Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why John Edwards?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 08:33 PM
Original message
Why John Edwards?
Cross Posting from GD - thanks to a real Edwards supporter.....:evilgrin:

Team Edwards in Arguments & Analysis
6/11/2007 at 6:05 PM EST

My name is Michael Conrad. I am a General Director with Team Edwards, a coalition of supporters working together to nominate and elect John Edwards. I am writing this for two reasons. One is to introduce Team Edwards to other supporters of John Edwards.

http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

The second, and far more important reason, is to lay out a few reasons for supporting John Edwards that I feel have been overlooked. There many reasons to support John Edwards. Instead of listing all of them here I think it would be best if I did this in a series. Consider this the first part.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. That is just one of the reasons why I feel it is so important for the progressive movement to come together and support John Edwards' campaign. This diary would be far too long if I went into detail about all the reasons to support John Edwards, but I'll list some of the things he has done that make it clear that he is the bold progressive leader that both our party and our country desperately needs. If you dispute the point that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat I would like for you to check out the latest post on our blog. If you are already a John Edwards supporter you will be able to find information that will help you when engaging fellow Democrats about supporting John Edwards.

~Snip~


John Edwards' recent confrontation recent confrontation of the Bush doctrine of a "War on Terror" is a great example of this. Confronting one of the most widely used and effective political frames in recent memory was not an easy task but it was something that someone, for the long-term well being of both our party and our country, needed to do. What makes this decision even more important is how it was made. Edwards had a few seconds at the most to decide whether to raise his hand when the question about a "war on terror" was asked. Not only was he the only major candidate not to raise his hand, he did not stop there.


He showed progressive Democrats why engaging conservative myths is important, that it is possible, and how it can be done. Every counter-terrorism/national security expert that I have seen speak (usually on C-Span's "Book TV") has made it clear that the Bush administration has made us less safe, increased the number of terrorists, and fueled their hatred for us. As Edwards himself pointed out, we need to give those on the fence (and there are many) a hand to our side, not a shove to the other. Edwards confronted this conservative myth publicly and vigorously and he offered a substantive alternative to the Bush doctrine.

There are many other examples of John Edwards displaying the bold leadership that we are looking for, and that is what I would like to end with. I like to call it the "John Edwards First and Often Only" List. It is a list of times that during the course of this campaign John Edwards was the first, and often only, candidate to do something of importance. This list was first posted on our blog on Monday April 2nd. Soon after it became very hard to keep track of all of the examples of Edwards demonstrating leadership during this campaign so this list has not been updated as often as we would have liked, but I think it gets the point across.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/6/10/173923/641">Read More Here




Pure and Simple - this is the candidate I want as my President - he will take this country in a new direction, one that we can look forward to with hope and promise that the future will be better.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't support him but, he is a good person and wish you guys luck./
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. While he held office for a whole one term, he made very bad decisions
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 09:04 PM by madmunchie
that will haunt our country for years to come. THAT is why I don't support him. While he held office for a whole one term, he spent a great deal of that time campaigning for V & POTUS, INSTEAD of doing the job to which he was elected. THAT is also why I don't support him.

Since he hasn't been in office, his WHOLE life revolves around his campaign for POTUS, pretty self serving and SAFE, Not being in the line of fire by not being held accountable for his votes (which during his time in the Senate, SUCKED, is another reason why I won't support him.

It took him 3 years too long to admit that "he made a mistake by voting for the IWR", the funny thing is that he also co sponsored it, I don't hear him mention that either, he did that while - Gore, Feingold, Byrd, Obamma, Kucinich...all argued against it ANOTHER BIG reason why I won't support him.

Where was he on the Patriot Act? What has he said recently about taking military action against Syria?????? I don't trust his judgement WHILE he is doing a job. When his sole job is campaigning, he does O.K., but let him start making the tough decisions, while he is actually doing a job....well he doesn't cut the mustard...no good record to stand on. I don't care what he SAYS now, I care about what he has done....his sorry ass record... AND by the way what economic bill did he sponsor or even co sponsor or champion WHILE he was in office???????? You know the man who will stand for the working man and the poor man????? What did he do then?????? Or what did he try to do????

Sure he is good lucking and has appeal to many voters - maybe charisma, but isn't that why Bush won??? Haven't we learned our lesson YET?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What you said!
America has had enough of bad decisions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Couldn't you just say "ditto"?
This guy has fought against predatory lending. Have any other viable candidates done that? He's been steadfast in protecting workers' rights. He gives a damn about the little guy and has been consistent in doing so. Yeah, he voted for the Patriot Act, but he didn't hide from that vote and was the person who made sure there was a sunset clause. (Some measures of the Patriot Act are sensible, like tapping a person rather than a phone number; phone numbers can be had virtually instantaneously.)

He was the most vocal opponent to the confirmation of John Ashcroft; does he get any praise for that? He repudiated the way the Patriot Act had been used in the hands of Ashcroft and was tireless in fighting against that. Does he get any credit for that?

Nobody else among the contenders gives a hoot and a holler about the tribulations of rural Americans, yet he's been vocal from the beginning with plans to get remote video medical care to the folks in the hinterland. Does this matter to the naysayers?

Unlike virtually all politicians, he's stood up and stood by his decisions. When he's realized that they're wrong, like the IWR vote, he's had the incredibly uncommon spine to admit his mistakes.

This man truly gives a damn, admits his failings, and has an unflagging will to engage with anyone to try to make things better for everyone. He's truly a champion of the common person.

As a good friend of mine likes to say: "a critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. How long did it take him to realize that CO SPONSORING the IWR
and voting for it was a mistake? 3 years too long, and he doesn't really own up to CO SPONSORING either - while Byrd, Kucinich, Gore, Feingold, Clark, Scolcroft...all spoke out against it - Edwards stood with the Repubs and it AGAIN took him 3 years to figure out that he screwed up....I knew it before the vote and I'm not claiming to be Presidential material.

In addition: Edwards not generate or champion any poverty legislation during his 6 years in the senate.....

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.....

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."(

....sounds kind of like his stance on Iraq a few years ago now doesn't it?)

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."


MAY 28, 2007 Up Front Edited by Deborah Stead John Edwards' Convenient Nonprofit

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, launched the center in 2005 at the Washington (D.C.) address of his PAC. The nonprofit raised $1.3 million in 2005, the only year for which data are available, and spent some of it on a national speaking tour for Edwards. It also spent $259,000 on consultants. The campaign declines to disclose the donors or consultants. The center is now defunct, and some of its key leaders are now aiding the Edwards campaign.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_22/c403...

My standards for our next POTUS are much higher than yours it seems, Edwards, while might be sellable to our 15 second soundbite electorate doesn't fly by me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JANdad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Does your tone
have to be so condescending...



It's OK if you don't lke Edwards...it really is...

We understand those that make a lot of sense and work for the common good, are scary to some people...but don't worry, we still love you all the same...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Did you read his post or just plug your ears
and say neener neener neener through the whole thing?

Warm fuzzy comments are well and good but some disputing of the points he laid out would have been much better IMHO.

What I have gotten from this thread so far is edwards supporters will believe anything he says and ignore his previous record.

As the poster above said the nation elected the likable guy the last two times and look at the disaster we got from it. Please stop listening to what these guys say and start paying closer attention to what they actually do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking
And I feel that you are exactly right, it seems that Edwards supporter DO believe anything he says and they DO ignore his previous record. Scary huh??? What is it going to take for people to look at actions, not just a pretty speech written by a professional speech writer? I mean, how hard is it to get that?

The POTUS is more than a talented speech making position, it is also and mainly DECISIONS made that will affect not only our country - but the world.....

We already had 1 actor in office that knew how to give pretty speeches and say the "right" thing, We have already seen how Bush coined phrases such as "Mission Accomplished"....(which later came back to bite him) Words are so powerful, that way too many people ignore actions and just hang on to those words... It really scares me to see how many people are still buying a candidate based on just words and no real actions to prove their qualifications and/or validity. Does this Party really have that many 15 second soundbite members that are as superficial as the Bush supporters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmunchie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. You really cannot rebut anything that was said can you, so you
resort to some really lame response because using facts just are beyond you.

By the way, how do kids get accepted into college? By making pretty speeches or by THEIR TRANSCRIPTS and TEST SCORES????? By your way of judging who should be POTUS, colleges shouldn't look at any perspective students record, they should just judge them on what they PROMISE and what they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. He had an excellent voting record as a Democrat (much less, a Dem from NC)
He ran a brilliant primary campaign in 2004. He's running a great campaign now. I don't think Danny Glover, the Kooch and Jim Hightower are wrong about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LBJDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Why? Because he has guts.
The media is naturally pushing for the flashier (and more conservative) candidates, but John Edwards is the only one who's putting his ass on the line the same way Howard Dean did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Will He End The War?
Will there still be American troops dying in Iraq at the end of an Edwards term?

"When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period. But we're also being honest. If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London , Riyadh , and Tokyo . And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them."

So Edwards has only committed to the withdrawal of combat troops - which are less than half the troops there.

And if he is elected, troops will continue to die in Iraq.

I would say that Edwards is not going to end the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It doesn't matter who wins...
we'll be in Iraq for the next 75 years, or until the oil doesn't matter anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. We'll See About That
I believe that the US will eventually be forced out if it can't find a political leader who will end it.

Logistically it is untenable. Iraq isn't Korea.

At this rate the war will end in about ten years with ten to twenty thousand US and three to five million Iraqi dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The US forces will pull...
Edited on Thu Jun-14-07 10:53 PM by greyghost
back into a defensive posture around the oil fields.

Blackwater and other mercenaries will join in and control the oil out put.

Of course there will be strong air support in this operation.

TRANSLATION: Iraq will be a parking lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. This Is An Interesting Argument
What you describe is more or less what the post surge strategy will look like.

However, the supply lines are vulnerable. Let's talk about supply lines.

The US needs thousands of supply vehicles every day. Even water has to be trucked in. Fuel is a major component, too.

It can't replace this with air power - even the air supply of Berlin only went eleven months.

How can you supply permanent bases when the Iraqis are blowing up bridges and roads, and constantly improving their tactics?

Drawing down combat troops will put these lines at risk. There's a minimum possible size for the occupation force because of this fact. You can't defend from IED's from the air.

Furthermore, the withdrawal of the UK from the south will put these lines at greater risk as the shiite resistance component can operate without interference.

For these reasons I believe the US won't be able to do what you describe. Imperial occupations don't work in a hostile country where they are vulnerable to indirect mortar fire, where aircraft can be shot down and where supply lines can be attacked.

Just ask the Russian Afganistan vets.

-lie


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Do you believe there...
will be much of a resistance left? The Iraqi upper and middle classes have already fled, and you know that the the poor folks are meaningless to them. Cannon fodder to say the very least, they will pick them off as they raise their heads.

We all know its been about the oil from day one.

I agree that it will be a massive logistic operation but the assets are already in place.

I really don't think Iran has anything to worry about, we'll be tied up in Iraq for quite awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. If You Are Arguing The Resistance Will Die Out...
Edited on Fri Jun-15-07 04:53 PM by pretty_lies
Then you will have to show how the situation in Iraq will change between now and 2009 to make this happen.

I certainly agree that the motivations of the US have little to do with the wellbeing of Iraq - they are some mixture of US nationalistic fervor to attack Iraq, Israeli interests, and energy supply dominance, perhaps directed at China.*

The question is what the hard logistic limits to the occupation of Iraq are.

This is the only real question in the whole business, and it's ignored by the old media and new media (bloggers) alike, probably because every half-bright moron with a computer has an opinion on Bush, but few have military logistics knowledge.

As to your first point, let's think about some numbers. There are 27,500,000 Iraqis. We've killed or caused the death of 1,000,000. Two million, many of them the Sunni middle class, have fled outside the country but can certainly participate in supporting resistance activities.

Consider that the US killed 3,500,000 out of perhaps 40,000,000 Vietnamese without denting their determination to resist. Of course the situation is not totally analogous, but it's clear we are not going to end their capacity to resist.

Bottom line, they will fight us until we leave and they have weapons effective enough to force us to leave. And we cannot draw down without becoming more vulnerable.

Indeed, President Hillary Clinton will probably order an escalation because of the sustained success of supply line attacks.


* (original: I certainly agree that the motivations of the US have little to do with the wellbeing of Iraq - they are some mixture of Israeli interests, and energy supply dominance, perhaps directed at China.) I edited this because it ignores an important motivation held by the rank and file Bush supporters: the desire to see dead Arabs on CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Right on with...
"Indeed, President Hillary Clinton will probably order an escalation because of the sustained success of supply line attacks."

You said a mouthful with that one and it's really the heart of my argument. There is no desire on either side to give up in Iraq. She most probably would turn up the heat to maintain "some level" of security.

As to the hard logistics , I've forgotten how many billions we're in the hole already. I'm relatively certain that their plan all along was for expenses to be paid by the oil profits.

Between the oil lobby and AIPAC's influence it may take a long time for this operation to be abandoned.

You mentioned Viet-Nam, I'm both amused and saddened when I here their revisionist history on how the war was lost. What bullshit, you were right on the mark with your analogy.

They've killed so many already that I can't help feeling they won't stop until they have absolutely no choice. By going into fortress mode, security the oil production areas, I'm betting they think they can control the situation by attrition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. That is false
Read the quote. He will only have troops at the embassy, which is routine, and some troops to protect humanitarian workers. He will not keep troops there for military operations, like HRC and Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretty_lies Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Will Troops Be Dying In Iraq Under President Edwards?
Will there be US military bases in Iraq (whether he calls them permanent or not) under President Edwards?

The answer to both these questions is yes. Edwards' claim that he will end the war is meaningless because of this fact.

Less than HALF the troops in Iraq are combat troops.

You need to parse this stuff very, very carefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StudentsMustUniteNow Donating Member (859 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-15-07 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. He's the Howard Dean of 2008
The other candidates run on their personalities and their brand image. Edwards runs on issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
23. This is one of the talking points that turns me away from Edwards.
The "first and often only" shit.

I would like to be able to evaluate Edwards on his brief record and his current platform. His record works against him in my case; his platform could work for him. I'd like to be able to say I'd support him in the general election. At this point, I can't say that.

He won't get my vote when he falsely claims to be the "first" to introduce a universal health care plan. Or when his campaign claims to be the "first" or "only" candidate to support anything that he isn't actually "first" or "only" on.

He won't get my primary vote; he is not the best qualified candidate based on record and issues. I doubt that he will have earned my vote in the general election, but if he wants to, the "first" and "only" will promptly be rescinded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC