It took John Edwards over two and a half years of the debacle in Iraq

[cali]

before he wrote his OP saying he was wrong on the war- and he did that only 2 years ago.

I won't vote for Clinton in the primary because of her AUMF vote, and I won't vote for Edwards for the same reason. On her part I think it showed over weaning ambition. I'm not sure what it showed on his: I tend to think he was a true believer. Edwards bought every bit of bullshit the admin offered: the aluminum tubes, the nuclear crap- everything. He demonstrated poor judgment and an uncritical acceptance of the most egregious lies. And he didn't argue that the resolution strengthened bushco's hand re negotiating; he was gung ho on going to war. In 2003, he said:

"Make no mistake, it Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Our world will be safer when he is gone."

And here he is on Hardball explaining how it was a good thing to defy the UN.

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

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

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

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

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

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

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

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

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/


Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd all got it wrong on the most important vote they ever cast. I'm not going to excuse Edwards just because he's done a 180, and said he's sorry. There were plenty of Senators who voted against the AUMF. And they weren't all from blue states either. Bingaman of NM voted against it, for example.

Clinton gets the lion's share of the condemnation around here, and in light of her K/L vote, I think that's fair, but the others, and JE in particular, shouldn't get a pass. He was gungho for a disastrous war and he supported it for two and a half years. He demonstrated bad judgment at a critical time. I appreciate that he's acknowledged he was wrong, but that doesn't hold as much weight as his actions.

I like a lot JE's positions, and I do believe he's changed. That doesn't wipe the slate clean on his Senate career and the votes he cast. If he's the nominee, I'll gladly vote for him, but this is why I won't do so in the primary.

[Radical Activist]

1. Nominating Edwards gives the GOP a free pass on Iraq.

It allows the Republican to say, "The Democrat voted for it too so you can't blame me for my support!" Fred Thompson already did this on Meet the Press. It will be flip flops at the Republican convention all over again when people are looking for someone who sticks by their convictions.

It amazes me that people try to paint Clinton and Obama with the same brush. Edwards looks a lot more like Clinton when you consider how much he shifts his positions depending on what office he's running for.

[cali]

2. The repukes will indeed paint him as a flip flopper

an opportunist and a hypocrite. There's a wealth of material right out of Edwards' mouth and his voting record.

[inthebrain]

3. That's why I support Kucinich over the others

Biden, Clinton, Edwards and Obama are just ineffectual on this issue.

Kucinich is the only one that can get this party to straighten up and fucking fly right.

[Radical Activist]

4. Obama is great on this issue.

Sorry, but just because Obama didn't make a protest vote against funding as many times as Kucinich doesn't make him the same as Hillary and the others. Obama opposed the war before it began and he will get us out.

[inthebrain]

7. Denying funding for the war is a big part of ending it

I read through Obama's plan on his website and his troop withdrawl plan is really vague. I don't know how he plans on keeping these guys fighting while reducing their numbers is helpful.

The problem here is the occupation. That's it. We're not helping to stabalize anything by staying or gradually withdrawing.

[Radical Activist]

9. March of '08 isn't very gradual

It takes time to move an army and that was the date Obama proposed earlier this year. Obama is voting against funding and is proposing an end to the occupation. I don't see anything wrong with that. He's not calling for a slow withdrawal like Hillary is.

Expecting a detailed plan is a little ridiculous. A plan shouldn't be detailed until next year when there's a new President based on the situation at that time, not what someone guesses might be happening over a year from now.

Kucinich is good about painting himself into a corner where he can be "more liberal than thou" on every issue. He only started harping on his votes against funding after Obama got in the race and he couldn't be the "only candidate who opposed the war from the start" like he used to say. He talks about the funding votes because that's the only thing he has left over Obama. It works on some level as a campaign tactic but its not a realistic governing strategy.

[inthebrain]

14. Obama really doesn't have a place on the IWR issue

as he wasn't in congress at the time. It's easier being on the outside of they scenerio and tell others what you would do. It's entirely another to stand up in that pressure cooker and say "no".

DK has a great record on the issues and throughout his carreer shown amazing forsight. He should show case that.

He's also talked about defunding this war long before Obama announced.

He also has trade issues, labor issue and gay rights over Obama as well. He's advocated for these issues long before many of them became popualar for the other candidates to grab onto.

[Radical Activist]

25. Obama was an elected official and spoke publicly.

In '04 Kucinich and Sharpton were the only candidates with the guts to speak at an anti-war rally. Now we have Obama as well. He spoke publicly at an anti-war rally before it began. Its not his fault the people didn't put him Congress sooner. He showed judgement and courage. Obama had the guts to be against the war when he ran for US Senate even though it was a very risky thing to do at the time.

Obama as an excellent record on labor and gay rights issues and has advocated for them for the last ten years or more. I'm not going to ignore his long record on those issues just because some bloggers want to paint him as a conservative.

