I've got to admit it, JOHN EDWARDS' campaign IS THE MOST ........

TOLERANT and is full of COMPROMISES in reference to what John Edwards has stood for then and now:

like his China Free Trade vote and support,
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251

and votes for Bankruptcy Bills,
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/2007/08/19/edwards-and-2001-bankruptcy-bill/

or Yucca Mountain as a depository,
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071118/ELECTIONS/111180127

and supporting "right to work" legislature,
http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressreleases?id=0136
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/unions-balk--at-edwards-track-record-2007-11-15.html

while supporting to Expand HB1 visas as a path to citizenship
http://blog.noslaves.com/john-edwards-is-a-hypocrite/

later in profiting from Fortress Hedgefunds in multiple ways throughout '05-'07, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html
while claiming no knowledge of what Fortress was actually doing in May,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html
and his decision in Mid August of this year to continue to keep his money invested in Fortress (read last sentence of first paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/politics/18edwards.html?ref=us

not to mention confusion between Edwards' various "help to the poor" enterprises, and which ones did what and for whom - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1594
http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-139.html

Nor does Edwards not doing pro-bono cases while a practicing lawyer bothers .... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921189.html

But of course, his Health Plan is "to die for"...or at least, kinda of maybe better than the rest, or not, or whatever....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Confrontation_vs_compromise_on_healthcare.html

meanwhile implying that his race and gender makes him most electable,
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071028/NEWS08/310280075

but not mentioning the problems we will encounter due to his acceptance of matching funds,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/28/385769.aspx
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3832347

While denouncing 527s as interests groups in '04
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/23/john-edwards-if.php
and using them now that he needs them
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/A_527_twofer.html
including strange big money
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901591.html


and who cares about his co-sponsorship of the IWR while advocating support for war and waiting 3 years to "apologize"? :shrug:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WesDem/175
nor the fact that he didn't do hi "due diligence" while sitting on the Intelligence Committee
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/foreign-policy/iraq-war/iraq-war-intelligence/

plus calling out Iran and then changing his tune,
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=161493

After all, support of a candidate easily justifies anything....
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/08/edwards_leftward_turn.html

The other candidates and campaigns have their own discrepancies, but I do believe that the Edwards campaign is the most tolerant considering the loud rethoric in pointing fingers at others coming from that camp.

I can understand why so many envy him.

I don't care about the hair or even the house, but only a greedy SOB puts half his money in the Fortress account.

He would be a national joke by the end of a general election campaign for that reason alone.

and little funding to fight the material and how it will be spinned.

Not a joyful event that I'm waiting to see. :(

while railing against greed that gets me. Blatant contrasts between public proclamations and private behavior have always undermined candidates like Edwards, and, as you note, there may be more material to come. Just another entry to add to your already distressing list.

The 54 million dollar populist. How'd he get all that money? It wasn't by fighting the system, it was by playing it.

so instead John Edwards, who invested millions into an HedgeFund with heavy investments in Companies with predatory lending practices, and received a salary of 1/2 a million to "study porverty" no less, handicaps himself to our detriment by accepting matching funds! Now, isn't that special! :sarcasm:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3824893


At least McCain was smart enough to hold off making that decision..... although he was eligible. Guess although he wrote the campaign reform bill, he understood the consequences when not everyone is on the same page.

Dated today-
Republican John McCain illustrates the dilemma. He has been certified to receive $5.8 million in matching funds but is keeping his options open. He has a $3 million line of credit, secured with future fundraising and the value of his mailing list. McCain can wait to see how he performs in the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8 before deciding whether he wants to collect the public funds or capture a surge of new donor money.

McCain can use his existing funds, including the line of credit he obtained, to cover campaign costs through the New Hampshire primary. If he wins there, he would likely see a significant influx of new campaign money, forcing a reconsideration of whether he needs the public matching funds.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004100031_apcampaignmoney30.html?syndication=rss

:bounce: He must be kickin' ass in the polls, or why else would so many on this thread be attacking him like this!

:applause: This is a GREAT thread! Edwards is kickin' ass!!!

The Kennedy's (JFK&RFK) were rich and still fought for the poor. They're all rich for cryin' out loud!!

There is this quote from Dennis Kucinich:

"We've got leaders that feel they are not bound by the law, that proceed in a way that is unconscionable, licensed by the media that becomes complicit in their lack of straightforward analysis and criticism. Our nation is being stained by this. They don’t get that the Patriot Acts took away our rights, they all voted for it. Edwards was a co-author. They don’t get that eavesdropping and wiretapping is against the very fiber of this country."

Dennis Kucinich

right after 9/11. Edwards is more progressive than the others except for Kucinich who is the only real change. The rest are just more or less, more of the same but better than a vile republican.

It is my hope thay one day we will ONLY have publicly financed campaigns. Get the money out of the election process.

