Edwards just lost my consideration

He is talking on Hardball and just stated that he supported and still supports the idea that we should have gone into Iraq as we did, and we should not have let the UN hold us hostage to a decision to go to war.

A fucking Bush brain with a deeper drawl...He can eat my shorts.

Do any of them have a consistent message? Oh, wait, I can think of one...

;)
I dont mind Edwards, I disagree with him on this but when it comes to domestic hes pretty good I think. I am still all for Kucinich.

That is, unless you listen to the anti-Clark spin. And I'm pretty sure that Dean does too.

He's digging himself deeper into his hole.

That stance is indefensible.

He should at least say he made a mistake.

has the "stuffing" to be a president anyway? He's a bit wet behind the ears in experience for that job. His Iraq position, and his votes on nuclear waste, and other issues, soured me on him right away. He's a DLC'er hoping for a shot at V.P., who also gave up a solid Senate seat to run, hurting our party, not helping it. Seems he cares only about one thing, ...... whatever is good for John Edwards. To me, he's just as smarmy as Lieberman, another Dem I have no use for.

:grr:

but it sounds like Edwards is too DLCish, and Clark, I don't even want to go there. The war is a sticking point for me and I hope for Dean too.

Hmmm ..., where's Kucinich from again? Ohio, well that's sort of South and West, at least from Vermont it is.

and when he said that...I almost CHOKED! What the hell is he thinking??? He'll not get my consideration, either. I doubt he'll be the nominee anyway, thank goodness! If he DID get the nomination...I would have to think twice before he got my vote.

Vote....

Edwards would make a great VP to Lieberman.
I like his domestic stances though.

Shame, too.

I'm looking for a 2nd choice to Dean, and it won't be anyone who tries to soft pedal his war vote OR anyone who sticks by it without recognizing and admitting the error of their ways.

Eloriel

What you see is what you get. He's freakin' lovely!!!

this is 90 year old issue. It tore apart the Wilson adminstration. It took all the talent FDR could muster just to circumvent this sentiment and get a UN created. What Edwards just said probably assured the votes of millions of Americans.

A couple days ago someone posted something about what they wanted their candidate say about the UN, and it was basically let the UN into Iraq and take orders from them. There were about 30 posts in the thread. I added one line: "the US should work WITH the UN, not FOR the UN, no Democrat is going to win an election on the message that we should be subservient to the UN." I still stand by that.

Granted, working within the paramaters of UN Secrurity Council rules is another thing. However, I think we can rest assured that a President Edwards isn't going to put the US anywere where the UN isn't going to approve. But, like I said, the reality of Ameircan politics is that a majority of Americans will never vote for a candidate who argues for policy which would put American national security interests second to UN interests.

When Bush is done with us, the rest of the world is going to hate us. They will feel there's always the risk of a fascist takeover, and they will not want America to succeed. It's a difficult situation, and in that situation, you're going to want a president who cares about American interests first.

and invading Iraq were not in America's interests.

And international laws that you helped make, and agreed to, overrule the US ones in the rest of the world.

if SH (or any person) is a threat to the US, but a benefit to the rest of the world BECAUSE he's a threat to America, then, in theory, it makes sense for an American president to do something, and not be held hostage by the rest of the world. That's the abstract theory. And a vast majority of Americans think that way. I know that people don't feel that way here, but, my god, have the sense to realize that that's the way most people think

But it's outrageous to presume for a second that a President Edwards would put Amercia in any situation which would require such action. (And you knwo that a President Edwards wouldn't have resported to what Bush did.) The whole point of electing Democrats is because we don't want Presdents who behave that way.

Edwards OBVIOUSLY has to say this even if he OBVIOUSLY would never do it because this is exactly the issue about which man Americans question Democrats' committment.

I like your supporters more than I like you.

I gave you a second chance with this war vote and you blew it again.

go away. or try voting in congress.

you are twisting his words. What he actually said is that he would still have voted for the Iraq war but would not have done it the WAY Bush did it. Bush did not have an international coalition BEFORE invading Iraq. Bush is trying to get a coalition "AFTER the fact". Those were his exact words.

Whether I believe Edwards is right or wrong is beside the question. But don't put words into his mouth.

Bush brain my butt.

it's mad to think a President Edwards would ever do what Bush did.

To his credit, he has always said he supported the war with no waffling.

That he would have gotten us into exactly this same mess, even with the benefit of hindsight...

Hey, that's great, John. Hope you didn't really WANT the nomination.

Jeez.. and I liked him, too.

he's saying he would have invaded, but he wouldn't have totally pissed off our allies, and would be willing to agree to a power-sharing pact post-war. I disagree. I think the war was an abomination. However, I do agree with him that we had to go into Afghanistan. The problem there is we took our eye off the ball by going into Iraq, and now the Taliban is returning. This is a HUGE issue that the media are ignoring.

He didn't say Bush did exactly the right thing, or that he would have done what Bush did--although he thinks Saddam had to go.

Incidentally, Bill Clinton agrees with him.

but I don't see him overcoming his position on the Iraq War....

I wish he wouldn't give up his Senate seat. We can't afford to lose a single one.

for someone who could be percieved as putting national security second to anything.

If people have problems, it's going to be with the execution of the occupation, and not with the invasion part. It's going to be very hard to convince a majority of americans that that wasn't the right thing to do.

but nobody knows what his position is

It's so hilarious the way people get righteously indignant about this, as if this is the first time, just the first time we've ever even heard this!

We KNOW Edwards supported the war. We've known it for awhile. Most of the one issue (war) voters weren't supporting Edwards anyway. But really, it's charming to hear this over and over again.

At least he's consistent. A number of other candidates don't have this problem.

I guess you can just stop watching now, he's talking about the shift of the tax burden, Bush screwing the poor, and the middle class. But who cares about that, right?

forcefully about the shift of the tax burden, and Bush screwing the poor, and the middle class because of the war issue, and instead they'd prefer a war issue waffler who doesn't seem to have the least bit of understanding of how the middle class is getting screwed and how progressive taxation works.

That was pretty classy.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our shared political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator