Well John Edwards has done it...he is officially below Kucinich on my list of preferred nominees...

Not that he cares...as it appears he is running for that all important netroots vote...

I have had alot of trouble with John Edwards tactics of late, but up until now have never questioned whether I would support him if he is the nominee...that has now changed...

On edit: Apparently not everyone knows wht this refers too...

Link

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/11/13/edwards_wont_commit_to_backing_clinton.html

and you've always been unkind to everyone except Clinton.

If you do a search you will find I have defended the other candidates on many occasions...and have always asserted that I will vote for whoever the nominee is...

Edwards is going to kill whatever chance he ever had with this kind of hypocritical bullshit...

:eyes: We know what you're trying to do here. And you're right, he doesn't care.

when i read the op!!

i laughed so hard!!


their reversed psychology is a joke!! hahahahahahahaha sorta like planting questions in a crowd??..too funny...but pitiful i might add!!

Hi sista!!

fly:hi:

If we were to talk about tactics...! You mentioned one that wasn't very popular.

Hi, fly! :hi:

He would sooner see the Dems lose an election then help us win it?

:thumbsdown: to him and his wife!

the responses? I think it's premature for him to say anything about anyone else at this point.

All he had to say was: "If I don't win the nomination, I will support whoever does! It's just that simple.

Edwards is the lowest of the low morally bankrupt politicians out there.

Sad, you feel the need to defend an emotionally self-absorbed, depraved. individual!

:thumbsdown: to the CUR!

and then lying about it!!..seems hillary planted a college young woman, a minister..and gee she also did it when running for the senate..

pssss...but she didn't know about it...wink wink..;)

oh and but don't notice that all the media is now excluding the fact that this man is a minister...



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Another Question Planted by Clinton Campaign
Source: ABC News

One day after Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign confirmed that a staffer planted a question for the presidential candidate at a recent campaign stop, another person has come forward with a similar story.

Geoff Mitchell, a minister who recently moved to Hamilton, Ill., from Iowa, told ABC News that he was approached this spring by Clinton's Iowa political director Chris Haylor to ask Clinton a question about war funding.

Mitchell, 32, said that the request "did not sit well with me in the tradition of the Iowa caucus."

"I grew up in Iowa and I value the tradition of the caucuses of answering the questions of the people," Mitchell said.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3848826&page=1

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


and that this young lady says she saw the sheet with the planted questions;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

Student claims she was fed question for Clinton
Story Highlights
Student says Clinton staffer showed her a binder with about eight questions

"College student" in brackets before top question, student says

Campaign: Clinton "did not know which questioners she was calling on"

Student said she was not the only one told what to ask



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Below is the transcript from the 1999 broadcast:

ANNOUNCER: From NBC News, this is THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS.
WILLIAMS: Good evening.
We have a lot to tell you about tonight, beginning with what had become a whisper campaign of late, and it went like this: After what turned into a somewhat disastrous trip to the Middle East and with polls showing she should not run, Hillary Rodham Clinton just might pull out of the race for Senate from New York. Well, today, the first lady, responding to a planted question at a Teachers Union event made it clear she is in the race for the US Senate.
The aggressive Yale-educated lawyer is most certainly in for the fight of her life. But today was about looking ahead to all that she says she plans to do for New York and its residents. Part of today's announcement, however, was somewhat overlooked and that is, the first lady will soon begin living apart from the president. The White House will be without a first lady, while the president's wife moves to New York and runs for office. She does so without the blessing of some New York Democrats. We'll hear from one in just a moment.

-snip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/clintons-plant...


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

i guess morally bankrupt is not up for interpretation..personally i equate this to Jeff GANNON..fema holding fake press conferences , and Judith Miller..planting stories about wmd..and Cheney planting stories about Joe Wilson and outting a cia noc agent..

why do i find it morally bankrupt..because all start with the premis of lying and the manipulation of truth.
ahhh yes..some lies do cause more harm and more pain and can cause the deaths of many..but a lie is a lie..period...and with a lie comes loss of trust.

a trust that can never be regained..

unless one is pre-disposed to go into adulthood still believing in santa claus and the easter bunny.

and personally after almost 7 years of these kind of tactics by the * adminstration..i find this coming from a democratic candidate morally repugnant!



it makes me puke!

fly

which makes the middle class highly susceptible to Poverty.

Remember who Co-Sponsored the Iraq Vote?.. John Edwards in case you've forgotten..

and promoted the Iraq War for two years on the White House website?

The K-L Amendment is exactly where it should be, stripped of any language that can be interpreted as a blank check for going to War.

How can you support Edwards' despicable Voting Record?

* Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt. 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans rejected this bill, including Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. President Clinton eventually vetoed this bill because it was too hard on debtors.

* Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure. Chris Dodd voted to reject this bill, joining Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone. In all, the bill was rejected by 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

* Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone.

* Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test "will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives." 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy.

* Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure.

The bill Edwards supported "punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., a leading opponent of the legislation. "We are heading into hard economic times and we're going to make it hard for people to rebuild their lives."

Edwards has been part and parcel of the GOP agenda all the way. Edwards voting record is one of the worst of our Dem Senators. Edwards is helping create poverty in the middle class with his bankruptcy vote and earning millions for himself when working for the Hedge Fund sector. The same Hedge Fund sector that was buying sub-prime mortgages for their investment portfolios.. The same "POVERTY" he now professes to help as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It must be hard for Edward's supporters to understand the meaning of the words "poverty" and "hypocrisy", when their candidate, John Edwards exemplifies it so well. Why shouldn't he, he voted for it!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I truly fear for our country if your comment above is any reflection on her and she becomes the next president.

Bad on you! You simply disgust me.

what a crock o' shit post

The last refuge of the proud 11% 'ers.

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

check out 'notable clientele'

"Ptech had a security clearance to work on sensitive military projects dating to 1997."

Who was in the Oval Office that year ?

and this from Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld,

"Ptech is used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints at the highest level of US government and corporate infrastructure. These blueprints hold every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the enterprise. A secondary use of this powerful tool is to build other smart tools in a short period of time. Ptech’s clients in 2001 included the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, the FAA, IBM, Sysco, Aetna, and Motorola, to name just a few. "

Ptech still has White House, FAA, and Air Force etc, access. IMHO, this is a 'smoking gun' issue that has never been investigated. Hillary will make sure of that.

I believe in the big tent, but it is heresy in my book to support a republican candidate over a Democratic nominee....

so is to admit that you aren't going to win, and to win is his goal. Maybe Clinton should be asked if she would support him.

You commit to backing the Democratic nominee...

Obama managed it...

And other candidates have said that they would support the nominee who ever it was. She has not trashed the others the way they have her.

He said "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point"... I took it to mean he thinks it's too early to discuss, because she has not won the nomination yet.

He is aiding the republicans...doesn't matter if he formally supports them or not...

Big difference.

It's a simple question that should not require any thought...

Will you support the Democratic nominee...Yes or No...

Obama managed to answer that question..as I believe the other candidates have as well...

That's ridiculous.

But if you want to believe that, go right ahead. I don't think you want to be convinced otherwise.

You are aiding the Republicans...whether you overtly support them or not

Edwards never said what you're insinuating he said.

This is ludicrous.

But you sure got a lot of hits on your thread.

And no, he's not "aiding the Republicans."

Sort of like Bush saying you are either with us or the terrorist.

Said Edwards: "I’m not willing to talk about that at this point."

please provide documentation where Edwards is endorsing a repuke.

You know you can't. You're a liar. Baldfaced. And proud of it.

What a great way to start the day...:eyes:

edited: ROFL, same thought, same words as MainDem!

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/11/13/edwards_wont_commit_to_backing_clinton.html


The one thing I cannot stand is not sticking by the Democratic nominee...

so I'm never disappointed. Of course he should have said that he didn't think he was going to lose, but he'd support the Democratic nominee in any case. That's pretty much what they've all said.

Edwards is jumping the shark daily. This one is too much.

As most know I am very supportive of the big tent and can tolerate alot of difference in ideology within the party because as a whole we are all moving the same direction...

The one unforgivable sin for a Democrat in my opinion, is to not support the nominee of the party...

One affect has been to make Obama look better in my eyes...his answer to that question was spot on...

and fixing the economy & the free trade problem are a priority to me, so I think this is important:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3712890

(I will, of course, vote for the democratic nominee whoever it may be.)

:rofl:

Oh please, so this is what has your underwear in a twist?

Said Edwards: "I’m not willing to talk about that at this point."

It would make him look defeatist. He's running, not posting on a message board. but whatever!

I sense camp Hillary is getting worried.

I will support the Democratic nominee...

Very simple....

That is called being an American .... besides he left himself an "out"
in his comment.

That is called being an American...

Show me where I said he should not be allowed to say what he wants...

You said he should answer just like Obama did.

He can say what he wants and I can criticize him. As a loyal Democrat it is my opinion he should answer that he will support the nominee...if he chooses not to as is his right...I am free to adjuct my opinion of him and act accordingly...

Has nothing to do with limiting his free speech...

He refuses to do that...

Obama managed it...

way more anti-Hillary than anyone else, god forbid he gives the hint of a suggestion that he might actually support her if she's the nominee.

He is a hypocritical populist wannabe trying to hide his record...

"He is a hypocritical populist wannabe... "

No he is the real deal who grew up poor, put himself through college,
helped people in his law practice, and has worked to help poor Americans.

;)

Why didn't John Edwards talk about what he would do after his
campaign fails in the middle of his campaign?

BFD in a big way. Because of this you're going to take your ball and go home if he's the nominee? Sounds like a lot of supporters of a certain candidate, I thought you were going for Clinton by your Avatar?

Do you really think that Edwards would pull a Liebermann and screw over the Democratic party if he loses the nomination?

To that I simply call bullshit, Edwards will support the nominee he's just playing politics as you are.

He should say so...as Obama has...

to discuss that yet.

The other candidates have managed to say they would support the nominee...

"See? Even Edwards says he'll support Clinton."

because I thought you were talking about his promise to "take away" Congress' healthcare if they don't pass universal coverage.

The best I can say to defend this is that it's all politics. He's cast himself as the "pit bull" if you will, against Clinton, and this seems to be part of it.

The unfortunate thing, I think, is to see both him and Obama using tactics that are divisive. This is one; pitting one generation against another is one. Again, anything goes in political battles, but it worries me -- doesn't anger me, but just makes me cringe, I guess.

Edited to add: It's also something to keep in mind when people get into arguments about who is and who isn't a "Real Democrat." :shrug:

Kucinich and Clinton are still tied for last place on my list.

Why is Kucinich last on your list?

because I am not going to change my mind and you aren't going to change yours. I think he would have some of the same problems as presidents like Carter. He would have ideas that he wouldn't be unable to implement, he wouldn't be good at getting things done, he wouldn't work well with others in either party. Lyndon Johnson (who had his own set of flaws) was the opposite of this imo. There was someone who was on DU who worked for Kucinich in 2004 and felt that he didn't even really want to be President based on little time he spent trying to put together a good team. Some look at the candidates and pick the one they agree with the most on the issues. I look for more than that.

My mind is open -- I don't have a favorite candidate and am just watching the whole thing unfold. :hi:

and then rip on any of the candidates I like. Really, all the candidates have strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not in an early primary state. I expect my vote will either be strategic (if A and B are close, and I prefer A over B, that's how I'll vote.) If it's all wrapped up by the time of my state's primary, I'll probably vote for Kucinich if only for the message of it. (As you say, it may be more about message anyway.)

Edit: The difference for me this year is not doing anything actively to support anybody. Four years ago, I supported General Clark - house parties, writing tons of letters to voters in early states, contributing money, etc. None of that for me this time. :(

:hi:

Demonstrates how I feel about "Democrats" that won't commit to supporting the Democratic nominee...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Said Edwards: "I’m not willing to talk about that at this point."

That John Edwards is being an asshat is not a crisis...

Because that's how you're acting. "Edwards is being an asshat" is the actual point of this.

Him being an asshat is not a crisis...

Ask him a REAL hard question.. Why did he vote YES for Bankruptcy Reform?

Ususally you're right on top of things. I mean, the guy is as self-serving as they come.

It is quite easy to see he is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes with his populist wannabe rhetoric...trying to get people to forget about his past...

But until now I never questioned whether or not I would support him if he were the nominee...

The one unforgivable sin in my book is to withhold support from the Democratic nominee...if one is going to call themselves a Democrat...

>But until now I never questioned whether or not I would support him if he were the nominee...

The one unforgivable sin in my book is to withhold support from the Democratic nominee...if one is going to call themselves a Democrat...<

===

OK, your outrage in this whole thread rings really true now. :silly:

Why should I make the same commitment...

Ultimately I will of course...but to even make me question it takes quite alot....

I will do everything possible in my little corner of the world to make sure Edwards is not the nominee...

eom

'I have been on to him as far as his rank hypocrisy goes...

It is quite easy to see he is trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes with his populist wannabe rhetoric...trying to get people to forget about his past...

But until now I never questioned whether or not I would support him if he were the nominee...

The one unforgivable sin in my book is to withhold support from the Democratic nominee...if one is going to call themselves a Democrat...'

====

ALSO:

What a complete asshat...

The guy is a two faced hypocrite, that talks out of both sides of his mouth....

I have always said I will back the Democratic nominee no matter who it is...

I am revising that...if John Edwards is the nominee I will not commit to voting for him...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3712135&mesg_id=3713144

=====


Sounds pretty clear to me.

I did say that in anger...

Did you read my latest response to you?

Ultimately I will of course...but to even make me question it takes quite alot....

I will do everything possible in my little corner of the world to make sure Edwards is not the nominee...

:hi:

standing downtown at the DLC station, one toke over the linnnneeeeeeee....

Especially if those scenarios involve Hillary Clinton winning the nomination.

But he should be able to promise that he will support the Democratic ticket in November 08.

I think we should expect all the Democratic candidates to get behind the eventual nominee.

He could answer it the way candidates have been answering that question for decades, if not centuries...

"I will support the nominee of my party."

I guess some are just too self-serving though, well one anyway.

:eyes:

watching some people switch candidates every time some news article comes out or some candidate says or does one thing that completely negates everything else they've ever said or done.

Wish I had a nickel for every time someone came her to proudly proclaim..'that's it for you candidate, you just lost my vote'! My all time favorite is still the 'I'm going to vote for so and so because everyone is saying mean things about them'.

not want to support HER!

Edwards has the good sense to stay in the HERE AND NOW. Excellent!

you don't like edwards?

NO FUCKING WAY!!!

what a jamoke

It's not as though this is some kind of sudden shift.

Pathetic.

I think I need to send the Senator $50 now. :rofl:

Do you not find it someone ironic that you are saying you might not support Edwards if he is the nominee because he is not towing the line and saying outright he will support the eventual nominee??? :crazy:

So you can choose not to support a Democratic nominee but Edwards can't?

This wins the award for the most obvious and ridiculous post on DU.This seems desperate and I wonder why? Hill is still leading but not by as much.Why the sudden step up in anti Edwards rhetoric? He shouldn't be bothering you.

With comments like this he doesn't deserve that kind of support...

And I always assumed at the very least he was a loyal Democrat...apparently not.

I will of course vote for him in the highly unlikely event he gets the nod...but I will do everything in my power in my little corner of the world to make sure he does not get the nod...

I'm interested to see that my past criticism of Edwards invalidates any criticism I make of him in your eyes...

Given your rabid obsession with Hillary I guess then we shouldn't take anything you say about her seriously...if we are to apply your standard...correct?

do not intend to indicate otherwise. Unlike your post which had an implication of support for Edwards in it.I have always indicated I would "try' to vote for Hillary if she would be the nominee but that is as far as i would go.I would never go further on her behalf.

It's a race. One must know what a race is and John Edwards seems to know exactly what a race is all about.

I understand why he responded as he did. The question wasn't "Will you support the Democratic nominee whoever it is?" It was a gotcha question.

Damn.

esp. since Hillary hasn't made any similar commitment to vote for him if he's nominee.

the whole line of questioning smacks of oh-so-subtle gotcha-baiting. If he says "yes" he's done his
candidacy a dis-service by casting a spell on it as a "losing" campaign by projecting Hillary wins.

What a shocker.

:sarcasm:

do you really believe this man is worthy of our nomination. He is imploding and like I said 2 months back, this will be over sometime between February 5 and the 15th and Edwards can take his pissed off attitude back to N.C.....

Ben David