Skip to main content

I agree totally and completely with the premise that John Edwards has put forward that the "War on Terror" as termed by the Republicans is just a propoganda ploy they use to call people like me unpatriotic for pointing out their idiocy on Iraq. George Bush squandered the unity created by the events of 9-11 and replaced it with incompetence. His incompetence has cost everyone dearly, and some of the most affected has been the brave young people who serve in our military. The damage done by this Administration to our military will need big solutions to repair. To do this we need a real leader who has thought this problem through, and already has plans to hit the ground running to do that as soon as they take office.

To do that a leader must first have the clarity of thought to realize that the current "War on Terror" being fought by our country is not feasible, and in fact is making the problem worse. The true war against the perpetrators of 9-11 was surrendered by this administration long ago. A true leader needs to see the challenges of this brave new world, and adjust our thinking and military to these challenges.

This is another area where I will say at the risk of offending others that John Edwards stands up head and shoulders above the others. He has the sense to know that the failed Bush approach will never work in today's world, but he also has the initiative to present the American people with a different, detailed plan that restores American values and morality around the world. I wanted to take some time away from polls, and Hillary's stock, and Obama's wanna-be lover to present some of it to you. Here goes:

"The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the ‘Global War on Terror.’ He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired—our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown."

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership."

"What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power."

To me, I should not even have to comment on these statements. If you don't believe at least most of this, I am afraid you may have wondered into the wrong party.

He then goes on to talk about having a strong military and showing moral leadership. Some quotes:

We Must Continue to Strengthen Our Great Partnerships. Whether through bilateral relationships with friends from Great Britain to Israel to Japan, or through multilateral institutions like NATO, our partnerships have done so much good for America and the world. While the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests, Edwards believes our strength lies in standing together with the world, not apart.

Again, I hope I wouldn't have to argue with anyone's supporters about any of this paragraph. Edwards believes in not asking permission to protect our interests, but realizes we need our allies in the world to work with us.

He goes on to talk about military intelligence:

Our Intelligence Strategy Must be Effective and Must Adhere to the Rule of Law. We must aggressively gather intelligence in accordance with proven methods. At the same time, we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, Edwards will immediately address the issues that have become blemishes on America’s image in the world by closing Guantanamo Bay, restoring habeas corpus, and banning torture.

Again, no matter who you support, do I really have to defend this statement? Edwards has the common sense to know that if we torture enemies, not only is it against the morals America was founded on, but it is highly disrespectful to our troops by opening them up to the same revenge treatment if they are captured. America must be leading by example to the countries we want to respect us. Lastly, by no means should we be breaking international law and giving up generations of American rights to be "safe". Competent leadership and vision will do the job nicely. I believe Edwards is showing every day he is that leader. Now some more:

Solving Global Poverty Is Both a Moral and a Security Issue. Edwards believes that the United States must be a global leader in the fight against poverty to help stabilize countries and regions. As part of his previously announced $5 billion initiative, he will help people in three priority areas: primary education, preventive health, and greater economic and political opportunity.

Now, this may be part of the plan some people may disagree with. I happen to agree that the best way to combat extremism is not to bomb them daily, but to reach out and try to lift them out of the crushing poverty that drives them to extremism. The $5 billion initiative is a fraction of what we have spent on the "War on Terror".

But how would Edwards go about rebuilding the military after the incompetent Bush years? First, you need to assess the real threats we face. Edwards does this here:

In rebuilding from the Bush years, we need a stronger military for three primary missions: deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm; ensuring that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States; and maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.

Edwards’ plan for rebuilding America’s military is based on principles that look beyond Iraq, toward determining and providing the necessary resources; modernizing forces to meet the national security missions of the new century; and clarifying the role of our military, as America restores its moral leadership in the world.

He goes on to detail more:

Ensure that Our Military Policy Is Planned and Executed to Fulfill Essential National Security Missions, Not Some Ideological Fancy: The Bush administration has isolated America by elevating the right of preemption to a doctrine of "preventive war." As president, Edwards will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. Edwards believes military force is justified to protect our vital national interests; to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors; to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments; to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons; and to prevent or stop genocide.

As with the "War on Terror" comments I would once again just like to thank John Edwards for his complete and total rebuke of the doctrine of pre-emptive strike which has created this fiasco. I think every candidate running should have to answer whether they believe pre-emptive strike is viable or not. Edwards here however, shows just the intelligence, strength and compassion to be an effective and respected Commander-in-Chief.

Now on to the tremendous damage done by the Bush Administration civilian leadership, and the military leadership:

Repair the Tremendous Damage Done to Civil-Military Relations: The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. As president, Edwards will institute regular, one-on-one meetings with top military leadership. He will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management that has been demolished by the Bush Administration: military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions.

Do I honestly have to defend this? Another just common sense thing that shows the broad leadership ablilities Edwards would possess. This next statement is common sense that has been desperately needed for a while:

Root Out Cronyism and Waste and Increase Efficiency in the Pentagon: The Government Accountability Office has found that of Pentagon’s 26 biggest acquisition programs, 40 percent are above expected costs and 20 percent are behind schedule. The top five weapons programs have increased in costs by average of 29 percent, or $122.4 billion. As president, Edwards will launch a comprehensive, tough review of fraud, waste, and abuse, such as missile defense and offensive space-based weapons, that are costly and unlikely to work. He will also overhaul the rules governing privatization, to punish mismanagement, and reform DOD compensation policies to reward performance. [Korb & Ogden, 2006; GAO, 2006]

This sounds mysteriously like someone is making a lot of money off the American taxpayer while delaying equipment that could be beneficial to our troops. A review of fraud and waste and abuse is long overdue. A new look at the rules of privitization in the military is long overdue, and the punishment of mismanagement in the Pentagon is long overdue. Hey, you never know, we may actually quit paying $500 for a toilet seat!!

He then goes on to talk about the new challenges our military will face in the new century and the danger of the Bush mismanagement:

Rebalance Our Force Structure for the Challenges of the New Century and Improve Our Capabilities to Help Weak or Failing States: The force structure of our military should match its mission. The Administration’s mismanagement of the military has not only breached the faith at the highest levels–it has led to a very dangerous situation for our troops, their families, and our nation. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year’s rest. Over 1,000 vehicles like tanks and helicopters have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use. And our forces are not equipped to meet the challenges of stabilizing weak states. Civilians and experienced government employees need to be involved in stabilizing states with weak governments, and providing humanitarian assistance where disasters have struck. One agency is on steroids -- the Pentagon -- while the civilian agencies are on life support. [Singer 2007. MSNBC 2007]

This shows Edwards understanding that this war has crippled our ability to truly deal with the problems in the world, and the fact that civilians and government employees have a role to play in facing the challenges the world presents today also. We need to invest in our civilian agencies too.

Now Edwards goes on to detail seven specific proposals he would pursue as President:

Build the military we need to meet the mission we have defined -- no more, no less -- basing future troop levels on a careful assessment of the post-Iraq threat environment.

Double the budget for recruiting and raise the standards for the recruiting pool.

Invest in maintenance of our equipment for the safety of our troops.

Create a "Marshall Corps" of up to 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions.

Provide both our soldiers and civilians with improved language skills and cultural understanding for their work overseas.

Implement new training for future military leadership and create a new undersecretary of defense for stabilization efforts and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.

Modernize our forces, so we do not keep spending money on systems that only meet the needs of today—not tomorrow. "Greening the military" to increase innovation, save millions of dollars, reduce reliance on vulnerable supply lines.

All of these proposals seem to me to be very sound and a welcome departure from the failure of leadership shown in realizing the real challenges of the new century. They prove Edwards has the ability to listen, innovate, and lead.

He ends by talking about the military budget, and taking on broader challenges for our national security:

Create a National Security Budget: The military budget itself needs substantial reforms. Today, dozens of agencies perform overlapping tasks, and there is no central, overall accounting of all security activities performed by all relevant agencies. We have nuclear proliferation programs in the Defense, State, and the Energy departments, and more than 15 different security assistance programs, running out of both the State Department and the Defense Department. As president, Edwards will create a National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies.

Streamlining activities spread between different agencies to the agencies that should actually be monitoring them just seems like such a no-brainer it is a shame that Edwards even has to comment on this. It appears to me such a plan could eliminate a lot of confusion where it is needed least. Now, on to broader challenges:

Take on Broader Challenges: Ensuring national security requires more than the exercise of raw power. Fighting global warming will also protect our security interests -- a recent report authored by a group of top military leaders said that, if unchecked, global warming could lead to civil strife, genocide, and increased terrorism. Solving global poverty is a moral imperative, but it is also a security issue -- global poverty increases the risk to America by providing a safe harbor for instability, extremism, and terrorism. Living up to our American ideals by protecting basic freedoms will help us avoid actions that give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law.

http://www.johnedwards.com/...

This last paragraph shows that Edwards understands the depth of the problems that face our world, and has the desire and vision to remedy some of them. While not every person can be negotiated with, every situation doesn't call for weapons of war. Edwards seems to understand this, and has the right strength, maturity and compassion to lead.

Now, if this angers any other candidate's supporters I am sorry, but I think they all owe us a detailed explanation on how they would rebuild our military and use it in the new century. I think they owe us an explanation of their beliefs on the theory of pre-emptive strike. John Edwards may not be the media darling but he is the candidate that is serious about solving serious problems with more than talking points. He is a New Leader for a New Century!!!

Originally posted to RDemocrat on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:16 AM PDT.

Poll

Which Candidate Has Shown the Most Leadership on Serious Issues?

3%11 votes
75%212 votes
8%25 votes
5%14 votes
1%4 votes
0%2 votes
1%4 votes
2%8 votes

| 280 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Great diary that outlines Edwards deep (32+ / 0-)

    thinking on issues.  His analytical skills and ability to absorb new information and then to reframe the issues into solutions are quite amazing.  I do think this comes from his experience as a trial lawyer - always having to learn new concepts.

    I think his approach to looking at the military as it relates to foreign policy and serving the national interests is comprehensive and innovative.  I like the way you highlighted the solutions that he has presented.  

    I agree, I think John Edwards is the right leader for us at this time.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

    by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:29:29 AM PDT

  •  I am very glad to see (21+ / 0-)

    Edwards position -especially on the military. I have yet to hear other candidates explain thiers this indepth.
     I like Edwards and am coming around and warming to him. after all, I did say I thought our next Pres would be one who inspire hope and hs faith in the american dream-just becasue anyone may have a book title with that does not man he's my ideal candidate-it's based on someone who walks the walk also-something I think Edwards does.

     I would also like to wish Elizabeth edwards well.

  •  As Always (23+ / 0-)

    John Edwards is the president we have all been waiting for.  The day can't come to soon to see JRE in the White House.  I've said many times before, I cannot understand why anyone would not vote for this great man.  Good diary, well written.

  •  John Edwards is creme de la creme (14+ / 0-)

    He is simply 'the best'!

    We need Jack in the White House...And Emma Claire too.
    Donate to Edwards Campaign

    by OneCarolinaGirl on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:38:34 AM PDT

  •  After 2004, I didn't have much use for Edwards... (26+ / 0-)

    because I thought his views were rather shallow. Fortunately, I took another look at him and found a compelling candidate with a bold vision who has an indepth understanding of what is wrong in this country and has begun crafting solutions which take into account the complexity of the modern world.

    I hope others take the time to get out of their biases from the past and take a good look at what Edwards is doing in his campaign.

  •  Telling the Truth (16+ / 0-)
    Taking on Bush's "Global War on Terror" framing is the great emperor's new clothes moment of this campaign.

    Everyone knows it, and no one's had the courage to say it before Edwards did.

    There are real advantages to waging a campaign based on telling the truth, rather than based on what the DC consultants tell you polls well.

    After losing a war and losing an American city, the electorate is waiting for someone who will simply tell them the truth.  And that's why John Edwards is going to become our next President, if only we can carry him high enough up on our shoulders to get him the nomination.

  •  You don't offend but you don't face facts. (9+ / 1-)

    "This is another area where I will say at the risk of offending others that John Edwards stands up head and shoulders above the others."

    Edwards is slipping further and further behind in the polls.