Way too negative. Everything is an attack. What happened to the speech he gave, that was REALLY beautiful btw, back in 2004? We're all red & blue and lets come together and be happy people thing? I liked that message, I mean when you look at Obama's record in Illinois and in the Senate, he really is a middle man kind of guy. So why so negative? It seems like the focus on his message has gotten lost with the attack politics. Why not just sell himself?

Oh it will only take about 12 years and then go make your millions, that is if you have a mind and determination that JOHN REID EDWARDS has.

Over half of his personal wealth is from the hedge fund. And, despite his rhetoric, has never used any of that wealth to actually help the poor. That is one of many things that lend credence to his biggest weakness, the stigma that he's a phony.

Spending half a mil of his own fortune in NOLA and actually working on rebuilding homes for about a week (a.k.a. good hard labor) would have gone considerably further than spending 5 mil on whatever he wants in Iowa.

And anyone who thinks Edwards is anywhere near as wealthy as Bloomberg needs remedial economics.

Joe Biden's cute in the "DADDY" way, and I could even fall for the elf. But not the DLC ho.

Your support of him will be appreciated, I'm sure.

Thanks

Thanks! :hi:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edwards-campaign-mum-on-arrested-fundraiser-2007-05-10.html

Very nice to respect someone's privacy like that.

to get my political facts, right after 'Perez Hilton', that is.

Tolerance has its limits with you, yes? :shrug:

Can't defend what the guy did, but are saying every candidate has to answer for everyone who has worked for or supported him or her?

If that's the case, this is minor league compared to the hijinks of those in Hillary's camp, and some in Obama's.

I really like Edwards. I had to re-evaluate why I like the guy so much to ensure it isn't my hormones. It isn't. My daughter doesn't understand why Obama isn't my next choice after Kucinich, but I've been through the Reagan Era and grew up a Mormon and a good speech just does not impress me unless I see actions to back up the words FIRST and foremost. I believe Edwards is a sound, second choice for a very far-left liberal like myself when you look at everything he has to offer.

"I am not a progressive, but I play one on TV"

cause those are not issues I care so much about....they are more about perception and how the media will run with some of the discrepancies....but the Edwards campaign has no problem with these either....and in part, because they are so very tolerant.

too bad we don't have enough money for a newspaper ad in Iowa...

I'm not giving Biden a free pass on that.

It's been beat to death here too, and I don't give a shit. I'm glad he signed it, and I make no apology for it.

I'm tired of paying for other people's shit.

poor Joe...for someone that's being bought by the banks, he sure didn't get much money from it....


You should look up John's earnings from banks. I know what that number is, so maybe you should drop this, before I post it. although, I'm sure consistant with Frenchie's point, I'm sure you'd just defend it.

for his campaign ?????

2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Contributions from Selected Industries
Display: Select an Industry Casinos/Gambling Commercial Banks Computers/Internet Education Health Professionals Hedge Funds & Private Equity Insurance Lawyers/Law Firms Lobbyists Oil & Gas Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Real Estate Retired Securities & Investment Telephone Utilities Tobacco TV/Movies/Music


Commercial Banks
Hillary Clinton (D)
$935,658

Barack Obama (D)
$865,856

Mitt Romney (R)
$600,091

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$598,501

John McCain (R)
$583,700

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$454,000

Bill Richardson (D)
$164,114

John Edwards (D)
$153,650

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$134,575

Fred Thompson (R)
$94,625

Ron Paul (R)
$28,541

Mike Huckabee (R)
$26,500

Sam Brownback (R)
$20,012

Duncan Hunter (R)
$6,900

Tom Tancredo (R)
$2,625

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)
$1,000

Alan Keyes (R)
$201


-------------------
follow the money!

taking positions on multiple issues that are 180 degrees from his former stance.

Edwards is the "only" one who has voted, or said things like this? I mean Clinton and Obama are perfect, right? Missing votes like the one giving Bush and Cheney the OK to invad Iran was OK? Or voting "to" let Bush and Cheney invade Iran is OK? Or missing the vote on the Peru free trade was OK for both of them?

Come on, Edwards has admitted he is not perfect, and that he makes mistakes, have Clinton or Obama done the same?

All I can say is your hate for Edwards is amazing. Which candidate are you supporting by the way?

who gets a generous pass from you..."Edwards has admitted he is not perfect, and that he makes mistakes"

Please know that you are free to start your own thread (and I see many already on DU) about Clinton and Obama, or about DUer FrenchieCat's hate if you want, of course!

JE, with the least number of years, by ratio made the worst mistakes in judgement, plain and simple. Obama at least was in Government for over a dozen and Clinton for most of her adult life. It is pure analyzing...JE in office for 6 years to which he spent over 2 years campaigning and not really doing the job he was elected to do and making several disasterous decisions in that short amount of time. Clinton has been in Politics on her own or by association for over 30 years and Obama for 12 years in State and a few years in Federal......Look at the years in the Political Arena compared to the "mistakes" while there.

