Skip to main content

View Diary: John Edwards will stand up for the Constitution! (380 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where did you get that? (0+ / 0-)

    What are you basing any of that on?  I'm an Iowa Democrat who canvasses and what you are saying doesn't relate to any evidence that I am aware of.  

    One thing I have found is that many Obama supporters are in the Democratic party for the first time and they came for him.  There is a significant portion who are nothing like Hillary people.

    Many of the Edwards supporters have been with him since '04 and are waiting to see if he even has a chance.  He and Hillary are the ones with established support and Obama is bringing in new blood to the party.  That's not only how he has stayed in the race, it's a very strong argument for nominating him.  The Democrats absolutely need a new infusion of supporters and it makes sense to nominate the candidate who brings them.  

    I agree there is a chance that Hillary peaked too early.  But her candidacy is almost the polar opposite of Barack Obama.  It makes sense that because Hillary is the known commodity, if people haven't chosen her yet, they probably don't want to.  But that doesn't apply to Obama in the least. He's the freshest thing in the fridge.  

    Maybe you could clarify you points?  That just sounded like rah rah for Edwards and not any kind of fact-based analysis.  I like Edwards too.  I met him briefly a couple of months ago and wished him luck.  But I'm not seeing the viability you're talking about.  He has even faded here in Iowa where all his efforts have been concentrated for years.  

    •  Obama and Hillary have been voting the same in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      congress. Neither will cut funds to end the war. In fact, Obama has said that doing so would be "playing chicken with the troops". They are both for nuclear energy. They both appeal to voters who don't want to elect a white male. They both want to work with republicans rather than stand up against them. I could go on; but I think it's pretty obvious that they are more like eachother than Obama and Edwards are... that's obvious to me.
      It's nice that Obama is getting new voters and it's nice they he "was against the war from the start" but I hope these new voters are led to believe that we have to work with republicans and beg for their scraps to get anything done because of it.

      •  I mean I hope these new voters ARE NOT led to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Predictor

        believe that dems have to beg for repub scraps to get anything done. I disagree with the way both Hillary and Obama want to play in their field and use their frames rather than lead dems to challenge them on OUR field and reframe theirs. This is what I'd like new voters to see.

      •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

        We really do see these thing differently.  Obama hasn't taken any shit from any Republicans since he's been in office.  Because he's dignified and works to find common ground doesn't make him a kiss-up.  You misrepresent him in order to 'win' against him.  That's just a straw man argument.

        You shrug off the Iraq war vote but that's no small thing.  Democratic candidates were being advised not to oppose the war in 02 because it was so popular and might jeapordize their chances.  He didn't hesitate to call it a 'Dumb war' and accurately predicted pretty much everything that would happen.  Hillary and Edwards played along with the fiction that Saddam was a threat with or without WMD's and then sniped impotently at Bush afterwards.  

        Here is a more trivial and more recent example.  The MoveOn stunt by Republicans.  They held up the 'Betrayus' ad in an attempt to derail the government with a bit of mock outrage.  The establishment Democrats response?  Introduce a different version of Republican bill!  The stupidest move in the world.  They vindicated the Republicans and appeared to be following, not rebuking them.  That's why the grandstanding succeeded.  Obama refused to vote on the Cornyn resolution calling it, "A stunt designed only for scoring cheap political points."  Which is exactly what it was.  If he was the party leader the Democrats would not have blown that thing because he does not suck up to Republicans and he doesn't support them with votes and then bitch about them later.  

        The Democrats keep complaining that the Emperor's tie is on crooked.  Obama has never hesitated to say that he is stark naked.  

        And it's more than 'nice' that Obama is getting new voters.  It's absolutely vital after 04 that the party nominates someone who brings in new voters.  It's like saying it's just 'nice' that a starving family could get a big fat check in the mail.  

        •  No I do not intend to misrepresent (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          edgery, Predictor

          I don't want a president who works with republicans (who lie and cheat) to get things done. I want a president who isn't afraid to fight against their frames such as "playing chicken with the troops". Not one who repeats it and build concensus for republicans frames that do nothing but take away our power to end the war in this case. If I wanted that, I'd vote for Hillary, Lieberman or yes Obama.

          •  All symbolic (0+ / 0-)

            I simply can't believe you would lump him in with Lieberman and Hillary.  Joe is as big of a neo-con as anyone in the Bush Administration and Hillary voted to authorize the war and has promised to end it and keep fighting it at the same time.  Obama has worked with generals to draw up exactly how to immediately begin pulling out all combat troops with the only regard being to doing it in a strategically safe manner.  As in, get the hell out without getting shot in the back.

