Skip to main content

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usSo your guess is as good as mine. Will it be tomorrow or Thursday morning that Edwards announces in NOLA? Will he take his time visiting the early states and then announce when he goes home to Chapel Hill for his last scheduled event this week? Only time will tell.

Follow me below the fold for all the event details, links to the recent Hardball appearance and the skinny on the new "Following Edwards" reality TV show. He's got a camera crew following him and his "travel companions" everywhere, including Uganda. They're getting some of the best stuff I've ever even seen and it's very much off the cuff and unscripted. In episode 2, Josh, "job title unclear" or "political mastermind", wonders aloud wether  "travel companion" or personal "bitch" better suits his job description as he tries to fill out his visa application for the China trip. Not kidding. Edwards says, "don't put that down."

So you can see that you're dealing with something completely different here.

First the tour kicks off Thursday or tomorrow, so far the scheduled events are as follows:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usJohn Edwards Events
A Special Event and Town Hall Meeting

December 28, 2006
Des Moines, IA
Click here for your free tickets.

December 29, 2006
Portsmouth, NH
Click here for your free tickets.

December 29, 2006
Reno, NV
Click here for your free tickets.

December 30, 2006
West Columbia, SC
Click here for your free tickets.

December 30, 2006
Chapel Hill, NC
Click here for your free tickets.

All Events

MSNBC video clips of the Hardball appearance from a couple of weeks ago can be found here, they rebroadcast the appearance with Edwards and Elizabeth tonight so you might be able to catch a later show if you missed it. It was a very good interview to start off with and included a great long exchange on Iraq, the ISG report and other issues like embedding American troops with Iraqi security forces:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usVideo: Edwards: Iraq is a mess (8:08) This is a good long clip on Iraq and it includes discussions on the embedding of American troops with Iraqi forces and permanent bases in Iraq.
Video: Edwards: Bush screwed up our values system (5:45) This clips includes the pop quiz on foreign leaders and "the messianic nuttiness" surrounding the national mood after 9/11 is discussed.
CM: "Did 9/11 screw up our value system?"
JE: "No, George Bush screwed up our value system."
Video: On Wal-Mart and unions (4:53) and four big scary guys.
Video: Edwards: McCain Feingold a Failure (5:09) This clip includes footage from Edwards's recent trip to Uganda. I think it's a bit seemly that they [Hardball] chose to strike up the band after such a clip, but that's me. "Don't tell mama, I'm for Obama is included in this clip."

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usVideo: Elizabeth: I'd vote for John  (7:51) The now infamous exchange, it includes the great "don't go there," line from Mrs. Edwards. I'm not even touching the "Stepford wives ...  good ole days" weirdness by Matthews. There was just too much wrong with that part of the interview and I had to prioritize for editorial reasons.

You can also check out some clips that were posted on YouTube if you can't get the MSNBC player to play, they're not excellent quality but it might be better than nothing:

John Edwards on Hardball - BuzzClip (5:48)
Edwards on Hardball - Yes (2:40)
Edwards on Hardball - Wal-Mart and unions (4:58)
Edwards on Hardball with Elizabeth (5:13)
Edwards: McCain Feingold was a failure (3:06)

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usAnd that brings us to webisodes. John Edwards has decided to run a reality TV show showing all the behind the scenes action that takes place when you might be running for President or something like that. Here's a recap of the first three, the only three available so far, webisodes. All the links are to OAC site, they offer every possible type stream you might need. You can always check that page directly for new postings.  

Video: Webisode 1: Plane Truths

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usThe first installment, "webisode #1" was just posted last week at OAC. Don't miss this kids. Edwards alluded to his desire to provide authenticity and access to him as a candidate when he went to Gnomedex in Seattle last summer, full vlog here. Reality TV was discussed specifically and now here we are. At the conference, they didn't know exactly what the right answer was, but here we can see they have made a quantum leap forward. OAC already does podcasts and One America News webcasts, but this is something new and totally different. Check it out.

Now, with the first webisode, we can see how far the idea has progressed. You gotta love it. The film crew follow him on the plane to an event in Storm Lake, IA where he's set to talk to a teacher convention. Edwards holds up some papers and turns to the camera and says:

You know they gave me this really great memo. It's says that since I'm speaking to the teachers it would be good if I highlighted the importance of public education.

they all start laughing

The importance of public education? Would you agree with that statement? I pay a lot of money for people with this much expertise.

