Edwards in Topeka, I like his words.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050304/APN/503041228&cachetime=3&template=dateline

National Committee, spoke in Topeka and headlined a rally in Lawrence.

Edwards' visit came a week after Howard Dean, the newly selected chairman of the Democratic

Like Dean, Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, told fellow Democrats that the party will prosper if its candidates stress core values, such as helping the poor and fighting to improve health care.

"There are people in the Democratic Party and there are people on television, you know, who yap a lot, who say that the Democrats don't know what they believe in," he said during a news conference.

And you go Edwards, I like this:
SNIP..."He added: "There are a lot of Democratic politicians, unfortunately, who are nuancing and changing their positions, trying to figure out the best way to maneuver their way through the political landscape, in order to try to be more appealing to more people. I think that's dead wrong."

I'd love Hillary to win the presidency, but I don't want a democratic pres who is a NeoCon. Her nuance on foreign policy is as Edwards says: dead wrong.

I am hoping our Democrats keep on talking like this. I think Hilary is more than just triangulating. She sounds pretty hawkish. I am still upset with Edwards stance on Iraq, but this sounds like he will fight.

I just wish they would all stop the Iraq was the right thing to do stuff. That really worries me.

good things, some bad things and is one of the most talented politicians of all time. But, neither he, nor his wife, gives one damn about America. They are in politics for number one and they are almost as ruthless as the Bush bunch. The did what they could to scuttle the Dems chances in 2004. We need to forget about those two and find ourselves a smart, reasonably honest, courageous, America loving candidate. There's one out there. He/she just hasn't emerged as yet. But,first, the rigged elections must not happen in the next elections.

I will not vote for Hillary. If she's the nominee I may just forget the whole thing.

I couldn't have said it better myself...

the Republican Party. But, what choices do we have? It would take years to try to put together a new Progressive Party, one that would be strong enough to elect a President. I'm afraid our best bet is to
target the worst "apples in the barrel" and try to pick them off one at a time. People like Lieberman, Bidden, Bayh and others would be a good start, the ones that are supporting Bush's initiatives. It wouldn't take but about five or six unseated bad Dem Senators plus the ouster of four or five Republican Senators, replaced by good Dems. That's doable if we can get the election process back to a reasonable honest state.

Didn't he vote for the war?

he did vote AGAINST the 87 billion, like Kerry.

But too bad Edwards didn't vote the other way around, like Feingold, who voted against the IWR and voted FOR the 87 Billion.

BTW.

McGovern and McCarthy were the favorties of the anti-war voters in '72 and '68, Humphry ultimately got McCarthy's endorsement (because of his anti-war position after the convention), and Gore and Fulbright were also anti-war.

eom

There is more to politics than the war. By the time of the 2008 election, how Edwards/Hillary/Kerry......voted on the war will hopefully not make as much of a difference.

I think part of the problem is that it is so hard to see beyond the war. I realize that the war is incredibly important but if we allow our candidates to be defined by their stance on the war, they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The Republicans would love it if that was the only issue that picked the Democratic candidate. I'm not entirely convinced that anyone (Feingold/Clinton/Edwards/Kerry etc.) could actually be credited with doing everything right on the issue of the war.

...know exactly what matters.

Until the Democrats stop letting the Republicans decide what the major issues should be and stop letting them dictate the discussion and pass out "labels," they can forget winning.

If Clinton were in it for number one, for example, he'd be sitting on corporate boards and drawing in millions and millions, and he would have governed like that was what he planned to do.

I know this could provoke some people... but facts are facts.

The party would have been better off if G HW Bush won in 1992. We wouldn't be in such a hole now. The Congress would not have switched over to the Pugs in 1994.

The "party" may have been better of, but the country definitely would not have been.

Is the "party" the only thing that matters to you? You know, voters can "tell" when that is the case, that's why they ignorantly vote for Republicans and accuse Democrats of "hating the United States."

Is your focus on "the party" or the condition of the country?

If it is on the "condition of the country," then the party has a better chance of being successful. And yes, I know that Bush is making the country worse, but he has the "rhetoric" on his side, and the GOP never makes it like anything that they do is about "the party." They rarely even use the words "Republican Party." They'd much rather use labels like "conservative." They rarely make it about "the party" and Democrats should not either.

Had Clinton lost, America would have been screwed.

You said "Had Clinton lost, America would have been screwed."

But alas, Clinton won then and America is screwed now. Take a look around you, then get back to me.

for Dems losing with Kerry either.

Would have. "Have". That's past tense.

America "is" screwed now because Bush is in office.

Had Bush 1 won against Clinton, this country would have been in the condition that it is in right now a long time ago.

But the big dog was out there on the campaign trail after his heart operation..working his butt off for Kerry.

-- that is not in George W. and Laura Bush: the Edwardses are intelligent and humane.

I see this article on John Edwards in Topeka and I remember that he almost won the Iowa caucus last time. Kerry's organization was very strong and had more cash, but Edwards rose to a respectable second-place finish on the fumes of his personable energy. Some DUers and many pundits thought Edwards might even win the Iowa caucuses.

Demographically, he and Bayh are going to be very tough for Hillary Clinton to beat. I say they whip her in Iowa and a week later in New Hampshire. As soon as the Iowa caucus results roll in, it's going to be Edwards and Bayh within a point or two of each other for first and second, then a very respectable third by Russell Feingold, and -- if she's lucky -- Hillary Clinton fourth with 14% of the vote, tops.

Gephardt, a neighbor, placed 4th behind 2 New Englanders and a Carolinian last time, and that's more or less the last anybody ever heard of Dick Gephardt.

Edwards, Bayh, and Feingold would be just fine with me. I'd be torn as to who to vote for (if the Pennsylvania primary counts in 2008). I think it would have to be Edwards, Feingold, and Bayh in that order.

It's going to be interesting.

Another blogger this morning told me that John Kerry is making staff changes that would suggest he's going to make another run for it.

Wow. We are going to have a rich field of qualified people.

I don't think the other side can say the same.

Good wishes to you.

It is definitely going to be a rich field of qualified people. The only problem with that is if you have too many people, too much money will spent on the primaries and the eventual candidate will look weaker in the general election. I think that may have been part of Kerry's problem. I wish there was a way to narrow it down sooner. Kind of like the Senate race here in Pennsylvania where Gov. Rendell has asked that no one run in the Democratic primary against Casey so that the full focus can be on Santorum. I don't know how fair that would be in a presidential race though.

Thanks so much for the good wishes.

...I hope Edwards wins and chooses Bayh as his running mate.

That was one of my proposed tickets last time.

God forbid that Bayh wins. Edwards' days as a politician would be over with.

I remember hearing about how Bayh and Edwards were running partners during lunch in the Senate and Edwards thanked Bayh and his family during his farewell speech. So the friendship is already there.

I think Bayh would be good because he's a little more moderate (just my opinion, I may be wrong) but I like Edwards better because he's not ultra-liberal but he's certainly not Republican-lite.

But for me, Edwards will always be choice number one!

I'm a bit confused though, why do you think Edwards' days as a politician would be over if Bayh won? I'm not disagreeing...just wondering.

...Presidential candidate.

I want Edwards for "President," not some position like Attorney General.

I'm thinking "Presidential," and Edwards definitely would not be the running mate in 2008 if he didn't win the nomination, so for me, anything else is a waste of time. But for him, who knows.

I think it'll be over.

The people "get" him and believe in him as well.

I'd love to have Kerry/Edwards again and be in the House. :) They'd do so much for us. I love how Edwards does know and care about us little people and poverty. He actually does things as well and doesn't just talk. He does get it. :)

John Edwards alone, no John Kerry allowed.

I'm tired of the ties that bind Democrats to Republicans, i.e., Reverend Moon, Skull and Bones, PNAC, etc.

If any Democrat is involved in either of those things, kick him to the curve.

And stop hating on Kerry. It's getting old. As for Edwards, I like him too.

You mention something that "true," and all of a sudden it's hate?

Tell me, are Kerry and Bush bonesmen?

Are bonesmen in both parties?
Are Moonies in both parties?
Are PNACers in both parties?

Reading a book on Fascism, and it contains a certain amount of "infiltration" in order to create a "single-party" state, the penetration of the sole legitimate party into all other social groups.

Now, all Bonesmen are not bad guys, but like I said, I'm sick and tired of all of these different, and important elements that connect the members of both parties, and you think they really disagree, when so many of them are members of other groups outside of their parties that are just as, if not more important to them, than their respective parties?

Can we get a candidate that's not a PNACer, a Moonie, a Bonesman, or any other group that's shady? Is that too much to ask for?

Edwards has a genius for connecting to all members of an audience.

It's a rare gift.

Thanks for posting. He was great when I saw him in Lawrence so I was sad to miss him this time at home. I hear and feel slight stirrings from my state, at least my corner of my state, that make me feel like all this attention is doing some good. I hope we do not go back to being assumed by the party to be a red state and forgotten. Things are stirring here and these visits really help.

I'm glad Edwards is making sense..I know I am very fond of Elizabeth, his wife!

And JRE and Elizabeth are a great team. The man loves his family, his work, and wants to help our country as a whole. He doesn't drink, smoke, swear (not too publicly at least), goes to church (but doesn't see a mandate by God to change societies), and is careful not to bite the hands of his friends who have helped him (ie Kerry). Edwards values public education for kids, and opportunities for work as we feel better about ourselves when we have meaningful jobs. As he said on a recent TV interview, what would cure poverty would be having a good job. Edwards would be a fine ambassador/leader for our country--far better than abysmal trip W just took in the EU.