An honest question for Edwards supporters

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=21107&type=category&category=13&go.x=11&go.y=8

Above is Edwards ratings for his Senate career from the HRC. I chose them due to it being a big deal for me but it also is illustrative of a larger trend for Edwards. He started off much more conservative than he ended up being at the end of his Senate career or for that matter now.

I am trying to decide between him and Richardson. I admit to being very troubled by Edwards vast change over such a short time. So my question is simply this. What, in your mind, accounts for Edwards being so different now then he was in 1999 and 2000?

And being lied to too many times from the right.

I think it shows in his commentary about his change of heart on the IWR.

that unlike Romney, he learns with experience.

to change his view on gay rights? Shepard happened in 1998. I know of no other big event in that time space that would explain it. This is an honest question. I want a President who is like Edwards now, but deeply don't want one like Edwards then.

My views have changed a lot through the Bush administration -- I used to believe the US
was somewhat stable as a Constitutional democracy. Bush blew that out of the water.
I expect Edwards has grown wiser overtime, too.

Not to denigrate your circuitry or anything, but much of life is an accumulation of things and one often doesn't realize the tipping point. This is why there are movies: life is not like the movies; we often don't have those clean, obvious pivot points.

Things take time. It's sort of like how Edwards points to Cate's absolute support of gay marriage and says that perhaps it's just a step that his generation can't quite take. (Remember, though, he's been absolutely adamant on full legal and social rights for partners since at least that Dianne Sawyer interview in '03.)

The ship of state (especially for this country) is more like a huge container cargo ship, rather than a speedboat. He'd like to turn the helm over and go straight for single-payer medicine like Kucinich supports, but knows that it just can't happen like that. Things take time, and even though that's often used to keep people from agitating, he's genuinely for change along progressive lines. To turn a container-cargo vessel sharply would cause major disruption, crashing of cargo, compromise to the hull, injury to the crew and all sorts of disorder and mayhem in a big, complex operation with massive kinetic force. Change needs to happen with some restraint. Many people in the health care industry would be displaced by drastic and immediate change.

Back to the issue of gay rights, though. Things happen with time and they happen inexorably. In the not-too-distant future (and even now) we'll be able to look back on the social and legal acceptance and protection of gay rights as having happened faster than women's rights or black rights. Why? For one reason, gays come in all flavors, so everyone of every gender, race, religion, profession or other group has 'em. Familiarity breeds acceptance; this is why the higher the density of the population, the generally more liberal the people.

Maybe there WAS one anecdotal event that shook him awake on the subject. Who's to say it was one of national impact like Matthew Shepard? Maybe it was a friend of a cousin. Maybe there wasn't ONE at all, but just a constant series of events, laws, social occurrences that just made him realize that his natural proclivity for pluralism brought him in line with this, too. Remember: this guy's INCREDIBLY comfortable in his own skin, and people who are generally don't give a damn about what kind of genitalia people have a hankering for. It's not the issue. The issue is whether they're nice, productive, industrious and honest. (Remember, though: shitheadedness is an equal opportunity affliction. Mary Cheney's a privileged user, Roy Cohn was an asshole extraordinaire and Jeff Dahmer was a world-class freak.) Then again, I have to bear the burden for Junior, Joe McCarthy and Ted Bundy, so we all take some hits...

That's the point: folks are just folks, and Edwards REALLY gets that. He can, as Kipling (racist dick, but great writer) said: "...walk with kings, yet keep the common touch."

There are a lot of important causes out there and a lot of different downtrodden groups. Those who identify themselves with one often lose track of this and dismiss those who don't feel their pain to be cowardly, oblivious or the literal bigots themselves. Often it's just a case of focusing elsewhere.

One of the great things about the '04 election is that the right will probably never be able to play the "booga-booga dirty homos" card again, and having done so, will have to bear the backlash for it for a LONG time, at least as long as I'm around and annoying people. The genie's out of the bottle: too many people know too many gay, bi and transgendered people, work with them, have them for neighbors, and care for them. With time, it becomes simply accepted, if for nothing else that the act of hating is just too much work, and the inherent human laziness is on our side with this one.