Classic, right into the camera - don't miss it; it's after the credits. The webisode has some decent music and a real guerrilla feel with all the behind the scenes stuff. It's about 6 minutes of pure unfiltered raw footage. Josh and John D are the body men featured in webisode 1.  Pictured at top left are Matt, the advance man, and Josh in Pittsburgh, left to right. Pictured below alone is John D, OAC's "young Bill Clinton", in Iowa.

Video: Webisode 2: The Golden Rule

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usEpisode Two: Senator Edwards tells a story from home and talks about corporate responsibility as he travels to a rally in Pittsburgh, PA.

Featuring the Wake-Up Wal-Mart gig, an "unclear" job title for Josh, advance guy Matt, a great Jack story and a falling down "camera girl" - not me, swear. I was at the WakeUp Wal-Mart rally featured in this episode. I'm pretty sure that I didn't fall down on that job at least not until I misspelled guerrilla in the vlog diary title. It's pretty cool to see this video now with all the behind the scenes stuff surrounding that event.

Check out the full vlog from the "front of the house perspective" including: the Senators full comments which had a different flavor that day from usual stump; interviews that I did with attendees after Edwards spoke including Paul Blank the tour director and a few minutes of real guerrilla footage:

Video: Guerrilla in Pittsburgh (2:16).

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usThe money quote from the remarks that hot August day in Pittsburgh:

We need, all of us together, to make sure that companies like Wal-Mart step to the plate and are held responsible. That they can't fly below the radar screen... We want every single consumer in America to know that if they walk into a Wal-Mart that their tax dollars are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees... What is wrong with this picture?

It's not bad enough that people make seven to ten dollars an hour, but when you make seven or eight dollars an hour and you don't have healthcare coverage what are you going to do when your five year old gets sick? We need Wal-Mart to take responsibility. We need Wal-Mart to pay it's workers a decent living wage, so they can support their family and support their kids. Lord knows they aren't asking to get rich, are they?  

Really all they want is to be treated with a little bit of respect and a little bit of dignity.

This is not right and all of us know it's not right. This is about responsibility and it's about basic human morality.

Video: Webisode 3: The Plight of Uganda

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usEpisode 3: John Edwards travels with the International Rescue Committee to an Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camp outside Kitgum, Uganda, just over 30 miles from the Sudan border.

At a moment of tremendous global hardship -- from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the killing fields of Darfur -- it is rare to find hope. So when there is the possibility for peace, we must seize it. That's why one of the world's great tragedies, the conflict in Northern Uganda, deserves our attention.

The conflict in Northern Uganda is perhaps the worst humanitarian catastrophe to have gone practically unnoticed by most of the world. Nearly 2 million people have been run out of their homes and forced to live in overcrowded, squalid camps. Tens of thousands have died. 30,000 children have been abducted by an organization called the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and forced to fight as child soldiers or used as sex slaves. Hundreds of villages have been abandoned and destroyed.

-- John Edwards, To End Uganda's Nightmare Washington Post October 31, 2006

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usEdwards sits down and has a conversation with a couple of residents who seemed to speak for all of them. One of them, the lady pictured at right,  says:

Since the cease fire we have developed some hope, but we are hearing rumors that the peace talks are not going well and this raises our worries again.

In the WaPo Op-Ed, Edwards outlines a reasonable plan that might allay this lady's fears and allow the whole bunch of them to just go home and try to live out their lives as best they can. They're not asking for much, just a place where they can have a little water, a little security and a modest home where they can sleep with both eyes closed most nights. Edwards wraps up the piece:

In a world of unending troubles for the United States, few would argue that Northern Uganda's future is among the most urgent strategic challenges. But our actions in coming weeks will be a critical test of our global leadership. How we act -- and if and how we lead -- will send a message throughout Africa and the rest of the world about what America stands for. We must not sit idly by as Uganda's people strive for peace.

Pretty simple.

Let's get this party started.

Originally posted to mbair on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:10 PM PST.



30%12 votes
48%19 votes
20%8 votes

| 39 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Shout out to midline (6+ / 0-)

    midline-groove productions, real nice work - kids, but you can't be guerrilla with a sound man and an editing suite. Thems the rules.

    Midline Groove productions is a full-service production company committed to projects that reveal truth - the authentic aspects of humanity that are right here and most often overlooked.  

