Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feingold: Edwards Supporters "Are Being Taken In"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:16 PM
Original message
Feingold: Edwards Supporters "Are Being Taken In"
By Eric Kleefeld - January 25, 2008, 11:37AM
Liberal champion Russ Feingold is having a tough time choosing between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but he's more than willing to elaborate on his anti-endorsement of John Edwards. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Feingold discussed why he simply doesn't buy the sincerity of Edwards' current positions.

"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote," Feingold said. "But wait a minute — there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/feingold_edwards_supporters_are_being_taken_in.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's a Chance I'm Willing To Take
Versus a definite loss or screw over from Hillary or Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think Edwards is by far our best candidate and our BEST BET.
I trust my judgement and intelligence, and really don't appreciate someone telling me "I'm being taken in." Pretty tacky, man.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dude, he changed his mind. Yes, he voted wrong then. Feingold seems to have issues with the idea
that people can change what they think, even over long periods of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. I do not think he has a problem with that
I think he is simply saying that there is TOO MUCH inconsistency between the today Edwards and the Edwards of just a few years ago, mainly in deeds but also in words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Out of thousands of votes he flyspecked a handful. You can do that with anyone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Feingold was there for Edwards' entire career. He thinks Edwards is phony.
Kerry was there. He even thought Edwards might make a good running mate. He endorsed Obama.
Kucinich was there. He's an unabashed progressive. He thinks Edwards is phony.

Have you ever considered that you're just flyspecking his unremarkable positive votes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
52. Double standard anyone?:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
101. Some votes carry more weight than others, either by the impact
they have on our economy (felt mostly the poor) or by taking away our rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4156947&mesg_id=4176878

Edwards helped pass the IWR, Yucca Mountain, Patriot Act, Homeland Security Bill, the largest trade bill...China, NCLB, Bankruptcy bill that Clinton vetoed because it was too harsh, The Financial Services Modernization Act


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4156947&mesg_id=4176992

Glad you NOW AGREE that all votes are not equal in respect to trade and the impact they have on our economy. Although you continue to overlook the report published prior to the vote and continue to ignore the votes from the House. Taken together, which is what I have said along, more Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats.

The Senate vote was in September 2000 which is when Edwards said that the bill would...

"...As he explained his vote on Sept. 19, 2000, Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, told the Senate, “Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will likely explode in the coming years, generating jobs and revenues in this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing prosperity of this nation.”

He was wrong, yes others were as well, but each person must take responsibility for themselves. Again some made the right decisions and others made the wrong decisions.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. Ya' gotta admit though, changing your mind on so much, so directly
opposite your previous behavior, may show progress on life's journey, but it makes it much harder to continue as a successful politician.
We're faced with the question of do we believe what he says or what he did. I think many people would feel it's risky and foolish to ignore all that past behavior and count on recent promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
40. He changed his mind on four votes out of thousands
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #40
68. I'll have to take your word for that, but what a four!
The war.
Bankruptcy bill.
Patriot Act.
Yucca Mountain.
China MFN.
NCLB.


Oh wait. That's six.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #68
100. Patriot Act and Yucca are cop outs
Yucca: the waste has to go somewhoere. You can't just "hope" it dissappears.
Patriot Act: passed 98-1. Everyone changed on that. It is misleading to ignore the context it was passed in. Edwards fought for sunset provisions in it and that has to be noted.

You can throw China MFN into the mix as well. Guess how many nations have "most favored" status? It is a myth there was something obscene going on with China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #100
107. The issue isn't so much the merits of each issue, but the quantity
of times he changes his mind.

Even so, if the waste has to go somewhere, why did he change his mind about storing it in Nevada?

If the China issue is a myth, then why did he change his mind about it? Did he just now realize the myth? How many major mistakes is he going to make before he gets this stuff right?

What you are saying is EXACTLY why people like me have trouble believing him now, and think he is easily manipulated, and don't believe he will be able to convince anyone to go along with him even if he has truly changed.

Having said that, he's still a damn sight better than any of the Repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Everyone changes their mind on a few bills out of thousands
If there is some saint who doesn't reveal that here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4198185&mesg_id=4198185

The myth is the MFN part. What we didn't know at the time, and why folks like Ted Kennedy voted for it, is the games China would play.

