Help me understand the double standard of Edwards supporters

[Radical Activist]

I just don't get the arguments I hear from liberal Edwards supporters.

They criticize Clinton for waffling on issues and not standing by her convictions. She changes too much based on the latest polling and doesn't show conviction.

But after criticizing Hillary about that they support a candidate who spent six years compiling a moderate to conservative record in the Senate. Either he was a liberal pandering to a moderate voting base then, or else he's a moderate conducting the classic "move left for the primary, then move to the middle for the general election" campaign strategy. Either way, he shows the same kind of spineless pandering that people criticize Hillary for. I like what Edwards has to say now but why wasn't he saying that as a Senator? I find it odd that people make excuses for Edwards because he was representing a Southern state but that just confirms he isn't willing to stand by his convictions when its difficult to do so.

I'm also confused by Edwards supporters like David Sirota that try to paint Obama as an establishment conservative as though Obama is just like Clinton. There is absolutely no comparison between the careers of Obama and Edwards. Obama has far and away the more progressive voting record of the two. For Edwards supporters to paint their candidate as the more progressive choice requires turning a big blind eye to the records of both candidates. Not to mention the fact that Obama was a civil rights attorney and worked for a VERY liberal community organization before running for office. It shows where Obama's values have been for his entire adult life, which is something that can't be said for Edwards.

So how do they do it? How do they blame Clinton for waffling and mis-characterize Obama as conservative while ignoring all of those traits in their own candidate?

Is it just more fashionable in the blogosphere to not back the popular candidate who has a lot of support? Are we supposed to turn against any progressive that actually runs a good enough campaign to raise money and get good media coverage? Are we all supposed to support Edwards just because he did a better job of kissing Kos' butt than Obama did?

[Cameron27]

1. I'm interested to see the answers myself.

K&R

[Stuckinthebush]

2. Just curious

Are you undecided or do you support a certain candidate?

I'm undecided at this point.

[Radical Activist]

3. I have a candidate

I'd like to see some answers other than ones that criticize my candidate (as though bashing other candidates makes Edwards better) so I'll wait to write who mine is.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Thanks

Honestly, I was just curious. Your arguments are not necessarily degraded by your support for another candidate.

[Beaverhausen]

4. This Edwards supporter doesn't criticize the other candidates

I support Edwards because I think his stand on the issues is closest to my own. None of the candidates are perfect, and I will support whoever is the nominee.



edit: I need more coffee!

[tired_old_fireman]

6. I hate when people give their opinion in the form of questions like this.

It reminds me of when I tried to listen to religious talk radio. People kept calling and saying stuff like--I don't understand homosexuals. Can you help me understand why the commit such sins? Why are they such bad people? Don't they read the bible? etc.

[sandnsea]

7. Red Meat

It's amazing what a little ranting and raving will do for some people.

The ones I don't understand are the Dean supporters who are now for Hillary, especially the ones who were crazed over the war vote in 2003 but don't seem to care at all now.

[Radical Activist]

9. It does remind me of Dean.

People were willing to ignore his moderate record as Governor and pretend he was the savior of progressivism just because he threw out some read meat in his speeches. It really amazes me that more people in the net-roots aren't more skeptical about candidates who have election-year transformations.

[robbedvoter]

18. Didn't Dean supporters flip for IWR sponsor Edwards in 2004 when he withdrew?

There were anti-war candidates, but dean asked them to, so the hell with the war.

[Adelante]

21. That was Kucinich

Dean supported Kerry after dropping out as I remember it.

[emilyg]

8. K&R

[IA_Seth]

10. Hallelujah brother. n/t

[Armstead]

11. Not totally in the Edwards camp, but here's my theory

I am not an enthusiastic supporter of Edwards for the very reasons you mention. The contrast between his past performance and his current message and platform is too jarring for me....The big question for me is whether he has undergone a sincere "conversion" or if he is merely being opportunistic.

Having said that, here's why I do prefer Edwards to the alternative of Hillary or Obama. And why I am more prone to overlook the appearance of hypocracy.

Whatever his motivation, Edwards does have a very clear and necessary message now. He is saying exactly what needs to be said about issues that the other candidates (except for Dennis the K) are sidestepping or trying to obscure.

We do, as a nation, need to A)Recognize and admit that corporations have become far to big and powerful and B)Do something about it in a pro-active way. The majority has to reassert its power over the elite special interests.

That, IMO, is not a "left-right" issue. It's an American and global issue that goes beyond the phony dichotomies of the current political "debate."

Hillary, in my opinion, epitomizes the craven and opportunistic trend of the Democratic Party to cave in or support the Corporate Conservative agenda. She is more of the same of what we do not need.

Obama claims to be the "change" candidate. However his version of change seems to have more to do with changing the surface of political polarization, without addressing the economic polarization and disparities of power that currently exist.

Edwards and Kucinish are the only two candidates speaking to this directly. Edwards is more mainstream in style that Dennis, and that makes him more electable -- at least in theory.

So, in a half-hearted way, I see Edwards as the best compromise in the current crop of democratic candidates to both do well electorally and to lead the nation towards the right direction.

[PATRICK]

29. That's it exactly

No one likes to back a candidate half-heartedly. When running against other Dems not radically different from each other as say a Guiliani would be against any of them, it is very tempting or restorative to gloss one's choice and demonize the others. Can't be done too effectively. If it is coldly about real issues and a progressive agenda and winning the most votes no one gets enthused and where are votes anyway for an affair of the brain, a parsing of the heart?

I don't think it is just Edwards' supporters engaging in this natural activity. How can you support a mere mortal candidate by being limited to the flaws alone? And laying off the flaws of others? Fortunately neiither the candidates nor the nation are likely to rise or fall by our discussions. In that case it certainly would be smart to do the bold thing and be fair, to criticize one's own candidate when you honestly must. You'd better learn how because if one of them is President responsibility really begins. Not power entrenchment and enemy bashing.

Misgivings can be made more specific for one and that would be courageous and refreshing. Here at least. The candidate's campaign trail is another stage altogether. E veryone might have a more wrenching self-inflicted flame contest by pointing out the shortcomings, limitations and doubts ONLY about their own candidate AND refrain from shopping out one's wounded idealist soul to a proselytizer for a REALLY perfect candidate. Such a horrific flagellante posting would be a marvel. The horror we all face is that DK speaks for us and walks the walk. And then there is winning a chance to get some of what DK is talking about by boosting another candidate. Already we are conflicted within ourselves more than the candidates are conflicted with each other.

One will survive to get this act together. I will back that candidate because united we stand- even in front of a GOP firing squad.

[Radical Activist]

40. I guess I have a different take

on Obama's message. I know he's spoken about and worked on corporate power and class disparity issues for a long time. I see him as more like Kucinich than Edwards is and more electable.

[Armstead]

45. I wish he were more gutsy and clear about it

Obama is kind of in a grey area in my opinion.

As i noted in another post, my ideal candidate would be Bernie Sanders. He is not beholden to anyone except voters, and his record is as clean as a whistle. There is absolutely no question that he is solidly in the camp of the middle class and the economically disadvantaged.

[Dawgs]

61. You're exactly right.

I'm not sure how many of DUers have been to South Chicago, but it's one of the poorest and depressing places in all of the United Stated. Instead of taking a high paying job with a law firm, Obama decided to become a community organizer in South Chicago making a lot less money. In other words, he walked the walk from the beginning.

[vireo]

56. Good summary

Edwards history is as an advocate and if the electorate responds favorably to his progressive/populist message, I trust him to try to deliver on our (his clients) behalf.

[info being]

12. Simple: Edwards is at least *saying* the right things...

...where Hillary really isn't. That's the major difference.

[robbedvoter]

14. So...hypocrisy rules then? Bush said he was "compassionate" - gotcha!

We vote the rhetoric then?

[info being]

22. Ideally rhetoric and record....

...that's why Kucinich is my number 1 (with both) and Edwards is my number 2 (with viability and at least my way of thinking). It isn't that complicated.

[robinlynne]

47. BIG difference. Edwards' platform is clear: He is for working and middle class people and

will fight big business. His past shows that clearly. He has fought that fight for 54 years, and done it better than any other lawyer. Bush's platform was also clear: pro-big business and war.
So the word compassionate means nothing coming from Bush's mouth. Edwards' anti-globalization stance has backbone.
It is not an adjective.

[JVS]

54. You're right. Fuck the hypocrites, let's vote for the person who promises to shit on our values!

We know that's a promise she'll keep!

[ihavenobias]

32. Exactly

To some extent, ANY of the "viable" candidates (viable because they are subject to special interest groups that allow them to generate enough money to poll well and spread their message) will have some level of hypocrisy or shifting of positions unfortunately.

So if I have to choose from someone who was a relative moderate-conservative and is promoting a relatively moderate-conservative agenda now vs someone who was moderate-conservative and is promoting a *progressive* agenda now, it's a simple choice (again, conceding the fact that candidates *who stand a chance of actually winning* are all imperfect products of our special interest driven system, to one extent or another).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wmOhgHx2s&feature=related

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/

I also look at *how much* money a candidate has raised from special interest groups and from *which* special interest groups (defense, health care, telecoms, Big Business, etc.).

http://www.opensecrets.org/


In that regard Hillary fails miserably, comparatively (even compared to the republican candidates sadly).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html

PS---I also believe that people can learn from their mistakes (say on free trade or war). Yes, elections can expedite some of those changes (to one degree or another), but if the end result is actual policy change, so what?

Are people that petty and vindictive that they care more about (figuratively) punishing people for not being right the first time rather than ensuring whoever is in charge gets it right the next time (again, within the context of candidates who, right or wrong, actually stand a chance of winning the nomination)?

I'll take that any day over someone who has unwavering, consistently conservative (relatively speaking) positions on some of the more critical issues.

[Radical Activist]

43. Or you can choose

someoene who is clearly a liberal but is trying to present a message that will gain the support of the majority of Americans, as Obama is doing.

[ihavenobias]

52. Really?

I live in IL, and while I *like* Obama and have seen quite a bit of him, I don't love him.

I think he buys into conservative framing at times, like his tax plan to provide "tax relief" for the lower/middle class. Really, relief? That implies that there is an affliction to be relieved from, rather than realizing the fact that taxes are necessary for many of the wonderful progressive programs we either don't have (but want and need) or have but with a serious lack of funding.

I realize he also wants to roll back the Bush cuts (who doesn't?), but again, why not leave it at that (or for that matter, go further, as all candidates should but won't) instead of (unintentionally I'm sure) promoting the idea that taxes=burden, something Reagan/Norquist started to the detriment of America.

I'm also not thrilled about his stance on nuclear energy and "free trade".

Finally, if you can point me to him promoting publicly funded elections and paper ballots I'd really appreciate it. If he has openly promoted these things (like Edwards has) he'll go up higher in my book (he's already higher than Hillary).

Publicly funded elections is arguably THE most important issue we're facing, even though it's not sexy and is rarely discussed in the MSM.

[Pawel K]

13. Pandering to the middle is only one trait

when you combine that with all the other things people dislike about Hillary (nafta, her refusal to say her Iraq vote was a mistake, her vote for Kyl/liberman, her position that healthcare should be mandatory and paid by us, being another corporate shill, defending money from lobbies, etc...) then Edwards, in my opinion, looks a lot better. I am not an edwards supporter. No candidate is perfect, certain candidates are a lot worse than others. Hypocracy is typical in politics, at the end of the day you have to pick the best person for the job and I don't understand why anyone here thinks Clinton is that person.

[robbedvoter]

15. A lot of money has been pumped in the blogosphere by the Edwards campaign

Obama has indeed a more progressive record - for one opposed the war when Edwards sponsored it.
Even Hillary - her record is also better than Edwards - on issues such as federal abortion ban, medicare, media consolidation (where Edwards didn't bother voting losing it for us).She also is not a sponsor of IWR - like Edwards is.
Her attitude on war makes me not vote for her - but even there - I at least appreciate honesty over opportunism.

[smokey nj]

59. What federal abortion ban did Edwards support?

Edwards was rated 100% by both NARAL and Planned Parenthood each year he was in the Senate.

To which media consolidation bill are you referring? The only thing on Project Vote Smart is a joint resolution sponsored by Byron Dorgan to state disapproval of the FCC's media ownership rule. It passed.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3313&can_id=21107

[mtnsnake]

16. I nominate this for the best post of the week

and it's such a breath of fresh air because it's your own words and not some article we have to link to.

:toast:

[info being]

23. Never mind its gaping holes of logic

[Dawgs]

62. Agree. Best post I've read in months.

[geek tragedy]

17. Edwards supporters don't care about records and votes

and accomplishments.

They just care about red meat and rhetoric.

[info being]

24. Wheras Hillary supporters care about neither

[saracat]

27. Really? I addressed that.

[GreenArrow]

74. Bottom Line: He makes

them feel good. His support has little to do with records or votes, and rests almost entirely on his skill at emotional persuasion. And he is very skilled at it.

[info being]

86. You'd prefer choosing someone who makes you feel bad?

Why?

[GreenArrow]

87. the point is, he doesn't appeal to reason

He works on an emotional level. It's pie in the sky. Hope is a good thing, but it has to be based on something tangible. I prefer someone who is honest; Americans have a great deal of disillusionment in store from them, and frankly, I see Edwards as someone selling false hope in the service of his own ambition.

[saracat]

19. Actually I like both Edwards and Obama.As for the alleged "double standard

applied between Hillary and Edwards, I don't think it exists because Edwards has apologized for his questionable votes and admitted he was "wrong".Hillary has not.Another reason for Edwards support is his refusal to accept lobbyist money.He has NEVER taken lobbyist money even during his only Senate campaign.To many that makes a difference.And Edwards has been consistent during this campaign and Hillary has been waffling.

I am confused by your allegation that Edwards values have not been consistent all his adult life while Obama's have.All you have to do is look at Edwards legal record and it is obvious he has always given voice to the voiceless.He took cases no one else wanted and represented those that would not have been represented. And as his clients have taken the effort to point out, in spite of his winnings, he agreed to take their high risk cases for less of a fee than any other attorney.In some cases that is why they retained him.Edwards establishment of the Wade Edwards learning Center as well as his work with the Poverty Law center also indicate his interest in community values. His work and sponsorship of the Patient's Bill of Rights in the Senate is an indication of where his heart is.

Edwards is not a "career politician." He spent the bulk of his work life as a Plaintiff's Attorney. He only entered the political arena as a fulfillment of a promise to his son to make the "world a better place".

Edwards has been very consistent in what he believes.He spoke of the class divide and Two Americas during his first campaign.He has always been a populist and on the side of Labor.He was himself a member of a Union and still has family in Unions. He has always supported Roe and women's rights and his record reflects that.He doesn't have a perfect Senate record.None of the candidates do.But he has learned from his mistakes and will not repeat them.I applaud someone who can admit he was wrong and can take up the challenge to right the wrong and make the world a better place.

[Radical Activist]

38. My statement about his values

relates to his Senate record. The fact that Edwards got rich suing corporations instead of working for them like most lawyers do is admirable. But I do have a little more respect for the fact that Obama spent his early life knocking on doors in the public housing projects of Chicago to help organize poor communities. It means he got his hands dirty and experienced the problems of the poor first hand in a way that you can't in a court room or University policy center.

Edwards doesn't have a terrible record. My biggest problems are with the war and his poor environmental record. But there's no doubt that what he's saying today is more progressive than what he proposed as a Senator. Don't you agree?

[saracat]

58. Umm. Edwards actually worked in the mill and had other strenuous low paying jobs to put himself t

through school. I would say he had first hand experience with getting his hands dirty.In case you didn't notice, Edwards didn't go to an Ivy league school or have a private school education like Obama(BTW I do not consider that a negative for Obama.Some of our best presidents have that background) In fact, he had to drop out of his fist choice college, Clemson and transfer to UNC because he couldn't afford it and UNC was less expensive. Edwards has actually experienced having to struggle to make ends meet for himself and his family, which puts him in a different level of understanding. He didn't merely experience it second hand through charity and community work. As for his being more "progressive " now than his Senate record indicates, in some areas that is so, and he has indicated he was wrong on those issues.As I said, I feel this indicates growth and shows character. He certainly does champion the environment more and has apologized for his war vote. I can live with a person making a mistake and admitting it.What I can't accept is one who stubbornly insists they were correct in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

[rinsd]

64. Now Edwards is the mill worker not merely the son of?

His "legend" grows with each day.

[asdjrocky]

73. It true.

I know you find that hard to understand. It's not a legend. It's his life.

[Dawgs]

65. But, which path did Obama choose versus Edwards?

Obama could have gotten a high paying lawyer job right out of school, but he instead decided to work in one of the poorest communities in America making little money. I'm not saying that what Edwards did was wrong; just that many progressives aren't aware of the good work Obama did as a young man.

[saracat]

70. Edwards didn't "choose". a high paying job out of law school, nor did he get one.

He originally clerked for a federal judge and then became an associate at a law firm.In 1984 when he was just 30 yrs old, Edwards was assigned to a perceived unwinnable medical malpractice lawsuit; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy. Edwards would not have been paid anything had he not won.He continued to take the least coveted unwinnable cases and was able to build his reputation by winning them.
Obama is to be lauded for the good work he has done not only as a youing man but later.But that in no way diminishes the efforts of Edwards or puts him in a catagoryof choosing money over people.Quite the contrary.

[Ytzak]

20. Since Edwards left office on January 3 2005...

and Obama was sworn in to office on January 3 2005, a head to head matchup of their voting record is dificult.

So I would be interested to see the issues upon which you base your comparison.

As for a matchup between Obama and Clinton. There is a good place to start.

Clinton versus Obama: Is there any difference?
No Obama vote on war in Iraq
Both senators have voiced criticism of the way President Bush has conducted operations in Iraq.

Yet when they were given the chance to enact Sen. Russ Feingold’s measure ordering Bush to withdraw most U.S. troops by July 1, 2007, both Clinton and Obama voted "no."

Obama didn’t take a seat in the Senate until 2005, so he didn’t vote on the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq.

Clinton did vote for that resolution, as did 28 other Senate Democrats.

Obama and Clinton have disagreed on a few issues since the beginning of 2005, such as a mandate forcing automakers to achieve 40 mile-per-gallon average fuel economy by the year 2017.

Obama voted for that mandate, Clinton against it, and the Senate rejected it on a vote of 67 to 28.

On Congressional Quarterly’s tally of how often senators support Bush’s positions on issues coming before the Senate, in 2005 Clinton earned a 31 out of 100 rating (with 100 meaning totally supportive of Bush) and Obama got a 33.

On the National Journal scale of liberal to conservative positions, again based on roll call votes in 2005, Obama rated an 82.5 (meaning he was more liberal than 82.5 percent of his Senate colleagues) and Clinton a 79.8.

With all the bickering between Clinton and Obama, the differences are mostly nuance.

Now in 2004:

Article: ““The Most Liberal Senator”? Analyzing and Interpreting Congressional Roll Calls”
John Edwards (NC) is ranked “second most liberal” by this measure; Edwards is estimated by National Journal to be more liberal than 95% of the Senate, and more conservative than 6% of the Senate.

By their estimation, Edwards blows Obama and Clinton away as far as liberal ranking.

[Amanita]

26. Obama expressed his opposition to war in the beginning, when it mattered

That's as much a vote against the war as Gore's opposition is.
Also, sponsoring IWR is a bit more than merely voting for it.
Edwards run as a pro-war candidate in 2004 and stayed this war a whole other year afterwards, until his new rhetoric was being carved.
A lot of his campaign money has been spent on blogs (DU included0 which has lead to some benevolence regardless of his actual record. It seems the alternative media is not 100% incorruptible either. If it were, it will support Kucinich 100% (and be at least respectful of Gravel)

[Ytzak]

35. Voting is where it counts.

Compare his votes to Clintons on the war and look for a difference. Compare all of their votes and look for a difference. There just isn't that much.

And since they weren't in office at the same time, it is very dificult to compare votes between Edwards and Obama.

The real measure of which one to vote for, in my opinion, lies in their health care proposals, their education proposals, their proposals about how to remove the US from Iraq, their economic proposals. It is not what they did, but what they want to do that counts.

On that measure, I prefer Edwards.

[robbedvoter]

44. How about sponsoring IWR? Does this count to? Does Edwards' VOTING record

(including his actuall vote for the IWR that he sponsored)tell you anything? Or "Voting" only counts to try to discredit Obama?
To me, everyone who took action against the war in 2003 - whether in Senate, house or public life gets principle points from me.
Just as everyone who proposed, advanced, sponsored this unforgivable crime are warmongers - no matter what pretty words they say later when they deem it safe. But that's just me. :shrug:

[Dawgs]

67. "Voting only counts to try to discredit Obama"

I think that's the best way to describe the desperation of Hillary supporters.

[Ytzak]

69. The amount of vitriol people expend here in support or attack on a candidate...

puzzles me. I look at the proposals each makes and determine which I think fit best with my personal interest and the interst as a nation as I see in. Different political philosophy I guess.

[robbedvoter]

83. If you just "made" me one - wrong! I am not a Hillary supporter.

Just noting the total lack of logic here.
We have 3 candidates: one sponsored the IWR & voted for it, one just voted for it, one opposed it out of Congress - but had some iffy votes later on. I support none of them for these reasons, but there are degrees of badness: I'll take Obama over Hillary, Hillary over Edwards. But I'm voting Gravel.

[Radical Activist]

31. The article doesn't support its conclusions

First, it leaves out Obama's public statements against the war at the time the vote happened.
Second, it fails to mention Obama's own proposal to get out of Iraq sooner than Clinton's.
Third, it does mention their differences on CAFE standards.

Finally, it was a very strategic decision to ignore most of Obama's career voting record which happened in the Illinois Senate and is very progressive. And one would expect Hillary to be careful enough to have a liberal voting record for the past year or two in preparation for the Democratic primary.

So the answer is that yes there are major differences and that article is very slanted.

Edwards 54% lifetime rating with the League of Conservation voters doesn't look progressive to me and its a far cry from the good energy proposal he has. I'm glad he's there now even if he wasn't there for the environment as a Senator.

[Clark2008]

25. I'd like to know this myself, but didn't have time to write it.

Thanks for the post....

I'll read the answers now - if there are any.

[saracat]

28. I answered, but I guess it doesn't matter or count.

[Beaverhausen]

30. threads like this aren't meant to be taken seriously

They are merely flamebait.

The OP will not read or respond to any well written post answering. He/she will only respond "right on" to those who agree with him/her.


You made a valiant effort though! :hi:

[Radical Activist]

41. Care to eat your words? n/t

[Beaverhausen]

49. Well, I stand corrected

You hadn't posted any responses when I said that, but I do apologize - you are responding. My bad.

[Clark2008]

34. I posted before I read...

You answered - I see that. I just don't agree with it.

But, then again, I don't have a candidate because I really find too much fault with them all. I may have to write in Clark or Gore or Feingold - the people I wish had run.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. If you want to make a point, make a point; if you want to ask a question, ask a question.

This kind of name-calling disguised as honest inquiry is moderately contemptible, to my mind.

[Clark2008]

36. Why do Edwards supporters do this?

The OP DID post facts, along with his/her question - but, because you can't stand to look at Edwards' actual record, you assume the OP is name-calling.

That's NOT name-calling... that's presenting an argument, which Edwards fans should know about, considering his profession.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. No, "spineless pandering" is namecalling.

Even if you accompany it with arguments as to why you think the person you're accusing of it is a spineless pander, it's still name-calling, especially if - as in this "question" - the arguments are far from overwhelming.

[Radical Activist]

46. Its an invitation.

I'd like people to explain the blatant double standard. It amazes me that otherwise smart progressives don't see it as such.

[zalinda]

37. Okay, point by point...................again!

Clinton changed her position within 5 minutes, that is why she was criticized. To be quite honest, I still don't know what she stands for. When I ask a supporter, they send me to her web site. If a supporter can't tick off what she stands for easily, how would any one canvass for her election in the general.

As for his 6 years as Senator. He ran and won in a red state, a miracle to be sure. But, he did have to represent his constituents, so he couldn't vote liberal without incurring their ire, and his promise to represent THEM. Also as a junior Senator, he was low man on the totem pole, he was probably told many times how he was to vote. We all know, or should, that deals are made and votes are traded. Since he was of no consequence, he was probably used to fill the vote quota. As for the IWR, those were different times and hindsight is 20/20. He has apologized for his part in the IWR, and I have forgiven him and all others who took part, as the whole history of how and why it happened is clouded in White House fog.

When he was running for President in 2004, his handlers were probably DLC and told him to win he had to be more in the middle. Although, give him props, he did come out with the "two Americas" theme even back then. When running as Vice President, he had to follow Kerry's game plan, as he promised to do. He wanted to advertise in red states, including his home state, but was told that red states are not worth it.

As for being a lawyer, he defended those who normally are dismissed, those that need the help the most. He did it for no money up front, if he didn't win, he didn't get paid. He never had to chase an ambulance, as his clients came to him, his reputation was so good. Obama on the other hand went down the road to become a politician, which is fine. And I don't know where you get where someone is calling Obama more conservative. All I know is that when I ask where he stands, his supporters also give me his web site, and yes, I want to be spoon fed, just like the general public will want if he gets the nod.

He has not had as much air time as either Clinton or Obama. He had a week or so on his hair, and about the same time on his wife's cancer. But, if you look at any of the 24 hour news shows, Clinton or Obama are mentioned at least once a day or more.

What I admire about him is that he is on the ground working, talking to small and large groups of people, spending his money wisely. I hope he will spend my tax dollars just as wisely. He is not telling us "I've got experience" or "I'll bring the country together", he is saying we have to work for the America we want. That, I can get behind.

zalinda

[robbedvoter]

39. "He couldn't vore liberal incurring their ire? "How so very sad! So what makes you think

that he'll change his spots once he gets the taste of power again?
P,S, So, it was his constituents that demanded that he sponsor the IWR? Just checking.

[zalinda]

53. What part don't you get about representative

government? When you vote in someone to represent you, they are SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT YOU. Yes, you can do a few things that are more left, and hope to bring your constituents with you, but as a rep you work for THEM. Damn, how many people here complain that the dems aren't representing them? I actually find it refreshing that he was considerate of those who voted him in.

And, again, we have no idea what went on behind closed doors. We have the White House secrecy to thank for that, which is why I don't blame any one who voted for it, or supported it. Hillary lost me when she voted yes for Kyl/Lieberman, and since then I haven't paid attention to what she says.

zalinda

[FatDave]

79. You'll have to forgive people who don't grasp that concept

It's rare that so-called representatives actually represent their constituents. If Edwards was to listen to the phone calls that came into his office and actually vote according to them, well, that would seem pretty foreign in today's climate.

[Radical Activist]

48. So you're saying he pandered to red state voters?

I've heard this argument before and its what I dislike so much. You're admitting that he compromised his values to get elected and stay in office as a Senator. That's exactly what I don't like about Clinton and what I don't want in another President.

What if the Congress goes Republican and Edwards thinks he has to move to the right to get re-elected? Will he start acting like he did as a Senator again? I want someone who stands by their convictions even when they have to risk losing office.

[zalinda]

57. No, I don't think he pandered

For some reason, even now, some think he is more conservative than Clinton and Kucinich, even with all the progressive talk. This is one of the reasons he can win red states, he some how radiates conservative. I think that Edwards is such a persuasive person, that he could get repubs to work with him and have them think they've won the day.

And here is where we have him by the short hairs (if you like), he has put everything he wants to do IN WRITING. You can download, his 80 page campaign booklet and hold him personally responsible if he changes course. He seems to be above board in how he is running his campaign. He has been doing everything that we progressives have wanted.

Okay, let's say he is blowing smoke up our asses (to put it bluntly), what have we lost? Every other candidate, except Kucinich is to the right of him. We KNOW that they will be more conservative, and there is a chance that THEY could move more to the right if the repubs take over Congress. Which is the better scenario, some one who is left of center moving to the right, or someone who is in the center moving more to the right? But, I don't see that happening.

Remember, this is a guy who took cases to win, and if he didn't win, didn't get paid. He is determined to do what he has to do to win. Isn't that what we want? Don't we want someone who is persuasive enough to get things done? He hasn't taken corporate money, isn't that what we wanted?

I am very willing to give him a chance, because the alternative is basically more of the same. I want a fighter. I don't have a voice, and I am hoping that he will be my voice.

zalinda

[waiting for hope]

78. He's running the campaign

he wanted to run in 2004 - NOW. He's not holding anything back this time around. I live in North Carolina, I know exactly what type of constituents he was representing (my neighbors on either side of me for starters) - You have to be aware of the "influence" of the Jr. Senator Burr and how beloved Liddy "I'm a freaking Stepford" Dole is. Edwards winning here was no small feat. Please, name all the House Reps and Senators that vote regardless of the prospect of them losing office.......how's that situation in Iraq working for you? or perhaps the next go round we can get SCHIP passed. As for congress going Republican, how many are leaving? Isn't it up to 26?