[DaLittle Kitty]

29. Obama Had No More Say On Iraq Any of Us

I believe that most of us would agree that Obama does not have very many more blunders in the spotlight left in his bag before he is toast if he wants to win the nomination.:hurts: :spank:

[cali]

5. Kucinich is irrelevant. in the real world

And it's not just the MSM; he's run a completely ineffectual campaign. He's polling 1% in Iowa- not because of the MSM, but because he has no campaign there at all. He has a good platform, but he's the wrong candidate to move it forward.

[inthebrain]

6. Iowa is just one state

It doesn't decide the whole thing.

Kucinich is not taking corporate contributions whihc limits what he can do.

His campaigning here in the NE has gone over extremely well. I think this is where he's really going to pull in the numbers. In a sense, staying out of Iowa may be a good idea. The voters there tend to get campaign fatigue with some of the candidates and that results in less than an adequate showing for them.

Oh, and the MSM DOES have a huge effect here. To deny that is to deny the crazy shit that went down in 04 and 00. They really do have a lock on this campaign and that Clinton and Obama dominate all the coverage.

[cali]

8. I said it's not all the MSM. I stand by it. Of course, it's a significant

factor, but it surely ain't the only factor. Not taking corporate funding shouldn't be a big deal. Most of Obama's, Edwards' and all the others comes from indidvidual small donors. Hell, Ron Paul raised more in one day than Kucinich raised in 2 years. I don't notice him doing well in my state- and I'm in the Northeast. I'm sure he'd doing better here than in other places but my guess is he's still well under 5%.

[inthebrain]

12. I live in MA

There are tons of people in Sommerville and Cambridge that love him to death.

DK has campaigned a lot differently than the others in this race over the years. He has gone venue to venue over long periods of time. Very different than the way the other candidates work their campaign.

Paul's individual contributions are mostly from businesses. Folks who are Libertarians and Right wingers generally appeal to people with money a lot more than leftist like Kucinich. That's just the way it goes.

In 04 he had a good showing in a few states;

Washington - Democratic Presidential Caucuses Dennis Kucinich, 8%; (Ahead of Edwards)

Maine - Presidential Caucuses Dennis Kucinich 16% (Ahead of Edwards)

Hawaii - Presidential Caucuses Dennis Kucinich, 27%(Ahead of Edwards)

Minnesota - Presidential Caucuses Dennis Kucinich, 17%

Ohio - Presidential Primary Dennis Kucinich, 9%

Oregon - Presidential & State Primary Dennis Kucinich, 17% (Only three people running here)

Montana - Presidential & State Primaries Dennis Kucinich, 10%



He got a lot less coverage in the 04 election than he did this election. He also finished ahead of Edwards in a few of those races. I guarentee those numbers definitly go up this time out. Kerry also swept those races and the second place finisher getting less then 30% of the vote.

[Radical Activist]

10. The sad part is that Kucinich is hurting progressive causes.

The liberal stances on issues he takes are getting blamed for his doing so badly when the real reason is that Kucinich is a poor candidate running another chaotic campaign. A different candidate with the same message would do better.

[cali]

11. I don't know that he's hurting progressive causes

but I don't think he's advancing them in the greater scheme of things. I agree that a different candidate with a similar message would do better. In many ways Edwards is trying to be that candidate, and he has some good proposals, but his history just doesn't give me confidence in his judgment or his ability to adhere to a position if the winds change politically.

[inthebrain]

13. Well, Kucinich is more of a leftist than he is a progressive

I think there is a major difference between those two.

Progressive look to advance causes by working within capatalistic frame works. They are more reformists.

Leftists on the otherhand advocate for much more radical changes and throw more socialistic programs in the mix. A leftist will advocate government controlled not for profit health care coverage while a progressive will try to work within the capitalistic frame work. Interms of Progressives I think of Woodrow Wilson et al.

FDR was a mix of a leftist and a progressive (I guess that's where I'd place DK shading more to the left).

The problem with many of the front runners here is they are more like mild progressives and in the case of Biden, Republican lite.

[cali]

15. I don't know where you're getting your definitions of

Progressive/leftist, but I don't agree with them. And neither does any definition I've ever seen. But whether, Kucinich is more of a leftist of progressive, I think the larger point is that he's not able to attract enough people to his causes to make a dent. I do think his message would get more support with a different messenger.

[inthebrain]

16. Maybe, maybe not

I don't really look at who the messenger is.

I just look at the issues and the record and move from their.

If they are right on them then I give em my vote.

But to really clarify the Leftist/Progressive thing

Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Lyndon Johnson = Progressives

EV Debs, FDR = Leftists

Progressives are not leftists.

[DaLittle Kitty]

18. Edwards NEVER voted to fund the War in Iraq, Clinton Did!

Beyond that, Kucinich is there to keep all the progressives/leftists in line so that whomever becomes the nominee he will dutifully turn over his lists of emails, phone numbers and names to them. I believe that Kucinich does hurt the progressive cause at the presidential level in that he puts a face on our cause that is most easily mocked and criticized. Notwithstanding my total advocacy for impeachment etc which our weak "fraid I won't get re-elected dems" and Democratic Corporatists will not stand for.