He claims he changed on Yucca due to studies and forged paperwork. I personally don't care about that vote.

Who is your candidate? Do you really believe he (and it is almost certain it is he given who promotes this meme) has never changed his mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #110
118. Here's some info on the Yucca Mountain vote, Edwards
changed his position before the forged scientific studies were revealed according to this site. In the recent debate he used them as an excuse for his vote :(

I posted this to you before, guess you missed my reply.

:hi:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4101151&mesg_id=4106814
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
78. Hillary voted recently on george's Iran Resolution
believing again that this was a vote only for sanctions. Similar to the Iraq vote rationalization. Obama didn't vote on it, out of town or a NV. So, we all tend to pick and choose issues. So far at least Edwards talks the talk I agree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
116. From where I sit, I disagree with that vote, but...
I'm not a Senator and I don't have to actually vote, so it's easy for me.
I also believe that the IWR vote worked to the extent that it could: We heard from the Prime Minister of Spain that Saddam offered to resign before the invasion. That is about all that diplomacy can do: Achieve the goal without violence. That Bush turned him down is a different matter. Legislators must be very careful casting votes based on their personality evaluations of office-holders. Wouldn't that vote have been a lot more acceptable if it were just "the President" instead of "George Bush"? How obligated are Senators to take into account the individual as opposed to the office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #116
135. When the IWR was voted on we had clues about the danger
Iraq presented and many questioned the drum beat by Rummy, Cheney, Rice and george. Just because your are President doesn't allow you to make statements that are not backed up by facts that takes a country to war. We had been told that a nuke was almost in Saddam's hands, that Saddam was really tight with the Al Queida(sp?) and conspiring to attack us. Just a couple of examples. If someone in the Senate didn't read the entire itelligence report then you gotta wonder. Many were guilty of voting for giving bush the ability to do whatever he decided was best for the country. Of course many that voted said they wanted to show support for forcing Saddam to allow the inspectors back in the country. Makes sense. Still, they should have made bush clarify that if the inspectors were allowed back in and no wmd were found, or al queda lurking then we wouldn't/shouldn't attack. Bush had made irrational statement from the moment of 9-11. I'm bitter. Most of our candidates voted for that resolution.

Speaking of the offer from Spain, that was briefly mentioned at the time. Probably read it in a foreign paper or maybe Greg Palast. Anyway, there was so much garbage in the media that one would think our politicians on the Hill would have questioned more. We know, they were afraid that bush would call them traitors. It's sad our politicians didn't dig deeper at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Edwards has pulled the biggest con this whole primary season
People ACTUALLY BELIEVE that he's the "progressive candidate." Nevermind the fact that of the three frontrunners, he has the most conservative voting record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
131. And if this is so, the LAME Democratic Party has noone to blame but themselves!
For not giving us any better alternative! Who IS the better alternative? Edwards is the best of what we have OFFERED! That isn't his fault. And it remains to be seen whether he can't be trusted or not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Sorry Russ....
If you thought you could do better than Edwards, you should have run yourself. Because Hillary CAN'T do better, and if Obama can, he sure has a funny way of showing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
66. good comment, lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
70. I agree Russ should have run himself... Edwards is the best this party has to offer now!
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 01:28 PM by calipendence
And if he doesn't like it, then he has noone to blame but himself. He could have given us a better option if he'd run earlier. I'm curious about who he felt was going to be the one to carry his torch at the time he announced he wasn't going to run. Who Russ?

Given the choices of people, none of whom I trust fully, and only one is talking about viewpoints I want to hear, I'm going to take the one that promises something I want. At least I can hold him to that promise later. If I vote for one of the other two, then I've already lost before I've started! Why should I do that?

Russ, this should be a message to you. If you think he's untrustworthy, and you think one of the other two has a "closet" plan to unleash later after elected that will help us, that America isn't willing to just accept "Trust us! We can't tell you now, but you'll like what we'll do later." any more. We've done that with people like Pelosi. We should have taken her "impeachment is off the table" statements before the election literally, and questioned (no, make that DEMANDED!) what she was going to do to hold this administration accountable and to end this war. This time we're going to be more DEMANDING of people committing themselves to corrective action before voting for them. No longer the "Trust us!" mantra. Edwards is answering the call. The others aren't!

If Edwards isn't truthful with us now and is pandering to us, then later, a mandate-armored public will have that much more fuel to use that to hang those in office now with the notion that you no longer can serve two masters (pretending to serve us, but serving the lobbyists instead), and perhaps even go so far as getting widespread support for a new party that WILL honestly and up front answer to the will of the people instead if the Democrats can't do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #70
84. What's wrong with your logic? It sound logical to me. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #70
111. Take me in. Take me in. Please.
I want someone who can speak plainly and boldly as a candidate with a clear progressive agenda.
John Edwards is the only candidate doing that.

Everyone else including Obama is just the status quo. The only times Obama and Hillary have become more progressive at all during this campaign is as result of Edward's platform, and then they try to chip off pieces of Edward's platform for their own.

I will take Edwards. He is strong enough to admit mistakes, and he is strong enough to have an aggressive progressive agenda that makes the corporatoins quake.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
126. agreed there.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. I agree with Russ...but in John's defense, that's the nature of
politics...the people lead, and the politicians follow. I really don't fault a politician for taken advantage of a situation...it's in his or her DNA. And I really don't care if Edwards is sincere or not...if he got in, I would simply expect him to do what he said he would...I wouldn't look for a motive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. It Would Be Refreshing to Have a President Who Followed the People's Lead for Once
instead of licking corporate heels....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
65. FDR, the greatest leader of the 20th century didn't lead people,
but nudged them along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Senator Feingold is the Best Senator in Wisconsin.
Edwards is the Best chance to be in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sounds like Sen Feingold is 'carrying water' for another candidate...
If he wants to make a difference he should have thrown his hat in the ring and taken his chances. But he did not. And now from the safety zone of the Senate he disparages one of members of Democratic Party who does take the plunge to make this a better country?

I think Feingold is damaging his own chances of higher office by engaging in such negative criticism of John Edwards.

It is a shame that Feingold does not support the positions that Edwards has taken, and now is trying to turn this into a personal fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. but he does support the positions that Edwards has taken
he's been fighting for them for years. He just doesn't support Edwards for whatever reason. Perhaps they didn't get along while they served together. Who knows? Having said that, I don't see why Feingold feels the need to bring this up again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
82. Feingold is speaking the truth. Not everybody thinks about
gaining "higher office" before they decide to speak the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
103. That he is. I don't understand the Democratic Party of today. They
care more for destroying each other than standing up to corporate Republican America. They are going to leave the party in tatters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. glad I have Feingold to think for me
prick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itsrobert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. Looks like Russ is jealous
Poor, poor Russ. He lost his opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Yeah, it has to kill him to imagine how much better he could have done than Edwards.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 12:38 PM by Heaven and Earth
The establishment knock on Feingold was religion and marital status (thrice-divorced, Jewish), but with the freak show of the Republican field, those inane "negatives" would have been no big deal at all. This doesn't dent my admiration for Russ, because he's right. He would have been a better standard bearer for the progressive movement than John Edwards. But whose fault is that that he isn't in? His. Perhaps he didn't trust us enough to rally around him. He could have run the penultimate "I told you so" campaign (with the ultimate being Gore's).

Russ, i would have stayed with you if you had gotten in. John Edwards would have been a bump in your road to the white house to me. But you refused us, senator. You refused us, and Edwards didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flor de jasmim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. He thinks John stole his thunder.
I saw an article that said he couldn't support Edwards because if he (Feingold) were to run for President this would be HIS platform! No wonder Washington is all screwed up!

Actually, it's a bit tiring hearing about the votes in the Senate (on all sides). If the bills were on one single issue and had no amendments, we would be able to clearly discern why people voted in ways we don't like. As it is, we can't tell whether a senator (PARTICULAR A FIRST-TERMER)...

a) voted on the advice of a senior member as part of a voting bloc
b) had / had not read the ENTIRE bill
c) voted NO on a bill because of its amendments
d) voted YES on a bill because of its amendments
or
e) is not the person we thought we elected

I remember when Obama started and made the comment that with a ranking of 100 out of 100, he said something about having been given a broom closet and was told when to be where. With his celebrity status from the beginning, no one entirely believed him, but it was a valid point that the established structure in Washington involves an initiation/socialization process.

What is important is knowing who he has spent his life supporting - plaintiffs in non-frivolous injury cases (he had a team of researchers (including doctors) to make sure they were not frivolous. How many people do that?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. Do you have a link to that article? I'd like to read it. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
63. Welcome to DU, Sandi, and thanks for an excellent post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tennessee Gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. I wonder if Feingold has ever voted the wrong way on anything
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 12:24 PM by Tennessee Gal
and regretted it later.

Feingold says “the time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do - end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.”

Mistakes? We’re talking about crimes here; not mistakes!


I'll take my chances with Edwards.


edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
83. Feingold calling the administration's crimes "mistakes" says a lot about Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
94. Feingold voted to confirm Ashcroft
I do very clearly remember that, because I remember how disappointed I was in him for his vote. I don't know if that qualifies, though, since I've never heard him say that he has since regretted that vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. I thought Feingold would like Edwards - interesting to hear his opinion
I wonder if he is trying to figure out who is the lesser evil or if he actually likes the other candidates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. yeah, well we got taken in by Bill Clinton
I'm sticking with Edwards, at least he's speaking for me. Whoever the nominee is, we will have to hope and pray that they will deliver on their promises.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Edwards is the second coming of Bill Clinton
Self-serving and phony as the day is long. But this country has some hard lessons to learn, so why not Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
77. If Kucinich can say it. And Feingold can say it. Yet DUers think they know better.
Maybe he will be president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #77
112. "Maybe he will be president."
Maybe so, beginning to look increasingly possible. If so, there are going to be some disappointed Edwards supporters; he's raising the hopes mighty high (look at that pie!) but betrayal hurts a lot worse when coming from someone you like and trust. I find the levels of self-identification with this guy absolutely amazing. He should be selling snow to Eskimos or something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. You've figured it out.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 03:30 PM by Heaven and Earth
"I find the levels of self-identification with this guy absolutely amazing."

This is why all the talk of phoniness doesn't get in the door with me. I, too, was once more conservative than I am now, but I know I am sincere in my progressive turn (and I will never go back), and I haven't done half of what Edwards has. I haven't started a poverty center, or walked any picket lines, or issued a whole stack of press releases criticizing Bush and urging the party leadership to take the progressive course.

But is it really amazing? A politician speaks to us and for us, rather than running a personality cult campaign, and you think its odd that we'd want to stick up for that person?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #119
125. You're right,
it's not amazing, it's old hat really, but the behavior of crowds and groups, and the ways self-styled leaders are able to move and manipulate them is a subject of great interest. I do think personality, charisma and manipulation rather than substance have a lot more to do with it than you believe.

That being said, I don't think it's necessary to "feel someone's pain" if you can convince them that you do. As far as Edwards is concerned, I'm not convinced, nor am I likely to be. He's not really looking for my vote anyway, and never would have let me get on one of his juries. As George W. Bush put it, "you can only fool some of the people, and those are the ones you have to focus on."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalHeart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. Poor Russ. He used to be so sane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
17. Feingold's swiftboating for his Senate pals carries great weight outside the blogosphere
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 12:31 PM by jackson_dem
Not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
73. Feingold is NOT swiftboating Edwards
He is giving his opinion. There is not a single lie here - where he accuses Edwards of any specific thing that he did or didn't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. Who's Russ Feingold?
He certainly thinks highly of himself. I am willing to bet that probably over 50% of the people in his home state couldn't tell you who he is or what his job is. He's trying to make himself important in this race, but the truth is, only political wonks know who he is and what his job is.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. A lot of other people think highly of Russ Feingold, too.
Russ may be getting too personal here. but that's no reason to discount his record of standing up to the Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
42. No one outside of the blogs does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. The blogs are a lot of regular people, not a ghetto that causes their opinions not to matter.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 12:56 PM by Heaven and Earth
The media elite agree with you, though.

Just because we think Feingold's gone wrong this time is no reason to crap on him or the blogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Out of over 300 million
Feingold is great but he revealed himself as thinking too highly of himself here. He can tell people what they should do. No one will care outside of the blogosphere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
62. I live in WI. People know who he is and what he stands for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #62
67. No one outside of hardcore progressive activists know him where I live
Of course he is big in his home state. He isn't everywhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
86. He called the bush crimes "mistakes". I won't discount him,
but that does worry me a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Possibly the best progressive Senator in Washington. Way to display your ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
24. Wow, I'm really disappointed in him...
It's fine that he doesn't support Edwards, but to diss him?

Maybe it's the reverse psychology strategy and he really does want Edwards to win, and by saying negatives he knows it'll piss people off enough to vote for John.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:41 PM
Original message
What about Edwards supporting Dodd on the FISA bill?
Why does Feingold find no merit at all in Edwards?

Did Edwards piss him off or something? He really seems to dislike Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
25. I think Edwards is our best bet in general election, but I still have to k & r this
good reality check on how much any of them will change things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanruss Donating Member (194 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
30. called Feingold
I just called Feingold's office and expressed my disgust. After this repeating criticism of Edwards, he has shown me what a fraud HE is. He seems to only have these qualms on THE DAY BEFORE A CAUCUS VOTE. Is Russ afraid some real progressive legislation might actually pass? That he will have to actually accomplish something progressive when we have a real progressive President? Russ Feingold=Phony in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. It's funny just how many committed progressives think Edwards is full of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Be honest: if they were against Obama, you'd brush them off too.
But they either agree with you, or you can spin it like they agree with you, so its in your interests to act like they have weight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. Their reasons for not supporting Edwards are the same as mine. It's not like their opinions
exist in vacuums, unrelated to anything in the real world.

There are those who do not like Obama, and I agree with much of the criticism. If Feingold were to announce tomorrow that he were not supporting Obama due to his habit of skipping Senate votes, I would nod and move on; I would continue to support Obama (since I can deal with that), but I wouldn't announce that Russ was irrelevant or crazy or compromised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. Yes, just as I can deal with Feingold.
I don't think he's crazy, irrelevant, or compromised. I do think he's jealous, but he's entitled to be, and it doesn't diminish him in my eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. Undoubtedly jealousy is a huge part of it, just like with Kucinich.
Both of them knew Edwards as a centrist, DLC-aligned New Democrat in the Senate, while they spent their careers working tirelessly and quietly for progressive issues. Suddenly, Edwards turns around and announces (despite his entire career) that he is now a progressive, and begins picking up millions of supporters, millions of dollars, and hours of media coverage, all the while sanctimoniously chiding Obama for being similar to 2004 John Edwards, and Clinton for being similar to 2002 John Edwards.

If I were Feingold, I'd be infuriated. If I were Kucinich, I'd be doubly so, given that Edwards first tried to block DK from the debates, and then stole his "the media is afraid of me" narrative.

Am I being harsh here? Absolutely. Too harsh, in fact. I'm only trying to imagine what it looks like from their perspectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. No, I agree with you.
The problem is that John Edwards wouldn't have had a pot to piss in if Feingold was in the race. If Feingold has such a problem with Edwards, he, himself, could have taken Edwards out, and I would have cheered. But he didn't, and rather than step up then, he only chimes in now?

As for Kucinich, I've said it all along: if he wanted to try for the presidency, he should have run for governor or senator. There are 431 Representatives in the House who didn't run for president. What do they know that Kucinich apparently did not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
32. tsk tsk tsk. Feingold just lost a lost a lot of respect as far as I am concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
33. How nice of Feingold to slam a Democratic candidate.....
if he can't push his candidate forward on the basis of their credentials without denigrating another candidate then Feingold is part of what is wrong with this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Feigold doesnt have a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Sure he does....
either Hillary or Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
53. Yup. He should come clean. He is playing Clyburn's game
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #39
58. He has a choice of three, and doesnt like one
He doesnt have a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #39
74. I'd really like to hear his explanation of how Hillary or Obama are better than Edwards...
I think what he's saying is that he doesn't have ANY dog in this hunt. But that's the problem with the system Russ. You should have given it a shot if you didn't like any of these three and had noone else in mind that you thought could beat them. You can't tell me that this "mistrust" of Edwards is a recent revelation that happened after you decided not to run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
87. With that logic, I'd guess you'd criticize any Republican who pointed
out Bush was a phony in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. deleted
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 01:54 PM by redqueen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
34. I think Clinton and Obama supporters are being taken in...
...by the corprat bought-and-paid-for candidates they're supporting - and somehow buying into the notion that once they're elected, anything will change much beyond the superficial. Those corprats EXPECT something in return for all that money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
38. Many people question Edwards in this very regard. My husband included.
I support Edwards, but I share the Feingold "concern." I HOPE Edwards is being true to his values, today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #38
56. Every politician changes his or her mind on a few votes out of thousands
What we need to ask if why these "concerns" are not raised by the media about Obama and to a lesser extent Hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #56
98. I agree. But when your entire "message" contradicts with some of your voting
history, it is a consideration. As for Obama's record being questioned, it seems to me it has been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
41. I prefer Edwards. I trust a candidate who honestly admits he has made mistakes.
It pretty rare that a politican admits mistakes. I admire that. I also admire that Edwards is the only that sticks his neck out with bold issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
43. Anyone know where I can find one of those charts on financial support for Feingold?
Like the ones that have been posted here for the candidates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. how about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. Do you recall McCain-Feingold? Feingold has always been a leader on campaign finance reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
45. This is unprofessional behavior, and it is insulting
to Democrats who can size up candidates for themselves. It very much sounds like a personal dislike being dishonestly cloaked as a principled disagreement, but as others pointed out in response to earlier comments made by Feingold, Clinton voted the same way as Edwards on most if not all of the issues about which Feingold has concerns. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that principles are involved here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #45
55. Sour grapes from Feingold. Edwards has stolen the progressive thunder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
47. As an Edwards supporter (currently), I welcome this controversy.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 01:00 PM by philly_bob
My support for him is entirely based on his progressive positions. Is he sincere when he takes them?

I have always taken as a sign of his sincerity the behavior of his wife, Elizabeth, a DU visitor
who, given her illness, is about as real as you can get. But maybe that's not enough.

The disparity between his past voting record and his campaign positions, alone, is not enough to dilute my support. He was voting with his constituents. Similar to Biden and his Bankruptcy Act.

The fact that he's rich is not enough. They all are; and his is not "old family money."

But I will read with interest other arguments against his sincerity as an economic populist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. Edwards has always been an economic populist
He's changed on things like the environment but he has always been an economic populist.

Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
90. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #60
120. Thank you for presenting his voting record. Your whole post is really informative.
Unlike some of the snarkiness going around, the facts speak for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #60
134. Thanks, jackson_dem, for your research. It's reassuring. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
54. I've come to realize that the primary/election process is merely a marketing campaign
Candidates tailor their message to what they see is the best niche. That's why you've got moderate Republicans on the other side trying to run as staunch conservatives. Or Hillary Clinton as a reformer. Or Dubya as a 'compassionate conservative.' They are tailoring their message in what they see is the best niche.

Sure, that may sound a bit cynical, but in another perspective, I can respect that a politician can change his or her mind. We're electing them to serve the people, not themselves. As a Democratic senator representing a hardcore red state, he had to represent the majority interest, which is ultra-freeper,of a state that mostly hates his guts because of that 'D' next to his name. That's the reality. Feingold's a kick-ass senator, but his job is much easier in a blue state like Wisconsin.

Quite frankly, I'd like a politician who realizes that flexibility is important. Edwards isn't perfect, but his current message does sound sincere. And he's got the red state representation monkey off his back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
59. Feingold is a great senator, but I do not agree with him on this issue
I'd rather take my chances that a candidate has changed his mind about his votes on things, than support two that I know still believe what they believed then. Now that Kucinich is out, I feel there is no other candidate as close to my views as Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
61. And how did Hillary vote on the bankruptcy bill?
How has she voted in regards to China? How has Barack voted?

I have no problem with Feingold choosing not to endorse Edwards, but if he's going to state votes on certain issues as the reason for his lack of support, he needs to be honest about how the other two have voted on the same issues.

Hillary hasn't been on the right side of all progressive issues. Neither has Obama. How about we talk about that for a bit, Russ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #61
69. Feingold didn't mention Ted Kennedy and most Democrats voted for Clinton's China bill
You go to why I am upset with Feingold. He used his credibility to swiftboat Edwards by basically using Obama's talking points. He didn't offer an honest examination of the three's policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #69
114. Exactly right
Why single out Edwards when clearly he's not a huge fan of the other 2 either. Tell us, Russ, why EXACTLY are you having a hard time deciding between Obama and Clinton? Is it because their voting records are just as bad as the one that you claim makes Edwards a person you simply couldn't vote for? HMMM?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #61
76. Barak voted AGAINST the bankruptcy bill
and with Feingold sponsored several ethics reform measures. Edwards voted for a bankruptcy bill and did nothing on ethics. On foreign policy, Obama usually follows up well on issues that Kerry. Feingold and Boxer and sometimes Dodd started. They work very well together. I don't think Dr Rice likes them. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #76
113. That's great
and what about all of the important bills that Barack didn't vote for? Or...voted "present" for?

I just wish we could have a REAL debate on the issues instead of "I don't like Candidate X because...".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #113
124. you are talking rubbish... Obama not only voted BUT LEAD some bills into law
Notably anti-lobbying laws.

Which is more than you defender of the poor and fighter against special interests has ever achieved in his whole term as a senator. Please explain how is that possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #124
129. Two words: Republican Control
Gee, how much easier is it to get your bill through when your party controls not one but both houses of Congress, vs. when you can't even get a HEARING because your party controls neither?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

"In the 1996 and 1998 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly, the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans) and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state governorships (28-22). This event may be seen as the end of the Republican Revolution.<1>"

Obama also looked pretty silly during one of the debates when Brian Williams challenged him about the "standing up" loophole in a lobbying bill that Obama took a great deal of credit for helping to write. He seemed so surprised to hear about this that it made me wonder whether he had even bothered to read the bill that apparently others did most if not all of the work on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #124
132. Did I say that Obama never lead on a bill? Nope.
What I DID ask about is why there's no discussion of the many bills that he did not vote on...or merely voted "present" on.

If you want to engage me in an actual discussion of the issue, I'm game. But I'm not answering your question until you answer the one I posed first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
71. Wow. That's gotta hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
72. I'm taken in -- Gooooo, Edwards!
(I don't know who the freshman senator from Illinois is & why he climbed up the ladder of notoriety so quickly or why he is considered to be the great savior who will clean up the huge mess. No one seems interested in addressing those concerns, so I'll have to remain mystified.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
75. If Obama supporters
have the need to beat up someone who is presumably not a threat, should they be considered bullies? Even if it came down to only Hillary and Obama in my state's primary, I would stay home and just vote in the general than cast my vote for either of them in the primary.

If Feingold doesn't believe people can change, then why in fuck does he even continue in politics? I now think he's a cynical bitch, rather than Edwards being disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #75
95. Who are the Obama supporters beating up on Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
79. I love Russ
But quite frankly he's wrong on this one. And he had the chance to run himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
80. Is Feingold actually concerned with Edwards actually WINNING the nomination?
That would get me a bit excited if he actually was going to surge ahead and win.

But at this point, Edwards running's biggest likely value is being a power broker speaking for progressive values at a split convention and forcing Obama or Hillary to embrace them to get his and his delegates' support. I would argue that with that purpose in mind, which is most likely at this point, he would have benefitted us all, and it wouldn't then matter whether we could "trust" him or not. He will have done what we wanted someone to do for us and be done at that point. Either Obama or Hillary would have more progressive planks they are committing to on their platform, or we might even have someone like Al Gore running instead. We win in that situation, and it doesn't matter whether we should trust im or not, does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
81. Edwards is Bill Clinton Jr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. Wouldn't that be wonderful, if he is a Bill Jr.
payed down the debt, left a surplus , stock market making money for everyone. only went to war to help a nation in need. got along with other nations, others nations yelling God first then Bill Clinton...First Black President and the list goes on,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
85. "A tough time choosing between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama"
That's not the kind of choice I'd want to make, between two corporate Democrats. Follow the trail of corporate money funding their campaigns. Big pharmaceutical companies, Wall Street, etc. That's who these two are beholden too. But not Edwards. He's beholden to the grass roots that have been funding his campaign with $50 donations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
91. I admire Russ's integrity -- But he's being taken in
Edwards record was not that contradictory when he was in the Senate -- and on the occasions that are often cited he was basically reflecting what most other Democrats did.

People can change their views.

If Feingold thinks that The Clintons are going to really advance the progressive causes he believes in, he's the one being taken in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
96. That really speaks to the disingenuousness of his worthless comments.
Clinton is more progressive than Edwards?

Really?

How stupid are the people being taken in by Russ's BS?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
92. What a sad thing, to see him insulting democratic voters this way.
VERY disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
93. That cynical comment alone.....
shows how much faith we should have in Feingold.

Sorry Russ, your secondary interests are showing here, and you are in lockstep unity with the DLC at this point. You have gone establishment. One thing is sure, Edwards has NO support from the DLC. That is good enough for me.

Finally, as an aside, jeers to the OP, an Obamaton looking merely to stir the pot, without any concern whatsoever, for critical analysis. A leopard can't change his stripes hnmnf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. So Feingold is DLC now...nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Crazy, ain't it?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #97
123. I know it requires actually reading
hnmnf, and I would never accuse you of getting the fine deatils, Mr. self-admitted full of shit guy ( those were YOUR EXACT words in your thread, remember ), but I said his opinions were now lockstep with the DLC, not that he was DLC.

His motives have been dissected as to the reason for that.

I think jealousy is a major one.

Keep trying hnmnf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
102. I am having a hard time listening to somebody who could have also put his hat in........
How can you qualify your platitudes if you are unwilling to use them when they are directly in front of you?

Sophistry only works as long as people lips are moving. Fiengold's signature amendment on campaign finance reform has be gutted by in part some of the same people he choses to endorse.

So when he talks of inconsistencies does he also look in the mirror?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisainmilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
104. I am willing to take my chances...JOHN EDWARDS 2008! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
105. I feel the same way. Edwards' theme is based on apologizing for past votes.
Then again, I'd still prefer Edwards over Hillary Clinton any day of the week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snotcicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #105
128. One apology does not a theme make. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
106. All politicians change some positions over time.
Edited on Fri Jan-25-08 03:10 PM by redqueen
Such nonsense.

Didn't we chide the repukes for using "flip flopper" as a criticism?

*sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
108. Thanks for posting this as it has been my belief as well...
we are not privy to conversations that senators may have had on some of these issues prior to their votes. Generally Senator Feingold has voted and spoken out on what I consider to be the right side he will continue to receive my support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
109. Reminds me of the Little Red Hen.
"Who will help me bake the bread?" "Not me!" "Not me!".....

Easy for Russ to throw stones at Edwards when he could have run hisownbadself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
115. I ain't gonna say nothin' bad about Russ Feingold no way no how...but
Edwards still has the least negatives in my calculations. Obama second choice, Clinton third.

Whichever it turns out to be, I gotta vote for them to keep the supreme court from getting worse.

PLUS any one of them knows how to say 'nuclear'. I won't feel embarassed when they speak. Possibly disgusted, but at least hearing good english again.

I guess it's obvious I'm not entertaining high expectations. Sure hope I'm wrong!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
117. And now the sliming of Senator Fiengold will begin...
Senator Fiengold has been a hero of mine for quite some time. I was actually disappointed when he said he would not run for President. He is someone whose judgement I trust, and I think he has a right to express his opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
121. Feingold is disappointing me with these criticisms.
It seems petty and beneath him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinksrival Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
122. I have been following Edwards for a long time.........
It's like night and day! He would be a good match for Mit!

I think Senator Feingold knows Edwards better than most of DU.

I'm just say'in!

Sometimes too perfect is too good to be true. Buyer beware.

Edwards prior profession was to talk people into believing anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. "Edwards prior profession was to talk people into believing anything".
That's his current profession, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
130. US Chamber of Commerce spending $60million against anyone who supports Edwards
Do not expect to hear anyone in public office endorse John Edwards. Not when they can rack up political correctness points by supporting Obama (minority) or Hillary (woman) instead. The thought of any part of that $60 million being injected into a race against an incumbent who thought that he would not face a serious challenge in his next election is enough to silence even the bravest politician.

Edwards is like the cheese who will have to stand alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-25-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
133. Well, fuck you, Feingold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC