Debunking the John Edwards/DLC myth

==Despite a widespread perception to the contrary, Edwards never joined the Democratic Leadership Council, though the organization courted him heavily. "That was not the route he wanted to go," says Elizabeth. Indeed, all the way back in 2002, The New Yorker noted that "Edwards has chosen to present himself as a rollicking, full-throated, us-against-them populist."==

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12479

This is from a great article titled "Raising the Bar:
John Edwards is the most populist presidential candidate we've seen in many decades. But can this tribune for the poor champion the middle class as well?" by Ezra Klein.

more specifically, a corporate friendly moderate.

I know a populist when I see one.

John Edwards is a populist.

go round.

I am sick of people pretending Edwards is something he's not.

for who he is.

Note the shift in context.

Note also the emphasis on a pro-Democratic position for the upcoming 2008 elections.

If you are looking at any of our candidates, Edwards included, and can't find something affirming and impressive and inspirational in them, you just aren't looking hard enough.

I think his biggest crime is he's been a self-made success story.

Corporate interests can't be too enchanted with the possibility of a successful Edwards candidacy, especially when he speaks about ending poverty and has a record of challenging corporate interests.

Good point, good post.

is something he is not.

Tell me, how is Edwards REALLY going to address poverty without defunding the bloated tick that is sucking the life out of our economy- Military Industrial Complex?

There were only two candidates in the last go-round who even mentioned such a thing- Dennis K. and Clark.

Edwards has never mentioned this issue and never will. His entire Presidency would be rather like Clinton's in that he'd always need to prove he was more supportive of the military by giving them ever more money.

get on and complain about some bullshit..and now it's gonna BE John Edwards?

in the end, if he hadn't tried to come across as a populist.

Like Edwards back then, Dean was a moderate runnning with a moderate platform.

And you totally ignored the valid point here- Edwards can pretend to be a populist but he will never address the powerful interests that abuse Americans and the rest of the world.

Neither the MIC or Big Petrol.

I thought you were complaining about him being a corporatist....so the issue now he is a military industrial complextist?

:rofl:

And Edwards' may have taken cases to trial involving large corporations but only after having focus groups indicate he'd win the case. That's some populist... takes only the trials that are a sure thing.

but I think the smart money is more likely on HClinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and possibly Gore.

Things change, certainly.

But your impulse to dismantle the "military industrial complex" sounds to me like more than a weekend project. Better make sure you have your ducks lined up on that one.

Check his record. Not a populist. Unless we're populated by banks.

A moderate only compared to today's far right.

and the best way for him to do that is to run in the primaries as THE populist of the three. Smart move by him.

I just don't understand people who think that is some calculated move and he is somehow a secret agent of the DLC and big buisness.

His record in the Senate is almost exactly the same as Obama's and Hillary's and Kerry's. They all have Senate records constructed to try to best run for President. That Senate record is so similar that it's a wash. There is very little difference in their Senate records.

The difference is what they have each done outside the Senate.

Edwards did no such thing (I may be wrong there, though).

He has a moderate record and ran with a moderate platform last time.

It is hard to compare Obama and Edwards as there is no overlap.

Kerry and Edwards were very far apart, but comparison was hard as Edwards had a very short record.
- ENVIROMENT Kerry had per the League of Conservation Voter's a 96 % rating, as LT Governor he pushed for what was the first cap and trade program for suphur dioxide, which became the basis of the Clean Air act -Edwards had a 60% rating. Bill's environmental record in Arkansas was poor. Other than some last minute executive orders, Bill's record was mediocre (but far better than W's) in the WH. I think Hillary has little independent record on this. Obama has no real record here. As of a month ago, both Hillary and Obama back the McCain/Leiberman global warming bill instead of the better Boxer/Sanders or Kerry/Snowe bills.

- IRAQ (IWR) - Edwards was a co-sponsor of the IWR and was for the war even 6 months after it started. Obama was not in Congress but spoke strongly against war in 2002 before the vote. Kerry, voted for the IWR - but spoke against Bush's moves towards the war before it started saying it was not a war of last resort (thus not a just war). Hillary voted for the IWR, did not speak against war before it started,

- IRAQ (getting out) - The ISG recommendations look like Kerry's 2005 recommendations. Kerry/Feingold, and the current Democratic bill set a deadline and are binding - Hillary and Obama voted against K/F but for the recent bill. Edwards had his own plan in 2006, which was less firm on a deadline. Obama, Hillary and Edwards all have plans now.


- Ethics - Obama got legislation in the Senate ethics bill that bans lobbyists bundling checks. He also had a major ethics bill in the US Senate. He and Kerry voted for the Republican amendment that included the tougher Pelosi provisions - ultimately saving the Democrats from an embarrassing moment and leading to a stronger bill - Hillary voted against it.

Kerry authored the Clean Money, Clean elections bill which he sponsored with Wellstone - it didn't pass, but was the model of Arizona's and Maine's bills. Kerry also got the Cunningham amendment passed which takes away pensions of lawmakers who take bribes. He worked 5 years on BCCI which addressed corruption.

- Health Care - Kerry authored with Kennedy a bill that was partially the basis of S-CHIP in 1996 - which was passed by Hatch and Kennedy in 1997 with Kerry as one of the co-sponsors. There were differences that Hatch pointed out - the role the state played was very different, but much was the same. Kerry introduced Kids first in early 2005, which expands S-CHIP to include all kids.

Hillary did the unsuccesful work in 1993 and her book speaks of working behind the scenes with Kennedy and Hatch on S-CHIP. At the beginning of 2007, whe introduced a bill to expand S-CIP to cover all kids.

Edwards has a plan that Paul Krugman supports.

From what I've read, he was not politically active - which is perfectly legitimate.

He doesn't remember if he voted for Nixon or McGovern. That has to be the ultimate in being non-political in an EXTREMELY political time.

of Edwards because he didn't support the DLC neoliberal foreign trade policies. He was certainly, in my mind, conspicuously absent from the two DLC conferences that occured prior to the election in '04. Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Mosley-Braun were all there. But Edwards didn't go to either.

Furthermore, the National Association of Manufacturers threatened Kerry over his selection of Edwards.

I think this David Sirota article sums up the candidates pretty well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/../../david-sirota/john-edwards-the-people-_b_45053.html

Know them by their enemies.

Kerry knew a qualified man when he saw one.

Would that red voters had his smarts and good instincts.

His support for Edwards extends only to damage the other two.

Otherwise he would be a Kucinich supporter is he really walked the walk.

And don't you remember the Lamont staffer crticising Edwards for not saying Lieberman's name enough when Edwards was trying to give people reasons to vote for Lamont? Apparently the Lamont campaign didn't like Edwards so much. I wonder if Sirota knows. However, I'm not sure it would be relevant since I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have a link?

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/03/12/why-did-barack-antiwar-obama-support-joe-lieberman/

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/learning-from-lamont/

He considers Obama giving Lieberman a thumbs up as a Democratic dinner for party people in March when Lamont wasn't even on the radar as some type of blessing (even though Lieberman went down in the primary) while dismissing an an endorsement sent out to all of Obama's CT mailing lists.

Fuck him and his whiny bullshit.

He's one of the commentators who said it (he said it on NPR).

I'd like to think that the loss in 2004 and his time away from Washington have made him stand for the principles he believes in, rather than trying to be a "centrist" (popular lingo for "far-right Democrat) dealmaker.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

when all the issues are compiled he is Populist-Leaning Liberal.

And I'm still not sold on Edwards, or any of the "Big Three" for that matter.

having to tell them to remove his name from their website?

until he stopped being a Senator.

on the site and he's not a member?

and we have to believe them after years of membership.

Edwards is probably no more a member, but he has been for a long time, as have Kerry, Gore, Dean, and others. Dorgan, whose views on trade are even more populist than Edwards, has been a member of the New Democrat Caucus for years.