He came around, and he's a good guy. Look where he came from and look at his life story, and you'll sort of see the same Johnny Edwards. He's a good friend.

I still am not completely convinced but your answer is a very good one.

I'll take a trainable President over the most doctrinaire or the most manipulative ones any day of the week.

#1. As a senator he's representing his state, and as he was there saw more and more b.s. partisan, bought politics.

#2. The 2004 election was a big eye opener on major fraud

#3. Going through cancer with a loved one really opens your eyes to the bigger picture, and you really stop thinking so much about yourself. Believe me, I've had too many taken from me with the Big C... my grandmother most recently, and I miss her still so much.

Sometimes you grow up and pay attention. I think he's extremely bright and intelligent and I think he actually listens, processes, and values what he is learning.

John Edwards wasn't ready to be President in 2004, and it gives me serious pause about his judgement and decision making that he didn't reach that conclusion himself before throwing his hat into the ring then. It is one of the reasons why I have never been a supporter of Edwards although I appreciate the platform that he is running on this year.

Maybe he was a bit full of himself, but if you look at his life, he had reason to be. He took on and beat the best of the best and he did it repeatedly. In his one campaign, he sought a much higher office than anyone thought he should, took on a well-entrenched and financed member of a dominant machine and won. He was on a roll, and he's a quick study. If he thinks highly of himself, that's hardly an uncommon trait among politicians.

On the other hand, he's one of the most humble of the bunch, and it's not just for show. He's been the most willing to admit mistakes and be candid about his own stances on things. This shows an uncommon comfortableness in his own skin for a politician, and it feels deeply honest to me.

If he wasn't ready for prime-time, how on earth do you explain your support for Clark? Edwards made virtually no misstatements that he had to retract on the campaign trail in '03 and '04. Dean did them on a daily basis, Kerry had many bunglings he had to retract and Clark stumbled right and left and then to the right and then to the right, and CONSTANTLY stated that his positions had been consistent. Edwards admits flat-out that his opinions on things have changed, and he hasn't run from them. Clark and his supporters STILL claim that he was always clearly against the war, always clearly against vouchers and always clearly against the Bush administration when big stacks of cold, hard facts show the opposite.

It's ironic that people find him to have been too green in the last campaign; one of the things that's always drawn me to him is the fact that he does his homework and doesn't make missteps in things he says. It shows a deliberate caution which is vastly different from Clinton's studied amorphous evasiveness, and it shows statesmanship.

Presidents can't afford to say the wrong thing even in a flippant moment, and he's winning that battle in this season, too. Clinton botched by haranguing Obama on diplomacy willingness, accusing a questioner of being a mouthpiece for others, scolding Russert (although, to be fair, I'd want to scold the little fuck myself) for expecting an answer to a question, changing positions on torturing and a host of others. Obama made a flip comment on NUCLEAR WAR, fer chrissake. Kucinich stood right up there and said he would be a scofflaw on the subject of illegal immigration, but nobody really took him to task for it. Gravel was proud of stiffing credit card companies; that shows him as politically and morally unfit for our trust.

What I like about Edwards is his philosophic approach to the concept of the job: one of being simultaneously a leader and the people's advocate. He's open to suggestions and he's approachable. At the same time, though, he's out there doing unpopular things like championing the cause of the poor BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN THEM.

There's an imperiousness to Hillary Clinton; it's as if she expects us to be her subjects and cede all our authority to her because she knows best. Edwards is more of a servant of the people, yet at the same time he's more decisive, forthright and downright obvious about what he will do. Of all the candidates, he came into this process with the most specific (except for perhaps his friend Kucinich) set of policies. It shows a respect for us. He tells us where he stands and what he plans to do and recognizes our right to know, whereas Senator Clinton tells us she's just somehow more strong and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about such things as she curries favor with the power blocs that need to be restricted. THEY'RE THE PROBLEM, and she's their gal.

Okay, I digress.

Still, your premise was that he was full of himself and not ready for the gig. Perhaps so. He's full of himself in a healthy way, though: he credits people with having some brains and having the right to know, and he's willing to admit his mistakes and the changes in direction. This sort of respect for us is something to be lauded because he'd never be a tyrant. Senator Clinton WILL be a tyrant. Maybe she'll be a good one, but who knows? She really hasn't stood her ground on much of anything yet, who's to say she will?

Edwards is a deeply honorable man, and he respects the concept of the job: he works like a dog and presents things concisely and in an orderly way. He's possessed of that true, all-consuming curiosity and industriousness that is Bill Clinton's greatest trait, and that comes from a humble place.

He's more than up to it now, don't you think? Whether you like him or have forgiven him for whatever, don't you think he's pretty damned solid now?

Clearly Edwards was up to speed on the political aspects of seeking the job (and legitimately there are political aspects of the job itself) when he ran in 2004 - my concern had more to do with his preparation for holding the office. You spoke to one aspect of it - the ability to tightly control a message, and that is legitimate to point out.

We all assign different weights to different things in arriving at who we are willing to support and why. Suffice it for now to say that I would not hesitate to fully support Edwards if he becomes our nominee.

Good. That wasn't quite the flavor I got from your previous post.

Hell, that's not a job, it's a LIFE. People who do it right work their asses off, whether out of fear, hunger for a legacy or the deep, deep feeling of responsibility of the office. Much as so much of what Bill Clinton does makes me seethe, he scores BIG on this point, and it's important. (For all his faults, I truly believe Bill Clinton falls into the last group, even if he does err into the second, too...)

Look at before and after pictures of those taking office. Johnson is a classic: the guy aged more in those little more than five years than most people do in twenty five. Carter, too: he aged as much in office as he has since. Then there's Junior, dear little Junior: he's hardly aged a bit. Why? Cuz he's a lazy shiftless fuck who's no good to anyone, even the privileged who he sustains with what few verbs he's willing to perform. Knocking off at five and taking ridiculously long vacations, he truly shows that he doesn't give a rat's ass about the rest of humanity, as if there was any question about that anyway.

Nice to hear your take on Edwards; he'll grow on you.

I really had no plan to expand on my comments had I not been called out to explain them further. The bottom line is that I can't say that your vision of how John Edwards would perform and grow in the Presidency is wrong. You made a nice case for him. Obviously he has important positive qualities. Not only is it hard to advance in life that far without them, but also John Edwards has won the loyalty of many fine people. That counts for a lot. So you could be right. But to me Edwards is simply more of a gamble than I can bring myself to take in the primaries.

I have no desire or need to try to prove you wrong in your take on Edwards. If he gets the nomination you damn well better be right, lol. Like I said, I will be out there working for him if he gets the nomination, and I do not participate in attempts to tear him down now. I have my concerns and they are sincere. I don't want to have to pretend that I don't have them just to get along with you or anyone else either at DU or anywhere else. But I don't have to trash Edwards either. He is one of the leaders of our team. Clearly our nation would be in far far better hands with Edwards than under anyone the G.O.P. will nominate. I hope that most DUers also realize that the same is true if we end up with Gore, Obama, Clinton, Richardsn, or Biden. I gladly would include all of our candidates in that statement but I can not imagine a scenario under which Dodd, Kucinich or Gravel could win the nomination.

the platform that he's running on this year, so do you still think he isn't ready? Or has he matured some and gotten his act together or reached a different level now??

2004 not good, good platform now, still not good?? I'm not trying to bait you and feel you are trying to make a point, I'm just not sure what it is.

My point was in my first post, it was not pressed hard but it was there. I said that it gives me pause that Edwards ran for one of the most important and demanding jobs in the world too early. To my eye, in 1999 when he had to make that final decision to run, Edwards was at a place where his fundemnental political positions and values were either A) still in great flux or B) he had not yet fully gotten in touch with his core political beliefs and priorities. The "pause" I speak of I suppose could be described in a slang sense (as POE did above) as concern about Edwards having been "full of himself", but for me it is a fundemental test of critical common sense and self awareness.

There have been some roles potentially offered me in my life that would have been personally fulfilling to aggressively seek, that I chose not to because I had great respect for the importance of those roles being done well by someone who was sufficiently prepared for and experienced to undertake. I knew it mattered greatly to others whether or not I was ready. Not all opportunities or chances to serve are like that. Many allow room for people to grow in the job and succeed over the long run, but when the stakes are very high it takes more than intelligence and good intentions to be ready for a job. Some times I have deferred and instead worked at preparing myself further to the point where I in good faith could say I was arguably the best person for that job, and then I sought it.

Please of course understand that I am filtering my opinions through my own set of values. I accept that and I do not claim to be speaking for some universal truth here, just explaining what is true for me. I think John Edwards is a deeper person and thus candidate in 2008 than he was in 2004. I think running for President put him through a set of experiences that had the power to change him in some significant ways, and I think that has been good. He said something to that effect himself on at least one occaision. But being President of the United States is not just an important job, it is a critically important job. Small lapses in judgement, including those based on relative inexperience, can have profound reprecussions for Billions of people. Had Bill Clinton been more seasoned before being confronted by the challenge of Rwanda perhaps a half million dead Rwandans would still be alive today.

Lack of experience creates compounding problems. When too many issues need to be thought through deeply for the first time, when too many sets of relevent experineces need to be mastered simultaneously, when too many personal relationships nationally and internationally need to be forged for the first time at the same time, the potential for errors is compounded.
Obviously not everyone will agree but I think that a person who I should trust to be President should show greater insight into his own personal limitations, strengths, and weaknesses prior to offering himself to America as our next leader rather than getting in touch with much of that after the 2004 election. I think Edwards has worked to add depth to his vision, and he has sought to broaden his experiences. Of course I appreciate that, but we only have one President.

I can like John Edwards, and I can admire his growth, but still have doubts about how he makes quick assessments of situations that are new to him, and the Presidency offers tons of those. He did not impress me as a Senator. He clearly blew the IWR at the time big time, more so than any of the current Democratic candidates, on a par with Joe Lieberman in that regard. I do not think Edwards would make the same mistake twice but I am not fully confident of his ability to avoid a brand new one that comes at him from an angle that he did not anticipate. Lots of poeple arrive, in my opinion, at positive positions on most major issues. DU has several thousand such people as current members but that does not mean I would trust the vast majority of them to become our next President.

I think John Edwards is a deeply talented man and I think he truly is committed to making a positive difference for America. My problem with him is not with his positions on most important issues now, nor is it with the fact that they have evolved over time. The short time frame for that evolution though does concern me, but that isn't all of it. The fact that his positions evolved continually while he continually ran for President is a further concern to me. RFK stepped back from politics for a while after his brother's assasination before reengaging with a more profound vision. Al Gore spent 5 or 6 years in the political wilderness after having the 2000 election stolen from him. I believe both of those men went through the fire of our times from the inside with ample first hand involvement with the critical issues of their time. When they underwent political transformations they did so coming from a place of deep personal knowledge of getting things done within the system. When their politics evolved it was over time outside of the spotlight and away from the constant need to seek public favor and funding to maintain a credible political campaign. I trust in how grounded their new convictions were and I trusted that they had both knew the pressures that were in store for them if they sought changes in a future White House. I do not have that degree of confidence with John Edwards.

Anyway you pressed me to say more so I did. I am not saying based on anything I wrote above that John Edwards is not fit to be President or that I am certain that he would not make a good one. I am just giving you some of the reasons why I choose not to actively support him for the nomination.

Few of us would like to admit the perseverance of our opinions, since to admit they have a virtual life of their own would be yet another sobering realization of our inherent weakness. I don't mean weakness as a failing, I mean it as a lack of control. We are creatures imprinted with circuitry that biases us for or against certain things, and our life buffets us with many experiences that reinforce of shake these biases. People hate to admit that. People hate to admit that they're wrong, but they REALLY hate to admit that they're inherently out of control.

The fact is that we're imperfect beings with sketchy skills of communication and self-awareness, surrounded by others with the same afflictions, all trying in a hectic life to get ahead and simply live. Ours is a highly competitive society, and although this represents the human condition well in some ways, it forces us into the same premature convictions and unseasoned acts in jobs and positions for which we are not ready, and it does it as the norm. This is life, and that's that. That's why we put up with so much from friends and family and lovers: to ever make a real connection with a human being is such a precious thing that we'll put up with endless bullshit, incompetence, abuse and whatever just to keep that connection open.

The effort made, for me, is what separates individuals that matter from the masses.

Although I disagree with some of your premises and observations, you think things through and are willing to reconsider, which is all one can really ask of one's fellow biped. Still, as a species, our assessments of individuals often come down to nothing more than feelings, and to recognize this is a great equalizer.

you said. Your reply is sufficient, but then I'm no Hillary supporter even if she's "seasoned" I just don't trust her anymore.

AND THEN, I think THE IDIOT, DECIDER and I can't think of ANYONE who has been LESS qualified to be President! So supporting Edwards isn't too much of an issue, AT LEAST I think he's SMART enough to know that GROWTH is possible!

That might be the case.

My apologies.

In any event, I'm having a couple problems with Richardson. His rambling during debates being one, trade the other. And of course his handling of the 2004 election is baffling and I also can't understand why nobody is asking him about it at any of these local events. Anyway, I ask because I'm not thrilled with Obama's campaign, and I really would like CHANGE. I can see the appeal of Edwards and Richardson, but I have the same doubts about Edwards' leftward shift myself.

Good questions.

:hi:

but his performance in debates and on TV has been just awful. I was firmly in his camp before he started debating and have fallen off his wagon. He still could save it by getting better, after all, Dean wasn't that polished either. But Richardson is close to dreadful.

Because he is looking at the big picture and realizing that the triangulating politics of the past are not the way to go. Once thought the 'only way' to win -- but now, can spit out that sour taste in the mouth and stand up for core values, cost be damned.

until the day I die.

The Gore of 2000 is NOT the Gore of today.

The same goes for Edwards.....sometimes in the rush of our lives we have a startling realization that the course we are taking needs to be changed, an evolution of belief, personal change so to speak.

It is why Edwards apologized and is regretful for his IWR vote...and is a credit to his character.

:hi:

ANY particular issue SHOULD NOT make you a flip-flopper! Plus, I think he's seen a lot more and as most of us have found out... The Idiot, Decider has made MANY MANY people realize just how awful it can get! I also feel he seems much more comfortable with himself and is willing to go out on a limb even when it may not be the most "careful" stance to take. He actually stood his ground against Hillary Clinton in the last debate, when all the others said nothing!

Just as so many thought Bill Clinton was SUPER, but Al Gore decided not to use Clinton during his campaign, it was said he lost the election because of it! GORE DIDN'T LOSE and more and more I hear people saying this! And look WHO won the Prize in the end!! How many think Gore & Lieberman together are the same people today??

People do change, I know I do and I wake up each morning thinking I have something "new" to learn that day! And I usually do. Admitting that you did something wrong or deciding that what you felt in the past wasn't what it seemed to be at the time, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. I'm sure most people do it all the time!

Add to that, many many Repukes have changed THEIR minds about what has happened to our country and WHO it was that made this mess!

Anyone here what Sanchez said about the WAR recently???

However, I do remember reading somewhere that, in his law firm, before he ever thought about being a Senator, he gave his employees same sex partner benefits.

I'll allow any politician the opportunity to grow up. Your question is certainly valid, but I can't see how you'd support Richardson.

Was he pretending to be more moderate than his true self as a Senator, or is he pandering to the left now as a Presidential candidate?

Kucinich and Obama appear to the be the only two candidates with a consistent progressive record.

hell, Edwards got elected to the Senate from a totally red state, and was obligated to represent his constituents.

Very, very, very big difference and not fair of you to isolate and then characterize without consideration to the circumstance.

to get elected and stay in office. I've had enough of that with Bill Clinton and most of the Democratic Party.

He addressed the needs and opinions of the constituents in his state.

Very very different election then a national one.

I do not wish to be oppositional, but do appreciate debating.

Being an elected official is very similiar to sitting on a jury.

Opinion and values very often are in conflict with the laws and directions of the judge.

I disagree that Edwards "compromised his values" as a SC Senator.