"Hate" isn't necessarily aimed at the candidate, but the gullibility and blindness of his supporters. How can they buy, hook line and sinker, what this guy is trying to sell?????? It absolutely shows how superficial and gullible many voters are.

He's worked hard at playing juries all his life, and he's playing his self-authored legend and crafted-by-focus-group poll-tested-persona with all his might. It's his greatest role yet, and it's Oscar worthy.

and most accurate.

This week?

Edwards gets nominated for best method acting in a primary role




P.S. I can hardly wait till they open the envelope and give out them little statuettes B-)

Jack Lemon would say would dissuade his pursuer, not even his gender


Or as one poster put it: "you're not convincing ME to change my vote so STFU" (or, "stop saying that")

:sarcasm:

:D

what Edwards stands for now is a vast improvement.

Seems to me that at least he learns....

In November 2005 he said he was against the war now. But in January this year he had no problem threatening Iran with a brand new war...How do you know what he stands for?
he apologized for voting for IWR, but no one knows how he feels about ...sponsoring it.

What else is there to say?

Reminds me of How we will not have to argue about who John Edwards' choice for Veep should be, cause as Edwards supporters often say....."voters vote for the top of the ticket only". That's what is normally said when one mentions the fact that John Edwards didn't seem to do much for the Kerry/Edwards 2004 ticket.

I'm telling you, this tolerant virtue will take JE far! It's impressive! :thumbsup:

I'd much prefer someone who can GROW as a person and politician, than someone like Hillary who not only refuses to apologize on her initial Iraq vote ( much less admit it was wrong )... but then doesn't even LEARN from her mistake and goes and votes AYE on Lieberman's Iran proposal. Disgusting.

All the candidates including Bill Richardson supported IWR...

to be valid?

Edwards didn't just vote for the IWR, he advocated for the war. His stance was much more supportive of Bush's than any of the other candidates. Period.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x78180

I don't think any of them are cardboard saints...If you carefully read my posts ninety percent of them are defending Hillary Clinton not beating up other candidates...

They are all politicians...


That being said , my friend, in retrospect IWR was a bad, bad vote...The CW at the time was the Dems should let Bush* have his IWR vote so they could beat him up on the economy prior to the 02 mid term elections... It failed... The R(s) won the mid terms and Bush* got us in a quagmire...

And Edwards had plenty of company in casting that bad vote... I don't know what the motivation was... With the sanctions and no fly zones we had Saddam in a box...

Do people here understand the concept of sponsoring? it means pushing, selling, advocating, twisting arms to get it on the floor...Voting is insignificant in comparison.

If Romney and JRE get the nomination their weaknesses cancel out one another because they both have changed on a host of positions... I don't think I have changed my mind on any issue since I was in grad school but I have the luxury of not having to get elected...

I don't think any of em are saints...I realize HRC is a hedger...I could probably deconstruct all of em if I were so inclined...

Or NADER! Or RON PAUL!

Each so very attractive in his own special way.

Because if you go with a candidate who has a shakey record and who it will be EASY for either a GOP candidate OR an independent candidate to paint as a flip-flopper who switches sides of an issues according to polls and political convenience, that candidate will be crushed.

Neither Nader nor Ron Paul would have the funding to make such an argument, but someone like Bloomberg pending 1 billion of his own money could EASILY present each of these issues and show John Edwards to be a politician of convenience instead of someone with real convictions.

People are sick of the GOP... people are ALSO sick of the democrats because they see them as weak, finger in the wind politicians. If given a viable third option and a democratic candidate who is the epitome of that stereotype, the well funded independent WILL win.

we will be up shits creek without no money for our defense.

This year, the CW was this would be the year of the Dems.
It appears that we will be going against the CW once again.

Even with money, as your OP pointed out, there are indefensible positions involved here. A series of disturbing position changes for seemingly nothing more than political/personal convenience.

John Kerry was FALSELY smeared with lies about his Vietnam service and had trouble defending himself. What happens when John Edwards actual record is held up for scrutiny? How many times can he use the words "I was wrong" and think they will be effective?

The problem is what does or does not make someone electable.

Flip flopping on nearly every major important issue of the last 6 years, IMO, makes someone unelectable, ESPECIALLY against an independent who won't have those problems.

Gore was a fucking boy scout. No one had ever said a bad word about him. Until he had the brass balls to run for president on the Democratic ticket. NO ONE WHO RUNS WILL RUN UNSMEARED. You are a total fool or politically leaf green if you believe otherwise.

We are idiots if we base our primary vote on such a ridiculous reason as what the Republicans want or what the Republicans will do. We don't need them and NOBODY wants them.

the muscles required to do it. :)

ever evolved..I can that by reading this thread. No one ever has life changing experiences..not on this thread, anyway..except moi.

which is certainly a tolerant approach full of compromise, which is what this op is about.

Whether America voters will be as tolerant, considering that John Edwards who is limited by public financing rules will not be able to counter a whole lot......will remain to be seen: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=79567&mesg_id=79567

I like what Edwards is saying now, but I'm apprehensive because of precisely what you have outlined in your OP. It has something to do with the 'the first time the dog bites you' theory.

K&R for truth even when it is a tough pill to swallow for some.

progressive owners that I love well! :thumbsup:

For example, his dual role as anti-poverty advocate and prospective candidate is hardly unusual. Even if he blurrd some lines there, at least he wasn't doing it on the taxpayers' dime, like those who hold office do to raise their profiles.

He is the first to admit that he played the game while in Washington. It doesn't mean he's blameless for the bad votes he made, but better for him to admit it now than to continue to prop up a bad system.

And, he was no worse than 60 percent of the Democrats back then. And, unlike many today, he is not still defending the indefensible and promising to "better manage" a seriously broken bad system.

If he were really a sell-out, he'd be running as a much more "centrist" candidate now.....And many of his current positions are not contradictory to what he called for in his previous campaign. he was advocating for greater corporate accountability and responsibility back then -- just not in the same stark terms as now.

that isn't positive.

The number of justification, rationalization, and excuses for Edwards' actions if not "consistent" with what he says in that one post examplifies the tolerance level I am referring to.

"Even if he blurrd some lines there, at least he wasn't doing it on the taxpayers' dime"

"He is the first to admit...."

"he was no worse than 60 percent of the Democrats"

"doesn't mean he's blameless for the bad votes he made, but better for him to admit it"

Meanwhile, Obama having one gay bigot in an appearance continues to generate uncompromising heat all over the place here at DU. :eyes:

I wish Paul Wellstone were alive and running....But I'm sure Paul also had flaws and some skeletons in the closet.

Pretty much the same as any other candidate.,,Or human.

What one has to do is weigh the positives and negatives, and see which is predominant. After such weighing, I decided Edwards is the best choice among the current crop. And I like him more the more I've seen.

Are there things about him I wish were different? Sure. But IMO the positive side of the balance is far more in his favor than Hillary and somewhat more than Barak (among the top three).

These gentlemen and women are politicians who have to compromise to get elected...If you can't win you can't help anybody...

"Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.” - John Edwards

I don't see that much substantive difference on the issues between JRE, BHO, and HRC...The differences I see are in presentation (and) the expectations of their followers...

The federal goverment is an amorphous apparatus...Only so much change can be affected...In all of the twentieth century there were three periods of large reform-The Square Deal, The New Deal, and The Great Society...

A president can make a large difference on foreign policy... I think JRE, BHO, and HRC would pursue a policy of liberal internationalism as long as it doesn't conflict with national self interest... I don't think any of them will "try to shake the kaleidoscope and make the world anew" as Bush* and Blair did...

In short I have rather modest expectaions of what any president can achieve given the environment he finds himself or herself operating in...

our primary vote....but,

what will he say during the General Election to get elected....or has he thought about that yet?

Will Edwards' Spending limits keep him from saying much of anything? Because, the more he talks about "fighting" corporate interests, the more I imagine Corporate interests will attack him, and since money talks (and Edwards will have no money), Edwards will be mute in his defense.

Plus the fact that he has denounced 527s, he has even largely closed off this avenue of money come to his defense.

I am dreading the situation that Dems will find themselves in if Edwards is the nominee. It will not work out well for us, I'm sorry to say.

I have conceded your points... The only caveat I have is that I don't see his flip flopping as unique...All politicians try to position themselves in a manner that they think will get him or her elected...Edwards flip flops... Hillary hedges or triangulates...Obama denies there is a true red-blue divide when one really, really, really exists in the hope of getting some red votes...

What will JRE say in the General?

The same thing Hillary or Obama will say... And that is whatever attracts a plurality or majority of the electorate that doesn't alienate a significant portion of the Democratic base...

As to your point about JRE not having a post IA strategy you may be right...

Let's see how it plays out... I think Biden, Obama, Edwards, Richardson , and Clinton can win a general but it won't be a slam dunk ...It rarely is... The last Dem to win a super majority was LBJ....

He's the man who has the integrity to vote "present," right?

at no quarter.blogspot.com. Info you won't see anywhere else.

