John Edwards has now hit the absolute height of hypocrisy

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire,"

Is this man serious? The Democratic face of the IWR? The man who not only voted for IWR and campaigned for it passage but voted against every mitigating bill? Who now can do nothing but make campaign speeches about what he would do?

Now he's raising it.

:-(

Something Hillary has yet to do.

after running for national office and losing.

To whom was this "I made a mistake" admission so long after the fact supposed to serve most of all? the people? Somehow, I get the feeling that he was simply helping himself so more.

the facts are that HRC has said she would have voted differently if she had known the facts - still, that changes nothing.

Just like Edwards current stance does nothing to change the FACT that, at the time of the vote - when it really mattered, he was a good deal more hawkish about Iraq than Hillary was.

Although the Hillary haters would love to see the ad the repugs made out of it.

She is too smart to give them any sound bites.

Winning is everything.

Rah Rah! Politics is a game with no real-world consequences! I wanna be on the winning team! Rah Rah HILLARY!

:eyes:

and just imagine if we have another 8 years of the repugs.

Winning is Everything!!!

They like Edwards, because he kisses their ass, while apologizing for every vote he has ever cast.

Anybody who takes John Edwards for granted is foolish. He's perfectly capable of fooling a lot of the people a lot of the time.

He's apologized for his entire Senate career, ran away from every position he ever held, and flip flopped so often he's bound to endorse Hillary Clinton any day now.

Is it because he looks like a Ken Doll? I've seen through his rhetoric for eight years now.

:shrug:

just watch him. Now, keep your eye on the ball...

http://www.dailyfreegames.com/flash/arcade-games/the-shell-game.html

We in Iowa have been hearing Hillary say one thing here, and reading opposite comments from her in New Hampshire, New York and Washington, D.C. since the start of the campaign.

Finally, the other candidates for President are pointing our little Hill's contrary positions.

ABC!

ABC!

ABC!

.

What we learned about him is that he TALKS---all for EFFECT. But he doesn't do follow-through. I don't know whether he's not interested or he doesn't know how, or he can't sit still long enough, but he doesn't do it.

Back in '98 he campaigned by saying, "I will remember each and every one of you". Then as soon as he gets to the Senate he starts snooping around Iowa (as early as January 2001) and ignoring the people who put him in office.

We never had a chance to get from him the obligatory promise that he wouldn't run for President, because it never dawned on anyone that someone with so little experience
would do such a thing. Even after 911, he still was hell-bent on being President. He has been quoted as saying that "he liked campaigning more than he liked being in the Senate". I am not surprised.

THey have been published in The Raleigh News and Observer. Both Civitus and Elon University polls. I don't have the time to look up the links, but they are easy to find.

Actually, I didn't need a poll to tell me that he is not popular. Why would any Senator be popular when he ignores his constituents?

But things change, and his way of trying to attract attention is putting him down on the totem poll with me.

If people paid attention to the fact that Hillary is taking more money from special interest groups than ANY other candidate (I thought that was a republican role?), we'd have different poll numbers.

I can't seriously believe someone who's taken all of that healthcare industry cash is going to reform healthcare to the benefit of most people.

Also, we have to stop comparing things to the 90's. Was Hillary awash in special interest money in the 90's? The context has changed, not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton wasn't especially progressive on some crucial issues.

NAFTA, GATT and the FCC Telecom Act of 1996 (partly to blame for our woeful mainstream media) are something that should embarrass anyone who calls themselves liberal or progressive.

I'm assuming we'll see even more of this type of policy if Hillary is elected.

www.theyoungturks.com

At any rate, I'm liking Edwards more and more.

He's the perfect middle ground between the DLC, corporate democrats who are drowning in special interest money (Hillary, cough cough)and the candidates who attract idealists (Kuninich, etc, who has NO chance of winning the primary, right or wrong).

This should be put in the context that democrats, not republicans, are now receiving more money from big business (a big reversal of a long standing trend). There is nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about being beholden to special interests.

There's also nothing "moderate" about coming to the middle when this country is so strongly opposed to much of the far right policy of this far right administration. In this context, the middle is still right of center, not to mention unpopular (the congressional majority seems to be unaware of that fact).

And there's no "conspiracy" there either. It's the oldest story in politics, you look where candidates get their money because they're likely to have to have their policy influenced by those who funded them.

PS---Don't tell me Edwards can't be progressive because he's rich. Teddy Roosevelt AND FDR both had a LOT more money than Edwards has and they were two of the most economically progressive presidents in history.

In fact, FDR's policies led directly to the most thriving middle class in this country's history.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/edwards-move-makes-trade-_b_70243.html

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/

Everybody makes mistakes. Admitting it is difficult -- too difficult for Hillary.

Edwards has learned a lot since 2004. Hillary still seems to be living back in the '90s. A lot of the current support for her is nostalgia for Bill. Hopefully, her supporters will wake up before January/February and realize that Hillary is not Bill. She lacks Bill's charm and humility, and she is carrying huge chip on her shoulder that could get us all in trouble to boot.

Her unwillingness to admit she was wrong is a major problem. I was not so against Hillary until someone posted the video in which Code Pink approached her and asked her to oppose the war some years ago. She was so arrogant -- and that is why it is so important that she apologize and admit now just how wrong she was. Many people were wrong. I also supported the war based on Bush's lies. But I admit I made a mistake and why. Edwards speaks for me when he explains that he made a mistake in trusting Bush. That is what I did. I could not believe that an American president would lie to the extent Bush did in order to take the nation to war. I now know better.

Edwards was wrong, but he takes responsibility for having been wrong. Hillary was wrong and takes no responsibility for her mistake. Code Pink warned her that she was making a mistake. They warned her loud and clear and to her face. She ignored them, and has never apologized. That is shameful. And it shows a total lack of solidarity with the brave ladies in pink.

Calling for an end to corporatism...?

Mr. "Non-apology apology" on the IWR criticizing those that voted like he did?

You mean "Mr. Senate-what Senate...I was never in the Senate"...talking about getting rid of insiders...

Edwards' entire campaign is based hypocrisy, and getting people to forget he ever had a record before 2007...

He doesn't have the balls to defend his record, so he just pretends he doesn't have one...

None of the candidates are perfect, and sadly, until we have publicly funded elections we will continue to have special interests influence the behavior of our elected officials rather than the interests of we the people.

With that said, I have a few points:

1)-Again, FDR was RICH. In fact, he was INCREDIBLY rich compared to Edwards. He ran on a campaign that in many ways contradicted his own interests, financially speaking. He was easily the most progressive president in US history, although I can only imagine his detractors making similar arguments at the time (i.e. because he's rich he can't be a populist).

2)-We can't go back in time. The fact is, *all three* of the major candidates had some questionable votes and have contradicted themselves from time to time. Acting as if this is somehow unique to Edwards is being dishonest. Besides, what have they done lately? Hillary's Iran vote was just plain inexcusable and shows to me that she hasn't learned a damn thing since the Iraq vote.

3)-Just look at health care which is a critical issue for just about everybody. For sake of argument, let's say Hillary's plan is the best (I disagree, but let's say it is). The fact that she has taken *the most* money of ANY candidate from the health care industry should be an enormous concern. Seriously, since when did the democrats become the part of Big Business and the Investor Class?

Going back to #1, I don't really care what Edwards does in the stock market in his free time (or what Hillary does for that matter).

They both have enough money, but clearly they want more than money, they want to become president. Therefore if they have to take millions and millions and millions from special interest groups to become president, it's reasonable to assume that their policies will in fact be influenced by those groups once they take office, particularly if they want to stay in office for more than one term. All else being equal, I'll the candidate who at least talks a good populist, strong middle class game (and backs it up with policy proposals) *and* hasn't taken nearly as much money as the front runner (realizing that again, they all have taken *some* special interest money).

www.theyoungturks.com

Are important in our party and YES the rich man's club needs to be broken up by the highest priority campaign finance and election reform ASAP. WHOEVER wins that needs to be a big push by people like us because it will not be easy no matter how huge the Dem majority or how progressive it appears.

FDR also softened his programs in response to the "wise" banking industry, Hoover et. al. He even let the secret coup d'etat go unpunished and worse- unnoticed. THOSE people are in charge now. Only WWII, Pearl Harbor, a teeth gnashing moment for the homegrown fascists and corporatists in America, impelled all the social programs with consummate power. They probably vowed from that day to make the next pearl harbor work for them.

It makes a vast difference is a candidate soft pedals the progressive agenda right at the get go and is beholden to monied interests. If elected the mandate means nothing for progressive reform, unless the unlikely unity of all activists toward demanding action is coupled with its influence in delivering votes- and whether it is allowed to be noticed.

That does not mean that the candidate with the most progressive promises deserves to be picked by DU unanimously, but it certainly is not a disqualifier. Politicians in our age create automatic cynicism and skepticism as soon as they go onstage and by some skill remain there.

We have to start thinking about legislative action and clout at the polls. Getting into the game only so far as to pick at each other with detectable spite does nothing and certainly does little to effect the outcome of the race. Only getting together on the issues and backing our best choice individually will help.

I notice the Bush people have spread out over the several campaign to INSURE they get what they want from within. They are a hell of lot more together than outside groups who have no need to carp at each other, but nothing better to do in our universal frustration.

The meme against Edwards is extraordinarily weak in the glass house category. Most of the worst is that
"he's one too" which does not help the general perception of candidates we will have to back- to get what the nation and the world desperately need. While we parse perfection in meaningless outside spats, insiders are throwing millions or billions of people into the maws of onrushing disasters. The meter is running and time is measured in actual lives. Or so it will be noted sadly in retrospect if any of us survive.

But the negative posts do show the old spark of vicious vitality is alive and well. Not everyone's cup of tea but in perspective it at least shows some life out there. Once Edwards went on the "attack" it follows like night follows day the hammers would come out. I just hope it goes to forging our united commitment to what we must work for and demand of our government officials in 2008.

that don't even want to discuss stupid things like the FACTS of how their candidate has conducted his oh so short and horrific public servant life. They just know he is the best candidate and has all of the answers!!!!

But please do NOT take that as support for HRC. It isn't.

Beware....implosion inevitable :nuke: :scared: :nuke:

:yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

:applause: :applause: :applause:

No news there.

I'm disappointed she took such an unwise position re Iran; it's as if she hasn't learned from her mistake re Iraq or she's being influenced by hawks who don't have the best interests of the U.S. in mind.

:boring:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3686624

I guess so.

It also applies to himself, and it also applies to Mr. Obama. All are talking to the left, and all are walking (or, in Mr. Edwards' case, have walked) firmly in the center.

Unlike Hilary who says "I was right but I was wrong and I'm for it but I'm against it and I'm not telling you what I really will do until I'm elected."

The recent vote on Iran was so disturbing because it looks like proof that Hillary hasn't learned from her disastrous vote on Iraq. :wtf:

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."

"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."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's

neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037


Did he change his mind again?

But I think the recent vote amounted to saber-rattling, a really stupid thing to do in the Middle East ~ and it gave Bush just what he needs to strike Iran. Why would Hillary purposely taunt Iran and knowingly give Bush ANOTHER ticket to war??

Dems as a who right now - too many missed opportunities.

This has been a disillusioning year of politics ~ I find myself daydreaming about a powerful new peoples' party with a visionary flinch-proof leader.

It sure beats pandering to corporate lobbyists.

You're talking about what John Edwards did 5 years ago, and contrasting what he is doing and saying today.

John Edwards is contrasting Hillary's words now with her actions now.

much part of creating. He separated himself from those still in public service to build a campaign to get himself elected to the #1 office of the US. He has spent 100% of his time helping HIMSELF..... Who cares about WORKING to try to clean up a mess that you are part of leaving and make sure that you point fingers at every turn at those you left behind - those that are still trying to do something for someone other than themselves..... What a frickin' ass he is. Attack those comrades still trying to clean up the mess that you JE helped create.

A little more up to date crap that JE still hypocritically is spouting:

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."

"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."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's

neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037


Kind of like the same shit he voiced 5 years ago isn't it?

He left his senate seat (which he would have held if he had stayed, btw) to give becoming president, and then vp, his all. If Kerry/Edwards had succeeded in taking office, he'd have been right there. As for his current rhetoric:

#2 Others stayed active in trying to do public service....Clark and Dean

#3 Others stayed in office Kerry - even though he lost the POTUS, Kucinich

#4 JE just worked to further his own career and left the mess for others to deal with and when they did something that didn't appear right, he was jumping out there pointing fingers at them and blasting them....what a hippocrite. Leave others to clean up your mess, sit on the sidelines while you don't take any chances (play it nice and safe) and point the finger when it looks good. I mean how obvious is it?

Edwards' reelection year was 2004. Kerry's was not. That's why Edwards had to make a choice whether to try to keep his seat, and Kerry did not. If you think he couldn't have won re-election, how exactly was he supposed to stay in office?

Why exactly do you think that Edwards left public service after 2004? Here is a link to Wikipedia's entry on John Edwards' post-2004 activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Post-Senate_activities

Finally, Edwards would have beaten Burr 53%-47%, according to this FOX News-Opinion Dynamics Corp Poll taken on election day.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137521,00.html

- he didn't.

You could name your polls - FOX - to say that he would have won, there are others that say he wouldn't have won.

He is a terrible choice. He showed terrible judgment in his short career in public service. Most of what he has done he can continue to do in the private sector as far as helping the poor.

His lack of expertise in many other areas are just to vast to give him a "chance" to be another "OTJ" POTUS. Of all of the candidates, he is the weakest because while not alone in making some of the terrible decisions, he is alone in that those decisions were the sum of the only ones that he made. The other candidates have a much more extensive history in which to study. At least some of their "terrible" decisions (and not all of them have this baggage) have a counterbalance of sound and good decisions. That comes from serving in the public sector for many years and not just 1 short incomplete term.

JE rarely mentions his record - because it is nothing to be proud of. He definetly cannot run on it, the best he can do is to aplogize for horrible votes that he cast.

His senate record should be compared with those of people like Ben Nelson, not Barbara Boxer.

excuse:

talking about poverty, but co-sponsoring a massive increase in H-1b Visas

co-sponsoring the IWR and then voting for it, to standingby it years later, and then finally said that he was sorry after the polls turned, three years and one failed election later. Slow on the uptake I'd say - way too slow for the demands of POTUS

DID NOT generate or champion any poverty legislation during his 6 years in the senate (while he co sponsored the IWR?????) real humanitarian and champion of the poor huh.

literally bedding down in Iowa and New Hampshire for a couple of years while he nervously wavered because he didn't know if he was gonna run since his wife was sick!!!!

and more lately(D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." .....John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us that he didn't seem to learn from his disasterous Iraq vote, ya think?

voting YES to free trade with China

voting YES on the 2001 bankruptcy bill Yeah, a real bleeding heart for the poor.

voting against the 2002 amendment for voting rights to be reinstated to convicted criminals

voting for the Patriot Act

with a Democrat like that, why do we need Republicans?

health care plan, but he endorsed John Edwards': http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/nyt20070209/

The League of Conservation Voters won't be praising Rudy Giuliani's plan to stop global warming, assuming he even comes up with one, but they've praised John Edwards': http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/

John Edwards is 100% pro-choice, according to NARAL: http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Abortion.htm

Is any Republican going to repudiate the "war on terror" metaphor, as John Edwards has done?

Does that sound like a Republican to you?

Just because some others are throwing their support at him doesn't make him a Democrat. Just because he says things NOW like a Democrat doesn't mean that he will continue talking and more importantly ACTING like a Democrat when he may have to start making decisions. Most of what you have said is based on JE's words, most of how I came to my conclusions are based on his WORKS, coupled with contradictory statements and changing ideology. Sorry, when you vote like a Republican - IWR, PATRIOT ACT, VISAS, BANKRUPTCY BILL... You talk like a Repub, Last diatribe with passion on Iran (sounding like Iraq diatribe a few years earlier) You are either a Repub, or just plain dishonest. I choose the 2nd. And we haven't even touched on experience and competence.

he'll have to clean up the mess himself, so you're rant makes zero sense.

You write as if he's campaigning to win an award, not the Presidency, arguably one of the most difficult and all-consuming jobs in the country.

the people, where as JE doesn't work for anyone but himself. Heaven forbid he try to help clean up a mess that he was very much part of creating. That might take to much time and force him to make some more horrendous decisions that he would have to apologize for. He has already shown really poor judgment why chance making more bad decisions before his ultimate goal.

No, too much heat in the kitchen so, he took the safe way out.

to fix his MANY FUCK UPS, but he opts out of the battle to make sure that he doesn't make any more errors, than #1 He is a COWARD #2 He has no conscience #3 How could you possibly trust him in a higher office making more critical decisions on a day to day basis???????

This makes for

A coward with no conscience, a poor decision making record and who is extremely ambitious.....Wow sounds a little like "W".

and who really knows what he will be able to DO if elected.

running a serious campaign for President of the United States is a far cry from 'opting out' of service.

That's such an old, meaningless stereotype that's thrown around. It's one thing to criticize people based on their decisions and policy but quite another to rip on them because of their gender, the way they laugh or how much they spend on their haircut. And obviously in this case, being a lawyer.

Now if you change *lawyer* to *lobbyist*, I think that's far more relevant, which is just one reason I think Fred Thompson is a ridiculous candidate.

candidates on the Dem side. #1 He is too charismatic #2 He has way too little experience #3 The experience he does have shows an appalling lack of judgement #4 No conscience to stick around and actually help clean up a mess that he was instrumental in creating #5 He has more arrogance than the other candidates #6 He cannot be believed. He has presented himself in too many ways in too short of time.
Let's pray that he goes away!

because he was on the presidential ticket at the time, and his seat was up for reelection in 2004?

Hillary is still voting for more war and talking about peace - just like Bush!

Wake up and smell the napalm, dude.

How is it hyocracy? It's truth. Hillary continues to undergo the politics of doublespeak. People NEED TRUTH!!!!!!

he'll drop out of race if he has any dignity.