Therefor if one truly seeks advancement of the progressive cause, John Edwards walks the walk, is the Republicans most feared Democratic opponent and once elected will stand by and act upon the stands he has taken.

The mark of maturity is to learn and grow from one's mistakes. I feel that John Edwards has done so in a number of ways and will make my life and the lives of millions who are ignored by the establishment politique in this country all the better.

To merely seek to draw retribution for what one perceives as an all encompassing vote of grave injustice is truly not in line with having foresight.

:bounce: I was listening to a live interview of former ambassador Joseph Wilson yesterday and on the issue of voting for the authorization to use force in Iraq he absolves EVERYONE who voted for it because... Colin Powell was going around to each Senator individually and spending 45 minutes to an hour w/ each explaining how "Bush was going to use the authorization responsibly for more intrusive inspections of facilities in Iraq... NOTHING MORE!"

So I expect that Wilson had no reason to fib in the interview given the position he and Valerie Plame have found themselves in because of the crooks in the WH. Again once the cat was out of the bag on Bush violating his promises made by Powell then it comes down to who continued to vote to fund the war, now occupation.

John Edwards NEVER voted to fund the war after the vote. :think:

[cali]

19. So that's Wilson's opinion. Senator Leahy absolves NONE of

colleagues and former colleagues who voted for the war- as his speech just prior to the vote on the IWR.

Edwards record in the Senate is a large part of his qualifications. He served 6 years. It's the only elected office he's ever held. He owns it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. FWIW Joe Wilson is supporting Clinton

Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary Clinton
James Joyner | Monday, July 16, 2007

Valerie Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on a conference call with liberal bloggers. Taylor Marsh, for one, is quite excited: “This is a huge deal for Candidate Clinton and a big endorsement for her candidacy. That it was broken on the blogs sends a powerful signal.”

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/07/joe_wilson_endorses_hillary_clinton/

[Radical Activist]

24. Since when does Edwards walk the walk?

No, Edwards talks the talk. I'm glad that Edwards has had an election year conversion but his moderate/conservative Senate record is another story. That's called talking the talk, but NOT walking the walk.

If you want someone with a progressive record then Edwards doesn't hold a candle to Obama when you look not only at Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate but also his work as a community organizer and civil rights attorney. The way Edwards made a complete change makes me question whether he will change again after getting elected if he thinks that's the politically smart thing to do. That's exactly what I don't like about Clinton.

[asdjrocky]

30. Very well put.

And welcome to DU. More and more smart people just keep showing up.

It's a happy bunny wonderland!

[frogmarch]

31. Superb post, Kitty!

I think you should use it to start another thread.

[ellisonz]

17. He was just hedging his bets!

:sarcasm:

[AlertLurker]

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

Yet ANOTHER reason, along with NO EXPERIENCE, NO RECORD, and obviously, NO FRIGGIN' CLUE.

Though I'm sure he regrets it now, it's NOT THE POINT.

Don't most sane people want a President who is RIGHT ON THE MONEY - AT THE TIME WHEN IT COUNTS MOST?


Support Dennis Kucinich Today!!!

[asdjrocky]

26. Ron Paul for VP!

er... right?

[rucky]

22. We've been through this with Kerry's candidacy.

and the real test should be: What have you done since IWR to stop the war?

Not enough, obviously. They all have their plans, in varying levels of detail, but Biden has made the greatest amount of progress towards a resolution.

[cali]

23. I agree. Biden has wrestled with the facts on the ground

in a way no one else has. I have a lot of respect for his intelligence. I still don't see how he came to vote for the AUMF.

[DaLittle Kitty]

27. Please Explain Biden's Tough Talk

only to cave in and vote FOR BOTH ROBERTS AND ALITO. More akin to a dirigible than anything else I can think of.:think:

[sandnsea]

28. I would say Kerry actually has

He actually started confronting Bush's rush to war in Jan 2003. He's also been at the forefront of every piece of legislation to set troop withdrawal, deadlines, etc. I don't know that Biden has always been with him. Biden has been looking to salvage something out of the mess. Kerry has sought to end it. They've both done more work than anybody else running, I'd agree with that.

[robbedvoter]

32. Rove is already spinning that WH opposed war but Dems wanted it

Absurd as it sounds today, with the MSM echo chamber and Edwards as stool pigeon it will play perfectly (not that it wouldn't also stick to all the others who voted for war)

[Lex]

33. How many anti-Edwards threads do you start per day anyway?

You are persistent, I'll say that much.

[flyarm]

34. extremely persistant....makes one wonder..eom

[Stop Cornyn]

35. Someone started kicking anti-Obama threads every time cali posted an attack thread and that slowed

her down some (with "kicked for cali" in the subject line).

That's a shame because Obama's a great candidate but if that's what it takes ...

[asdjrocky]

36. .

The energizer Edwards hating
:hi: