I gladly admit it.

[cali]

The DU narrative of John Edwards as the great white progressive hope of 2008, grates on me. I don't see it that way. His record in the Senate, his support for the war even long after it had turned into a debacle, his working for Fortress for a very substantial payday, all present a picture that conflicts with what he's saying now.

Post after post at DU champions him. Fine, but there is another side to the story and it goes completely ignored by his supporters- they'll deny that, I'm sure. But that's my observation.

I'll take John Edwards' word that he he's changed, but it's not enough for me to support him in the primaries. I'd like to be able to because I like a lot of his proposals, but I just can't.

Want to see that as having an axe to grind? Fine, but no candidate should get a free pass on their history.

edited to add: the reason I referred to JE as the "great white progressive hope", is because I've seen quite a few of his supporters argue that he's more electable than Obama or Clinton because of his ethnicity and gender.

[saltpoint]

1. You sure are in a Democrat-slammin' mode these days, cali.

You think perceived flaws of our blue team are disqualifying against the possibility of a Giuliani White House, or a Romney White House?

Shame on you.

[cali]

6. what? no way did I say that I think any are disqualified by their

flaws. They're all electable against the repukes. I'd crawl through glass to vote for any of them, but I haven't fallen in political love with any of them; that's true.

Few people object to the slamming of Clinton- you, I'm happy to note, are one of them, but criticize Edwards and all hell breaks lose.

[saltpoint]

7. You've got 3 or more concurrent anti-Edwards threads right now on DU cali.

One of our 8 Dems is likely to be the next president.

Think of that.

[cali]

22. how many anti-Hillary threads based on nothing substansive

whatsover run each and every day? A dozen? 2 dozen? 5 dozen?

That seems far more of a problem than my measly 3 threads. I've posted more threads critical of Clinton (again on substantive issues) than I have about Edwards. Never saw you object to that.

[saltpoint]

25. Have a great time, cali. You know what you're up to here.

[cali]

46. Yes. I do. I'm expressing my opinion of a candidate for President

based on facts and without namecalling. And you weren't able to respond directly to the question I posed, and simply made an insinuating comment.

[saltpoint]

89. It wasn't an insinuating comment. It was a direct accusation.

Make the distinction.

You haven' picked a candidate to back but you have plenty of time to slam others' choices?

What crap.

[hayu_lol]

93. Old Crusoe, why complain about 3 concurrent threads right now...

yesterday, there were over 30 concurrent anti-Hillary threads going.

THREE? Sheesh, a cakewalk if there ever was one.

[saltpoint]

94. Nope. A trend here was the point, and the point was drawn fairly.

The OP has no candidate herself but plenty of impulse to slam on others' choices.

It's crap.

[peace13]

8. I look for the sarcasm button on your remark.

Since when does questioning a candidate become Democrat-slammin'? That is what makes DU so frustrating these days, people who will not allow an adult discussion. I am beginning to believe that there is no hope for this country. Peace , kim

[saltpoint]

9. When I see fair talk I honor it.

The OP is running at least 3 Dem slams concurrently.

That's an imbalance I can find on FOX at any hour.

[rasputin1952]

26. I don't think Guiliani is going to make it, and Romney is a bit of

a dolt, he probably won't make muster either.

Like everyone else, I read threads that tend to "hit" on others, but as far as "Democrat-slammin'", click on almost any thread. I am willing to wager that the negatives outweigh the positives 300:1.

[saltpoint]

28. I've read one or two posts around here, rasputin. But that doesn't

address the consistency of this OP to post in that mode at the expense of "honest inquiry."

I stand by my comment.

[rasputin1952]

36. Stand by it....that is what Message Boards are all about....

what I'm saying is that it is like walking through mud wherever we go lately.

FWIW, I have no candidate yet, I find them all standing around doing the posture dance. Nothing of substance yet from thne frontrunners, and thsoe that do try to get a message out are hardly noticed, go figure.

