Do Edwards' issue positions show he's not a "corporate Democrat"?

[welshTerrier2]

Edwards recent statement that: "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other" caught my attention in a major way. I am currently planning to vote for Kucinich and truthfully haven't paid much attention to Edwards. When you talk about "corporate Democrats", you deserve some very focused attention. It was time for me to do some homework on where Edwards stands on the issues.

I strongly support the statement Edwards made. In fact, I'll go further and say that the issue he raised is the essence of the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. There is very little to be gained by replacing corporate republicans with corporate Democrats. No, they're not exactly the same but the changes the country so desperately needs will NOT be realized if we elect yet another corporate puppet, regardless of party.

So, major kudos to Edwards for what he said.

But what does it mean to not be a "corporate Democrat"? To me, it means taking certain positions on certain key issues. On the domestic front, perhaps what is ultimately the most important issue, because it affects all other issues, is to get private money out of our electoral, legislative and policy-making processes. Edwards seems to have some pretty good positions about eliminating soft money from campaigns. On my scorecard, subject to more research, he did pretty well on this key issue.

The second domestic issue is health care. I read Edwards position. It sounds somewhat like the convoluted nonsense we're stuck with here in Massachusetts. Bottom line: it seems to leave for profit health INSURANCE companies in the mix. That stinks. I just don't see how that's consistent with not being a corporate Democrat. I don't want a private, for profit, bean counter making a life and death decision as part of America's health care program. I just don't see what could be more corporate than that.

And then we come to the biggy of corporate piggery: the defense budget. Edwards talks about eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. They all say that. That's not good enough. He talks about important ideas like rebuilding alliances. The bottom line is that he hasn't called for a reduction in the overall military budget to fund necessary social programs. Is that correct? Because, if it is, I am left viewing him as a supporter of the worst influences of the military-industrial complex. In my view, we need to make substantial cuts in military spending because other aspects of national defense, for example, education, infrastructure and health care, are severely underfunded and underperforming. To not speak of substantial cuts in military spending wins you a corporate Democrat label on my scorecard. I'm more than open to learning more about Edwards' position on military spending but that's where I currently stand.

Moving on to foreign policy, I put a huge emphasis on what a candidate says about Iraq and Iran. These "foreign policies", and the waging of war in general, are pro-corporate. I see neither crisis as "protecting the country." War with both countries is driven by corporate greed. Specifically, these conflicts are driven by Big Oil and by the military-industrial complex.

In reviewing Edwards' positions on these two "situations", his anti-corporate credentials and his pro-peace credentials could be better. First, let's look at Iraq. My "corporate barometer" measures three issues on Iraq. The first is the candidate's IWR vote or position. Edwards blew it. I'm a forgiving sort; I put way more emphasis on current positions.

My mega-corporate tester is the candidate's position on the Iraqi Oil Law. This, to me, is primarily what Iraq has been all about from before the time the invasion even was started. bush and his little oily friends just can't wait to get their greedy hands on Iraq's oil. Edwards? I couldn't find anything indicating he opposed the Oil Law. An anti-corporate Democrat should be screaming loudly and clearly that the US has no business threatening and pressuring the Iraqi government to sign away their oil rights to their own oil. Has Edwards spoken out on this?

My #3 Iraq test is how quickly and completely the candidate says we can get ALL our troops out of Iraq. Edwards calls for a complete withdrawal of ALL US troops in 12 to 18 months. That's much, much too slow for my tastes. I appreciate that he doesn't want to keep a residual force; his timeline stinks. I can't support it.

And last but not least, Iran. bush is going to attack Iran. I read Edwards position statement. He has lots of good ideas that talk about a carrot and stick approach. The problem is, he seems to put more emphasis on "we can't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons" than he puts on "a war with Iran would be devastating for the US, the Iranian people and the global community." That stinks. He gets most of the details right but doesn't adequately come across pushing the most important aspect of it: avoiding war with Iran.

In conclusion, I don't get spun up in all the campaign insults tossed around by supporters of other candidates. I'm even willing to at least somewhat ignore a candidate's history because I appreciate the idea that they may now feel free of their corporate bonds and that they've decided to campaign on what they really believe in. The problem I have with Edwards, is that it seems to me, on some of the most important issues, I can't see how the corporate Democrats label doesn't apply.

And here's the thing, Edwards supporters: I hope you can show me why I've drawn the wrong conclusion. I am not "anti-Edwards." As I said at the beginning of this post, I think the "corporate Democrat" issue is a critical focus. I'm glad Edwards raised the issue. I would love to be able to "get there from here." On my scorecard, however, it just doesn't add up. I hope you can change my mind.

[Warpy]

1. Edwards's rhetoric has shown that he realizes the other 90% of us

also live in this country and that we are hurting from 38 years of solid conservatism from both parties. Whether or not this will translate into action is anyone's guess.

His voting record in the Senate was not impressive, but his years outside the Washington power structure might have proven instructive.

He seems to have changed considerably since he's been outside DC, something I have seen in another candidate, Bill Richardson.

My own cynicism knows no bounds and I sincerely believe neither man will be allowed to assume the reins of power by the people who actually own and run this country.

[welshTerrier2]

6. "Whether or not this will translate into action is anyone's guess."

thoughtful response, Warpy. Thanks.

Edwards seems to be in a "no mans land" campaign space. Some of his campaign rhetoric seems very much to speak to the party's left wing. I love his comments about corporate Democrats. It really is the essential battle within the party. It's interesting to see how the Hillary-wing pretends it's a trumped up charge. It isn't. The issue is very, very real.

So, I'm left watching and listening to Edwards but still shaking my head. His statement, while very appealing to the party's left, seems to contradict some of his CURRENT campaign positions. Those of us who are deeply committed to fighting back against the party's corporate puppets will not be won over by mere rhetoric, however. We're looking for real leadership across the spectrum of issues.

Perhaps Edwards is on the right path but just hasn't arrived yet. I watching him. He'll need to do much more to win my support.

[jsamuel]

2. Some disagreements above

He wants all troops out (besides civilian protection) in 9-12 months, not 12-18.

On Iran, see this video about 4:10 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erXDLsBouxo

I don't think not wanting to cut the military budget (which I don't even know his position on) makes you corporate.

His health care plan creates a Medicare-Plus non-profit program. The private insurance only will be used by those who choose to use it. If they are horrible then like they are today, then the non-profit will win.

I would like to know about the Iraqi Oil law myself, why don't you send him that question at his website:
http://www.johnedwards.com

One of the MOST important issues that you skip over is workers rights vs corps and immigration. He is AWESOME on those.

[welshTerrier2]

4. a few responses

Edwards has two different statements about combat troops on his website. If you're a supporter, you might want to have his campaign fix this.

Here are the links and the excerpts:

source: http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Edwards has issued a comprehensive proposal to end the war in Iraq—starting today: It calls on Congress to use its funding power to block President Bush's escalation, immediately begin withdrawing troops by capping funding and requiring complete withdrawal of all combat troops in 12 to 18 months.

source: http://johnedwards.com/issues/

Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within about a year.

Here's the first section from Edwards' website on his Iran position. As I said, I think he raises many good ideas but I don't see "avoiding war" playing the prominent role I think it should. I'll check out the video link you provided. Thanks.

source: http://johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

"Iran represents a great challenge for the United States. We can best prevent Iran from threatening our interests through a 'smart power' strategy that will combine carrots and sticks, direct engagement, and international pressure to convince moderate Iranians that they cannot and must not pursue nuclear weapons." – John Edwards

John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a politically unstable leader and an open supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in an unstable region in the world, which would directly threaten US interests. As president, Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies.

On health care, I strongly support the single payer approach. I read Edwards' plan on his website. I couldn't see where the profit motive was taken out of the system. When you talk about Medicare Plus, what does that mean? I think health care should be a right for all Americans and not something that gets decided on by a for profit system. If health care dollars are going to stockholders instead of to patients, the system won't work. And worse, if medical decisions are entrusted to those responsible for their company's bottom lines, that's not health care at all; it's "fiscal care" and it's greed.

On associating military spending with "corporate Democrats", this is a key issue. We cannot establish a military budget in a vacuum. We must prioritize military spending against other critical needs. My deep concern is that the military-industrial complex is bankrupting the country and starving critically needed budget alternatives. Other than the issue of removing private funding from the electoral, legislative and policy-making process, I can think of no issue that is more "corporate." This is where the mega-bucks are going. Do some reading on how Lockheed Martin has fared since bush came into office. More fear, more terror, more propaganda, more greased palms, more campaign support, more war, more occupation equals more profits for BIG DEFENSE. The defense budget is ground zero in the great corporate welfare program. The US defense budget exceeds the combined budgets of every other country on the planet. How much defense do we really need? And without adequate spending on other key budget priorities like education, how much real defense are we getting for our money? The US is badly lagging behind many other countries in critically needed educational programs like math, science and even basic literacy. Instead, we're just feeding the fat cats. It's bad defense; it's for stockholders instead of the American people; it couldn't be more corporate.

I appreciate your comment about Edwards' fight for workers' rights. Unfortunately, that's a battle we're going to lose everytime until real power is returned to the American people. There is no way we can continue to allow the corruption of our elected officials with tainted campaign money and expect any real progress on workers' rights. We might win a few battles but we'll lose the war until the corporatists are thrown out once and for all from the halls of the peoples' government.

[jsamuel]

21. I will reply tomorrow

I am sick and having a hard time thinking straight right now. I will get back to you tomorrow hopefully.

[welshTerrier2]

22. that's great, jsamuel

i appreciate your participation and your knowledge of Edwards' positions.

talk to you tomorrow.

hope you feel better.

[1932]

46. Why do you think we're going to lose the battle for worker's rights and empowering unions

until we win on the three issues you listed?

Why wouldn't the order be, we're not going to defeat the health care lobby to get universal health care until we (1) get a transition program that whets peoples' appetites for something better and (2) empower the working class through workers' rights/pro-union programs?

[welshTerrier2]

49. the best answer I have ...

hi 1932 ...

ready for my best answer to your question? here it is: i need to think this through in more detail. the best answer is "I don't know."

I think you raise a valid point. My gut tells me my "top down" position is right. The following is my best defense of why I currently believe in the approach I described. As I said, you raise a good argument and I need to spend some time thinking about your question. For now, here's what I've got:

First, let me say that I don't think it's a one way or the other dynamic. Of course we should continue to fight for workers' rights even under tyrannical corporate control of our government. But the focus is more on whether such an approach can ultimately be successful without "toppling the king." That's where we seem to disagree. I think all gains made where the people do not have ultimate power are illusory or at best transitory.

Let me try to give an example. Let's take an issue like the Family and Medical Leave Act. This was clearly a "win" for American workers. Now I'm not arguing cause and effect here, but look at the loss of American manufacturing jobs to other countries. No, it's not because of one piece of legislation. But what is the net benefit of such acts when companies are free to trash American jobs and hire workers overseas?

