Edwards won with this...

Obama won with his freshness

Hillary won with her presence

Dodd won with his hair

Biden won with his yelling

Kucinich won with his wife

Richardson won with his um diplomacy?

Gravel won a straight jacket

But Edwards is gonna take it with this....

•  Tips for taking power away...

  from the bastards!

  by cosbo on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 07:58:27 PM PDT

  •  I'm an Obama fan...

    and I was rooting for Edwards when he said this... it was perfect.

    by TDE on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:08:37 PM PDT

    •  Excellent

      I missed this part of the show.  Thanks for showing it.  John got passionate tonight.  I thought he was great.

      by vigilant meerkat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:26:06 PM PDT

      •  Oops, attached to wrong comment

        Sorry, this was meant for Cosbo.

        by vigilant meerkat on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:26:58 PM PDT

        •  it's all good.

          They give him such small window to get these answers out!

          Did you see Dodd's debate clock on the time each candidate got? I actually felt bad for Gravel in this because he was right. Time allotment for each candidate was unfair.

          http://chrisdodd.com/...

          by cosbo on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:41:17 PM PDT

          •  Gravel took the dirt road

            After closing the previous debate on Tavis Smiley with a generic ad hominem attack on all the other Dem candidates, he deserves exactly 0 time.

            by Albanius on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:56:08 PM PDT

            •  I can understand the sentiment.

              But I would rather the candidates have somewhat equal time to make their case.

              by cosbo on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:59:32 PM PDT

              •  Here's John Edwards' Post Debate Webcast

                by The 1n Only Leoni on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:31:19 PM PDT

                •  That is the wrong answer to the impeach ?

                  You don't get my vote for that answer Mr. Edwards... sorry, but there is nothing more important than saving our constitution and our democracy.  If Bush has his way, there will be no 2008 election!

                  by victoria2dc on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:49:52 PM PDT

                  •  Impeach

                    I agree that he's wrong about impeachment as is the case with almost all of the other candidates. Nevertheless, given our current choices, John Edwards' views most closely parallel mine so I'd vote for him if the election were today.

                    by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:54:46 PM PDT

                    •  Paper ballots

                      On another note, I'm very happy to hear that Edwards believes we need paper ballots and not just paper trails

                      by Sagebrush Bob on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:56:50 PM PDT

                      •  Why did Edwards Attack Hillary's Clothes?

                        I thought that was one of the most classless moments I've ever seen, in any debate, anywhere.

                        by Berkeley Vox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:21:17 AM PDT

                        •  He was just joking. n/t

                          by churchylafemme on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 02:20:17 AM PDT

                          •  Doesn't matter

                            He shouldn't have said that - it was tone deaf.

                            Insult a woman on her appearance and you're immediately digging deep in to the psyche - reinforcing all the negatives that little girls grow up with.

                            It's a lot harder to be a woman candidate than a man; men just wear suits, yes?

                            It was a tone deaf moment, and you could see on his face that he knew it as soon as he said it.  Hillary Clinton handled it with class; Obama should have just stayed away from it.

                            A minor hiccup, only.  I thought they wee all pretty classy and good up there - well Gravel didn't help his cause any.

                            by Pundit Hater on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:27:35 AM PDT

                            •  I didn't

                              grow up with those negatives.  All women don't have that hang up. I took no offense and thought he was playing a bit on all the clothing and hair bruhaha's.  

                              by tobendaro on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:27:24 AM PDT

                            •  I agree...

                              I don't think he should have said it...but as you said, it was just a minor hiccup.

                              If someone else had said it, I might have wondered more about their intentions... but coming from Edwards (who has had to put up with the haircut stuff) it seemed obvious to me that he was joking and didn't mean it in a sexist way. I thought the same thing tobendaro thought...that he was "playing a bit on all the clothing and hair bruhahas."

                              by churchylafemme on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:04:54 AM PDT

                            •  Oh, please.

                              If Edwards ensured that the 0.052% of the population with absolutely no sense of humor AND a deep-seeded neuroses over their lack of fashion sense will now vote for someone else, I think he'll be okay with that.

                              Especially since those of us who see a quick wit as being a sign of intellect laughed out loud at the remark and pegged it yet as another reason to choose him over the other facsimiles of Hillary on offer.

                              Edwards won me over last night, both with that line, the line about Bush taking parallel vacations with the Iraqis, and more importantly with the content of the video clip above.

