Snafulopagos to Edwards: Is this apologizing becoming a pattern?

[The Count]

I start the disclaimer that I know Snaffi carries water for his masters and is always trying to trip up dems - so he's hardly a source above reproach,
However, there were some facts - some new to me in this question he asked Edwards today.
After going again through the "I didn't know it was bad to vote for war" thingy, Snafi asked Edwards if he thinks apologizing is not a sign of weakness. "No" came the rightful answer from Edwards.
But then, Snaffi put up a list of other 4 Senate votes Edwards has been apologizing:
1. No Child left Behind(NCLB)
2. The Bankruptcy Law
3. Yucca Mountain
4. Trade with China

Missing were the Patriot Act, the lack of vote on the federa; Abortion ban and maybe others.
I confess I don't know much about the China issue.
Edwards quibbled about the most important (to me) on that list: NCLB - saying that it's actually a good law (bad, bad answer) that needs some minor changes. There was a back and forth whether he did apologize or not for that vote "I don't remember exactly every speech I made"). But the bottom line is, he SHOULD apologize for this attack on public education that NCLB is.
Also, it's becoming chareer and clearer, that almost his entire senate career was at odds with his rhetoric today.
Snaffi brought up another contradiction between Edwards' previous tough talk about off-shore shelters and his subsequent working for such a company.
The stock answer for all these contradictions was: "My beliefs didn't change, voters should just look at me and trust me" (paraphrased a bit)

[Oglethorpe]

1. This is a potential problem for Senator Edwards

People will accept a wrong vote with an apology on an occasional basis. However, it appears Senator Edwards is on his way to repudiating his entire Senatorial career.

[Joe Fields]

115. I'd say it's a big problem.

[madfloridian]

2. I have "lowered my expectations"...

nuff said.

[dogman]

4. Of the candidate? n/t

[madfloridian]

7. At DU, as the note said.

It said if attacks bothered us, just to "lower expectations".

Now I just expect anything to be posted.

[Czolgosz]

84. I don't personally use the ignore feature, but this is why (and for whom) it was created.

[Clark2008]

131. It's an attack to look at one's record?

Since when?

[IA_Seth]

11. These posts do nothing to defend/support your candidate...

Just sayin.

[madfloridian]

24. Not intended to do either.

.

[graywarrior]

3. The Bankruptcy Law is a huge issue for me.

[karynnj]

9. The bankrupcy bill is a huge issue for me too - because it goes to what his believes really are

It is true that 81 (82) Senators voted for it, including Clinton. The problem is that the one consistency between 2004 and 2008 for Edwards was the two Americas populist message - but this bill led to enormous pain in even lower middle class and middle class families who for whatever reason got into a huge amount of consumer dept. In 2005, Senator Kennedy very eloquently and emotionally described the impact of the then current law (the 2001 law). The cases he described were heart rending. The allowed rates and penalties led to many people owing as much as they originally borrowed after paying an amount equal to the original sum.

If you look at the people who voted against it you have most of the liberal and populist wings of the party - people like Kennedy, Wellstone, Harkins and Kerry. The question I have is that if Edwards believed his 2004/2008 rhetoric he would have been there.

The dilemma with Edwards is that many of his positions in 2008 are good. This may reflect that he has a good team working with him creating his platform. All candidates, even those with depth and experience on many issues, will have experts and advisors working to help develop their platforms. My concern is that Edwards has no long term roots on these issues, so his answers on questions where he can't pull from his stump speech are substantially weaker than when he can.

[graywarrior]

41. Exactly. Voting for that bill represents the core of who the voters are.

I'd need a damn good explanation on why he, and others, voted for it...and not a political explanation, but an honest one. As far as I'm concerned, they fucked over millions of us especially if debt is due to medical bills due to NO HEALTH INSURANCE! ! !

[Czolgosz]

92. The critical bill was the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Edwards

was not in the Senate in 2005.

If you are a person who is interested in bankruptcy rights, this was the key bill, which you can read about here: http://drummajorinstitute.com/congress/billdescrips/?billid=2

[karynnj]

110. I realize that the Bankrupcy bill of 2005 was worse

I listened to many hours of debate on it and its various amendments - Kennedy was abosutely incredible. I alluded to Kennedy's comments on how unfair the bankrupcy laws already were. Those comments dealt with the situation stemming from the 2001 bill.

Look at the Senators that for and against it. This was a major contradiction for Edwards from his populist stance. The fact is his votes, positions in his only governmental job are not those of a populist. As someone else stated, he would do better saying that he changed and giving a reason why. You saw 2004 - Kerry has a very consistent record on virtually any issue you can name. I can find decade old speeches in the Senate record that sound like him today - no one would know they were old if the statistics were replaced with current ones. Imagine what the Republicans could do with this list.

I know you support Edwards. Saying that the 2005 bill, that he didn't have to vote on, was worse, doesn't change that he voted for this one. The biggest problem is it is right smack on his main issue - he will need to explain it.

[Czolgosz]

129. Actually, I'm equally open to Obama and Edwards. I may even vote for Kucinich because the nominee

will be a done deal by the time my state has its primary and Kucinich's views best reflect my own and I may very well vote for him to show the party there is a constituency to the left of the major candidates.

If you are looking for a reason why Edwards's views may have changed, perhaps you can blame it on the fact that between his vote (where he joined an overwhelming majority of Democrats and all Republicans) and now he worked on the faculty at Chapel Hill as the director of its poverty center.

[karynnj]

134. I also have no candidate

I am probably leaning to Obama of the top three and to Dodd out of all of them. My problem is that with Obama it is mainly words and image, where I would prefer more of a track record. I have problems with the other two.

In any year, there will be some people who really don't lock on to any candidate - I suspect that will be me in 2008.

My conjecture on Edwards was that he was not a very political person when he first ran for Congress. I know that's an odd comment, but he often failed to vote in elections and he says he can't remember if he voted for Nixon or McGovern.

[dsc]

124. The 2001 bill never became law

so Kennedy couldn't have been speaking about that bill.

[karynnj]

138. He wasn't speaking of any bill just the current situation

Did the House fail to pass it?