Lies. Obama had a hetrosexual anti-gay Evangelist and leader of the ex-gay mind control movement, Donnie McClurkin as MC and only speaker at the events. Also on the ticket for Obama was Hezikiah Walker, and a visious act called Sister Sister, as they are two sisters. Count 'em, that makes 4 bigots presented under Obama's official banner.
To describe four people as one person is about as accurate as describing McClurkin as a mere bigot against gays. Which is is. He is an outspoken activist against gay people's rights. It is part of his living, to slander others. Here's a sample "gay people are trying to kill our children" he said that on the 700 Club. You know, 700 Club-Pat Robertson. Not suprising as McClurkin's most famous performance outside of chuch was at the last Republican Convention where he sang for Bush his signature song "Stand" , the title of which is reflected in Obama's campaign slogan "Stand for Change".
Mr Obama has continued to support McClurkin and refused to apologize for promoting a blatant homophobe.
Anyone who does not approve of the Dobsons,Robertsons and Huckabees of the right should not be supporting Mr Obama's use of McClurkin and the others. How can one criticize the GOP for Dobson in Bush's Oval office if McClurkin is to be visiting Obama's Oval? You can not. If we allow our Party to begin using Evangelists to preach wedge issues, we will be the same as the GOP, and soon will face the same divisions as they face today.
If this was about any other minority group, no Democratic candidate would dare engage in such alliances, and frankly, no Democratic voter would defend the use of Evangelits to denigrate any other minority. If this was not about gays, it would be a deal breaker, and that is very telling to me.
When Obama talks about Unity and Hope for some, while activley encouraging intolerance against others, it makes me want to vomit. When I see Democrats say things like 'just one teeny little bigot" it makes me want to vomit again.
So yeah, I'm uncompromising about bigots. I thought that was a Democratic trait, not a personal choice.

Candidate Position...

Hey, I'm not saying he's a bad guy...I'm sure he's liberal at heart...He's just not a saint...He's a politician who wants to get elected; just like Richardson , Biden, Dodd, and Clinton et cetera...

What I meant was that he could have run as an alternative and just run a feelgood campaign on pink-fluffy-bunny liberalism, instead of the more challenging message of actual progressive change.

I reiterate -- I don't think he's perfect. He's obviously an ambitious opportunist, or he'd be running a country family-law firm somewhere.

But I choose an ambitious opportunist I mostly agree with over one who I disagree with.

and so, I thank you for that.

And yes, none of them are perfect....
.....which is why I support Obama. I have looked, and I find scant evidence that he is of that sort.

I find the "fierce urgency of now" less convincing than "I'd better strike while the iron is hot and not have to wait eight years when I'm not so fresh to run and when voters will probably be tired of a Democrat in the White House."

Obama. I'd like to see them.

Anyone who seriously runs for president is an ambitious opportunist.

It is the height of hubris to assume that "I am qualified to hold the highest office in the most powerful nation on earth."

And to get to the point where that is even remotely possible, one has to be an opportunist.

(Chauncy Gardner -- The protagonist of "Being There.")

There's a lot of stones being cast at glass houses around here lately.

I started this campaign with Obama as my first choice, Edwards as my second choice, and Hillary as my third choice... I thought the election of a black man would be a redemptive moment for this nation...I thought Hillary was formulaic... But I grew to respect her spunk... The crap she takes and she just keeps coming... I would either be crying or hurling F-bombs indiscriminately...

My problem with Barack Obama is that beside the Iraq War which Obama wasn't a party to I don't see much difference between him and Hillary on the major issues of the day but Obama and his supporters try to portray Hillary Clinton as some tired party hack and Barack Obama as The Second Coming...

I don't believe that the lithmus test on the IWR relies solely on the position one occupied at the time. Ask Gore about that, and he will tell you that his stance was nevertheless a strong one against the Iraq invasion regarless of the fact that he held no title at the time.

Obama was not in a position to vote on the IWR. He has been in a position to vote against funding the war, and in that regard he hasn't voted any differently than Hillary. They aren't all that different on any other issues either. I do think that some DU Obama-supporters (and you're not one of them, Frenchie) demonize Hillary in a way that just isn't rationale. I think a lot of it is a side-effect of years of GOP Clinton-bashing. I also think Obama, if he gets the nomination, will be subject to the same machine and I have to wonder if he will be able stand up to it, and strong (or vicious) enough to give it back.

About Gore. Yes, he stood up strongly against the war. But the one time he was nailed for a position on what we should be doing there now, it wasn't all that different from Hillary either. I think if he were running for office and had to talk more about the war, he would be savaged here at DU as well (much as he was by many on the left back in 2000), altho maybe not to the extent that the Clintons are.

He tries to be all things to all people by using vague themes of unity and hope. I read his book a year ago - though at times inspiring, it really is devoid of specifics or innovation.

And how many times did he vote "present" in the Illinois legislature? And why couldn't he show up in July when the Senate voted to require inspection of all cargo on passenger aircraft? Why couldn't he show up on the cloture vote to censure Gonzales? And why did he vote to make Plaintiffs in class action lawsuits file in federal courts - stripping the states more favorable to the rights of consumers, like yours, of jurisdiction - a position the Repukes and their corporate allies adore?

And by what right does Barack criticize another Senator - in this case, Hillary - for voting to list the Iran Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group - when can't he even bother to show up to vote, conveniently ducking the issue entirely, until the smoke clears.

There's the reality that we know all too well: you have to show up and make extremely difficult decisions - often with scant or incomplete or unreliable or changing information. And sometimes several million lives hang in the balance. You can't punt, cry, walk away or depend on others to make the call. Bill Clinton found that out almost immediately after he took office. I'm not yet convinced Obama will be able to fill this role.

Here's a Boston Globe article from last week outlining his inconsistencies: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/obamas_views_have_changed_with_time/

Here's a list of Obama gaffes, including his now legendary waffling on the "immorality" of homosexuality: http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/316024,CST-NWS-sweet28.article

And which candidate voted to renew the USA Patriot Act after strongly criticizing it during his campaign?

I'm sorry but not one of the candidates in this race is pure. Barack is no different. No one is innocent.

I distinguish between what I want to see achieved and what I expect to see achieved and what I believe can be achieved...

If a Dem can get elected who would put center/left justices on the Supreme Court, keep us out of unwinnable wars, maintain the safety net, grows the econmomy to lift folks out of poverty, deal with the mortgage crisis, and makes sure everybody who needs health care gets it I'll be satisfied...

And at the end of his or her term I still expect to see big box retailers on every corner of the nation...

:applause:

You just cheered me right up.

aquart.

And I knew that this OP would make you love John Edwards that much more which reinforces my point precisely!

The tolerance level in the Edwards' camp is simply magnificent!

Hope that American voters in the General Election will understand the virtue of such unabbreviated tolerance if Edwards wins the nom; or so, I pray.

Keep throwing around the "tolerant" label. Maybe it'll stick.

Meanwhile, Obama thinks his campaign has a copyright on the word, "change." Powerful stuff,

I guess that's all he has when he isn't espousing his Christianity.

Edwards was definitely more conservative as a senator and as a presidential candidate in 2004 than he is now, but there isn't a single candidate who hasn't changed many of their views since then (ie. Kucinich is relatively new to the pro-choice movement). That doesn't make any of them bad candidates, it just means that they've found that the views they once espoused are not in line with the majority of their constituents.

We elect politicians to reflect our views and look out for our interests, not to take a stand and refuse to budge regardless of circumstance. We have that now and look where it's gotten us. Besides, I'm a big believer in the saying "You dance with the one that brung ya". At least with Edwards we know that he knows who voted for him and how he got there. It wasn't due to millions of dollars funneled in from corporate interests, it was individual donations and a helluva lot of work. That's why I support him.

I do think everyone should be aware of what each candidate supports and has supported. Then they need to decide what is important to them in this election. For me, that led to Edwards. You decide for yourself.

I can't add a single thing but this:

:applause:

:sarcasm:

Even when it takes 3 years, and such..... :shrug:

:sarcasm:

I guess you prefer the types who NEVER admit when they're wrong, i.e. Bush.

Oh...

:sarcasm:

the people he was representing THEN - NC is about as red as it gets. It's still refreshing to hear him apologize for votes like IWR though.

The majority of your post was just silly fluff stuff though. Seriously, No pro bono work? Matching Funds? Hedge funds? Wow! You worked really hard to s-t-r-e-t-c-h it out.

John Edwards call himself a man of principle, while you rationalize his senate votes as being that of a man of political expedience in bowing to the North Carolina Majority (when it is largely Democrats--and no, NC is not all conservative-- that put him in that seat of power).

I'm glad that you find an apology 3 years after-the-fact and just before throwing a hat into the ring and right after polls showing that most American found Iraq to be a "Mistake", "refreshing".

In reference to the other items, I'm happy for you that none of them are relevant to you.

of the people he represents?

Do you not like his platform now or is it that you don't think he'll follow through with his promises?

on who's vote he/she is trying to win.

I also believe that deeds provide more insight than simply listening to pretty words.

at least not in the primaries.

I just can't compile the same list of inconsistent positions for Barack as I was able to do with Edwards. So in the end, it was an easy choice for me. I chose the one who doesn't have to rationalize and apologize for just about everything that he has at one point said.

I heard him speak earlier this year, and I was so impressed.

I don't think he deserves your support. It took me so long to find a post that had something to say about who you were actually for, and then it's just a subject line, totally devoid of content.

I was sure you were for HRC, much more compatible with Heneral Clark, really.

is what counts.

In terms of content on who I support and why, here:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/133

FROM No Quarter:…..."Uh huh. Yeah, right. Here’s a reality check: “ABC News reports that an ad the Obama campaign released yesterday on lobbying reform excised a quote in which ‘Obama promised to ban lobbyists from working in his White House — a pledge the Illinois Democrat seemed to have backed off from earlier this month’.” (TPM) Also check out, “ABC News: Obama Ad Omits Lobbyist Reference.” Then there’s the just-posted report from the NYT’s The Caucus that a month after Obama promised there’d be NO lobbyists in his White House, “he later amended his position, saying that lobbyists would not ‘dominate’ his White House.”
History Can Be a Bitch: “Barack Obama may be talking the talk on the campaign trail as he attacks special interests and lobbyists in Washington,” noted ABC News’s The Blotter in July, “but last year Senator Obama introduced bills-at the request of lobbyists-that would save foreign companies millions in customs fees and duties.”
Then There’s Reality, Again, Chomping Up Those Fine Words: There are “Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll,” reports The Hill. “Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.” That’s right. Obama has paid lobbyists who are “double dipping” while his campaign tries to deny it."