    Well looks like Edwards chose the right place for Webisodes.

    •  Edwards still voted & co-sponsored the IWR (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City

      John Edwards was a war cheerleader with Zell Miller & Joe Lieberman. Not exactly progressive friends.

      In 2 years, after Kerry/Edwards lost he's not the anti-war candidate? Good to know he chooses positions on polls. Others had the foresight long before 2004 to know that Iraq was an elective war, and Iraq posed no real threat to us.

      Gore knew it. Dean knew it. Clark knew it. Feingold knew it. Zinni knew it. Reagan Jr. knew it.

      The American people knew it.

      Yet, the cop out from the politicians in Washingon is.

      "We were all mislead"

      No, you didn't ask tough questions. You let Bush do whatever he wanted. You didn't uphold your constitutional duty as a separate and co-equal branch of government. All you elected officials that were too scared to take a stand were wrong. wrong. wrong.

      Wrong. And they won't get my support in 2008.

      They may have a hard time with more people as well.

      We are not stupid. Don't insult our intelligence.

      Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

      by djm4america on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:32:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Edwards's position was good (5+ / 0-)

        enough for Ned Lamont, the netroot's anti-War standard beareer then it should be reasonable for you and any other readers of this thread.

        Image Hosted by

        Lamont invited Edwards in first to campaign with him because his position on Iraq was okay with Ned.

        I realize that many bloggers at this site will never accept or support a candidate that was wrong on IWR in 2002. I respectt hat postion, but you've got to remember that IWR will be six years in the past by the time we go to the polls to elect a President in '08. Six years.

      •  why did you put this comment (0+ / 0-)

        as a reply to my tip jar?

      •  Thank you for imforming us... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, catchawave

        about this information.  As if we never knew about this about Edwards.  That he was there in the room helping Bush to decide.  That he went with Cheney to the CIA to cherry pick the intelligence.

        Sorry to be sarcastic, but I felt it was deserved.

        I believed there was no basis for the war, and was against it always.  I did not know the real truth, or the extent of Bush's deceit.  How did you know?  

      •  Obama-For the war before he was against it? (0+ / 0-)

        Hattip to Bedobe at MYDD.

        I'm not steeped in the minutia of legislative amendments, counter amendments, nor parliamentary rules that affect passage of one bill over another.  I understand that often, in close legislative combat, the name of the game is not to outright kill a bill, but to load it with poison pills, etc., so that the opposition is less likely to vote for a benign sounding bill.  I write all this to indicate that I know that there's often a lot more going on behind the passage of a bill or amendment than what at first meets the eye -- I know that.

        That said, lemme ask a question: back in June of 2006, why would a reportedly anti-Iraq war Senator, which had the foresight to oppose the war when he was a state legislator, oppose an amendment that stated the following?

        To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

  •  I got an e-mail from Edwards (7+ / 0-)

    last week asking for input about his possible candidacy.  I responded that he has my vote, my time and my money.  John and Elizabeth Edwards - two of the greatest Americans.  How I would like to be voting for them in 2008 for President and First Lady.

    George Bush - the Torture President

    by myrealname on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:19:27 PM PST

    •  Everyone got that email (0+ / 0-)

      I did too. We all know he's running. It's so funny how easily people are fooled. He's not ASKING for your input, he just making the appearance he is.

      Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

      by djm4america on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:26:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Imagine that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, catchawave, Leslie H

        a politician using his e-mail list to announce stuff through his website. What is the world coming to, honestly.

      •  you may not think it is used but it will be to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, catchawave

        the remarks are good input for forming the debates, and defenses from stuff like you post.

      •  did you even read the email? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The email doesn't mention whether he is running or not.  Anyone who doesn't know by now that John Edwards is running for president in 2008 obviously hasn't been paying attention.

        The email doesn't ask for input.  It asks for an email in response.

        The question it asks is this:

        But this is our effort, and we can only succeed if we're all in it together. So before I make a final decision, I need to hear from you:
        Are you ready?

        If you're ready to take this to the next level, and launch a renewed national effort to change America, send me a note and let me know:

        Now what that question actually means is certainly open to interpretion.  I read it as a call for volunteers to actively participate in a formal campaign.  Others may read it somewhat differently.  But I think anyone who seriously contends that John Edwards, at this stage in an obvious presidential campaign, is just now asking potential voters whether or not he should run, whether as a sincere question or as some kind of pretention, is being deliberately obtuse.

    •  Same here, JRE has my vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      my time and my little bits of money.

      I don't thing you can put together a better ticket than Edwards/Clark. They're both tenacious fighters, rock solid leaders, incredibly intelligent, and most importantly -- both care more for their country than their politics or personal gain.

      The best Obama has going for him is his life experience -- but I'm not sure that's enough for the challenges we face today. Still I have no doubt he has the potential to be a great Senator and to become a great American statesman.

      As for Hillary, she has my respect. She has been battered and tossed about more than any woman in the history of American politics. Yet she has kept her ship upright and steady through it all. From what I've seen and read, her considerable political skills are most desperately needed now in the Senate. Triangulation doesn't sound great to us, but when one is trying to build concensus between camps that are so far apart as the Rs and Ds in the Senate, the ability to find a viable middle ground and get work done is one that is absolutely vital in that body. I hope she stays there.

      All the media noise about those two Democratic candidates feels way too much like well scripted, pre-planned bell clanging to me, and so, I'm 100% suspicious of the motivation for it.

      Bottom line ... an Edwards/Clark ticket is a winner. Even better, however ...

      An Edwards/Clark team would have the contacts and respect necessary to build a truly effective amazing team in the Executive Branch. These times call for these sorts of leaders. Here they are:

      John Edwards/Wes Clark

  •  Sorry, Edwards isn't going to be the nominee (0+ / 0-)

    I am a Obama supporter, former Clarkie, former Deaniac.

    But, John Edwards isn't going to capture the nomination.

    He can't win in Iowa or New Hampshire with Obama in the race. Edwards better pray Obama doesn't enter.

    Because it's going to be tough to beat him. Then Hillary in New England.

    Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

    by djm4america on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:24:09 PM PST

    •  c'mon (0+ / 0-)

      Obama is all gravy for Edwards. Obama's rhetoric right now tends to echo Edwards's work and rhetoric on poverty, economic justice and America's role in the world.

      Plus the schedule is IA, where it is currently Edwards's race to lose, Nevada home to 60,000 plus UNITE Here workers, NH where he only has to come in in the top three and SC his home state that went for him 45-30 last time even though Kerry was inevitable at that point. Are you kidding me that it's Obama's to lose?

      I like that Obama is getting in, he's an inspirational speaker and I love that he, like Edwards, is the embodiment of the American dream and talks about hope, morality and what it means to be an American, just like Edwards.

      •  Edwards can't beat Obama (0+ / 0-)

        He can't. I am NOT a big polls person, like most Edwards folks have been. But, Obama is now tied with Edwards in Iowa, and dead heat with Hillary in NH.

        And he doesn't even have 100% name ID yet.

        Ouch. All I am saying is..

        Obama is a force that most people don't want to believe yet. Especially the Edwards & Hillary faithful.

        Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

        by djm4america on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:34:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards can win (7+ / 0-)

          Edwards can beat Hillary and Obama both. It's not about practicality or the polls. It's about the message.

          •  Obama's Message (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            "Senator Edwards, you were wrong about Iraq.

            Senator Clinton, you were wrong about Iraq.

            We need a President who looks out for the best interest of the average American.

            That's what I will provide as your Commander in Chief.

            I am Barack Obama!"

            Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

            by djm4america on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:47:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

            I think that Obama has a very good message also, but Edwards has been honing his for 3 years now. I also don't see that any other candidate has two important pieces to their platforms: Universal health care and support for service unions across the boards in this country.

            Edwards has said often that the service unions, affecting 50-60 million workers, can and should be supported in building the middle class of this century just like the industrial unions did it in the last century. No one else has that.

            Edwards also has a very appealing message on morality. Who in the Democratic party today talks about morality? Obama talks about his faith, but I think that's different. Edwards talks about the void in moral leadership that this country is suffering through vis a vis Katrinas and poverty, foreign policy and America's role in the world and energy independence. It's a message that appeals equally to religious voters and secular liberals interested in social justice. It's very clever.

            •  Edwards/Obama '08 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eleming, mbair

              That's my ticket. Clark as first alternate. Or maybe Edwards/Clark with Obama as first alternate. I'm wildly enthusiastic about Edward's populist economics. "Two Americas" -- that captures the whole issue in just two words. Fucking brilliant. I even think it can even overcome his pro-Iraq war vote. Really unfortunate, that.

              But what I'm even more excited about is how many excellent candidates we have. I could even hold my nose & tolerate HRC. I think we'll crush them next time around, no matter who they put up.

              •  I used to very much favor that (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mbair, Positronicus, America08

                but I think that Obama is a media creation.  

                They made him, and they will break him.

                I'd really like to see an Edwards/Brown (Sherrod, Senator from Ohio)ticket.

                People want populists, and I think that most people have moved past mistake Edwards made voting for the war.  I also think that unless they were in the Senate or House at the time and voted no, talking about it makes other candidates look hypocritical.  They weren't in a position where they had to make that decision.  Hindsight is 20/20, and unless you were there, saying that you would have acted differently is just talk.  And talk is cheap.

        •  Obama is a very serious candidate (0+ / 0-)

          but he's no match for Edwards. The person you have to start watching in Iowa is Vilsack. He's getting a real serious crew together on the ground for his bid. If you read the Iowa blogs, they're talking about him more than anything else at this point.

        •  Obama can't win in the general election (5+ / 0-)

          That's the problem with him. He is great in my book, but if you think he can win the presidency in this country then you are sniffing glue. Racism is still alive and well. There is no way an African American with an immigrant name is going to get elected. Even in 2008. It is just not going to happen.

    •  It's obvious that you do not support Edwards... (7+ / 0-)

      yet feel threatened enough to have to crash the diary.

      I have news for you.  Edwards's supporters know he voted to authorize Bush to act.  We also know he said it was a mistake.

      By the way, we also know that Bush lied and was the one who started the war preemptively.

      •  All the leading candidates (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eleming, mbair, sidnora

        have their official or self-appointed spokespeople that rush into all the other candidate diaries.  Just a fact of life.

        I'm not going to get wrapped up in the pre-priary silly season stuff too much myself.  I'm going to be invensting the bulk of my political energies over the next year in antiwar activism, and choose a candidate next fall.  That doesn't keep me from having an early read on things, though. :-)

        Edwards will be a strong candidate.  I don't think he'll get the early round sweep his supporters are hoping for, though.  OTOH, no one else will either.  Vilsack monkey-wrenches Iowa.  There's likely to be a bunch at the top there, Vilsack, Edwards, Obama, maybe Hillary.  Watch out for Clark in NH.  The Shea-Porter campaign pulled together a whole bunch of the 2004 Clarkies and Deaniacs, and working together they pulled  off one of the most stunning wins of the year.  They've felt their collective power as a unit and are likely to try to hold their organization together as well as they can.  Clark gets the inside track with that group, and ground matters big time there.  I suspect that NH is where Hillary hits the wall.  NH voters are notoriuosly independent, and particularly when it comes to figures seen as representing the Washington establishment.  Nevada is interesting if Richardson gets in, otherwise it should be an Edwards walk.  Since I think Richardson will run, I expect both of those two to do well there.  SC gets set up as a major showdown between Edwards and Obama, with Clark perhaps a factor if he does pull off a win in NH.  I know party officialdom would hate it, but I think an extended primary campaign would be good for America.  It would give the Democrats an extended period of attention while digging through the incredible mess that Bush has made of America.  It could be very educational for the citizens.

        Of course if Gore gets in, all bets are off.

        Power lines have surges; unwinnable wars have escalations.

        by ActivistGuy on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 10:15:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Funny you should mention Carol Shea-Porter. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I met her and some of her campaign staff at an AFL-CIO Labor Day breakfast last September. I got interviews with both the candidate and then a group interview with her staff:

          Video: NH Grassroots

          They did pull off a stunning victory. Porter was a Clarkie in 2004 and her campaign for NH-01 was never supported by the DCCC, yet she won with only 30,000 spent in a primary and a pittance in the general against R-Incumbent Jeb Bradley. It'll be interesting to see what happens next. I'll be at the Portsmouth NH event on Friday. I hope to see some of them again and check back in with the people who told me, on the clip, "our offices are on the street corners."  

      •  Edwards supporters are okay with his lies (1+ / 3-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        catchawave, EdwardsRaysOfSunshine, PaulVA

        I am not. Edwards is a political slimeball. He chooses what not to support based on the latest poll.

        Why do I say this? He was for the war when it was popular, and then op-ed his way out of it in fall 2005 when it was not.

        Please. Please don't tell me you buy the line

        "We were mislead"

        Come on! Edwards was a damn United States Senator, with a law degree. He's not stupid.

        He knew Iraq was no threat.

        And yet it took him pretty much 3 years to come clean, barely.


        I want courage and strength in my President.

        Not more of the same political bullshit.

        The American people are tired of it too.

        Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

        by djm4america on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 04:27:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  who are you for if Obama doesn't run? Clark (0+ / 0-)


    •  Obama has gotten a free ride from the media (0+ / 0-)

      even people in the media know it...

      Obama has voted with Hillary on Iraq since he has been in the senate..

      Obama had a chance to vote for pulling troops out - - the Kerry amendment  - and he voted not too..

  •  Final thoughts on Edwards before bed (0+ / 0-)

    Best of luck to John & Elizabeth Edwards as they continue to campaign for the presidency in pursuit to capture the Democratic nod.

    They just won't fare as well in 2008 as they did in 2004. It's because of Iraq.

    Same goes to Hillary, although she's such a large force she will stay in the race for a while.

    The American public, democratic voters, have grown. They are angry, they want answers, and in some respect want justice.

    They want someone who had it right about Iraq from the start. Not John Edwards, Not Hillary Clinton, Not John Kerry.

    I think John Edwards has done great things advocating for those in poverty. I think it was admirable for him to help Katrina victims.

    But, the issue right now is Iraq.

    The American people want a Commander in Chief who can lead us forward. Together.

    Edwards can't win GOP votes. Edwards can't win any of his native Carolinas. Edwards can't convince voters he's strong on Iraq.

    John Edwards will drop out when he loses in Iowa, or shortly thereafter.

    Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

    by djm4america on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:43:07 PM PST

    •  djm - Why don't you write a diary about (0+ / 0-)

      your candidate?  You spend so much time on Edwards' diaries which I think is an effort mispent :(

      Tell us why we should support ObamaClarkObamaClark...whoever it is this week...?

      Because you are not doing "your" candidate any favors by representing him so negatively against other candidates.  Obama and Clark deserve better.

      •  I have (0+ / 0-)

        I wrote quite a few diaries about Webb during the '06 cycle, and Clark.

        Trust me, I will write my share of diaries on Obama. But he hasn't announced yet. Clark hasn't announced yet.

        Edwards is on the eve of it.

        I think it's fair to write about the truth.

        Edwards did vote for the GOP IWR, and was a co-sponsor. Some Edwards folks just don't want to hear the truth.

        It doesn't even matter, Edwards will not be the nominee. Just trying to be a realist, and not a fanatic.

        Visit Virginia Blog: Raising Kaine

        by djm4america on Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 04:31:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thursday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is the day that he will announce. I'm still undecided between Obama and Edwards but I'd be pretty happy with either one of them.

  •  Thank God! A contender. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeanBoneII, mbair, Cream City, America08

    Edwards or Gore are the only ones who could win.

    I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Dizz Knee Land - dada

    by StealthAmerica on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 08:52:36 PM PST

  •  Insensitive (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but the death of President Ford might complicate John Edwards's announcement. Edwards had been counting on a slow news cycle to get the most coverage.

    •  perhaps more people will be watching the news n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Dizz Knee Land - dada

      by StealthAmerica on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:18:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have a feeling they will be fused (0+ / 0-)

      the media tends to meld things together when things like this happen.  

      So I have the feeling that Edward's decision to run will be covered with weird references and parallels to things with President Ford.  This I imagine will include Watergate and Jimmy Carter.

      Could be bad, could be good.  Will be interesting to see played out.

  •  Changing course (9+ / 0-)

    To those who say Edwards was wrong on Iraq, and therefore is wrong for Dems in 2008, I have two questions:

    1. One of the biggest criticisms of President Bush has been that he refused to change course, or even consider changing course.  As much as Dems have ripped on the lack of strategy for withdrawing troops, lack of a plan for victory, etc., the biggest frustration has been that he refused to stand up and admit that things were not going well, that we need a new direction, that our current leadership and mentality isn't getting it done.  It's the refusal to admit fault that has gotten us so angry.  Edwards made the wrong choice.  That happens sometimes.  Why are we some Dems so determined to refuse to allow him to change strategy, to modify our plans and come back with a better solution, since the first one didn't work?
    1. At the start of the Iraq conflict, a pretty good number of Americans were for the war.  Over the past few years, clearly the American view has shifted, dramatically.  Why are we, as Dems, convinced that only an anti-war candidate can win, or is right for America?  It seems pretty obvious to me that if Americans have changed their minds and have sought better answers and plans, they'll understand and respect a candidate who has done the same.  It shows understanding, flexibility, concern for the future, and determination to do the right thing, not just continue the same path.  Those are good characteristics.

    If we are going to hold out for candidates who were against the war from the start, we have a pretty narrow slate.  And I'm not sure that outside of the Iraq War position, any of the members of that slate are the best choices for Dems or for Americans - or will win over Dems or Americans in a way that gives us the best shot to win in 2008.  Holding each candidate to this "purity test" while denying them the opportunity to admit that they've changed their beliefs seems unfair - and a surefire path to failure.  Personally, I'm a heckuva lot more confident in someone like Edwards, who was willing to openly, publicly, admit his failure of the past, than in someone who is going to waffle on it.  And I'm much more confident in Edwards' ability to push forward other Dem issues than I am in some of the other candidates.  He's the one who can "sell it," something we've lacked the past two Presidential elections, and I think he's got the strength to back it up.  

    Just my two cents.  

    •  Maybe we need a candidate who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizen53, StealthAmerica

      can make the majority of Americans comfortable with having switched from their support of the war, too.

      I am willing to see that possibility -- although I was one of those against it from the first and still cannot understand how members of Congress did not know what I did, from reading media reports that said that the British intelligence reports were erroneous.  So it goes.

      But sanctimonious "I told you so" messages may make a lot of voters uncomfortable.  So maybe they will go for a candidate who, like them, abandoned his stance in support of the war -- and can figure out how to get that across without getting swiftboated as a "flip-flopper."

      For that reason, Edwards may be the one.

      But I still think Gore has the better stance on so many issues -- including Katrina, with that unbeatable footage of him on the ground helping people while Bush did his flyover -- and thus may have the better chance.

      We will see.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:19:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's exactly what I'm getting at.

        Ultimately, I think America at least deserves the choice on which type of candidate it is more comfortable with.  Some of us would prefer someone who was right from the beginning.  But I think a lot of people will see the "I told you so" type as typically elitist liberal - more concerned with being proven right, than doing the right thing now.  

        I think that Edwards' message is pretty clear.  We received a lot of information that supported an invasion of Iraq.  As a result, many of us believed it was the right choice.  As a country, we realized our mistake - a grave one that has cost American lives - and now we (as Democrats) have to make it right.  I think that's a pretty strong position to take.

    •  I think I might want to quote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catchawave, America08

      you in my next diary. Thanks for this comment it's a good one.

      •  The comment and your diary are both great (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Thank for putting this all together.  If is don't really well, Thank you.

      •  Go for it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Glad you liked the comment, feel free to quote it.  This was a great diary to get fired up about the coming Edwards announcement.

        I read your "it all started in Iowa" diary, and I have to say, my feelings about Edwards are the same.  I've been frustrated with just about the whole thing - the system, the characters, the tone, the big money.  Edwards to me is the guy who creates a little bit of inspiration, who makes me believe that there are people out there who really are focused on helping others, making the world better, doing the right thing.  Do I disagree with him on some points?  Sure.  But is he the one who gets me fired up, who I will go volunteer for, who I think has a change to really do some good if he's elected?  You bet.

        Keep the diaries coming!

        •  Thank You (0+ / 0-)

          Personally, I've been so cynical and hard because of Bush, but I think that I just went beyond it and came full circle after I saw him that time last April in NH.

          Does that prove that space is indeed curved?  

          I'm doing a full vlog on the Porstmouth event so look for that under a "guerrilla vlogger" moniker. I don't think that merely linking to vids earns that name so I only call my diaries that when I actually shoot the tape.

          Plus I bought a huge battery and also a new tripod with a pan stick and levels and everything, so it'll be nice to try out the new gear. I have been using a cheap Monopod or stick that is very unstable. Onward and upward, baby.

  •  Bush chose to go to war... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and he screwed it up badly. They lied about a nuclear threat. The vote gave Bush power to hold war over Saddam Hussain's head to let the weapons inspectors back in. Hussain continued to defy them. Why? Who the hell knows. He must be as crazy as Bush.

    I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Dizz Knee Land - dada

    by StealthAmerica on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 09:41:48 PM PST

  •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for an Edwards video resource guide!  It was a great diary!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site