[chieftain]

59. Maybe you can be fooled by false intelligence on Iraq, but

how could anyone from a working class family not recognize the atrocity of the bankruptcy bill as anything other than an assault on workers.? This is extremely troubling. His responses to the questions were not particularly persuasive. I am not a big Steph fan but he hauled the pathetic Secretary Rice over the coals last week. I hope he questions all his guests this closely. We are a long way from the primaries; we are better off to have fair but probing interviews of all who would be president.

[bahrbearian]

5. Would he do the same in an intervue with Hilliary ?

[The Count]

30. Probably yes, as he made his career bashing Bill

[karynnj]

45. Before he bashed Bill he worked in his administration

and on BOTH elections.

His autobiography was interesting. From the early discussion of choosing the 1992 candidate he wanted to work for, it appears that Clinton's personality appealed to him, though he had misgivings on Clintons support for the Contras and his less than stellar environmental record. The book is a fascinating look at Clinton in campaigns and as President. Stephanopolis, the son of a Greek Orthodox priest had some difficulty overlooking some of Clinton's actions.

I got the sense from the book that he came to regret having lost his own way following the charismatic Clinton. He now seems both attracted to and repelled by Clinton. His comments on Hillary were far more positive - and on his show he has appeared to savor the idea that she could be President. (Think back to all the times he always wanted to talk about Hillary with anyone possibly running against her - from Nov 2004 on. (Caveat - I read the book over 5 years ago)

[illinoisprogressive]

6. It will be interesting to see how he deals with Obama next week.

[Adelante]

13. There are some questions Obama should answer, as well

I hope Steph is just as tough on all the candidates. I want all of it behind us when the heat comes on. No surprises.

[Dawgs]

17. Which questions should Obama answer? Not disagreeing, just..

curious as to what you were thinking.

[Adelante]

22. Obama's higher on my list than most candidates

But there are a few things that bother me. His voting record on environmental and energy issues for one thing. His vote to confirm Dennis Spurgeon as Assistant Secretary of Energy last year was a mind blower. I do understand his point that presidents need appointments power, but I think there have to be some limits. The California court-packing where Bush appointed nothing but right wing nuts and human rights opponents was one place I think Obama should have left his personal rule to the side, because the outcome was so dire. It's not a deal breaker like voting for the IWR would have been, but I don't feel satisfied with his reasoning.

[w4rma]

49. Hamilton Project, Lieberman campaign, against antiwar liberals in primarys, against Alito filibuster

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

[karynnj]

54. Can we get Gore or Kerry back?

or is it possible one of the second tier candidates will be better - Biden isn't and I don't think Richardson is. Dodd gave a create speech against the torture bill.

Are we simply looking too close or have forces pushed out the more credible candidates?

[w4rma]

62. I'm extremely happy with my candidate. I trust him.

But as for people being pushed out, it is my opinion that the Clintonites have been trying to push Gore out of the race, just like they pushed Kerry out.

[The Count]

68. In all fairness, It was Kerry who pushed Gore out in 2004 (2002?)

As for having such a complete list - of -justified- questions of Obama - but choosing to completely ignore your candidate senate career - makes you sound more like a fan than a voter.
I am checking both lists - and checking them twice.

[AtomicKitten]

75. scrutiny is always more palatable

... when it is of somebody else.

I think an honest assessment (that means moving beyond the cheerleading and the rhetoric) of all the candidates is in order, not as ammunition (snark bombs) to sink other contenders, but to view them all in the same light - sunlight.

In the end, we have an imperfect but solid and interesting field of candidates.

[karynnj]

76. Not true - He had no way of doing that

Gore was considered to be almost owed the nomination in 2001 and most of 2002 - because he had really won. (After 911, it was also thought that the nomination had little value.)

There is a video in the CSPAN archives of Kerry going through a NH town in late summer 2003, meeting people, playing classical guitar etc where he is met by reporters. The reporters first tried unsuccesfully to bait him to criticise Dean, then asked him to comment on the "fact" that if either Gore or Clinton entered he didn't have a chance. He said he would put out his plan.

You could as easily make the case that Gore by giving Kerry a Kerry 2008 shirt at the ST Patrick's Day event in 1998 was signalling pretty clearly he wanted Kerry to run with him in 2000. Kerry was on the very public short list and this led to Kerry's own decision to keep his search completely private.

Kerry also gave Gore (and Jimmy Carter) a speech at his convention. When most conventional Democrats were distancing themselves from Gore, Kerry never did.

[w4rma]

83. I agree with karynnj. Kerry had no way of doing that. So, be fair and don't shovel that on Kerry.

And please check all lists, mr count, especially as someone who says he is a die-hard Obama fan (but who interestingly gives Hillary a pass on most things).

[Adelante]

112. Well, that's just an outline of an opinion piece

There's no sourcing nowhere. It would take more than a Z op-ed for me and I know for you, karynnj.

[Forkboy]

66. Yeah,but besides all that,what's wrong with him?

:)

[Cameron27]

69. It's pretty discouraging,

I may have to look into the second tier candidates at this rate.

[Forkboy]

73. That's where I started.

:)

[The Count]

70. That was pretty much his reaction to my OP

I find both lists disturbing.

[Forkboy]

74. Both lists are troubling to me as well.

[emmadoggy]

67. I received a letter from the Obama campaign about a week ago and it really

exasperated me. I threw the letter away so I can't quote it directly, but there was a sentence that read something to the effect of, "The thing that concerns Americans the most is not the largeness of our problems, but the smallness of our politics."

Ok, the political divisiveness in our country has certainly become a problem. But is it Americans' biggest concern? HELL NO!! Let me say that again, HELL NO!!!! This country has a lot of HUGE problems and our biggest one is the criminal cabal currently occupying the White House running roughshod all over our democracy. I just don't think Obama gets it. His biggest issue seems to be that we need to be more compromising and conciliatory with Republicans and the Bush administration. WRONG. DEAD WRONG.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will (none too enthusiastically) vote for him. I just don't think he has the right attitude, an aggressive enough attitude, about righting the terrible damage that has been done to this country. I don't think he (at least not yet) has the chops to REALLY attack the many scary problems we are facing.