            Are you paying any attention to Obama's campaign or just reading the things that make him sound bad?  If you aren't intentionally misrepresenting him, someone else has apparently done it for you.  I am around these candidates and their campaigns first hand.  John Edwards spoke in my town again yesterday.  I'm reading everything coming out from all three top runners.  I haven't misrepresented Edwards in order to decide not to caucus for him.  If it's necessary to do that with Obama, maybe it's worth rethinking your decision.  

            What brave thing did Edwards do exactly to garner such high esteem from you?  I get that he's a good populist candidate.  But in 04 in Iowa, the Dean and Kusinich supporters looking for an 'electable' candidate on caucus night went to Kerry instead of Ed because they still thought him to be too pro-war.  

            How do you think the sonorous, horse-faced Kerry came out of Iowa with the 'electable' tag?  It's because Edwards who was clearly more electable than Kerry hadn't stood up in time against Bush and the war.  The anti-war people looking for an 'electable' candidate couldn't bring themselves to go with him because he hadn't shown himself to be very principled.  Kerry wasn't the most electable, he was just the more acceptable choice for those people looking for a more electable candidate than Dean and Kusinich.  Edwards' slow move towards being prinicpled cost him the nomination.

            •  one of the first brave things he did (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor

              Just one of the first brave things he did is to refuse to do a debate on Fox because he said it would vallidate it as a real news network; but it's really propaganda... Edwards plays on OUR field. He won't let republicans swiftboat or frame issues their way.
              Now in comparison when Edwards and many others were trying to garner support to end the war by using congress' power of the purse, Obama vallidated the REPUBLICAN frame used to prevent dems from ending the war... "playing chicken with the troops". Do you see the opposites there? Do you see why I see Obama's supporters going to Hillary?

            •  and that's not true about Kerry (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor

              Kerry was chosen by the party leaders and the media because they said he had more experience and that included millitary experience. All the polls showed that Edwards was the most electable democrat running. The idea that Kerry was more electable was a matter of opinion based on experience. The polls showed independents and moderates favored Edwards and those are the swing voters who make a general election candidate electable.

              •  Kerried Away (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Predictor

                http://slate.com/...

                If people support Kerry because they think he's electable, he goes up in the polls, which makes him look more electable. The best way to filter out this distortion is to focus on the voters least likely to make their decisions in November based on electability. These happen to be the same voters who hold the balance of power in most elections: independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans. They aren't principally trying to figure out which Democratic candidate can beat Bush, because they don't necessarily want the Democratic nominee to beat Bush. They're trying to decide which Democratic candidate, if any, would be a better president than Bush.

                How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards.

              •  I knew (0+ / 0-)

                I knew Edwards was the best chance of winning in '04 and I supported him.  Remember though that the story coming out of Iowa was that Kerry won because he was considered the most electable.  This was huge for him.  The thing that was confusing and you seem to still be missing is that Kerry won because many of the people who had supported Kusinich and Dean didn't want to go to Edwards because he hadn't distanced himself from Bush and the war enough in their minds.

                Do you know how the Iowa caucuses function?  We actually talk openly between camps to try to move supporters around DURING the caucus.  There is no secret ballot.  We know who is voting for whom and often times, we know why, because we are openly discussing it.  

                Kerry got labeled the most electable one not because he was the most electable but because he was the electable one that those particular Democrats could stomach at that time.  If Edwards had shown principles sooner, this wouldn't have happened.  

                You are enjoying the tough rhetoric coming from Edwards now and so am I.  But comparing him now to Obama now without looking at a broader scope of time is just apples to oranges.  Edwards hasn't held office in years.  He's been a professional campaigner since 2003.  You seem to be latching onto the ambiguities of being in the legislature to 'define' Obama in a negative light.  But you completely ignore how Edwards was when he was in office.  Obama has been a far more principled and straight-forward leader.  It's easy to be a campaigner and not beholden to any office.  You can say whatever your strategists have calculated will make the most impact at that time.  Edwards is now stridently anti-war but so is everyone else.  There was a time when it would have taken political courage to be that way and he didn't do it.  And it cost us a lot.  That's not misrepresenting him.  I would still be supporting him if it were between him and Clinton.  But these comparisons you make between him and Obama are a work of fiction.  

                •  You're ignoring the fact that Obama uses (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  republican frames and vallidates them while Edwards does the complete opposite. I won't list the ways in which republicans will try to swiftboat Obama because I think it's disgusting; but it works and because Obama constantly plays in their field, he won't be able to counter it. Edwards can. This is a very big point that I think needs to be addressed. Not only that; but Obama can't win at all unless he is willing to stand up against Hillary, against republicans. He won't... he can't.