Pick a thread where the ratio of good/bad is anywhere near equal, pretty difficult to find.

This thread is no different than the vast amjority of others....I will very happy when people, from all aspects, cease attacking each other. There are R's out there to beat into the ground, but we waste our time tossing grenades at each other, go figure.

[saltpoint]

90. Anti-Dem threads are counterproductive to preserving personal liberties

and preventing a further rightward tilt to the High Court.

And on and on.

This site does not care which candidates' supporters say what about anyone else, presumably in the interest of "free speech," a muddled position which suggests everyone who registers here has a vested interest in progressive politics and citizenship.

That is clearly not the case, yet registrants who are pro-Democratic have less a base here than registrants opting to slam and debase.

No editory I ever worked for in NYC would have been unable to wield a red pen. Those distinctions matter.

You've been a mod here for awhile. I've watched you be that reasoned & seasoned editor with the red pen, but generally Democrats are treated like dung on this site, and are so treated at the whimsey of anyone who wishes to post against them.

They become the cyber-syntax equivalent of road rage incidents. In a free land people are generally free to drive where they wish, but they are expected to follow posted speed limits and railroad crossing warnings, etc. in the interest of a greater public safety.

One might ask why that is so. To consider it counterproductive to our larger aims is to understate the obvious, IMO.

[rurallib]

2. Well we could say something similar about all our candidates except

well none. So let's continue to denigrate our candidates so that we can help the RepubliKlans.

[NavyDavy]

4. i agree that is all i see anymore on DU dems attacking

dems....I know alot of them are trolls...or just asshats....but it just gives the repukes more ammo

[DangerDave921]

24. How?

How does discussing -- even criticizing -- dem candidates on DU give the repubs more ammo? I doubt that the RW'ers are perusing DU on a daily basis to get their talking points.

The whole point of a forum is to talk, debate, disagree, present counter viewpoints, etc. So if folks can't make legitimate criticisms, what is the point of being here?

No one should be above criticism, especially those who are asking for our vote to become Presient of the United States.

[peace13]

12. What bad things can be said about Kucinich? I

Aside from his physical stature, which I don't have a problem with. I need to be enlightened.

[rurallib]

17. I will not go into it. Believe me there are some chinks in his armor

[H2O Man]

3. "great white progressive"

Sad that you would say something like that.

[saltpoint]

11. I agree. It invokes a racist lexicon we ought to long ago have abandoned

in this country.

[zabet]

16. Yes.

If people referred to Obama as
'The Great Black Hope' it would cause
a racial shit storm.

[H2O Man]

29. "great white hope"

That's an old race-baiting phrase that has an ugly history. When Jack Johnson became the world heavyweight champion in 1908, there was a cry for a "great white hope" to recapture the title for the white "race." It was part of a brutal era, where there were quite literally riots that resulted in the deaths of black American citizens who supported Johnson, as well as KKK-style attacks on people simply because of their skin color.

There is no room on DU for trying to pin that type of label on John Edwards. People can debate his qualifications, and that's fine. Race-baiting is sickness.

[zabet]

57. I agree.

I was trying to give
as ludicrous an example
as I could. I was raised
to not see race but, to see
merit. Sorry that I cannot
say that for everyone.

[cali]

27. it's a direct response to a significant number of his supporters

here who claim that he is more electable because he's white male- something I find offensive. I'm sure you do to, though I've never seen you remark on it. Surely you've seen those posts.

[saltpoint]

31. Your phrase was racist.

[H2O Man]

52. I believe that you

have mentioned that you used to be a social worker. "Surely you have seen" people attempt to justify their own misbehavior by pointing to others, and saying things like "I've never seen you remark on that!" It qualifies as the classic attempt to place responsibility for one's behavior on others.

I made a specific comment on a specific statement that you made, not anyone else. Just you. If you were unaware that it has an ugly racist history, then this should qualify as a lesson in why people should not use words or phrases that they do not know the meaning of.