The point is that as workers make gains at the bargaining table or in the legislature, they are effectively driving up their costs. In a fair trade system (i.e. equitable trade agreements with adequate labor and environmental safeguards) or a system with effective protectionist trade barriers, this should not be a problem. But, when trade negotiations are driven by corporate interests, i.e. when there are even subsidies and other incentives to export jobs, what is truly won at the collective bargaining table? With the "back door" left wide open, it seems like the stronger workers get the worse off they become. From this perspective, as stated above, any gains they make are either illusory or, at best, transitory. The greater the gain, the more likely they will be punished by their corporate overlords.

And the problem of corporatism reaches beyond the treatment of workers. In fact, I can envision the possibility that workers themselves might become blackmailed accomplices to the greedy pursuits of their companies. Imagine a situation where a logging company wants to cut down an old growth forest or gain permission to harvest trees in a national park. Employees understand in cases like this that what's good for the corporation might be good for them. The problem is, it's bad policy for the country. Economic need, and perhaps a few not-too-subtle threats about job security, may well set workers on the wrong side of this issue.

And foreign policy too. It's understandable that a worker will want his or her company to procure large defense contracts. It's understandable that a worker in a company likely to reap huge profits from invading Iraq might come out in favor of the invasion. This, too, at least in my opinion, is a form of corporatism. We cannot allow our policies to be based solely on either economic need or economic greed. When the corporations that employ these workers carry just a wee bit of extra clout with those we elect, the entire system is corrupted and the actions of our government do not reflect our deepest values. We should want all workers to prosper and even all corporations to prosper but we should not do so at the expense of the country's best interests and the interests of the American people.

Anyway, I've digressed a bit from your question.

I also wanted to reflect a little on your point about "whetting appetites" for more change by implementing a "transition program." That really is a fascinating topic for discussion. In fact, it's one that deeply divides the Democratic Party and yet we seem totally unable to have any meaningful discourse about it. Here's my take ...

I call that school of thought tokenism or, to put it in a more flattering light, incrementalism. The argument is that some progress is better than no progress. And a follow-on argument is that some progress will whet the appetite for subsequent progress.

Well, perhaps that's true. But the way I've come to see the model is that we have the greatest energy to make the changes we ultimately need before incremental changes are implemented. With each minor gain, a few more become comfortable and their energies to fight for ultimate control dissipate. With each little gain, more say "well, things really aren't all that bad."

Take the draft as just one example. Let's say they passed a draft that provided no exemptions. Would that fly? Mommies and daddies would be screaming bloody murder to end the damned war. Peace would be popular again. But then, they decide to exempt young women. And it would grow a little quieter. And then they exempted college students. and it would grow a little quieter still. Are we making "progress" because now fewer can be called to serve as cannon fodder in their wars for corporate gain or are we losing ground because the ranks of the rebellious have been thinned?

On the example you gave, health care, I'm not foolish enough to argue that incremental gains are not worth fighting for. For example, I'm not about to make a case that covering all children is not better than the hideous system we have now. Nevertheless, there is plenty of truth to the cliche that we have to strike while the iron is hot. The nation's attention is very definitely focused on health care right now. This is the time to stand up real tall and push single payer health care. Any system, even one covering children, that does not strip power and control from the insurance companies will fail in the long run. I guess what I'm saying here is that you "go for the gold" and negotiate down from there. What I think is not a good approach is to meekly come looking for table scraps when we could make greater gains. One says "we're strong and we're coming after the power you have" and the other says "we probably are too weak to get most of what we want but maybe we can get a little something." When you're negotiating from weakness, your future is likely to be very dim indeed.

I think it's important to distinguish between our "ultimate vision" and what we're willing to accept in the near-term. When we talk about our "tactics", I think the better approach is to communicate to our allies about our ultimate vision. We need to start the long process of education NOW. We have to be very, very careful that our support for incremental approaches is not seen as an end in itself.

[ChiciB1]

20. He's NOT The Same Edwards From 2004 & He Impressed Me By

going out right after the 2004 election and working on poverty issues. I also applaud his efforts to shine a light on Unions! Had my husband not worked for a company that was Union I seriously doubt I would even own a house today.

I do not think that any of our candidates come without baggage or issues they would like to have changed from their past. I'm sure John Kerry might have wanted the medal throwing incident removed from his past. And let's get real here, almost all candidates have lots of money, but not ALL of them are backed up by the Corporate Media or Corporations in general!

I'm sure "most" of them have made some deals here and there, but I do think that Edwards wants to make serious changes and I'm sure he wishes he hadn't played the Washington Game like everyone does.

Let's just think a moment, one of our most beloved Presidents, John Kennedy surely had a lot more going on than most of us thought he did, but we are STILL talking about him today, and we STILL hold him up as a beacon to Democrats and the nation! How would he have fared in this "instant" media check and re-check of today?? And he was only President for 3 years!

I say.... Go, Johnny, Go!

[obnoxiousdrunk]

3. Yes

Not until discovering the 2nd America recently.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I don't dislike Edwards -- I just don't trust him.

I am afraid corporatism is a charge Edwards should use more caution throwing around lest he be taken to task for his own long and distinguished history.

Re: Iran. You hit that nail on the head. Edwards' bellicosity on sable-rattling is more subtle here, but I believe a leader can be strong without buying into the politics of fear.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/22/bolton-iran-six-months/

Although I applaud the words coming out of Edwards' mouth, a perusal of the not too distant past makes it really tough to believe him. He led the parade into Iraq a little too enthusiastically. Really made my skin crawl.

[welshTerrier2]

10. the trust thing

what are we to do when a candidate's, or non-candidate's, rhetoric doesn't match their history? Such is clearly the case with much of Edwards' record. But you support Al Gore too. Should we look beyond Gore's current incarnation and focus on his hawkish statements about Iraq? Should we emphasize his pro-NAFTA past? Or should we accept the premise of "the NEW AL?"

this morning on DemocracyNow, Amy Goodman and her co-host interviewed a guy who is one of the Chairmen of Iraq Vets for Peace. The guy was great. he talked about joining the military, largely for economic reasons, to fight in Iraq. In September, he's helping launch a major nation-wide effort to tell young people the truth about enlisting. It's sort of an anti-recruitment campaign.

so, where do things like this leave us on the "trust thing?" it's certainly reasonable to look at the past. it's certainly reasonable to be suspicious about whether "this year's model" is really any different from last year's ...

against that backdrop, at least from my little corner of the world, those of us who see the world and the party in terms of corporate/non-corporate control truly are desperate to have a front-line candidate. as others have said, even if Edwards just talks the talk, at least our issue makes the papers. and perhaps, if he sees a response from the left, he will "migrate" on his other policy pronouncements. I have no idea whether this year's Edwards is worthy of trust. I'm really glad he raised the issue. I'd love to have him visit DU and answer the questions I raised in the OP.

Edwards has plenty to answer for. Still, I'm glad he said what he said.

[AtomicKitten]

13. trust is a tenuous gift we bestow on others

And you are so right to point out Gore's past. I completely agree with keeping an eye on the future and still being mindful of the past. The DLC has spawned some of our most prominent players and our job is to decide how far from that they have shifted in their ideology.

What's the difference between the two? Time I think first off which allowed the natural evolution of Gore's view of the world and politics. I think the thorough soul-crushing 2000 election was the catalyst for that.

The best we can do is look at their actions because they do resonate louder than words. Gore has undergone a metamorphosis that is breathtaking (OK, I'll try to tamp down the moonie eyes a bit so as to not cause you to want to yak!). He came out hard and loud against BushCo from the get-go, hammering them in blustery speeches right here in SF. He changed the paradigm in 2004 by being one of the first heavy-hitters to come out and endorse the new kid with new ideas (Dean of course). All this lends credence to a heartfelt change in his view of the world. He ain't perfect but damn if he doesn't have a jump on it.

Edwards on the other hand still leaves me feeling queasy and apprehensive because all we have to go on are words.

Edwards is throwing the dice in the primary by concentrating on the early states. It could be brilliant strategy or it could end him.

[welshTerrier2]

15. no yakking from me

that's exactly how I read Gore and Edwards. Gore's already done plenty of heavy lifting. That builds trust.

Edwards needs to backup his rhetoric. He won't be able to do that with deeds during the campaign; he'll have to do it by taking the right positions on the issues. He's got a long way to go.

I started the thread to open a dialog with his supporters. I want them to understand the issues where I disagree with Edwards. I liked his statement on corporate Democrats but his supporters have to understand that it will take much more than that to win support from the party's left. If we can have a healthy dialog and perhaps even find some common ground, that would be great.

[AtomicKitten]

37. Let's just hope the idea of Gore running --

doesn't turn out to be as good as it gets ...

I don't think so. But I have to be honest and say he's leading on so many issues that are important to me, I probably will be, um, let's just say more flexible in other areas if I need to be; I never expected a perfect candidate, whatever the hell that means.

Gore > Obama. Gore gives me goosebumps. Obama makes me feel like keeping on. But one's is promise, the other hope. In my opinion, they both kick ass together. But I digress into cheer leading. Oh dear. :P

And I applaud your open venue for the Edwards folks to plead their case. I'm trying to have an open mind with him, but I've got that grudge thing going on doing battle with my pragmatic streak. Ha, ha.

Cheers.

[Totally Committed]

58. Gore needs to run, no question...

There are a couple of others that could enter late and stop the DLC's march of inevitability, but I don't really see that happening, as sad as that makes me.

I'm not sure about Obama, but I am sure about Gore. On that, we can agree!


TC

[AtomicKitten]

62. on all that we agree

Here's the way I look at it. The other two front-runners are forever tied to this war vis a vis the IWR and although now are varying degrees of apologetic, they already screwed the pooch and no amount of drama in the form of sincere apology can erase that. Kucinich is pure but I am absolutely convinced he has ZERO chance of getting the nod.

Gore would be the genuine unity candidate. I hope he's listening.

So, in my humble opinion, of the lot we have before us, Obama is the best shot at a better America. He ain't perfect and there are people here at DU that will be glad to point out and at no charge to you will exaggerate their shortcomings. Pay attention to the good stuff too and make up your own mind.

Have a great weekend, TC :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

36. Al Gore was against the war in Iraq

Gore did believe Saddam was a threat and something needed to be done about him. I don't think that made Gore "hawkish."

[LSK]

51. I dont understand, his career as a lawyer is definately anti-Corporate

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

55. unfortunately his voting record doesn't match

[surfermaw]

7. I am more concerned with which candidate the rep. furnish.

[Totally Committed]

8. Here's a genuine concern I have about Edwards:

In the past, he was a member of the DLC, and voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act. He was a speaker at/attendee of the Bilderberg Conference in 2003. He ran as the VP candidate to another DLC member in 2004. All these things point to a conservative, hawkish, DLC/Corporatist mindset/belief system.

Now he's running as a populist hero of the Working Class. He disavows Corporatism, calls for withdrawal of troops, a hike in the minimum wage, and wants to eradicate poverty.

Either he's pulling our legs bigtime, or he has had a genuine epiphany of some sort. Yet, no matter where I look or what I Google, I cannot find the story of this miraculous transformation. Do any of the Edwards supporters here know where I can find the story or explanation of this personal sea-change? I would love to believe he's for real, but until I read his story, my nagging distrust of him would keep me from believing almost anything he says. People don't just do a 180-degree turn for no reason. Could one of his supporters help me out with this?

I would appreciate it very much.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

11. "a genuine epiphany"?

that is exactly what this post is about. I love what Edwards said. His record is fraught with contradictory evidence. Worse, his current positions on many issues contradict his statement.

the whole point of this post was a very, very sincere asking of his supporters, to use you very words: "Could one of his supporters help me out with this? I would appreciate it very much."

[Totally Committed]

18. kick for some answers....

Any Edwards supporters wanna help us out with this?

Please?

TC

[slipslidingaway]

30. Always wondered who invited Edwards to Bilderberg and why? nt

[skids]

34. Edward's speech at Bilderberg...

...that's one detail I have researched because I loathe elitist secret societies. I've come to the conclusion that while Bilderberg is elitist and highly influential, if it's a "secret society" it's a very poorly kept secret and isn't very subtle. Details leak.

To the extent you can trust the NYT:

After Mr. Reed spoke about how Mr. Kerry was vulnerable on ''values,'' Mr. Edwards presented a characteristically positive case for Mr. Kerry's election, focusing on the insecurity of American workers that persists even when economic statistics turn north.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3DA103BF932A25754C0A9629C8B63

...so his "Two Americas" meme is something he held prior to running for veep.

Now does Edwards accepting an invitation to speak at the conference mean he's a globalist? Perhaps, perhaps not. Still an open question to me. At the very least I'm willing to believe that he's a populist globalist, and those are much easier to cure of that ideological defect than those pursuing a monoculture for fascist ends, because you can eventually make them see how globalism is being used as an excuse for oppression.

Should he have turned down that speaking invitation? Well, if I had a chance to go try and change minds that, for better or for worse, belong to very powerful people, but could only do so in private, I think I'd take up the invitation rather than miss that opportunity to make a "principled stand." Unless they really really really desperately wanted me to speak very badly, in which case bitch slapping them for their elitism would be a pretty powerful statement. I don't think that was the case.

Between Bilderberg and The Cremation Of Care/Bohemian Grove thing, I'm more concerned with the latter, frankly. Which is a pity as one candidate I could really get behind were it not for being wrapped up in that and some other less-than-transparent governance actions. I won't name names because it's really a moot point.

(As to why globalism is ideologically defective, I suggest going and having a talk with GuilerGuider over in E/E about resiliency in social systems. I'd explain, but it would quickly turn into a mess of analogies to discrete math, genetic computing, and network theory, whereas GG knows the argument in more human terms.)

[mzmolly]

48. Voting for the war as a last resort rez and being a member of the DLC

does not mean one doesn't care about the working class. Edwards spoke about the working class in his 04 campaign as well. There isn't anything contrary in your example above.

I'm not an Edwards supporter per se, but I wanted to comment since you asked for feedback.

:hi:

[Adelante]

9. His actions show Edwards is a corporatist, no matter what he says

He was corporate enough when he sat on the Banking Committee and hawked the bill that repealed the consumer and market protective Glass-Steagall Act and allowed banks, securities firms and insurance companies to combine to gain the power they have over government to the detriment of nearly everyone.

However, there’s one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards’ campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/a-populist-make-over/2034/

As with the bankruptcy bill Edwards later voted for in 2001, Citigroup was a leader in getting this done:

Citigroup played the lead role in ushering the “Financial Services Modernization Act” through the US Congress, in the process joining with the rest of the financial services industry to set a new standard in legalized bribery. The Act will tear down the regulatory walls between banks, and insurance companies and securities firms, paving the way for a massive concentration of financial wealth and a future of industry bailouts, weakening the Community Reinvestment Act and permitting huge intrusions on consumer privacy.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/01/fotc16.html

Frontline did a documentary on the demise of Glass-Steagall:

Congress passes Financial Services Modernization Act

After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html



Biden and Dodd also voted for it as did almost all Dems, but they're not claiming to be populist heroes running for president, either.

Only:

NAYs —8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

[welshTerrier2]

12. "Lucy, you have some splainin' to do"

looking at Edwards history stands in stark contradiction to his "corporate Democrats" statement. while I do allow for the possibility that, free from a role in the Senate or a spot on the ticket, we might now be seeing "the real Edwards", clearly he has some explaining to do if we are to rally behind his populist cry.

and, as i pointed out in the OP, even dismissing his voting history completely, he is still left with current positions on critical issues that seem inconsistent with his recent statement on "corporate Democrats."

believe me, I would love to have more candidates outing the corporate Dems and organizing a resistance against them. I'm going to need some very serious answers from Edwards long before he gets to lead the counter-attack.

[Adelante]

14. I may be a hopeless case, though

No matter what positions Edwards comes up with, I don't take them very seriously, because I can't seem to believe him. Sometimes I wish I could.

[LWolf]

25. Edwards certainly sounds the best of the top annointed 3.

The disconnect between his past actions and his present rhetoric is a problem for me.

While I sincerely hope Edwards has made a fundamental shift in his outlook that will be evident in his future work, I am going with the candidate who has been consistently, and blatantly, "non-corporate," in word and deed, the whole time.

[Cameron27]

16. Bookmarking

You're asking some of the same questions that bother me about JE. I'm interested in the answers.