Just my two-cents.

[bling bling]

82. I hope you're so proud of yourself. Looks like you already swayed people too!

Oh boy.

I guess my GD post BEGGING people to check the facts that DU'ers post was a waste of my time. And your time spent posting a bunch of crap disguised as an informative bullet pointed list gets eaten up and swallowed whole.

It's hard to argue with 15 bullet points of bullshit because you and I both know that you care not about the quality of the tripe you post. I could post a rebuttal about every single one of these and I would get no response from you. Another huge, fat, waste of my time.

So here's another option.

I beg you to look up all your pretty little bullet points and do the responsible thing and explain the criticism in context.

In fact, I will wager you $50 dollars that you can't post a more unbiased, detailed explanation of all these points *in the context of which they occurred* and STILL have them come across as making Obama look shady the way your dishonest and misleading bullet pointed smear campaign works.

I bet you won't take me up on my bet. Dare to raise the wager, even? Go ahead and have a peek at your own propaganda points by doing some responsible research before you accept my offer. I can hardly wait. Here's your opportunity to drown Obama not only with cute little bullet points of crap but with responsible unbiased intellectual explanations that will sway all kinds of people. AND you get fifty bucks. Wow. Who could pass up such an offer, except for someone who knows their little bullet-pointed list is a bunch of misleading crap.

[AtomicKitten]

85. It is clear the M.O. of some here

... is to sabotage the campaigns of other candidates.

That is their strategy, that is their purpose.

[bling bling]

87. It's scary to see how quickly others are to just believe the hype.

"Oh dear!! I didn't know all that about Obama! Well, if W4RMA posts something with bullet points that says so, then it must be true."

It's like beating your head against a brick wall to expect people to be responsible in their criticism as well as responsible in what they read and accept as truth.

[AtomicKitten]

94. The Angelides vs Westly primary in California

should be the case study of people here who think that an insidiously ugly primary war is a good thing for the Democrats. That primary left us on the side of the road with our prom dress over our head and Schwarzenegger still in office.

We can do better than this.

[Inspired]

96. I tend to agree with w4rma. n/t

[bling bling]

101. Well you're certainly entitled to do so.

But I still don't care for the bullet-point argument that takes everything out of context and makes it all look shady because I think it's dishonest and misleading.

If you don't want to support Obama, I only hope it's not because of information others post here that's *designed* to make Obama look as shady as possible.

That's my only concern. Internet inspired half-truths have a way of taking on a life of their own. It's disturbing anyway but especially when it's about a candidate I'm pulling for.

That's not to say I want to go into blind denial of any truly concerning issues that might come up about Obama. By all means if there's legitimate criticisms, they should be put on display. But if they're the "truthiness" kind of posts, I'll call them out for what they are when I see them.

I think that's fair.

[Cameron27]

89. That's ok bling bling,

I just saw that information in another thread, and I'm not ready to make any conclusions about it yet. Obama still remains my number one choice and it will take a lot to persuade me otherwise.

They're all imperfect, but some are more imperfect than others.

On edit: I spoke my mind too soon in the above post, and it came out worse than it should have.

[bling bling]

103. Thanks for saying so.

People that post bulleted lists from biased bloggers who have an ulterior motive are a concern of mine. There's always more to the story than the bullet points suggest.

I'll almost always do the research on criticisms and accusations to get to the bottom of it but I appreciate it when people stick to the facts. I can't stand it when it's something like that 15 bullet-point thing that includes simplistic, subjective snipes about complicated situations that takes a much longer amount of time to rebut using sources and factual information. Though I guess I could just play tit for tat and find some other blogger who disagrees with the OP and simply cite him/her.

I want more than accusations such as "Obama used his influence to support the neo-con Lieberman" or whatever that was. I think it counts for something to take into consideration that Lieberman was the incumbent Democratic Senator and that even Barbara Boxer supported him. When Lieberman was ousted from the Party he didn't continue getting support from these Democrats. But when you point that out you get in return that, "well, Obama only *tepidly* supported Lamont. It doesn't end.

It's enough to make me just want to say, forget it. And sadly, I think most people have said just that when it comes to debating with those who don't have much interest in portraying anyone but their own candidate in a fair light.

Anyway, thanks for your post. And the opportunity it gave me to continue on with my rant some more. I think I'm almost done now.

[Cameron27]

108. I think we also have to

keep in mind what the authors' intentions or motivations are when these stories appear. Sirota apparently has a grudge against Obama because of Lamont, so he's coming from a position of bias IMO.

I have no idea who the author of this z-mag article is, but it's something to consider.

Rant all you want. I know that there were several threads here, de-bunking smears against General Clark, and it actually proved to be an excellent way to get more good information about him presented than I would have thought.

[Adelante]

102. I don't think people are that easily swayed

Really, I don't.

But I agree with you here:

"look up all your pretty little bullet points and do the responsible thing and explain the criticism in context"

[zulchzulu]

100. So what do you have against the Hamilton Project...

Most of those "accusations" against Obama are either unfounded, vague, misleading or generally lies... but what's your take on the Hamilton Project (besides just cutting and pasting from some dude's blog)...

[w4rma]

104. Here is an entire thread devoted to this topc. Post your queries here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3252963

[zulchzulu]

116. Actually that's more of the same shit posed in this thread...

So what's your take on the Hamilton Project...just a sentence... I need a good laugh.

[w4rma]

136. I posted it in the other thread. (nt)

[karynnj]

35. More than Obama, will he demand the same of Hillary Clinton

From his autobiography, he liked her more than Bill - and he chose to work for BC. He clearly felt betrayed by the lies told on Lewinsky. From the campaign and the concern about "bimbo reruptions", it seems he was far more offended that Clinton lied to him personally and to the various cabinet people who were then sent out to defend him.

The Clintons have made a career of sliding their positions around. Few have called them on it.

[The Count]

65. Again, Snaffi made his career of ATTACKING the Clintons, so to expect that

he'll favor Hillary seems a strange. I'd be shocked if that happens.

[karynnj]

79. Have you read his book?

He is clearly fascinated by them. I do think there is a weird dynamic with Bill Clinton. Hillary has, to my knowledge, never been on his show.

