Please vote for John Edwards.

[Ravy]

I will make this short. I like all of the Democratic candidates, and feel they are all up to the task (except for Mike Gravel). I politically agree the most with DK. I do not believe in bashing the other candidates in order to make my candidate appear stronger.

I am asking you to consider voting for John Edwards for four reasons.

1. He has been "vetted" by running in a national election before. Almost everything about him has been "out there" and mostly rejected by the voters before. I do not believe the republican "talking-points" folder about him is very thick.

2. He has shown the ability to organize an effective campaign. One of the measures that I use of how effective a candidate will be if elected is how well they can organize and run their campaign. While I like all of the Democratic candidates (excepted above) the ability to organize an effective campaign has knocked out several of the candidates I identify more closely with from my consideration. I ask you to consider this as well.

3. Edwards has shown the ability to readily admit when he makes a mistake. That, to me, is a good indication of the ability to govern well. If elected, I believe Edwards will be the most effective candidate. While I abhor presidential signing statements, I am not sure any Democrat will be able to turn this government around without using *every* tool that is available to them. Once the ship is righted, then it will become time to impose severe restrictions on the executive branch. To dismiss, out of hand, any tool that can turn this country around will ultimately slow our return to normalcy. I think Edwards will use those tools effectively and wisely.

4. I think he is hitting the nail squarely on the head with his populism. Others are hitting it as well, but Edwards is, in my opinion, the one that can drive the nail home (to stay with the metaphor).

So, I am asking any undecided or wavering DUers (are there any) to join me and those who support Edwards.

[Flabbergasted]

1. I'll second that.

[surfermaw]

30. BUT>>BUT

We have got to be thinking about the General Election, with Edwards as President and a house and senate full of democrats if we want to accomplish all that is n needed

[helderheid]

2. Okay.

:hi:

[King Coal]

118. Wow. Just Wowsa. One of the best posts ever. Thanks Ravy.

I sure hope the we, as democrats, can get John nominated.

[bryant69]

3. I'd agree with this. I like Edwards a lot.

He is the most viable candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton (who is a bit of a sell-out) and Barack Obama (who is looking either green or like the guy who will say anything to get elected).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[balantz]

4. You've convinced me!

Oh wait, I was already convinced!

[Marrah_G]

5. I am not completely set, but I am leaning towards Biden

But if Edwards gets the Nod I will work for his campaign just lie the JK/JE campaign. I have a definite fondness for him.

Mostly I am posting because I wanted to thank you for such a great post. I wish there were more posts like this.

I want to hear why people are voting for their candidate rather then nasty posts bashing the opponent which in the long run hurts the whole party. So thank you.

It was a very nice post. If only more people here could act with such maturity when it comes to the primaries.

[asdjrocky]

74. What a wonderful reply to what was a great post.

The best of luck to you and your candidate.

[youthere]

114. Nice post Marrah G....

I am a Biden Supporter who will go to work for whoever gets the nomination...but hoping (somehow) it ends up being Biden. If John Edwards takes it, I will work every bit as hard for him as I am for Joe. Same goes for Hillary or Obama or ANY dem. And that's the way it SHOULD be if we call ourselves Democrats.

[King Coal]

122. Great stuff. Do I hear a Biden/Edwards or Edwards/Biden.

The former sounds almost as good and the latter.

[youthere]

128. I'll take Biden on any ticket!

[aquart]

6. I am.

But he needs to talk to Kucinich about healthcare.

[asdjrocky]

75. I think he will aquart-

And I agree with you wholeheartedly. I can't source it, but I remember JRE saying this was the path to single payer.

My dream? Speaker of the House, Dennis Kucinich.

[ChiciB1]

117. Kucinich Asked His Supporters To Get Behind Edwards Last Time Out

in Iowa! So for all of you who are serious Kucinich supporters and didn't know this, just thought I would mention it.

For many of us who are not DLC or who are more Liberal, Kucinich's views do match up with us, but given what goes on these days, and given who seems to RULE anymore... I have to go with Edwards. But I really do think Edwards IS genuine, still I wonder how much pressure is being applied to keep even HIM from getting the nomination!

I've become so cynical that I don't trust D.C. and what they are doing to this country! I feel THEY have their fingers in the pie and HAVE DECIDED that it will be Clinton... even if "the people" really want someone else. And yes, that is a statement I NEVER thought I would make about ANY Democratic candidate. All you have to think about is Lieberman, Feinstein. Schumer, Emanuel and many many others who have not been working for "we the people!"

[The River]

7. Nice Post

Even if I'm all ready there.

[Froward69]

8. No Thank you

after meeting him without a camera in the room. The united states does not need 4 more years of an ego maniac running things.

If he had done just one case pro-bono in his career, I could believe he is for the "little guy" but he hasn't.

[Ravy]

11. That is a point, but one that hasn't bothered me.

He has won extremely large awards for lots of "little guys". In turn, these awards helped lots of other little guys by (in some cases) changing the corporate behavior to prevent other little guys from being injured in the first place.

Whether he did it for free or not is beside the point, respectfully, and in my opinion only. He *has* done charitable things, although not in the way that some would prefer.

I like your choice as well, and I hope he becomes our next vice-president.

[Froward69]

12. personaly I prefer Biden/Obama with

Edwards at AG. If his ego would allow it of course.

[sandyd921]

21. Taking pro-bono cases is a bogus issue

JRE did liability cases, not criminal cases. Liability was his legal speciality. In liability cases the attorney is not paid up-front. In fact, the attorney only gets paid if he or she wins the case. Taking cases pro-bono is only an issue in criminal law where your ability to pay affects who you get to defend you. Beyond this, in JRE's liability cases he went to bat for the little guy against the big guys.

[Yael]

22. You beat me to it.

Thanks

[Jackpine Radical]

43. He beat me to it too, but that didn't stop me from posting my comment

befofe I noticed I had been beaten out.

[jillan]

45. That is such a bunch of crap!

Pro-bono cases are done by lawyers that have a heart, that are willing to represent a client because it is the right thing to do, not to make millions.

[ScooterFibby]

55. No, it is not.

Read the responses about liability cases. They are always free to the client, and thus "pro bono".

"Making millions" is freeper-speak for "hate this guy".

[asdjrocky]

76. Could you tell us all about Bidens Pro Bono work?

He's a lawyer. Hell, their all fucking lawyers. How much Pro Bono did Clinton do at Rose Law? How 'bout Obama, how much has he done.

For all these people that post the BS RW crap, not one of them, ever, talks about their candidates sterling record on Pro Bono. Somehow, John Edwards, because some RW asshole thought to write a few moronic words about it once, is the only lawyer held to this standard.

[wellstone dem]

130. that is not true,there is plenty of opportunity for volunteering

in civil cases.

I've known PI attys to volunteer to take the defense of a low-income person who did not have insurance. PI attys can take eviction cases, or constructive eviction cases based on mold, they can take medicaid denial cases. There are tons of civil cases where low-income people go unrepresented because they cannot afford an atty.

[peacebaby3]

140. Not bogus. He could have done pro-bono work just as many

attorneys that practice civil/liability law do. I do indigent defense work and work with many large law firms that do not practice criminal law but take pro bono cases. Many of us with our boots on the ground barely making any money rely on them because they have all the money. They work closely with us providing all the funding and use their associates to do a lot of the research and writing.

He could have also agreed to take a case taking no fee. Many collusive lawsuits settle (or are won in court) for what seems like a lot of money but after the attorneys take their huge cut and the money is divided up, many of the plaintiffs wind up with a minor amount of money in comparison to their loss. Many liability lawyers have ridiculous hourly rates that they use to justify their contingency which can be a third or more of the settlement.

[CoffeeCat]

32. What was he like without the camera in the room?

I'm curious...what was Edwards like without a camera in the room?

You said you met him and you mentioned "ego maniac".

I'd very much like to hear your impressions of him.

I'm still in the process of deciding...

I do disagree that he has not helped the little guy. Being a trial attorney and
defending citizens who are harmed by corporations, is, in effect, helping the
little guy, wouldn't you agree? Edwards is a very skilled litigator. He could
have joined a big law firm, made partner and probably had a more lucrative career
with a steady income.

In his field, he is not paid unless he wins--if I'm understanding his career correctly.

I am interested in your impressions of him, if you would like to share.

:)

[JDPriestly]

40. He did his cases on contingency, I would bet you.

That entails more risk and potentially less reward than most pro bono work.

[sandyd921]

50. That's how liability cases work

Some people here are very confused about this. In liability cases there is never a fee, it is always, I repeat ALWAYS, on contingency. If the attorney loses the case they are paid nothing. They are only paid when they win and the pay-out is from the company or party being sued, not the attorney's client (the plaintiff). Since they don't charge anyway, what is the relevance of taking pro-bono cases?

[JDPriestly]

59. I know.

[Kansas Wyatt]

131. Which is why the reward for the attorney is so big.

People can bitch all they want about how rich Edwards got, but he got that way on risk, hard work, and talent.

[wellstone dem]

132. But PI attys don't take every case. They take the ones they

believe they can win, and because they can win a lot. There are many smaller claims where wrongdoers go unchallenged because PI lawyers decide the potential gain to the lawyer is not enuf to warrant taking the case.

PI lawyers take some risk, but it is a calculated risk.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. I think that's a red herring.

In a civil suit, the lawyer gets a percentage of the settlement. No win, no lawyer fee. What would "pro bono" look like in that environment?

[harmonicon]

85. win and no lawyer fee? I'm no math expert, but that's how I'd put it together

[Jackpine Radical]

126. Well, pro bono is for the indigent.

Once you've won someone a million-dollar settlement, they're no longer indigent.

[harmonicon]

138. fair point, but what if a settlement is 10k? 100k?

[stickernation]

58. you have to be kidding froward69.

I just got my MBA at UNC Chapel Hill and met John at length after a speech he gave to get undergraduates fighting for justice - in 2005 i believe. There is no substitute.

John Edwards is totally awesome. He's humble and interested and super cool, in my opinion.

I consider John Edwards running for President as the ULTIMATE in pro-bono work - the next President is going to have to be half janitor in order to wash the slime off the carpets of the Oval Office.

I bet YOUR resume is just OOZING with pro-bono work, Froward69 :)

- Srini

[chimpymustgo]

98. Wow, stickernation! Zing!! That's gonna leave a mark. And welcome to DU!!

:hi:

John and Elizabeth Edwards: their time is now.

[asdjrocky]

77. I suppose that was you on the grassy knoll too, right? n/t

[donheld]

82. Why should he take pro-bono cases?

Aren't these type of lawyers paid out of the awards given to the plaintiffs?

[sellitman]

105. There isn't

There isn't one candidate running on either side that isn't a bit of a ego maniac.

Ummmmm......."President"

[wellstone dem]

129. That's what is bothering me too.

It would have been good for him to take some cases without having to be paid for them. Many, many lawyers do this. It isn't hard to find a chance to take a case for legal aid, or for an anti-death penalty program. This is a big disappointment for me.

Still,he is one of my top possibilities.

[tomg]

9. Thanks for a great post.

I am a DK supporter, but the more I listen and hear John Edwards, the more I realize he is our best choice to win and to lead. As a very good friend says, "progress, not perfection."

[corkhead]

10. when it became apparent that Gore was not jumping in, I decided on Edwards

He is the most sensible, electable candidate we have imho.

[ShadesOfGrey]

27. Same here. n/t

[harmonicon]

86. Ok, there ought to be a rule that anyone who uses the word "electability" to justify their political

choice is not allowed to have a Clash avatar. LEAST. PUNK. COMMENT. EVER

[corkhead]

97. I have been an idealist in my voting patterns for almost 30 years of voting

but I believe this election is too important to let it be close enough to be stolen again. Edwards would mop the floor with any of the republick goons that got nominated.

I have become a little more of a realist. I'm sorry you believe that it "clashes" with my avatar, but I don't want to be saying I told you so while we watch president gouliani take the oath of office.

[harmonicon]

103. yeah, that's what we did in 2006

Sure, we won control of both houses of congress, and what good has it done us? Do you really want a president who is part of the status quo? A president who, as a senator, was an enabler of the corrupt and criminal Bush regime? I don't. We're no longer the opposition/minority party, and ought to stop acting like it. We should put forth a candidate chosen through a real, uncompromising, democratic process. If we don't, I don't know what the point is in having a democracy. I'd rather have a healthy functioning opposition party than a corrupt compromising party in power and an even more corrupt minority party.

[RiverStone]

13. Edwards is my lean - and I think he is the most electable

Good endorsement Ravy.

I believe John has the greatest appeal across socio-economic groups, parties, and geographic regions. Honestly. he has not always been my first choice --- but over the last few weeks he has tuned his message right and his populism does resonate with a very caring tone.

Most importantly, I want the Dems to WIN the Presidency. John is best positioned to do just that, for many of the reasons you mentioned.