[penguin7]

17. I do not think Edwards has done well on your key issue

He has challenged the field to refuse PAC money, but he has not challenged the field to use public financing. I see this as empty rhetoric. Pac money is never big in the primaries.

He has received major Wall Street money in the campaign. According to opensecrets.org 42% of his money comes from $2300 or over donors. This is better than Clinton at 70% and close to Obama at 44%.

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008

[Totally Committed]

19. kick

:kick:


TC

[FrenchieCat]

23. You stated that Edwards position and your test on Iraq go like this....

"My #3 Iraq test is how quickly and completely the candidate says we can get ALL our troops out of Iraq. Edwards calls for a complete withdrawal of ALL US troops in 12 to 18 months. That's much, much too slow for my tastes. I appreciate that he doesn't want to keep a residual force; his timeline stinks. I can't support it.

Actually, This is what Edwards says about "residual" forces....

"I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future—including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe."
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr /

and here, he shows that he's open and actually quite non-committal on what exactly he'll do after everything is said and done once he's President as far he is concerned: :shrug:

""We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where."

Above comment is from the same speech at the link provided in a speech given by John Edwards this June of 2007.

[jsamuel]

27. every embassy in the world is guarded

the Iraqi embassy should not be an exception

[FrenchieCat]

33. That's not the way I look at it....

as it is The Largest Embassy in the world! I'd rather have a candidate state that the embassy will be reduced in size.....cause I'm not sure how many troops it would take to "guard" such a massive embassy (size of a city). Perhaps 10,000 troops or more?

But the point I was making to TW2 is the second paragraph in particular in where Edwards clearly becomes much ambigious as to what his plan is. Looks like he'll decide at the time. I don't have a problem with that....just think that this isn't the Pull all the troops out slogan that I keep hearing about.

[bvar22]

38. The Imperial Palace (Green Zone) should either:

*be leveled.
It was a very bad idea to establish the Military HQ, The Viceroy (Bremmer) Residence, and the American Embassy in Sadam's Palace. It reeks of the Crusader Conquering Army, NOT Liberation. It just does NOT look good for the King of the Invading Army to sit on the Golden Throne of the deposed Monarch. Since there is no represenative body in Iraq (only the Maliki Vichy government, there is no one to whom we can legitimatly give the Imperial Palace.

OR

*The US should fund and build a Museum to Persian/Iraqi culture on this site. This would need to be a First Class job honoring the Iraqi People. Then just leave it. Let Iraq decide whether to loot it, burn it to the ground, or honor it.

Grabbing Saddam's Palace, and setting up the OCCUPATION there was not a good idea. How would you like it if Saddam occupied the White House?

A modest embassy proportional to the size of Iraq should be built on another location.
The US does NOT need a Grand Palace from which to rule the Muslim World.

[jenmarie]

41. Edwards has a colossal

lack of experience and knowledge on FP issues, and hence can not portray himself as someone who can "keep us safe." (I'm not saying that's what most of us here are looking for, but unfortunately, that is what a huge chunk of the populace will base their decision on, especially when the radical regressives pump up the fear card as the election gets closer.)

He will always be looking to advisers, which is not a bad thing, but his history of who he's listened to doesn't give me confidence that he'd make the correct decisions. National security is going to play a major role in the election, and Edwards comes up woefully short in that regard. He talks a good game on domestic issues, but trying to sound tough on FP issues causes him to say stupid things like he said about Iran.

[AtomicKitten]

24. kick

[rjones2818]

26. To be honest,

"Corporate politicians" will be defined as such as long as they don't take money from the same corporations who support the "anti-Coporate politicians."

There's one candidate (maybe two if Mike doesn't) who doesn't take any corporate money. No strings attached.

Go Dennis!
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

:kick:

[Cameron27]

28. Kick

[slipslidingaway]

29. K&R for more answers from Edwards' supporters...

"In my view, we need to make substantial cuts in military spending because other aspects of national defense, for example, education, infrastructure and health care, are severely underfunded and underperforming."

:applause:


Some quick comments.

Iraq Oil Law

A couple of months ago I called the offices of the top three candidates in addition to Reid and Pelosi's office to clarify their positions on the draft law. Although I did receive a call back from Edwards' office they were not able to provide an answer. I asked them to follow up and call back, they never did, and today I sent an email and left another message seeking an answer. This is so important for the future of the people of Iraq. I am sure that some people in Iraq are aware of the Consortium Agreement signed with Iran after the coup.


Troops out of Iraq

What about the contractors???


Things do not add up on my scorecard as well, great post.

Hopefully some answers are forthcoming.

[Adelante]

47. Speaking of contractors... Schlumberger

Halliburton's competitor in Iraqi oil field contracts. Edwards sold his Schlumberger stock just last year. I don't know how long he owned it or how much profit he gained from Schlumberger, but he co-sponsored a war bill and later bought or already owned stock in a government war contractor. Schlumberger's profits soared as Halliburton was reporting losses, so this could have been a great deal of money. While running in 2004, Edwards sold his Wal-Mart stock. I believe that was part of a blind trust since he was in the Senate at the time. But he's been out of Congress for five years and only in 2006 sold Schlumberger when criticism arose over Darfur investments. What's the reason for having a blind trust, (if he still had a blind trust last year, which I don't know), when you're not a public official, if not to NOT KNOW because you don't want to know where your money is coming in from? If the investment wasn't part of a blind trust, he had to know about the investment all along. He's a lawyer and so is his wife; wouldn't they have looked into where their money was coming from? He also had his law practice tied up in an S-Corporation which decreased payroll taxes they had to pay, such as Medicare and Social Security, significantly. Edwards made $15-$30M as a lawyer - how much didn't he pay into Medicare and Social Security? Not to mention the $16M invested in Fortress, only part of which Edwards intends to divest, connected to current subprime foreclosures. Kucinich says Fortress is poised to profit off Edwards health care plan.

