Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The REAL REASON Rove attacked Clinton

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
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:50 AM
Original message
The REAL REASON Rove attacked Clinton
Yes, the GOP WANTS to run against Hilary, but not because she is the weakest candidate, or that they are actually "afraid" of Edwards or Obama or any other democrat... but because having Clinton as the nominee would be their best chance of it remaining a 2 party race they can win.

Presuming that Al Gore doesn't get involved (I still fully believe he will, but that is a different post)... There is a 3rd party candidate looming very large in the wings.. Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg has all but said he WANTS Al Gore to run, so we know if Gore gets in Bloomberg stays out. The only other candidate likely to keep Bloomberg out of the race is Clinton.

Edwards, Biden, Dodd basically guarantee a Bloomberg presidency, as unhappy GOPers, Independents, etc.. will likely gravitate towards the independent... staunch anti-war progressives, like myself, would never vote for one of the IWR voters and would choose Bloomberg as the best alternative. No one is ranking high in government these days and people are more desperate than EVER to seek an alternative.

The GOP knows they are in trouble this election cycle, the only chance they have is to keep it a 2 person race against a candidate they can beat.

THAT's what the attack is about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Edwards OR Obama would be good candidates...
Anyone who'd vote 3rd Party over them is a fucking idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Voting against Edwards is easy...
He can't be trusted to do what he says, as he has proven in the past.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Even Obama said he'd probably have voted for the IWR...
The argument was that they thought they were adding pressure to Saddam so Bush WOULDN'T invade.

The whole IWR argument is so fucking stupid.

Got another example?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Bankrupcy... Trade... Check all his major issues...
The IWR is just one in a long list of problems with Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Prove it.
Edited on Thu Aug-23-07 03:05 AM by Mythsaje
Let's see some links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. You're kidding, right?
Check his voting record and then match it against his rhetoric today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. Okay...I wonder about the bankruptcy bill...
It looks as though there are some positive parts to the bill. As usual, the damn things are tangled as hell, good and bad mixed all together.

He certainly didn't vote Y on most of the Republican Trade bills, except to normalize trade relations with China. There are good arguments for doing so.

Looking through his voting record, the Bankruptcy bill is the big question mark. But it doesn't in and of itself mean he's lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. But he has CHANGED his position on these things...
And now claimed they were MISTAKES.

Wrong on the war.

Wrong on the Patriot Act.

Wrong on bankrupcy.

Wrong on China.


How many times does he have to change positions before you question whether he has REAL principles or just "positions" he takes for the moment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Oh, I forgot the "never made a mistake" rule...
Totally slipped my mind.

Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. How many mistakes are okay?
How many times can someone in power make mistakes that cost people lives? Cost people their living? Cost people their civil liberties?

Should we "forgive" bush or lierberman all their "mistakes" if he just apologizes for them?

If Lieberman entered the dem race and ran to the left and begged forgiveness for all his "mistakes", would you just let it go? Zell Miller?

Virtually the exact same mistakes... so you would vote for either of them if they just apologized and ran to the left?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. Have they ONCE admitted to them being mistakes?
No.

The hypothetical comparison is meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. So it makes it okay because he admitted it???
I guess we should open up the jails and let out anyone who admits to their wrongdoing.

Why not? Right. At least they admitted it. No reason to judge them on their past actions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Better than pretending he didn't make them.
And, yeah, admitting mistakes IS a part of both plea bargains AND parole.

Ridiculous anology, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. So what?
Whoopie, it is "better".

We can have a candidate who is a little bit better than absolute crap. What a wonderful day it must be when we can settle on someone who is just a little bit better than the rest of the dung, because he can "kinda" admit he made a mistake, several years too late and when he didn't have anything riding on it anymore.. but at least it happened.

Oh what a happy day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:50 AM
Original message
You're a one-note wonder, you know that?
You're hedging your bets on people who aren't even running and you think WE'RE deluded?

Okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
58. No bets to hedge...
Just stating reality here.

You aren't "deluded" You are buying snake oil from a slick politician.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. That's your take on it.
Doesn't mean you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. In this case... I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #62
67. It's too personal for you.
I smell a ROUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. You just smell reality
I know it is tough to accept some times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Oh and that "pressure on Saddam" thing has been debunked.
So we can stop telling that lie now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Prove it.
You can say anything. Let's have some evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. The claims....
Were that they voted for the IWR to force Saddam to let the inspectors in.

HOWEVER,


Iraq had already agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors on 9/16/2002, 3 weeks BEFORE the IWR vote.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/


So what was this "pressure" needed for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. If they believed without a doubt he had WMDs
and was simply planning to stall by leading the inspectors around, I could see it. You have an alternate theory why so many Dems voted for the IWR? I sure don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Who is "they"????
Americans didn't believe it in any great number... Previous weapon's inspectors came forth the month before declaring they weren't there.

Who is "they"? and if "they" believe something that was already in doubt, can "they" be trusted to make decisions again?

Yes, I have a theory... There was an election in November and "they" were afraid of being labelled "unpatriotic" or being "afraid" of fighting terrorism, and thus, they supported the resolution to appear "strong".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Hmmm. Perhaps...
"They" being everyone who voted for it. A rather large number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. So because a lot of people did it, that makes it A-okay???
Its funny, if a whole bunch of people get together and do something THAT wrong in a company, they are all fired.

If a schoolboard made a mistake of this magnitude, the voters would be calling for their heads... but for some reason, because the democrats followed the GOP like lemmings, it is just fine because they ALL did it together.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. People make mistakes...
Sure, this is a big one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. How many mistakes before it is a trend?
China... Bankrupcy bill... Patriot Act... War... Gay Marriage...

How many times does he have to be "forgiven"?

Or should I say how long before you realize he doesn't BELIEVE any of these things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Again, a lot of Dems voted for these things...
You've got a personal hate on for Edwards about them. I'm wondering why him in particular. Hillary's voting record's no better in that regard.

At least he ADMITS to his mistakes easily enough. After 7 years of a guy who hasn't made a single one, that's a definite improvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #44
52. I wouldn't vote for Hilary either.
I have said that many times.

I wouldn't vote for Biden... Dodd or any of the other capitulators.

I regret voting for Kerry and would never do it again.

I haven't voted for Henry Waxman or sent him one thin dime since the IWR vote and never will again and I actually BELIEVE Waxman when he said he regretted that vote.

I don't, even for a second, believe Edwards' mea culpa. I don't believe he though Iraq was a threat to America (you see, if I believed that, I would have to believe Edwards was an IDIOT and I don't believe that either). I believe Edwards is a slick politician who will do and/or say ANYTHING to get elected and he has done absolutely nothing to prove that wrong.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. Believe what you want...
I'm done with it.

Why don't you post an original thread covering this stuff and see how it flies? I'm actually curious what the response will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. I forgot this was your thread
Not a lot of support out there for your position from what I can see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. So?
I didn't post it to be popular... I posted it because it is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. So you believe.
Doesn't mean you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. In this case... I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Why John Edwards must not only be defeated, but destroyed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I haven't seen you in a bit.
It's good to see you. :hi::pals::hug::loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. ..
:hi: :hug: :loveya:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. That only applies if you buy into his BS...
The reality is that I don't believe Edwards is sincere in his message and his recent tax policies kinda proved the point.

But, this is off the subject of the thread, which is the real reason the GOP wants to run against CLinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. I don't buy into your 'beliefs' & belittling of Edwards.
Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

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

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"If you call wanting to give everybody a chance 'class warfare,' then so be it. That's what I'm for." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Building One America Starts in New Orleans - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. That's cool...
Its just too bad that Edwards did so little when he was actually IN power and waited until he was a failed candidate to suddenly find a voice.

He's about an insincere as they come... i am sorry you are being taken in by the snake oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. Some of what he did "when he was actually IN power"...
UPDATE: Fragile X, Edwards, and Special Interests
by chuckles1
Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:28:39 AM PDT

Greetings friends.
Some time ago, I went searching for the early Senate record of John Edwards. My reason was simple, I wanted to find out what this man, who was elected to the Senate in 1998, stood for. Here in North Carolina, we have recently been treated to Senators that, when elected, fail to do the people's work because they know they have 6 years to make up for screwing the good folks of North Carolina. Even among Democrats, often the first couple years are spent making up favors to special interests. Don't believe me? Go check out the bills SPONSORED by your local Senators in their first couple years.
So, I did that. I wanted to see, who was it that John Edwards considered his "special interest". I'll admit that I, in particular, was shocked by what I found.

(snip)

    S.1131
    Title: A bill to promote research into, and the development of an ultimate cure for, the disease known as Fragile X.
    Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (introduced 5/26/1999)

    (snip)

    S.975 : A bill to amend chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to provide for a uniform notification system under which individuals may elect not to receive mailings relating to skill contests or sweepstakes, and for other purposes.

    S.1018 : A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal district judges in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes.

    S.1131 : A bill to promote research into, and the development of an ultimate cure for, the disease known as Fragile X.

    S.1424 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the same tax treatment for special pay as for combat pay.

    S.1610 : A bill to authorize additional emergency disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd.

    S.1850 : A bill to amend section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the requirements relating to the use and disclosure of customer proprietary network information, and for other purposes.

    S.2064 : A bill to amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act, to expand the purpose of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to cover individuals who are at least 18 but have not yet attained the age of 22.

    S.2065 : A bill to authorize the Attorney General to provide grants for organizations to find missing adults.

    S.2100 : A bill to provide for fire sprinkler systems in public and private college and university housing and dormitories, including fraternity and sorority housing and dormitories.

    S.3180 : A bill to provide for the disclosure of the collection of information through computer software, and for other purposes.

    S.3221 : A bill to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that ensure that law enforcement officers employed by such agencies are afforded due process when involved in a case that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, or tranfer.

    S.3228 : A bill to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing in rural areas for low-income households.

Take a look at those bills. Affordable housing, hurricane relief, Fragile X, "special pay" tax relief for soldiers, heck even junk mail protection, and spyware protection. All of them are aimed at helping people. There are other bills he Sponsored, you can go see them, most are import tariff exemptions for our FORMER textile mills, the ones that are now gone to foreign countries. Again, all his bills are aimed at helping people like us, workers, citizens, voters. They aren't aimed ONLY at the business community, they ARE handouts to his special interest group - people.

Caring about people. It isn't new, it isn't something he is doing for his Presidential race, it is something he has always done, even when the heat WASN'T on him. I like that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/26/92758/1809


Facts about John Edwards


Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES to Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on expanding fee trade to the third world. (May 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002) THIS WAS LOWEST CATO RATING FOR ANYONE RUNNING IN '04
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES to require health insurance for every child. (Aug 2003)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES to let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES to end government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted YES to federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES to hiding sources made post-9-11 analysis impossible. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to CIA depends too heavily on defectors & not enough on HUMINT. (Jul 2004)
Voted YES to administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on More tax cuts and tax credits for 98% of Americans. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1213003#1217858



And some of what he's been doing since leaving the Senate...

UNC-Chapel Hill creates Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity;
names former Sen. John Edwards as director


CHAPEL HILL -- The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is launching a Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity that will be led by former U.S. Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

The Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity will be a nonpartisan initiative, bringing together UNC-Chapel Hill faculty and other national public policy experts to examine innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. The center will have an advisory committee of senior faculty representing multiple disciplines across campus. In addition to leading the center, Edwards also will serve as a guest lecturer on campus.

"John Edwards is a distinguished Carolina alumnus, and we are delighted that he will return to campus to bring together today’s best minds to focus on issues that affect us all," Chancellor James Moeser said.

Edwards spent six years in the U.S. Senate. In that time, he championed policy initiatives such as raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, creating matching savings accounts for low-income families, and providing incentives for teachers to teach in low-income schools. Edwards also focused on poverty during last year’s presidential campaign.

"The time I spent at Chapel Hill gave me many of the tools I have used all my life to help those who are struggling, and I am so proud that I will be able to continue this work and also give something back to UNC-Chapel Hill," Edwards said. "As director of the center, I will work to explore creative approaches to the difficulties that families in poverty face every day."

Continued @ http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html




A book from the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity, John Edwards, founding director (and director until announcing his 08 candidacy), and editor of the book: Ending Poverty in America: How to Restore the American Dream: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x661959


John Edwards, Cleaning Up in New Orleans: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5285938


Working w/UNITE HERE & SEIU: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/05/john_edwards_labors_darling.html


College for Everyone: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=689280&mesg_id=689280


John Edwards on the ISSUES: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues



Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

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

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"If you call wanting to give everybody a chance 'class warfare,' then so be it. That's what I'm for." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Building One America Starts in New Orleans - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. This fellow's got a personal hate on for Edwards...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphire Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. Yes, it seems so. Doesn't seem to care much for any of our other candidates, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Don't mind Obama, like Kucinich...
I believe Al Gore will enter the race, making this all Moot and I've got 2 $2,300 checks waiting for him when he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Don't hold your breath.
I think it's pretty damned unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
54. Oh, don't worry, Gore is in.
You just have to follow the news stories to realize that, but that is another story entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. Pretty weak list there...
You really had to dig and do some major spinning to try and paint that one positive.

No sweeping changes, no real priorities... just tiny little bills that offer no REAL differences.

Similar to his current tax policy. All talk, NO REAL REFORM.

You bought yourself some snake oil there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Has anyone ever explained to you that the legislature
is about incremental changes, adding a little bit here and a little bit there? That everything's part of a deal for something else?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. Yes.. too bad he dealt the wrong way so many times. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. Compared to how many times he voted the right way?
Oh, but wait, you don't care about any of THOSE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #47
55. No, not in the least...
I don't give people cookies for doing what they are SUPPOSED to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Is it too late for you to edtit that headline?
It;s catchy, but not so constructive in a web search invironment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
76. "National goal" of eliminating poverty is a refreshing change
I am sick to death of "wars!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. And that Milo is where you begin to "assume"


Face it, Rove wants Hillary in.

The right wing machine want Hillary in.

Sure - she's smart, but she has more baggage than Sampsonite.

They ----want her to be our nominee---------

=And why not?=

She works wonders to energergize the base.

But not our base ====> The Republican Base!!


For them, it's a win-win situation - Put yourself in their shoes > http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

They win - Wer'e toast. But we won't let it happen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I agree...
They ABSOLUTELY do want her as the nominee, but not because they are trying to keep another specific democrat out...

That's my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
20. I've heard there is a third party effort.
It could be a spoiler...or it ccould work. Interesting. Bloomberg and a dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Depending on the dem candidate...
I would certainly go for Bloomberg.

I would mUCH MUCH MUCH rather vote for the D, but not a capitulator.

Let's be honest... match Bloomberg vs most of the Dem candidates on the Issues, they are pretty much identical.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rabidchickens Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. In 2004 they attacked Kerry cause of Edwards
That's a fact. Period. Now Edwards is more to the left, but he still hands downs wins in any general election in 2008.

Anyone, but Hillary, Dodd, Richardson or Gravel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. LOL.
Oh please... I gotta love these factoids that everyone runs to believe. Edwards could no more win in 2004 than he can in 2008... in fact he is 20000x weaker today because of his flip-flops, which will all be paraded around for all to see... one speech in 2003, a different one in 2006 and a different one in 2008.

The only thing Edwards guarantees is a President Bloomberg and the GOP doesn't want that either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. Bull
If edwards 'god forbid; gets the nom.. Bloomberg WILL run and will win. You can mark that down.

If you believe that 2004 election story, you are a bigger sucker than I thought... But then I guess you just want to believe whatever a former Rove top aid says... LOL.

Yes, Edwards is "running" as a progressive... too bad he can't be trusted to actually do anything he is promising. Heck, his tax policy pretty much proved he was all talk.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rabidchickens Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #48
50. Bloomberg winning would be that bad?
Ill vote for Bloomberg over Hillary, and btw a Jew from New York (coming from a minority New Yorker) doesnt stand a chance next to John Edwards. Trust me. actually trust the polls and people close to Bloomberg. It isnt happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. LOL
Edwards has no appeal. The real left won't touch him because of his many "oopses"... the middle won't go near him because of his flip flops and the unhappy GOPers won't go near him because of his run to the left.

As for trust.. you have bought snake oil, so exactly how can I trust you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #48
75.  Bloomberg says won't run for president
Tue Aug 21, 2:34 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he cannot win the U.S. presidency and won't run, the strongest statement to date about his intentions for the 2008 presidential race.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070821/pl_nm/usa_politics_bloomberg_dc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #20
32. Someone actually did a poll on here a while back...

It stated that if HRC actually won the Democratic nod (and to keep her DLC ways) selected someone like Vilsack as here running mate ------

And meanwhile on a Independent ticket, Bloomberg and Hagel decided to team up..

Which of the two would you vote for?

= =

I was schocked at the results!

Does anyone know the secret to pulling up those polls from the start of the summer?

In any event.. in this that poll, when HRC was the D-Nominee, Bloomberg/Hagel actually won as Independents

I don't remember the exact figures, but it might be interesting to run that poll again one of these days.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. Well, look at the candidates...
Take the VP out of it for a moment and just look at the issues of the candidates.

Bloomberg and Clinton are nearly identical on the issues. (in fact, i think Bloomberg is MORE LIBERAL on many issues).


Think what this does for the long term health of the Democratic party... Right now the Dems are in the middle, allowing the right to be in the EXTREME right and look normal by comparrison. (People believe the Democrats are left... so when the GOP isn't THAT far too the right, people accept it as normal, when in fact they are the looney right).

Electing a centrist Democrat, just reinforces that... allows the GOP to stay to the far right.

However, if a independent centrist wins, it helps to normalize the parties, moving the democrats to the left (who would have to be to the left of the independents) and would make the GOP look crazy by comparrison.

Electing a centrist dem does us no long term good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rabidchickens Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #38
64. i actually agree with you totally
for once
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. That's the point.
Some people actually believe Edwards' miraculous transformation from centrist to "liberal warrior".

Other people see through the cheap political stunt and see someone desperate for power, who will say anything to get there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
29. what attack??
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Schwarzenegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
70. "Rove Attacks Clinton To Keep Bloomberg Out Of Race!"
--The Cuckoo Gazette.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDavy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. thats funny...hehe....this guy stated he is going to vote indy right?
and stating this, he shld be on the independent underground not DU a DEM site. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
72. When and how can we get some a real slate of candidates
that actually represents the real views of the American Citizens?
Who is controlling the Democratic primaries?
I'm afraid Hillary Clinton is going to get it and she sounds too much like a Republican. We need people more centered, the real center, not where it is perceived to be because the Right has been stretched all out of shape and hanging more and more over the edge for the last 25 plus years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
73. Rove is attempting to fire up his base by attacking Clinton.
Face it - - the GOP began attacking Hillary even before the 2004 primaries, out of fear she would run against Bush back then. There is nothing esoteric about Rove's actions now - - he is going straight for the jugular, early and often.

Rove needs to get the voters out this time around, or the republican party's dismal numbers will be his nemesis. Every corrupt widdle trick Rove has pulled since 2000 has been to create this republican dominance which evaporates before his very eyes. Every agency Bush has corrupted with his incompetent pawns was done so under the tutilage of Rove.

Rove is failing miserably, and he will go out fighting. He has only one chance left - - it is 2008, it is totally dependent on his base voting en masse en suite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorekerrydreamticket Donating Member (422 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
74. Bloomberg is a non-issue
Not well-known outside NYC. I don't think he would approach the impact of Ralph Nader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. Correct. He has stated that he will not run.
Bloomberg said yesterday that he cannot win, and he is correct. He will not run.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5076346.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
77. enough with the jujitsu jedi mind bending bullshit
fuck Rove and his bullshit. Pick a candidate, work like hell for that candidate and the the GOP and Karl Rove to go fuck himself.

You know what Karl Rove is doing, he playing all sides of the fence. Both sides, the top, the bottom, the sides, the insides, the part that's dug in the ground a bit. You know why? Because where ever the GOP wins, he'll claim it was his insight, his strategy that got the candidate over the finish line. Where ever the GOP loses, it'll be because the candidate didn't follow Rove's strategy to a tee and that's why they lost. If we decimate the GOP in 2008, Rove will throw up his hands and say well it's not my fault I told say this, this and this exactly but you didn't, so you lost. The same with Hillary, if she loses the primary, he'll say, well that was my plan all along, I really wanted Obama or Edwards or Biden or whoever the fuck the nominee is. If Hillary wins, he'll see I was right all along, see what a genius I am. And if the GOP loses in November...he'll say whatever...YOU GET THE POINT I HOPE. Look at his dissembling lying bullshit about Valerie Plame. Rove wakes up every morning, dips himself in motor oil and then goes to work every morning. IF you want to analyze Rove's bullshit go ahead. This is the same dumbass that lost both houses of congress in 2006 using "the math". He did his job, he got Bush 'elected' twice to the white house, he'll take an arm's length approach to 2008 and will apply 1993/1994 ruthless hellfire for 2009/2010. THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.
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 Sun May 05th 2024, 08:53 PM
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