[bjobotts]

66. Electability is not a fucking issue this time. whoever wins dem nom wins.

Geez when will you paranoids get it. After the horrors of Bush abd with the current GOP field all being a big joke a fucking blind midget would win if he were the dem nominee. All dem candidates are electable this time. None of the repb candidates are electable this time. Memorize it because I and thousands of others are tired of posting it. (Sorry but it's so damn frustrating when ever anyone says electable and the general and no , no one is sitting back as voters are motivated by outrage and fury at this administration to vote)

Now, as to Edwards, consider this:Love Edwards but consider this...Leaves NAFTA in place.
Stated "Would you want the same people who handled Katrina handling your health care?" (Duh! NO. I'd want them fired and efficient people handling my health care) As if he intends to invite the private sector to handle a national health care plan.
Stated, "Impeachment would just distract from getting good legislation passed" (Duh! You mean like holding this administration accountable by impeaching them like our founders wrote in the constitution? How about when they illegally wiretap or torture and obstruct justice and lie us into a war. Mustn't let a little thing like criminal activity and breaking the law distract us from making new laws for them to break)

Stated "I would want to have republicans in my cabinet so I can hear opposing opinions and have some one tell me when they think I'm wrong and give me different advice instead of people who would always just agree with me" (Duh!. You put people in your cabinet and surround your self with advisers that will promote your agenda not stand in the way of it. There will always be republicans screaming their advice and criticisms at you from the floors of congress without you putting them in your cabinet.)

You see.
Edwards says some pretty brilliant things but them turns around and says some really stupid things that I can't believe came out of his mouth. Yet he's better all around than the other candidates except Kucinich, whose right on everything. So "PLEASE VOTE FOR KUCINICH" who is right the first time and far ahead of the others on every issue. He represents the only "real" change.
Kucinich/Edwards '08 the only real change...the truth ticket...they can't be bought.

[Ravy]

72. I think you overestimate the voters.

Almost half of them voted for a republican representative in '06, when it was painfully obvious what they had done to our country. And, Bush was re-elected in '04 (so they say).

This is not a gimme.

[harmonicon]

87. you said it, so I don't have to!

but I highly doubt DK would have Edwards anywhere near a campaign, let alone a government. He's been part of the problem that Kucinich is railing against.

[Kansas Wyatt]

133. If you think the Dems have already won the White House regardless

Of which candidate they put in the General Election, then the election has already been lost. That is exactly what was said about the last election, and regardless of election fraud, the election was still close. Edwards will blow-out any republican in an election.

[PATRICK]

14. Number three is interesting

I certainly would imagine neither Clinton nor Obama would use signing statements but would stand comfortably in any frustrating or gridlocked situation that would bar even the most needful change. Simply, I can't see them doing it and perhaps even allow themselves to be hemmed in again as a "weakened"
executive which is exactly how they tried to paint Carter and Bill Clinton.

I might imagine Edwards from his law skills and commitments weaving a firmer path even with those tools and maybe even going after the abuses such tools exposed in the hands of Bush. There was an ominous tone in your enthusiasm which might invite the "good Chavez, bad Chavez" crowd over for a flame fest. Yet other presidents have used them before and I think Edwards will try to restore the responsible precedent without taking the power hit for what Bush did. In other words, the law in its most edged and practiced power would become a top tool of his presidency. The law itself and not accommodation above all law.

I don't know if that feeling is clear to everyone, but there are many other parts to that pattern. If someone can name a single president to me who has been strong and lily pure on target maybe I can see how Edwards is not potentially better. The only disappointments are likely to be in the most progressive areas and in the grim compromises that must occur even if progressives start to swamp their more corporate minded brethren. At least there will be less mistake, I hope, in what base supports his best actions and under what specific momentum he entered office. He might just have to be better than FDR and quicker for everything to survive.

[Ravy]

16. That is exactly my fear as expressed in number 3.

We will need to make sure this is a strong and effective presidency. There will be a push, no matter who is elected, to weaken the office from the excesses of the present administration. I think that Edwards will be able to deal with that the best so that it does not swing too far in the direction of an over-zealous Congress or an increasingly right-wing judiciary.

It will take time to strike an appropriate balance, and anyone in the executive branch who readily gives up those powers upon their swearing-in stands a chance of being too weak to function as effectively as needed to quickly reverse the course our domestic and foreign policies are on.

[Kip Humphrey]

44. No! The fascists' tools of Unitary Presidency must leave the office with Bush.

The Ring of Power must be unmade!

I want my next president to be smart and savvy enough to neither need nor be tempted to resort to Constitutional destruction.

[cali]

15. nice endorsement for your candidate but

let me point out that backing his IWR vote and the war itself for 3 years, isn't "readily" admitting he made a mistake.

[Ravy]

20. Readily should not be read as rapidly.

I know that is one definition, but I meant it in the context of "willingly". He will admit that he has made lots of mistakes and is not defensive about past positions he now considers as wrong.

I saw what looked like an old event on CNN on Christmas Eve, and John Edwards was talking about sin, and admitted that he sinned quite frequently. Every day. I think we all do. I thought that, more than his denouncement of IWR, showed me he is aware of his own shortcomings.

[undeterred]

17. I am a Kucinich supporter.

It is too early to ask Kucinich people to throw in the towel. Way too early. But I think you already know that for most of us, if the time comes that we have to choose one of the more moneyed well known candidates, Edwards will be the one that Kucinich people cast their vote for. But its too early to go there now. :hi:

[tucsonlib]

61. Exactly Right

Dennis Kucinich gets my vote in the primaries. I've heard all the arguments against him and I'm not convinced. For once I'll be casting my vote for the BEST candidate. Not for the lesser of several evils. Not for the most "electable" alternative. For the best! And boy, will I be smiling when I walk out of that voting booth. Edwards is my second choice, but why should I vote for second-best?

[undeterred]

113. If you never vote your heart, then your heart never wins.

I don't get tired of saying that.
I don't want to hear about electability, blah blah blah. This man represents my VALUES. He would be electable if enough people would vote their values and have the same courage that he has.

[Lugnut]

18. Okay.

I don't think Edwards is a perfect choice but none of them are in my opinion. After making a pro and con list for each candidate I'm not undecided anymore.

[GCP]

19. I'll be voting for him

:thumbsup:

[Yael]

23. Good post Ravy.

Thanks

[Mike03]

24. I like Edwards very much.

To me, it's between Obama and Edwards.

My heart is with Biden, but I don't want to waste my primary vote.

[stlsaxman]

36. "Waste my primary vote"???? NO primary vote is wasted on any candidate.

If your heart is with Biden- vote with your heart.

Me, i like all the candidates. My heart is with Biden, too.

This is what primaries are all about.

:hi:

[harmonicon]

89. voting for anyone other than your favorite candidate is a waste of your primary vote

It makes the primary process, and democracy, completely meaningless if we're bullied into voting for the corporate/media candidates over those who we would actually have lead us. Reconsider.

[corkhead]

99. it sounds like to me that he just doesn't want to further split the anti Hillary vote.

:P

[harmonicon]

104. when we have a "no to x-candidate" option on the ballot, I'll accept that argument

[DesertRat]

25. I'm voting my conscience in the primary, so I can't vote for Edwards.

I made the decision not to vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

In the primary I'm voting for Kucinich. I'm voting for peace.

But I will support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee.

I do appreciate your positive and thoughtful post.

:patriot:

[2hip]

26. He's already got my vote - here's a kick for the undecideds!

              Edwards '08 tees!

[tom_paine]

28. K & R

[HughMoran]

29. I will consider it

I am still undecided for some reason, so logical arguments for a candidate are appealing to me. Also, the Billarybama fest is getting on my nerves.

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. I really like that you asked nicely.

:), But I HAVE to vote for Chris Dodd in the Primary. He stood and filibustered the FISA Bill when no other candidate bothered to return to Capitol Hill to oppose it. I'm in Illinois. The last poll I saw here had Obama at 50% and the others got the rest divvied among them, so my Dodd vote is really just a vote on PRINICIPLE. If Edwards and Obama were tied or even close, I'd vote for Edwards, but that's just not the case here in Illinois. I like John Edwards and will gladly vote for him if he wins the nomination. Should Dodd not make it to Feb 5 Super Tuesday, I will vote for Edwards.:hi:

[waiting for hope]

33. Already there -

Nice Post!

[FatDave]

34. You got it Ravy.

I'll vote for Edwards. In Iowa even.

[CorpGovActivist]

142. .

[onehandle]

35. Super Tuesday, I vote for John Edwards. nt

[defendandprotect]

37. Really like Edwards --- you're on! Of course, I still like Dennis, as well--!!!

[NorthCarolina]

38. Kucinich Has My Primary Vote

I think it is important to vote one's conscience in the primaries, and Kucinich best fits my beliefs on the major issues and as a bonus I know I can trust him because his voting record firmly backs his rhetoric. To the contrary I don't fully trust the "New" John Edwards being that his voting record is so vastly different from his current platform. I know that many mention he has had an "epiphany" of conscience since his Senate days, but to me I can't get past the thought that it is more likely, and realistically, an "epiphany" of political convenience. Here in NC Edwards is not highly respected, and that is a reputation he earned and well deserves, and I find that it is impossible for me to simply disregard the past....epiphany or not.