I thought he liked her from the way he has pushed her.

[The Count]

50. I hope he asks him about the tithing protection bill he sponsored - my trouble

with Obama.
Of course, we all know the GOP-ers will get off easier - although I'll admit I didn't have the patience to actually sit through the Tancredo interview today to prove it.

[peacetalksforall]

8. I wish I hadn't read this thread and looked at that list. I think Edwards

is brilliant so where did those votes come from. If just one had been no - bankruptcy, patriot act - oh please, no.

I am becoming more convinced that those who voted like they did for these atrocities of laws are led and guided by the DLC. I swear the DLC tells them how it can be turned to some advantage and maybe they aren't all as smart as I think they are - to listen to the DLC. At some point in time - the DLC lost me and I don't know enough to answer how or when or why.

[Adelante]

18. I think the individual is responsible

I'm not really in favor of assigning blame to the various Dem groups of one persuasion or another. It lets the individual off the hook in a way. Led and guided, I mean. What's important are critical decisions at crucial times, which means not going along to get along, but standing up on principle.

[Carolina]

21. hammer meet nail

"maybe they aren't all as smart as I think they are."

Alleged smart lawyers: Edwards and HRC ('yea' on IWR, bankruptcy bill and Patriot Act)
Alleged foreign policy astuteness: Biden ('yea' on IWR, Patriot Act)

:shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug::shrug:

God, where's a Harry Truman when you need one!

[fujiyama]

26. Kerry was also a member of the DLC

and voted against the bankruptcy bill (both in '01 and '05).

The DLC doesn't have complete control over its members' votes.

[elizm]

10. One more flip-flop...

As Stephanopoulos pointed out, and Edwards admitted to, that Edwards was very adamant about not admitting the IWR vote was a mistake before the 2004 election, as he felt it would be a sign of weakness. Frankly, I was wanting Kerry and Edwards to BOTH admit it during the campaign and perhaps I would have more respect for their honesty. So before the 2004 election it was a sign of weakness to admit it was wrong, but now today, it is NOT a sign of weakness. How about honesty with the voters as a concept??

I think Stephanopoulos' questions were fair and they were all questions I have myself about Edwards. And sadly, I don't think he answered them very persuasively. How do you run as the populist candidate when you voted for free trade and the bankruptcy bill while in the senate? You can't just start a poverty center when you want to run for President and expect that to negate the votes you made while in the Senate... where you COULD have done something about it!

Okay...I'm ready to be flamed. Fortunately, I have 'some' on ignore, so I won't be able to read those!

[Adelante]

12. How do you run as an "environmentalist"

When you voted against restrictions on mountain top removal mining?

I dunno. Got me.

[karynnj]

51. Is there a candidate running this year with a great environmental record?

It is sad that just as the environment has gained more importance, we will - unlike the last 2 elections - have a candidate who does not have a real credible record on the environment.

The Clintons, for Democrats, were awful on this issue - He allowed Tyson (as in chicken) great latitude in creating the environmental pollution that people have had to fight to get the government to clean up - eben though it was never legal to begin with.

[NCarolinawoman]

106. Biden and Dodd have good records over a long period of time.

Hillary's environmental record is okay for her one term in the Senate. The three of them do well on
Animal welfare issues. Dennis K, as expected, is very good.

Edwards, as you already know, has the worst environmental record of all the candidates. Although I can't quite tell where Obama is coming from....not enough to go on.

For this issue, I would feel most comfortable seeing a long track record----i want to think that the candidate has really internalized this.....and is not just spouting off the talking points that appeal to Democratic activists.

[karynnj]

118. Nice to hear that

I have been impressed with Dodd when I have watched the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

With Hillary, I feel it is fair to also to consider the record Bill had in Arkansas and in DC - which together was poor to fair. It is fair, because she claims all his successes.

[Divine Discontent]

14. you won't be flamed by this Edwards supporter

THIS is the kind of thread that isn't a fraud cheap shot at him. It's a discussion about his interview and his answers. That's open imo!

I agree, his votes while the Senator from NC are a crock and needed a better answer than what he gave. He shoulda said, I'm a changed man, hey!, the repubs do it all the time, and I think in John's case he is changed, he gave up his senate seat to be VP, and spent 2 years seeing what he believed. He needs to be forthright and honest. I don't like his answers here, but, I will give him another shot at them, because they WILL be brought up again and again. Unless someone else enters the race (ahem... Gore/Clark) then I'm behind John's populist message, as he will do what he's preachin' and push for these things, and if the Dems retain control, it'll alllll go through by the skin of his teeth, and what a refreshing change that will be. Corporate profits be damned!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[Cameron27]

20. Very admirable attitude to take themartyred!

The OP is news of the day and responding to it isn't bashing. :thumbsup:

[Divine Discontent]

43. why thank you, thank you very much. n/t

[kitticup]

63. The thing is I don't buy it

when the Rethugs do it, and I am not buying it from Edwards. Edwards is not some young kid who is still forming his beliefs. Nor did Edwards go through anything that I would call life changing since the last election. I want true progressive who have a track record, not some poser.

[Carolina]

23. No flames here

I have the same problem. Last December when Edwards was here in SC, after apologizing for his IWR vote, he was asked by a John Q. Citizen in the crowd about his Patriot Act vote.

He hemmed and hawed, never providing an apology on that one or a credible explanation for it ...

I was there with 7 others, all loyal Dems, and afterwards we just looked at each and shook our heads.

Past is prologue and poor decisions (i.e. VOTES) cast in fear, and perhaps with the excuse of ignorance, do not bode well.

Course I'll take him over ANY repuke, but it would be another 'old my nose' vote (like 2004).

[kitticup]

60. I completely agree with you

And the thing with the pvoerty center, it has 2 or 3 full time employees.

I also hate Edwards statements because they're inevitably an attack on fellow democrats. He never throws his support behind existing Democratic efforts, instead he tries to paint all Democrats with a broad brush. He could support Kerry's efforts to put pressure on Roadback Republicans, but he doesn't. He could support Hillary's and Byrd's efforts to de-authorize the bill he co-sponsored and voted for, but doesn't. Edwards is about Edwards.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. What's a "Snafulopagos"?

:shrug:

--p!

[Divine Discontent]

16. George Stephenopolous, This Week commentator (I think), he's a hard hittin former Clinton aide n/t

[The Count]

34. Just wanted to emphasize, not a very credible pundit by using the name

he did open the primary debate in 2003 by practically scolding all candidates for thinking of running against such a popular preznit as W.
But again, some of the questions today were the same I would have asked.

[karynnj]

56. So, we should have let Bush run unopposed?

Having done that, wouldn't you think he should credit Kerry with almost winning in the face of terror warning, a biased media, voter suppression etc.

[The Count]

64. I actually credit Kerry with winning outright (then take it back for lack of fight)

But, yeah, I guess Snaffi&comp would have liked it that way.

[Evergreen Emerald]

123. "Big Bird's friend."

To quote a Friend's episode.

[MethuenProgressive]

19. "My beliefs didn't change, voters should just look at me and trust me"

"I'm the son of a mill worker my wife has cancer our son died Kerry's loss wasn't my fault."

There's not really much to this guy.
Mike Dukakis without the gravitas.
He recently said his dream job would be a mill supervisor.
His friends should encourage him to follow his dream.

[AuntPatsy]

25. Could the reasons for his votes have something to do with his ties

to the secretive conection to the Bilderberg conferences? After all, I'm honestly suprised not more is done in terms of investigating these highly secretive meetings attended by some of the most powerful people world wide?

[Cameron27]

27. I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories

swirling around Bilderberg, but I don't buy into that. I do think however, that there should be some transparency about a group of very wealthy and very powerful people who meet regularly to chit chat about global affairs.

[AuntPatsy]

28. I've been reading up on that particular groups simply because there

has been so much negativity about Edwards lately and to be honest I was wondering why so thought I would do a bit of checking myself.

I agree that most believe the Bilderberg group to be nothing to worry about but I caught a quote which stood out to hold more truth to the fact that someone should be paying more attention to them..



"Ask yourself this - if 120 of the world's top movie stars met in secret surrounded by sophisticated security, do you think the media would be interested?"

I mean I realize the media is notorious for ignoring issues that matter but considering the very high profile attendees and the very secretive rules this group possesses, that alone should wet the appetite of even the most junior of investigating reporting.

[Cameron27]

29. Exactly.

It's very suspicious that it's not being talked about in the media, and that leads me to think that some heavy handed strings are being pulled somewhere.

[jsamuel]

31. well, the media would rather talk about "Anna Nicole's baby's daddy" than just about anything else

so, just because they ignore it doesn't mean that it is important, but in the case of the Iraq War, corruption, etc... it is

[Cameron27]

32. Of course.

World news has been turned into Entertainment Tonight and no one (except a few of us) notices.

[AuntPatsy]

38. Exaclty what I said to my husband one night while he was watching

his favorite faux channel, told him if he was so interested in fluff news that he should turn to ET instead, he just grumbled.

[The Count]

44. MSM doesn't pass that easily a chance to attack a Democrat - unless they hold

on to it for the General elections - or there's a darker reason.
In the first category would be the inexplicably muteness on Edwards' SPONSORSHIP of IWR - and the fact that his editorial on war was featured on the White House website.
The second category would be stuff like Bilderberg and his speech against Iran.

[AuntPatsy]

58. these days it would be wise to watch exactly what the msm is pushing

and keep one's mind open on all fronts.

[AuntPatsy]

36. Well consider some of the list of attendees, some very high profile

names that pay journalistic salaries are known to have been invited, makes you wonder less about why such little coverage is afforded these highly secretive meetings that is known for it's wish for world globalization.

[Cameron27]

52. self-delete

save for a different thread.

[Donna Zen]

33. Ahhh...but some of the media

...are members.

One article I read spoke about the McCarthy era, and how the Bilderbergers demanded that he leave the stage. They were assured by whomever was representing the republicans, that they should consider it done. And so it was. Now we can look upon this as "good thing" but the story has a dark side too.

Nah, it's probably all a bunch of clap-trap...or maybe not.

[AuntPatsy]

39. You would think by now that those making fun of so called conspiracy

theorists having been proven right on many issues would quit attempting to use that so called way to hush questions thinking it wouldn't work.

[The Count]

48. Which reminds me - PNAC also used the conspiracy cover for some time

"we are a small group of people of no consequence" they said....

[AuntPatsy]

61. Exactly, how many times have you heard the term "Follow the Money"

Well in both instances, I believe the phrase to hold clout and is worthy of investigating whether one claims it is nothing more than conspiracty rattling in the dark.

[The Count]

37. Certainly the much ignored speech threatening Iran has something to do with that

I don't think he had those connections as a beginned Senator - they just started flying him around when the POTUS aspirations became known.

[AuntPatsy]

40. But he did attend the meeting in 2002 where it was revealed invading

Iraq was one of the issues presented and how it would benefit the corporate world.

[The Count]

46. Then you have a point on the possible connection to the IWR vote to this

influence.

[Cameron27]

53. never mind lol.

[The Count]

55. I consider it highly relevant to the OP - so- no problem!

The questions really are: why the contradiction between the senator and the candidate - and can we trust the candidate? you may have one possible answer to both.

[Cameron27]

57. Ok, I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion,

but it might be appropriate.

[Donna Zen]

42. About NCLB

The number one answer is!

Needs to be fully funded.

Wrong. Money can help education, but money can't make a bad bill good. NCLB is a bad bill.

I just spent part of my morning writing and reading about NCLB, and to call it a good law is close to being pig ignorant beyond hope. Although to be fair, the candidates whose records I've checked, all just brush the concerns of educators aside with a "more money" answer.

Here's a link to a good discussion at Kos.

IF NCLB is reauthorized in anything like the current format, or if - God forbid - proposals such as those by the Aspen group which would increase the punitive nature of many of the sanctions and impose even more were to become law, we likely would destroy meaningful public education in this nation. It would no longer be able to serve as a means of lifting people up. It would instead facilitate further exacerbation of the underlying inequities in this nation.

I think this is as important an issue as faces this nation. It is a political issue, it is a social issue, and it sure as heck is a moral issue if we believe in the promise of our founding documents like the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Education must serve the goals to which our Founders aspired, and to which so much of the effort throughout our history has been dedicated, or this nation will rot from the inside out. We cannot sustain a liberal democracy with its concomitant liberties and freedoms unless we can - through education - provide meaningful opportunity for all Americans and those who aspire to become Americans to participate fully in the promise of America. Absent meaningful public education, I do not believe that promise can be maintained.

Peace.

Teacherken has provided links to some excellent articles. Peace indeed.

[The Count]

47. Thanks! Clark called it "a hand grenade thrown at public education meant to

defund and embarrass teachers" - and it was half of the reason I had supported Clark (yeah, education is THAT important to me - having both kids and teachers in the family)

[Donna Zen]

72. Most don't realize how important that is:

I can remember the day clearly when with a group of teachers squeezed into a tiny office we read Josh Marshall's interview with Clark. When we came to part about education we cried. Real tears. We are so tired of being bashed and pandered to, that hearing words of understanding blew us away. Here's a snip:

For example, take the idea of competition in schools. OK now, what is competition in
schools? What does it really mean? Well, competition in business means you have somebody
who's in a business that has a profit motive in it. It's measured every quarter. If the business
doesn't keep up, the business is going to lose revenue, therefore it has an incentive to
restructure, reorganize, re-plan, re-compete and stay in business.

Schools aren't businesses. Schools are institutions of public service. Their job--their product--
is not measured in terms of revenues gained. It's measured in terms of young lives whose
potential can be realized. And you don't measure that either in terms of popularity of the
school, or in terms of the standardized test scores in the school. You measure it child-by-
child, in the interaction of the child with the teacher, the parent with the teacher, and the child
in a larger environment later on in life.

So when people say that competition is-this is sort of sloganeering, "Hey, you know, schools
need this competition." No. I've challenged people: Tell me why it is that competition would
improve a school. Most of them can't explain it. It's just like, "Well, competition improves
everything so therefore it must improve schools."

If you want to improve schools, you've got to go inside the processes that make a school
great. You've got to look at the teachers, their qualifications, their motivation, what it is that
gives a teacher satisfaction, what it is a teacher wants to do in a classroom. We've got to
empower teachers. Give them an opportunity to lead in the classroom. Teachers are the most
important leaders in America. All that is lost in the sloganeering of this party. And the
American people know it's lost. So you asked me to give you one thing about this party that's
in power -- it's the sort of doctrinaire ideology that doesn't really understand the country that
we're living in.

But this thread isn't about Wes Clark. I do hope you bookmark those links from Kos and pass them on. teacherken is amazing, and has the ears of many in Washington.

About your OP. I missed the program, but I've already reached a few conclusions about JRE, and a few other candidates. I stay out of Edwards' threads; in fact, I stay out of most candidate thread these days. The response to objections about certain candidates seems to bring out the snark and cries of "basher." Basher? No I'm not. I'm a voter who has no primary candidate at this point, and I believe it is the responsibility of supporters to convince me when I have real concerns. I am also a Democratic committee woman, and to date, I'm rather dismayed with the field. As for Edwards, he has a very good team including his media team; however, the whole idea is not about running a campaign, it's about running the country, one that is at war.

I wish Charlie Rose put out transcripts. Steve Cohen (The Nation) was discussing our Russian relationship one night. The word he applied to Edwards' op ed about Russia was "dangerous."

[jenmarie]

71. I hope this is just the beginning

of it being exposed that Edwards is a politician first and foremost who will do and say whatever is popular -- whatever advances his political future. His past actions do not show someone who was putting the good of the country first. I don't watch the Sunday shows, so thanks for the recap Count.

Re: Bilderberg -- a good friend has done some research on it and it's sort of scary how many times those who have attended go on to become candidates in the next presidential election. I realize that's not what this thread is about, but it's quite curious.

[karynnj]

77. An alternative way to look at it

Is that Bilderberg invites any high potential people likely ti become leaders in their field. As this is the same pool of people who get a shot at these positions - the causality could go either way.

(they are high potential, therefore they are invited

or

They were invited, therefore they are high potential.

[AX10]

78. The punits will find any excuse to attack a Democrat.

Though I still am taken aback that Edwards supported the bankruptcy "reform" bill.

[madfloridian]

80. Same one Hillary voted for in 2001 0r 2002?

"When George W. Bush took office, a bankruptcy bill was the first major legislation passed by the new Congress. Bill Clinton had vetoed a milder version, but in the new circumstances many former opponents scrambled aboard. Only sixteen Democratic senators voted against the bill, led by Paul Wellstone (the measure would have become law long ago, if not for Wellstone's guerrilla resistance). The "yea" votes included a couple of new faces much celebrated as "people" politicians and presidential possibles--Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Two other potential candidates--Russ Feingold and John Kerry--voted against it. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

Cause he did not vote for nor could he the hated one in 2005.

Was it the one Bill vetoed? How different from 2005?

[madfloridian]

81. I missed the interview....could you fill me in please?

If I go back to all those bills, it would leave a whole lot out in the cold.

[madfloridian]

86. Which bankruptcy law did they mention this morning?

I don't see a transcript yet.

[madfloridian]

111. Which bankruptcy bill?

Not the one in 2005. Just making it clear on that.

And Hillary did not vote that day.

Here is a great summary at Kos about it by Mary Scott O'Conner.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015

This is the bill the Blue Dogs and New Dems begged Hastert to bring up for a vote.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/699

Edwards was not in the Senate then.

[karynnj]

126. It was the 2001 bill

Hillary is my least favorite candidate among the Democrats - but that is unfair. A few days before the vote in 2005, Hillary voted against cloture (ie for a filibuster). If there were 41 votes, it would have stopped the bill. We had fewer than 41, so the bill came to a vote. That is the vote she missed - her husband was in the hospital to have scar tissue remaining from his heart operation removed. We then would have needed 51 votes to defeat the legislation - as I said we didn't even have 41. Hillary's no vote was not needed. It was completely reasonable that she was with her husband that day.

IN 2001, Hillary voted with Edwards for that bill - Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, Harkin, Wellstone and others voted against it.

[karynnj]

119. Bill couldn't veto anything in 2001 - Bush was President

and it was not vetoed.

[bling bling]

120. I believe Clinton had vetoed it or similar version when he was President.

I'd have to look it up to be sure but off the top of my head I'm pretty sure that Clinton did indeed veto the bankruptcy bill that his wife later voted for as well as Edwards. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[karynnj]

128. I didn't realize that it had been a bill vetoed by Clinton

that was resubmitted under Bush -

[madfloridian]

133. I posted the long Common Dreams article about it.

just above in this thread and in another.

[AuntPatsy]

135. Long read but this is what you were looking for

Clinton vetoes sweeping bankruptcy bill

December 19, 2000
Web posted at: 9:28 PM EST (0228 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton vetoed legislation Tuesday that proposed the most sweeping changes in the bankruptcy law in 20 years because he said it was unfair to ordinary debtors and working families who fall on hard times.

Supporters of the bill, including credit card companies, have pushed for three years to pass a bill to overhaul the nation's bankruptcy system. Clinton also favors revamping the bankruptcy laws but thinks the current bill is not evenhanded.

"I would have signed a balanced bankruptcy reform bill that addressed known abuses without tilting the playing field against those debtors who genuinely turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start," Clinton said in a statement released Tuesday evening.

The president said the bill would allow debtors who own expensive homes to shield their mansions from creditors while debtors with moderate incomes, especially renters, must live frugally and comply with rigid payment plans for five to seven years.

RESOURCES
• Read the full Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000
• Follow the Bill's path through Congress



MESSAGE BOARD
• Spending the money
• Bill Clinton's legacy



ALSO
Clinton to issue sweeping new medical privacy rules, officials say





"This loophole for the wealthy is fundamentally unfair and must be closed," Clinton said.

Clinton also cited the bill's exclusion of a provision that allows people who perpetuate violence, vandalism and harassment at reproductive health clinics to avoid paying legal judgments by concealing their assets and filing for bankruptcy.

By leaving the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000 unsigned, the president issued a "pocket veto," the fourth indirect veto of his administration. By waiting until the lame-duck congressional session adjourned before vetoing it, he deprived lawmakers of the chance to override the veto.

The veto drew criticism from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading sponsor of the legislation.

"President Clinton let the American people down by pocket vetoing the bipartisan bankruptcy reform bill," Grassley said Tuesday. "This veto means that financially troubled family farmers don't have protection against foreclosure, that residents of nursing homes that file for bankruptcy can be evicted in the middle of the night and that consumers will continue to pay higher prices for goods and services due to the exploding number of bankruptcies"

Proponents cite as evidence of rampant abuse of the bankruptcy court system a rapid rise in personal bankruptcy filings in the mid-1990s, which reached a record 1.4 million in 1998.

The legislation would have established a complex mathematical formula for determining whether debtors can repay part of their debts under a court-supervised plan rather than have them dissolved.

Consumer groups, unions and other opponents contended the legislation would hurt families hit by job losses, catastrophic medical expenses or other unforeseeable hardships that push them over the edge financially. They also pointed to single mothers and their children who need alimony and support payments from bankrupt fathers.

The banking and retail credit industries strongly backed the measure. The American Financial Services Association said the legislation retained protections for Americans to seek bankruptcy protection. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce had urged Clinton not to veto.

Opponents of the legislation, including Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said the president's veto was no surprise and well-deserved.

"Next year, I hope the credit card industry will revise its punitive legislative proposal," Kennedy said Tuesday. "We should pass a balanced bill that deals effectively with existing problems, without creating new abuses."

[karynnj]

139. Thanks for the article - it is sobbering

I doesn't help Edwards though - this was a bad bill and is countrary to both his 2004/2008 images.

The 2 paragraphs before the ones you quoted say:
Labor and consumer lobbyists felt a chill in early March when Senate majority leader Tom Daschle announced his intention to get "a strong bankruptcy bill out of conference and on the President's desk within four weeks, so the bill can be signed before we go home for the Easter recess." Bankruptcy "reform" is of a different order from Enron fraud or loophole bookkeeping by Arthur Andersen, but it emanates from the same political sources and is, likewise, hideously one-sided in its impact on ordinary citizens. The legislation was written by major banks and the credit-card industry, wishing to tighten the screws on debt-soaked families. No one doubts this measure will make life even more miserable for the people maxed out on their credit cards and on the brink of Chapter 7. Daschle's statement meant the Democratic leader thinks it is now safe to enact the bankers' bill. Last year, a record 1,492,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy protection, but now the recession is over, isn't it?

"It really is pretty much a creditors' wish list," explained Henry Sommer, vice president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyers. "Some people won't be able to file at all , and everyone will have to pay hundreds of dollars more in fees, which knocks a lot of them out of filing. Many who by filing now could save their homes from foreclosure or their cars from repossession won't be able to do so under this bill. And many will come out of bankruptcy owing as much as they owe now. Congress gave a lot to the credit-card companies, but this is really an equal-opportunity bill; they also gave a lot to the car lenders, the mortgage lenders, the residential landlords, the finance companies, even credit unions."

In Congressional circles, a bill like this one is known as a "money vote," because it's an opportunity for good fundraising from monied interests (or, if you vote wrong, you face the risk of those interests financing your next opponent). For six years, the financial industry has lobbied intensively for this measure and both parties have milked it like a veritable cash cow. Contributions from finance companies and credit-card firms more than doubled during the last election cycle, passing $9 million. Commercial banks are the dominant credit-card issuers--led by Citibank, with $99.5 billion in credit-card debt--and this remains their most profitable line of business. Commercial banking as a whole increased political spending in the last election by nearly 60 percent, to $26.1 million, though the bankers' money speaks on many issues beyond tapped-out borrowers. "


"

[madfloridian]

88. Do you mean this NCLB bill on which only 8 voted no?

NAYs ---8
Bennett (R-UT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Nickles (R-OK)
Voinovich (R-OH)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00192

I don't remember if that is the exact one...looks like it.

Gee, sorry I missed that. Edwards sure must have done bad.

[madfloridian]

90. And which trade with china bill was that?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=128&contentid=485

Read all of the DLC article by Al From.

And the votes in 2000, when Clinton was still in office.

US Senate Extends Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China

On September 20, 2000, the US Senate voted 83-to-15 to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. A yes vote was to approve normal relations and a no vote was to reject normal relations. Thirty- seven Democrats and forty-six Republicans voted yes. Seven Democrats and eight Republicans voted no.

DEMOCRATS YES

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Breaux, La.; Bryan, Nev.; Cleland, Ga.; Conrad, N.D.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerrey, Neb.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Moynihan, N.Y.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Robb, Va.; Rockefeller, W. Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.; Wyden, Ore.

DEMOCRATS NO

Byrd, W. Va.; Feingold, Wis.; Hollings, S.C.; Mikulski, Md.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Wellstone, Minn.

DEMOCRATS NOT VOTING

Akaka, Hawaii; Lieberman, Conn.

REPUBLICANS YES

Abraham, Mich.; Allard, Colo.; Ashcroft, Mo.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burns, Mont.; Chafee, R.I.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Me.; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Domenici, N.M.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Gorton, Wash.; Gramm, Texas; Grams, Minn.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Mack, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Roth, Del.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.; Stevens, Alaska; Thomas, Wyo.; Thompson, Tenn.; Thurmond, S.C.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

REPUBLICANS NO

Bunning, Ky.; Campbell, Colo.; Helms, N.C.; Hutchinson, Ark.; Inhofe, Okla.; Jeffords, Vt.; Smith, N.H.; Specter, Pa.

http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/documents/senatevote.htm

I am surely getting confused about who I should vote for.

[madfloridian]

91. Since Bill Clinton pushed that China trade bill so hard.....

I fail to see how voting with your party and president was so terribly bad.

I sure do need a transcript of that show this morning.

It must have been something.

[elizm]

93. Here ya go...

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3144756

[madfloridian]

95. I will wait for the transcript.

I don't like to watch talking heads attacking ANY of our Democrats anymore.

[AuntPatsy]

97. I humbly agree, it is too much to expect the talking heads to emit factual

information for the massess,

[flpoljunkie]

98. Here's a link to the video from ABC of the entire interview.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3144756

[madfloridian]

99. I am waiting for the transcript. But thanks.

I long ago quit watching the snide Sunday morning attacks on our Democrats while the fool Republicans sit there and get pampered.

[flpoljunkie]

105. It will piss you off. Steph really seems to be going after Edwards.

[madfloridian]

107. So is everyone else.

Looks like it, anyway.

[AuntPatsy]

109. Perhaps the powers that be thought at one time that they had him

where they wanted him and he jumped ship so to speak, it would explain the out and out attacks against him lately not only by the media but by many on Du

[Cameron27]

113. I just watched the video,

and it was a tough interview, but I wouldn't call it an attack. Stepho basically held up Edwards' senate record and said *explain.*

[madfloridian]

114. Most candidates get puff stuff.

That has been the pattern.

[Cameron27]

117. Well, I would post my opinion,

but there's already another thread going on about it, so I won't re-start the conversation here.

[karynnj]

127. Not really

I have seen many people on that show and he wants to grow up to be Tim Russert I think. I have seen him try to do the same thing with anyone on his show. Edwards was not good at this type of appearnce in the past. Part of it is that he didn't in his Senate career have a consistent philosophy that drove his votes - and his actions then are extremely different than his platform now.

[karynnj]

121. Actually the reason may be simpler and not a conspiracy

No one said one negative thing about him for a couple of weeks after they announced his wife's awful news. Then he started attacking all the Senate Democrats on Iraq. The fact is that Reid and the rest of the leadership (Durbin and Schumer) and the leaders on Iraq (such as Feingold and Kerry) all worked together to get a bill that pushed the issue and was passed. This is an incredible accomplishment - that needs to be built on.

Edwards refused to say that he would be for Feingold/Reid that Dodd and Kerry have signed onto. He instead proposes that the Democrats get behind something that actually can't be done - to send the same bill back. The problem is that they likely do not have the votes. It is very likely that some that voted the first time will not vote for it the second time. Edwards, who is not in the Senate, is playing politics here.

That is likely why Durbin suddenly brought up what the Intelligence Committee saw vs the rest of the Senate. My guess is that a fair number of the Democratic Senators - especially those who have been working on Iraq far harder than Edwards - are likely ticked off. As someone said, even Edwards' apology ignored the fact that he was a co-sponsor, on the intelligence committee, and was pro-war through most (if not all) 2003.

[The Count]

130. Snafi fished his apologies, not his votes Apparently he found some for the 4

I had mentioned (although Edwards wasn't sure about apologizing on NCLB).
As far the bankruptcy law , it's the 2001 one:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. Should we judge candidates by their words or their actions?

:shrug:

[AuntPatsy]

125. Actions speak louder than words do they not?

[w4rma]

132. Actions. Hillary fails as she takes no actions until everyone else has done all the work.

Of course, Hillary's actions behind the scenes are always to undermine the Democratic grassroots.

And Obama isn't much better than her with a couple of years in the Senate and no experience on much of anything prior to that.

[wyldwolf]

141. let's see some examples of what you're claiming here

[Freddie Stubbs]

142. Does Edwards have a better voting record than Obama?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

137. I will watch the video and judge for myself........

They all should get tough questions on their actions; Democrats and Republicans.

Fluff interviews don't help.

[Marie26]

140. This is why Senators

have trouble getting elected President. Edwards was a Democratic Senator in a heavily Republican state - he just barely won his term, and the seat later went to a Republican, Elizabeth Dole. In order to hang on to the seat, Edwards had to satisfy his constituents by voting for some conservative bills, which often favored the upper class. But now, he's trying to run for President as a progressive class warrior. That might be where his heart is, but it's not where his votes often were because of the Republican leanings of his state. It's a big contradiction, one I'm not sure Edwards will be able to sucessfully resolve.