[cali]

66. I shouldn't have used it- it was a hasty short cut

and it subverts my argument, partly because people have seized on it, some honestly, some not, to minimize what I'm saying. It is of great interest to me that I see comments about Obama and Clinton not being electable because of their race/gender with very few people calling out that behavior. There was an entire thread on it this morning.

[H2O Man]

82. As often as we have

disagreed -- and that is fairly often -- I would say without qualification that you are not racist, and have confronted things that verge on racist on DU. Hence my surprise at the use of the term.

I think that anyone who wants to get an idea of the still very real role that racism plays in sports (yes, even in boxing) should watch the dynamics of the pre-fight hype for the up-coming Ricky Hatton vs Floyd Mayweather match. Both are good and decent men. But some of the fans and writers view Hatton as the "white hope" to beat a cocky, arrogant, money-flashing modern version of the mold of Jack Johnson/ Sugar Ray Robinson/ Muhammad Ali.

It is not restricted, of course, to white vs black, or boxing. Or even sports. The general topic that you raise is worthy of serious discussion.

[waiting for hope]

84. Please -

"he is more electable because he's white male" - He's more electable because of his message, he's refusal to take corporate lobbyist money, for he stand with the unions and the working class of this country and his promise to raise 47 million Americans out of poverty. The "he is more electable because he's white male" meme, is a concept that I feel most enlightened DU'ers are not attributing to Edwards. If you want to see why he appeals:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=72294&mesg_id=72294

[ecstatic]

34. But that's the vibe I get too

When it couldn't be Gore, some here are now switching to Edwards. Why? What has Edwards done that is so special, save for the fact that he is a so called handsome white (male) face?

[XemaSab]

62. She's using a semi-racist term intentionally

to say that there are those who would argue JE's more electable based on the fact that he's white.

[H2O Man]

63. It's not "semi-" racist.

It has a very real history. It's history is absolutely, 100% racist, and nothing but absolutely, 100% racist.

[XemaSab]

67. Yes, it has a racist history

but what things in America don't? :shrug:

You'd have to know the history of the phrase to know it's racist.

[H2O Man]

75. It is impossible

to justify using the term cali did, which is why you are saying things like "semi-racist" and that people would need to know the history of words. To try to defend spouting racist terms by claiming ignorance speaks for itself.

[Czolgosz]

5. You are the type of poster who makes me want to post bad things about Obama even though I like Obama

but I have resisted.

Posters who offer little beyond cutting and pasting right-wing talking points are a cancer on the GD-P forum.

[cali]

13. Why Obama?

I don't support him- at least not yet. Nor do I post right wing talking points. The story about Edwards legal career and lack of pro-bono work was published in the NYT. I'm not someone who EVER uses right wing sources. And every day HIllary Clinton gets attacked with right wing talking points from right wing sources. Have you ever defended her against the massive amount of inane slime she gets here? I have. And she's not my candidate. So unles you have, you certainly are talking out of both sides of your mouth. And you know what you get for defending Clinton against fallacious charges? You get called a corporatist, a right wing tool and various other lovely sobriqets.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Oh yes, the NYT is sooo liberal.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Czolgosz]

21. Because you post misleading slander about Edwards and Hillary but defend Obama. I wouldn't post

half-truths tearing down Obama in response to your perpetual right-wing-talking-point bulletins nor would I post half-truths about Kucinich (who you purport to prefer), but I bet that your crap here inspires other people to post more negative attacks on other candidates which is bad for Democrats and bad for this forum.

[cali]

33. wrong. do a search. I've criticized all three.

I've defended Clinton far more than the other two, but I've defended and praised as well as criticized. And I don't post about things that are not germane to the issues. Learn what slander is. Clue: It's not relating factual information, or opinion.

[Czolgosz]

48. No. I think I'll kick a few threads of my choosing on your behalf for each hate attack you post.

I seem to recall you saying something else but you -- of all posters -- wouldn't lie, right?

[Stop Cornyn]

64. If everyone kicked posts contrary to the attack-trolls' favorite candidates we'd get less hate

[Virginia Dare]

10. John Edwards has been defending the little guy against....

big corporations for a long time, and winning. That's the kind of person we could use in the White House.

He was a Senator from North Carolina, not exactly a hotbed of progressive ideals, so I'm not sure judging his voting record would be an accurate test of his personal philosophy. His views on the war mirrored those of his constituents I'm sure. This is not a defense of it, just an observation.

[Mass]

14. Good thread, cali, but you will be slammed to say what you think.

Nobody should offend the great Edwards. He is the only one that can be good. We should not question him.

Sometimes you wonder why he is the only one who should get a pass...

[BeyondGeography]

15. Glass house much?

I'm not supporting Edwards for many of the reasons you describe, but you slammed CleverAmerican here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3765660) for starting the same type of thread, opinion unsupported by links and facts.

Maybe you should do less "policing" and more thinking.

[cali]

30. I'm not "policing" anyone- I'm expressing my opinion, and

if you can't tell the difference between the thread I commented on and this one- oh well. Here's the dif: CA presented his/her post as fact. My post is clearly simply opinion with a few well known facts referenced: Does anyone deny that Edwards worked for Fortress or voted for the IWR or didn't repudiate that vote for 2 1/2 years?

[waiting for hope]

85. Nice -

:thumbsup:

[zabet]

18. A lot of the dem candidates

try to project a certain image. I may not
like certain dem candidates but, I try very
hard to keep my 'dissing' directed towards the
repubs. I come to my own conclusions about
the image they attempt to project. In my opinion
voting records tell the tale in most cases.
I am still not decided who to vote for in the
primaries. There is still plenty of time for
me to choose so, I will continue to 'observe and
take notes'.

[mtnsnake]

20. Thank goodness for posters like you, cali

It's a good thing you're around here. You add common sense, reason, and a little bit of desperately needed balance to this place.

:toast:

[cali]

23. thank you

you are, of course, in the minority- as am I, but that's just fine with me.

[Cameron27]

76. Count me in with mtnsnake and WD.

Good post cali :toast:

[Adelante]

40. I think I will join you in that

:toast:

[stuartrida]

91. You like anyone who rips on Edwards

which is your right. I can see why people don't like Edwards, and I can see why even more don't like Kucinich. OT, but are you going to apologize for calling people who believed the "Kucinich considers Ron Paul for Vice President" story "sheep?" There are a few threads with audio now, and I would be interested in reading your comments in them.

[paulk]

32. you have put into words my reservations about John Edwards

and I'm saddened by the response you've gotten. You're either with us or against us, and everything seems to have devolved to a personal level.

DU no longer seems to be much of a "discussion" board, which is why I haven't been posting here very much lately.

[cali]

35. thanks. I did know that even if I couched it in language as

inflammatory as I could, it would elicit outrage.

[countingbluecars]

37. Are you trying to convince me?

"None of the democratic candidates can win. And none are worthy of being President."

I thought your words from yesterday meant that you were tired of threads bashing the candidates. But you seem to have no trouble doing it yourself when it comes to Obama or Edwards.

[cali]

44. this is getting funny.

Upthread someone accuses me of criticizing Clinton and Edwards and not criticizing Obama. You guys need to get it straight: I criticize/defend/praise, all of them. And I do it on substantive issues without calling them names. I never call their supporters nasty names either.

[countingbluecars]

51. Great

so you're an equal opportunity Dem basher. Maybe you really are trying to convince people that no Democrat is worthy.

[cali]

56. oh for pity's sake. I've never said anything of the sort. In fact, I've said the opposite

I'd crawl through broken glass to vote for any of them. That doesn't mean any one of them is immune from criticism based on issues and history.

[EV_Ares]

38. Great White Progressive Hope, wow, oh well never mind. eom.

[cali]

41. then Edwards supporters shouldn't tout him as more electable than Clinton

or Obama because of his race/gender. And they do.

[EV_Ares]

45. Well, if they do, do not agree with that as I see any of them electable

or not electable at times. Nobody knows at this point. As far as Edwards supporters saying he is more electable than Hillary, your favorite, because he is a white male, that is stupid and I have not seen it on here which doesn't mean anything because no way to see everything. However, would be easy to just make that statement as well.

[cali]

50. wrong. you are projecting.

Sorry, Hillary is my least favorite. I've posted dozens of threads as to why- again substantively based on issues. Hold on and I'll provide you with a link. I feel bad doing it, because the poster clearly is not any kind of a bigot, but I don't like having my veracity called into question.

edited to add:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3760783&mesg_id=3760783

[SaveElmer]

39. You are right of course...and not the only one...

In fact it is this glaring contradiction between Edwards record and rhetoric which in my view is the reason for his low poll numbers...

[Adelante]

42. Heh

Priceless.

[durrrty libby]

49. Excellent

[PresidentObama]

Nice RW cartoon, SaveElmer. But this isn't Republican Underground, sorry.

[SaveElmer]

61. Wouldn't know it from the attacks on Hillary would we?...nt

[tammywammy]

86. Funny

:)

[AlertLurker]

43. "he's more electable than Obama or Clinton because of his ethnicity and gender."

I agree - this is distasteful, but it rings true, nonetheless.

I see it as one of the ONLY reasons he's "electable."

White, Anglo, male, Southern Baptist = "electable."

Shameful, reaally.

[EV_Ares]

47. Hillary supporters must be nervous about Edwards to just constantly

attack him and in some cases without any support of the statements.

[SaveElmer]

53. So how would you then characterize the constant drumbest of criticism...

by Edwards and Obama supporters of Hillary?

An honest exposition of the issues I imagine... :sarcasm:

[EV_Ares]

55. LOL, as far as attacks, dumb criticism, not hard to distinguish that

is it. All you have to do is look at the board and see for yourself. Is it a post supporting Hillary or is it a barrage of attacks against oh say Edwards. I am sure you can characterize or make a determination of who is who..

Hillary supporters evidently are nervous and with the polls moving south on her, that would be understandable.

[cali]

54. Edwards supporters must be nervous about..... everything

to make up lies that people like me are supporting Hillary- particularly given the hundreds of times that I've posted that I don't support her.

[AlertLurker]

72. I've seen some attacks and seen a lot of supporting statements.

Anyone who honestly believes that Edwards is progressive has been "snookered."

:rofl:

[JohnLocke]

79. He's NOT Southern Baptist, he's United Methodist - shows how little you care about the facts.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week745/news.html

[AlertLurker]

81. Hmmmm....Are you sure?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21312_1.html#extndVer

It's been part of my own personal faith journey. Because I've done what I think a lot of Americans have done, which : I was raised in a very Christian home and a Southern Baptist church, and baptized in the Southern Baptist church. My dad has been a deacon in the Southern Baptist church for many years. In fact, we went back to my church a few weeks ago and he was getting the Lay Person of the Year Award, which we were all very proud of him for.

I had originally read it elsewhere - just found this Edwards interview when I was going back and checking if I was or was not mistaken...perhaps he converted at some point?

Baptist, Methodist - I really could care less, really...If you want to miss the point COMPLETELY by continuing to engage in pointless semantic battles, go ahead and waste your time.

[JohnLocke]

83. Facts are not 'pointless' or 'semantic'

Edwards was raised Southern Baptist. When he became an adult he wasn't particularly religious. In 1996, after his son died, he joined the United Methodists. So Edwards has been a United Methodist for 11 years (the entire time he has been in public life).

http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=6

[Touchdown]

58. I think he is more electable, but not because of race or sex.

...but because he won in South Carolina, against a strong Republican, in Jesse Helms' old seat. Quite an acheivement. He also was part of a national ticket that I will go to my grave believing that he and John Kerry won.

Hillary? Who was the GOPer she ran against in NY (a seriously blue state)? Oh' yeah. I forgot too.