                •  tough political courage (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  don'g give me that ****. If that was really what was going on here, Kerry wouldn't have made it last time. This is really about pushing a certain candidate with media hype using whatever you can to look better than the true fighters in this race.
                  I don't know why I bother. Obama is a nonissue. It's frustrating that all the candidates seem to want the only electable progressive out of their way and in the meanwhile pave the way for the most Liebermanlike of them all.

                  •  Obama is a non-issue? (0+ / 0-)

                    He is a non-issue then who is attracting the most new energy to the Democratic base and is polling ahead of John Edwards in Iowa where Edwards has campaigned essentially for five years now.  He is a non-issue who has raised as much money as Hillary Clinton but through small donations without accepting a dime from a PAC or any special interest group.  A non-issue who has just barely started building name-recognition but is polling nationally at double the percentage of John Edwards who was actually on the ticket in 04.  

                    I understand that frustrates you because you've decided that Edwards is exactly everything he is campaigning on this year.  But you seem to need to ignore a lot of realities to support your view.  

                    •  yeah, he will go down in history (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Predictor

                      as the big money pit candidate of 2007

                      It's not about Edwards Sun dog. It's about my country and the fact that dems keep making the same mistakes over and over.

                      •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Albatross

                        It is about our country and we seem to see what is needed in very much the same light.  Except you have what appear to me to be some really off the mark ideas about Barack Obama.  Given the nomination he will win the election and he has a very righteous view of the Constitution.  He is far less tied to the Democrats who frustrate you, not more.  He brings the progressive views but he is garnering support in spite of the party of Clinton, not because of it.  I think if you look at him without the perspective of seeing him as an adversary you will see that we actually have an awesome opportunity in 2008.  I'm not trying to be unfairly disparaging in the least of you or Edwards.  But I know for a fact that the candidate you are describing and calling a non-issue is not as you believe.  

                        •  Tell me this Sundog (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Predictor

                          Why did so many republicans get booted out of congress in 2006? Do you really think independents want democrats to beg for republican scraps some more? Don't you think they got voted in there to stop the republican rubberstamping? What is Obama known for? Building consensus right? Do you think that Americans are happy with congress when they, especially Obama, say they are working to build consensus to end the war in Iraq.. that's what they are doing in congress. You think Americans are happy with that? Of course not.
                          Obama is not progressive. Not compared to Edwards.... why would any progressive call congress' power of the purse "playing chicken with the troops"?Why would any progressive support nuclear energy? Why would any progressive say HIllary shouldn't have voted for Kyl Lieberman when he had the opportunity to vote against it but didn't and he didn't say a WORD about it beforehand.. not one. Why is he so trustworthy? He says one thing and does another. He's hype. That's what he is.

                        •  you coulda fooled me Sun dog (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Predictor

                          up until that last debate, I thought Obama was just running for Hillary's vp position. I also don't believe the would have said a word against her if EVERYONE ELSE ON THAT STAGE already hadn't done so even though HE was supposed to be anti-Hillary. He's definately NOT the anti-Hillary; but at least I think that maybe he wasn't just running for her vp slot now... I guess he made some progress with me.

            •  Kerry voted for the damned war too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor

              and it's pretty obvious to me that Dean didn't lose because the stupid scream. He didn't have a chance because MOST OF AMERICA wasn't against taking Sadam out of power.

              •  I know all that (0+ / 0-)

                You're still missing the point I'm making about what happened in Iowa.  Kerry had taken a more clear stance against the war by the time of the caucuses.  There was a core group of people who became the 'swing' vote that night.  They were Kusinich people in precincts where they didn't have quite enough to get a delegate and Dean people who saw the writing on the wall and wanted to go with someone who could beat Bush.  They  knew this was between Kerry and Edwards but they went with Kerry because Edwards didn't seem principled enough.  What happened after Iowa was a bit different because of the scale but it was all shaped by what had happened that night.  It wasn't the scream I agree.  That might have sped it up, but it just marked his downfall, it didn't cause it.  But the day after Iowa, Dean was done, Kerry was a winner because someone had seen him as electable and Edwards showed himself to be strong enough to be runner up.  If he had been more principled and taken a stronger stand earlier on, those anti-war folks who became the 'swing' that night would have gone with him instead and history might have been very different.  

                This is important to me because I am an Iowan caucus-goer and I really wanted to get Edwards nominated in '04.  

                •  Everyone coming out of the voting booths (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  sounded like sheep led to believe that Kerry was most electable even though the people who decide who is electable ARENT democrats.. they are independents and moderates who overwhelming would have voted for Edwards; but not Kerry. Kerry won the primary for pretty much the same reason Hillary is winning now. Beltway dem pushed by party leaders and the media... PERIOD. Edwards would have won the general election. The polls show that.

