If this isn't true about Edwards his Campaign needs to get on it ASAP!

[KoKo]

Is it true that there are complaints that Edwards Campaign is not returning phone calls from "supporters and the press?"

That's the second time I've heard this...and maybe it's a GOP Rumor Mill Trashing...but that was the experience of MANY NC'linians who donated to him and supported him in his Senatorial Campaign when he co sponsored the IRW with Lieberman. It was like he cut his "small donors out" and left us hanging out there while he ran for President...refusing to meet with those of us who were Anti the Iraq Invasion.

:shrug:

.....................................
From Salon:

This isn't the first Internet-related misstep for the Edwards campaign, which had been making an effort to reach out to the "netroots" but has found its popularity dropping in a straw poll done on the landmark liberal blog Daily Kos. Though he still leads the poll by one point over Sen. Barack Obama, Edwards' support has dropped nine points in the past three weeks. He has also come under fire in the liberal blogosphere for his statements on Iran and his campaign's failure to return the calls of supporters and press, and was embarrassed when his Web site mistakenly revealed his candidacy a day before his official announcement in New Orleans.

Get the Free Day Pass to read this...it's sponsored by Firefox and only takes seconds until you get the article up to read.........
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/07/edwar...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. It is safe to assume that...

It is taking so long because the decision has not been made. You can be sure that someone with the Edwards campaign is advocating strongly for the two bloggers to get the axe, while someone is advocating just as strongly against such a move.

Frankly, this is so dumb as to be frightening. It plays into the frothers hands nearly every way possible. Quite frankly, the best tack the Edwards campaign could have taken was a quick response, along the lines of "Go piss up a rope. They stay".

Just as frankly, if Edwards knuckles under to the likes of Michelle Malkin or Bill Donahue, he's toast. To me and to the 2008 cycle. There is a time to stand up to bullies. That time should be now.

[Blackhatjack]

3. Don't you think this could involve information we do not yet have?

One expectation that the netroots have, which will never be met, is instant responses and decisionmaking from candidates.

These candidates have heavy schedules which leave little time to respond within minutes or hours to the the latest concerns.

I would rather get Edwards response that is well thought out and considered later, than his quick response that might not meet that same standard.

[KoKo]

4. I have had faith that Elizabeth Edwards is more Internet Savvy than her hubby

and knows the "twists and turns" of Spin on the Internet. Maybe it happened so fast that neither had time to deal with it. :shrug:

[Blackhatjack]

2. There is a well coordinated campaign to distort Edwards comments on Iran...

... what a bunch of hooey. If saying something a thousand times online made it true, we would all be fortune tellers.

[KoKo]

5. I agree with you that "something's afoot" but there really are

valid concerns that those of us who who supported Edwards Senatorial Race but were "Anti-Iraq Invasion" have long had a problem with Edwards on.

BUT....I think it's up to Edwards to address these issues even though I know the Right Wing Repugs and Repugs in general are AFTER HIM!

[dogman]

6. There is no need to distort Edwards' comments on Iran.

He's done that all by himself. He just needs to pick one audience to address. Then he could stay with one line.

[KoKo]

7. He's PUSHING TOO HARD...trying to be too many things to too many people.

When you say he has to "pick one audience to address" it makes me wonder why he didn't learn from his last race?

Why didn't he LEARN? He picked a Populist Message of "TWO AMERICAS" yet he runs off giving speeches that pander to AIPAC!

I can understand that he needs BIG BUCKS to run again. Even his fortune needs to be protected because he spent lots of his own money to run in the other races.

BUT...if he TRULY wants to SPEAK TO POVERTY and TWO AMERICA's ...THEN HE NEEDS TO BEHAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY!~

[GreenArrow]

9. "THEN HE NEEDS TO BEHAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY"

Actually, he needs to believe a little differently. His critique of "poverty" is shallow, and that's being generous. There should be no surprise that he's pandering to AIPAC; anyone who has a chance of winning needs to have it on their side.

[Blackhatjack]

17. When you have given as much time and money to fight poverty as Edwards I'll listen to you....

He probably knows more about poverty than anyone you know. Sorry to be so blunt, but you are just dead wrong on this issue.

You have no idea the number of anti-poverty measures John and Elizabeth have been involved with that have never been mentioned in any campaign material. John was raised the son of a poor mill worker, and has made every dime he has. He did not inherit anything. Yet he has given over a million dollars of his own money, and raised millions more, to fight poverty.

You should be ashamed if you knew this and posted the above anyway.

And addressing AIPAC does not constitute 'pandering.' He has widened his knowledge of foreign policy since 2006 by meeting with most leaders in Europe, and many groups that are interested in what the US is doing that might affect them.

[GreenArrow]

20. the widow's mite

I'm not impressed with his knowledge of poverty, nor his self serving philanthropism. He is very good at parlaying the issue into a feel-good campaign platform, and selling himself, I'll give him that. But he's not really trying to sell his poverty line to people like me, anyway.

You're right that simply "addressing AIPAC does not constitute pandering"; the pandering comes from telling AIPAC what it wants to hear.

[dogman]

22. You've lost all credibility with the "son of a poor millworker" line.

Even Edwards never said that. If you think a mill floor manager lived the life of poverty, you clearly have no idea what poverty is. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing his efforts to raise awareness of the poverty issue. I find it interesting that you don't seem very aware of poverty.

[Blackhatjack]

30. Just because people do not share your disdain for Edwards doesn't mean we don't fight poverty....

I guess you would measure Edwards material possessions as he was growing up as being on the same level with the other candidates for president.

You sir, have no basis to allege "you clearly have no idea what poverty is". I know exactly what poverty is, and we do our best to help where we can.

Another misinformed poster making assumptions about things they know nothing about. And you want to talk about 'credibility' .....

[dogman]

36. Did you read what I wrote?

Show me how a Mill floor manager lived a life of poverty. Below you challenged me to show you an example of Edwards speaking differently to different groups. Were the links too much reading or did you have the same problem with comprehension that you exhibited with this post? Maybe you should research some of the other candidates bios before you compare their economic level with Edwards.

[1932]

46. Edwards makes a point of saying he didn't grow up in poverty.

By the way, Edwards's father was shut out from promotions above his management position because he didn't have a high school diploma.

[Blackhatjack]

48. You are correct, and that is to his credit. Pictures of his home in his new book....

show that he was raised on modest means. Nothing wrong with that.

John and Elizabeth Edwards' work in the anti-poverty effort has been praised by everyone they worked with, including many who were skeptical at the beginning.

It is ok to dislike a candidate, and not vote for them.

It is not ok to distort the efforts, time and money that individuals devote to ending poverty in the US.

And if people do not challenge this kind of mudslinging, other individuals may be deterred from entering the fight against poverty because they do not want to be labelled as 'just doing it for political gain.'

[dogman]

55. Then why did you dispute what I wrote?

Just to carry on your tired attack line.

[Blackhatjack]

47. What did people do before hyperlinks and the internet to support their allegations?

Answer: They actually typed or wrote out the exact quotations that they alleged were contradictory. As another government official once said, "Its hard work..." --but really if you have such ready access to that information, why not do it the old fashioned way and simply provide us with the two(2) or more quotes that you have determined are contradictory instead of relying on readers to slog their way through articles you linked to and wonder which quotes convinced you Edwards' quotes were contradictory?

And I notice that you have no basis to defend your baseless allegation that I do not know what poverty is.

I have no problem with other candidates and their bios. You are intent on mischaracterizing John Edwards, the fact he came from humble beginnings, has spent a great deal of time working on poverty, giving money and time to anti-poverty programs, and all without a factual basis to back it up.

If you support another candidate, duh, more power to you. However, if you are going to throw mud at another Democratic candidate at least be prepared to offer proof to back it up.

[dogman]

58. The poster I was responding to wrote that he did not want snips.

It is against DU rules to copy another source in totality. Your own statement that Edwards' father was a "poor mill worker" is my evidence that you don't know what poverty is. If you read what I wrote, "I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing his efforts to raise awareness of the poverty issue.", you will see I recognize his work.

[venable]

42. do you know what the phrase 'working poor' means?

if not, look into it. It is a central part of Edwards anti-poverty message.

the fact that both of his parents had jobs (mill worker, postal route) does not mean they were not poor.

anyway, he's not talking about raising up his own family, he's talking about the millions that can't make ends meet, and have little chance of emerging from their situation.

[dogman]

57. And did you read what I wrote?

The "working poor" were those who Edwards' father supervised.

[venable]

63. yes, they were and so were the Edwards, as his story tells

if you don't choose to believe him, don't.

they weren't on welfare, if that's what you mean. and nobody ever starved, if that's what you mean.

they lived around the poverty line, and many of their neighbors and co-workers lived below it, unless he's lying about it and has fabricated any experience with poverty.

There was little, if any, chance for improvement, for them or for their friends. just hard work, from both parents, to keep body and soul together.

Paint Edwards as a middle class yuppie all you want. You are wrong.

[dogman]

64. Middle class yuppie?

I don't recall posting that, so I don't believe I'm wrong. I would guess his background was similar to mine. Without a chart to define terms, I would consider that to be lower middle-class. I don't believe yuppie even existed as a term back then. My only chance for a college education was the GI Bill.

[venable]

65. I'm aware that term is more current (I'm not a youngster), and that you didn't use it

I'm just responding to your resistance to the basic assumption that Edwards grew up in humble, even difficult and uncertain circumstances.


Since neither of us will probably be able to figure out what his mom and dad made, and how that would fit into accepted designations of poverty, what we are really talking about here is a characterization.

I have no problem accepting that John Edwards' childhood experience gave him a first hand taste of poverty and even a sort of hopelessness, from which he emerged, the first in his family EVER to go to college.

Because I accept that, and because I believe him, I trust the man's mission, if it can be called that, to lift 37 million out of poverty, and to bring hope to them and to all.

When you reject (as it seems to me you're doing - please correct me if I'm wrong) that basic assumption about Edwards, then you are rejecting the personal foundation of his work. You can still accept the intellectual and moral side of it, but you are rejecting the personal foundation from which this work derives.

I'm exaggerating, of course, when I say he's not the Yuppie you make him out to be...I'm just pointing out your rejection of his humble origins.

[dogman]

66. Since it seems to be a relative term, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

I don't believe I grew up in poverty and none of my immediate family was able to go to college beyond a two year community college. That was my mother at around the age of fifty and my daughter. As I posted above, I credit him for bringing poverty to the forefront, no matter what his motives are.

[venable]

71. agreed. certainly is relative

and I agree that any light shone on poverty is helpful.

The thing that impresses me - in fact that thing that got me so going for Edwards back in 03/04 was that he spoke about poverty in spite of the fact that it was not part of the national debate - and he argued that this absence was due to the fact that most political campaign architects looked at the poor and thought, 'Well, they don't vote", and moved along to what they (stupidly) deemed vote-producing issues.

Edwards thought this dynamic was a reason the issue had fallen off the table, and he said that it must be returned to the national debate.

Thanks for your thoughts, and congratulations to your mother and daughter (my mother also went to college in her 50's).

[venable]

41. would you like to explain how his stance on poverty is shallow

when has has the respect and admiration of virtually every anti-poverty activist and organization in the country.

Is there something you'd like to say, something with substance, rather than just a shallow insult?

[unc70]

8. and Clark was for it before he was against it ...

Just are reminder to the (alleged) Clark supporters that Clark said we probably would have voted for the IWR before he said he would have opposed it. We all beat this to death a couple of days ago, although the Clark crowd abandoned the threads when links to various 2003 articles were provided.

I believe the framing of JE's remarks as favoring bombing Iran began in right-wing segments of the Israeli press. Edwards needs to be very careful when dealing with the AIPAC/Iraeli neocon crowd. (The same goes for every Dem candidate.)

[Leilani]

10. And what does this thread have to do with Wes Clark?

I guess you're just one of those classy Edwards supporters who never attack anyone?

You know of course that Clarkies are the meanies!!!



:nuke:

[KoKo]

13. Getting this Post Back on Track...Edwards needs to Address these issue for his Dems

who support him. I'm not willing to go off into side issues. Edwards needs to STAND ON HIS OWN...and SO..do Edwards Supporters and NOT be SIDETRACKED by OTHER CANDIDATES or THEIR SUPPORTERS!

[FrenchieCat]

11. I think that if you read Edwards' own speech, not the press,

you come away with the same impression- saber rattling.

Sorry to disappoint you. :(

But please, go ahead and blame Clarkies if you must to excuse the written and spoken words of a candidate for the presidency of America!

I particular like the way that he glorifies Sharom as the first thing he states in his speech.

GO ahead read it....it won't bite you!
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

[Blackhatjack]

15. Ah so there you are Frenchie! Still looking for those quotes you were going to produce re: Edwards?

You just bounce from thread to thread making the same allegations re: Edwards and his so-called speech in which he was quoted as saying things contradictory to what he is saying now. But when called out to produce those quotes, you disappear.....

I am still waiting BTW for you to produce those alleged 'quotes' of Edwards speech that you find support Bush's propaganda regarding Iran.

And don't forget, posting 12 links to other sites that do not contain the quotes you alleged does not count as 'proof.'

[venable]

44. Sharon did exit Gaza (which didn't last), and that must have been

what Edwards refers to. I would agree that Sharon is not a man of peace, but you do encourage your allies in the behavior that is more peaceful.

In looking through the Herzliya speech, I was unable to find the line where he said he wanted to attack Iran. Could it be that he never said it?

[Blackhatjack]

49. You made my point about people who throw out hyperlinks and say 'that's the proof' ...n/t

[unc70]

54. I did read the "lecture summary" at the link

I also tried to watch the video because the "summary" has a few quirks that made me want to verify the "transcript" and wonder about the Hebrew version. I have learned over the years that Israeli political discourse can be radically different in the English and the Hebrew versions. I also skeptical of the English translations of speechs by Islamic leaders. (e.g. Did he mean erase/remove the State of Israel or just the current government by regime change.)

I could not view the video (maybe because of my firewall) and have not had time to locate it elsewhere.

As presented, this speech seems typical of the pandering to the Israelis of which I have faulted Edwards and the overwhelming majority of Dems. I applaud Clark for his efforts to expose AIPAC, et al and to raise the alarm.

On MTP, Edwards showed a more nuanced and less confrontational position than I had seen from him previously. I don't know whether this is because he is refining his position in response to various criticism or because I had previously relied primarily on excerpts and the analysis of others. This is part of the reason I would like to hear the other speech itself. I noticed Sunday morning that several threads mis-stated what he had actually said on MTP (in ways close to how the speech at your link is described), and these produced a storm of posts expressing outrage that was not easily quelled, even after the transcripts refuting the OP had been posted.

I assure you that before I post here or elsewhere, I have done my reading and my research. I have lurked at DU almost from its beginning but did not post for a long time until I finally became so frustrated by BS on certain topics in my realm going unchallenged that I was forced to respond. A lot of this involves BBV, ER, computers, statistics, analysis of elections, NC, some international issues, and a couple of health topics.

[dogman]

12. You're quite confused.

We aren't even discussing the IWR. But it is a fact that Clark spoke out against it, as was cited by Democratic Senators as one of the reasons they voted against it. Your misstatement has been beaten to death for over three years now, not just a couple of days. But go ahead and change the subject rather than address Edwards' changing rhetoric on dealing with Iran.

[Clark2008]

26. Wow!

You're pretty misinformed, aren't you?

Clark TOLD the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2002 (and that committee included Edwards, who, btw, was the ONLY Democrat to vote the IWR out of committee) that going to war in Iraq was, well, stupid.

Clark's learned not to give such nuanced answers to the press now because they don't think in nuance. He would have never voted for the resolution that passed as it gave Bush the power to go to war and he's said so. He's stopped musing about the other resolutions that only allowed Bush to threaten force - and there were many floating about - because the press just gets confused.

In any case, this thread is about Edwards - who voted for it. Not Clark, who testified that we shouldn't.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Have you and Frenchie been collaborating? I issue the same challenge to you....

Provide the full quotes, not those few phrases bookended by elipses '...', that show Edwards is saying contradictory things to different audiences. And same condition, listing 12 links which do not contain those quotes is not 'proof.'

Time to provide proof for the allegations you are making against Edwards.

[dogman]

19. I'm not going to the trouble of sorting through it again, here's a link.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

Two different audiences. The first reads like a chickenhawk. The second reads like a more reasonable man. The first caught hell on the blogosphere, the second came shortly thereafter. He is correct that nothing is off of the table, it is a matter of how the table is set.

BTW Frenchie and I don't need to collaborate, we have an ability to read comprehensively and neither wants to see another misguided war. It is probably why we both support a candidate that meets our criteria of honesty, intelligence, judgment, and capability.

[FrenchieCat]

21. No need to call me out,

as I don't know you from boo- :eyes:

First though...DU rules : Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

I responded to your question on that thread that you are here talking about. Your question was whether Edwards had been shown to have changed his stance on Iran. I stated that Kevin Drum and I agreed felt that John Edwards had totally placed the emphasis elsewhere and didn't sound like the same person talking......

Here's the post with my answer which you are accusing me of not having answered:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=121962&mesg_id=127951

In reference to Edwards, here's a part of the transcript of his speech-
(DU rule- We are not able to cut and paste the entire speech.....only 3 to 4 paragraphs- the last 3 paragraphs have no gaps between them....meaning there is nothing cut out)

here we go: Edwards' speech at the Herzliya Conference:

"I am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges.

Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats.
snip
At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.
more....
http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

[Blackhatjack]

28. Frenchie I was here first, so I guess you must have stalked me .....

The rule you quoted:

"DU rules : Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board."

Applies to YOU: I posted on this thread first, 07/07/2007 @ 6:07 pm
You posted 07/07/2007 @ 7:14 pm

HMMMMMMMM .... me thinks the stalking allegation is on the wrong foot.

I just wondered what happened when you did not show up to provide the Edwards' quotes that you alleged proved your allegation, which you have raised again here.

I'll not ask you again to provide the proof. But I have the right to post my opinion as well.

[FrenchieCat]

32. No...you did call me out., and also accused another poster of

"coolaborating with me"--I'm not sure why you did that. I dont think it was required....

I didn't say your name in that post on this thread you are referring to.....but you said mine and responded to my post.....so far as I'm concerned you are tailing me which is fine. Go for it! I am flattered!


I don't know you well enough to have seen you in this thread and somehow knew who it was. I only remember have had a discussion with someone yesterday who dared not read information from source links....and ridicules them instead...while offering nothing of his own. I remembered that, which again is fine by me.....it's ok if you didn't.

I answered all of your questions, even if you want to pretend otherwise. But that's ok too, cause no one is perfect....neither you nor I nor Edwards nor Clark nor Hillary nor, etc., etc, etc.

But why have you disabled your profile. Why hide? I wanted to when you joined as I don't remember seeing your round, but I can't. Keeping Secrets, hey?

[Blackhatjack]

34. All I asked for was proof to back up your claim, and you start quoting rules...

I could care less where you go at DU, but we are bound to end up at the same thread if Edwards name is mentioned. I supported Edwards in 2004, and I will again in 2008. I guess it is to be expected that people take potshots at you if you are a real threat. You tend to show up and make the same comment that Edwards is contradicting himself before different audiences. We disagree, but I don't think that qualifies as stalking.

BTW I have never had a profile here at DU, since day one.

Sorry it gets under your skin that I did not provide a phony profile to hide behind, like some people do.

You won't find anyone more against starting a war with Iran than me. However, my opinion of Edwards drawn from many sources is that he does not support war with Iran, but does support direct talks with Iran, and using economic incentives and economic sanctions.

Edwards is out there on the record in the MTP interview and the American Prospect interview, and I am sure if there is 'proof' of the contradictory statements they will be published far and wide by Republicans and their shills, who have researched every aspect of his past.

[FrenchieCat]

35. So you've been here since April of 2006.....

so you're an old timer!

A profile tells others how long you've been here, and how many post you have....apart from that, it says little that would be worth hiding.

I believe that Edwards is talking out of both sides of his mouth....and it will happen again.

Why would Republicans care about his contradictorary statements? They don't mind going against him.

They can wait!

[Blackhatjack]

50. I suspect you are just woefully uninformed .....

You posted:

"Why would Republicans care about his contradictorary statements? They don't mind going against him."

Republicans have spent a boatload of money countering John Edwards since he first entered politics. They especially hate plaintiff trial lawyers, since they hold many businesses and groups responsible for their illegal and dangerous acts. They have done extensive background investigations, and so far have found nothing amoral, illegal, or embarrassing. However, Republicans know how dangerous it is go up against Edwards, which was proven his first time out winning the Senate seat in NC over a well-financed Republican.

[JNelson6563]

43. Proof is only required of

people who criticize Clark. For anyone else one need only pull stuff from their ass and it's "kosher".

I look forward to the day DU Admins get sick of the harrassment by certain posters. ;-)

Julie

[Clark2008]

25. Not that I've seen.

I know most of the people who are bringing up valid concerns about Edwards (ever-changing) positions on Iran and none of them are paid bloggers (many were volunteers for various campaigns last time around, though, but none were paid).

[Doctor_J]

14. Whoa. The media is trying to sink a popular Dem's campaign

Too weird

:sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

18. Everytime I read something about Edwards from a NC resident, it's always been negative.

If there are any NC Dems who feel positive about Edwards, I'd like the hear the counterview (eventhough Edwards would be my last choice for the nomination).

[KoKo]

23. There are some DU NC'Linians who do like him...to be fair.

It's those of us who were horrified on his IWR Vote and the way he treated us that are bitter about it. If you believed that Saddam had WMD and Colin Powell's speech then you might feel differently...or if you are a DLC North Carolinian, too.

I'm not DLC...and Edwards was a BIG HOPE to us to get rid of the Conservatives we always had as Senators like racist Jesse Helms and Pig Farmer Lauch Faircloth. Edwards won against those folks legacy...and some of us feel he let us down. We now have two Conservative Replacements: Liddy Dole and Richard (Big Pharma/Fundie)Burr. Edwards Senate Seat cost NC Progressives Alot! Alot!......Our Future and in Senate terms thats 8 years plus 8 years we have to live with these people representing the most Righward of our Population. :-(

[Clark2008]

27. Can't help you.

I have family in NC and they were the first people I ever heard call him Senator Gone. And they're most certainly NOT Republicans - so that meme was from his constituents, not Rush Limbaugh.

[Blackhatjack]

29. I'm a NC resident, pro-Edwards, followed his career for years.....

I think there are a lot of negative comments being made about Edwards from people who are repeating them with no proof to back them up.

I also see a lot of the same posters showing up on Edwards threads posting the same negative comments, but when challenged to provide proof in the form of quotes from Edwards, they either link to opinion columns or list 12 links that do not contain the proof.

I am not a paid rep of Edwards, but I do know a lot more about him than probably anyone here. I practiced law in Raleigh, the same city he practiced in, for 20 yrs. Ask away and I will try to answer any question to which I know the answer.

There are a lot more people in NC who back Edwards than you would imagine. As a political newcomer he beat a heavily backed Republican for the Senate seat. His Senate office was always cordial and helpful, especially when we took school kids to D.C.

He was highly regarded by his fellow Senators, and was called upon to help defend Clinton in the trial before the Senate. He worked on numerous bills with numerous Senators.

We would be lucky to get Edwards as the Democratic nominee. If you don't think Edwards would be a threat to Republicans, just look at all the attacks coming out against him.

[CabalPowered]

59. Thanks for that.

He's not my first choice but I think he's a great candidate.

[citizen snips]

68. Good analysis

and it is coming from people who don't live in NC.

[citizen snips]

31. I am a NC dem

and I have a positive outlook with Edwards. Try checking out this thread about Edwards in the NC forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=170&topic_id=8445&mesg_id=8445

[mnhtnbb]

60. Bullshit, Clarkie 1. I know you've read many of my posts. I live in Chapel Hill

and I've made no secret of it.

[Clark2008]

24. I think he has paid people here.

Caveat: his paid people here are NOT disruptive. They're not violating the rules - but there are certain posts I see, particularly by one member, that reek of paid-campaign staffer perfume.

I, for one, believe it. Maybe it's just a vibe I get.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I smell it too.....

But nice clean cool scent. Not bad! LOL!

[unc70]

37. There are a lot of NC Dems here who are positive on Edwards

I live in Chapel Hill, NC and would support Edwards. My first choice would probably be Gore, but I could support Edwards. I don't know of any NC Dems who would not support Edwards if he were the nominee. Almost all complaints repeated here were right out of the Repub talking points used in NC in 2004; they were everywhere -- TV ads, LTTEs, local blogs, my Repub brother and his wife.

I have concerns that Edwards is still too trusting of the opinions of others wrt foreign policy, too supportive of the Israeli/AIPAC neocon positions, and with a lot he needs to learn. He would have benefited greatly from having attended UNC rather than NC State for his undergrad because, inherently, engineering schools focus more narrowly and more concretely on a given discipline while a liberal arts education is much broader, less structured, and with much more debate and less certitude. He is smart and is catching up, but Elizabeth still seems ahead of him on many issues.

In spite of the TPs too oft repeated here by his supporters, I have almost exactly the same concerns about Clark in this area as I have about Edwards. Clark became anti-war about a year earlier than Edwards (and several years later than I), initially had considerable difficulty clearly picking his position on IWR and other things, and still lapses into periods of macho posturing even while (mostly) opposing the war(s). Like many career military, Clark also seems to have "blind spots" to a lot of subtle cultural nuances in civilian life ("local economy").

I have more-serious complaints about each of the Clintons, still learning about Obama.

As a "Wellstone Tarheel" (a few years behind him), I have various differences with each of our candidates, but also find much in each of them that is positive and which I can support.

I have a question for the hardcore Clark supporters at DU, that 5-10 posters who seem to jump on each and every thread that even mentions Edwards. While some might be because Edwards supported the IWR, all too often these posts seem to reflect a visceral dislike for Edwards that almost mirrors the talking points used against him by Repubs in NC -- ambulance chaser, got rich preying on the misfortunes of others, slick lawyer willing to say anything to get elected, skilled manipulator using lawyer "tricks", frivilous lawsuits against good doctors making it harder for you to get medical care, never did anything for the "real" people of NC, just using the Senate as a stepping stone, just out looking for those "pretty boy" photo ops, with that big house, doesn't practice what he preachs, ...

So, what caused your strong dislike of Edwards? Does it go back to the Hugh Shelton comment about Clark? Is there something else? Clinton seems to be the only other candidate who attracts this level of negative posts and there, too, the Clark supporters are prominent in complaining about her.

Since I find a lot to like with each of our candidates and their platforms, I have trouble understanding this dislike of Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

38. I'm not sure why

you are addressing Clark supporters as a group? :shrug:

We are not clones of each other, and I dare say, I could not respond for another person, let alone another Clarkie.

I don't support John Edwards simply because I don't think he has what it takes to lead this country at this time in our history. I support Wes Clark because of his Foreign policy/National Security credentials, prescience and judgment, and so it would make NO sense for me to support Edwards, who I believe lacks those exact qualities that I admire in Wes Clark.

In reference to Wes Clark, You can read a few articles, IF you want to "figure" out what his position was on Iraq if you couldn't quite.
There are 3 or 4 here that you can read that makes it understandable....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/iraq_20022003/

But for me, who was paying very close attention at the time of the Iraq debate, Clark's position was always clear....if you heard Ted Kennedy on the floor of the senate in 2002 when he was voting NO on the IWR, you'd have heard him speak Clark's name 7 times! Additionally, so did Sen. Wellstone, Levin and Boxer when they were voting No.

You might have gotten hazy when Wes Clark allowed himself to get tripped up on a question by a reporter on his first day of his campaign...and so what he said was misreported. But since the media's not fair, Wes Clark paid for that on his first day in politics ever. He learned a lot too! But yes, he bobbled the question...in other words, gave too many details that allowed his words to be massaged in a particular way.

Clark was anti Iraq war since before it began.....just like he's anti Iran war before it begins. He never thought it was the thing to do; never.

In terms of Hillary Clinton, I don't complaint about Hillary, so you will have to seek that answer from another Clarkie. Clarkies speak with many voices.....like most supporters of other candidates do. Maybe they can share with you their individual feelings about Hillary, because I think that they vary as much as others folks.

Personally, I don't have that many issues with Hillary, and rarely question her policies stances in the same manner as I do John Edwards. Most likely because she didn't co-sponsor the IWR as Edwards did, and at least she has Bill for FP/NS; which keeps me consistent.

I'll leave you with this, because it is was in Wes Clark's September 2002 testimony to congress.....and maybe you'll understand better why I support this man, who has demonstrated excellent judgment and foresight on what counts; life and death issues--

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

"we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."
What we should have done--

"Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

The Kurds want their own organization. The Kurds will be hemmed in by the Turks. The Iraqis also, the Iranians also are nervous of the Kurds. But nevertheless, the Kurds have a certain mass and momentum that they've built up. They will have to work to establish their participation in the government or their own identity."

"We've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_and_finding_prescient_g.html

[KoKo]

39. Interesting...what you say...

He would have benefited greatly from having attended UNC rather than NC State for his undergrad because, inherently, engineering schools focus more narrowly and more concretely on a given discipline while a liberal arts education is much broader, less structured, and with much more debate and less certitude. He is smart and is catching up, but Elizabeth still seems ahead of him on many issues.

[Blackhatjack]

51. That statement is evidence of an ignorance about UNC/NC State Universities...

I am a proud graduate of NC State University, and the statement quoted is just an erroneous assumption obviously put forth by someone who knows nothing of either university.

NC State has a fine liberal arts program, which I attended. Students at NCSU in all disciplines have access to and take courses in the liberal arts disciplines.

You may not know it, but John Edwards did not get a degree in engineering from NCSU. He obtained his degree in the School of Textiles at NCSU, and went on to get his law degree at UNC later.

For those in the dark, textiles study includes all kinds of research in areas like nanotechnology, biomedical research, advanced processes and invention related to energy, conservation, protection f the environment, etc.

Many textiles graduates go on to government service, become doctors, lawyers, etc.

Conversely, UNC has some very concrete disciplines with less exposure to liberal arts courses.

Both schools are highly regarded.

This quoted statement is obviously an opinion piece, but it just has nothing support the conclusion.

[unc70]

52. It is my own opinion, but I know a lot about UNC and NCSU

I am UNC class of 1970 and live in Chapel Hill, lots of my family went to State -- two brothers, numerous cousins, etc. -- including several Textiles grads. I have great respect for State and its academics, and I know that the "liberal arts" departments have grown a lot over the last 30 years and many are quite good.

The opinion/musing I expressed are based upon the dramatic differences in how each university is structured and how different this makes the education and training the students receive. An undergraduate applicant to NC State must specify their first and second choices of a College (e.g. Textiles, Agriculture, Design) when they apply and they are admitted/rejected specifically by and to that College and it alone and most of their courses were more or less pre-selected or limited to just a couple of alternatives.

At UNC, nearly all freshmen are admitted to the General College and most students are not required to select a major until late in their sophomore year. The exceptions are in programs such as those of the School of Nursing or the School of Pharmacy. Before you can declare a major, you need to meet its pre-requisites (e.g. chemistry requires calculus through a certain level).

As a simple example happened back when John, Elizabeth, and I were in school consider foreign languages. Neither brothers nor my cousins ever took a foreign language at State and one was not required for admission to most Colleges there. Every student at Carolina was required to take four semesters of a "new" language or through "fifth" semester in their high school language.

At UNC we challenged everything and everyone, protested and marched and went on strike (and stayed), and proudly became the favorite target of Jesse Helms. Particularly at that time, there was comparatively little political activism at NC State, while at Carolina we were always protesting something.

Hope this helps better-explain my aside.



BTW All but one of my relatives who went to State are Repubs; all who went to Carolina are Dems.

P.S. Congrats on soundly kicking our butts last week.

[Blackhatjack]

53. As State/UNC grads are apt to do, we disagree re: your characterization of State....

My son is a first year freshman at NCSU, and we just went through the whole process of analyzing both schools. You are correct that an entering student usually chooses a specific college to which he/she desires admission. However, like my son's roommate, that is not required --since there is a first year college program that does not require any college selection until second year. Same as the General College option at UNC.

The general requirements of both schools are almost identical and SAT scores are very close to one another.

As you may not be aware, to be admitted to a UNC System University there are advanced requirements for high school students. To apply to either NCSU or UNC you have to have at least 2 years of a foreign language, or equivalent proficiency testing results, to qualify as an applicant.

I take particular issue with your statement " At UNC we challenged everything and everyone, protested and marched and went on strike (and stayed), and proudly became the favorite target of Jesse Helms. Particularly at that time, there was comparatively little political activism at NC State, while at Carolina we were always protesting something."

I graduated from NCSU in 1977, and there were plenty of protests on the brickyard, challenges to the Administration, and lots of liberal students involved in political activism. How do I know this? I was involved, and was a writer/reporter with out student newspaper 'The Technician.'

And when it comes to being Jesse Helms' favorite target, I know for a fact he never forgave the State students with The Technician who ran an April Fools Edition with a Centerfold picture of Jesse Helms in the buff!(Of course it was Jesse's head and someone else's body).

So once again NCSU and UNC students each have a history they can be proud of, and quite a lot in common as well.

[unc70]

62. My focus was earlier when Edwards was at State

I noted that things have changed a lot at State since Edwards attended (just before you did). The new First Year option is somewhat like UNC's GC. But I don't think that State requires additional foreign language beyond the two years in high school required for admission.

Didn't mean to slight student activism at State, but in the decade before you, a much smaller percentage of the students were routinely involved. That increased dramatically over the years. (Maybe it was the increasing enrollment of women?)

I agree that we have a lot more in common than in differences.

One dramatic difference we noticed in the late 60' was that State students could still hitchhike home in eastern NC without concern for their safety. It became such a concern for many of us that we quit thumbing completely.

BTW I don't know what Edwards experience was like at Clemson.

I will PM you with a couple of other things.

[KoKo]

69. But "Black Hat" when Edwards when to school and when your son is going

are really huge differences in "Era's" in the South....wouldn't you agree?

Times have changed much in the South since Edwards was a Freshman. :shrug:

[venable]

45. Clark 2008, I'm going to guess you're referring to me

I make that assumption because someone asked me straight out if I worked for the campaign.

I don't. I am a supporter who knows people in the campaign, as do many supporters of many candidates. If you are involved, you know people involved in the campaigns you support.

I won't tell you what I do for a living, but it has nothing to do with politics.

I wouldn't know for sure, but in following all the posters here who support Edwards, none seem planted (though I'm not sure how I would recognize it)

Maybe it's not me who smells funny to you, but if it is, it must be some other smell about me.

[mnhtnbb]

61. Oooh, defamation by innuendo. How much do you get paid?

[citizen snips]

67. ...

:rofl:

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Salon.com part of the GOP Rumor Mill?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

56. This should be locked now that we know Edwards did not fire them.

Maybe you could request it.

[KoKo]

70. My post wasn't about the fireings...it was about "answering questions."

I've never asked that any post of yours be "locked." I'm saddened that you would come on here and request that mine would be. :shrug:

I was picking up a different issue and criticism of Edwards that's dogged him. And, I live in NC and he was MY Senator and I donated to him and supported him.