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

[avenger64]

39. I am. When the boom comes down on the economy ...

... in the late Summer and fall, Edwards is they guy we want on our side.

[Pastiche423]

41. Never again

And I am an undecided DUer.

[jillan]

46. Fortress funds - does that not even bother you a teeny-weeny bit?

[Froward69]

47. Would you buy a car from this guy???

Communicating with his 527, His hedge fund dealings. his never turning down 1/3 of the settlement?
campaigning exactly opposite of his voting record???

I wouldn't.

[jillan]

49. I knew he looked familiar!

[1corona4u]

52. I won't vote for him...

he had me in 2004, and since that time, I have come to see him as a fraud. I also found out tonight, that while his father was a mill worker, he was far from poor, and he wasn't in labor at the mill, but in management. John doesn't make a point to tell people that though, he wants them to think his father was winding all those spools day in and day out, getting greasy and all.......what a sham.

The fact that he makes all of his money on big business, and does speeches for hedge fund companies, makes him look even less credible in my eyes. I think if he wants to sell skeptics like me on his sincerity, then he should get rid of the 54 MILLION in assets he has with his big business investments.

[The Wizard]

120. DId his father start in management?

As for the 54 million in assets: under the mattress? hand it out to strangers? What's your point?

[Speed8098]

95. his never turning down 1/3 of the settlement?

Please tell us when it was that YOU turned down a paycheck for you work so that one of your lesser paid entry level co-workers could use it to better themselves?

And while you're at it why don't you tell us how many corporations have been punished because of your bringing awareness to their unfair or illegal practices.

[Kermitt Gribble]

48. I'm with you!!

[jillan]

51. More hypocrisy from Edwards ----

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16809

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

[harmonicon]

91. I didn't even know Universities had "ironic spending" budgets!

[corkhead]

101. I'll bet Biden ALWAYS speaks for free.

do you get your talking points from faux nooze, or does turdblossom fax them to you directly?

[youthere]

115. I am caucusing for Biden...

but if John Edwards wins the nomination I am prepared to crawl through broken glass to help get him elected.

[LeFort III]

53. I completely agree.

Not a day in my life has gone by in the last 17 years that I have not followed the political stories of the day. The biggest lesson so far: Republicans are slime merchants wrapped in priest's robes. They will do anything, overt or covert, to derail the Democratic machine from success. Not even the loss of the Presidency will stop them. Edwards will fight back more than Hillary will. They will tear Obama TO SHREDS.

Edwards is the most electable of them all.

[chimpymustgo]

100. Welcome to DU, LeFort III. Go JRE!!!

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

54. I appreciate your asking politely and he is in my top three now,

but if I had to vote today Edwards would not get my vote.

Ask me nicely tomorrow and you might get your wish though. :shrug:

I'm rather enjoying being decidedly undecided!

[Ravy]

137. Tomorrow is here.

I didn't want you to think I forgot about you. I appreciate your consideration for my candidate.

Whomever you choose, best of luck to them and you.

[oldgrowth]

56. You got me thinking about it !!

[FrenchieCat]

57. Not in the primaries.....

will I vote for John Edwards. His taking matching funds among many other issues that I have with him forces me Not to vote for John Edwards regardless of his fanciful promissory rethorics. But thank you for asking. :hi:

[PakistaniDUer]

60. I may in the general, but Kucinich has my vote noW

Edwards is rhetoric Kucinich is substance and John has a very insulting Pakistan position for many yearts.

[smokey nj]

62. I'm already there!

Thanks for the great post!

[cloudythescribbler]

63. Interesting distribution of sympathies among the commenters

I doubt it's representative of DU -- not just a lot of Edwards supporters and undecideds, but all those who aren't seem to be for either Kucinich or Biden.

Unless I missed something there wasn't a single comment from an HRC supporter or from an Obama supporter like myself.

My preference for Obama over Edwards is based on what I thought was a fairly weak showing in the 04 election, including in the debate, together with a sense that his populism has a ring of ... inauthenticity to it to my ears. I am not a devotee of the politics of consensus to the degree that Obama is, but he seems to believe it for real and seems sharper and more leaderlike than the other candidates. I think he would be both the strongest candidate (I know a LOT of people say Edwards would be stronger, but I have strong doubts) as well as the best president of the LEADING Democrats.

My platform views are closer to Kucinich, and if someone is voting once the nominee becomes a foregone conclusion, Kucinich is the way to go for them. I vote Feb 5 -- for Obama in MA.

[harmonicon]

92. why would you not vote for someone whose platform you agree with? utter insanity

[smalll]

64. Well, your point #1 is false in regards to Edwards -

Almost everything about him is "out there"? You must be confusing him with Hillary.

FACT: John Edwards went to work for a hedgefund BETWEEN the 04 and 08 election cycles.

FACT: John Edwards said he took the job at that hedgefund to "learn about poverty."

FACT: John Edwards built his 28,000 square-foot house (and clear-cut umpteen acres of the Carolina hills) BETWEEN the 04 and 08 election cycles.

FACT: The average low-attention American voter doesn't know ANY of this yet.

Yeah, point #1 there: you're thinking of Hillary. (It's all "out there." LOL)

[Ravy]

67. If he gets nominated, and that is all they have, I hope

you will prosper with President John Edwards.

[smalll]

68. As a non-rich person, I WOULD prosper with a President John Edwards -

assuming he would govern the way he talks. I just don't think a transparently phony William Jennings Bryan is electable in the 21st century.

[harmonicon]

93. why would you assume he'd govern the way he talks? Better to look at what he voted for.

[gmudem]

71. That dirt is already out there.

And calling it dirt is a bit of a reach to say the least. Considering this stuff is already common knowledge it isn't exactly dirt. The right-wing probably has mounds of dirt they will dug up on Hillary, whether real or imagined. The fact is the Republicans best chance of bringing out the base is Clinton as the nominee.

[bjobotts]

65. I'll vote for Edwards...as Dennis Kucinich's VP. Edwards said this:

Love Edwards but consider this...Leaves NAFTA in place.
Stated "Would you want the same people who handled Katrina handling your health care?" (Duh! NO. I'd want them fired and efficient people handling my health care)
Stated, "Impeachment would just distract from getting good legislation passed" (Duh! You mean like holding this administration accountable by impeaching them like our founders wrote in the constitution? How about when they illegally wiretap or torture and obstruct justice and lie us into a war. Mustn't let a little thing like criminal activity and breaking the law distract us from making new laws for them to break)

Stated "I would want to have republicans in my cabinet so I can hear opposing opinions and have some one tell me when they think I'm wrong and give me different advice instead of people who would always just agree with me" (Duh!. You put people in your cabinet and surround your self with advisers that will promote your agenda not stand in the way of it. There will always be republicans screaming their advice and criticisms at you from the floors of congress without you putting them in your cabinet.)

You see.
Edwards says some pretty brilliant things but them turns around and says some really stupid things that I can't believe came out of his mouth. Yet he's better all around than the other candidates except Kucinich, whose right on everything. So "PLEASE VOTE FOR KUCINICH" who is right the first time and far ahead of the others on every issue. He represents the only "real" change.
Kucinich/Edwards '08 the only real change...the truth ticket...they can't be bought.

[BluePhildog]

69. Edwards is our best choice

re: "Edwards is my second choice, but why should I vote for second-best?"

Because you don't want Mitt Romney as your next president, that's why.

[aquaman]

70. O'yeah

Has my vote in the primary, no question about it.

[Nutmegger]

73. R&K for Edwards

Thank you.

[FlyingSquirrel]

78. I agree with Edwards, but...

the "vetting" argument doesn't work because that was what Kerry said and he lost. Also I hate to say it but the more I go through posts creating my all-DU poll that people either like or hate, the more I like Biden..............


Still would vote for Edwards tomorrow but Biden is really makin a move on me.

FS

[Eurobabe]

79. Think strategy though

If Edwards wins, this means Clinton could win farther down the line.

I'd rather put my money on Obama (but my primary vote goes to Biden)!

[rch35]

80. ill drink to that

damn that tastes good

[Kurovski]

81. K&R. (nt)

[donheld]

83. Most likely that's exactly what I will do

:toast:

[Unrepentant Fenian]

84. Count me in !

I'd really like to see Edwards get the nomination, but whoever gets it will get my vote. I'll be voting a straight Democrat ticket again this (like all) elections.

[anniebelle]

88. Your argument is going to win my vote for Edwards.

All our candidates have good points, but I think John is the most electable.

[ColesCountyDem]

90. I'm convinced!

I like all of our candidates, but I liked Edwards in '04 and dog gone it, I STILL like him in '08.

:)

[harmonicon]

94. "I do not believe in bashing the other candidates in order to make my candidate appear stronger."

What crap. How did you not just bash Gravel? He has far more experience in government than Edwards, and accomplished a hell of a lot more (not counting "accomplishing" things like IWR and the Patriot Act) when he was in the senate than Edwards ever did. This kind of shit is disgusting. In my mind, Gravel is one of the only candidates we should be considering (there are others I like more), while Edwards was a Bush enabler. No thanks.

[yy4me]

96. Got my vote and that of countless others. Can you imagine

how far ahead in the polls Edwards would be if the press had given him any coverage this past year? To be even with Clinton and Obama in the final hours, with so little recognition, indicates to me that a lot of folks are supporting him, in spite of the mass media void.

[DeeDeeNY]

102. I like him, but

Is he tough enough? You can't underestimate the right-wing smear machine or the viciousness of their tactics. I still remember how Cheney practically ate him up alive during the 2004 VP debate. I'm still torn between him and Obama, but for me it all comes down to who has a better chance of winning next November.

[Freedomofspeech]

106. Great post....

I'm an Edwards supporter.

[Le Taz Hot]

107. I'm leaning that way.

Not enthusiastically, mind you but of the three frontrunners, I'd say Edwards is the least scary. Kucinich blew it with the Ron Paul thing and all the rest are too corporate friendly AND have weak campaigns or I just simply can't stomach them. Edwards is corporate friendly too, of course, but he may be willing to actually listen to the people whereas I don't get that impression from Hillary. Obama is out of consideration for too many reasons to list.

[OneGrassRoot]

108. Classy, Ravy.....

I waited until this morning to respond, to see if this thread totally disintegrates or not. Your original post is respectful, as are your replies. The majority of posts in the thread are as well.

What a breath of fresh air!!!

I was already a JRE supporter and continue to be, recognizing that he's not perfect. No one is. He is my choice and I wholeheartedly support him and his campaign.

k&r

[AzDar]

109. I concur.

Go, Johnny, Go!:patriot:

[Mass]

110. No, but thank you for posting a post supporting your candidate rather than another attack thread\nt

[nradisic]

111. I'm with you...

Go John!

[Madam Mossfern]

112. I liked him a year ago

and I still do. All the candidates have their share of 'warts'. I can live with Edwards'. His is the first presidential campaign that I've contributed to since Eugene McCarthy ran for POTUS. When I speak to Hillary supporters, I get the old "Well Bill was a great president" line or "It's about time there was a woman in the White House". These are specious reasons as far as I'm concerned. When I speak to them a bit about Edwards, they are surprised....they haven't heard anything about him! I tell them a bit about him and they show interest. Too bad I work in a governmental building, or I would hand out information about him.

I think Obama would be a good candidate down the road, let Edwards pave the way for him. ;)

[The Wizard]

123. Working a government building and campaigning

never stopped Ku Klux Karl, and he's rolling in cash now. Of course there is the possibility that Karl could be the Toss Salad Man sometime in the future, and that would be justice if were to be publicly horse whipped by the descendants of slaves before tossing salads.

[Madam Mossfern]

125. Unfortunately

the government I work for is officially supporting Hillary. Of course they wouldn't fire me (they couldn't) but they'd find me a nice cozy office in the cellar next to the boiler or better yet the alarm system and quadruple my work load. ;)

[ChiciB1]

116. I'm In... But I Have Been... Does That Count??

My problem is that I live in Florida and IF he doesn't get the nomination then I'm screwed!

I guess it will be a write in for me.

[Th1onein]

119. I will, don't worry.

Strangely, some people I would never have thought would vote for Edwards, have told me that this is their guy in the primary, too.

[frogmarch]

121. I'm already in, but here's a K& R

[Stargleamer]

124. I will. n/t

[Sugar Smack]

127. Oh hell yes.

Great post!

[Bravo Zulu]

134. I'm leaning toward voting for John Edwards

I'm not really against any of the Democrats that are running, but I like Edwards the most and will probably support him, it looks like he is beginning to get some momentum and will pass some of the front runners!

[butterfly77]

135. not

[Connonym]

136. OK, since you asked nicely

But he was my choice anyway :)

[Prefer]

139. Edwards has my vote

And my Southern Republican co worker in GA.

Think about what that means.

[Skittles]

141. can't

his co-sponsorship of IWR is unforgivable