The only candidate contribution I'm making

$250 to John Edwards; today is the last day for matching funds (up to $250) for the cycle... Iowa caucus is, what, about 6 weeks away?

BTW - I've been unemployed for about 10 months now but I simply have to support the man so I threw it on a zero-interest-for-the-time-being credit card.  I have to do what I can to help John Edwards win the nomination.

This is very simple:

<list>

All electable (D)s beat all electable (R)s in every matchup in every poll I ever see.  I voted for Nader in '00; don't go down that same road, friend... it's a dead end.  I love Ralph Nader, but...  WHY should we settle for anything less than the most progressive ELECTABLE candidate?  To do anything else is irrational.  The iron is hot for '08.  Fucking strike.  Be rational; take the best available option.  Please don't waste your vote on a pipe dream.

He's the only electable candidate out there that's going to try to change things from the inside out... we don't have time for any more of these bullshit corporatist Dems.  This country is dying.  It's pointless to apply bandages (e.g. voting for, ah, the couple of leading (D) candidates; let's call them 'X' & 'Y') to our national gaping wounds until we can stop the bleeding.  Vote for the guy that will cauterize.

I don't see an electable candidate out there that doesn't fling religion around like a rag doll these days.  Jeebus, you guys -- I'm an ATHEIST and I'm not the least bit concerned about his personal faith because his life's record shows the compassion to match his rhetoric.  I'm not seeing the same level of dedication from the other two.  Chill on his religious take, hey?  He's walked the walk.

Don't be sucked into falling for the bullshit re: his unwillingness to be lovey-dovey with commercial interests.  Industry is not a collaborative effort with the public, no matter how many ads they put out.  There has been an absolute fucking hunt on the American worker (you know, the person that actually produces something).  I'm not claiming that management & ownership are w/o value, because they both have value... but almost 4 decades of data - half a lifetime - show that management & ownership have been increasingly taking more of the share of "The Pie" while non-owner/non-mgmt real compensation has fallen far, far short of being commensurate with the increasing rate of individual productivity.  The business lobby has successfully rigged both statutory law and judicial appointments to, quite literally, steal from you by ensuring that you rarely are able to negotiate on equal terms with employers and/or businesses.  Equal bargaining power is a fundamental presumption for the efficient operation of both (1) transactions in a market economy and (2) transactions in law... anything less means that the one with the more powerful negotiating position is unduly rewarded.  Don't vote for any electable candidate that won't GUARANTEE to try to at least stop this trend... if not reverse the trend.  This is the REAL, UNDERGROUND war and it's been on since Nixon took office.

</list>
What can I say?

Help John Edwards win the nomination.

Please.

p.s. I don't hate Hillary or Barack.  I just like John the most.

•  I don't understand.

  John Edwards has so much support on this blog, yet I can't stand him. Edwards was a front man for the Iraq war. He changes his opinion as much as Romney. He got destroyed by Cheney in the VP debate. He is overly aggressive towards other candidates.

  Being electable isn't an issue I care about. I care about the candidate that will best represent my country, my beliefs, and myself.

  by Fenrir on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:42:44 PM PDT

  •  John Edwards is a

    progressive.  We need a fighter.  

    John Edwards:

    "That wall around Washington, it protects a system that's rigged and guess who struggles as a result?   Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles pay-now and pay-later; when they watch the factory door shut for the last time; when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter’s face when there’s no money to pay for college.  Every single day they see that wall when they have to use the emergency room as a doctor’s office for their son because they can’t afford to pay for health care.   This is not okay.  That wall has to come down. ...

    "That’s why America needs a fighter, Democrats.  We need one to break down that wall so that we can see Our America—imagine Our America—and build one America."

    UPDATED: John Edwards at the DNC: Tear Down That Wall!

    by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:04:46 PM PDT

  •  who is your candidate of choice

      if not Edwards?

    by usmeagle69 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:13:30 PM PDT

    •  Richardson

      I've done some pretty thorough research, and I'm a Richardson supporter.

      by Fenrir on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:31:40 PM PDT

      •  Well that explains a lot.

        Richardson accuses John edwards of waging "class war."  He sounded like a Republican there.

        By the way, Richardson supported the AUMF and invasion of Iraq also.

        by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:56:05 PM PDT

      •  Funny, since he wasn't exactly an angel

        on the war.  He pretty much supported Bush's FP.

        by cjallen on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:57:51 PM PDT

      •  Whoopsi! You got punked. Richardson

        is the supreme opportunist.  You see, I've done
        research too.  Richardson is the  embodiment of cronyism.  A bag man, a bungling energy secretary who got bumped from Gore's VP short list, a sell out to nuclear energy, a advocate for NAFTA, a obvious stalking horse for the Clintons....  Read this article.  It's fun.
        http://www.slate.com/...

        by MontanaMaven on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:57:28 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Yes, Edwards was the floor leader for the AUMF. He's never backed away from that fact; what he has done is realize that he should have trusted his gut more and the "advisors" less.  He's given a sincere apology, and committed not only to not making the same mistake twice but to doing everything he can now to turn the situation around.  Can you say the same thing about the other two leading Dems?

    There are some issues where Edwards has changed his positions -- over several years time, not from day to day.  It's called learning, growing, taking in new information -- something we've seen no evidence of from our current White House resident.  The direction of his changes have all been for the good in my opinion, and coupled with how all of his policies are inter-connected and a coherent one, I believe these are changes that matter deeply to him.

    I've seen over and over that Edwards lost that VP debate 4 years ago -- there is, however, no news reports from that time that reflect that view.  In fact, all the reports from then gave the debate win to Edwards.  Certainly, in hindsight, we know that Cheney was lying through his teeth about any number of things.  Ah, the beauty of hindsight.

    And finally, what you call "overly aggressive" I see as simply telling the truth.  I'm glad he is willing to call Clinton out on obfuscation, and Obama on the fact that his health care plan is not universal.  This isn't a contest for Miss Popularity; it's the frigging Presidential primaries, and the public deserves to know the truth.  We certainly can't rely on the traditional media do correct the candidates when they're wrong.  If he isn't willing to stand up for the truth now, why would any of us believe he would do it later against the Republicans in the general or against the special interests when he's President.

    John Edwards does represent my country, my Democratic party, my beliefs and me.  That he is also the most electable is just icing on the cake.

    by edgery on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:14:11 PM PDT

    •  Excellent comment, edgery.

      It is not a game; it really matters.  Edwards will fight for real change.  He should continue to tell the truth about those who will not.

      by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:18:57 PM PDT

    •  awesome

      Opinions are like assholes, we all have them.

      My opinion is that Edwards does/says what he needs to get elected/gain support. I agree the flexibility in a candidate is important and they should change to suit the needs of the American public, however I don't think Edwards makes decision based of the public but off political gain.

      As for the Cheney debate, the most disturbing part of that debate was Edwards reference of Cheney's lesbian daughter. I found it in poor taste.

      I'm glad you support him and feel so strongly about it.

      by Fenrir on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:35:43 PM PDT

      •  Who do you like better?

        Richardson or Edwards?

        Hint: One of them might win the nomination, the other probably will not.

        The top three are imperfect politicians.  They all say what they think you want to hear.  But only one has the balls to take a stand with specific ideas on the harder issues.  The others waffle.

        by Right Wing Zombie on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:06:50 PM PDT

    •  Lets see . . . .

      balancing in each hand . . . a sincere apology . . . a million dead Iraqi's . . . . a sincere apology . . . . million dead Iraqi's . . . a sincere apology . . .

      OK, I think I get the point, it's a tossup, let's all move on now . . .

      by Roadbed Guy on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:21:15 PM PDT

      •  It is Bush's war.

        Not even a nice try.  

        Many antiwar people support John Edwards, including myself.  And I opposed the invasion when it was first proposed, before the AUMF vote.

        Why do many antiwar folks support John Edwards?  Because he has been teh most consistent voice fighting this war for several years.

        He will get us out of Iraq.  And make real change in America.

        by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:31:49 PM PDT

        •  After all, when the body

          count gets into the millions, it's just a statistic . . .  nothing to worry about.

          What a fucked up country we've become, I really can't see that's there much hope for us at all anymore. . .

          by Roadbed Guy on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:49:36 PM PDT

      •  then support Obama who

        said he was against the war but continued to fund it; or Clinton who both voted for the war AND continued to fund it; or Richardson who supported the war and is lying when he says he'll take all troops out of Iraq; or Kucinich who doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination but at least your vote will be "pure".

        I'll take Edwards who has shown the courage to admit a mistake (as opposed to Clinton and Bush), the strength to oppose funding (as opposed to Clinton and Obama), and tells the truth (as opposed to Richardson).

        by edgery on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:50:44 PM PDT

  •  Richardson beat the drums for war.

    In the lead up to the war he cheered on the Bush Administration.  Here's what he says in his autobiography:

    "I supported President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, without a new resolution from the UN, because I was persuaded that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the United States and our interests in the world...At this point...we must see this mission through."

    — Bill Richardson
    page 348
    Between Worlds | The Making of an American Life
    published November 2005

    
    
    
    `````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:17:01 PM PDT

  •  THere are plenty of lawyers on this site

    This explains the support he has here.

    by penguinsong on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:48:27 PM PDT

•  I tossed him $10 this morning.

  I sure wish I had $250! But I've contributed a few other times to his campaign at least.

  by pattyp on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:44:33 PM PDT

•  Crap forgot to mention:

  I have to run errands for a while.  Won't be able to check out thread until later this evening.

  /hit n run

  by EconAtheist on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:46:38 PM PDT

  •  People like you help me believe

    in the possibility of real change.

    I hope Elizabeth Edwards reads this.  She sometimes reads blogs, although I don't know how much she does Dkos.

    Come by Edwards Evening News Roundup tonight with Sarahlane and we will welcome you with mojo and music!!

    Together we all can change America.

    by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:00:18 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    I really think it's awesome when people see how important it is to support John Edwards. It's always inspiring when people do so even though they have to make sacrifices to do so. Thank you very much!

    by be inspired on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 05:27:22 PM PDT

•  He got my only

  contributions, too.

  I'm now sold - I just prefer his candor and, while it's been analyzed as an error, commend him for staying away from lobbying money.

  His straight out talk about how corrupt government is got my money -- and I hope he can earn my vote.

  by workingmom OH on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:49:16 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich's straight out walk about

    impeaching Cheney, and opposing USA PATRIOT, and MCA, and IWR got me...

    by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:46:46 PM PDT

•  John Edwards is the only TRUE...

  ...PROGRESSIVE (along with Dennis Kucinich).

  I believe he has truly changed since his days of being a front man for the war. This is why I think John Edwards is a sincere progressive/populist: It would be far easier for him to suck up to corporations and lobbyists, far easier to play the Washington games, far easier to have focus group tested platitudes that play to this segment of that segment of voter that a pollster has created (like "soccer mom", or "office park dad"). He is laying alot on the line for people who in the eyes of the pollsters and the mainstream media are unimportant.

  by lams712 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:49:51 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure it would be "easier"

    for him to do these things, if he wanted to actually get votes, given the current "we're sick of this shit" climate.

    by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:08:31 PM PDT

    •  If he is pandering for votes

      then doesn't that say something that he's the only one who's noticed that's what people want?  We know Hillary panders to everyone, and yet she and Rupert Murdoch haven't hit upon this idea for some strange reason.

      by Right Wing Zombie on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:10:48 PM PDT

      •  They have thought of it, I imagine

        but Hillary's too "owned" to be able to pander to the actual populace.  She can't possibly rock the boat without offending her power-base of "$upport", and couldn't do it with any credibility, anyway.  

        Murdoch's not her only benefactor; she literally can not AFFORD to talk such, and she's got sense enough not to try; they'd snatch her ass in line so fast...

        by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:33:34 PM PDT

    •  It seems to work for HRC...

      ...she has tons of corporate $$$, lobbyists loves her, the media promote her inevitability, etc. She is a part of the system and the system is rewarding her.

      by lams712 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:26:12 PM PDT

      •  I gotcha...

        but it's not over, by a long shot...  Time will tell if people are sick enough of corporate $$$, lobbyists, media, the system, etc. to have these "assets" backfire on her, as people realize "where she's coming from".

        by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:39:11 PM PDT

  •  John Edwards is not pure

    A couple of couple of weeks ago he called into the Thom Hartmann radio program for a brief interview.  Hartmann asked him about donations from trial lawyers and Edwards just shot back, (paraphrasing), "I ain't pure.  No one who has made it to this level of politics is pure."  He then went on a forceful lecture on getting this country and government cleaned up and back on track.  He has been in the trenches and fighting the fights and he will continue to do so as President so long as we got his back.

    by Mr Bofothum on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:37:38 PM PDT

    •  I'd certainly like to think so... n/t

      by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:41:20 PM PDT

•  oops - *not* sold n/t

  by workingmom OH on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:49:52 PM PDT

•  I want to like Edwards,

  and I DO prefer him over the other frontrunners, but the Iraq War Resolution, the USA PATRIOT Act, etc...

  I know, he's "changed his mind" regarding marching to preemptive war (well, not him PERsonaly...) against the greatest threat to the known universe (Saddam), but it just feels like more "walk one way, then talk another", depending on what's convenient.

  I believe in records more than talk, and no amount of slick talk will change that record. And I am skeptical that someone can have such a radical change in basic character, from "PATRIOT ACT/Let's Go to War" to... this stuff we hear now.

  by Prognosticator on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:23:54 PM PDT

  •  I thought about that too

    especially since he ran in 2004 and I didn't really consider him then because of his war vote and what seemed like he was saying anything to get elected.

    However, he has sort of grown on me this season starting with the first televised debate, when he was asked who inspired him the most, and he paused for 10 seconds to think before giving an answer.  It convinced me that he was actually being honest about the answer.  From that point I have further been impressed by his willingness to address the issues and set forth specific policy proposals.  Hillary and Obama seem to talk in more general terms or avoid the issues altogether.

    Basically I just think he's run the best campaign this year... but yes, the iraq vote and his contrary position four years ago was troubling.  You are right to be concerned.  I want to believe he has truly changed because he has specifically addressed his war vote with an apology and has been very specific about his ideas on the other issues.  That convinces me he is actually being honest this time and not just pandering.

    I would prefer that he had been consistent all along, but I was watching in 2002-2004 and realize that all of the democratic senators were under significant pressure to cave into bush, what with fellow dems even repeating the bush mantras about the war.

    by Right Wing Zombie on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:47:28 PM PDT

•  I was able to donate money

  made from the Edwards designs I create and sell in my CafePress account.

  I'm disabled, this is about the only way I can raise money for Edwards and this month 65.00 just went into my Artists 4 Edwards ActBlue account.

  Whoohoo!

  by RedJet on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:30:40 PM PDT

  •  You also inspire me when

    I get exhausted and cranky, Redjet.

    I love your new shirts.  I'll have to order some.

    by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:32:40 PM PDT

  •  Your designs are great!

    Of course your Edwards designs are wonderful....and the dragonfly too!

    by bettync on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 04:54:21 PM PDT

•  Yep

  I've given $50 today and that is on top of the other contributions I've given over the past few months.  It's not easy either with a house, my husband not getting the hours he usually does, but this is too important to me.

  Thank you for sharing this, it's a great diary because it's sincere.

  by Ellinorianne on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:37:47 PM PDT

•  thanks EconAtheist for the commitment

  donations before the deadline
  are doubly important for the Jan. Campaign run!

  I sent in $100 a few days ago.

  If all progressives were willing to stand up
  for progressive like Edwards --
  We'd already have our Country Back!

  by jamess on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 03:39:06 PM PDT

•  Thanks. This is a cool authentic diary.

  I have had my eye on Edwards since 2003.  What's really great about him is that he keeps moving in the right direction.  He isn't  flipping or flopping  back to the right.   He is steadily catching on to the tremendous crimes that are being committed and he is moving left and his pace is picking up. He's becoming ferocious.

  by MontanaMaven on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:00:50 PM PDT