                              The worst anyone can say about him is he's not polished enough and will occasionally speak his mind when it isn't politically expedient to do so, and I see that as a plus.

                              by HollywoodOz on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

                              •  Echoing stereotypes

                                People have criticized HRC for clothing before; it's a cheap shot that does not show "wit" at all.

                                by CollegeGuy10 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:47:16 AM PDT

                                •  It's the opposite, you just don't get it.

                                  He's taking a shot AT the people who criticize her dress sense.

                                  The perfect response from her would have been, "Yes, we'll talk about your haircut later," but then someone in Peoria might have got offended.

                                  by HollywoodOz on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:01:33 PM PDT

                                  •  No chance

                                    Particularly right after a major story did a breathless story on her "cleavage."

                                    I'm not mad at Edwards for saying it - we all do things like that.

                                    But it wasn't witty and certainly wasn't a shot at the people who criticize her dress.

                                    It was awkward.

                                    I forgive him - I really like the guy.  But please, get off the dress issue with the women - this crap has been chasing women around forever and ever.  It has no place in a Presidential debate.

                                    Bob

                                    by Pundit Hater on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 09:13:51 AM PDT

                            •  NO BIG DEAL.............

                              I believe that all of us have had moments like this when we've tried to say something humorous on the spur of the moment and had regrets the moment that it was said.  There are many other issues to be considered which are of far greater importance.

                              by calibpatriot on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:08:51 AM PDT

                            •  Bad attempt at being funny

                              But it wasn't funny. Not a big deal IMO but I cringed a bit when he said that.

                              by Sagebrush Bob on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:17:24 PM PDT

                        •  Hillary won again.

                          There's no other analysis on issues of substance.

                          by DCDemocrat on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:04:31 AM PDT

                          •  Nice try at spinning,

                            but I don't want a DLC candidate.

                            by TomP on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:08:20 AM PDT

                            •  Agree, which is what Edwards is saying too

                              In that moment that Cosbo put up.

                              by benny05 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:15:55 AM PDT

                            •  Then you should probably vote for Obama.

                              by tigercourse on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:25:48 AM PDT

                              •  Sorry, two triangulators.

                                Hillobama is not good enough for me.

                                by TomP on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:29:45 AM PDT

                          •  Whaaaaaaat?

                            That is pretty definitive.

                            by quiet in NC on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:12:40 AM PDT

                          •  Are you sure your name isn't

                            DLCDemocrat?

                            by thepdxbikerboy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:41:49 AM PDT

                        •  I took it as a compliment,

                          in a roundabout way.  Edwards was saying that the only thing he could criticize her about would be her jacket.

                          by YukonJack on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:31:34 AM PDT

                      •  Yeah...

                        I'm so sick of hearing candidates push for paper trails, they should all be pushing for a nationwide ban on DRE voting machines like Edwards is.

                        by sarahlane on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:27:15 AM PDT

                  •  shrill speculation

                    and demagoguery at it's ignoble finest.  i am oh so tired of the 'impeach now or no 2008 elections' meme.  put it to bed so it can join the other wacky ideas like the one about the government planning 9/11.

                    in regard to edwards:  he just earned my primary (and hopefully general) election vote.

                    by Hounds on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:36:31 AM PDT

                    •  Don't agree with you totally

                      but tips for switching to Edwards

                      by SaltInYerCoffee on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:53:53 AM PDT

                  •  actually it's team playing.

                    If he goes too far there he undercuts teh party in the Senate and House.

                    He's called Bush cinically insane already. The implication is clear.

                    by Salo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:45:17 AM PDT

                    •  Clinically.

                      .

                      by Salo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:45:55 AM PDT

                    •  nice slip

                      Cynically insane

                      by debedb on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 02:31:15 AM PDT

                  •  Good luck finding a candidate

                    You won't find one in the gen. election that's for sure.

                    by SaltInYerCoffee on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:53:18 AM PDT

            •  Gravel has a point and it should be listened to

              after all he was helping to end a war in Asia while many of the other candidates on that stage were still children.

              But he is from an older generation of Democrats, ones who were deeply suspicious of monied interests and it still shows in his rhetoric.

              He is an echo of what this party used to be about, used to stand up for and how it used to fight.  As such he does deserve far more respect then he is being given in the debates, as do the other candidates other then the big three.

              Let them all answer the questions.

              by skippythebox on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:43:40 PM PDT

              •  If Gravel could turn it on Republicans YES

                I used to feel the same as you.  But what is his troll problem anyway?

                I can understand him being impatient but this is ridiculous.

                He is going to at least have to remember where the goal line is.  It is pretty easy to score TD at your own goal.

                Wrong Way Gravel!!!!!!!

                by 88kathy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:08:04 AM PDT

                •  With us?

                  a safe haven for debate on these matters without it getting -- as has happened of late -- so damn ugly.

                  by 88kathy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:15:05 AM PDT

                •  Gravel was the only bona fide American

                  Hero on that stage.

                  by ghengismom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:48:31 AM PDT

                  •  And thus reserves the right

                    to say whatever the heck he wants.

                    Kucinich can go away, but Gravel earned that podium.

                    by Eddie in ME on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:14:39 AM PDT

                  •  I honor Gravel

                    I owe him more than words can tell.
                     
                    But now more than ever we need his heroism not his criticism.   He is tackling the quarterback, except the quarterback on his OWN team!!!  What happened to him?  Why is he after Democrats with hate sparkling in his eyes?  Why isn't he after Republicans?  Why Why Why?

                    Now to mix a metaphor.  I love my metaphors mixed you know, shaken not stirred.

                    He needs to show us how to defeat the re-emergence of Repubtilicus.

                    Granted he defeated Repubtilicus the first time.  But his tactics this time I am quite sure, are not going far to defeating Repubtilicus.

                    by 88kathy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:05:23 AM PDT

                    •  Because you have to keep your own honest FIRST

                      before you can go pointing fingers at the other guys!

                      So if there is a bit of douchebaggery going on with our team?

                      I want it dealt with harshly, I want it rooted out and exposed to the disinfecting sunlight so that MY interests and the interests of my and all of our children are best served by honest non corrupted men and woman in government.

                      I have had my belly filled to bursting with two faced puppets of corporate masters the last six years.

                      And I am not about to exchange one asshat in a red suit for one in a blue suit just because I wear a blue suit as well.

                      Honesty, integrity, principle; watch words that still mean a great deal to some people in this country and it is nice to see somebody standing up for them.

                      Now don't get me wrong I understand the game of politics.  I "get" the wry humor and deep insight of the LBJ quote "if you can't take their money and drink their liquor and then vote against them then you have no business being in politics."  I just can remember a time when the leadership of this party used to turn that phrase upon corporate, not middle class America.

                      If you think Gravel is going after his own team with zeal it might be because he doesn't like one damn bit what the DLC and the other mealy mouthed jelly fish have done to the party the last umpteen years.

                      He remembers a time when the only thing that Democratic politicians feared was fear itself and they NEVER backed down from a righteous fight no matter the odds or votes.

                      We are talking about a man that ended the draft in this country in war time all on his own by filibustering for five freaking months!  Not exactly a namby-pamby sort of act.

                      So I would really like to see how viciously he would lay into a GOP candidate.

                      I betcha cash American that he could have them crying like a school girl in 10 minutes.

                      by skippythebox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:32:28 PM PDT

                      •  Except what he did he did BY HIMSELF

                        Yeah I would really like to see how viciously he would lay into a GOP candidate.  But he won't.  He doesn't have time.

                        I would love him if he would just do that.  I don't need to hear friendly fire.  I don't care how BAD the others are.  I want a BADASS to go after the Republicans.

                        If he would kick ass on the Republicans, I would get behind him.  He's not doing it.

                        by 88kathy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 02:56:47 PM PDT

                        •  But what if the others are tainted?

                          in his view, should we expect him to hold fire out of some sense of party loyalty?

                          I don't think so, thats not the way we used to operate.  We expect the other guys to be scumbags, and if one of our own is leaning that way then it is a betrayal OF the party and as such they need to be excised like a tumor.

                          And I think that is what he is going on here.  He knows he doesn't stand a chance of getting decent air time to speak during the debates let alone the nomination so he is trying to make the most of the limited amount he has.

                          And that is going to come across a lot more forceful then it needs to.

                          by skippythebox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:39:10 PM PDT

                          •  t'aint tainted nope t'aint tainted

                            But I know what 'tis tainted

                            The Republicans are so tainted they are pure taint.  So if Gravel wants to be with purity he should go Republican.  Pure taint.

                            Come on Gravel.  Go after that pure Republican taint with all your gusto next time you get to talk.

                            by 88kathy on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 04:55:36 PM PDT

                            •  Soo, if the devil ran as a Dem you would

                              support them? Corruption is not a strictly Republican problem, there ARE corrupt Dems and WE need them out of politics and out of control of our country and personal liberties. Lets clean up our own act as an example.

                              by ghengismom on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:37:21 PM PDT

                              •  I think you are being silly

                                Watched Edward Sizzorhands one too many times???

                                by 88kathy on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 10:21:42 AM PDT

                                •  Anyone whose seen Edward Scissorhands has

                                  seen it one to many times.

                                  by skippythebox on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 10:56:29 AM PDT

                                  •  Once was enough for you too

                                    by 88kathy on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 02:48:31 PM PDT

                              •  corrupt political practices need to be dealt with

                                such as funding. And I think that is what Gravel is going after more then the people.

                                But it so hard to tell when they only give him a few seconds to speak.

                                by skippythebox on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 10:55:54 AM PDT

              •  deep suspicion of moneyed interests

                ones who were deeply suspicious of monied interests

                In this day and age, "deep suspicion of moneyed interests" is healthy and utterly sane.

                by claude on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:10:40 AM PDT

            •  Oh, that's punny!

              "A pun is the lowest form of humor. Unless you thought of it first."

              Heh.

              Someone smart said that, and I think it was Mark Twain.

              Peace,

              • SS

              by Skeptical Spectacle on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:00:45 AM PDT

          •  Wow. Shows how effective Biden

            is at being, well, I guess a loudmouth (what he's know for, even though that's not such a nice way of putting it).  He got much less clock time than others, but made a far larger impact for his clock time.  He does know how to get himself heard, that's for sure.

            by Mother of Zeus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

            •  He came across rather well. Speaking forcefully

              is not a sin and is sometimes a requirement.

              I am no fan of some of his positions but I had to give him some serious points and admired his stand on Darfur.

              by skippythebox on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:38 PM PDT

              •  yeah

                and I had to give him some points for his response to the gun question too.

                "this is my baby" made a mockery of people in inner cities who really do get their babies gunned down in drive by shootings.  
                And I also gave him points for his answer on NCLB along with Richardson.  It's bad legislation and should be scrapped.

                by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:20:40 AM PDT

                •  You guys should hear him talk about bankruptcy.

                  Total winner.

                  If you own MBNA stock, that is.

                  by HollywoodOz on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:28 AM PDT

                •  I disliked the guy they chose to ask the gun

                  question as it made gun owners look like loons...  nothing like slanting the question to frame it badly...

                  by skippythebox on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 01:19:14 PM PDT

            •  I reckon he got the best moments.

              That was his best night.

              by Salo on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:58:05 PM PDT

      •  He has the passion,

        he has the right ideas, he has elocution and the accent, he has the fire. He has it all.

        Unless Gore gets in, Edwards is my man.

        by LightningMan on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:12:56 PM PDT

        •  Exactly!!

          and this video of Edwards commenting SPECIFICALLY about the powerful Insurance and Pharma industries that he's already battled and WON! for the little guys - distinguishes him as the most viable Progressive candidate.
          Compare that with the Centrist platitude of placing "national interest ahead of special interests" - while the candidate rakes in corporate moolah.

          by annefrank on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:57:02 AM PDT

          •  After this comment...

                the fax machines in large insurance companies, pharmas, and HMO's were busily sending out memos to the organizations and news media that will begin to lay the groundwork to undermine the campaign of JRE. With this comment by John , you could FEEL the passion and commitment to the American public that he will go after any corporation or lobbyist that tries to game the system for the rich and powerful in this nation. A true patriot! He has the fire in the belly and the mental capacity to carry this fight forward for us as long as we have his back.

            by NC Dem on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

      •  If They stay on the issues...

        and really discuss how they would implement what they say they are for... Edwards blows the pants (and skirt) off his opposition!
        
        Edward's campaign really is about telling the truth to the American people, rather than making slick speeches that drown our sensibilities in grand eloquent rhetorical clap trap!

        I only hope that the people will appreciate him for what he is doing.

        by Flint on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:23:48 PM PDT

        •  you've nailed it!

          Edwards specificity is considered dangerous to the corporate media. Hence, the "frontrunners" are those with "grand eloquent rhetorical clap trap" - raking in the MOST millions from Corporate America.