Obama? Alan Keyes?????? Who wouldn't even bother to move to Illinois to be a their Senator????:rofl:

[GreenArrow]

87. couple of minor errors

I think you meant he won in North Carolina, and it was not Jesse Helms's seat, if by seat you mean that he replaced Helms. He actually replaced Lauch Faircloth.

[PresidentObama]

59. You're more than welcome to have your opinion.

But there is no candidate running with a better vision for our country than Senator Edwards. Hands down. I'm glad to hear you like some of his proposals, and all I ask is that you support him when/if he wins the nomination.

[asdjrocky]

60. "great white progressive hope"

Man, I truly expected more from someone of your obvious intelligence Cali.

And in my humble, working slob, opinion, really smart people often under estimate, the perceptiveness of the general public.

Too bad, I usually find you mildly entertaining.

It does seem to me, that if you don't have a horse in this race yet, then you're not paying enough attention. I'd love to see that sharp pen of yours sharpened for a positive reflection of some candidate, any candidate, or even better, it would be wonderful to see you attack a republican, or someone other than Edwards.

Just saying.

Good luck to whoever it is that you support.

I guess we'll find out one day.

[XemaSab]

65. Word.

I totally agree.

[cali]

68. Thank you XemaSab

clearly I made a mistake using the great white progressive hope thing. The selective outrage is interesting though- particularly as I've frequently seen Edwards touted by his supporters as being electable for those reasons.

[XemaSab]

73. Well ya know, using the term "great white progressive hope" to refer to a white man

running against a black man and a woman, ya can't have that, not even in irony land. :crazy:

[asdjrocky]

78. What a joke.

[saltpoint]

92. cali you let us all know when you finally pick a candidate. We'll want to

go over your choice with the same scrutiny you're appying to others' choices.

I think that's fair, don't you?

[yodermon]

69. Wow you're in rare form

The daily cali-bashing-john-edwards threads are now the hourly cali-bashing-john-edwards threads.

I have to thank you though for giving us regular practice runs in defending him should Edwards become the nominee.

[EV_Ares]

70. I like how the pro-bono attack thread turned out cali started though,

it does a good job with all the posters showing all of his good work he has done and the good work we know he will do in the future.

[smoogatz]

71. None of the frontrunners are progressive enough for me.

Gore's not running, and Kucinich strikes me as a bit of a lefty self-parody; his department of Peace Love and Understanding thing, and his whole Kumbaya approach to global warming make it impossible for me to take him seriously as a candidate. As for what's left: not being a wingnut, I don't really expect ideological purity from politicians. In fact, I worry about true believers on either side of the aisle more than I worry about pragmatic progressive compromisers; as much as part of me wants radical change in this country, I know that the better, wiser course of change is generally more incremental. Shorter me: I care more about results and actual positive change than ideological purity. So the question is, which of the principle contenders—all of whom strike me as being compromised, one way or another—is the better bet for actually dealing responsibly with Bush's mess? I'm still not sure I know the answer to that one, so I'm keeping an open mind.

[LaurenG]

74. Since there are no perfect candidates, and since they all have a history

of changing sides on issues, how will you be able to vote this time, at least in good conscience?

[mike_c]

77. I agree with you 100 percent-- JE's record is not encouraging....

eom

[mitchum]

80. And Hillary is the great white ovarian hope of 2008?

"She will bring women to the polls in droves"
"A victory for all women"
"Blah blah blah"

[tammywammy]

88. I agree with a lot of what you say

That's part of the problem of supporting Edwards to me is.

He's had almost 4 years to perfect his image to run for the presidency again. But what happened while he was in the Senate does still matter to me.

I know no candidate is perfect, but those are the reasons that I've chosen not to support him in the primary. I feel that while he talks a good talk, he doesn't always walk the walk. And the observations I've had about Edwards are the same things that my friends feel about him too. They've all said that he can say he's changed and is for the working class, but when push comes to pull, he won't really be there.