicious of anything smacking of 'social work'.

The latter part of Clark's book is devoted to a sustained attack on the conduct of the 'war on terror'. Clark says the current administration's bullish unilateralism, dependence on military force, disdain for international law and institutions have been profoundly counterproductive and run against everything that made American great. He says, rightly, that military power should be the last resort and can only succeed when used in combination with diplomatic, social, political, economic, cultural and developmental measures.

America, he says, risks winning individual battles, even campaigns, but losing the war and losing itself. His analysis, manifesto or otherwise, is accurate, timely and important.

Review from Asian Reporter
http://www.asianreporter.com/reviews/2005/22-05winningm...
Drawing on his deep military experience at home and abroad, General Wesley Clark analyzes the U.S. invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq and its relationship to the struggle against global terrorism in Winning Modern Wars. According to Clark, the American war machine is a dominant force unlike any the world has ever seen, except perhaps the Roman Empire at its apex. Yet the mess in Iraq should be a clear warning that we have much to learn about wielding our power effectively.

snip
In this age of embedded reporters, Internet bloggers, and instant news, "Public opinion itself has become a weapon of war," Clark explains early on. Winning Modern Wars shows that this supposedly retired general is still ready to fight, delivering a "Take no prisoners" assault on the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.

General Clark knows what an effective military force looks like, and has nothing but praise for the amazingly competent American soldiers who delivered the decisive victory over Saddam Hussein. But if success results from the work of soldiers on the ground, it is unfortunately errors at the highest levels of leadership that lead to ultimate failure.
Snip
Worse, the whole fiasco in Iraq was nothing but a grave misjudgment by the Bush administration in the first place. There should have been no need for a postwar plan because there should have been no war in Iraq at all. On top of a laundry list of American mistakes laid out by Clark, including spurning of allies, lack of focus on Al-Qaeda, and coddling of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Bush’s September, 2003, statement that Iraq constitutes "The central battle in the war on terrorism" encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the American response to 9/11.

snip
Most of Clark’s criticisms have been raised before, first from protestors on the street and later from disaffected staffers at increasingly higher levels inside the U.S. government. But Clark is no partisan shill, and has real credentials to back up his arguments; he has served as both European Supreme Allied Commander and Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Pentagon. The knowledge he displays of the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the U.S. Army is so thorough that anyone who wishes to understand the campaign in Iraq and the larger war against terror has to sit up and take notice. We can choose to ignore Clark only at our own peril.

"Powell's Books Review"
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=1586482181
General Clark criticizes George W. Bush's handling of the American Empire, especially as it concerns the War in Iraq. He argues that the war was conducted with brilliant tactics but flawed strategy and that vital opportunities to go after Al Qaeda were missed. Larger questions of Empire are discussed in concluding chapters, with Clark arguing that the "very idea of a New American Empire in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire created since the end of World War II" and calling for a "more powerful but less arrogant" foreign policy.

Review by Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=539&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
This is actually three books in one, tied together by the common theme of the leadership failures of the Bush administration. The first three chapters recount the history of America’s preemptive strike on Iraq. The next two show how those actions have distracted us so badly from the true battle, against international terrorism. The final chapter could serve as a draft inaugural address, as Clark details his vision of a collaborative American strategy for success in an interdependent world.
snip
As a veteran leader with a global view, Clark also decries how the Bush administration broke treaties and denied international obligations with impunity. Such a unilateralist approach caused us to lose so much of the international sympathy and support which had arisen after the 9/11 attacks. By casting aside more than fifty years of strategic alliances, we have left ourselves at risk legally, financially, and militarily.

The Nation - Book Review
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031208/fitzgerald
Most of Clark's views about the general direction of US foreign policy will sound familiar, for most are shared by the other major Democratic contenders. However, this book is nothing like the goo usually served up in campaign literature, for he is also a very good writer: logical, lucid and concise. Moreover, he has much of interest to say about military operations and the relationship--or lack of it--between specific campaigns and the overall US security strategy. He is well qualified for the task.
snip
In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us, there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste for empire, and the international community had turned against the war. As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched, and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.
snip
In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.

[ultraist]

169. Clark would have voted for the war

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

<B>Clark Waffles on Iraq War </B>

General Clark says he's been "very, very clear" about opposing the U.S. war with Iraq, but earlier statements show otherwise

Summary

In the October 9 debate on CNN, General Wesley Clark claimed his “position on Iraq has been very, very clear from the outset,” adding, “I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war."

But that doesn't square very well with what he said on earlier occasions. He said he supported a resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq when Congress was about to vote on it, and he wrote that<B> “President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud” as Saddam Hussein's statue was being toppled by American soldiers in Baghdad.</B>


Analysis


Clark was emphatic in the Oct. 9 debate:

The answer is very clear. The answer is, I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It's that simple.

But What he said earlier was different:
The Associated Press reported:

<B>Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.

Clark wrote :

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. "

[1932]

177. Tearing down the Sadaam statue was staged.

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting did a story on this on their radio show, CounterSpin.

"Joyful"? How about "phony"?

And I think that every historian of war knows about the historical precedent -- the US and many countries over the last 100 or so years have sent out phony mobs to tear down statues and then used the images for propaganda. I'm sure many knew then that it was staged in Baghdad to elicit the very emotions that Clark is pushing in that quote. I don't know how you can be anti-war when you're also playing that game. I'm agree with Factcheck.

[FrenchieCat]

178. You would agree with Factcheck.......

And would take clark's article out of context....but fortunately too many folks know how to read.... even if you don't. You pull sentences from his article...like a simpleton would, rather than understand the entire article like those who are more intelligent have.

But we've had this discussion before, and so you know how the article really goes, and what it really means.....and so in effect I feel even sorrier for you, because you have chosen to propagandize about Wes Clark, mainly due to your understanding that you cannot defend the truth about John Edwards on the issue of the Iraq War.

[1932]

182. I don't know as much about Edwards's attitude about empire as I would

like to, but I get the impression from Clark that you can definitely be pro-(virtual) empire and use the language of imperialism while also being a (sometimes) critic the IWR. So, perhaps, you could have voted for the IWR (or the Tonkin Gulf resolution) and later regret it and all the while not believe that America should be an empire that exploits the wealth of other nations for the benefit of America (or, more precisely, American CEOs).

(Incidentally, I do remember Clark saying that low taxes are good for the economy in one of his books, and I remember that his tax plan wasn't interested in changing the capital gains tax rate, which, like (virtual) empire, is also good for American CEOs. Whereas, I would be surprised if a candidate who wants to allocate the tax burden fairly to ask the cap gains millionaires to bear some of the load would suddenly side with the CEOs on virtual empire...but who knows? I'll keep looking for evidence.)

[FrenchieCat]

183. In the future, when you are "remembering" what Wes Clark may have said,

try looking it up and providing the source. Please know your memory of what Wes Clark says is suspect...considering that even when you are reading his words, you still don't know what he really said. :eyes:

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top.

This was, indeed, a restoration. When the income tax was created in 1913 under grass roots pressure for a fairer form of taxation, it was assumed the income tax would be progressive - taxing the rich more heavily than the poor. And that's the way it started. In 1913 single people making $3,000 a year and married couples making $4,000 (a figure equivalent to $58,000 in 1994 dollars) a year were exempt from income taxes - they didn't even have to file a return.

Then the wealthy, their lobbyists, and their accountants went to work. Congress started chipping away at the progressivism of income taxes through loopholes, deductions, indexing, exemptions, and all the other parlor tricks that have changed "income tax" from a popular mechanism for fairness to a despised expletive. And the Democrats have been chief conspirators. In the past 40 years, during which Democrats were usually calling the shots in Congress, the top tax rate has been lowered repeatedly and special interest tax breaks handed out to Democratic sugar daddies.

But even that isn't the real story. The tax rate is irrelevant. The top tax rate can be a confiscatory 100 percent and the rich would end up paying little because of all those parlor tricks. And because of the Democrats' leadership against the poor (and their collaboration with Republicans in years of GOP congressional majorities), the debate on tax measures is always unbalanced and lopsided because today's counterfeit Democrats have lost their predecessors' skill and deftness in taking on the big boys. They inevitably cower before Republican claims that by asking for fairness, the Democrats are engaging in class warfare.

The two-time Pulitzer winning investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele, who specialize in exposing the soak-the-poor-and-middle-class features of the tax system, have made a career out of bringing these tawdry mechanisms to light. "Over time, much of the debate concerning tax rates would boil down to two phrases," Barlett and Steele have written. "Tax legislation that would increase the rate on the wealthy was called 'class welfare.' Tax legislation that would reduce the rate on the wealthy was called 'tax reform'."

The way the Democratic Party has been gelded by power and money can be seen in a tax break written into the Internal Revenue Code for a company incorporated here in Nevada. The code exempts from taxation much of the income of any company "which is part of an affiliated group which files a consolidated federal income tax return, the common parent of which was incorporated in Nevada on January 27, 1972 ..." There's only one company in the world that fits this description - Cantor, Fitzgerald and Company Inc., a corporation which (get this) helps other corporations avoid paying taxes. The language in the tax code was tailored specifically to benefit this one company, and a Democratic senator, Pat Moynihan, sponsored it. (We have Barlett and Steele to thank for bringing this to light. Reporters used to do such reporting all the time. Now we cover "news you can use" and dangerous Super Bowl dancers.)

Or there is the fact that the earnings of stock market shares are taxed at a 14 percent rate while the earnings of savings accounts are taxed at a 28 percent rate.

The tax code is shot through with these kinds of loopholes, thanks to the Democratic Party, which in the war on the poor has gone over to the other side, rejecting the view that money made by money should be taxed at the same rate as money made by workers.

Remember that this fall when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents.

[1932]

199. p. 198, Winning Modern Wars: "Tax cuts are a good idea"

Granted, Clark spends a lot of time plucking all the low hanging fruit in that book (yes, the Bush tax cuts have hurt the economy because they all go to the rich, everyone agrees on that) but has the Reagan-voting Wes Point economics professor peeked his head out with that comment? I don't know, but I'd like to know. You can't get something for nothing in America and tax cuts aren't always a good idea. I'd like to hear one of his lectures on tax policy from his days as professor so that I can understand when he thinks tax cuts are a good idea.

As for your quote: notice that it says nothing about increasing capital gains rates or the rates people pay on dividends (especially if, for example, income from those sources is greater than 100K or 500K or 5M). We went over this once before. Clark apparently does not believe that there's a problem with, say, getting a loan from Goldman Sachs to buy stock in a company they're dealing with and then selling the stock for a cool million profit with little work and no risk and then paying 150K in taxes on that million, while doctors, lawyers, accountants, and small business owners who have to work every day and take risks pay that much tax on a less than half that much income.

Clark does, however, want to roll all the tax credits into a family credit, which isn't going to do much for people who don't have families, like a 38 year old mother of an eighteen year old child who went to college at 30, are on the first steps of the career ladder but misses out on the tax credit because her child is no longer a dependent, or like single people who don't have families. How is it progressive to only give a tax credit to people with dependent children?

Like with the book reviews you post (some of which, you must know, are written by the publisher): you can find someone else who said something nice about Clark, but it doesn't mean that you're engaging arguments that are being made here at DU. (The same applies to personal attacks.)

[ultraist]

192. Clark was quoted in the NYT as saying he would have voted FOR the Iraq war

It's not just info from factcheck that shows Clark would have voted yes to the Iraq war, although they provided sources that are not rightwing smear machines, Clark said himself, he would have and was quoted in the NYT and posted on the progressive blog Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
by Adam Nagourney

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

-snips-

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

[CarolNYC]

194. "he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic..."

Well, that line kind of blows the credibility of this piece out of the water, doesn't it?

Whatever Clark did say about his party affiliation, it almost certainly wasn't what Nagourney characterized it as. Although he tells us he did vote for Republican Presidential nominees, it's not the same thing as being a Republican. Nice, sloppy reporting there...Par for the course for the media these days, unfortunately.

Thanks for adding that line to give some perspective on the story.

[1932]

200. Do you trust Dan Balz?

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 20, 2003; Page A10

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark reversed course yesterday on the issue of Iraq, saying that he would "never have voted" for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war, just a day after saying that he likely would have voted for it.

On a campaign trip to Florida on Thursday, Clark told reporters, after some equivocation, that he "probably" would have supported the Iraq resolution approved by Congress last fall, though he went on to say that he was "against the war as it emerged" and that he did not believe the war should have been launched when it was.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org /

[CarolNYC]

210. I've learned...

from hard experience, to not much trust any of them.

[1932]

211. Here are some direct quotes from that interview.

It's Nagourney again, so you're free to dismiss it as lies, I guess. But these are quotes.

Published on Friday, September 19, 2003 by the New York Times
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
by Adam Nagourney

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

General Clark also said in an interview that he would probably oppose President Bush's request for $87 billion to finance the recovery effort in Iraq, though he said he could see circumstances in which he might support sending even more money into the country.

...

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

...

At one point, Ms. Jacoby {Clark's press secretary} interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

...

"We are going to ask, `Why are we engaged in Iraq, Mr. President — tell the truth,' " he said, standing on a chair. "Why, Mr. President? Was it because Saddam Hussein was assisting the hijackers? Was it because Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon that might bring a nuclear cloud?"

The crowd shouted back answers. "Oil!" one person yelled. "Halliburton!" yelled another.

General Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. And we have to ask that question."


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

[CarolNYC]

212. thanks

Haha! Thanks for trying to be so helpful. No worries, I’ve seen that story before many times...No doubt you have probably posted it yourself a number of times. And General Clark has never himself denied those quotes that I know of so I have no reason to believe the actual quotes are not true.

I never said anything about “lies”, though. You seem offended that I would question the press. I did mention inaccuracies and sloppy reporting. I suppose if you're judging on the "close enough is good enough" scale, that can be equated with lies. And perhaps, with the press, close enough is good enough for you too...As I said, you certainly wouldn’t be alone in that. Call me crazy, but I still think the media should be held to higher standards than that.

[ultraist]

206. Clark voted for Reagan and Bush I

So, the idea that he was a Republican is not so far reaching.

[CarolNYC]

209. Perhaps...

but that doesn't make the statement accurate. So, he takes some facts and makes an inaccurate statement based on them. Not exactly reassuring to me.

I value accuracy from the media. Perhaps close enough is good enough for you. You certainly wouldn't be alone in that.

[CarolNYC]

179. anti-war

I agree that General Clark isn’t exactly anti-war. I don’t think he’d agree with that characterization of himself either. He’s a 4 star General, 34 year military man, for goodness sake! He does, no doubt, feel there are times when military intervention is warranted or necessary, as a last resort force for good. He did advocate for intervention in Rwanda, Kosovo, Liberia and now Darfur. He is very much like George McGovern, in fact, in his view of how and when the military should be used. “When you can do good, you should.” Reading Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” gives insight into both of these brave men’s ideas on use of military force.

As far as the Iraq War goes, you can spin it anyway you wish but General Clark did testify in front of Congress before the invasion and at least Senators Kennedy and Wellstone (I believe there are others) are on record referencing his testimony in explaining their “no” votes on the IWR. I have yet to see anyone reference his testimony as reason for “yes”, however.

Then there is this piece from a Gene Lyons interview in Oct. 2003, regarding Wes’ views on the war….

“I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too.”

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

Those statements are out there…Now, I’ve seen Kennedy and Wellstone called liars on this board for saying that Clark’s testimony was a part of the reason for their no votes. Maybe you’d want to throw Gene Lyons in with the liars in an effort to discredit Clark’s statements. Whatever….I don’t think any of those men are liars and their statements stand.

As for Edwards and the IWR, yes, a lot of people who should have known better were fooled but where I think Edwards differs from, say, people like Kerry who voted yes but were critical of the invasion from early on, as I remember it, Edwards supported the invasion and supported it long after I think he really should have known better. He was just way too supportive of the whole thing for way too long for my taste.

As I said elsewhere here, his answers to the moveon questionnaire early on in the primaries represented him as noticably more hawkish on the invasion than any of the others who answered the questions. (I would hope that Edwards was at least less hawkish than Lieberman, who didn’t even bother to complete the questionnaire.)

Perhaps he wasn't really that hawkish and just took that stance because he felt it was best for him politically to do so at the time considering the way the country was still reeling from 9/11 but that doesn't make me feel any better. I don't want my leaders making life and death decisions based on political expediency either. YM, of course, MV.

[1932]

181. This post cuts past the spin and gets to the heart of the matter.

and that, in my opinion, is Clark's attitude about empire. It is disconcerting to me that his books and his commentary is filled with the sort of textbook glorification of the military using imagery and words that are almost precisely the same as the images and words used to sell Americans on empire back during the Spanish American War. Dismiss it if you want as merely supporting the troops. But the real problem is the attitude about empire. If the argument is that we didn't need to invade Iraq because we could have used virtual empire to meet all our objectives (one being cheap oil), that leaves me cold.

There once was a healthy debate about American empire in the US which McKinley, unfortunately, won. But FDR, Truman and JFK were no imperialists (JFK once gave a speech in the Senate criticizing French imperialism in Algeria to which Adlai Stevens responded with anger because he was making money as a corporate lawyer at that point representing clients who made huge profits off of imperialism in Africa). I'm really hoping that Democratic party is blessed with a candidate who picks up the FDR-JFK (Mark Twain) baton on the issue of imperialism, and not one who's continuing Adlai Stevenson's path.

[FrenchieCat]

184. Bullshit and all that Jazz.......you seem to have an "opinion" on

Clark's attitude, but unfortunately, you never really source what it is that you are saying that he is thinking. You need to quit it!

We know that John Edwards went to Bilderberg.....and they are some of the most elistists corporatists there are. I don't have any idea of why and what he did or said there.....but I ain't gonna make some shit up, like you are routinely doing.

Wes Clark is proud of our army....cause unlike what many believe is the stereotypical Democratic attitude NOT to support our troops....he, and many others actual do.

It really is that simple.

And again, since you want to continue to spout about "empire", in hopes someone will buy the bullshit. :eyes:

(you must think that folks just don't read!--Unfortunately it shows a lot of arrogance in your approach!)

[1932]

201. The Dem Party supports the troops. They don't need to fetishize them

in order to prove it. (See Winning Modern Wars, p. 161-2, in particular -- the troops were "a magnificent site...taut and fit...like a genie emeging from Aladdin's lamp...magically powerful" -- but also above there are links to some interesting adjectives used to describe the troops.) And they don't need to pretend that Sadaam's statues were pulled down by anyone other than people hired by the Armed Forces propaganda department in order to show support. (See link above for cite.)

If I've said anything for which you'd like a cite, please let me know and I'll give it to you.

[CarolNYC]

213. Hey, since you're discussing Gen Clark's book...

...and especially since you bring up FDR, Truman and JFK, I thought you might be interested in this review of the book from the primary days. This political philosophy teacher even compares Wes with your big three in regards to his view of America's place in the world.

I include the link but it's no longer active....so I also include the whole review. I hope that's OK.
....................

How I became a Clark supporter

By Andrew Sabl

My support for Clark has not come naturally. I'm a partisan and liberal Democrat, no great lover of old Clinton staffers and smug New Democrats. I'm prone to value experience in democratic politics over the hierarchical values of military service. And when I heard that Clark had voted for Reagan, praised Bush, spoken at a Lincoln Day dinner, and said that he'd have been a Republican had Karl Rove returned his calls (no, I don't believe that he was joking -- though he may have been trying for sarcasm), I judged him an amoral opportunist and borderline con artist. In angry e-mails to a pro-Clark friend, I called the general an "ambipartisan" and summarized the Lincoln Day revelation as "Game Over."

But I figured I owed the largely unknown candidate a chance. Being a professor, I decided to read his book, Winning Modern Wars. After finishing it, I figured out what Clark is about, and why his candidacy is both baffling and compelling.

Clark clearly wrote the book himself. It's not the slick and scripted work of a ghostwriter. Put less politely, it contains errors ("populous" for "populace," "principle" for "principal"), and repeats itself in spots. It forgives Rumsfeld on a couple of points when a typical candidate would never make such concessions. It goes into more military detail than a non-expert like me finds consistently engaging or even comprehensible. The writing style is personal: mostly clear, usually forceful, often quirky, rooted in facts and details, sometimes bracing, occasionally bombastic. The book won't win any prizes, and doesn't have to. It's the work of a candidate, not a professional writer.

As such, here's what it says.

1. Clark is an intensely patriotic internationalist.

Scan that again: It's rare these days, and I welcome it fervently. Clark isn't indifferent or hostile to American power: He wants the U.S. to be the most powerful country in the world in a hundred years, thinks it will be good for the world if that happens, and is here to tell us how to do that. His answer is that of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. The U.S. triumphs when it supports institutions that embody our values -- universally attractive, if pursued seriously and humbly -- and further our interests -- to the extent that they're compatible with those of most of the world's citizens. (If you think that's a null category, you won't like Clark. Nader's your man -- or, contrariwise, Bush.) This means not always getting what we want, as the price of reshaping the world in ways we'll by and large welcome. Clark's take on recent talk of American "empire" is unusual in its focus on the soldiers. He points out, briefly and devastatingly, that we'll never have an empire, and shouldn't aspire to one, when our army is made up not of adventure-seekers and fortune-hunters but of "family men and women" (note that), "fierce, determined, religious, patriotic," who want to do their jobs and go home -- quickly.

It's a vision that Clark has clearly thought about constantly for decades and cares about deeply. And it's a perfect riposte to both Dean (whose foreign policy mixes ignorance, isolationism, and a smug moralism approaching Bush's) and the unilateralist thugs of our current administration. Remember what Solzhenitsyn called Russian fascist Zhirinovsky: "an obscene caricature of a Russian patriot." But that had bite because he was Solzhenitsyn: the patriot without the caricature. That's Clark.

2. Clark is essentially a pre-Sixties Democrat

Clark's main position on the culture wars is to find them (a) baffling and pointless and (b) a right-wing conspiracy to distract middle-class white guys from their declining living standards and an economic policy that gives everything to the wealthy. His take on Reagan Democrats/Angry White Males/NASCAR Dads (pick one) is essentially: "I understand why you feel neglected, scorned, and generally ticked off. The last thirty years have screwed you economically and demeaned you culturally. But dunderheaded jingoism will just guarantee exactly the bad jobs and eroded national pride you fear most. Be smart: Make a few sacrifices now to build peace and national pride in the future." The message is pitch-perfect: like something Clinton would say, except sincere.

3. Clark believes in fighting the war on terrorism -- hard, continually, smart, and to win. And he makes an excellent case that Bush's policies are guaranteed to fail at this.

Clark points out that we need homeland security -- but Bush policies have meant laying off cops and firefighters. We need to pursue terrorist networks through international institutions and alliances -- but administration arrogance has guaranteed that we lack influence in any country that we're not actually invading. We need peacekeepers and spies and development experts -- but the Rumsfeld policy in Iraq and elsewhere is to load all burdens on the Army, which can't take them.

Clark accuses the administration of going after states because those are the nails it sees -- given that armies that invade states in pitched battles are the only hammers it knows how to use. Clark doesn't criticize this primarily because it's immoral (though he thinks it hurts immeasurably our image abroad) but because it will get a lot of us killed, while poisoning the good will that should be the country's strongest weapon in the war against terrorist violence and the transnational networks that practice it.

On all these points, Clark seems clearly right. Just as important, this is a message that will sell where pacifism, conspiracy-mongering, or pretending al-Qaeda doesn't exist will not.

4. Clark clearly casts himself as the person making policy, not one of the people debating it.

When it comes to foreign policy, Clark is confident -- to the point, as universally noted, of arrogance. I say better this than Dubya or Dean, neither of whom combines his own arrogance with a tendency to know what he's talking about.

After reading the depth and intensity with which Clark has thought about foreign strategy, I realize why his position on the Iraq resolution looks like a waffle but isn't. For the last decade or more, he's clearly been thinking, "Where and how would I fight if I were in charge?" not "Which position would I take if someone asked my opinion?" So he doesn't care what resolution Congress should have passed (and, if he could be more honest than he can be, would probably point out that Congressional resolutions have never prevented a modern president from starting a war). He probably thinks that Congress should give presidents lots of discretion and that presidents should know how the hell to use it. And given that discretion, he wouldn't have fought in Iraq because there was no immediate threat.

This would be a dangerous outlook in a senator -- but is not a bad one in a president. And it explains all the waffles. I'm still waiting for Kerry to explain his.

5. Clark doesn't think the personal is political.

This is a good thing, in fact, an excellent thing. The book contains almost nothing about the inner demons that I'm sure Clark has. I can't imagine him answering a question about his underwear (or needing to). His summary of "American virtues" is "tolerance, freedom, and fairness" -- about as good a slogan for the Democratic Party as I can think of. His book exudes a welcome politics of "live and let live" rather than "endorse my pain." This is the kind of liberalism that could actually be popular.

Dubya is planning to make gay marriage a wedge issue in the campaign. If Clark is the candidate, "bring it on." I can already imagine what Clark would say about gays in the military: "What soldiers do in their personal lives is not my concern. And we should stop the disgraceful practice of persecuting people to unearth their private relationships. If a soldier impedes combat readiness by trying to pick up a man in his unit in a war zone, I'll sign his dishonorable discharge myself -- and smile as I do it."

6. Remember that the Army is Biosphere II: a piece of Sweden stuck inside a country that's becoming Brazil.

If Clark seems to lack opinions on domestic policy, it's because he's spent his life in a place that's seceded from domestic policy. In his recent health care speech, he said he was shocked to find out that ordinary people weren't required to get preventive checkups every year. Riff on this: He also hasn't had to think very much about people who lacked health insurance, couldn't afford college, or struggled to pay rent. The Army has people with low incomes, but ensures basic living standards and adequate opportunities for all. Clark's book convincingly articulates a case for making the rest of the country like that. Clark's long-running blindness to what Reaganism wrought is a flaw -- a big one. But now that he's emerged into the Brave New World (new to him), I think he gets it.

It's been said that Clark wants America to be strong at home so it can be strong abroad, not the other way around. It's true, and a bit jarring. But given Clark's clear conviction that Republican policies are undermining our economic security and the culture of opportunity that makes us so attractive abroad, this actually works better than I initially thought it could. (Look for Clark to do very well among Latinos, and immigrants generally -- or kids of immigrants, like me. He understands the American Dream, and how Republicans are running it off the rails.)

There's a reason Rove didn't return his calls.

Bottom line: Clark is a throwback, a Rip Van Winkle, a pluralistic, optimistic, Greatest Generation-style politician lost, like Howard the Duck, in a world he never made. He's further outside the mainstream political culture than can possibly be imagined. This is what makes him so striking, so hard to parse, and so clearly the best candidate.

Sabl teaches political philosophy in the Department of Policy Studies at UCLA.

http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php

[1932]

215. That's an interesting article, but it leaves me scratching my head.

As I've said elsewhere, I think Clark's book is filled with comments that good Democrats would make, but it's also filled with ambiguous, fence-stradling comments too.

I disagree with Sable that the end of Clark's feeling about empire is that it's impossible for the US to have a military empire. Clark goes on in Chapter 6 to say that virtual empire is preferable, and to him, virtual empire isn't just a de facto thing that exists out of the ether, but a network of non-military persuasive forces that the US should employ to further the US's interests. As I've said before, after reading books like Confession of an Economic Hit Man and Overtrhow (by Stephen Kinzer), I certainly get the impression that virtual empire isn't some new phenomenon of the Internet age. It's the same mechanism that the US has employed alongside military empire for the last 100 years. We really need to be more reflective of what those US interests are, rather than think that, just because we don't use the military, they must be OK. And, incidentally, I think this is what sets Clark apart from FDR and Truman. Truman was not interested in virtual empire and Dulles had to wait for Eisenhower to become president before he could start employing his virtual and not so virtual methods for transferring wealth and power to the US. FDR was confident that the US was going to be able to beat communism after WW2 by example and that we wouldn't need to use any kind of force or persuassion to do so.

Also, as I've said before, I don't now how to resolve Clark's opinion that Vietnam was winnable with what Sabl says in this article and what others say about Clark.

I have more to say about this article, but I'll save it for the next time this article comes up as a defense since I'm pressed for time now and since it will be burried here anyway.

[CarolNYC]

216. head scratching

Haha! I imagine the professor of political philosophy may very well be scratching his head over your...um...interpretations also.

And I'm not defending anything here. I just thought you might be interested in the article...and you apparently were, enough to read it, think about it and write about it....So it's all good, right? Close enough anyway...and 'close enough is good enough', right? ;)

[FrenchieCat]

156. You were the one that said things that were so different from

Clark's words in his books...if I recall.

Back when you littered Clark threads with your "interpretations", I always gave you the various PROGRESSIVE book reviews to allow you to see that there is no way that all of those folks reviewing the book were wrong, and that you were somehow right in attempting to twist Clark's words. IF Clark had in anyway supported Bush's war, even in premise, it would have been highlighted in the numerous reviews available...which of course, it never was.

Review from the Gardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091...
The first 100 pages analyse the recent war in Iraq. Clark commanded US troops in the Iraqi theatre in the early Nineties, and provides useful insights. The true problems for senior commanders are supply lines and troop deployment timetables, not battle tactics. The secret of American military superiority, Clark shows, is, in addition to massive transport capability, a hitherto unheard of degree of co-operation between ground troops and air power. Only recently have the secure communications been developed that allow concepts of 'battlespace' rather than 'battlefield' to become a real-time reality.

He is scathing about the failure by war leaders to plan properly for the post-conflict period. This he attributes to a natural tendency of the American political and military establishment to play to their strengths. A marine in Iraq told me his job was to 'shoot people and blow things up'. Moving beyond that has proved difficult for a conservative Pentagon and civilian leadership suspicious of anything smacking of 'social work'.

The latter part of Clark's book is devoted to a sustained attack on the conduct of the 'war on terror'. Clark says the current administration's bullish unilateralism, dependence on military force, disdain for international law and institutions have been profoundly counterproductive and run against everything that made American great. He says, rightly, that military power should be the last resort and can only succeed when used in combination with diplomatic, social, political, economic, cultural and developmental measures.

America, he says, risks winning individual battles, even campaigns, but losing the war and losing itself. His analysis, manifesto or otherwise, is accurate, timely and important.

Review from Asian Reporter
http://www.asianreporter.com/reviews/2005/22-05winningm...
Drawing on his deep military experience at home and abroad, General Wesley Clark analyzes the U.S. invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq and its relationship to the struggle against global terrorism in Winning Modern Wars. According to Clark, the American war machine is a dominant force unlike any the world has ever seen, except perhaps the Roman Empire at its apex. Yet the mess in Iraq should be a clear warning that we have much to learn about wielding our power effectively.

snip
In this age of embedded reporters, Internet bloggers, and instant news, "Public opinion itself has become a weapon of war," Clark explains early on. Winning Modern Wars shows that this supposedly retired general is still ready to fight, delivering a "Take no prisoners" assault on the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.

General Clark knows what an effective military force looks like, and has nothing but praise for the amazingly competent American soldiers who delivered the decisive victory over Saddam Hussein. But if success results from the work of soldiers on the ground, it is unfortunately errors at the highest levels of leadership that lead to ultimate failure.
Snip
Worse, the whole fiasco in Iraq was nothing but a grave misjudgment by the Bush administration in the first place. There should have been no need for a postwar plan because there should have been no war in Iraq at all. On top of a laundry list of American mistakes laid out by Clark, including spurning of allies, lack of focus on Al-Qaeda, and coddling of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Bush’s September, 2003, statement that Iraq constitutes "The central battle in the war on terrorism" encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the American response to 9/11.

snip
Most of Clark’s criticisms have been raised before, first from protestors on the street and later from disaffected staffers at increasingly higher levels inside the U.S. government. But Clark is no partisan shill, and has real credentials to back up his arguments; he has served as both European Supreme Allied Commander and Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Pentagon. The knowledge he displays of the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the U.S. Army is so thorough that anyone who wishes to understand the campaign in Iraq and the larger war against terror has to sit up and take notice. We can choose to ignore Clark only at our own peril.

"Powell's Books Review"
http://www.powells.com/biblio?partner_id=27104&cgi=prod...
General Clark criticizes George W. Bush's handling of the American Empire, especially as it concerns the War in Iraq. He argues that the war was conducted with brilliant tactics but flawed strategy and that vital opportunities to go after Al Qaeda were missed. Larger questions of Empire are discussed in concluding chapters, with Clark arguing that the "very idea of a New American Empire in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire created since the end of World War II" and calling for a "more powerful but less arrogant" foreign policy.

Review by Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?file=art...
This is actually three books in one, tied together by the common theme of the leadership failures of the Bush administration. The first three chapters recount the history of America’s preemptive strike on Iraq. The next two show how those actions have distracted us so badly from the true battle, against international terrorism. The final chapter could serve as a draft inaugural address, as Clark details his vision of a collaborative American strategy for success in an interdependent world.
snip
As a veteran leader with a global view, Clark also decries how the Bush administration broke treaties and denied international obligations with impunity. Such a unilateralist approach caused us to lose so much of the international sympathy and support which had arisen after the 9/11 attacks. By casting aside more than fifty years of strategic alliances, we have left ourselves at risk legally, financially, and militarily.

The Nation - Book Review
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzger...
Most of Clark's views about the general direction of US foreign policy will sound familiar, for most are shared by the other major Democratic contenders. However, this book is nothing like the goo usually served up in campaign literature, for he is also a very good writer: logical, lucid and concise. Moreover, he has much of interest to say about military operations and the relationship--or lack of it--between specific campaigns and the overall US security strategy. He is well qualified for the task.
snip
In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us, there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste for empire, and the international community had turned against the war. As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched, and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.
snip
In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.

[1932]

160. How do you think any of that addresses any point I made

especially in the last thread I asked you that question (I believe the link is above)?

[FrenchieCat]

166. Well since you don't read, or understand the meaning of words,

you can just read my mind....like you read Wes' mind.

As an aside.....two questions:

Was John Edwards ever part of the DLC, and what is John Edwards doing for this outfit, exactly?

John Edwards Hits the Street
The 2004 Democratic candidate for Vice-President joins Fortress Investment Group, where he will serve as a part-time global dealmaker

Wall Street has long provided a soft landing for out-of-work pols. But increasingly, the revolving door leads to private investment firms. The Street's latest recruit: John Edwards, the ex-North Carolina senator and Vice-Presidential standard bearer for the Democratic Party in the 2004 elections.

BusinessWeek has learned that Edwards has signed up to work for the New York-based private investment concern Fortress Investment Group as a part-time senior advisor. As such, he will be "providing support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global economic issues," says Edwards spokesperson Kim Rubey. Fortress declined to comment about hiring Edwards, who teamed up with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in a losing bid against President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney last year.

USEFUL EXPERIENCE. Edwards joins a growing line of policymakers turned dealmakers. Former Veep Dan Quayle has been sealing deals around the world for hedge fund group Cerberus Capital Management ever since he dropped out of the 2000 Presidential race.

Ex-New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has set up his own investment banking advisory firm -- Giuliani Capital Advisors. He also chairs the board of advisors to Leeds Weld & Co., where former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was a principal until recently. Weld has reduced his role to a senior advisor while considering a run for New York governor.

Edwards was a highly successful trial lawyer in the Tarheel State before going into politics. But his experience in Washington should serve him well as a global financial adviser. He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in Congress and boned up on global economics during the 2004 Presidential campaign for several nationally televised debates with Cheney. Edwards now serves as a co-chair of a Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S.-Russia relations.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

[FrenchieCat]

158. What did John Edwards know, and when did he know it?

when it came to Iraq? :shrug:

S.J.RES.46 was sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D), with 16 cosponsors: Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. -10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002 <
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."
John Edwards’ statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02
-------
"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

Interview on MSNBC on October 13, 2003
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295
MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.


MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the “don’t tread on me and if you don’t we’ll leave you alone.” We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn’t get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they’ve got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that’s what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don’t.

I don’t think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush’s approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn’t work with others. He doesn’t build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we’re seeing what’s happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.


MATTHEWS: Right.
-------------


SO WHAT HAS JOHN EDWARDS LEARNED AND WOULD HE APPLY IT TO IRAN?

on March 7, 2006 -- speaking in front of AIPAC

"For years I have argued that the United States has not been doing enough to deal with the growing threat in Iran," Edwards said. "While we've talked about the dangers of nuclear terrorism, we've largely stood on the sidelines as the problems got worse. I believe that for far too long, we've abdicated our responsibility to deal with the Iranian threat to the Europeans. That is not the way to deal with an unacceptable threat to America and an unacceptable threat to Israel."
Combined Jewish Philanthropies 3/7/06
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593

[1932]

161. I wish I could find the thread where this was discussed before

I'll keep looking.

[FrenchieCat]

162. It wasn't discussed, it was poo-pooed....as though it wasn't something

that one shouldn't ever bring up....let alone discuss!

However, I'm not sure why you would mind discussing it again....after all, Clark's War Resolution response on the day he announced his presidency has been brought up more than many endless times....

[CarolNYC]

167. Interesting...

Yeah, Edwards lost me way back during that move on pre-primary poll.

I don’t have issues with Edwards because I’m a Clark supporter, as some here who would rather turn the discussion from Edwards to how awful Clark supporters are would like to believe. I had issues with this guy long before I ever heard of General Clark. In fact, I went out and found General Clark in part precisely because I had issues with Edwards...and, to at least some extent, everyone else who was running.

I'm glad he now says we shouldn't have invaded Iraq but at the time of that move on thing, he was considerably more hawkish on Iraq than any of the others...Well, the ones who answered the questionnaire, anyway. Lieberman couldn't even be bothered to answer it, I would imagine he was even more hawkish. But I was able to eliminate Edwards easily after I eliminated Lieberman when trying to decide who to vote for solely because of his answers on Iraq and terrorism, etc. I really had no idea about most of these guys and based my vote solely on those questionnaires. Edwards just was way too gung ho for invading Iraq then. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Presidnet lied and all that shit but the others weren't so crazy to go in there and take out the 'bad guy'. In the end, only Bob Graham and Dennis had acceptable answers for me, I guess, because I'd boiled it down to them and voted for Dennis, but that questionnaire was my first kind of detailed look at Edwards and he kind of scared me. We already had one trigger happy President. I certainly wasn't looking for another.

[PurityOfEssence]

92. Edwards' response to Bill Maher on this was classic

Yes, you're right about the right-winger need to call others sissies; that's part of why Rove had Novak slag Wilson for being girly man and having to rely on his wife find him a job.

Back to the point, however: when interviewed on Maher's show in '04, Maher poked fun at him by pointing out how journalists marginalize candidates and then asking Edwards how he liked being referred to as "the Breck Girl". Edwards smiled and said "I'm much prettier than the Breck Girl".

I'm so tired of partisan Clark supporters raging against Edwards. The tenor of it all from the very beginning of his candidacy smacked of the same scorched-earth ridicule of reactionaries, and it persists to this day.

[FrenchieCat]

101. I'm tired that you're tired......

but what about those in this thread who are not Clark supporters. Are you tired of them as well.....or is it just "Clarkies"?

Beyond that, you have yet to address any of the issues brought up about John Edwards in this thread that would be regarded as not positive, but not about his hair.

How about that?

[PurityOfEssence]

153. Which ones in particular?

Besides refusing to cave to Clark, what are the real issues? You're not going to bring up the old ridiculous distortion about Shelton, are you? Are you going to disavow the deliberate lies about Kerry's and Edwards' tax votes? More than anything else, are you seriously going to deny the rapacious thirst for revenge by the extremists among Clark's supporters? There's a lot of water under the bridge here, and many actions that are still ducked. You'll note that I'm far from the only one here who sees an extreme grudge from extremists among the Clark supporters.

You know I don't like the Patriot Act vote or the IWR vote, but Clark didn't have to stand to account and his statements on these were anything but consistent.

I love the way the man hammered on Aschcroft when few would in the confirmation hearings, I love the consistent fairness of his approach to taxation, I really love the way the guy didn't quibble on his Patriot Act vote and I truly respect his admission of having been wrong on the IWR.

If you want to throw out flailing accusations that I haven't responded properly to over a hundred posts, then you're just obfuscating.

What, specifically would you like to address?

[PurityOfEssence]

207. Attack and run; how typical

After days of not responding, it'd be nice to hear what your real issues are.

[MontanaMaven]

173. Thank you for "strong men wear flight suits with socks stuffed ..."

I was a delegate to Boston in 2004 and the last night with all the military paraphenalia and the "reporting for duty" crap and DNC goons telling peace delegates to take off their peace scarves when 80% of delegates were anti-war gave me the creeps. I was shocked at how militaristic it was. I had a staffer spitting out hate for the North Carolina delegates that voted for Kucinich. He spit all over me. I turned on him and said, "Lockstep is what Republicans do and if you can't stand dissent, then you're in the wrong party." Supporting our troops both abroad and when they come home is our duty. But loving the dark side of our natures is a bad thing. I hope and pray that whoever leads us next will do everything they can to defend our country, but rein in our animal instincts. Time for someone who was not involved with Vietnam. Time to stop fighting that war and get back to the war on poverty.

[mmonk]

33. If anything, the only fault I saw

was his starting out '04 as a more conservative version of himself to appease the right in NC and the military communities. In that vein, it made him appear a little opportunistic or playing both sides for the "middle" rather than being principled. That being said, there is nothing wrong with Edwards and he would make a fine president.

[1932]

36. For what it's worth,

I met a North Carolinian in Colorado who loves Edwards because friends of his who knew friends of Edwards told him that Edwards was motivated to run for the Senate in 1998 because of his family (and primarily his son) being so distraught over the fraud perpetrated on black voters by the Helms machine in Gant's first run for the Senate. In that election, the Helms machine ensured that the voting machines were broken all day election day. Black voters lined up and stood in line for hours waiting to vote. After the polls closed, election officials told them to go home, but they kept standing into the night and early morning. They never got to vote. (This was the election where Gant's opponent -- the person Edwards beat in '98, I believe -- ran an add showing a black hand holding back the arm of white man.) Edwards, according to this person I met, entered politics because he wanted to stand up for those people who stood in line and never got a chance to vote for Gant.

Of course, this is tripple hearsay (which is, albeit, a little better than some of the quadruple and quintuple hearsay I see above), so should be taken with a grain of salt.

[marions ghost]

46. interesting story

I know what you say about that Helms Senate election is true...

If Edwards was motivated by that, then he really does have his heart in the right place. That election was like something out of a dim dark nightmare. Totally corrupt.

[madfloridian]

41. A relative in Winston Salem knows him, respects him, admires him.

He was the one that one of our Republcan sons picked out of the whole crowd. We could not even win him over to Dean. Our other Republican son almost voted for him, but in the end he went with Bush again. At least he now has the guts to say he's sorry.

[Allyoop]

63. Senator Edwards

My BS meter tells me Edwards is about as authentic in his on stage and camera appearances as our "Dear Leader" is. He may be all the good things his supporters say, but I think he tries too hard to come across as a "man of the people". It may be authentic, but it looks to me like Clinton's lower lip biting and Georgie's cowboyism.

He didn't seem to think about his "people" when hurricane Irene came through our state. And, if he had let the Governor appoint a replacement for his seat when he started running for President, we might have a Democrat still in that seat.

Most of all, I don't think he has the experience to lead our nation out of the horrible mess we are in now. Let's get behind a candidate who has shown empathy for people with his actions, who has worked with and consulted with other leaders from around the world, who can discuss intelligently all issues - trade, employment, international relations, military, health care, homeland security, etc. I want to vote for a man I can believe has the good of our country as his motivating force, not his own career and Edwards just impresses me as an oportunist. I'm sick and tired of voting for the "electable" candidate or least worst choice.

Anybody have his courtroom performance channeling the baby being stuck in the birth canal of her mother?

[DemPopulist]

68. It's funny

But I've really heard very, very little negative about Edwards, even from Republicans. And when they insult him, it's the usual snideness about trial lawyers and fluffy hair. The only people I've seen who really, really hate him - hate him with the heat of a thousand suns - are Clarkies. They seem to have this sense that he robbed their guy of the 2004 Democratic Southern golden boy mantle. It's quite odd, since Edwards was in the race, officially, for about eight months before Clark ever showed up.

The other thing is, it's not as if Edwards has been brought forward completely by egotism or delusions of grandeur. It was people within the Democratic party hiearchy in 2000 who decided his skills were special enough to warrant serious consideration as Al Gore's running mate. A lot of Democrats encouraged him to run in '04. It was Democratic voters that gave him more support than anyone but Kerry in the primaries. He was also the overwhelming favorite, in every poll taken, of grassroots Democrats to be the VP candidate, something you rarely see a consensus on, and so much so that Kerry could make almost no other choice. He may be an "opportunist" to some extent - almost every great politician is - but he wouldn't be where he is if people on both the inside and outside of the party establishment didn't like him and respond to his appeal.

And I've really never seen anyone but a few of the usual suspects here on DU describe him as rude, arrogant or dismissive. Exactly the opposite, and often from people who aren't/weren't Edwards supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

73. So are you saying that the Patriot Act and the IWR boosting and votes

were just "thingies"?
That John Edwards shouldn't be held accountable for his participation in the Rubber Stamp Congress as others have cause he's just that special?...and that we should all just fall in line and forget that Edwards didn't "lead" us into any right direction when he could have?

Sooooo.....if one doesn't want to see John Edwards as President it must be because of Edwards' Hair or/and his chosen vocation or it must be a Clarkie that just loves to hate?

If that's what you think, you are wrong....

So let me ask you this question--What has John Edwards actually "done" that would qualify him to be rewarded with the presidency in 2008 over others?

PS. I will add that I, a Clarkie, do not "hate" John Edwards at all. I just don't think he is the best qualified person that I would want to see become President in 2008. Why you would have such a problem with the concept of dissent to the extent that you would morph it into "hate" is fascinating!

[DemPopulist]

74. I don't recall using the word "thingies"

You're free to like or not like anybody you want. I use the word "hate" because, frankly, it's dead obvious. Everytime there's an Edwards thread, the same three or four people, invariably Clark supporters, are all over it with nastiness.

I have no problem with dissent. I don't especially like Howard Dean but I don't jump all over Dean threads to criticize him. It's a few Clarkies and one or two others who can't seem to accept that anyone could like Edwards.

I think Al Gore deserves the presidency in 2008. After him, I like Edwards because he has the most vision, and embodies Democratic values better than anyone else in the field. Simple as that.

[chimpymustgo]

77. Ah DemPopulist. First the primaries. Edwards kicked Clark's butt. Then VP

race. Edwards hands down, most popular choice, and Kerry picked him for that and all the reasons that made JRE popular. It seemed to rip part of the souls of some, that their hero was not seen by others as he was envisioned - worshipped - by them.

They are still crying in their teacups. Sadly, it looks as though they will never get over it. But alas, that one political pleasure remains: desperately trying to destroy that other golden boy. Perhaps soon they'll have some GOOD things to say about their guy. Maybe that will assuage some of the bitterness...cleanse the rancid resentment they wallow in.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Could you back up the "Edwards kicked Clark's Butt" stats

from the 2004 primaries you are announcing? Thanks!

Too bad that on the one hand you repeatly state multiple times in this thread that somehow you don't need to tear down anyone else, just promote your guy.....

Then you eventually come in with your talk of "hero worship" and folks "Crying in their teacups", etc., etc., etc. Is your rule that after a certain number of posts saying one thing, you can then do the exact opposite of what you posted previously? Doesn't that make you no better than those you've snubbed your nose at and termed "can't get over it"?

[ultraist]

89. Edwards-534 delegates vs. Clark-57 delegates

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

Edwards came in second in nearly every state of the 2004 primaries and won two states. His second in Iowa was a very close second to Kerry.

Clark on the other hand...well look at the results for yourself.

[FrenchieCat]

95. Clark vs. Edwards - an "honest " look at the primaries.....

rather than your non fact based biased version.

First - Clark was not in Iowa

Second - Clark beat Edwards in New Hampshire (no matter how close, Edwards had the Iowa media blowing at his backside)

third-(mini tuesday)
Clark beat Edwards in Oklahoma (no matter how close, since Edwards had gotten all of the media vs. Clark; none)

Clark beat Edwards in North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico by earning 2nd place after John Kerry.

Edwards wins his birth state of South Carolina

Edwards beats Clark in Missouri and Delaware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Tuesday

Super Tuesday- Edwards receives most media attention after John Kerry due to his win in South Carolina. Clark gets hardly no attention for winning Oklahoma even after Edwards utilizes Robocall from Oklahoma Football Coach hero.

Edwards beats Clark in Tennessee, Virginia, Washington and Maine.

Clark drops out.

Edwards continues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Democratic_Party_presidential_nomination,_2004#State-by-
state_results

Actual summary -

Clark wins 5 over Edwards
Edwards wins 7 over Clark

Doesn't look like anyone got their ass kicked. Just looked like the media decided who would continue running for the VP spot.

Article dated Feb 4th....the day after Super Tuesday titled, "and then there were two".....which was only one of many articles which advanced the theory that only Kerry and Edwards were running, although Clark had not yet dropped out.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/index.html

Wes Clark didn't help himself by not contesting Iowa....but when in the past, I have said the media influences our elections, I wasn't kidding.

[ultraist]

99. CNN results of delegate count is biased? LMAO!

First, I never said Clark was in Iowa. I said Edwards came in a very close second in Iowa to Kerry.

Clark beat Edwards in three states and Edwards beat Clark in all other states.

Clark had very few delegates and Edwards came in second in nearly every primary winning over 500 delegates compared to Clarks 50 something. Spin it how you wish, I posted the link the results.

You know what, it really doesn't matter, because Clark is not even on the radar screen for 08. Have you looked at any recent prospective presidential candidate polls?

[FrenchieCat]

104. New Hampshire, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico...

Gee, I'm counting five states (just like I posted)...so I must be counting differently than you. I must actually counting states won by Edwards in contests in where Wes Clark was also running.

Just in case you didn't know....counting delegates of those who stayed in the race all the way to the end and comparing their delegate number to those who stopped running much earlier February 14th is a dishonest way to slant the results of the primaries to bolster your claim that someone's ass was kicked.

Unfortunately, you didn't need the intellectual dishonesty to still conclude that Edwards overall did beat Clark....even if it wasn't an "ass kicking".

But I guess some folks don't care about honesty and such....just how things kinda look on quick glance, hey?

[Texas_Kat]

81. So, can you prove that Clark wasn't approached by Kerry first?

I do recall Kerry running around the country talking about the Democratic ticket being 'strong on national security' for weeks before he selected Johnny. Once that selection took place, the 'strong national security ticket' label dropped from Kerry's speeches.

[jen4clark]

90. You're right.

I will never get over the fact that our country had the chance to have a true International leader as our president. A man with great intelligence, honor, spirituality, faith in the common good of mankind, depth of knowledge in science, philosophy, alternative energy, the economy, other cultures, foreign policy, the list goes on. Yes, I am still crying in my teacup, and my coffee cup, and over the spilt milk and in between the raindrops. For what could have been.

I would like to know, as a Clarkie, am I not supposed to post on threads about other potential candidates? Why am I considered a hater and to be full of rancid resentment if I point out shortcomings of others? I understand that's how it is and I usually don't post, but just curious if it's in general, or just Clarkies that are not supposed to speak in dissent of other potentials?

[Catchawave]

91. What is this "dissent" you speak of....

Eh?

IMHO, that has no place on DU, especially against Democrats :shrug:

[jen4clark]

93. by dissent

I mean anything other than praise for the particular person being discussed. Like if I said Edwards co-sponsoring the Patriot Act made me lose respect for him. Is that considered bad form here?

And I'm a bit confused by your statement -- dissent has no place on DU? You're not serious, are you? I'm sure you mean smearing or slamming other Dems, yes? Dissent to me means not agreeing with someone -- having a different opinion. Or do you mean we should all agree, or else just keep quiet? (I really don't think you mean that, but I don't post here much and wonder if this is truly how it's supposed to be here?)

[citizen snips]

94. how far does it go?

when some posters use RW talking points to express their dissent.

[FrenchieCat]

97. Yes....how far does it go when one makes a single post....and receive

4 responses to that post in the form of attacks like "Frenchie Cat, shame on you", "Clark, Clark, Clark. Must destroy Edwards", "More right wing smears..." and "Didn't the Bush Campaign coin "The Breck Girl" nickname?"--

Which RW talking points are you speaking of? The fact that I dared post a video found on a Progressive website in where Edwards fusses with his hair and hairspray for much longer than should be expected....

Or the fact of his support of the patriot act, and his co-sponsorship and vote of the IWR were dared to be mentioned?

[citizen snips]

98. I did not call you out.

Edwards is only human he is capable of making mistakes specifically on Iraq which he now believes we should leave.

[FrenchieCat]

105. Point well taken.....

and so I have concluded that Edwards is not the "Human" that I would choose to support in reference to rewarding him for life & death mistakes with the Presidency.

I'm Glad he now thinks we should leave. However, Leading from the extreme rear does not demonstrate leadership. But that's my opinion.....obviously.

[Catchawave]

100. .

:scared:

[citizen snips]

103. . . .

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Catchawave]

107. .........................

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[citizen snips]

109. you must like it

to see me scared.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Actually, there are many Edwards thread floating round that I

personally have not entered. Plus, there are many Edwards supporters who in the past made it a habit of finding Wes Clark threads and calling him out. I would debate the facts with them for hours, and provide sources and links to back my shit up.

So, the op here asked a question, and I responded, as I don't believe that the tread was reserved for only those with beautiful views of who Edwards is.

I initially made one post (which was all I intended to do)....which had positives and negatives in it about Edwards. I have since had to "defend" myself from those telling me I should be ashamed of myself, etc....which has has had me having to post multiple responses to multiple posters who don't seem to "like" what I had to say about John Edwards. So as far as I'm concerned, the "nastiness" is actually eminating more from those who don't believe that Edwards deserves criticism....cause he's got the vision and is "all good".

Further, I used "thingie" to describe Edwards' support for the Patriot Act and the IWR ...because obviously those actions of Edwards are not very important to Edwards supporter and might as well be labeled "Thingies".

Since you believe that Edwards has the "most vision".....please let me know what his vision of the Patriot Act and his vision in supporting the IWR actually accomplished....
and how those actions revealed his leadership qualities and his "vision" to the extent that he should now be rewarded with support for the office of the Presidency.

You throw the word hate around and call it obvious. I don't see "hate" in my posts.....

Further, Green Arrow is NOT a Clarkie and neither is KoKo01 and a couple of others.

You say you don't have a problem with dissent....well let us see if you live up to those words in your post by responding civily to my questions in this here post.

[CarolNYC]

96. Curious thing in this thread...

Some of the most damning and detailed concerns with John Edwards have been voiced by those who are not Clark supporters yet there is a faction of Edwards supporters here who choose to ignore those concerns and instead try to make the discussion all about how awful Clark supporters are and how much they hate Edwards. Curious way to address (or not address) those concerns but also quite telling. I guess, if that’s all you got, you got to go with it, but it doesn’t exactly say much for John Edwards, I would think.

[ultraist]

102. Damming details?

I didn't read any "damning details" on this thread. A few speculations that are not favorable to Edwards but carry no weight or creditability, perhaps, but nothing damning.

[CarolNYC]

138. OK, let's call it "most critical" posts,

if that makes you feel better...Still very telling that rather than addressing the concerns in those posts, people feel the need to change the conversation to how awful Clark supporters are...hmmmmmm.

[saltpoint]

106. American voters have a spotty record on candidates' resumes. For my

part, I have no problem with Abraham Lincoln being a one-term Congressman before assuming the presidency. He wound up doing just fine in the top job at a time when the top job was an almost insurmountable task.

There is no grounds whatsoever for assuming that years of experience translates to effective leadership. Strom Thurmond served in the U.S. Senate since the Neolithic Age and likely would not have enjoyed much national support. He gave it one good hard run and didn't come close. Thank god.

Edwards' resume is just fine with me. I like trial lawyers who give voice to the voiceless people huge corporations have been screwing over. Edwards came to bat for those folks, and my guess is they appreciate it a whole lot.

Edwards' likely candidacy in 08 is made increasingly viable by his pro-union/pro-wage earner positions, and by his insistence that the two Americas must be reconfigured into one, not only economincally but also psychologically. This in an era of Bush/GOP dominance of both chambers and characterized by massive tax cuts for people who represent the richer slice of those two Americas.

It doesn't hurt that he's handsome, although many voters will perceive in Edwards a beautiful soul whether he looks the way he does or looks like an ogre. The real ogres are the president and the Sec. of Defense who preside over human torture at places like Abu Ghraib. Some of us will vote against Republicans for many reasons, but if anyone NEEDED a reason to reject Republicans in 06 and 08 and forever after, Abu Ghraib would be a convincing first point.

Of the 40-some people in the U.S. who have any chance at all of becoming our next president, John Edwards is likely in the top 5. Polls have begun to reflect this.

I think it would be dismissive and off-target to suggest that he's not a top contender, and that the appeal and appreciation are multi-layered.

[Jamastiene]

137. This post deserves some kind of award or applause or something.

I like the way you pointed out that the Republicans are the ones we should try to defeat, not those on our own team. Trying to defeat each other is like standing in a circular firing squad with uzis aimed at each other. Wouldn't it be funny if Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark ran together sometime in the future?

:thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

143. Hi, Jamastienne. I liked those kittycats in your post field. They look

like a couple of the cats I grew up with. Something about cats in windows.

Thanks, and your point on who might wind up on the same ticket is a point I hadn't given full weight to, but it's exactly right -- If Clark were to be nominated, he might pick Edwards as his VP, or Edwards could choose Clark as his. I've lived through the bizarre pairing of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, so if those two can be a ticket, probably nothing we could throw at history would surprise me now.

I think Elizabeth Edwards is an interesting key in this scenario. It's been a long, long time since Camelot, and the Edwards clan would bring it back. Their older daughter is one of the most serene and intelligent souls to come along in ages. Elizabeth herself is a breast cancer survivor, every bit as smart and career-accomplished as Hillary Clinton was as First Lady, but Elizabeth rounds the edges. There's a warmth to her that few men and women can match. Rare and inspiring, and we could use the inspiration as a country & society after 8 years of Dubya's lying and cheating and public relations gimmicks.

You take care of those nice kitties.

[citizen snips]

144. It is possible

[Mr. Blonde]

134. Don't live in Carolina or know him personally but,

he is going to face a serious uphill battle with the entire medical community. My mother who is a nurse could never vote for someone she views as an ambulance chaser no matter how much they matched up with her political views.

[mmonk]

141. Well the whole point of the republican revolution

is to have a justice system that supports corporations and government interests over the citizen. So the "frivolous" lawsuits representing people who have suffered at bad practices will now favor the hospitals if it makes your mother feel any better. So no reason for her to reject him now.

[1932]

142. Have her read Four Trials

Nurses, apparently, like him in NC. He had a case in which a nurse felt there was a problem but didn't say anything beecause the hospital had a habit of fiiring nurses who contradicted doctors even (or especially) when the nurses were right. It all came out in the trial and the state passed a law (IIRC) that protected nurses from being fired in those circumstances.

[citizen snips]

146. if is was not for the trail lawyers.

then look at all the bad practices that would still be around.

[Mr. Blonde]

152. She has also seen very good doctors

retire because of rising insurance costs. Despite being good doctors and enjoying their work, it wasn't worth it economically. And these are doctors who haven't had any malpractice lawsuits, but the cost of the insurance is constantly rising.

Like so many things there isn't an easy answer to the problem, but my mother and many other medical personnel are going to be on one side vs. lawyers and such.

[McCamy Taylor]

151. What is the real purpose of this thread? Do we need a "nice guy " prez?

I for one do not want a president that the people of North Carolina think is the best thing since sliced bread. I want Bill Clinton Jr. Nice when he wants to be, tough when he has to be.

[saltpoint]

163. The electorate is a fluid, fickle bunch. On one hand they claim they

want the best, but they vote in significant numbers for ninnies like George Herbert Walker Bush and his pathetic, desperate, booze-addled son.

And a lot of voters still swoon over Ronald Reagan, despite the man's being completely embicilic long before the Alzheimer's diagnosis.

Indiana voters picked Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 over favorite son Roger Brannigan. It seems like a fantasy realm for them to go for the east coast liberal over their local guy, but they did.

There's a dangerous bias in U.S. voters sometimes (often?) for the "regular" guy, the guy they want to have a beer with -- as in Dubya's case early on. I don't think many of them would be as enthusiastic at this point in the game, but they rejected Gore in large numbers (Gore won the election, but it was still a cliffhanger) and Kerry, too, and one common theme was voters' preference for "regular," "ordinary" Dubya over two egg-head smarty-pants liberals.

Edwards has the smarts and the gumption and is blessed with a common touch, too. I would say that given voters' traditional anti-intellectual bias, combined with their occasional support for an FDR or an RFK, yes -- they are looking for someone like that.

[saltpoint]

168. imbecilic, not embicilic. Lest spelling elves gnaw my ankles.

[benEzra]

175. I liked him, but I've heard some negative comments about him.

Mostly from repubs, so it may have been just a partisan thing.

He was my senator, and I do know from correspondence with his office that he was singularly misinformed on the gun issue in 2004, which led him to take some rather ill-advised positions on the gun issue that undoubtedly alienated some voters in this very pro-gun-rights state. The party leadership's stunt of pulling him off the campaign trail on freaking Super Tuesday to vote to ban civilian rifles with protruding handgrips didn't help him any.

I never met him in person, but my third-hand impression of him was that he is generally a nice person.

[mmonk]

186. He lost initial support in his bid for the presidency

when he came out for the invasion of Iraq and his reasoning. I remember watching him when he was doing a question and answer thing from Chapel Hill and he garnished a few boos with his position. People thought he was trying to play two sides against the middle. His conflicts with the Clarkies stemmed from getting his expert advice on Iraq from Shelton which he used to try and weaken Clark's position as something the US shouldn't have done. I think that explains some of the friction and also tepid support initially from split NC dems. This is just my observation and recollections from here in NC.

[ultraist]

189. Are you a Lamont supporter?

You might enjoy this vlog from the event where Senator Edwards campaigned for Lamont.

ctblogger vlogged the event: http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/edwards-lamont-footage.html

[mmonk]

190. I'm not anti-Edwards. I was just explaining

the situation back at the time of the beginning of his run. I'm from Raleigh and I was part of the draft Clark movement and a volunteer for the Clark campaign back then. Edwards was right on many issues, especially the reverse transfer of wealth from the people to the corporations. Edwards has also come out against his previous war position and I also sent funds to the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Sorry if I made it easy to come to the conclusion I'm anti-Edwards, because I'm not. He would make a fine president but I still remember the early circumstances of his first bid.

[mmonk]

191. Also, I appreciate what he did for Lamont.

I'm supporting different candidates around the country with funds or help. Lamont was my first pick to help. I could also vote Edwards for president. I haven't made my choice for '08 yet though I'm leaning Feingold, possibly Edwards, and a wait to see approach on the others and their ideas.

[ultraist]

193. Thanks, mmonk!

Thanks for clarifying and keep up the good work supporting Democrats.

:patriot:

[mmonk]

195. Here's another dem to help. Let's take back Congress.

Heath Shuler. We need to pick up House seats.
www.HeathShuler.com

[SeaNap05]

198. Edwards is down to earth and.......

comes out in the media how he is in real life. I'm from North Carolina and have met him several times. For example, unlike what is portrayed by the senator from New York, there is a stark difference. A great deal of America has yet to be formally introduced to Edwards, as well as his wonderful wife Elizabeth, and daughter Cate. They indeed may make a great first family.

[saltpoint]

202. He is down-to-earth, and you are absolutely right about Cate.

She's a diamond.