These issues of personal finance, which could be only the tip of the iceberg and which are almost universally dismissed on DU, are bewildering in a candidate running as a populist. Yes, he can be rich and still run as a populist, but can he be rich on anti-labor, anti-consumer, pro-war profits and be a winning populist? I doubt it.

[slipslidingaway]

50. The Iraq invasion benefitted many who were invested in equities,

we know it has not helped the poor :(

Remember a rising tide, almost always, lifts all boats (stocks)

Would liability be another reason for the corporation? Also Fortress was the first hedge fund management firm to go public, I'm sure this was being talked about while he was an advisor. The tax rate and sub prime companies were discussed in their first earning call and many of the funds are incorporated in the Cayman Islands. If we had half of our net worth invested in funds of Fortress I think we might at least read the notes from the conference call???

I think if you are going to run on a platform for the poor and against the corporations these types of questions should be expected. The language and recent actions should not have a large disconnect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1224016

The Iraq War and the equity markets, October and March lows

After a 2 1/2 year decline in the equity markets the Dow made a low on October 10, 2002, the same day the House of Reps authorizes the use of force against Iraq.

[cascadiance]

31. I'm willing to cut him some slack. Al Gore was also once a "Corporate Democrat" too with the DLC.

Before the 2000 election when he was teamed up with Clinton. I think his switch to a more grass roots campaign then, and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party not backing him up before then or helping him win then taught him a lesson that I think he's really grown from. I wouldn't want to dismiss Edwards either for having perhaps a similar revelation. I'd like to think that a lot of the so-called "Corporate Democrats" we have in office will find a way to "liberate" themselves later when we get things like public campaign financing in place, etc. and aren't in politics for corruption sake itself. It's me wanting to believe in the common good of people as Thom Hartmann would put it when contrasted with the Republican Party which believes more in the "evil nature" of people.

But what we really need at the helm of this country is someone that can LEAD us out of this corporatocracy mess. Those that are "surviving" and not challenging the current setup need not apply. Edwards, Gore, and Kucinich have all shown me that they are capable of that leadership. Whether they are being honest and following through on a lot of their words now is another question. I believe Gore a lot, since I think a lot of his commitment shows with his actions in combating global warming, which is why he'd be my first choice if he were to get in the race.

With Kucinich and Edwards, we have a war of different strengths going on. I think Edwards has perhaps more ability to "win", though I think Dennis has been more consistent with his positions and effort over the years in fighting corporatism. If Dennis were to really to show himself viable (and I'm looking between all of the lines of the corporate media's spin to try and determine that), he might be my second choice. But at this point, my second choice is Edwards, since at least he's putting himself on the hook for this. Each statement like this puts him more into the column of being committed. It would be nice to have some tangible actions where he's taken risks and followed through on them to the level that Gore has, but I think he's doing what he can to get my vote. That's more than I can say for the other candidates. Hillary is DEFINITELY posturing, and Obama seems to be posturing too much for the amount of grass roots support that he's getting that should give him more freedom to take risks in this area.

But you are damn right that this election is about getting the corporatism monkey off our back, which makes the primary as important if perhaps even more important than the GE. Still hoping Gore gets in to help us play a stronger winning card to do this, but I'll back Edwards if he doesn't.

[skids]

32. Kick from a current Edwards "supporter"

Finally a thread that isn't just a concern troll. Honest questions honestly posed. You get a rec just for elevating the level of discourse.

I can't answer your question because I won't be researching any of the candidates until after November. So I'm a soft Edwards supporter right now basically because he has good rhetoric that helps wake people up, and manages to get it into more ears than Dennis does, though that isn't even half Dennis's fault. I generally try to stay out of these threads until 365 days before the general election, and won't send any candidates money until then. But you know, there seem to be a whole lotta of these threads, and, well, mouses do wander.

[Liberty Belle]

35. What about labor issues? Edwards is strongly pro-labor. Also pro-consumer,

having done battle in court against greedy corporations to protect consumers from harmful products. He has helped organize labor unions across the country. He has also taken stances against poverty and his taxation policies are progressive, ie willing to see the rich and corporations pay their fair share.

He also supports strengthening laws to protect consumers against predatory lending practices.

The corporations fear Edwards far more than any other candidate in the race, except perhaps Kucinich.

[The Count]

39. His voting record sez he's as corporate as the best of them: bankruptcy law,

failed to vote against Omnibus Law (Medicare, media consolidation,) free trade with China - you name it. Talk is cheap.

[1932]

43. He had lower CATO free trade rating than Kucinich and Gephardt!

[antigop]

40. Great thread, welshTerrier2! Lots of good questions and discourse.

An actual discussion about REAL ISSUES and REAL POSITIONS.

The corporate takeover of the country is something that most definitely needs to be addressed. I am glad Edwards brought this whole issue up and I hope each candidate will address it.

As I said on another thread,
1) let his rivals defend their position
2) if his rivals feel he is hypocritical, then his rivals can provide evidence

Edwards' statements keep the issue out there.

[1932]

42. He had lowest CATO free trade rating of '04 candidates and 100% AFL-CIO rating, and

a very low rating by the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers detest him, and the DLC criticized him because of his free trade votes.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

44. Great post, thanks for elevating the discussion...and

I have been looking closely at Edwards and want to know more, too.

My initial read says that it was not so much an "epiphany" as it was a gradual return to his liberal leanings, as he got away from the corporate-lobbyist-controlled influences in the Senate and as he has been campaigning nationally (esp on poverty issues) almost constantly since about 2003. That's bound to change a man.

Yes Gore went through a similar shift, but it's true that he's done more than Edwards because he hasn't had to campaign. He also has several years more experience that JE and more years outside of Washington.

One thing that allows me to be considering Edwards so closely is that he very clearly admits he was wrong. Even Kerry couldn't really do that. I give Edwards a lot of credit for owing up to some of his bad decisions in the Senate. I have sworn up and down that I would NEVER work for an IWR candidate, but this campaign season may change that.

Thanks again for the thoughtful post, I will be following it to see other responses.

[1932]

45. FWIW, Edwards on Iraq Oil:

Post-War Iraq
Wants a NATO-led peacekeeping force and wants the United Nations to take over reconstruction.

Says Iraq's oil should not be exploited by any country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30640-2004Jul6.html

Also, if you search on the issue, it's the AFL-CIO that is most opposed to it in the US & they gave Edwards a 100% rating.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3261/

[slipslidingaway]

52. Thanks for the links and here is my question on the draft Iraq

Oil Law. Passing the oil law was a benchmark in both of the recent supplemental bills. When Bush vetoed the first bill Edwards said we should keep sending the same bill back. With the benchmark?

By his silence does he support the draft oil law? The unions in Iraq have been trying to raise this issue both in Iraq and here, yet he has said nothing.

In case you do not know the unions in Iraq have gone on strike over this issue and other issues.

For me this is another example of saying that Iraq's oil should not be exploited in 2004 and remaining silent now when it counts.

Do you know why he is silent on this issue?

http://www.basraoilunion.org/

[welshTerrier2]

53. right. the link referenced 2004.

the issue requires LEADERSHIP NOW.

in all fairness to the poster, the information was posted as a "FWIW". I think what "it's worth" is that it probably shows a sincere perspective of right and wrong on the issue. I give Edwards some credit for that BUT we need so much more.

The battle over this oil law sits at the very heart of the power struggle we're engaged in. One side, and it sure as hell includes almost all republicans and ALMOST all elected Democrats, believes US power can be used for these imperialistic purposes; the other side wants American foreign policy to reflect our sense of fundamental right and wrong.

If Edwards wants to lay claim to the anti-corporatist, anti-imperialist, populist wing of the party, he's got a whole lot more he's going to need to say on the Iraqi Oil Law.

[slipslidingaway]

54. My feelings as well, I started to read about this in January 07

when Reid and Pelosi were asked a question on the subject. From January to August I have not seen a statement that Edwards has made on this subject. If he feels it is wrong then he should say so, those who control their resources control their future.

The people of Iraq know this and must be wondering if the American people also accept this as well.

I'll check back later to see if any Edwards' suporters know why he has remained silent.

[The Count]

56. I'd also add here those mortgages he was owning - people were foreclosed

since May when he found out - yet in August he was still talking "divesting" (as opposed to returning). That gives him even less credibility to point the finger in this matter.

[Totally Committed]

57. Since we both had similar questions, take a look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3474447&mesg_id=3474447

The subthread starting with my post at #5 all the way through my last post at #40. That should answer your questions. Trying to get a straight answer is like pulling teeth, and then being shot between the eyes for the pain.

I'm done asking questions about ANY candidate. What I can't dind out on my own ain't worth the trouble of asking.

The answer to our questions is evidently "F*CK YOU". Yeah, I'm pissed.

TC

[Cameron27]

59. That's the answer everyone tends to get ...

but don't back off. It's posts like yours and WT2's that add some needed perspective around here.

[Totally Committed]

60. Thanks very much, seasonedblue.

I appreciate your kind words.

TC

[slipslidingaway]

61. Another kick for answers n/t

[sarcasmo]

63. Kick.

[bobbolink]

64. Remember, Kucinich has had to explain former positions,

including being anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage. Kucinich supporters have made their peace with his changes.

Those of us who are now firmly supporting Edwards have made the same peace with him. He's not the Edwards of '04! Just as Kucinich isn't the Kucinich of his anti-abortion days, and other stands he used to take.

If you're going to forgive Kucinich, then you need to at least forgive Edwards supporters, if not Edwards himself.

same/same

Also, I ask you to remember how irritating it was/is to keep explaining why you are at peace with Kucinich's flips on some issues.

It was Kucinich dropping poverty in '04 that put me in the Edwards column. He has not only been unwavering on that important issue, he just gets stronger and stronger on it!

[slipslidingaway]

65. Kick n/t

[Totally Committed]

66. kick

:kick:


TC

[slipslidingaway]

67. Update, called his campaign office again. She said Edwards

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3474447&mesg_id=3475182

does not support the benchmark in the supplmental, when I asked why he remains silent, she said the question has not come up in a debate!

My reply was that his office is always issuing press releases and this is an ENORMOUS topic for the Iraqi people as this is THEIR FUTURE. I also said that I could personally care less about 'she devil' comments, who said what about whom etc. Most of those are just to keep the masses entertained :) while the important issues are ignored, like this one!

My final comment was that if Edwards really wants to take on corporations, help the poor, be a friend to labor he should address this within the next week or two.

Do Edwards' supporters not see the disconnect here??? Why do some consider legitimate questions and criticism a form bashing. Months later still no answer on this topic.