          Centrism is not only a winning political strategy but an enlightened governing philosophy that best reflects the will of the people by putting patriotism ahead of partisanship and the national interest ahead of special interests.

          by annefrank on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:05:52 AM PDT

      •  He's good when he's passionate

        He has the ability to get fired up and talk passionately without seeming angry.

        by sarahlane on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:25:48 AM PDT

      •  The Economist thinks so too

        and so do I.  

        Diary in my sig

        by plf515 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:03:54 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for posting this, TDE

      Edwards is right on on so many issues.

      by JohnnysGirl on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:40:06 AM PDT

  •  I like Edwards

    Just got a letter in the mail from him asking for money.  Found myself agreeing with everything in the thing.  I think he'd make a great president and will definitely vote for him if he gets the nomination (duh), but I have a hard time donating to his primary campaign for a single reason, his position on gay marriage.  At this point, the only candidate I would donate anything to is Dennis Kucinich because of his consistent, progressive position on this (and other) issues.  Really, I don't see a whole lot that differentiates him from Obama and Clinton.  But, If he changed his position on this issue, I'd probably try to give him the max.

    by anthonyLA on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:22:47 PM PDT

    •  100% agreement or nothing, huh?

      Well, his wife is for gay marriage. That took some courage.

      by benheeha on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:42:16 PM PDT

      •  no way!

        100% agreement is not required for my vote.  But I'm solid on that issue in terms of financially supporting a candidate.   What do I care if Clinton, Edwards, or Obama is the nominee?  They differ somewhat, and I like them each for different reasons...I would support any of the three in the general.  But if one of them had the courage to show their cards on this one issue (I am convinced they are all too educated and intelligent to not privately support gay marriage), I would reward that person with a big fat donation.

        by anthonyLA on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:57:04 PM PDT

        •  You know,

          looking at his visible and obvious discomfort on the issue, I believe that he has genuine religiously-based difficulties with the issue . It was also evident to me that he is looking for a way to provide rights to all Americans without compromising his beliefs. The fact that he is honest about that means a lot to me.

          I wasn't raised in the South, but I was raised fundy, and I know how very long and hard the road to changing your mind on these issues is.

          by Lainie on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:55:10 AM PDT

          •  I don't believe his discomfort

            is real.  I think he is trying to have it both ways.  I think he is saying that as president he wouldn't let his feelings about gay marriage interfere with his doing the right think while still pandering to the religious right with his show of how he still has fundy distaste for the whole thing.
            I am as religious as anyone and I don't see any reason in the bible that makes me think gay people should not have the right to the same legal marriage contract as everyone else in the country.  Edwards is pandering and I am not interesting in his feelings based on his religion.

            by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:53:30 AM PDT

            •  Do you know ANY straight men who can...

              discuss gays issues without ridicule or discomfort. Cuz I don't. All straight men that I know kinda shudder at the gay issue or refuse to talk about it rationally or just make fun of it. His discomfort with the issue might annoy the gay community up to point, but I can assure you that straight men gets his discomfort and probably even sympathize with him.

              by cosbo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:20:42 AM PDT

              •  I'm straight and I'm cool with it

                I can honestly say that I'm perfectly comfortable talking about GLBT rights with the prissiest queens and the most hardcore of fundamentalists alike.  I also don't think I'm special.  I think a lot of people in my generation are OK with it.

                I think that the issue with JRE, who I support wholeheartedly, and the gays is that his progressive values tell him that equality under the law is the rule - but that because of Southern acculturation he is a little hesitant.  

                His operational progressivism here is genuine and I would bet you that most gays and lesbians would rather have civil unions now than roll the dice for another four or eight years of seperate and unequal.

                by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:43:23 AM PDT

              •  Where do you live?

                I live in NYC. I am straight and know many straights who have no problem with allowing gay marriage or talking about it.

                by Pozzo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:06:48 AM PDT

                •  I live in NY too but

                  I wasn't born in the US. And saying the men that I grew up around are generally uniformly homophobic would be an understatement! I've actually seen with my own eyes men physically shudder at the thought of another man touching them. People need to understand that not everyone evolves at the same pace.

                  by cosbo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:17:02 AM PDT

              •  Are you kidding?

                I mean, I was a frat boy from the heartland and no one I know was like this.  (Though gay guys were the largest minority in my frat.)

                Now, a lawyer but still in the heartland, I see the only solution as getting the government out of marriage licensing altogether.  Make it a private contract like anything else and enforce it as such.  