On edit: :hi: How are you doing? Good luck to you and your candidate.

[mike_c]

50. both candidates suck IMO-- pot, meet kettle....

Like the status quo in American politics, foreign policy, police state "security," etc? Vote for any of the more-or-less interchangeable mainstream democratic candidates!

[LSK]

51. how about some roll call votes please

Care to share these "conservative" votes? (yes I know about the IWR and Patriot Act).

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

I do not accept the premise of your argument.

[Radical Activist]

71. 59% LCV career voting record

http://www.presidentialprofiles2008.org/Edwards/tab1.html

Again, I'm glad he has a great stance now but its easy to make proposals during the primary.

[rinsd]

76. He voted for HAVA. He voted for religious services in schools as part of memorials.

Here's his voting record. Feel free to review it.

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

[liskddksil]

55. Because Edwards positions right now are the best

Certainly I disagree with many of his past votes, but they occured while he was representing a Red State. However, lets not forget his great moments as Senator such as fighting to get the sunset clause into the Patriot act, his fierce advocacy of the patients bill of rights, and his refusal to vote for the 87 billion dollars for Iraq. In addition his 2004 campaign certainly reflected a populist message, although less harsh than this time around, as he was the only candidate to consistently speak about poverty. While I also believe that in the past Edwards was caught up in the consultant driven and DLC controlled culture of D.C, as he has had time to reflect after the 2004 campaign, I sincerely believe he has rejected this system. From his experiences he has emerged with a stronger belief that compromise, and poll testing, should be rejected and truly fight for what he believes in. Senator Clinton on the otherhand is still very much a part of the system, with her vote on Kyle-Lieberman and her support for the Peru trade deal standing out along with her inability to reject Washington lobbyist money.

[Radical Activist]

72. If he does get the nomination

I hope you're right about his change of heart being sincere and that he sticks to it under pressure. He does have a good message.

[Dawgs]

60. One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Great job!

:applause: :applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[PurityOfEssence]

63. Edwards sometimes changes positions and admits it; Clinton is simultaneously on both sides of things

There's a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

[Dawgs]

68. Then why support either of them?

[jsamuel]

77. your right, this question was answered at the last debate by Edwards himself

there is a huge difference between growing over time, learning from your mistakes and saying two different things at the same exact time.

[surfermaw]

66. We don't criticize, we may ask a question like or comment like

I think we should be sure the republicans aren't putting money in any of the candidates pockets .We don't want the republicans to nominate our candidates, we should believe the opposite of what republicans say or imply.

[Inspired]

75. I don't care if you don't understand my support

It isn't like I could sway you.

[robbedvoter]

84. You night sway others who read this if you could articulate your views convincingly

This can be a discussion of issues or "my guy is better than your guy/gal - because I say so - so there!

[JMDEM]

80. Did it ever occur to anyone that...

Edwards hasn't shifted all that much, but the rest of the country has swung radically right, making it APPEAR that Edwards has dramatically shifted?

What we call "center" now would have been to the right of Nixon.

[robbedvoter]

85. So...from sponsoring IWR to declaring oneself anti-war - not all that much change

for ya? (this can be repeated for every single issue - record vs rhetoric)

[1932]

81. Obama is from Illinois and won by 80% of the vote. He has a lot of room to be super liberal.

If he wanted to be.

That would be the biggest reason his voting record could more liberal -- assuming that even true. How do you compare the two? They weren't even in Congress at the same time. And Edwards got super high ratings from liberal groups while Senator...

[OnionPatch]

82. The thing is that

Edwards is *saying* what I want to hear and Hillary is not. She comes out and says she is not going to stop jobs from going overseas, and her health care plans will include big insurance, etc. My other thought is that Edwards was a senator in North Carolina, so he probably did have to "pander" to the moderate voters somewhat there. Last time I checked, NC was pretty darned conservative. New York and Illinois are much less so.

But I don't blame Hillary for waffling or call Obama conservative, so why am I answering this post anyway?

[illinoisprogressive]

88. bloggers are no different from the msm. they spin for their favored candidate.

[illinoisprogressive]

89. Neither Obama or Edwards are bad. both are exceptional candidates.