In-Depth John Edwards Interview in WaPo

Re-posting here because GD seems totally uninterested. Good news apparently is unpopular these days.

Edwards has some nice things to say about Dean at the DNC, which made my day...

As you've gone around you've done a lot of party events. What kind of shape is the Democratic Party in heading into this election?

I think we're doing much better, actually. I think we're in many ways moving in the right direction. One of the things that Governor Dean gets no credit for in this place, Washington, is all the party building he is doing around the country, and I can tell you the people out there are very appreciative of what he's been doing. He's really working at it.

A week or so ago I did a thing in Ohio where they're very pleased with the money and the effort that's being made to strengthen the Democratic Party there. I hear it everywhere. There is a real effort to strengthen the structure and grassroots of the Democratic Party, which I think is actually very encouraging. (The) 2006 election will tell us something about how effective it's been.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200744.html

try something like: " Wes Clark is really a Republican" or "Howard Dean is a spoiled frat boy just like Bush." Something like that. Then you post your actual article or comment underneath that. Oh, mentioning you like Hillary is a good one nowadays too. :)

Maybe I should post something like, "HILLARY IS A NAZI SOCIALIST REPUKE DEMON SPAWN!!!!"

and then post, "I'm just fuckin' with y'all. Check this sweeeet John Edwards interview! Snoogans."

that's the beauty of it. It's just to get the troops all fired up. :) Then you do the "I'm just fucking with y'all" thing. :)

Nice Jay and Silent Bob reference. That is pure skill!

I doubt it because along with the NYT, the Washington Post whored for that war all along.

I predict this: No candidate who supported the war stands any chance of a presidential nomination by our party in 2008. This will go down as the most massive betrayal of America since, well, I can't remember and anyone associated with it, despite the weasel words, will suffer a similar fate, dismissal from consideration.

Hold me to the prediction. I'm probably understating the case.

It's worth reading. Don't take my word for it. Check it out.

2.5 years after the war started....and 2 weeks after polls showed for the first time that the American people are against this war in the majority....

The question is not that he apologized...which was great that he did....

the issue was that he stated that he was "misled".....
See here for how some feel about that "excuse".....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2510831&mesg_id=2510831

PS. I'm glad though that Edwards has nice things to say about Howard Dean. He should!

It is a lame excuse. DU wasn't fooled, so I don't see why any of our elected officials should get a pass.

But Edwards does have a lot going for him, and his commitment to highlighting poverty, by far the most important and least publicized domestic issue currently woth debating, is exceptionally praiseworthy.

AND he dissented on Kerry's decision to cede victory to Bush/Cheney.

He deserves support.

Just not for President of the United States.

Also, I would like to see him support 2006 candidates more......Considering his high name recognition, the fact that the media likes him, and that he was on the ticket in '04....I think that he should really be stumping all over the nation (in particular in the south) for our Congressional candidates. That would be the best thing that he could do right now.

And good for him.

He'll probably run again too, and a focus on poverty can only help Democrats, especially on the bogus non-issue of "moral values."

Good judgment meaning, they know in advance that Bush is a liar and represents the worst elements of our political system (maybe 10-15% of the country). How hard is it to figure out he's a liar. Look at the record in Texas, the first campaign, the stolen, bullied Florida fiasco, the phony "justice" from SCOTUS. Lies and the lying liars that tell them. That was Bush before he got in the WH.

A prudent person would look at Bush and the neoconocracy around him and just :puke:

Sorry, NO on Iraq is the entry level requirement.

Clark said no. Gore said no. That's how it's got to be.

btw, I realize this rules out Warner from my state. Too bad (he was a great Governor but has not shown boldness or creativity in his run...he could have re-enfranchised the FORMER felons in VA by decree, he didn't; a great manager but no vision or audacity...(end of rambling)

Like the guy a lot, but he was just a bit too full of himself and his ego trip to do what he knew was right (and they all knew the intel was a crock of shit, believe that if you believe anything).

thought Kerry was wrong on conceding. (The comment usually used was 11/2 in the evening - when the ticket wasn't ready to concede.)

he said EXACTLY the same thing about Dean's work. He said the behind the scenes grass roots support is absolutely essential to the future of the party and he is very pleased about it.

I was somewhat distraught about the media reports that Dean had "wasted all of the DNC's money."

I know better, but it's typical that some of the clowns in the Senate would gripe about it.

I think the substance in this interview was more than I've heard from most democrats. But who is willing to listen? If this was a story about another scandal or some joke, this topic will be on the greatest page with endless posts. Edwards actually has solutions about bridging the income/asset gap *gasp!* ... but people here are so stuck in their partisan activist role that policy and vision have no place for discussion.

If the most notable quote from the interview is about praising Dean (which I was glad to see him do), then I'm sorry, perhaps we don't even deserve people like Edwards traveling around the country trying to bring attention to poverty and other domestic issues.

And I'm tired of the media reports sniping at him.

But I could just as easily (and happily) sold it as a talk about poverty, about his IWR vote, etc.

It's a great all-around interview with someone we don't hear enough about.

I like John Edwards. People have to understand that we need candidates who have the ability to connect with regular folks who are not registered democrats.

Personally I don't follow any religion - but most voters are Christians and they are more likely to vote for someone they think is a "good Christian" and a "family man". Edwards fits right into that category, and he can help us reach the church-going half of the population.

OK so he was wrong on Iraq. But he has made a very open and honest declaration admitting that he was wrong, and personally I don't think it disqualifies him from being a candidate for national office or playing a role in a future Dem administration.

My own first choice for 2008 would be Al Gore (if he decides to run), and I'm not sure if Edwards would be the best running mate for Al Gore (who would be unlikely to choose a white protestant southern male as his running mate), but he could definitely play a major role.

I *lovelovelove* Current TV. It's fantastic, and I want Al Gore to continue working on projects like this.

I'm a big believer in creating the world you want to live in, and Gore can do that just as well (if not better) outside of the Oval Office, and he doesn't have to campaign himself into the ground to do it.

Edwards is a good guy. I think he came off in 2004 as a bit slick at times, but his positions (particularly in his fierce defense of gays and the poor) are top-notch.

What I want to see my party do is recognize the difference between right and wrong, and do what's right.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

I just mentioned above that his stances on gay rights and poverty were morally superior to damn near every other candidate in the race in '04. And when he spoke about it, you could tell he meant it.

That translates well to voters, even conservative ones.

just Curious...cause The Washington Blade (largest Gay Publication) Endorsed General Clark instead of John Edwards back during the 04 primaries...and this was after Edwards 2nd place finish in Iowa.



Here's what they said about Clark, who is the one they endorsed...(this was after Iowa primaries), in the same article...

in one of the big debates, I think the last one. I was really surprised and impressed.

But now that I look, it appears that it was civil unions and not actual marriage. Lame.

I take it back. :P

Q: Both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose gay marriage. Are you trying to have it both ways?
A: We both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits. For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that Kerry and I believe in. But we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Bush is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts.

Source: Edwards-Cheney debate: 2004 Vice Presidential Oct 5, 2004

:kick:

He's intelligent and charismatic.

This was a good interview. I've been catching some of his appearances on C-Span; he was in Iowa not long ago. Edwards was also on Late Edition on CNN last Sunday, and he handled Wolfie just fine!