It is so much like Edwards to try to rewrite history.

He was absolutely a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition, which is the Congressional arm of the DLC. In fact, he was one of its founders. (He was also a member of the Senate Centrist Coalition).

It is documented on a hundred different websites, but I give you a simple page from Project Vote Smart, which lists the senate caucuses to which he belonged: http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243

Elizabeth is being coy here: toying with people's lack of knowledge about the DLC to hide his ties: she can say he was not on the "DLC"--but doesn't mention he was a founding member of its Congressional affiliate in the Senate. Here's the explanation of the Senate New Democrats:

The New Democrat Coalition is an organization within the United States Congress. It is made up of 20 Democratic Senate members and 44 Democratic members of the House of Representatives who claim moderate and pro-business stances.
The group was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (California), Jim Moran (Virginia) and Tim Roemer (Indiana) as a congressional affiliate of the avowedly centrist Democratic Leadership Council, whose members, including former President Bill Clinton, call themselves "New Democrats." As of February 2005, the House New Democrats are chaired by Representative Ellen Tauscher (California), with Representatives Artur Davis (Alabama) and Ron Kind (Wisconsin) serving as co-chairs. Representative Adam Smith (Washington) serves as chair of the group's political action committee.
The Senate New Democrats were founded in 2000 by Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana), John Breaux (Louisiana), John Edwards (North Carolina), Bob Graham (Florida), Bob Kerrey (Nebraska), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), and Chuck Robb (Virginia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

Lastly, populism was the trademark of the New Democrat/DLC movement.

and here's his liberal ranking...

John Edwards senate record:

1999: 31st most liberal senator
2000: 19th most liberal senator
2001: 35th most liberal senator
2002: 40th most liberal senator
2003: 4th most liberal senator

"When pundits call Edwards the “fourth most liberal,” they are cherry-picking his rank from one year—a year in which he missed more than a third of the votes used to make the tabulations."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml

I guess it was fun while it lasted, eh mario? lol

be a member of the DLC, The Third Way, and the New Democrat Coalition....but that's not the same as saying he never was; cause he was.

I don't think populists get invited to Bildenberg meetings anyways....and Edwards certainly did attend in 2004.

It's good that he's changed and has evolved! He's sees the world differently since a few years ago! Nothing wrong with that, IMO!

I know this wasn't the full extent of your post, but this line:

"It's good that he's changed and has evolved! He's sees the world differently since a few years ago! Nothing wrong with that, IMO!"

...is important to me, anyway.

Frenchie, I know we disagree on some things, but I appreciate you saying this. You know I'm a big edwards guy, and part of the reason is that I believe he has come into his own, ie who he really is - a true populist and a man congenitally opposed to war, and the needless deaths of young people.

I was very against his IWR vote, even if I believe he made it with humanistic intentions. People change. I want a leader who will change, and who will admit to weaknesses and still have the courage to speak out, unashamed, even if remorseful.

He's running a "green" campaign and adopting more populist rhetoric.

I'm not sold.

Another example being Elizabeth's sudden revelation that Edwards wanted to fight the Ohio vote and pleaded with Kerry to do so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2743256&mesg_id=2743256

Then there was the recent revelation that "advisors made John Edwards support the war."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3160899

Now Elizabeth suddenly "debunks" what has been a known fact: Edwards was in the DLC.

But here, on his official website and blog, is Edwards listed as a former member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/27/152327/862

Consder the three issues at play here: Voting irregularities, the Iraq war, and the DLC. Three issues that are red meat to the netroots. And three issues that, in the last several months, have been "repackaged" on Edward's bio.

Pandering. Pure and simple.

In 2004, the media assisted them in saying Kerry flip flopped. Kerry's record is very consistent over a decades. There are floor speeches in the Senate record from over 10 years ago that he could give tomorrow - verbatim changing only any supporting statistics.

I was also shocked when Edwards used the $87 billion "no" as an example of his doing what he demands others do - cut the funding of the war. The fact was that vote was in late 2003 - and Edwards, at that time, is on tape on talk shows as being still in favor of both the on going war and the invasion.

Edwards should instead be explaining on all these things where he has huge changes why he changed.

Even on the root issue of his 2008 campaign, he needs to explain why he voted for the bankrupcy bill of 2001. This bill led to a huge amount of pain - some of which was beautifully explained by Senator Kennedy when he fought the even worse 2005 bill. Hillary also voted for it (82 Senators voted for it - the ones against were people like Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Wellstone etc) This could be used by Obama against both Hillary and Edwards.

in the era of video tape, google and the internet.

It shows a certain chutzpah or a sense that people can be told anything. My guess is that he is sincere with his current positions and that the past positions were a result of not having a well developed political philosophy when he entered the Senate. This then led him to being easily persuaded to vote for things he now wouldn't have. (This is a man who says he doesn't remember if his first vote was for Nixon or McGovern! He was not politically active until his 40s.)

I think he almost would be better off explaining his political "rebirth" and what caused it - if he is sincere now, it happened and likely involved seeing the horror of Iraq, Katrina and rethinking things in the wake of the 2004 loss. There's a real story there and it likely is better than rewriting things that happened in plain view.

And I'm a bit different than you on my perspective of him.

I think he knew exactly what he was doing in the past and I don't think he has changed his positions all that much. He is a smart guy. Smart enough to know if he "changes" his ways, he can garner more netroots support.

You said he is smart. Is it smart to pander to a bloc that is already "taken"?

Seems your replies have been reduced to analysing other people's replies and not defending the the premise in your OP.

As HRC once said regarding whether homosexuality is immoral, I'll let the others be the judge on this. I posted a quote from Elizabeth Edwards about the issue. What is clear is that he has not been a DLC'er for a while, even if he once was a member of a Senate New Dem coalition. Al Gore was once the prototypical DLC'er and look at him now.

You used it in another thread to redefine what "close to winning the Democratic nomination" means.

Regardless, the premise of you OP is that Edwards was NEVER DLC. He clearly was. When someone is member of the Senate New Dem Coalition, they are a member of the DLC.

Al Gore? Funny you should mention him. Though he no longer holds public office, Gore is still very much a New Democrat. But that is for another thread...

He never held elective office until 1999 while some others have been in politics since the 1970's. I think you hit on something with him not having a fully developed philosophy when he first entered politics. That probably explains why he joined the Senate New Dem coalition, which is not exactly unusual for a southern Democratic senator. I doubt he would have been steered to that coalition if he were elected from Massachusetts or New York.

i can appreciate that he has changed his opinions over time. most people do. even i do. things that i believed in my 20's, i no longer believe. opinions change over time because of education, exposure to other ideas, experience ... life. i am not so set in my ways that i can't believe he has changed.

i like him. i will vote for him.

His votes got better before he put his hat in the ring for President. Before that I believe his grade on his voting record for the environment was a D-.

until 2004. Another case of rewriting history?

.

no see, mrgorth..:hi:

From an interview with Howard Dean by Will Pitt:

PITT: Going to the other side of the political spectrum, do you have an explanation for why the DLC is so interested these days in taking bites out of you?

DEAN: I think there are two reasons. First of all, it's personal. Some of the folks running the DLC feel they haven't been afforded the proper amount of respect or something like that. But I also think it's political. They represent Joe Lieberman and John Edwards...

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sen. John Edwards
2002 DLC National Conversation
New York, NY
July 30, 2002

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

"... Responsibility of the kind we have seen in New York is at the heart of what the DLC has always stood for... A decade ago, the DLC said we should expand opportunity and demand responsibility. Now the president is borrowing our words and says he wants to usher in a responsibility era..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

So there you have it. Howard Dean says the DLC represents (represented) Edwards, and Edwards himself spoke of the DLC's writings as "OUR words" while speaking at a DLC convention.

And with his name appearing in every documented source on the Senate New Democrat Coalition from 2000 to 2004, I think there really is very little room to doubt Edward's membership in the DLC.

So much for draft_mario_cuomo's theory.

All of these former and current office holders - from Al Gore and Howard Dean to John Edwards, John Kerry, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine - are STILL centrist Democrats and/or DLC members.

In fact, I had a very interesting 3-way conversation recently with Donna Brazille and Aaron Banks of the New Democrat Network on the very topic of Al Gore

Obviously the DLC itself does not agree with you on Dean and Gore's positions are similar, probably more vocal and "left" on the key issues of the day than Dean. Edwards? Since when did the DLC care about poverty. One of the purposes of the DLC was to beat up on the weakest members of society for political gain, what Clinton-Gingrich and the DLC euphemistically called "welfare reform." Kerry? He is as progressive as almost anyone in the Senate.

In what ways are Dean, Gore, Edwards, and Kerry "centrists"?

Because they take some conservative and some liberal positions on issues.

Obviously the DLC itself does not agree with you on Dean and Gore's positions are similar, probably more vocal and "left" on the key issues of the day than Dean.

That is a tedious sentence but I'll try to unravel it. While governor, Dean governed as a Centrist. Pro-gun rights, pro-business and pro-free trade are just some of the positions he staked out. As a presidential candidate, THE ONLY issue he went left on was the war in Iraq.

Al Gore was the point man in Clinton's cabinet on NAFTA and welfare reform and supports those moves even today. In 2000, Gore ran on faith-based initiatives.

Edwards? Since when did the DLC care about poverty.

It was only the DLC's economic policies, enacted by Bill Clinton, that lifted millions out of poverty in the 90s...

One of the purposes of the DLC was to beat up on the weakest members of society for political gain/

LOL! From the "Lefty Book Of Revolutionary Politics." Sounds cute, but isn't true.

Kerry? He is as progressive as almost anyone in the Senate.

John Kerry:



Joe Biden:



Ted Kennedy

No one is dogmatically "left" or "right" on every single issue.

The DLC disagrees with you on Dean. Take it up with them. Tell the DLC why they are wrong on Dean's DLCism.

Gore position's today are more progressive than Dean's, and the hostility between Dean and the DLC is well-documented.

The DLC believed too much being done to help the poor. The favorite DLC/Republican punching bag were meager welfare payments to the poorest among us.

As far Kerry, here are the National Journal's rating for 2006:

Name
Sort (alpha by surname) Economic
Sort Social
Sort Foreign
Sort Liberal
Sort

Durbin, Richard, D-Ill. 87 95 95 95.2
Boxer, Barbara, D-Calif. 87 92 98 95
Kennedy, Edward, D-Mass. 87 88 98 93.7
Leahy, Patrick, D-Vt. 83 96 94 92.5
Harkin, Tom, D-Iowa 83 96 92 92
Reed, Jack, D-R.I. 87 89 88 91.3
Sarbanes, Paul, D-Md. * 87 93 79 89.7
Murray, Patty, D-Wash. 87 96 76 89.3
Mikulski, Barbara, D-Md. 87 80 88 88.8
Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 87 77 85 86
Wyden, Ron, D-Ore. 87 80 79 86
Kerry, John, D-Mass. 87 89 72 85.7
Bingaman, Jeff, D-N.M. 87 76 85 85.5
Levin, Carl, D-Mich. 75 96 79 85.3
Feingold, Russell, D-Wis. 75 86 88 84.5
Lautenberg, Frank, D-N.J. 87 89 67 84.3
Dodd, Christopher, D-Conn. 83 93 72 84
Akaka, Daniel, D-Hawaii 74 79 95 83.5
Menendez, Robert, D-N.J. 79 80 84 82.7
Jeffords, James, I-Vt. * 82 86 77 82.5
Dayton, Mark, D-Minn. * 78 77 85 81
Cantwell, Maria, D-Wash. 79 80 75 79.7
Reid, Harry, D-Nev. 79 72 79 78.2
Biden, Joseph, D-Del. 87 73 65 77.5
Feinstein, Dianne, D-Calif. 67 70 88 76.5
Schumer, Charles, D-N.Y. 71 80 67 74.5
Dorgan, Byron, D-N.D. 67 57 95 74.3
Bayh, Evan, D-Ind. 83 71 62 73.3
Inouye, Daniel, D-Hawaii 65 75 74 71.8
Kohl, Herb, D-Wis. 75 67 67 71
Byrd, Robert, D-W.Va. 66 51 92 70.5
Clinton, Hillary Rodham, D-N.Y. 63 80 62 70.2
Johnson, Tim, D-S.D. 63 61 79 69.2
Stabenow, Debbie, D-Mich. 67 68 66 68
Salazar, Ken, D-Colo. 72 69 61 67.8
Lieberman, Joe, ID-Conn. 73 74 54 67.5
Carper, Thomas, D-Del. 67 63 67 67.2
Baucus, Max, D-Mont. 60 66 71 66.2
Conrad, Kent, D-N.D. 59 58 77 65.3
Lincoln, Blanche, D-Ark. 58 64 62 62.3
Nelson, Bill, D-Fla. 57 64 58 60.3
Pryor, Mark, D-Ark. 61 59 57 59.5
Chafee, Lincoln, R-R.I. * 55 61 59 59
Landrieu, Mary, D-La. 56 60 55 57.5

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes on which the ranking was based due to his campaign schedule. So the Journal assigned Kerry a score only on economic policy for that year -- "a perfect liberal score," in fact. That was based on 19 Kerry votes, though he still missed 13 others on economic policy.

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

Other than that, you post is still more leftwing truthiness. You know these things to be true in your heart, but the facts simply don't support it.

That is ironic for someone who invokes "truthiness" all the time...

Any response to the 2006 ratings and HRC's proximity to Holy Joe? Kerry ranked 12th in 2006 and was solidly progressive. He barely missed out on the top 10.

Kerry, by those measurements, is the 11th most liberal - completely contradicting your claim that Kerry is "as progressive as almost anyone in the Senate."

You cherry-picked a year in which Kerry missed a lot of votes. How reliable is their score for Kerry in all the other years Kerry has been in the Senate? :)

11th out of 100 is pretty liberal, especially when you look at the names next to him in the "standings", such as 10th ranked Barack Obama.

Why is HRC ranked essentially on par with Holy Joe, who is not even a member of the Democratic Party?

Here's some more info on that

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080003

Why didn't he mention Kerry's ratings from 1985-2003, 2005-2006 years in which he was not running for president?

Here's even more info

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0423-14.htm

"A couple of things to know about the National Journal rankings: Kerry rated number one last year for the first time in more than a decade. Not coincidentally, 2003 was also the year he missed thirty-seven of the sixty-two votes tallied in the ranking process because he was out on the campaign trail.

What was not included in the National Journal rankings is at least as important as what was. The Journal looks at votes cast by Senators and Representatives in three areas: economic, social, and foreign policy. Kerry missed all the 2003 votes in two of the three categories. So his ranking is based entirely on economic policy. Trade, an area where Kerry has always been at odds with the Democratic base, barely showed up on the radar screen. Some of the most significant votes he cast on the issue--for NAFTA, Fast Track, and normal trade relations with China--did not take place in 2003. On the most important trade votes in 2003, such as dropping trade barriers with Africa and the Caribbean, and free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, Kerry was a no-show."

Kerry is indeed a liberal Senator but National Journal's ranking system is not the end all be all.

His views on economics don't mesh with the DLCs no matter what any critics try to tell you. The DLC hated Gore's acceptance speech which promoted populism. Edwards's campaign has always, ever since I've been paying attention to him at least which goes back to the 2004 primaries when I supported Dean and then Kerry--once Dean lost his first couple primaries, been about economics and he's the only candidate who has fought corrupt businesses outside of politics in the entire field. And he's been the most successful at that, also.

I think it's interesting that I'm seeing some very vocal supporters of other candidates trolling Edwards's threads who no matter what you tell them they will say the opposite. I wonder if some are being paid to do that?

I wish there were a way to recommend individual posts.

CLark voted for Reagan. Kucinich was pro-life. So freaking what? I don't agree with the DLC but it isn't going to effect my vote in the slightest. I look at the candidate to see how much I like their past accomplishments and what I think they will accomplish in the future. Their membership in the DLC doesn't mean squat.

Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Kucinich, Clark and Gore, despite some faults, are very good in my eyes.
Hillary... not so much. And even if Hillary renounced the DLC, it wouldn't make me like her more.

Stephanie Miller voted for Reagan...the list goes on and on.

Good post.

:thumbsup:

saying and doing.. whether they belong to that useless dlc or NOT.

John Edwards clearly does not. And if he ever did in the past ..I really don't care as long as he doesn't now.

I mean, Bush ran as a 'compassionate conservative' and said we should have a 'humble foreign policy.' That didn't work out too well.

I was trying to stick just to the facts here (the fact that he was indeed affiliated with the DLC), but the facts always lead to opinions.

The problem for me with Edwards is that what he says seems always to change drastically with the political winds, and there is not enough "doing" from the past on which to judge his sincerity. All I have is his record as a senator and his positions on the last campagin trail: both of those are troubling to me. Should I accept him as "born-again" now, as a more liberal/progressive person? I'm leery. Especially when misleading statements such as this are put out.

As for the "saying": like conservative Republicans who are suspect that what Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani say now does not correspond to what they have said in the past, I don't have confidence--because I have nothing to back it up but words uttered in a political campaign--that John Edwards's newly found base-pleasing positions have any substance or sincerity. It seems political to me, and as was pointed out above, there are questions about the honesty here (the advisors made me do it, the denial of the DLC connection). You have to have faith to believe his conversion, and I don't have that kind of blind faith. I need more assurance than that.

As for the "doing": there's not a lot there. Since he had no political record before he became a senator, and because he became a candidate very shortly after that, I have nothing to assure me his past positions were just the kind of careful centrism that new senators and candidates sometimes feel compelled to adopt. Why would Obama be different? Because I can at least look to his past career and see the issues in which he was engaged as a community organizer. I can look at his 8-year legislative record and see, yes, he voted to put an assault-weapon ban into place in Illnois, he took a public position against a preemptive war in Iraq. So although he is somewhat centrist, I at least feel he is consistent, and that his words match previous actions. The other candidates have long records on which to judge their evolution--not political eve conversions. (Kucinich's sudden change of heart on abortion last time out was equally disturbing.)

As for the recent "doing"--I'm not comfortable with the sort of photo-op positioning he's been doing lately (the nursing home, the New Orleans hammering): this is the kind of thing that has always irritated me about Bush. It does nothing of substance to reassure me.

In all, I can't help feeling distrustful of Edwards' judgment and sincerity. It's not that I don't think he'd be competent and decent as a president ... it's just that with other candidates to consider, why would I take a risk on someone whose judgment, veracity, and sincerity I'm uncomfortable with? I feel badly, but I just feel this is a notch-in-his-belt effort, that he is courting the base a little too coyly, and, alas, that he is a bit of a phony. I've always liked Elizabeth, but I am very disturbed by the fact that she would make such a misleading statement.

I had bush's number from the get go..that is a lying, cheating asshole.

I, of course, knew Bush was a lying thief from before he was even nominated by his party in 2000 --- and I've spent seven and a half years on the Internet, and the ground working for issues and candidates, fighting him ... since well before he was elected.

So when I get a phony vibe from a candidate, I take it seriously. If you don't, fine, go for it. Just explaining my reasons for Edwards being fairly low down on my list of preferred candidates.

gave bush as an example who has fooled a lot of people.

I get a good vibe from Edwards but we're all coming from different experiences and I can respect yours.

He later went on to also advise the Kerry/Edwards campaign.



Bruce Reed is still president of the DLC.