    Too many contradictions, too many self confessed "mistakes" where his current policy is contradicted by his past actions.

    1.Iraq...for it before he was against it.

    2.Universal health care...was against it before he was for it.

    3.Oil - was against 40 mpg CAFE before he was for it.

    As we saw with Gore and Kerry losses, the public doesn't trust someone whose views are so changeable

    At a deeper level, should someone who has not been a leader on the key issues be the Democratic candidate?  With Iraq the main issue of 2008, who got Iraq right is a defining issue for who should be president.

    •  Unfortunately... (15+ / 0-)

      The only one of the candidates who got Iraq "right" at the time (although he was not a decision maker) is getting Iraq WRONG now. Keeps voting to fund the war. Not my idea of leadership.

    •  These are GOP talking points (21+ / 0-)

      1.Iraq...for it before he was against it.

      Uh, no.  He was wrong.  He admits his mistakes.  That's the definition of leadership.  

      What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. -- Thomas Friedman

      by markymarx on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:58:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's Just Salmon... (7+ / 0-)
        These are GOP talking points

        GOP talking points are Salmon's stock in trade.

        This is what happens when you try to attack someone running for President as a proud progressive.

      •  Eyup...Edwards was wrong. Edwards made mistakes. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ghost2, jxg, Inland

        That's not a winning theme is it?

        Especially what he was wrong about was the worst decision affecting US national security in the last 25 years. The mistake he made plunged the US into a disastrous war costing $1T and 50,000 US casualties and increased the threats to US national security for decades to come.

        Edwards can't run on the major issue of the 2008 election. Romney and Giuliani didn't vote for Iraq war and Edwards cannot critique their subsequent opinions because Edwards got it WRONG.

        •  Simply not true. (12+ / 0-)

          MOST Americans got it wrong, and can identify with Edwards on this issue.

          We are better than this. - John Edwards

          by randomperson26 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:06:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama got Iraq right is the truth. (5+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            ghost2, jxg, Disillusioned, ChiGirl88, Inland
            Hidden by:
            flubber

            "MOST Americans got it wrong, and can identify with Edwards on this issue."

            Nope...they didn't but some politicians like Clinton and Edwards ignored the facts and voted out of pure political calculation...not wanting to be on the wrong side of a successful war as in Iraq War I.

            Edwards in particular loses on the issue because he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, didn't read the Intelligence Estimate, didn't listen to Senator Graham who did read it.

            Edwards is very weak on Iraq and Iraq is the main issue in 2008.

            Edwards weakness on Iraq, getting it wrong, "for it before againstg it", a "mistake" all highlight his similar weakness on issues he now headlines such as universal health care and oil.

            •  You've got a weak mind, Salmon (10+ / 0-)
              Edwards is very weak on Iraq

              Edwards is weak on Iraq because he supported sending the vetoed bill back to Bush?

              You can go Cheney yourself, you troll.

            •  same talking points (6+ / 0-)

              is obama running a single issue campaign?  it certainly appears as if he is.

              so, what do you think about michelle obama and her deep ties to WAL-MART?

              http://www.suntimes.com/...

            •  apparently Salmon has affordable healthcare (3+ / 0-)

              When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

              by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:59:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And the Obama (4+ / 0-)

              couldn't take THE DAMN TIME to SHOW UP for the No confidence vot on Gonzales, WOULD NOT SAY A DAMN THING ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE FUNDING BILL and hid in the corner on it.

              He does what is politically expedient for his campaign. HE DID NOT INTRODUCE ANY LEGISLATION TO Try TO STOP THE WAR UNTIL JANUARY yet has supposedly BEEN AGAINST IT SINCE 02!!

              Edwards voted against the $87 billion supplemental, Obama said HE WOULD have voted against it, yet has given Bush money EVERY SINGLE TIME HE ASKED FOR IT until this last one WHEN HE WAS CAMPAIGNING.

              OBAMA WAS SUPPORTING COAL TO LIQUID

              His grand scheme for the environment is basically Shwarzenegger's with a few twists. He comes up with NO original plans, no ideas and has NO DAMN VISION other than "let's all get along."

              Take your talking points elsewhere Salmon.

              "The white folks think they're at the top, ask any proud white male. A million years of evolution and we get Danny Quayle." Oingo Boingo: Insanity.

              by Chaoslillith on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:03:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Glass houses (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kitsapdem

                Just keeping it real.  Legislators who run for president tend to miss votes.  

                from Gov Track:

                Statistic: John Edwards missed 311 of 2019 votes (15%) since Jan 8, 1999 (Extremely Poor relative to peers).

                Edwards on the environment:

                Also, if you look at Edwards' voting record year by year, the picture is rosier -- he scored 78 in 1999, 100 in 2000, and 88 in 2001, before dropping to 59 in 2002 and then all the way down to 37 in 2003 -- a measly score largely attributable to his spending so much time on the presidential campaign trail that he missed half the environment-related votes the LCV tallied. The LCV counts missed votes as negatives

                Obama:

                Statistic: Barack Obama missed 23 of 821 votes (3%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Average relative to peers).

                Obama on the environment:

                Vote Ratings
                109th, 2nd Session (2006) 100%
                109th, 1st Session (2005) 95%

                Clinton:

                Statistic: Hillary Clinton missed 44 of 2129 votes (2%) since Jan 23, 2001 (Average relative to peers).

                Clinton on the environment:

                Vote Ratings
                109th, 2nd Session (2006) 71%
                109th, 1st Session (2005) 95%
                108th Congress (2003-2004) 92%
                107th Congress (2001-2002) 88%

                Biden:

                Statistic: Joseph Biden missed 239 of 3452 votes (7%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Average relative to peers).

                Biden on the environment:

                Vote Ratings
                109th, 2nd Session (2006) 100%
                109th, 1st Session (2005) 90%
                108th Congress (2003-2004) 92%
                107th Congress (2001-2002) 96%
                106th Congress (1999-2000) 88%

                Kucinich:

                Statistic: Dennis Kucinich missed 213 of 6251 votes (3%) since Jan 7, 1997 (Average relative to peers).

                Kucinich on the environment:

                Vote Ratings
                109th, 2nd Session (2006) 100%
                109th, 1st Session (2005) 100%
                108th Congress (2003-2004) 90%
                107th Congress (2001-2002) 95%
                106th Congress (1999-2000) 90%

                Dodd:

                Statistic: Christopher Dodd missed 140 of 3448 votes (4%) since Jan 22, 1997 (Average relative to peers).

                Dodd on the environment:

                Vote Ratings
                109th, 2nd Session (2006) 100%
                109th, 1st Session (2005) 90%
                108th Congress (2003-2004) 88%
                107th Congress (2001-2002) 80%
                106th Congress (1999-2000) 88%

                "Spoken like a true smartass."

                by ChiGirl88 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:29:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (8+ / 0-)

            "I told you so dumbass" is a horrible way to try to win people over.

            Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

            by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:15:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Most Americans (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jen, Inland, kitsapdem

            didn't have access to the same intelligence reports as Edwards had. But, nooooooooo, he was too busy running his perpetual presidential campaign to read the reports. This on the most important vote of his short senate career.

            However, since his vote was based on his future political consideration, it probably would have been the same anyway. His desire to become president scares the bejeebers out of me and a lot of other Americans, too.

            •  Edwards read the information that made up the NIE (0+ / 0-)

              An NIE is a compilation of other reports from many agencies (for an overview of what an NIE is, see http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Edwards read numerous direct reports. He read the intelligence AND he talked to Clinton people about their information.  He took his responsibility to protect Americans seriously.  

              He, in good faith and with due diligence, made a careful decision.  The decision was wrong.  In response, he voted against funding in 2004.  He learned from his mistake and regretted it.  He apologized.  He is working hard to correct our course. These are the hallmarks of a mature leader.

              I trust him to be commander in chief of the military in which my son is serving.

              •  He apparently did NOT (0+ / 0-)

                read the assessments by the CIA that Iraq would be a total mess if we invaded. He read what was handed to him and swallowed it whole. I'm glad you trust him to be CIC, because I wouldn't trust him to lead a pack of cub scouts. Sorry, but he is NOT a leader of any kind.

          •  just like most american (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Inland, kitsapdem

            Getting it wrong like many of the public doesn't quite mash up with 'leadership'

            Edwards makes a great spokesman for many issues especially economic inequalities but his leadership creds are pretty thin.

        •  try again (6+ / 0-)

          The vast majority of Americans -- around 75 percent -- were for the war in Iraq before they were against it.  

          What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. -- Thomas Friedman

          by markymarx on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:11:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The mistake HE made! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moosely2006, Blue South, TomP

          HAhahahah. I love how this is framed. Churchill was wrong about Gallipoli. Kimmel was wrong about Pearl. Senators have a certain amount of power but you are suggesting the war is HIS fault?

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:22:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nobody made it FOR Edwards. (0+ / 0-)

            Edwards showed great leadership in cosponsoring the AUMF. Just who's mistake WAS that?  Obama's?  Is Edwards apologizing for Bush?

            Let's just say that whatever power Edwards had, he lent to Bush for a war.

            Why would you give Edwards MORE power by electing him president?

            December is the new September.

            by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:09:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Salmon - for many the war isn't the issue (3+ / 0-)

          Especially the working poor, struggling financially from day to day, with NO HEALTHCARE. Corporate media and their corporate sponsors KNOW that Edwards proposals help the working poor and middle classes. They're promoting the candidates who don't threaten the corporations bottom line.

          When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

          by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:58:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We've seen in the last 6 years (4+ / 0-)

          where the arrogance of saying "I'm never wrong" leads.

          Edwards demonstrates honesty and the ability to learn.  People will respect that over a foolish stubborness.

          Thanks, but no thanks on the advice.

          Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

          by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:00:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Initially Edwards got it wrong with the IWR (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ashlarah

          but he did start making early votes against funding unless Bush changed course, which he obviously has not.

      •  Those are DEMOCRATIC talking points (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jxg, jen, kitsapdem

        for who is the best candidate to run for president.

        When Edwards foolishly attacked Obama and Clinton on Iraq, Obama pointed out Edwards was wrong on Iraq and four years late to the party.

        Edwards dropped several points in the polls over the weeks after that debacle...same will happen to him if he tried to take on Republican candidate vs. attacking  Democrats.

        It is why Edwards will not be the Democratic nominee.

        •  The truth (7+ / 0-)

          is that Edwards had it wrong then, admitted it, but has it right now.  Obama MAY have had it right then, I think that can be dabated, but he certaintly has it wrong now.  Obama and Clinton continue the war by funding it.  I'd rather pick someone who is RIGHT currently rather than someone who may have been right 6 or 7 years ago.

          We are better than this. - John Edwards

          by randomperson26 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:09:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Edward got Iraq wrong is the truth. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jxg, Inland, kitsapdem

            Pretty much end of discussion.

            •  what is your opinion (11+ / 0-)

              of Obama's votes on funding bills prior to these last two?

              What is your opinion of Obama's votes against withdrawal timetables?

            •  Fine (13+ / 0-)

              Next discussion.....
              Who is the ONE person getting everything right now? John Edwards.  Call me weird, but somehow I find this question & answer MOST relevant.  But to each his own.

              "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy June 6th, 1968

              by enough already on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:29:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bush actually (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lynmar, TomP

              Don't splash that Republican mud on me or any of my friends.

            •  Obama HAS Iraq wrong (7+ / 0-)

              Pretty much the end of discussion as well.

              •  Obama voted against funding. (0+ / 0-)

                So past tense, present tense, Obama beats Edwards.

                December is the new September.

                by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:13:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  so did Edwards (0+ / 0-)

                  Edwards voted against funding in 2003.

                  Obama voted for funding, and then he voted against funding.

                  So, past tense one Obama beats Edwards.  past tense two Edwards beats Obama.  Present tense...?

                  •  Edwards's vote against funding, but for war. (0+ / 0-)

                    was becasue he wanted Bush to internationalize war.  At that time, as he was in the 2004 election, JE was in the "fight the war smarter" camp, not ending the war.  He wasn't Dean, IOW.  He was with Kerry.

                    Edwards plan in 2003 was to add blue helmets to the war he backed and still backed in 2004 throughn 2005.  Nothing else.  

                    Now, trying to figure out how to stop a presient who has John Edward's blsnk check of the AUMF in his pocket is trickier business.  Defunding troops in combat may not be a good idea.  But you can disagree with Obama's actions, but you can't disagree that it was JE who handed the problem of Bush legally authorized to make war on anybody to Obama.... and the nation.  

                    December is the new September.

                    by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:03:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ok... (0+ / 0-)

                      After saying he voted against funding you then say he voted for a blank check.  Its inaccurate wording.

                      And, while Obama said he would have voted against the war, and said he would have voted against funding, once he was in the Senate he took 3 years to vote against a funding bill.

                      Now then, no one has said Edwards is Dean.  But, we arent electing someone in 2004.  We are electing someone for 2008, and therefore their position right now is much more important than a speech from 2002.

                      •  Yeah. It's not THAT complicated. (0+ / 0-)

                        2002 Blank check to Bush.

                        2003 wants internationlization, but still for war.

                        2004 wants war to be fought smarter.

                        2005

                        2006 apologizes.

                        Edwards was wrong for four years.  

                        Now then, no one has said Edwards is Dean.  But, we arent electing someone in 2004.  We are electing someone for 2008, and therefore their position right now is much more important than a speech from 2002.

                        Well, we dont' elect positions, we elect people. Edwards is the same person who gave Bush the blank check.  He might be sadder and wiser, but he's the same person.  So is Obama.  Elect the guy who didn't have to wait until the war killed a few thou americans to figure out that it was a dumb idea.  What's the point of electing the person who took four years to figure it out.

                        December is the new September.

                        by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:29:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Edwards voted against the war (4+ / 0-)

              funding in 2003 - but Obama was still "leading" in funding the war until last month!

              When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

              by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:49:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Edwards was "fight it a different way" in 2004. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kitsapdem

                His vote in 2003 against funding was solely because he wanted more international involvement.

                If Edwards had gotten his way in 2003, he would have voted for the money and we'd have blue helmets added to the same mess created by his AUMF.  Oh, and another apology, I suppose.

                December is the new September.

                by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:11:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  where do you get your facts? (0+ / 0-)

                  Repubs combined military and reconstruction funding in 2003 bill - although military funding had already been appropriated through April 2004. IOW - it was a way to overlap military spending and Edwards was suspicious of the vague reconstruction bill loaded with contractors and subcontractors - most of which were Bush $upporters.
                  Edwards voted against it - and turns out he was right - since the reconstruction has been a disaster!

                  When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                  by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 02:54:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I got them from Edwards interviews in (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annefrank

                    2004.

                    Seriously, this crap that Edwards was for withdrawal in 2003 is simply contrary to everything he campaigned on in 2004.  Edwards wasn't Dean.  He wanted a different war strategy, not to end it.

                    December is the new September.

                    by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 04:39:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Who said Edwards was for withdrawal in 2003? (0+ / 0-)

                      When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                      by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:03:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, what WAS Edwards for? THE WAR. (0+ / 0-)

                        Edwards didn't change his mind and become against the war until he apologized...when, 2005?  His "leadership" was in entirely the wrong direction until, well, he changed to run in 2008

                        December is the new September.

                        by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:06:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You don't remember the GOP attacks (0+ / 0-)

                          on Edwards in 2004 BECAUSE he voted against funding the war in 2003? It was a very bold move, at that time, and GOP hammered him 24/7 through Nov 04.
                          Obama opposed the war - then voted to fund it.
                          Hillary supported the war and has never apologized.

                          When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                          by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:01:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, you explain WHY Edwards for the war in 2004 (0+ / 0-)

                            Politically, he was being hammered by republicans.  

                            Some leader.

                            Actually, your theory that Edwards was putting ambition before the country's welfare is poorly taken. I prefer to believe that he just had bad judgment.

                            December is the new September.

                            by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:06:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Huh? Edwards showed good judgement in Oct. 2003 (0+ / 0-)

                            and voted against Iraq/Afghanistan reconstruction and war funding because it had already been appropriated - as I explained above.
                            I don't know where you get "ambitious" from - sounds more like a candidate running for prez after 2 years in the senate.
                            Edwards has moved farrr away from DC advisors and consultants - while Obama has joined Hillary and moved TOWARD them - into the hands of warhawk advisors and counselors - per revelations this week.

                            When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                            by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:23:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Edwards judgment in 2003-04 was for more war. (0+ / 0-)

                            Fought with a different strategy, but fought.  Same judgment as he had in 2004. He voted against funding because he wanted an international strategy.  If Bush gave everyting to Edwards that he wanted in 2003, we have the same war plus some UN blue helmet guys.  That's leadership--to more war.

                            You may like that judgment, but I don't like it as much as Obama's, who managed to figure out the war was a bad idea in the same time frame that Edwards was cosponsoring the blank check of a AUMF that is Bush's legal ability to end the war when Bush feels like it. We're still dealing with Edwards's misjudgment. People die.

                            I got "ambitious" from you, when you implied that he only supported more war in 2004 due to presure from the right wing.

                            December is the new September.

                            by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:09:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know what you're smoking (0+ / 0-)

                            Once again - Edwards voted against military and reconstruction funding in Oct. 2003. Fassst forward to 2004, after he'd been selected VP nominee, rightwingers made an issue about him "flip flopping."
                            I've found Obama supporters make interpretations that aren't evident to others. Supposedly that's where your "ambitious" came from - rather than admit Obama has been funding the war since he was elected to the senate - and longggg after Edwards began calling for redeployment.

                            When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                            by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:45:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't see what ignoring facts gets you (0+ / 0-)

                            besides the opinion that Edwards is lying about his record.

                            Edwards voted against funding in 2003 because he wanted a different strategy, not to end the war.  He wanted the UN in, not US out.  

                            In 2004, he and Kerry were on the side of fighting the war smarter, not withdrawal.  

                            You can't use the term "fast forward" with Edwards.  He was behind a whole lot of people, particularly Obama, who managed to come out against the war in no uncertain terms while Edwards was cosponsoring the AUMF blank check.

                            And you put a really sad reason for Edward's sticking with the war--the right wing was giving him heat.  Now, the left wing gives Edwards' heat, and he changes.  Hm.  Does it worry anyone that there's going to be a general election in which the right wing gives him heat and he has another chance to flip?  

                            I'll stick with Obama's path of being right all along and continue to keep working to fix Edward's mistake and battle a president who wants a war and has Edward's blank check in his pocket.

                            December is the new September.

                            by Inland on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Edwards and Kerry's vote in 2003 (0+ / 0-)

                            wasn't about strategy!  not according to them anyway. You're the only one I've ever heard make that assertion.
                            Kerry wanted the wealthy's tax cuts to help pay for the funding - but his amendment failed - and he voted against the bill, as Edwards did, because of the huge cost to taxpayers and NO accountability for contractors. Back in those days, there were no bills to end the war.
                            Voting wrong is very different from lying and deceiving - and Obama lost me when he began voting to fund a war he "opposed", continued voting to fund the war, and then kept his intentions a secret before the last vote.
                            That's NOT leadership!

                            When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                            by annefrank on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:36:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Edwards wasn't for withdrawal in 2003. (0+ / 0-)

                            He wasn't for withdrawal in 2004,

                            He was for fighting the war. Differently, but fighting it.

                            Obama was right in 2002.  If JE had listened to Obama instead of handing Bush a blank check AUMF, he wouldn't have anything to apologize for, adn Obama wouldn't be having to deal with what to do about a president with 160000 troops in the field and Edward's AUMF in his back pocket.

                            That's the truth of the matter.  If Edwards showed leadership, I say, fuck leadership, give me the guy who had the judgment to be right from day one.  Edwards got his way and people died.  Why make him president so he gets his way all the time?

                            December is the new September.

                            by Inland on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:50:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So - if Edwards hadn't voted for the war (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama wouldn't have been voting to fund it?
                            Look - Obama could have voted against funding the war from the gitgo - but he didn't - as he strategized a prez run based on his "opposition" to the war.  I can forgive a wrong vote - but not purposeful deception.
                            On your point about strategy - yes, in 2004 Kerry and Edwards were promoting the Iraq Study Group's 2006 suggestion of involving more regional diplomacy. But it wasn't related to that Oct. 2003 bill as you've asserted.

                            When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

                            by annefrank on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:09:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Apparently all that matters to you (0+ / 0-)

              is the vote and not what has happened afterwards, or for that matter what we need to do in the future. Edwards had it right when he was pressuring Congress to send the bill that Bush first vetoed back to Bush. He had it right when he was pushing for withholding funding until Bush signs into law a timetable for withdrawal. Or, do you think Obama's plan to attempt to override the Bush veto by getting 16 more repubs Senators on board was the right course? Obviously none of this worked, the Dems couldn't unite on sending the same bill back again, and unfortunately the war goes on.

              •  Iraq is certainly central issue to "leadership" (0+ / 0-)

                The diarist demanded an explanation from Clinton and Obama supporters on why Clinton or Obama shows more leadership than Edwards.

                Speaking for Obama the Iraq issue, which is the central issue to 2008 election and US national security, Obama is the leader among all the candidates for president in either party.

                We need to elect someone who got Iraq right.

        •  I think it's very strange that (15+ / 0-)

          Obama backers keep bring that up as some sort of "smackdown."  Edwards made two things very clear in that debate that I see making their way into the consciousness of activists -- Obama's healthcare plan is not universal coverage and Obama has not led on Iraq since he gave one speech as an obscure state senator.  Those are killer frames that will help make Edwards the clear alternative to Hillary by January-February 2008.

          Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

          by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:14:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What's funny (14+ / 0-)

            is that Obamaheads like to say that Edwards isn't leading by sending out press releases, but Obama couldn't even bring himself to announce, though press release or whatever else, that he was voting agains the Iraq funding bill, presumably because he didn't make up his mind until the last minute, once he had consulted with his consultants, checked the polls, and tried to figure out what Hillary was going to do.

            I'm thrilled that Edwards called out Obama for sneaking into the chamber to case that vote without so much as a peep.

          •  Edwards gaff attacking Clinton and Obama on Iraq (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Indy1776, kitsapdem

            was emblematic of the problem Edwards will have attacking a Republican on the issue, especially one like Romney or Giuliani who, unlike Edwards, didn't vote for the Iraq war.

            Every time Edwards attacks someone on Iraq, it immediately turns back on Edwards as getting Iraq wrong. Edwards then goes into his set to piece about "I made a mistake" which immediately gets folks thinking...Gee...maybe I'll vote for the guy who didn't make a mistake.

            •  War on Terror strictly republican (5+ / 0-)

              "The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the ‘Global War on Terror.’ He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired—our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown."

              Don't even pretend you are for any candidate here.  This is strictly republican mud.  You hide behind Obama and fling at Edwards.  You don't care as long as you get the chance to sling the republican dirt at a Democrat.  Doesn't belong on any of our candidates.  Any of them.

            •  Well shoot, Salmon (4+ / 0-)

              Why don't you take these concerns of yours to the Edwards campaign?

            •  Salmon, as long as you're here (8+ / 0-)

              If you're an Obama fan, as i'm guessing you are, d'ya think he should apologize for his campaign's race baiting?

              The chairman of the bipartisan US India Political Action Committee, Sanjay Puri, has written to Barack Obama, expressing his concern about the reports that "your staff may be engaging in the worst kind of anti-Indian American stereotyping.'

              Puri's letter (.pdf)  responds to an Obama campaign opposition research document (.pdf) that was obtained by the Clinton campaign, and given to the New York Times. The document is headlined "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA" and links Clinton's financial support from Indian-American donors, and the Clintons' personal investments, to the fact that she "has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs."

              "It's all about the money," the document asserts of Clinton, who co-chairs the Senate India Caucus.

              Puri, in his letter, asks that Obama "respond directly" to the reports of the memo, and "let us know if indeed your staff is promoting these hurtful stereotypes."

            •  He needs a new frame that is clear... (9+ / 0-)

              About his position. I understand what you are saying, but as an Edwards supporter I am seeing it a different way.

              Was he wrong on his Iraq vote? Yes.
              Did he make a mistake? Yes.
              Has he learned from that mistake? Yes.

              Whenever someone tries to club Edwards over the head with his prior Iraq vote such as Obama did, the best response would be this:

              "Yes. I did have a horrible decision to make, unlike some. Yes, I did make a mistake four years ago, and I've admitted that. The difference is, I have learned from my mistakes while everyone else continues to follow the wrong path today. What's their excuse?"

              And that is the biggest question of all. I'd have forgiven ANY of our candidates for that vote four years ago, as long as they came around to trying to do the right thing today. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the others doing as much as Edwards in this department.

              I see them looking at polls and listening to so-called advisors in a way that looks way too calculating for my tastes. It makes them look like shit, like winning for personal glory and victory are more important that standing up and saying the truth, no matter how personally painful.

              John Edwards in 08. Accept no substitutes!

              by Disillusioned on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:42:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly. Obama has been such a disappointment (8+ / 0-)

                on Iraq since he got to the senate.

                It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:44:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  In other words, (5+ / 0-)

                repeating the same mistake over and over again, w/o any indication of recognising it - let alone learning from it.

                I see them looking at polls and listening to so-called advisors in a way that looks way too calculating for my tastes

                "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy June 6th, 1968

                by enough already on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:52:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Edwards "I have a mistake" speech is a problem. (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                kitsapdem
                Hidden by:
                moosely2006

                Edwards confessional that he made a mistake on the most important issue of the decade just doesn't cut it with anyone except die hard Edwards supporters.

                Its the same "I was for it before I was against it" that played and lost in 2004.

                He's been flogging the "I have a mistake" speech since his 2004 approach of "I didn't make a mistake" approach proved to be a loser.

                When a candidate's headline on war, peace and national security is "I made a mistake", it's a losing proposition...and this is reflected in Edwards poll numbers and his failure to ever get out of being third place....even though he's been running since 2004.

                Edwards floated his Iraq theme during the debate, attacking Clinton and Obama as he would the Republican candidates.

                It was a resounding failure as it highlighted Edwards support for the war and his contradictory change of position as the war went downhill.

                •  No it is not a problem. Edwards is honest and (6+ / 0-)

                  is campaigning from his heart.

                  And you are the one flogging his "mistake" theme.  Edwards is coming up with new ways for us all to move forward.  

                  Edwards is the leader we need who is independent of lobbyist interests.  He really will work for the people.

                  It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                  by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:15:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  RFK... for anyone interested... (8+ / 0-)

                    said this, two days after he announced for President, 3-18-68:

                    Let me begin this discussion with a note both personal and public. I was involved in many of the early decisions on Vietnam, decisions which helped set us on our present path. It may be that the effort was doomed from the start; that it was never really possible to bring all the people of South Vietnam under the rule of the successive governments we supported -- governments, one after another, riddled with corruption, inefficiency, and greed; governments which did not and could not successfully capture and energize the national feeling of their people. If that is the case, as it well may be, then I am willing to bear my share of the responsibility, before history and before my fellow-citizens. But past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live. Now as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone of Sophocles: "All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride."

                    http://www.pbs.org/...

                    Those who blame Edwwards, who had less culpability than RFK, are just involved in partisanship.

                    •  Obama for those interested in who got Iraq right. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kitsapdem

                      Citing others who got big wars wrong is hardly a defense for Edwards.

                      Again the question was who showed leadership on Iraq. It was not Edwards who voted for the war despite being in the unique position as member of Senate Intelligence Committee to know that Iraq was a mistake.

                      Obama showed leadership by opposing Iraq war and getting elected to office based on his opposition to the Iraq war....that is leadership.

                      •  You do realize that you aren't being very (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Predictor, TomP, randomperson26

                        effective.  Even the Obama supporters wonder about you. Your statements are just not convincing.

                        It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                        by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:08:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Salmon... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          pioneer111, okamichan13

                          ...I gave you a donut.  You're just here to stir it up.

                          Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.

                          Investigate. Issue Subpoenas. Convict. Rinse. Repeat.

                          by moosely2006 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:16:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Diarist demanded answer from Clinton/Obama (0+ / 0-)

                            when the challenge he laid down is answered, your only response is to try and censor it.

                            "Now, if this angers any other candidate's supporters I am sorry, but I think they all owe us a detailed explanation..."

                            The explanation is that Edwards voted for the Iraq war.  Obama opposed the war and went on to win an election opposing the war, demonstrating leadership and political courage when people like Edwards supported the war showing, at best, poor judgement and, at worst, political calculation.

                            Don't demand the other candidates supporters answer if you can't handle the facts they are going put on the table.

                            This is exactly what happened to Edwards in the last debate, he attacked Clinton and Obama on Iraq and lost the debate. He lost because he was an Iraq war supporter and he lost because he attacked other candidates...same as this diary.

                          •  I asked (0+ / 0-)

                            For an explanation of their views on Pre-emptive war and how they would move our military into the New Century. They owe us that.

                            While you want to talk about the last debate, Obama was horrible on the first question, letting it slip we should wait until next election to leave Iraq, and looked totally perplexed and rather sickly on the VA question.

                        •  Just responding to diarist demand for explanation (0+ / 0-)

                          "Now, if this angers any other candidate's supporters I am sorry, but I think they all owe us a detailed explanation..."

                          I certainly don't expect to convince Edwards supporters, the few remaining ones like Bush supporters clearly drank the cool aid.

                          However I'm more than happy to respond to a request to explain Obama's leadership on the Iraq war and other issues when asked.

                          •  Its been (0+ / 0-)

                            A very long time since Obama led on Iraq. Lets sneak out last and vote against something. Edwards gets it right now. Plus, this diary wasn't about Iraq, what is Obama's plans to rebuild our military to face new challenges. You are talking BS about Iraq because you cannot answer the real question, because Obama doesn't have a plan!!!

                          •  since war began, Obama has lead (0+ / 0-)

                            "A very long time since Obama led on Iraq."

                            Eyup...Obama has lead on Iraq war since before it began.

                            "Plus, this diary wasn't about Iraq."

                            The diary title said it was about leadership and it demanded answers from Clinton and Obama supporters on the issue of leadership.

                            On Iraq, Obama has shown leadership, opposing the war from the beginning, getting elected based on opposing Iraq war, proposing firm date for ending Iraq war, pushing to override Bush veto, voting no to more funding.

                            We need people who get the big questions right the first time...that's Obama.

                          •  I suppose (0+ / 0-)

                            He got it right the first time all those times he voted to extend the war, and when he voted for the Bush energy bill of 05?

                      •  Obama...2003...on $87 million (4+ / 0-)

                        "Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'No,'" Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                        "I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say 'No' to George Bush," Obama said. "If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance."

                        http://www.abcnews.go.com/...

                        Here's the tape:

                        Guess Obama says anything to get elected.  He became a senator, then decided it was ok to get steamrolled and voted FOR funding, again and again.  Based on this misrepresentation of how he would have voted, one could easily argue he would have voted FOR the AUMF, too.

                        By the way, Edwards NEVER voted for funding.

              •  You got my vote for best comment on the thread! (0+ / 0-)
            •  vote for? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TomP

              Double Guantanamo? And Rudy The Terror?

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:34:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Obama supporters did the Jerry Springer thing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moosely2006, TomP, randomperson26

          and made smackdown videos of Edwards - but the point of Edwards calling out Obama and Hillary on their LACK of leadership went right over their heads. More proof their support of Obama is based on a crush.

          When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

          by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:46:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  When did Edwards foolishly attack H & O? (4+ / 0-)

          He EXPOSED their LACK of leadership - causing Obama to hit back with OLD NEWS -
          as if people didn't know Edwards had voted for the war. But for the Jerry Springer Obama type supporters - the smackdown was all that mattered.
          They're probably good at mud wrestling too.

          When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

          by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:52:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Leading in wrong direction is a BAD thing. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jen, kitsapdem

        What good does it do to lead people in the wrong direction, like Edwards did in 2002 when he cosponsored the AUMF?

        Is this what we have to look forward to, "leadership" defined as apologizing for years worth of mistakes?

        I'd rather have fewer mistakes and less need for apologies.  Fewer people die that way.  

        So Obama wins the point on the war.

        December is the new September.

        by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:58:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know whose polls you think are worthwhile (6+ / 0-)

      but in the polls that count Edwards is doing just fine.  Further, most of us are getting more than saturated with the Obama position on the war in Iraq.  His opinion didn't count then...and what he's doing now certainly isn't helping to end the war.  Obama's sponsorship on liquid coal is absurd.  This technology is dirty, has been around for 80+ years, will require a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, and failed once before.   Of course, IL is a big coal state, isn't it!

      At a deeper level....if you really look at Obama's record...there's plenty to be critical of...most recently his uncovered, but previously denied, favors for Antoin Rezko.  

      •  RealClearPolitics.com and Pollster.com (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kitsapdem

        demonstrate Edwards declining poll numbers.

        •  Those are polls with Gore in the race (7+ / 0-)

          and those polls are silly for that reason.

          Iowa polls show Edwards back widening his lead and NH polls show Edwards as within 8 of HRC and 3 of BHO.

          The netroots are dominated by a strong plurality of Edwards-backers and Edwards-leaners.

          These are the leading indicators that demonstrate that Edwards is mostly likely to out on top.

          Especially when folks start to think about electability and when the unions come out for JRE.

          Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

          by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:18:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Edwards is in the 11-15 range in w/o Gore polls (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            moosely2006

            in the recent days: RCP.

            Truth, both when convenient as well as inconvenient, is all there is.

            by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:34:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think... (7+ / 0-)

              it's a valid point that he is not running well in national polls but the campaign's focus has never really been on the national polls. Without question it's always been about IA, NV, NH, SC, and whoever else decides to jump in early. As a campaign worker, having seen the support in a few of these states I still have a lot of confidence in this campaign.

              Disunion by armed force is TREASON!...Andrew Jackson

              by Ocean Stater on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:52:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm curious, then. . . (0+ / 0-)

                as a campaign worker, does it give you any hesitation that he's putting so many of his eggs in the 4 early baskets, given that no one really has a firm grasp on how the Feb. 5 super-duper primary is going to affect the dynamics of the process?  The idea that it makes the early states even more important is plausible, and is supported by some experts I trust.  But equally plausible (and expert-supported) is the possibility that it will make the first 4 states mostly irrelevant (especially if no clear surprises emerge from them).

                Of all the candidates, he seems to have the most riding on them.  And as I decide which one to support, that has always bothered me.  

                My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

                by cardinal on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:57:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  as a supporter of some other candidate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  randomperson26

                  doesn't it bother you that they're campaigning so much in states that they'll drop out before they actually make it to their primary?

                  Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

                  by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:56:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

                    First off, I'm undecided.  So the automatic oppositional tone is a bit unbecoming.  As I've said a million times here (though in fairness, I don't expect anyone to keep track of every posters' schtick), I'm struggling with whether to go with my sentimental Tar Heel favorite, or the upstart new guy.  One of my concerns about the former is what I perceive to be questionable campaign choices.  Not at the margins (I don't care about the feminist blogger fiasco, for example), but on fundamental questions like where to put resources.  I asked you a measured, non-confrontational question about the effect of February 5 on his chances, because the answer will genuinely affect my ultimate vote choice (and I'm registered in a Feb 5 state).

                    Btw, neither Hillary nor Obama will drop out before February 5.  So I hope that wasn't a serious attempt at an answer.

                    My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

                    by cardinal on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 03:44:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I just disagree that 5 February will mean much (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coturnix, cardinal

                      it will only ratify the choices of the front 5/6: Iowa, Nevada, NH, SC, Florida and Michigan (that's how I see it playing out).

                      I believe that one candidate will win 4-5 of those primaries, and another candidate the other 1-2, with the third of the Big Three dropping out.  Both Hillary and Obama have good reasons not to stick to a obviously losing campaign (they would have money, and that means power in the Senate where HRC could dominate the caucus and become Leader next and Obama could gear for a run at Illinois gov and be ready in 2012 or 2016 as the heir apparent).  Of course, they could also be looking at Party unity and a possible VP slot.

                      Here's how I see it:

                      Iowa
                      Edwards has his grassroots organization intact in Iowa leads every poll taken, and is well liked by the Des Moines Register.  Obama will compete in the eastern cities, but won't do much of anything away from the river.  I think Hillary will have a hard sell getting above her base 20%.
                      Prediction: Edwards 45%, Hillary 25%, Obama 20%, Others 10%.

                      Nevada
                      So Edwards wins Iowa and takes momentum into Nevada. Caucus is all turnout, and the Democratic party in Nevada is one organization: Culinary Union 226 of Las Vegas, Unite-Here's power base, the strongest local union in the country, 60,000 strong.  And Unite-Here are already 100% behind Edwards (that’ll be true of the Change To Win unions at least).  Union households make up 25% of the electorate in Nevada, and will be a much larger portion of the Democratic caucus vote.  Edwards has developed deep ties with union leaders and workers over the past two years; he’s been very active in "Hotel Workers Rising" movement.  Edwards is also made friends through his support of Nevada’s successful raising the minimum wage proposal and today he announced David Bonior will be a campaign manager of any to-be-announced campaign.  Edwards has just about locked down the unions.  If you take a look at the percentage of Hispanics who are registered to vote, it's really low, and if you look at Hispanics who vote in primaries, it's extremely low -- Richardson bombs.
                      Prediction: Edwards 50%, Hillary 20%, Richardson 15%, Obama 15%.
                      Richardson drops out.
                      Obama has two third place showing, and he'll fade.

                      New Hampshire
                      This might be the place where Obama and Hillary do best, but NH did follow Iowa in 2004, and may jump on the Edwards-Iowa-Nevada bandwagon.
                      Prediction: Edwards 35%, Hillary 35%, Obama 25%, Biden and Dodd together 5%.
                      Biden and Dodd drop out.

                      South Carolina
                      And then there's SC, the state Edwards already convincingly won in 2004!  Edwards still has the local-boy-done-good vote (he was born in South Carolina), will compete with Clinton and Obama for African-American vote, but he'll get the lion's share of the white vote, and still will have the momentum.
                      Prediction: Edwards 40%, Obama 35%, Hillary 25%.
                      Obama and Hillary split up the African-American vote, Edwards dominates the non-A-A vote.
                      Obama has no wins and drops out.

                      Michigan
                      Edwards gets most of the unions, HRC a few.  Edwards has the trade issue and the populist economics.  This is where the race ends.
                      Prediction: Edwards 50%, Hillary 30%, Obama 15%, Kucinich 5%.

                      Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

                      by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 05:20:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

                        Very interesting analysis.  I still think the impact of the pre-February 5 primaries will come down to factors we can't predict right now (surprises always make more news than expected outcomes) -- but you've made a compelling argument for a potential path to Edwards' success.

                        My candidate walks on water and can beat up Chuck Norris. Yours sucks ****.

                        by cardinal on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:09:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Nevada (0+ / 0-)

                        If you take a look at the percentage of Hispanics who are registered to vote, it's really low, and if you look at Hispanics who vote in primaries, it's extremely low -- Richardson bombs.
                        Prediction: Edwards 50%, Hillary 20%, Richardson 15%, Obama 15%.
                        Richardson drops out.

                        — philgoblue

                        Do you really think that if Richardson were to garner 15% of the vote in the Nevada primary that his campaign (or anyone) would consider that 'bombing'?  You're putting Richardson in a dead heat with Obama?  I must say that I'm surprised.  As far as your observation about Latino voters history of  low turn out for primaries - that could change in Nevada - Richardson has been working hard to turn out immigrant voters.



                        He doesn't talk about the great wealth and privilege of his family.


                        ````
                        peace

            •  he has been there (4+ / 0-)

              all year as far as i remember.

              Actually...

              November, 10, 10, 9, 14
              March, 10, 15, 9, 12
              May, 15, 14, 11

    •  I'm not an Edwards partisan (6+ / 0-)

      I don't have any idea who I'll be voting for.  

      It's a year and a half before the elections.

      I've seen a lot of change in, or at least further definition of candidate positions.  I'm just not that worried about the whole flip flopping aspect.  

      I regard the right to embarrass each other one of the cherished parts of American democracy. -Barney Frank

      by otto on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:11:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama (9+ / 0-)

      still isn't for universal health coverage.

      His plan would leave 15 million Americans without health insurance.

      •  Edwards leadership is question. He didn't on Iraq (4+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        ghost2, ChiGirl88, Inland, kitsapdem
        Hidden by:
        flubber, moosely2006

        is the answer.

        The diarists hypothesis was an Edwards promotion as a "leader" and an attack on Clinton and Obama for "mud slinging".

        It backfires, just as Edwards debate attack backfired because, in fact, Edwards did not lead on Iraq.

        It backfires because the diary uses mud slinging to try and make its claim of Edwards leadership. Just as Edwards got headlines for his "attack" but lost poll points because of it.

        So the diary promotion/attack, like Edwards debate self promotion/attack, fails because it highlights Edwards failure to lead on Iraq.

        •  oopsie wrong diary (5+ / 0-)

          Your mud is the only mud here and it is republican mud.  

          Doesn't belong on any of our candidates.

          •  Oopsie...diary attacks Clinton and Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kitsapdem

            Bad place to start as Edwards found out during the debates.

            Just as the diarist does here, Edwards attack sought to portray Edwards as a leader by attacking Clinton and Obama on Iraq.

            Edwards ended up being corkscrewed into the ground by Obama who pointed out Edwards supported the Iraq war and showed no leadership on the main issue of the 2008 election.

            Edwards ended up being highlighted in the press for his "attacks" during the debate.

            Net result was Edwards dropped a few more points in the polls, losing points for style (attacking) and substance (For Iraq before he was against Iraq).

            Iraq contradiction is Edwards problem in a nutshell which is why I pointed out to the diarist that he was not offending (though that was his intent) but simply not facing the facts of contradictions of Edwards candidacy.

      •  As we see the preceding comment from?S. (0+ / 0-)

        It is a tactic that causes a reduction in the positive flow of this thread and further erodes the civility of the conversation.
        I would like to suggest the same control over our crapola MSM. Just turn it off.
        To look at the control of the conversation with Xs(Ss) participation it is ohhhhhhhhhhhh so obvious where it goes.
        Turning that station off now.

        Looking for Good Reason

        by Clzwld on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:20:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Pharlap, Gore's has always had a strong vision (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moosely2006, lynmar, TomP

      and logic/reason based platform. It has evolved somewhat, but it isn't what you're trying to slam him here with.

      Truth, both when convenient as well as inconvenient, is all there is.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:32:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  FACT: (8+ / 0-)
      1. Edwards is, quite frankly, ALONE in his quest to restore the legitimacy of US democracy and make the government serve the needs and will of the masses.

      The system is certainly stacked against him.  Which is a direct reflection of the fact that the system is stacked against the people.  Even if he does win, (which he most certainly can) it will be an uphill battle.  But at least the battle will begin.  

      1. The other Democrats Offer more of the same - oppression and abuse of the masses for the benefit of the empowered wealthy, only at a slightly slower pace. I once thought of Obama as a possible exception, but he seems less so every day - not to mention the fact that the incessantly offensive behavior of his supporters on this site, make it increasingly difficult to maintain an open mind about him, in any case.

      "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy June 6th, 1968

      by enough already on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:07:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Contradictions 1-3 (8+ / 0-)

      Edwards' changed positions are not a problem because the American people also took Edwards' earlier positions (1. Most people supported the Iraq War at first, 2. Most people were afraid of universal health care as Clinton could testify, and 3. People were busy buying SUVs and not concerned about CAFE standards). Now people are changing their minds on all three points--so they are right in tune with Edwards. "Flip-flop" worked against Kerry because he wrote and performed the Republicans' "87 million" campaign commercial for them. I'm not sure that your argument is even applicable to Gore, the winner of the popular vote. I don't see Gore as having been particularly changeable. He had other flaws--but they didn't keep him from winning (in truth) the election.

    •  Salmon - I don't support Centri$ts! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pioneer111, randomperson26

      but the corporate media sure likes em! Woot!

      When religion gets into politics, politics gets into religion.

      by annefrank on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:41:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am trolling you because (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clzwld, moosely2006, randomperson26

      you are repeating the Same Shit everyday. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT EDWARDS history, If you cannot get over it fine. Vote for your candidate of choice. You do not need to repeat the same shit everyday about the PAST while we are here to fix the country and get the future right.

      So I am giving you one of my very rarely handed out Troll rates because this has gone on long enough.

      "The white folks think they're at the top, ask any proud white male. A million years of evolution and we get Danny Quayle." Oingo Boingo: Insanity.

      by Chaoslillith on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:58:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Salmon... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      ...he's under assault by MSM precisely because he wants to take on their corporate bosses.

      So, instead of parroting Rethug talking points, how about using your creativity to find a way to combat the Rethug tactics.

      I'm not going to TR you, but I really gave it some thought.

      Investigate. Issue Subpoenas. Convict. Rinse. Repeat.

      by moosely2006 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:03:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everything we do for John Edwards... (16+ / 0-)

    writing a diary, talking to friends and neighbors about his beliefs, or making a financial contribution is an invaluable investment towards changing this country into the America we want and know is possible.  

    There is no other candidate who compares to Edwards.  He stands for the people of this nation and the ideals of honesty and integrity and hard work...the things that made this country great and can once again.  

  •  Wow another detailed diary! (12+ / 0-)

    I think Edwards supporters seem to lead on substantive diaries on this site!

    We are better than this. - John Edwards

    by randomperson26 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 08:57:47 AM PDT

  •  Great Diary. Recommended (8+ / 0-)

    Good job on detailing Senator Edwards' positions RDemocrat!  We need John Edwards in the White House like yesterday!

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed." Abe Lincoln

    by mdgarcia on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:01:02 AM PDT

  •  I like Edwards but - Peak Oil (0+ / 0-)

    can someone point me to his comments or views on the coming Peak Oil crisis?

    If no-one around you understands start your own revolution and cut out the middle man...

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:01:26 AM PDT

    •  did you try looking for them yourself? (0+ / 0-)

      I googled a bit and didn't find much. If you haven't already done so, please try answering the question yourself before asking others. If you can't find the answer, it probably doesn't exist.

      •  On the contrary! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sybil Liberty, moosely2006, lynmar, TomP

        I think Edwards supporters are glad to field questions about his policies.

        •  I'm an Edwards supporter. But questions like this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moosely2006

          seem to be phrased like "well he seems OK, but what are his views on this? hmm? hmm?" Like they're daring us to not find an answer.

          That and people should google things before asking others to do the research for them, just in general.

          •  nonsense (0+ / 0-)

            if a candidate wants our attention, then it is up to them and their supporters to explain their positions, not for us to guess what they may be

            and you overestimate google's ability to figure out the nuance of a question

            and the whole point of a primary process is to address the attitude of waverers that think:  well he seems OK, but what are his views on XYZ issue important to me... if we don't know then it hasn't been communicated - is that really hard to understand?

            If no-one around you understands start your own revolution and cut out the middle man...

            by ResponsibleAccountable on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:48:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  well - of course (0+ / 0-)

        i wouldn't have asked if i had found stuff on it

        but i am no Edwards watcher... in fact my attention has waned regarding the whole 2008 process... just cannot get enthused

        and i am sure that contrary to your suggestion, an answer probably DOES exist somewhere, and if it doesn't then there are enough well connected Edwardsites on here, and their campaign seems responsive enough, that someone might think for a moment and post a well-thought-out response that points to a likely position based on other related positions

        something that i cannot figure out myself

        so i really don't need the lecture on how to work with this forum - checking the numbers (and this is my second account on here) i appear to have been here long enough to figure things out myself

        If no-one around you understands start your own revolution and cut out the middle man...

        by ResponsibleAccountable on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:46:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I also don't thinkit's a good idea for candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sybil Liberty, KansasLiberal

    to AIPAC ao any other organization with the intention of pushing the US towards war.

  •  2008 (8+ / 0-)

    John Edwards is the only candidate that deserves my vote.

    My dream ticket in 2008? John Edwards-Kathleen Sebelius

    by KansasLiberal on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:18:14 AM PDT

  •  As you said, (4+ / 0-)

    Streamlining activities spread between different agencies to the agencies that should actually be monitoring them just seems like such a no-brainer it is a shame that Edwards even has to comment on this.

    This next statement is one that always strikes me as a no-brainer, and the fact that it even needs to be said gives sad testament to the shameful level of petty defensiveness, sold as patriotism, that pollutes our public discourse.

    While the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests, Edwards believes our strength lies in standing together with the world, not apart.

    Here is another good point that speaks VOLUMES, and needs to be more strongly brought to the attention of average Americans.

    The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out.

    This is unprecedented.   BushCo has earned an unprecedented level of organized professional critics in many other fields too - Scientists, Humanitarians, Nobel prize winners.  It all speaks volumes and needs to be hammered home to those blind supporters who still insist on believing the Fox Noise mythology - that any criticism is simply the product of distortions spread by Soros and/or other "haters" of George.

    Lastly, this is so vitally important and so overdue.

    Edwards will launch a comprehensive, tough review of fraud, waste, and abuse, such as missile defense and offensive space-based weapons, that are costly and unlikely to work. He will also overhaul the rules governing privatization, to punish mismanagement, and reform DOD compensation policies to reward performance

    "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy June 6th, 1968

    by enough already on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:23:26 AM PDT

  •  But is it enough? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, ChiGirl88, jen

    You can't just be right. You gotta get elected. This is the problem Edwards has. Its not the issues, its the politics.

    As a former Edwards supporter, many of you are going to eventually come to the same conclusion I came to late in 2004. The guy is fantastic, but his political skills are not championship caliber. This is a difficult opinion to come to for some, but losing will do that to a guy.

    Keep in mind, im not talking about his speaking style, his telegenic appearance or any of that. I'm talking about his political timing and good sense of when and how to fight dirty. The guy misreads where the public is. His keeps missing the bullseye. I thought he had it when he beat Lauch Faircloth, but something seemed to happen to him when he got elected. His instincts are off.

    "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:25:31 AM PDT

    •  really? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clarkent, moosely2006, Ocean Stater

      Please define "skills," and please define "championship caliber."  Both are vague, and both seem to lack any real substance.  Regarding timing and sleazy politics, Obama made a huge error yesterday with his denigration of Punjab state and of the IndoPak community.  But whose instincts were off?  Obama is not assuming accountability for that error.  Edwards has assumed accountability for his past errors, and this, I believe, resonates with the electorate.

      Edwards has some work to do on his campaign's broader narrative, but his style and delivery are acceptable at this moment.  He needs to attack the other candidates more, as Obama and Clinton are so many images that are easily dismantled as a result of their lack of depth, but he is never wildly off mark.  Obama was yesterday, however, and this is why I believe your comments are more relevant to Obama and his consultants and not to John Edwards.  Do you agree?  

      •  Alright..here is what im talking about: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChiGirl88, kitsapdem

        John Edwards has been running for office since 1998. His intentions are clear: he wants to be president.

        Yet, here we are in 2007, and look at the large numbers of donors there are that were just left untouched until Obama came along. Why is that? He could have had things locked up by now with the head start he had. He should at least be a strong second. What has he done with his advantages? Nothing. Left Obama a hole wide enough to drive a truck through.

        The primary elections Edwards won in 2004, were won because he beat kerry among black voters. Did he build on this support? Did he make the rounds of the church and civic group leaders you need to be behind you? Did he make a run at young professionals? Did he go after the disaffected youth vote? In other words, did he make a concerted after to gather a wide group of people who would now be his foot soldiers? No. He just gave the black vote up completely, and then took up with the "netroots", which now him with most of the Dean vote. Did he look at the Dean vote and how small it was? Dean never beat him, Kerry did. When he should be going after the group that beat him, he decides to not only abandon the group that gave him his victories, he does not even go after the votes of the guy that beat him! What sense does that make? He abandons the mainstream democrat and the black vote for the group that got the least votes. DUMB!

        But this was apparent to me long before last years election. John Edwards made a fundamental strategic error by not attacking John Kerry as the status quo. After running so strong in Iowa, he left Kerry a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Again, DUMB! Then, given the opportunity to really put the brass knuckles on Dick Cheney, which is the proper role of a VP during an election, he fell short. Again, instincts off.

        But you need no better indication than his sentiment on the war, which his wife was telling him to vote against. He admits himself he should have trusted his own instincts. But what he does not realize is that is excatly what he did in the first place. He did follow his instincts, which were the political ones. We can see how that turned out for him.

        Need more?

        "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:12:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards did not come in second in... (0+ / 0-)

          ...Iowa because of black voters. There are very few black voters in Iowa. You meant the states he performed well in the South right?

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:52:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right! (0+ / 0-)

            I meant those states where he performed well in spite of the fact that John Kerry had become the clear frontrunner after winning Iowa and New Hampshire. Black folks in southern states came out for him in spite of Kerry.

            Im just mystified how he would just dump that to go after the Dean vote.

            "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:20:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  dump that? (0+ / 0-)

              wtf are you talking about?

              He is running against the first Black candidate who people think could win it all, and he is running against the wife of "America's first Black President" a woman who was always more popular amongst Black's even than her husband was.

              He didnt dump anything.  He got pushed out.  If he had dumped it he wouldnt have made the speech in Harlem at that church on MLK day.

        •  You have made a couple of good points (4+ / 0-)

          I certainly think Obama has done better in tapping into the fundraising potential.  However his main support are still big donors.  But he has brought many into the political discussion.  I am not convinced about some of the other points.  Nonetheless we will see what will unfold.  I do think Edwards does have good political instincts, I think he just wanted to run on his issues from his heart rather than plot how to get groups.  It may be a strategic error or he may find his stride on how to do that.  How much can one campaign and one man manage to control?  I don't know.  Obama has done some things brilliantly.  I hope that whoever wins it really is the best person.  I believe it is Edwards, but we will see.  

          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

          by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:58:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And Edwards will have a surge from the blogs (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pioneer111, randomperson26

            in a big way, both financially and in supporter involvement.

            We're sitting on a powerhouse here and '06 proved it.

            The "typical" political thinking is about to undergo a complete shift - and the blogs are where the power is concentrating.

            We are blogs. Hear us Roar?

            (sorry - I heard it and had to type it)

            Investigate. Issue Subpoenas. Convict. Rinse. Repeat.

            by moosely2006 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:31:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You keep thinking that... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChiGirl88, kitsapdem

              See, thats where the blogosphere is making its biggest error. It thinks it is the new base of the Democratic party, and that it alone is responsible for 2006. I don't think so. I think a strong Anti-Bush tide because of the war and Republican curruption were far more powerful than anything the netroots did. You just don't know what a very small and limited demographic bloggers are. Big voice, but small numbers.

              "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

              by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:18:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And you keep thinking that. (0+ / 0-)

                Investigate. Issue Subpoenas. Convict. Rinse. Repeat.

                by moosely2006 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:21:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Correct again (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ChiGirl88

                That's right, the winning candidate has to straddle the left blogosphere with the middle and right of center to win it, Edwards is really just targeting the bloggers like those here.  That's making many folks here very pleased, but it won't garner the support he's going to need. The winning game, like it or not, is the one that plays the middle I hate to say, and that can be seen in the numbers.

        •  Unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

          Most of his positioning and voting has really been whatever is advantageous to being elected President.  He was a very average if that Senator, and may not be but appears most interested in JE.  And the polls show it, a majority of folks aren't buying.  And I don't see him turning around poll trends at this stage.  The momentum is not with him, even though he has added some beneficial discussion about poverty and the war. Problem is, credibility.  Not enough congruency between rhetoric and actions.  And I agree with Brooklyn on timing, he's off on this continually.  That's a big problem during a campaign.  

    •  Brooklyn... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clarkent, scoff0165, moosely2006, lynmar

      You can't just be right. You gotta get elected. This is the problem Edwards has. Its not the issues, its the politics.

      I see what you are saying Brooklyn, but is that a reason to abandon him? For once can't we as a party make this election about issues and NOT the politics? If you yourself believe that Edwards is right on the issues, why would you not support him? For every person who thinks like that we lose a much needed vote.

      Disunion by armed force is TREASON!...Andrew Jackson

      by Ocean Stater on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:42:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so much for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        clarkent, moosely2006

        obama's "new politics."  unless, of course, "new politics" is code for more of the same.  i for one am sick of the vapidity of american politics, and this is why i welcome edwards to the Democratic field.  by the way, brooklyn claims the IndoPak vote is disposable, or at least this is how he rationalizes Obama's unwillingness to assume responsibility for the xenophobic press release issued by his campaign office yesterday.  is that also "new politics?"

        •  It is disposable. (0+ / 0-)

          You find some Indian elected officials in the Democratic party and then I'll tell you if it matters or not.

          There is but one Indian elected official in the U.S., and thats the Republican Bobby Jindal.

          You need to get up to speed on your census results man. Most of these folks vote Republican.

          "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

          by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's some written backlash. (0+ / 0-)

            Seems like Obama did piss off some immigrant groups with the D-Punjab stuff.

            Also he's got a tin ear for diplomacy. He gravely inulted the martial honor of Australia. Aussies have generously bled for their allies going back to ww1. They send their best men to any fight that the British or Americans have. They are great allies to have. And I can tell you it will return to haunt him.

            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

            by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:56:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Big deal. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChiGirl88, Pegasus

              John Howard got what he deserved. He stuck his nose in an American election that is none of his business. And he was right...if the Aussies are so gung ho about the war in Iraq, let them put up another 25,000 for the surge. And actually, the opposition leader in Australia came strongly to Obama's defense to rave reviews.

              "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

              by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:17:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  All i have to judge Obama on... (0+ / 0-)

                ...in the FP arena is a few missive directed at allies a speech in 2002 as an obscure State Representative, and some votes in favour of funding the occupation.

                The Aussies have in fact given invaluable assistance in counter-terrorist opperation in the ME and SE Asia notably Indonesia. They are a corner stone in regional security. They sent troops that are among the best in the world to Iraq. 200 of the Ausstralian SAS are worth 4,000 Iraq cops by any metric you choose. They also have a long term connection to the British forces, amounting to an Armoured Division and a huge number of Aussies serve with the the British SAS Royal Marine Commando. These Aussies were heavily involved in the operations to capture Um Qasr and other places during the invasion.

                I came off as ignorance to me. I know that Howard deserved it but the statement itself came off like an insult to the Australian armed forces as well.

                My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:34:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  His comment (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChiGirl88

                  was aimed directly at John Howard. Sorry if you were offended, but quite frankly, its American who are doing all the dying in Iraq. Howard seems to think we should stay and fight. Well, then, how about he put his folks in before he runs his mouth about it. When Aussie troops are getting killed in Baghdad then he can talk.

                  "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

                  by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:42:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  How did Obama vote on the surge? (0+ / 0-)

                He semed to save his ire and zinging ability for an irrelevant player.

                My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:40:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He voted against it (0+ / 0-)

                  Of course.

                  What he did was remind Howard that he is an irrelevant player. Hes not an American running for president. His troops aren't suffering because of this war. So he should shut the fuck up about both topics.

                  "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

                  by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:43:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Heres the problem though. (0+ / 0-)

                    btw I did enjoy the attack on the man Howard and his defence of the party. The Howard guy is a prat. But The Aussies have sent troops. Very good troops. If they are good enough patrolmen to have avoided casualties then they are doing themselves a favour. If American officers have endangered their own troops with poor planning and missions it doesn't make the Australian effort any less valuable. It is coincidental that they have had small amounts of casualties, and maybe a testament to professionalism in Australian arms that is lacking in the US. They did send troops after all. They are doing dangerous work--just because they have avoided getting themselves killed doing it isn't really a matter for criticism.   Would you prefer to be in an Australian unit there or the Polish, Italian, Ukrainian army for instance?

                    My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                    by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:10:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Uhhh...negative. (0+ / 0-)

                      They aren't losing men because they aren't in the thick of the fighting. Secondly, they didn't send in the numbers we did, so naturally they are not getting the casualties. I don't mean to minimize their efforts..but uh..they weren't at Fallujah and Falluhjah II. The dirty hard work of this horrid war is being done by our brave boys, not by your beloved Aussies.

                      Our military forces are the best led, best equipped, best trained and most lethal fighting force in the world. The problem is that its civilian leadership is so horrid. No country that endeavored this undertaking in Iraq could make a success of it.

                      And by the way, I'm a Marine. Not active duty, but once a Marine always a Marine. I would not prefer the Australian army over the polish or ukranian or whoever the fuck else is out there. The United States Marine Corps is the only one for me. Period.

                      "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

                      by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:29:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am not an Aussie. (0+ / 0-)

                        And you don't know exactly what they are up to either--how dirty have they got their hands?  Maybe they have a good relationshp with locals because they are not trigger happy.   And you know to  a lot of foreigners the Gung Ho shit is exactly why you run into so much trouble.

                        My brother in law was in Falluja until a few months ago (year long tour). He was a USMC Judge Advocate investigating US/Iraqi msconduct and insurrgent attacks and has been in the military for 20 years. He's basically said that discipline has broken down to such an extent that the Jarheads are kiling civvies left right and center. ROE are routinely ignored and the locals hate the Marines guts.

                        He's a Republican loyalist, and he knows the Corps and the Army fuck this up.

                        If Obama has the same arrogance as you about allies and America's ability to impose it's will by arms I am truly scared for the future. One Bush replaced by another equally arrogant man.

                        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                        by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:53:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  When you put the uniform on (0+ / 0-)

                          then you can run your mouth.

                          "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

                          by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  that a fact eh? (0+ / 0-)

                            Beyond anything in my own biography, of which you know nothing at all, I find that sort of declaration to be very anti-free-speech. What was it you swore to defend exactly?  The right for you to decide who participates in a Democracy based on military service?  Brooklynbullyboy.

                            My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                            by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:15:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  pawning off all command responsibility... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...has lead to alot of trouble with the ROE.  And it's made the war worse.

                        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                        by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:56:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  It's all about empty marketing. (0+ / 0-)

          Obama is a product placement.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:53:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        carolinadreamer, ChiGirl88, kitsapdem

        It is reason enough, because I don't want to lose again with a guy who does not know how to sell our message. If he can't sell it to us, how can he sell it others.

        Now, the choice for me isn't Clinton or Obama. It's Obama or Edwards. I think they are both about where I am, with Edwards to the left of me (now) and Obama slightly to the right. So the question for me then is, WHO IS THE BETTER PITCHER? I've seen Obama with the stuff, building a national organization out of nothing. Its also great that I happen to agree with him on almost everything! I also agree with agree with Edwards on most things, except his initial war stance. But more importantly, I've also seen Edwards make fundamental strategic mistakes that make me question his sense of political timing. I've watched him go down to defeat against two politicans (George Bush, John Kerry) who I know a better politician could beat.

        Thats the bottom line with me. I like the guy. He's moved right and is clicking on all the issues. But can he win the big one? His record doesn't seem to say so.

        "I get a cravin' like a fiend for nicotine, but I don't need a cigarette, know what I mean?" - Rakim

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:22:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You might want to consider Edwards election (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moosely2006

          to the senate.  He beat an incumbent Republican in a red state running as a pro-choice Democrat in 1998.  Good political skills there.  If you look at his campaign it actually is a good one.  He has many people including the MSM trying to marginalize him.  With absolutely no real favorable publicity he is running third in the national polls and first in Iowa.  This is all based on his personal contact.  He has chosen to run against the powers that be but on personal conviction from his heart.  He almost beat Kerry, but just ran out of time for such an insurgent campaign that was dominated by Dean.  Kerry tried to run a safe presidential campaign.  He did not use Edwards skills well.

          Obama has had some good breaks and he has taken advantage of some favorable circumstances. I don't think he has ever really run into tough opposition.  He may prove his mettle in this primary.  However don't discount the skills Edwards has.  He is a fighter like none of the other candidates.  And he works really hard.  The MSM is looking for any little thing they can use and they will find it.  Look how they used the Dean scream.  That doesn't mean it has substance.  Obama has started to get that kind of attack, but my hunch is they are saving their worst for the general.  They just would like to knock out Edwards right now.  And given that this is what Edwards has chosen to do, he has to follow through on his own plan.  He and his supporters can't really whine about it.  They are fighting a difficult campaign, but I think it is worth it.  Politics is brutal.  I wish it weren't quite so, but that is the way it is.

          Edwards is selling his message to Democratic activists first and doing a good job at it.  He can then sell it to the country.  Anyway the primary will be messy but that is the game in choosing the president.  I wish we had a better way, but we don't.  

          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

          by pioneer111 on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:43:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          It is a by product of Edwards prominence for 10 years. He managed Bills defence in the Senate in 1998. He's going to have made mistakes because he's been around for while. Obama has only been on the national scene for three years--much of it laying low.

          This is good for Obama because he has very few votes to defend. But it leaves me a little cold.

          ON FP he seems to spend far too much time attacking foreign leaders and shoving his foot in his mouth about the Aussie SAS, the Punjab stuff , and increasingly blaming Iraqis for their predicament. I don't like what I see on FP. He is green. Very green.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:00:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Surely you meant to say, (0+ / 0-)

      You can't just get elected.  You gotta be right.

      You can't just be right. You gotta get elected.

      "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy June 6th, 1968

      by enough already on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:00:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well at least there is some argument there. (0+ / 0-)

      That may well be a problem. The issue may be out like this--does he have a killer instinct?

      I dunno. I suppose he does. This could go either way. Either he's a cynical oportunist or he's  a sap. It can't be both. But you would have it both ways.

      Also you are now arguing about "a certain something".

      This can't be defined in ration terms. It can't be done. It is something Somersby over at Daily Howler has railed against since Gore was murdered by the media in 2000.

      the "Certain Something" is essentially marketing bullshit. It gives arbitrary power to Bobbleheads. You are just reinforcing the Republican meme. It's what we have argued against on Kos and other sites since 2000. Sad to see you using it now.

      You offer no rational argument and circular reasoning. It's is something Kos was designed to stamp out of the political process.

      Obama will be recast as a windbag empty suit if he proceeds. And there will be quite a lot of people who agree with that assessment.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:49:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow - you nailed it (0+ / 0-)

      That's exactly right.  It definitely sums up his problem and why he won't be the nominee.  

  •  auditing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clarkent, moosely2006, TomP

    i notice he focuses on auditing and the gao.  this is important, as auditors have had a difficult time under the bush administration.  again and again we learn how the autonomy of auditors has been compromised by interested parties, and this has increased the waste, fraud and abuse of our taxes.  discussing the war in these terms is important, as its cost is constantly obfuscated.  and the money to be saved from rigorous audits can be invested in something more meaningful.

    i am happy to see edwards identify culprits in these policy statements.  he needs to do this more often, for it will help him consolidate his position and his narrative.  who will this benefit?  who is responsible for this problem?  those questions must constantly be answered if his message is to resonate with voters.  

    i am a fan of audits, and i look forward to seeing many of them performed when edwards assumes the presidency.

  •  Great Post (8+ / 0-)

     it is a comfort to know that more and more Americans are becoming engaged in more than the fluff and silliness of our psuedo national discourse that goes on in the dinosaur media.

     We understand that this election is about whether we will turn our creaky ship of state - foundering under the captaincy of a group of clowns, buffoons and insidious Machiavellis whose oh-so-clever strategms for power are coming unraveling - but in the process unraveling many threads of what is great about American undermining the core of our heritage - away from the shoals into which it is headed and instead lead the world again.  

     This is not the election for incremental change or gentle consensus policy making - it is the time for America to renew.

     Hope and Courage.

  •  "wandered into the wrong party" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pelican, Larry Bailey, jen, Inland

    if I don't agree with you about edwards' leadership capabilities?

    ...my arse

    Based on pi**-poor judgment, edwards lost me when he co-sponsored the IWR. In my book, that's one issue that doesn't get a pass.

  •  Only Edwards and Gore (12+ / 0-)

    see clearly that the next President must be more than just more competent and decent, but the USA as a whole must operate fundamentally differently in the world -- not just different from the lunatics presently in office, but different from the way it has been for quite some time.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

  •  Edwards has my support for the moment.... (10+ / 0-)

    For one prominent and glaring reason:  He's the only candidate who's had the guts to come out and call the "War on Terror" for what it is:  The biggest red herring in the history of this country (if not the world!!).  It's a slogan used to manipulate a misinformed and gullible populace into supporting a military response to what should be a diplomatic and law enforcement issue.  

    The "war on terror" has been going on forever:  The effort by the ruling class to prevent the lower classes from getting their fair share of the pie.  What else is a "terrorist" but someone who's been backed into a corner and has no other option but too fight their way out of it? Mind you, I'm not condoning the "means" used by "terrorists" but I do see how a subjugated population (Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Basques in Spain, etc.) will produce individuals who, in desperation over oppression, injustice and denied opportunity, will reach a point where violence, wherever directed, is perceived to be the only means at hand with which to call attention to their plight.  If the greedy would allow the less greedy a fair share of the economic pie we might have less "terrorism" to worry about.

    Thanks for listening to my rant.  

    BTW, I think John Edwards/Wes Clark would be a great POTUS/VPOTUS team.

    Liberal = We're all in this together
    Conservative = Every man for himself
    Who you gonna call?

  •  Honesty and Competence (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pelican, jen, Sybil Liberty, Illissius, Inland

    These are my two main sticking points with the guy and they're pretty big sticking points.  It really goes back to his Iraq war vote and his subsequent transformation.  Neither has been explained.  He said in the last debate he was fully briefed and did not need to read the NIE report. He said in the first debate his mistake was not listening to his instincts, something the Schrum book seems to back up.  But if his instincts was to be against it and he he fully knew everything which was in the report, then how could he have made the speech he made on 9/12/02 where he said we know definitely Saddam has WMD, the threat from Iraq is immenent, and failure to take action risks another 9/11 attack?

    He tries to blur over this by simply saying it was a mistake without detailing what was his mistake.  And why?  He has made this a hallmark of his campaign so I think we deserve an answer.

    He says he is being honest by admitting it is a mistake but without explanation it can also be interpreted as a clever political ploy to get past it without the honest explanation - ie. I thought it was the right political move. When I pressed Edwards supporters on MyDD for an explanation of this, the only one I got was he thought Bush would live up to his promises, basically the same explanation Hillary gives which John claims is not saying it is a mistake.  

    I want honesty and competence in my candidate.  On the starting point of the most important single issue in the campaign, I'm not comfortable Edwards is meeting the requirement on either of those.

    •  Bush would live up to his promises? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scoff0165, moosely2006, lynmar

      Forgive me if this sounds snarky but which part of that do you not understand? Both Hillary and Edwards have made it clear that they never in a million years thought that a CiC would be as irresponsible as this one. They truly believed that Bush would pursue a coalition, utilize diplomacy and force would be a last resort. It is rather unfathomable that a competent leader would go into a country without even having a PLAN. Geez, I shake my head at the thought that millions of Americans voted for this dolt. Edwards was far from the only one who got Bush wrong.

      •  20+ Senators didn't... (6+ / 0-)

        ....get it wrong. Among the ones that got it right there were 6 who actually read the full NIE....something I would think would be the only responsible thing to do....sending men and women off to get killed and all.

        •  3,514 of them (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pelican, velvetdays

          and growing...in a war we had no business fighting.

        •  No wrong--half the NIE readers voted for war. (5+ / 0-)

          The NIE is a Red Herring. It did not turn people into anti-war voters.

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:10:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well at least they took the time to read it. (0+ / 0-)

            Red herring my a$$

            Tell that to the families of the dead and wounded.

            So you're saying that since half read it and still voted for the war ....this somehow validates those who didn't even take the time to read it?

            Your logic escapes me.

            •  Hey jack, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BWasikIUgrad

              I've been against the war from the start. I didn't need a stinking paper brick from the CIA to tell be what I thought.

              It's almost fucking laughable--as if Edwards is solely, majorly responsible for the war. Most of the military were Gung Ho for the war when it started, now they realized the Iraqis are hard as nails they are against it. Thew military cynicism is just appauling. They always blame civvies for their woes. Given Their voting habits we can clearly see they got what they voted for.

              Now it's time to pull them out of the cauldron.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:21:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  A study of the AUMF-Iraq Votes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blue South, randomperson26

          No Votes by Senators from Red States
          Byrd (D-WV)
          Conrad (D-ND)  
          Graham (D-FL)

          No Votes by Senators from Red States who were in their first term:
          Zero

          Democratic Senators Who Voted No Who Were Up For Reelection in November 2002
          Durbin (D-IL)  
          Levin (D-MI)  
          Reed (D-RI)
          Wellstone (D-WI)

          All incumbents from very Blue States with very safe seats (possible exception of Wellstone).

          Democratic Senate Seats Lost in 2002 (one month after vote)
          Max Cleland (Georgia, one term)
          Jean Carnahan (Missouri, appointed)
          Walter Mondale (Minnesota, substituted for Wellstone, RIP)

          Now, I think that most who voted for the AUMF did so because they thought that Saddam was a threat to US interests in the Middle-East (and there were reasons for thinking this other than WMD and these reasons were coming from sources other than the Bush regime -- that was the analysis of every establishment intelligence official in the US and most overseats), but one has to be realistic and understand the politics of the situation.  As for HRC, she is the senator from NY and New York had suffered greatly on 9/11 (not that Iraq had anything to actually do with 9/11, but that voters would ever get that information given the republican dominance of the federal government was less than likely).  So, it's a bit much to ask a first-term senator from a Red State (or from NY) to vote against the AUMF and commit political suicide given that Bush was going to go to war with or without the AUMF.

          Show the campaign that bloggers support John, donate at Netroots for Edwards

          by philgoblue on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:50:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  and over 70 DID get it wrong (0+ / 0-)

          so what was your point again? The NIE was not the be all and end all fpor those that made the decisi9on not to support the war by the way.

      •  Force as a last resort? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pelican, jen, Sybil Liberty, Illissius, Inland

        This is what I mean.  If that truly was his "mistake" then what is the essential differnce between him and Hillary.  And that sentiment doesn't match the rhetoric he delivered.  On September 17th, 2002 he said

        “Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

        Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

        Iraq’s destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein’s arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.”

        He was out there making the direct link between Iraq and terrorism and stirring up the same fear the GWOT fear mongers used.  Look, I think at heart he is a good man unlike many of the others.  But since he used the words honesty, he brought up the issue I'm going to be honest about it, it was a mistake,  aren't we owed a true and honest explanation?  Those aren't the words of someone who feels force should be a last resort.  Those aren't words of caution.

        •  Imagine the scene... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          moosely2006

          1940 France has fallen, Churchill is the new PM...Dougdilg MP Newcastle rises

          "Tell us about Gallipoli Prime Minister? Don't we deserve an honest explaination?"

          He reckoned he should get on board for the sake of post 9/11 unity. He wanted to inspect Saddam's weapons facilities. He thought Saddam was a tyrant who's day of reckoning had arrived. He thought the US would succeed as they allegedly had in Afghanistan. He decided to back his party leadership and comply with their wishes. Once the war started he decided to support the troops' mission. when the magnitude of the deception and disaster became clear he started voting against the occupation.

          It's that simple. There's nothing to be hysterical about. This isn't a war crime on his part.

          There were huge unintended consequences. Some like me (Feingold, Kennedy) saw it coming some like Edwards blotted it out for the reasons above. I can live with it. Half our party blotted it out. Most of them are still blotting it out.  

          Edwards did not plan or execute the invasion. If he were the President after 9/11 he would not have invaded Iraq becaus he would have been getting advice from Albright and Foggy Bottom. If he were President since 2004 Iraq would already be evacuated.

          I can't say the same is true for Hillary. Obama, was not involved in the decisions so it comes off as cheap to attack an at the time junior senator

          My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

          by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:23:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then where's the mistake? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Inland

            You are saying the invasion was just, the execution was poor.  That's not what Edwards is saying.  I believe you just gave Biden's position which Edwards says he's different from.  Hillary says she was authorizing war as a last resort and Edwards says he's different from that as well.  I just think if he wants to be President he owes us an explanation of where his mistake was and why did he make it.  It goes to both the question of actual honesty as well as competence.

            •  No i'm nnot saying it was just. (0+ / 0-)

              I am saying it could be legitimately argued to be just under certain circumstances. No that I would argue for it myself. Saddam was widely seen as a tyrant. The Hague Tribunals would have loved to have tried him for instance. We might have seen justice done in that context.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:59:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Biden is a Democrat. (0+ / 0-)

              I would vote for him to be President. I wouldn't want him in cabinet. It's a mainstream Democratic postion to be sure. One I disagree with but it is held by many Senators etc.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 02:02:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. This is the winning JE point? (0+ / 0-)

            That he thought what he thought, it's not a war crime, stop being hysterical?

            Holy cow.  I never thought that a democrat would use the golden retriever defense (good hearted but  dumb) and the republican defense of attacking anti war democrats as hysterical because they attach blame.  

            Wonder if the R nominee is going to say one thing different from what's in your comment during the general, because there's nothing in there that any republican but Bush and Cheney themselves couldn't roll out.

            December is the new September.

            by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  er no. (0+ / 0-)

              Most of the Democrats have used this argument to stick wit the war. Edwards has repudiated it.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 02:00:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's a circuitous route (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Inland

                you've taken.  I asked what was the mistake he made.  You answered the Biden answer which you now say Edwards has repudiated, so we are back to square one aren't we?  What is he apologizing for? He's not saying what Biden is saying, he's not saying what Hillary is saying, he was fully briefed, didn't need to read the NIE, said he know for sure there are weapons of WMD, said Saddam was an imminent threat, said to do nothing risked another 9/11, and said he should have trusted his intincts.  So is it any wonder I'm confused ?

                •  the mistake was voting for the war. (0+ / 0-)

                  I just gave you reasons why a hypothetical 'good' Democrat may have made such a mistake. You are indicting the whole party here. What is this: a fcuking Tribunal? It's like asking how many angels dance on head of a pin as well.  The Good reasons for moving on Saddam are pretty obvious. The drawbacks however override all the good reasons for invasion or deposing Hussein.

                  I'm fully cognisant of all the anti-war arguments. You don't need to patronize anyone on Kos with expounding on them again. I may have even origininated or been an early exponent of  a few of them myself in other forums.

                  What is the point of your questions?  Obviously voting for the IWR was a mistake, but there were reliable and good liberals in the UK and the US who supported the ouster of Hussein. It's a creepy tactic that verges on monomania.

                  My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

                  by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 06:10:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sure they will. (0+ / 0-)

              Although Romney and Giulliani are not likely to back off prosecuting the war. They will double it with no apology.

              Alot of Obama posters are a bit too Gung Ho about war with Iran.

              My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

              by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 02:04:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hey!!! My Golden is not dumb!!! (0+ / 0-)
  •  I have never seen any evidence... (5+ / 0-)

    ....of "leadership" in Edwards (or Hillary or Obama for that matter) In the Senate they all showed their true stripes which is to go along to get along. I don't remember Edwards spearheading any big poverty or environmental issues which he now claims leadership in and when it comes to foreign policy....well we all know how wrong he was in that.

    Edwards talks a good game but I have always been the type to look at actions rather than words and his senate career shows not only lack of leadership but poor judgment on a number of occasions.

    Talk is cheap.....especially when you are running for President.

  •  To me, the Edwards difference (8+ / 0-)

    is that we are a real movement about real change led by John Edwards.

    Great diary, RDemocrat.

    "We've got to save America from this President." John Edwards 4/3/07

    by TomP on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 10:17:26 AM PDT

  •  Not a Leader When We Need One!!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jen

    Where was he when it mattered?
    http://www.senate.gov/...

    I worked hard for Dean in 2003 & 2004 becasue he was correct on Iraq. I worked for Kerry in 2004 because I hated Bush. But never again. I am for Obama, I have donated to Obama. He is the future.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 11:12:20 AM PDT

    •  The problem is that he is never wrong. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moosely2006

      Just think about it. Just like Bush...

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 12:26:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards led in 2002. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pelican

      Just in the wrong direction.  He cosponsored and advocated the AUMF blank check that gives Bush all hte legal authority he needs to keep the occupation going..  

      December is the new September.

      by Inland on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:22:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Best thing about Edwards: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sarahlane, Blue South

    He was rooting for the Cavs over the Spurs. :D

    http://www.cleveland.com/...

    Among the stars catching the Cavs game Thursday night was Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, who sat courtside and pledged allegiance at halftime to the Cavs. Sipping a cold Bud in the Platinum lounge at the half, he seemed like a regular guy. Perhaps too regular. Other patrons, who go gaga whenever a player passes in the hallway, left Edwards alone. Can't imagine that happening to Barack Obama.

  •  So far, (4+ / 0-)

    Edwards is breaking all sorts of "conventional wisdom" in DC and has chosen to speak the truth by becoming the voice of the (progressive) people.  THIS is why every pundit in DC wants to bring him down because Edwards makes way too much sense, which scares the shit out of them.

    Go Edwards!  You have my vote!

    •  Progressive voice? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey, jen

      How is someone who voted for the War and is against Impeachment the voice of the Progressive people.  The only true Progressive voice out there running for President is Kucinich.  Sure, that's not too persuasive a voice, but don't get carried away with your Edwards idealization.  Progressives are mixed in terms of their allegiances but just because I as a Progressive supports candidate A, that doesn't make him the Progressive voice.  

      •  Wrong doug... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larry Bailey

        even though he wasn't Russ Feingold while in the Senate, we're supposed to believe John Edwards is now the Southern version of Paul Wellstone.

        I like the guy, but let's not act like he's the same thing as the GREAT men I just mentioned.

        •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larry Bailey

          You're misreading my post.  I'm not saying he's a great man.  I wouldn't even go so far to say I like the guy.  I understand others do, but he's not the most Progressive candidate even in his most progressive, what should I call them, stances.

      •  I share your frustration re: (0+ / 0-)

        John Edwards and just about everyone else's vote that authorized Bush to wage war in Iraq.  But I'd implore you to let go of your bitterness because Edwards has already come out and admitted that it was a mistake.  Or would you rather see Edwards NEVER admitting any mistakes like someone we know in the Whitehouse?

        You can try to nitpick what Edwards has done in the past, but the most important thing that matters now is that Edwards understands that he was standing on the wrong side of the fence when he was a Senator and has now seen the light.

        He is, as far as I'm concerned, the most progressive and leading voice out there for us among the top tier candidates and Edwards is the only one who's out there fighting the conservative noise machine fearlessly.

        You can't say that about Hillary or Obama no matter what they've done in the past.

  •  edwards bores me. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pelican, Larry Bailey, ebbinflo, kitsapdem

    I find John Edwards to be completely disingenuous and someone who is acting out of political expediency and not conviction.  He was quite conservative and a much more to the right of even Hillary in his initial position on Iraq.  He took the politically acceptable position now and he is taking it again.

    Sure, I like his policy positions but position papers are easy enough to crank out. I think if he ever had to make a principled stand that entailed more than just getting himself elected then he wouldn't seem so courageous.

    I know that DailyKos has become the official Edwards rah rah site but please spare me that he is the new Bobby Kennedy. He is a good guy I suppose.  But his "perfect" policy positions and his perfect physical appearance both say that he is way too pretty for me. I just don't trust him.  

    Who ever thought that evolution would be so revolutionary and reason would be so radical?

    by DCDissident on Sat Jun 16, 2007 at 01:21:02 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely! (0+ / 0-)

      He's an ok guy, but I totally agree. Boring and ineffective - I really have never gotten the buzz on this guy?  What's the big deal? Is it the rhetoric?  He's nothing like an RFK for gosh sakes...Don't trust him either, I hate to say it, but i almost have to turn him off when he's on tv, there's something just so self-aggrandizing about him or is it that he's trying so hard to look genuine?  I don't know, I will vote for him if he's nominee, but I sure won't be excited.  But then again, I don't think there's any chance of that.

      Oooops - I forgot this is Edwards headquarters....

  •  Why do I feel like I just walked into... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitsapdem

    Edwards campaign headquarters?

    Is it going to be like this the rest of the way til a nominee is decided?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site