                  •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

                    Mary, we totally agree about 2004.  I supported Edwards for the nomination.  I was shouting it from everywhere I could that he was the one who would beat Bush.  I even got over life-long shyness enough to get on talk radio a bunch of times to warn about the Kerry trap.  

                    I've tried to explain the quirk of the caucuses that created the story on caucus night that Kerry won because people thought him the most electable.  After that, I think it got echoed because of his military service.  It was cowardly of Democrats but they wanted to hide behind his medals, thinking that the GOP was just so respectful of soldiers that they couldn't beat him.  Wow.  

                    I think Edwards would probably win in 2008 if he got the nomination.  Hillary is the only one of the top three who I think would almost definitely lose.  That's why you and I frustrate each other.  Something's gotta give if we're going to stop her and get the GOP out of the White House.

                    Being in Iowa, we political junkies are totally spoiled during the nomination process.  We listen first-hand to the actual candidates here and even meet some of them.  During this season, I don't have to rely on the media to get to know the campaigns.  No one is 'defining' them for me because I'm standing in the same room with them and watch them come up with answers to questions they sometimes don't expect.

                    What I've come up with is that Hillary is much worse of a choice than I would've guessed a year ago.  Much worse.  Edwards is a good, somewhat maleable, populist candidate.  And Obama is actually something pretty special.  I don't think a lot of people have grasped what he actually represents yet.  Opponents try to use that open ground to 'define' him to people who don't know him yet.  But to someone who knows him, those descriptions are almost beyond a response because they aren't even in the ballpark.  It would be like you trying to address someone who calls Edwards a communist or something.  It's just too far away from reality.  

                    •  I'm in NH; so I'm not exactly out of the process (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Predictor

                      myself and I think Obama is hype. Hillary is probably worse; but my instincts, along with votes, missed votes, constant "I was against the war" crap, longwinded statements with no action whatsoever to back them up, vallidations of republican frames, being stupid enough not to say the pledge of allegiance at a public place allowing a photo to say everything the repubs will DEFINATELY use and will work in the general and the inability stand up for anything has me unable to vote for Obama. In fact I resent the media hype that put both he and Hillary where they are unjustly.

                    •  and don't forget the fact that he didn't stand (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Predictor

                      up against that preacher he had campaigning with him who believes homosexuals can and should be "cured". I mean come on, what's he gotta do before you treat him the way you would Edwards under the same circumstances? Shoot someone?

                      •  I've treated Edwards some way? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Albatross

                        Mostly what I've said about Edwards is that he is a good populist candidate who I supported very strongly for the nomination in 2004.  And all you are doing is proving a weirdly passionate bias against Obama that relates almost not at all to the actual candidate.  Stand up to that preacher?  You mean that gospel singer who sang along with many others at an Obama event?  The one who when he was told about his views Obama came out with a public statement very forcefully refuting those views?  That was a dirty little whisper campaign to try to define him poorly for the gay community that would have made Rove proud.  So perceptive of you to latch onto it.  

                •  If you guys screw it up again (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  I'm either writing in Edwards or voting Nader. Not going to help push beltway dems anymore. They don't win anyways and that's because they only give us something to vote against..  not for.

        •  Oama doesnt' vote on much at all...that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor

          way, he can stand back and criticize the votes of others without having to take a stand on anything

        •  it's not "nice" that Obama is getting new (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor

          voters if he is going to turn them into Libermanites.

          •  Ok, you win. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Albatross

            Obama is going to turn people into "Libermanites."  You just got past any point of reasonable sanity to actually talk politics with.  Good luck with the campaign and I hope it doesn't hurt when your cognitive dissonance shatters.  

    •  You were asking why I think Obama peaked (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      weren't you? Sorry. I reread; but originally thought you wanted to know why I think their supporters aren't likely to support eachothers candidates.

      Obama was like the mysterious new car that they only show you parts of and then you fill in the blanks with what you want. As you are shown more and more of this mysterious new car, it inevitably, starts to disappoint. Here is one example....

      http://politicalinsider.com/...

      Increasingly, Chicago's political class is beyond frustrated at the inept Obama campaign, they are angry. Clinton friends fear losing influence in an HRC White House. Those more interested in stopping her nomination now feel that Edwards, or even Biden, would have made better use of Obama's hype and money.

      Unless Obama turns things around fast and either makes it a credible race or somehow gets the VP nod, political pros fear that he's inflicted long-term damage to their reputations, which could seriously undermine Obama's political future at home.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site