                Honestly, the only reason the government is interested is all those fees they collect to issue the proper docs.  Make it private for both straight, gay, poly, whatever.

                by TastyCurry on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:43:39 AM PDT

              •  I'm one.

                Got NO problem with gay marriage, gay men or women, etc.

                I think Edwards is faking it here.  I think he reckons that his red state appeal would be significantly compromised if he allowed that gay marriage is fine and dandy with him. The bubbas might be more comfortable with him just knowing he shares their discomfort.  And I think revealing Elizabeth's acceptance of gay marriage is similarly calculated--remember when it was known that Barbara Bush was pro-choice--throwing the pro-choice Repugs a bone. Same kinda shit.

                I don't blame Edwards particularly--his political calculus may be right here, and it's not significantly  different from the stances of Hillary or Obama.  Just sayin'.        

                by paul minot on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:57:07 AM PDT

              •  careful with the

                broad brush.

                I'm a straight man who worked for 5 years in the gay rights movement.  I interned in Washington at a pro-gay interest group.  I even let a drunk guy kiss me at a roller-skating party once.  Not the best time I've ever had -- but I didn't run home and buy a Hummer or anything.

                I like Edwards a lot, and one issue doesn't make or break a candidacy for me.  But I'm a lot more uncomfortable listening to him fumble for the right answer than I am with a guy in tight pants.

                by cardinal on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 10:14:01 AM PDT

            •  Oh Gee, TeresainPa doesn't believe edwards

              news at 11.

              by DrFrankLives on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:21:07 AM PDT

              •  2+2 = Edwards is pandering. 2+3 = Edwards wrong

                1 + 2 = Obama has no substance.
                But: 1+1 = Yay Hillary!
                You see, the logic is airtight. Teresa math is fun!!!

                by benheeha on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:42:40 AM PDT

            •  You're as religious as anyone

              and you don't see any reason in the bible that perpetuates the idea that being gay is wrong? Really? I'm not religious and don't believe in the bible specifically because of the negative statements about homosexuality. That's a whole different diary subject!

              by sarahlane on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:33:27 AM PDT

            •  Now I officially know....

              that you are full of shit and just do not like Edwards.

              You:

              I am as religious as anyone and I don't see any reason in the bible that makes me think gay people should not have the right to the same legal marriage contract as everyone else in the country.  Edwards is pandering and I am not interesting in his feelings based on his religion

              The Bible

              If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

              You must be verrrry religious to not know that one.

              DISCLAIMER: I am completely comfortable with same-sex unions and am emphatically NOT promoting this biblical passage. I am merely proving an uninformed person of why she is wrong.

              by Ocean Stater on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:28:34 AM PDT

              •  Yeah, what amuses me

                is that the same people who abhor homosexuality eat shrimp, lobster... you know, shellfish. Another abomination. It's funny.

                by Eddie in ME on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:19:11 AM PDT

                •  Not surprised that..

                  she didn't come back. That's her style.

                  by Ocean Stater on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:42:42 AM PDT

            •  Why do you assume "pandering"?

              Teresa, isn't it possible that John Edwards understanding of his religion has created a genuine conflict in his thinking and that his answer to last night's question simply--and honestly--was a reflection of that?  And he was not injecting his "feelings based on religion" into the debate.  The question was framed by the questioner in religious terms as to the use of religion in the suppression of civil rights.  He couldn't very well ignore the substance of the inquiry.

              by Mlle Orignalmale on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:42:17 AM PDT

      •  yes I heard that

        Maybe she can talk some sense into him.  

        by anthonyLA on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:10:48 PM PDT

        •  don't you think this is all

          worked out.  He gets to say she is for it and he is personally against it to cover all the bases.

          by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:55:14 AM PDT

          •  It's what the Bush family does

            Pop and Junior are anti abortion. Babs and Laura are pro choice.

            by Pozzo on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 09:01:09 AM PDT

      •  his wife is not running for

        president.

        by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 05:35:35 AM PDT

        •  But Bill's is

          And she don't like no gay marriage. Oh snap!

          by benheeha on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:43:42 AM PDT

    •  Throwing the baby out with the bath water?

      n/t

      by admiralh on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:55:16 PM PDT

      •  I'm not saying I won't vote for him

        I'm saying it isn't worth my money if he doesn't differentiate himself.

        by anthonyLA on