After careful thought, I've decided on Edwards

[Armstead]

I've been basically non-committed in this nomination race.

I've finally decided that, in my opinion, John Edwards is the best of the bunch.

He's not perfect. I've been a little suspicious of the contrast between his current rhetoric, and his past behavior. (And some of his current behavior like that big ol' house.)

However, since none of the candidates is perfect, when I weigh the alternatives, he seems to me to have the best mix of qualities and positions.

1)I agree with his message. I like the fact that he's focused on poverty and on the excessive power of the elite corporate interests, and their effect on our economy and society. I think we need change, and Edwards is one who can bring it.

2)In the longer interviews I've seen (i.e. Charlie Rose) he comes across to me as sincere, thoughtful and able to combine the larger view with the details. He also seems to be honest about himself, and honest that change is going to be a long, difficult road -- but one that is necessary.

3)He could be electable. If he had the backing of the Democratic Party, he has the qualities that can resonate with "mainstream America" and capitalize on the "anything but more GOP" mood of the country.

I was going to compare him to other candidates both in terms of pluses and minuses, but it's probably best to focus on the positive, and simply say that -- in my opinion -- if he can make it through the primaries, Edwards stands the best chance of both getting elected AND delivering the reforms that are needed to move this country back onto a better track.

[gateley]

1. Congratulations -- You're to be commended for putting so much thought

and effort into your decision. Edwards has just gotten himself an impressive new supporter! :hi:

[bluestateguy]

2. You have made a good choice

John Edwards will change this country in a positive way, and he can win.

I do think Hillary will win, but she's an establishmentarian, who is afraid to offend the Georgetown Coctail party crowd.

[southtpa]

89. win?

It is not enough to win. The president has to be able to govern and lead. The only candidate who has a chance in the south is Edwards. The others will lose you legislative seats therefore lessening the ability to govern and lead. A democrat can get elected without the south but the loss of power in the senate, house, legislatures and governor's mansions will certainly limit the ability of that president to govern. A solid progressive south would bring this country to the place it belongs. Edwards can persuade a southern jury, so he can persuade a southern voter. Edwards isn't a "choice", he's the only chance you have.

[loudsue]

134. Good word..."Establishmentarian". We need to use that more.

Because there truly are a great many people in this country who are sick'n tired of the established order of things.

[Tejanocrat]

3. Thanks for posting. If I moved off of Kucinich, it would be toward Edwards.

[eridani]

38. My sediments exactly

I live in a caucus state, though, which predisposes me to keep asking for a pony even if I'll eventually accept a kitten.

[dionysus]

140. psst... "sentiments"... sediments are found at the bottom of the river

;)

[eridani]

147. Are you casting asparagus at me? n/t

[dionysus]

150. yeah, i'm series!!!

correct word usage is HUGH!!!11!!1

[Armstead]

41. Kucinich is closest to me on the issues test

But my pragmatic side tells me that Edwards would be the next best one who has a shot at it.

[Ken Burch]

85. Keep Dennis in mind if Edwards gets knocked out early, like in Iowa, OK?

Just hope you'll consider it. If Edwards IS knocked out early, we'll need as many Kucinich delegates as possible to get anything decent in the platform.

[NorthCarolina]

98. If You Put the Vision of DK up against ANY Repug

Kucinich would easily win the hearts, minds, and vote of the public hands down. That;s a HUGE part of the reason that the media marginalizes his views, because they are SO dangerous to their Corporate America.

For me personally, I am sticking solidly behind Kucinich in the primaries as he best fits my personal views, and quite frankly I feel comfortable in actually being able to TRUST him. Can't say that for ANY of the other Dem hopefuls, and as for Edwards, Tigers AND Politicians do not change their stripes OR their allegiances, they just hide them when necessary. Vote for him if you want, but don't be disappointed when you get more legislation the likes of the Patriot Act, and a Health Care system that dumps trillions of Dollars in the pockets of for-profit insurer's and still doesn't provide health care to the millions that can't afford it. Oh, and his claim to "take away Congress's Health Care if they don't push through his Health Care plan for America", well we saw how long it took for someone to debunk any form of Presidential authority to even be ABLE to do so (their health care was created by Legislation and not presidential edict, so it would really take a majority vote of Congress to do away with their bennies...not likely, and really just campaign rhetoric which Ol' John is an expert at)

If I remember right, it is we the people that choose our elected officials, so I can only cringe when folks here say 'I Like Dennis the Best - but I'm going to vote for (insert media approved corporate friendly candidate here) because they seem to be viable (meaning the media covers them).

Folks, I urge you all to vote your heart and true convictions in these upcoming primaries because to do otherwise defeats the purpose of our Democracy, and in my opinion is a wasted vote. If you're going to continually vote for your "lesser of two evils" because they seem viable, then we might all just as well stay at home on election day and let the controlled media pick our candidates for us forever more.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[Auggie]

103. Same here

[robinlynne]

128. I agree exactly. Kucinish would represent me. Edwards would represent a lot of good

things, and will take the general election easily against any of the repugs.
in an ideal world, I would hope edwards would make a dela with kucinish whereby Edwards guarantees to do some of the things in kucinich's platform and kucinich supporters cast their vote for edwards.

[NorthCarolina]

144. So, You would like to see Edwards Adopt the Kucinich platform

in exchange for the votes of Kucinich's supporters?? So, If Edwards would say "OK Dennis, give me the support of your voters and I will support Universal Not-For-Profit Health Care for all, then you would believe him at that. Not that he would have wanted to do it all on his own because he thinks it's right, but just because he brokered a deal for voter support. That's the kind of President you seek?

Sorry, I'm shaking my head in wonder as I truly fail to see the logic behind that err...ummm...logic. Why in the world would you seek to have Edwards adopt Kucinich's platform to make your vote for Edwards more palatable to you when all you REALLY have to do is vote for Kucinch who already FITS your positions on the issues?

Sorry folks, I don't buy the contention that Kucinich is not electable. He is absolutely electable if we the people vote for him....that's a simple no brainer of a concept, and let me tell you....if you put the Kucinich platform up against ANY Republican candidates platform in the run up to the general election who do YOU think would win the hearts and minds of mainstreet America? Sure doesn't take me long to cypher the answer to that riddle.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[robinlynne]

145. Ideally, in terms of principle I agree with you. I do not think Dennis will win the general

in this country. I do think he would be an excellent president. And his platform is the best. The only reason I don't think I will vote for him, is that I feel it would be a vote for hillary, and I would rather see any of the others win, but hillary. She is the farthest to the right by a longshot.

[NorthCarolina]

148. You can settle for less

but I refuse to. Kucinich has earned my vote through his honesty and compassionate platform of logical reform. He represents my values and he has a long voting record to back up his current populist platform. Edwards sure can't claim that when you look at his voting record. You think Edwards had some sort of an "epiphany" and now he's with us, or you think it more likely that he's just in campaign rhetoric mode (you know the pattern - the say whatever to get elected) I know which one I believe. As co-sponsor and supporter of the Patriot Act, Edwards can kiss my behind anyway, he's certainly no patriot for it in my book, and sorry but I don't buy the "epiphany" angle even when some have told me his "epiphany" is a result of his wife's cancer. Well, her current bout is a recurrence, so what, she didn't get sick enough through the first bout to trigger this magnanimous change of heart? How some people convince themselves of this tripe is beyond me.

If Kucinich were the nominee and you put the Kucinich platform up against the platform for ANY of the Republican candidates I can guarantee you he would win the hearts and minds of Americans easily. It is the media top three - Clinton, Obama and Edwards that can be defeated by the Republicans, and that is precisely why they ARE touted as the top 3. Of course, this is exactly what the media wants you to do, to vote for one of the candidates they tell you are viable, while running scared from the rest (the one(s) the media is (are) truly afraid of). Looks like you will succumb to their impromptu coaching, and probably many others will also, but not me. I plan on bucking this system of coerced voting all the way till the last spoiled ballot is secretly shredded.

I want a REAL AMERICAN PATRIOT so I'm sticking with Kucinich, and I can only hope that everyone who also feels Kucinich would be the best president to do the same. That is what our Democracy really is all about isn't it? Perhaps the reason we keep losing is we have all forgotten WHY we vote. Settling for the "lesser of two evils" is still evil, and make no mistake we will reap what we sow.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[FlyingSquirrel]

80. DECEMBER 15 2007.COM

DECEMBER 15, 2007 is the date on which we can begin to take back our country. It is also the date in 1791 upon which our Bill of Rights took effect.

On December 15, 2007, Dennis Kucinich will attempt to shatter Ron Paul's recent $4.2 million single day fund raising record, and collect a mind-boggling $10 million in one day.

This can only happen with your help. The website is December152007.com. Spread the word! Money is what makes the media sit up and take notice. Without it you are a fringe candidate worthy of little respect or news coverage and no speaking time in the debates - if you are even invited to them. A candidate who can raise $10 million in a single day can no longer be ignored by the mainstream media.

Please go to December152007.com and pledge to contribute on December 15 by signing up on the email list. You must actually contribute on the 15th on Dennis Kucinich's official website; a reminder email will be sent on that day.

Please also promote this event in any way you possibly can. Put a sign over the freeway. Put a large sign on your vehicle and park it somewhere legal where a lot of traffic goes by. (I did, I move it twice a day to make sure someone doesn't try to get it towed). Call a friend, email family and friends....... Now is the time to take action, not just sit on the sidelines and carp.

And by all means put your money where your mouth is - as one bumper sticker on my pickup truck says, "Talk is cheap... Make a donation!"

[Dawgs]

4. No problem with Edwards, but why do you think he has the best chance of getting elected?

[Armstead]

8. Frankly, I think most of them could get elected

If Hillary, Obama, Biden or most of the candidates were nominated, they'd stand a good chance of winning.

GW Bush is probably one the best friends the Democratic Party has had in a long time. The Democrats have to really blow it in order to lose. That's possible, but I think any of the candidates in the so-called top tier could likely make it.

However, my focus is also on what would happen after the election. That's where it gets down to one's preferences and beliefs. I believe Edwards would fight to make a real difference in the core issues, while also being balanced enough to avoid the deep end.

[toadzilla]

63. in head to head matchup polls with the repub candidates, Edwards always wins by the widest margins.

at least in all the ones I have seen.

[robinlynne]

129. In the general? 2 reasons. He campaigns directly to the working class

about working issues which affect all workers, dems or repugs. labor issues, trade, poverty. And because he is a southern whiteboy. The southern rightwing vote would go to him even if people disagree on many issues. Obviously the extremist right would not vote for him. But all the others would.

[NorthCarolina]

149. Well, not all Southerners would vote for Edwards

he remains very unpopular here in NC. Besides, he was on the ticket in 04 and wasn't able to pull out a win then, and he doesn't have a voting history of standing up for the working class. So I guess y'all are hanging your hats on his apparent recent history "epiphany" with regard to America's working class. Personally I don't buy it for a second, but then that's just me and everyone else has to come to their own conclusions.

No matter, as for me Kucinich's platform most closely represents my views and on top of that I truly believe he is the only one in the running whose word is verifiably worth something as he has a voting history that backs up his populist message. I can vote for Kucinich with the confidence that I don't have to hedge a bet on a supposed "change of heart" candidate like Edwards.

Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

[cali]

5. What a good post in support of your candidate.

It could serve nicely as a model for what a post in support of a candidate should look like. It's thoughtful and honest and isn't about smacking another candidate down.

[stlsaxman]

90. Agreed. i, too, liked the fact that no "candidatal smack-down"

(spell check is gonna go crazy with the above quote)

[Colobo]

6. Congratulations. Good choice.

Obama is still the best choice in my view, but Edwards is a good candidate.

[Cha]

7. I guess I'm not "suspicious"

because I know how people can change when they've been behind something that is really dumb and bad for the bigger picture but just have to live and hopefully..learn.

Course, it is a "talking point" by other candidates supporters' but does anyone really care about the "hypotheticals" or the buzzing mosquitos?

[salin]

9. Bad news... (not really)

I have come to the same conclusion (lean for Edwards) - the bad news is that in open primaries (meaning when there has been a wide-open race) I have a miserable track record:

Hart in 1984 and 1988 (until his implosion) then Biden in 1988;
Tsongas in 1992; and (late in the game) to Dean in 2004.

I know it is silly to feel this way - but I almost feel like I have an uncanny ability to back those who will not win. :-(

Hope that Edwards breaks my badpick record.

[Armstead]

11. A valid concern

I was going to mention something similar in my OP.

Maybe it's an inner magnet to the underdog. Heck, I campaigned for Sen. Fred Harris for the Dem nomination in 76. Now that was really going for the lost ball.

But what the heck. I did support Clinton in 92, so I can occasionally pick the winner.

[salin]

13. I was speaking to my mother earlier today, she asked if I was "leaning" yet

(she knows I am cautious and skeptical) - I told her yes, I was leaning Edwards. She said that was interesting, he was the first candidate to which she had sent in a donation. So he at least has a couple of hoosier supporters. Not that it matters, really, given our May primary date.

[robinlynne]

130. In Dean's case, I believe the dlc stepped in and made that happen. As they

always try to do. The difference today: we are all fed up with them and know what they advocate is not in our interest. People are pretty disgusted with the right of the democratic party. People do not want anymore wishy-washy Dems. people do not want poltiicians who cave in to the republicans. That did not work for us. People want change.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

12. I've had to think about that

And I've come to the conclusion that he is among many Americans who supported that misguided adventure initially, but have since changed their minds.

What's important now is that we get out of there. I'll take him at his word that he's committed to that.

[harmonicon]

14. I think some mistakes are unforgivable

He wasn't just one person who supported the war with a bumper sticker. He stood up in the senate and advocated a war which is illegal under international law. I can't see that he would have any problems doing this sort of thing again - he's said this one thing was a mistake, but was it a mistake on principle? We have, as a country, lost a once-great reputation internationally. I don't care about a popularity contest, but about how being part of an international society is crucial for citizens of all countries. Having a president who so carelessly breaks these laws (especially when it leads to 1 million deaths!!) is not a president I want for my country.

[GreenArrow]

34. "was it a mistake on principle?"

He hasn't really addressed that. It's pretty clear it was a political mistake on his part, and his apology seems pretty well aimed at benefitting his own political ambitions, as it is tendered with the clear expectations of rewards. Apologies that are meaningful and sincere, I've always believed, are tendered because one feels a sense of remorse, loss, regret, not because of any personal gain to be won. Further, an admission of wrongness, is not the same thing as being sorry.

[Armstead]

42. It would take a mind reader to know for certain

Since none of us are mindreaders, I'll have to take Edwards at his word that he realizes he was wrong.

[GreenArrow]

47. it doesn't take a mind reader at all

It's pretty clear, if one has the willingness to see it. You don't have to take Edwards' word for things, you are choosing to.

He "apologized" because he expects to gain something from it, not because he's "sorry," a word he has, to my knowledge, never used. His apology is offered in political terms, in a political milieu, and for political gain.

But let's assume you are correct, and that Edwards realizes he was "wrong".

What, precisely, was he wrong about? Voting for the IWR? Why exactly was that wrong?

Co-sponsoring the IWR with Joe Lieberman (not that he ever mentions that)? Why was that wrong?

Was he wrong for authoring pro Iraq invasion op-eds that ended up on the State Department's website? For his red meat speech on the Senate floor? For voting against any mitigating amendments? Through the above, for his salesmanship for an illegal agressive war of choice and conquest, against a country that offered us no threat and which has resulted in the wholesale destruction of a culture, an environment, and the injuries and deaths of (very conservatively) tens of thousands of Iraqis? Other than chasitising them for not taking responsibility for their country, he has had little to say about them. Perhaps he was wrong in considering their lives of little value? Or, at least, of lesser value than our own people? They, he has commended, though it will not bring back those already lost.

For being on the Intelligence Committee, not reading the relevant documents, ignoring the advice of Senior Senate Colleagues like Dick Durbin and Bill Graham?

For taking George Bush at his word? That was certainly wrong, given the copius number of distortions, deceptions and outright lies pushed by the administration, most of which were perfectly visible right at the time of their telling.

What exactly was he "wrong" about? For not giving any credence to voices opposed to the invasion, from either national figures, or from among his own constituency; those whom, to put it another way, were right about the war? He certainly makes no mention of them in his apology.

For waiting until the polls had turned conclusively away from suppport of the Iraqi adventure before venturing even the most tepid mea culpa regarding his vote and his role as a "leader"? Well, actually, he has seldom if ever mentioned his "leadership" role, prefering to focus simply on his vote.

He was wrong, in more ways than he's wanting to admit. And now, he's decided to co-opt anti-war and progressive rhetoric and paint himself as some sort of leader, when he's been a follower and an opportunist all along. If you want to vote for him, that's your business, of course. Ultimately, whether it's Edwards, Hillary, Obama, or even Biden, or worse, one of the Republicans, we will be getting a President who supported the sort of foreign policy mentality that has led to our current Iraq fiasco, and one whom, when push comes to shove, is not going to forgo the strategic interests that this country has in the region. The means may change form, but the ends are going to be largely the same, and the only issue at hand is whether we get a CEO who is overt or covert in support of the nation's goals.

Pick your poison. I'll go with Kucinich.

[slipslidingaway]

57. Well said, especially the next to last paragraph...

"...He was wrong, in more ways than he's wanting to admit. And now, he's decided to co-opt anti-war and progressive rhetoric and paint himself as some sort of leader, when he's been a follower and an opportunist all along. If you want to vote for him, that's your business, of course. Ultimately, whether it's Edwards, Hillary, Obama, or even Biden, or worse, one of the Republicans, we will be getting a President who supported the sort of foreign policy mentality that has led to our current Iraq fiasco, and one whom, when push comes to shove, is not going to forgo the strategic interests that this country has in the region. The means may change form, but the ends are going to be largely the same, and the only issue at hand is whether we get a CEO who is overt or covert in support of the nation's goals.

Pick your poison. I'll go with Kucinich."

[Armstead]

58. They were all wrong except for Kucinich.....and maybe Obama

You're absolutely right. Anyone who voted for the war -- or even allowed for the possibility of war -- was totally wrong to do so, regardless of their motives at the time.

Unfortunately, so many were that it limits the field greatly.

However, Kucinich hasn't got a snowball's chance of winning. That sucks, but it's the reality.

So I'll at least go with someone who has acknowledged it was wrong, and hope that he really learned from that.

[harmonicon]

62. it doesn't limit the field

How many tens or hundreds of millions of US citizens could still run? We can't keep taking our candidates from the Aristocracy/Senate. If you like Kucinich and vote for him, he has more of a chance. Maybe he still wouldn't win, but I don't think the primary is the time to be voting hoping the person you vote for won't make another huge blunder. You can vote with your fingers crossed in the general for the Democratic candidate like you probably will whoever you vote for in the primary. Why not cast your vote for a person for whom you have no doubts?

[Armstead]

65. because...

I admire Kucinich reatly, and his positions on most issues are closest to mine. And I agree that there are a lot of potentially qualified peple out there.

But the presidency is a whole different ballgame, and you gotta work with what ya got. And frankly, the same uncompromising characteristics I admire about Dennis would most likely scuttle his ability to get things done as a president.

[harmonicon]

66. Yes, those things may hamper him

but how will we ever know if we don't try? This is why Dean was my favorite candidate last time. He supported (and I'd like to think he still supports, but don't know) instant run off voting. I know that it's unlikely that IRV would be used in a general election (it may even require a constitutional amendment, but I think that would be worth it), but why states don't do it for their primaries is beyond me. I think it's out of fear maybe... fear that they'd lose money from all of the campaigning that happens now. And what on earth would the media do? I'm not one of these "vote your conscience" (I think that phrase is meaningless) people, but I do think voting for the candidate who you think best represents your interests is the whole point of primaries. This is not the time to be casting a vote because you don't want the other guy. I think we can all agree that any of these Democrats would be better than any Republican, so that's the time to cast a vote for someone who may not be perfect, but is the best choice available.

[Armstead]

68. My decision for edwards is basically for positive reasons

Edwards is not a "hold your nose" choice for me. I support him for the same basic reasons I supported Dean in 04.

I honestly do like him, agree with most of what he is saying and I think he would do a good job as president. Of all the candidates, he seems like the one most able to make change into a mainstream movement.

[harmonicon]

76. and that's your choice to make

Bravo for that. At least you're considering these things and coming to a decision you're comfortable with. I just think we can do much, much better (and won't bother posting the reasons here again).

[bpeale]

106. and obama has voted to continue to fund it

that's just the same as voting FOR the war in my book. in fact, in my book that makes him even worse. knowing the war was wrong & then voting to continue to fund it.

[Little Star]

114. Same as voting FOR the war in my book also. n/t

[JDPriestly]

67. "some mistakes are unforgivable." How old are you?

Are you old enough to have made any unforgivable mistakes? Or is physical murder the only mistake you view as unforgivable?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

83. I'm more than twice your age. I have learned not to be so arrogant.

I have learned that everyone makes mistakes. I don't expect a president to make the right decision 100% or even 80% of the time. I expect the president to be honest when he errs and to learn from his mistakes. I have carefully reviewed Edwards' statements on his vote on the war and many other issues. He meets my test for honesty about his mistakes and willingness to learn. He is a good listener and a good human being. That is what I seek in a president. None of the candidates are perfect. None of them have been right all the time on all issues.

[harmonicon]

117. you support Edwards, and you're calling ME arrogant?

Well, it's not just that Edwards "made a mistake". HE SUPPORTED AN ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION. This is what Nazis were tried for at Nurnberg. It's not just a "mistake". Have you considered that our age disparity may be why I'm so adamantly against these candidates? I have to live with this shit for the rest of my life! You probably have a job, maybe you WILL get your social security. I don't have that kind of security, and am not happy to just sit back and let stuff happen as usual. Shit, man, do you have any idea how totally fucked we are right now? Do you have any real idea about the complete shit state of the economy? The perception of America and Americans in other countries? We're totally screwed and Edwards won't do shit. He's part of the reason we're in this mess.

[GreenArrow]

136. "HE SUPPORTED AN ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION"

You see, that's no big deal, not in comparison with "winning," which is what things really boil down to. Edwards is perceived as a winner, and potentially awkward things such as supporting illegal wars of aggression can be easily rationalized and excused in the service of supporting a candidate whom it is perceived can win.

[loudsue]

139. You've summarized the state of things very well there, harmonicon.

And I think about the younger people who will, indeed, have to live with this mess for the rest of their lives. The baby-boomer generation saw the best of things in our lifetimes, because there were powerful leaders (FDR, mainly) who fought for A MAJORITY of Americans on a big scale. The likes of the bush clan (Preston Bush, precisely) joined with the fascists to make this country a mess for their own greed and power. Their goals were so insidious that most people, even NOW, can't believe that they would take this course, and so they didn't (and don't) fight as if these snakes would actually ever win.

The rest is history.

I don't know where we're headed from here, but I have a really bad feeling that it's not good, no matter WHO wins the next election. If Kucinich won, he would be "Jimmy Carter'd" so fast our heads would spin. That is, if they didn't just shoot him, like they have the rest of our heros.

I hate to sound so negative, but I see the uncertainty you face, with the rest of my family who are in your age group. I also see how many of us are getting old enough that our energy doesn't run as high as we would need it to in an all out fight -- like our forefathers & foremothers did during the American revolution, and like our brave union organizers & union members did back in the day.

Millions of us took to the streets when we were young, and tens of thousands of us got arrested & got our heads busted, got tear gassed, water hosed, billy clubbed, and generally worked over. A few hundred lost their lives protesting.

We did manage to bring a little more integration to the country, and we managed to stop a really stupid war. Women got a better opportunity to participate in the workforce, but none of it went far enough. Years of that battle gave many of us battle fatigue.

The Powell Doctrine was the working paper for the corporatists, and it started in the '70's as a backlash against us "hippies and protesters": The power base didn't like being told what the unwashed masses demanded, so they fought back to put us in our place. Taking over the media was their most successful coup.

It is going to take a lot more than this election to turn things around.

[mtnsnake]

16. Obama & others keep voting to fund the war. How do you feel about that?

If your favorite candidate's name isn't Dennis Kucinich, then you shouldn't be singling out John Edwards as a criminal. In fact, you shouldn't single him out as a "criminal" period.

[harmonicon]

18. I feel the same way about them

I think the only candidates democrats should be supporting are Gravel, Richardson and Kucinich. I don't have as strong negative feelings about Obama, but there are some, because of his tacit support for the war by voting for funding. I single Edwards out, because the meme seems to be that he's "different" or "progressive". I think he's none of those things. Not only his he status quo, but part of the reason the country is in such dire need for change. I'm not out to slander the man, just state the facts. I'm reticent to name other candidates, because I have no interest in bickering about who's candidate is what. We don't own these men and women and owe nothing to them, but I think they owe us a lot if we give them votes and support. I do not think Edwards is deserving of any support, due to his past actions while in government, when he could have done something to change the direction of this criminal regime.

[bluestateguy]

17. Oh brother

His vote was wrong. He admitted it and apologized.

He voted the way 70% of Americans felt at the time; probably higher in his state. Does that make him a "criminal"? I'd say that makes him a politician.

Bush would have ignored the vote anyway if the Congress had voted the IWR down anyway.

[harmonicon]

21. An apology does not make it OK

He knew it was illegal. Maybe it was the popular thing to do, but it was not the right thing to do. It frightens me if he could make such important decisions based on political calculations. I want someone who isn't afraid to do the right thing, no matter how unpopular it may be at the time. Saying, "sorry" doesn't make it ok. No way, no how.

[GreenArrow]

36. "saying sorry"

He hasn't really said that. He has said he was wrong, and followed that with a litany of self serving excuses and justifications for his vote.

[dajoki]

125. What, exactly do you want the man to do?

Take himself to the Hague to be tried as a war criminal? Forget the trial and just be hanged? Put in prison for life? Since you can't forgive him or don't believe he can learn anything, I'm just curious as to what you think should be done with him and everyone else who supported this illegal war. BTW, this post is coming from someone who was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and also wants us out of there RIGHT NOW!!

[harmonicon]

127. I am not the law

What should be done to these people is not up to me. The point I'm trying to get across is that we should hold candidates to a MUCH higher standard than we are. The one thing I would have him do is feel shame and be truly sorry for being part of an illegal action that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent souls. Maybe that's enough.

[dajoki]

133. Maybe...

that IS how he feels. I don't know, but it's possible. And yes we should hold candidates to a MUCH higher standard. But you seem to want to hold Edwards to an even HIGHER standard. I believe they should all be evaluated from an equal base, and go up or down from there.

There is not one politician in this country who is completely guilt free when it comes to playing politics. I've been around a long time and I can't tell you how many times I"ve been dissapointed, and continue to be, by someone I didn't expect to be dissapointed by. The truth is they all screw up, and maybe it comes with age, but I can sometimes get over it and judge a person by ALL of their qualities, not just by a mistake they made. I also believe people can change their opinions without being flip-floppers. I also believe people can be forgiven if they are sincere. Isn't that part of what being "liberal" is about?

[Beaverhausen]

19. I'm sorry about your classmate but the blame lies with Bush, not Edwards

Do you honestly think Bush would not have invaded Iraq if Edwards had voted "no" on the IWR?

I am not happy about that vote, but I support Edwards on many current issues that he has detailed plans for, including healthcare, the environment and in helping the middle class.

No candidate is perfect - not even Dennis K.

There are many issues that are important to this country, and we each have to look at them and find which candidate most matches our own views.

[harmonicon]

22. I understand your point

but I think this is a really big deal that the Democratic party rank-and-file should be dealing with more directly than we are. I think you're right that Bush would have launched the war no matter what congress did, but I think a vocal opposition could have changed a lot of things, especially in the media which drove the push to war. Not only is this war wrong, founded on lies, but is illegal. It doesn't matter if he believed the lies. There should be no excuse for a president, or someone wanting to be president, to endorse an illegal war of aggression. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. If he was willing to break international law regarding war once, what will stop him from doing it again?

[Beaverhausen]

24. But it wasn't just Edwards - over 20 democrats voted for it

including how many of the current candidates? You called him a criminal - as if he planned an plotted the mess that is the Iraq occupation. You give Edwards too much credit.

If the media had allowed any anti-war voices to he heard, Bush still would have invaded. period.

I favor Edwards plan to end the war and get us out of Iraq. We can't go back and change what happened, but we can sure try and do the right thing in the future.

[harmonicon]

28. ANY senator who voted for IWR is a criminal

We should give none of these people our votes. Maybe the war would have happened anyway, I've said that before. But, for whatever reason (I'm afraid in most cases, reasons of crass political calculation) they voted for an illegal war of aggression. This is beyond the pale, and we should not stand for it!

[Beaverhausen]

32. Actually, my interpretation of the IWR is that it wasn't a vote for war per se

I haven't read the whole thing, but I believe the pertinent part states that war is an option only if Saddam does not disarm. It wasn't a flat out declaration of war.

Well, how could Sadamm disarm when he in fact had no arms, and when Bush pulled the inspectors out after they found nothing? Bush would have gone to war regardless of what was found, or how the vote went.

To keep blaming the democrats for this is counter-productive. I applaud your support of Kuchinich, but I think calling Edwards, et al "criminals" is a bit much. Some of us think Edwards has the best plan to get us out, and we support him on other issues, too. Aren't we all on the same side?

[harmonicon]

35. We are all on the same side

And I will vote for the Democratic nominee, just like I did last time, despite having these same reservations. However, I think they're banking on that and taking advantage of a lot of us for it. I do not think it is counter productive. I think it is high time we had a real debate about what it is that these parties represent, and, in my view, we shouldn't accept certain elements in the party, if we're going to keep calling ourselves the left. For too long now, being a Democrat has just meant not being a right-wing nut-job, and I think we can do better than that! Yes, it ought to be a big tent, but not a catch-all. I even have a hard time considering myself a democrat, and didn't until Howard Dean's campaign, and then when he took control of the party. "If Howard Dean is a Democrat, then I'm a Democrat", I said to myself. I could not say the same for Edwards, Clinton, etc.

[bpeale]

107. with all you exclude, what if one of those "criminals" is the nominee?

make up your mind. you can't have it both ways. shit or get off the pot!

[harmonicon]

118. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee

because having a criminal who will kick you in the nuts, shit on your face and tell you it's cake is better than a criminal who will lock you up and have you beaten and waterboarded, but just barely. Then, after I vote, I'll go home, puke and drink myself to sleep.

[bpeale]

142. YOU ARE TRULY SAD & YOU NEED HELP NOT ALCOHOL

[Catchawave]

27. Who are you supporting then?

You don't have to support Edwards. Would you care to explain the reasons you support who you do?

[harmonicon]

29. well, I'm from Michigan, so my vote doesn't count :(

otherwise, I'd vote for Kucinich. The only people I would consider voting for are Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson, because the others voted for an illegal war. Of those, I like Kucinich the best, because he supports universal single-payer healthcare, which, to me, is the most important problem (the lack of it) facing the country right now. I think it would solve not only healthcare problems, but also education (lots of kids miss school because of an illness or a parent's illness), and national business interests (GM shouldn't be spending more on healthcare than steel).

[Catchawave]

31. Those are good reasons, thank you and

I'm sorry about Michigan :(

[cadaverdog]

121. You would vote for Bigot Bill Richardson?

You need to take a close look at the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, "who was summarily and arbitrarily dismissed from his job by the University of California and Secretary Bill Richardson of the U.S. Department of Energy without due process, immediately following an unfounded allegation published in the New York Times in March 1999 that he was responsible for leaking or transferring nuclear secrets to China." http://www.spse.org/APAHE_Resolution.html
By anyone's measure, this was obviously a case of racial profiling which resulted in the persecution of a US citizen of Asian heritage. And Bill Richardson was right in the middle of it.
You can't play in the cesspool of politics without eventually getting a little stink on you.

[harmonicon]

123. There are people better than Richardson

*but* I think he's one of the three worth considering. That case was a complete sham..... this is something I would consider to be a gross mistake and a case of poor judgement. Voting for an illegal war of aggression it ain't.

[ChiciB1]

46. WOW... It's ALL Edwards Fault... This Guy Must Have Some Super Power!!

or maybe he's SPIDER MAN!!!

We MUST, and I mean MUST organize to make this ONE man responsible for EVERYTHING that has gone on since, Oh maybe the year 2000! He has NO RIGHT to walk this earth! Body Snatchers, where are you?? Get out and do your work... John Edwards is EVIL INCARNATE!!

There that makes it all better... things are going to be okay now, with the removal of Edwards it's smooth sailing and America will now survive! I KNOW this will FIX ALL our problems! I heart ya, I got the message! You have the answers, please contact me personally so I can be part of the inner circle and thus be able to know the TRUTH so we can make our country AMERICA, once again what it once was.

John Edwards, what a disgusting creature... let's just burn him at the stake or better yet... let's do a Henry The 8Th thingney... let's chop off his head!! My Bad, my shame... can I be redeemed??

[harmonicon]

60. I don't have all of the answer, but I do have some of them.

One thing I can tell you is that if we want a country led by people that we can be proud of, we shouldn't be accepting of politicians who've made crass political decisions which have destroyed the lives of millions, just to be popular. If another country were to launch an illegal war of aggression against us, would you only blame their president, or would you also blame other members of their government who chose to launch the illegal war? Not only is the war wrong, it's illegal. He knew that, but still wanted to go ahead with it.

Did I say that this is all his fault? No. Should he bear some responsibility for his horrendous actions? Absolutely. I don't think he should be tried for treason (the president should), but I do think supporting a war which is against international law should not be taken lightly. The same goes for every other senator who voted for the IWR.

[sellitman]

49. BS.

He voted to give junior the power to go to war. He never voted to attach Iraq. For someone new to DU you have a lot of reading to do before making such an ignorant statement. Blood is on bush & Cheney's hands alone.

[harmonicon]

55. You really believe that?

And you think all knowledge comes from DU? I've been reading alot, including things on this message board, for years. I know the score. So, do you think no senate republicans are responsible for any of Bush's actions? Your logic tells me that you don't. The senate is meaningless! Their votes are meaningless! It's all up the the prez. Thank god we don't have to hold people from our own party responsible for their misdeeds, or else we'd have to do some real soul searching about what it's going to take to change course, and what our role will be in a democratic society, instead of focusing on some lame-ass horse race primary that has little to do with a candidates history while in government or their platform and a lot to do with campaign speeches and polls.

[sellitman]

102. This war was in bushes plans long before 9-11

What the Congrees did was believe their pack of lies. There is enough blame to go around in not digging for the facts but the War was bushes idea.

[harmonicon]

120. No sale.

It doesn't matter if they believed the lies (btw, do you really think they're that stupid? I always knew the statements were bunk), because launching a war of aggression is ILLEGAL, and supporting it is illegal. Would you vote for someone who went to a murder, did no killing, but handed the killer a gun and told them they ought to shoot? No question Bush is worse, but can't we have higher standards than "Of all the criminals, I like this one best!"?

[Divine Discontent]

78. Edwards is a hero for the poor & working class & has been. Iraq is George's, sorry. n/t

[harmonicon]

79. Not the poor and working class in other countries - he's thrown them to the dogs.

[bpeale]

108. it's time for us to think of OUR people & OUR country.

how can we help anyone else when we are becoming desperately poor ourselves. we are one step away from a third world nation.

[harmonicon]

122. yes, and we know how these people treat 3rd world nations

I can't believe that someone who would be so reckless in regards to human lives in war would care so much to make a distinction between being shot to death and starved to death.

[bpeale]

143. WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?

i am sick of hearing "damned if you do, damned if you don't". move on!

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyWinstonJack]

95. ...

:thumbsup:

[frogcycle]

101. well said!

I admire your turn of phrase. I try to stay ALERT to posters like this, as clearly so do you.

[harmonicon]

124. NO FUCKING WAY

It doesn't fucking matter if they were lied to. Regardless of what the lies were (and only a moron would have believed those lies - did you?), this is AN ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION!!!!

And as far as calling me a troll? I have just as much right to post here as you. Show one lie I've posted. I want a real discussion about what our standards should be for elected leaders, where as you seem to want to keep playing the dog and pony show media circle-jerk. Have at it, and reap what you sow.

[tom_paine]

131. I would have believed them if the Bushies had shown me piles of fake or misleading data

Yeah, and so would you. I'm just being honest about it.

You do have as much right to post here as I do, on that we agree.

As far as "catching you in a lie" you have to try and post an alleged fact first. All I hear from you is short, declarative rants and ad hominems. Hard to call someone's opinion a lie, don'tcha' think?

Not that I haven't indulged occasionally in that myself, but I have seen nothing other than that from you yet.

LOL - we probably agree 100% on the dog & pony media circle jerk. If indeed you aren't a troll, that is delightfully ironic.

Because as I am to you on this thread, 2/3rds of the rest of DU is to me most every other time.

Capiche? You have out-hotheaded and ranted, a hotheaded ranter. If sincere, I sympathize. If not, go fuck yourself.

Only you know which is which, I can only speculate.

[ChiciB1]

132. Hey There... Just Checking From Last Night... Company Came Over

and I have to leave. I THOUGHT I hit "harmonicon" hard, but you get the prize!! As an Edwards supporter, there are times I can't hold myself back. I find some of the CRAP being said about him unbelievable and just can't contain myself. Usually, I try to contain myself and let it go... but THANKS for backing up what many of us really think and understand!!

While I'm very very Anti-War, I knew way BEFORE Bush got himself appointed in 2000 that Iraq was planned. Anyone who read anything Greg Palast was writing back then may have thought reading it was just a "crazy" idea, but here we are! As the years have gone by I've come to believe that even if there had been NO Congressional vote... IRAQ would have taken place!! These people have broken law after law, so I've gotten over the fact that the "votes" that took place were very probably just a "formality!" That this corrupt administration didn't even care about what ANYONE else thought because they were going to "have it their way" no matter what.

I'm more focused on ENDING the thing, but it's such a mess I have no answers. What I do know is HOW it's affected America! Not just the lives that have been lost, but the complete disregard for those less fortunate. And to quote "Ronnie Rayguns" the trickle down stuff, but not HOW HE perceived it, but HOW it actually has turned out. The trickle down where those less fortunate or even those who considered themselves "middle class" are now struggling to make ends meet! America is no longer a place I know!

So I support Edwards because he didn't wait for this issue to raise it's head, RIGHT AFTER 2004 he went out and worked on poverty issues and has pushed the agenda since then. You can't take that away from him, even if many here think it was only done for some ulterior motive. I DON'T think so myself!

[bpeale]

105. and about half my high school class (of the boys) died in vietnam

so, what's your point?

[harmonicon]

126. And you're ok with that?

You would vote for the people who sent them to their deaths? I wouldn't. None of the Senators in the race have any more credibility when it comes to ending this war than Nixon's "secret plan".

[bpeale]

141. actually i am. you can't go back & change anything. get over it.

nor do i think its wise to carry so much anger & hate around for years over something i had no control over. i have learned to live with the past and i think you should too. otherwise you will eventually turn that hate against yourself & thats not good.

[ananda]

15. I think I could vote for Edwards..

.. without holding my nose, even though
his past record is quite iffy.

[katadin706]

20. Why would you vote for someone who does not

vote in your interest? I don't get it. Edwards hasn't just voted against progressive values once -- he's done it several times. He is a serial apologist for "wrong votes."

I am beginning to believe that people are onboarding with Edwards because they believe the myth that Kucinich cannot win the nomination. Kucinich CAN win! He truly represents progressive views AND VOTES THAT WAY. He is courageous, he is dedicated, he is straightforward and honest and he wants to return our government to the PEOPLE.

Why would anyone vote for Edwards when he has repeatedly sold us out with his vote? There is only Kucinich.

[harmonicon]

23. tell me about it

I'm turning into a broken record about these things. I don't think you should say the only other option is Kucinich, even though I also think he's the best of the lot running this time. In my mind, there's also Gravel and Richardson. For me, they're both too conservative in different ways (well, taxes and healthcare, for starters), but should be considered, especially by people who may have real disagreements with Kucinich. I have no idea what this hype is for in regards to Edwards.

[Tejanocrat]

33. Are you unaware that Richardson supported the resolution? The only reason he didn't vote for it was

because he wasn't in the Senate.

Gravel eliminated himself from serious consideration with his plan to privatize social security and to replace progressive income taxation with a national sales tax which would disproportionately tax the poor and the middle class.

Kucinich is the only far left anti-war choice.

If you eliminate those who voted for the war or voted to continue the war by voting to continue funding it and those who support those votes but didn't actually vote that way only because they weren't in an elected position to make those votes, you have Kucinich and Gravel (who's certifiably nuts). That leaves you with Kucinich.

If you conclude that some who voted for the var or voted to continue the war by continuing funding it deserve reconsideration in light of recognizing the error in their past votes (much like Kucinich deserves reconsideration in light of recognizing the error in his past anti-choice votes), then Edwards offers the next most progressive platform after Kucinich.

[harmonicon]

37. well

I wouldn't vote for Gravel, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else for doing so. He's far too right wing for me, especially in regards to taxation. As for Richardson supporting the war, no one can say what he would have done had he been a senator, because he wasn't, and the same information wasn't available to him - and it simply wasn't his job, where-as it was theirs. I think we should judge these people on what they've really done. I don't like that Kucinich used to be anti-choice, but I think his change in that regard was for very real reasons of ideology, not a calculation for political gain, which is why I think these Democrats voted for IWR.

[bpeale]

111. maybe for you. i'm from ohio (originally)

and while i applaud his service as mayor of cleveland, i still don't think he has the chops to be president or even vice president. being a good guy is not enough. what has he truly done on his own for the last 30 years to alleviate poverty, etc.

[MGKrebs]

25. How do you think he will overcome his fundraising shortfall?

He will have about $10 million to spend from March to September, very possibly against at least $100 million from the Repub who will also likely be decided by March.

That is a big hole to dig out of in just the two months from September to November 4.

[Armstead]

43. Ingenuity, I guess

Hit those Internets hard. :)

[tammywammy]

26. Congrats to you

He should be proud to have a supporter like you. Edwards isn't my choice, but I respect why you've chosen him.

Plus, it's always nice to see a post praising a candidate without bashing the others.

[maddiejoan]

30. Congrats.

All the candidates are fine choices to make, and though I finally chose someone else --I applaud you making your choice.

It's a relief isn't it?

[whatdoyouthink]

39. I'm Voting for Him

I Like Edwards - and think he will be are best shot! at taking the Top Job! (Pres)Let's face it (some and I dont mean you or I) the 51% Rove (sic) game!

Lets face it - Bush BOY has taking the JOB So far right (singing statements/incompetent government/crimes/ etc..) it will take a Good (and I mean GOOD) Lawyer to unravel it - and give back, the Power to the People (IE - US) Plus Others (most) are Sucking up Cash from the very people (most of US Here anyways) we despise, Big Corp, Special Interest, and LOBBYIST!

K - would be ok - but they will destroy him!and his Beautiful wife.

So Edwards is next (or maybe the) Best Thing left - for the change! we need - at least i think so too.

PS...When was the last time you heard a man! say I,m sorry for that vote? now that took guts!

[saltpoint]

40. Hi, Armstead. Yes -- that Rose interview was a peach.

I think the country would be operated from a far more people-up frame of reference under Edwards versus a Halliburton-down approach like under Dubya and Dick.

[Tactical Progressive]

44. Edwards has gotten much better

since 2004. And his message is probably the most important, and the most historically ignored, one in America. I've been giving him a second look since his Charlie Rose interview.

His entire Charlie Rose interview was very good, as was his speech at the Dem meetup immediately afterwards, which was pretty much the same thing. It's like he broke his speech down into categories to answer individual questions on Rose. I was really impressed with not just his points and his passion, but the way he organized and structured it all.

But I don't see him as ready for the Presidency. That's a whole nother level. Just because you have the right message, and can organize it well and enunciate it properly, doesn't mean you can run a country from that. A legal brief or a summary argument, yes, but not a political administration.

With the skills he's got now, what he needs is experience. I've been thinking he might make a good VP for Hillary. Eight years in the VP slot would be a crash course in Presidential politics. Edwards is plenty young enough to wait eight years for a shot at the big chair from the second position. That's where he should be.

I don't know what kind of calculus the Clinton campaign will use to pick the VP, but it's probably one where consideration of who gets them the most votes plays a part. Which to me is fraught with inaccuracy. But they do tend to use that kind of electoral-base triangulation, which I don't think John does well at, losing as he did his home state in 2004. I also don't know how much he may have burned bridges when he went after Hillary in those first two debates.

But assuming he hasn't closed all of those doors and that he does have some political pull for a Clinton down-ticket, he should consider selling himself strongly for VP. Again, he's not politically experienced enough for the Presidency.

[Goat52a]

87. Thinking

The concept that any political person is honest is a sad statement. It says how bad we are as far as values and integrity. Claiming that Democrat candidates are better then Republicans is like saying, water is better then well water. They are rich, thus they can go for power and ignore that the majority of Americans are just trying to live.
The hate, with are young people is obvious---it shows through the recent deaths that our media loves to display. Yet we call ourself decent people....Happy Holidays--and ignore the pain a lot of Americans are experiencing. It's sad that I can not give my children a better life. And neither a Democrat or Republican candidate gives a shit.. It's obvious when we expected change, voted for that change, and didn't get it. And ya all expect more from millionaires? Give me a break--it is not going to get any better..... It's only going to get worse for 70% of Americans and better for 30%...

Peace and wake up...

[ulysses]

45. yeah.

I think I've discovered myself in the Edwards camp as well, impurities and all. ;-)

I wonder if we can put some weight behind him?

[Armstead]

56. I only weigh 135 lbs.

But every little bit helps.

[ulysses]

59. hey, I'm 160 on a good day.

Together, we're the door on a Hummer! ;-)

[frogmarch]

48. Edwards isn't perfect, but

I've believed for a long time that he's the best choice.

The Rose interviews cinched it for me.

Glad you've picked him too, Armstead.

[sellitman]

50. I made the same decision a few weeks ago.

For many of the same reasons. He is a good man and one I can feel good about before and after I pull his lever.

[KoKo]

51. Probably wise...because if we can't have Gore or Kucinich he's a Stop Gap

for another stolen election decided by Iowa, NH and SC and the Mainstream WHORE MEDIA....

I'm sad there is a compromise though.

[Beacool]

52. If that's your choice, then go for it! n/t

[defendandprotect]

53. Edwards Iraq vote was frightening! Who's your second choice ---???

[bpeale]

116. Edwards is my first, second, third etc. choice ....

if he is not the nominee, i will write his name in. i am sick of the DLC choosing our candidate for us.

[Gloria]

54. Well said.

[laureloak]

61. Welcome to the fold. n/t

[Seabiscuit]

64. Wishing-in-vain for Gore, cheering Kucinich, and at home with Edwards.

He's the GOP's worst nightmare this year.

What have they got on him? Just another politician with an expensive haircut? BWAHAHAHA!

I love DK, but I admire John Edwards. He's our man.

I wouldn't mind Biden as his VP. I love the guy's experience, especially in foreign policy.

[Lindsey]

70. Very well said Armstead, and I completely agree...

He absolutely (IMHO) has the best chance of winning and there's so much at stake. I'm concerned about things like stem cell research and Supreme Court nominees as well as the cabinent members. Something tells me Edwards wouldn't go with people who climbed under the rocks such as Ashcroft and Gonzo. I think he'd probably go with some bright individuals. I think he's made some bad decisions but I think he's made many more good decisions.

[readmoreoften]

74. I agree, but I'm not terrible keen on Biden's more conservative economic slant.

I wouldn't mind the Edwards/Biden ticket, but I'd be less happy with a Biden/Edwards ticket. I'd run around my block holding a streamer with an Edwards/Kooch ticket.

[EV_Ares]

69. Armstead, very good reasoning, good points, like the focus on the

postive. You will never find one candidate you totally agree with. We are all human.

Anyway, I am still wavering between Edwards and Obama, leaning more to Edwards for basically a lot of the same reasoning you have made.

Good post and thoughts.

K&R.

[Mosaic]

71. Didn't like him with John Kerry

Don't like him now, he's just a snake oil salesman. He looks too young too, like Obama. People who look like kids have no credibility holding power, you hear that Kevin Martin http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/ . Kucinich is my man after much consideration and watching all the debates but Richardson is a close second. Richardson could really heal this country after all the Dobbsian hysteria of the past few years.

[Greylyn58]

104. I've been trying to stay out of all the candidate bashing because

everyone has a right to their opinion, but I have to respond to this.

"People who look like kids have no credibility holding power,"

No offense, but that is the stupidest thing I have ever read. So now Edwards gets slapped down because he looks young??? Well damn him for having good genes!!!

If that is your compass for judging the merits of a politician, you are in for a very rude awakening.

Jeez!!







Edit to add: Welcome to the Edwards fold Armstead. You've made a great choice.

[mconvente]

72. Great decision n/t

[asdjrocky]

73. Thank you so much Armstead-

I've read a lot of your post, and have respect for what you write. Speaking for me, I'm glad to count you among the Edwards Supporters.

[mzmolly]

77. I'm somewhat torn between Edwards and Obama, but for the reasons you note

above so eloquently I decided on Edwards a while back.

Very well said BTW!

He's not perfect. I've been a little suspicious of the contrast between his current rhetoric, and his past behavior. (And some of his current behavior like that big ol' house.)

I'm with you on the past behavior, though the big house doesn't bother me much personally.

:hi:

[Prophet 451]

81. Good choice`

Edwards is my second choice after Kucinich.

[johncoby2]

82. I don't get it. Why is it so important to publicize?

[glowing]

84. Because when you finally come to a conclusion about who to support

when you haven't chosen yet, its nice to share... especially here where we post and spend a lot of time really trying to anyalyze and learn. Its an epiphany... and it feels good... I've been eliminating candidates.. I'm stuck between Kucinich and Edwards.. I'm in Florida, so it doesn't matter all that much anyway... I'll probably know when I'm at the box.. shoot maybe I'll vote for myself just to test the box...

[Armstead]

94. Not important....But this is a discussion board

We discuss.

[anitar1]

86. Armstead, everything you have said is exactly what

I think. I too, have pondered over this and a few days ago I decided to choose Edwards.One never really knows what the outcome will be, but I do believe he is committed to change.

[oasis]

88. Good explanation for your choice. (eom)

[tom_paine]

91. Right on, Armsetad! Your thoughts on this closely mirror my own.

I just added my "I support John Edwards" banner not a week ago, after a thought train much like yours finally decided me.

You are most welcome to stand with us in this, one of our nation's greatest hours of need, made more scary that we do not face an external foe but our own countrymen who have been reprogrammed by tyrants to destroy the things that made this nation great.

No sadder situation than that.

But if there is a way out, and I am not sure there is one, then I believe that our only chance is to nominate and elect (if that is possible using BushVote systems) John Edwards.

Nothing is guaranteed, we may elect Edwards and Old America might still remain in the history books, but IMHO, he gives us the best shot to restore the Old American Republic.

And that is better than the ZERO chance with Senator Clinton or the remote chance with Barack Obama, also in my honest opinion.

[rAVES]

93. America could do a lot, lot worse.

[TomClash]

96. Agreed.

Though I have some misgivings about him, his emphasis on economic disadvantage and the great divide have caused me to choose him.

[Ladyinblack]

97. I am with you

I support Edwards as the best candidate.

I just do not understand the big house issue. Perhaps it is best dropped.

[Czolgosz]

99. Thanks for posting this; you make a good argument.

[focusfan]

100. I would vote for John Edwards

but look when Bush gets out of office our deficite will be so
big and then we might have a war with Iran.so whats it worth?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

109. That's who gets my vote, for what it's worth (zero)

I like Kucinich, but he hasn't got a chance.

I'm finally convinced that Gore is not running.

So I'm going with Edwards. Haircut and all.

Of course, my primary vote doesn't count - I'm in Michigan. I don't even know if the delegates will be admitted to the convention, much less allowed to vote.

[jillan]

110. Just curious?

Does him making millions by investing in a hedgefund that invested in sub-prime lenders who got rich off of the poor, and does not pay taxes in the US....

bother you at all?

[Armstead]

138. Yup

But he didn't make a career of it. he is fairly straightforward about the experience. "I did it to earn an salary and learn about business from the inside." he got burned, but he seems to have learned from it.

On the other side, instead of just sitting back and enjoying his money, he has dedicated himself to campaigning against corporate corruption. he could have either stayed out of the fray, or run this year as a DLC type.

Every one of the candidates have something that bothers me. That's because they're human.

There are a few exceptions I can think of, such as Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone and a few otehrs. But they probably have their share of skeletons in their closets too.

[waiting for hope]

112. Wow Armstead!

I think you have made a fine choice! If you get a chance - pop over to Daily Kos in the evening for their EENR - Edwards Evening News Roundup. It's done totally by dedicated Edwards supporters and it's a roundup on what's been going on with the campaign and in the news - stop by! All are welcome and it's always nice to see a friendly face! :hi:

K&R!

[youthere]

113. Congratulations on choosing your candidate...

It's a relief, isn't it?

[RiverStone]

115. I agree he is the most winnable

Edwards has always been my number 3 compromise, but one I do feel good about (behind Kucinich and Gore). He can appeal across regions and socio-economic groups; though the M$M has never given him much stock --- so he needs to win in the perception of public opinion

[Michael101]

119. Crossing my fingers....

I'm a Kucinich fan and we will be voting for him in the primaries.

Hopefully both Kucinich and Edwards get good numbers in the primary.

Edwards and Kucinich voters are the best. They are very well informed individuals.

Peace.
Dennis Kucinich 2008

[robbedvoter]

135. "He appears sincere" - I guess standards lowered considerably since Bush

I seem to remember Raygun appearing quite sincere as well - even a B movie experience can do that.
Not my standards. Appearance vs truth (he threatened to bomb Iran as recently as this year) do not convince me. I am voting Kucinich. Or Gravel. You know, the guys who are actually progressive, not just play one on teevee.

[Stop Cornyn]

137. I'm a sucker for a pro-Democrat post that focuses on the positive without mentioning any opponents

[balantz]

146. The best choice, in my opinion.

Edwards isn't perfect, as he himself says. But I feel he's the best choice there is.

[Tejanocrat]

151. Kick for those who want an explanation of what's wonderful about Edwards

[Ninga]

152. Ditto - no explanation needed in this corner. Go Johnny Go !!!