Much more with links at noquarter.blogspot.com. We are not saints but we grown along progressive lines...vote Kucinich/Edwards '08...the only real change.

No doubt about it, Edwards is slick. Too slick for my taste.

I have come around to your view that he will win Iowa though. NH is another story. Idenpendents will break for either Obama or McCain there, and my view is they will break strongly for Obama.

She's distorting (by omission) what the links actually say to tell the story of her raging anti-Edwards bias. And some are buying it without question.

support him.:puke: :eyes: :crazy: :argh: :wow: :shrug:

He won't win over indpendents in NH with the open primary there.

Once the nominee is selected, all hell will break loose, but with Edwards, we will be sitting ducks....because, he has gone out of his way to rouse the anger of corporate America (a fight that we will lose due to the approach that basically advocates all out war and will be depicted as just class warfare by the corporate media) to make himself look radically eloquent to the liberal left leaning activists he is counting on to pull him through in Iowa......

but yet Edwards has boxed himself in by limiting his campaign access to a voice via matching funding rules.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3832347

I'm tired of losing, and excuses, apologies, rationalization and the virtue of tolerance won't make me feel any better if we do.

and so the pig remained in our White House, lipstick and all!

It will be great to show that public financing can win. That way the President isn't beholding to anyone but the American people when he takes office.

You have been out to get Edwards for years and that's one of the reasons I want him to win.

and I'm glad to hear how effective I am in forcing folks to "tolerate" inconsistent candidates just to spite me. I feel so much more powerful now that I know this about you. :eyes:

Your obsession is really unhealthy. I'm worried about you.

It's none of my business, but wouldn't you be better off showing us the good things the candidate you support has done? You know, maybe try being positive for a change.

assembled there, I then realize that it would make an informational Op, and so I started this thread.

If you have a problem with that, there is a "hide-a-thread" so you can "tolerate" DU better.

new ad. (And to tell you the truth, I can't stand his mannerisms-can't imagine having to see him on tv for 4 years).

A little too "Deutschland Erwache" and "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" for my taste.

Over the top and not genuine.

Part of the advantage of the media ignoring Edwards completely was that they haven't touched any of this yet. Of course, you know they once Edwards is the nominee. They called Kerry a flip-flopper and he wasn't anywhere near as bad as this.

That's part of what bothers me. Obama made a good point that he's been tested in this campaign. Hillary and the media have been researching everything he's done since kindergarten. While Edwards sort of went through that in 2003/2004, alot has changed since then and he hasn't been challenged on it. The closest were those haircut/hedge fund stories at the beginning of the year. Those temporarily knocked him down a bit, but he's recovered enough to possibly take the nomination. I'm afraid for what will follow.

don't it? :-)

But I can certainly appreciate the Edwards campaign justifying, rationalizing, and/or excusing Edwards actual record and his past versus his current new positions, and I understand the parallelling of John Edwards to FDR, RFK and for good measure JFK if needed. Problem is that this is not 1932 and John Edwards is no FDR--

But certainly, we will see IF Edwards gets the nomination, and IF he survives the Switfboating with his limited budget during from February till August 28ht, whether then he will do what he has promised to do......and we will see IF he goes to war with corporations, refuses to compromise while he proposes raising taxes and ballooning govermental programs on worthy causes.....although nothing in his records besides his recent words points that any fact that he might. :shrug:

Have you seen this. I just discovered it today. Apparently Edwards was for negotiations with corporations before he was against it. It's from a Charlie Rose interview this year, after he transformed himself. He's saying much of what Obama has said, yet today, he mocks Obama for it. Interesting, isn't it?

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/video-john-edwards-on-charlie-rose-agrees-with-obama-on-corporations-voices-should-be-heard/

He wanted a "salary"......and he wanted to "learn" about markets. Like his 54 million wasn't enough and like there are no other ways to "learn" about markets other than to hook up with Hedgefunds. Oh...brother!

My prediction vis a vis Edwards seems to be turning true.

the time the nominee is known until August 29th....looking and smelling like roadkill.

So.....Yes, it makes me nervous. :scared:

Of that I'm sure.

But I will pass.

My links provided are not from Freeperville.

The votes that John Edwards made were his votes, not freepers (although some looked the same)

John Edwards' words then versus now are his words then versus now.

John Edwards ain't John Kerry...in where they had to make shit up about John Kerry.

I'm not sure why FreeperVille would thank me. This stuff was about as easy to dig up as a wilted flower from a vase. Doh! :eyes:

It is impressive spin, though, I'll give you that much. With a little work, you could be the next Mark Penn, Chris Lehane, or James Carville.

What could be the dire threat from Edwards, so horrific that it warrants ripping and tearing and dividing Democrats at all costs?

Even if every attack on Edwards were true, does it warrant this relentless, bitter and divisive campaign?

What is the great and glorious cause that justifies these tactics?

If there is a case to be made here, could it not be made in such a way other than this slash and burn method?

cause my Op only shows them the facts.

"Attack" is simply your interpretation in order to make Edwards' negative history appear more palatable. Pointing at others in order to distract attention from the facts. You aren't littering other negative threads on other candidates with your pointed finger, now are you?

You need to grow a backbone or become more "tolerant" as most other Edwards supporters have done. Whining about the sharing of Edwards' real life record and attempting to shut down those who brings it to the light just doesn't cut it anymore. The GOP won't allow for such tactics and neither should we. Sorry.

I can assure you that being polite is not an indication of a lack of spine, nor of "whining."

I would just as soon we do not grow hardened and callous. I think that spells defeat.

The words you are using are clearly intended to be pejorative and provoke reactions, they are not informative, and as we all know from the example of the tactics of Fox news, the mere trotting out of "facts" does not make for the truth. The selection and presentation of the facts, as well as your clever use of the word "tolerant" gives a definite skew to the "facts."

Thank you for reading my other posts. I hadn't seen you post on those threads, and didn't know that you were paying attention. I am sorry that they seem to be "litter" to you or that it seems to you that I am pointing the finger.

Why all of the hostility toward fellow Democrats, and what good did you imagine could come from this post?

This is a completely transparent (and shameless) slime job, because it doesn't take any brains, or sincerity, or conviction, for that matter, to simply paste in a bunch of negative, out-of-context links to articles that throw a negative light on *your candidate's* opponents.

See, this is a b-l-o-g site, you're expected to post at least a few paragraphs of coherent commentary, including some of your own ideas, not just cut and paste a bunch of stuff normally associated with the 'Excellence in Broadcasting' network.

but continue to attack the messenger, and don't address the Edwards messages.......

See how far that will get you in the GE.

The information in this post is the equivalent of a negative web search result.

It doesn't begin to qualify as a conversation.

It's not. You don't get to substitute your bias, and then complain that people aren't defending against your mischaracterization by omission when they call you on your bias.

report on the clinton and obama campaign and then was all fluff towards the edwards campaign then one would believe edwards is the darling. That's the damn problem with the msm. They and the gop are working together to name the dems nominee. It is there people for all to see and if you cannot see it then you too bought into the idea that buhs was such a swell enough guy you wanted to have a beer with and then voted for nadar over gore.....

... nuclear energy and Archer-Daniels-Midland. Oh, and homophobic preachers.

Which makes it extremely hard for me to get behind Obama.

Also not a big fan of cult-of-personality, and/or Oprah. Sosumi.

talking about the cult of personality. Rarely have so many supported a candidate on little but faith.

I guess that's why so many here on this thread are bashing Edwards while backing Obama...they share his religious faith. Personally, I'm frightened by his religiosity. It's too similar to what we already have in place in this country. We need separation of church and state.

-----------
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/obamawatch/2007/10/obama-reaches-o.html



October 16, 2007
Obama Reaches Out to Religious Voters
Link: The Associated Press: Obama Reaches Out to Religious Voters.

Traditionally, Democratic religious outreach has meant mobilizing support in black churches and bastions of liberal mainline Protestantism. Obama has done those things, but he's also taken part in a summit on AIDS hosted by evangelical mega-pastor Rick Warren and appeared at Southern Baptist churches in South Carolina. At an evangelical church in Greenville, S.C., Obama said he seeks to be an "instrument of God" and expressed confidence "we can create a kingdom right here on Earth." That prompted Gaddy, of the Interfaith Alliance, to criticize the candidate in a conference call with reporters. Gaddy cautioned against any presidential candidate talking about building such a kingdom while "in an evangelical church in which that terminology has a very specific, indisputable definition that is exclusive rather than inclusive."

Do you dislike JE for his stand on issues, or his lack of stands on issues? He's CUTE.

Joe Biden.

... I'm not sure if his fans can take the truth.

You just saw a bunch of links, saw they were being used to justify your pre-conceived bias against Edwards, and assumed they told only the story that FrenchieCat wanted to tell. Oops. You should probably check to see that there is actual substance before you get all self-righteous.

I for one and glad he appears to have changed his way...ya I know it's Election time
BUT He has been leading this cycle - with the issues (the rest follow) poverty, working family's, stands (and yes shows up at the picket lines) with the union members, the sick (IE: name one that has lead on this issue - besides Edwards?) and "Un-Insured".

The Guy even picks up the phone - in crises? will other Issue "talking points" - He got gut's , and wish other DU would get on BUS

I,m Glad In your POST (Journal) Line 63 - you finally disclose who your for! I,m not going to trash one particular person here / and your guy is Okay? - I,m sure A VP slot? Offer from John R. Edwards (For President) will be on the table

Good luck this JAN/2008

You can pick apart ANY candidate for office if you look hard enough.
No one running for president is a model of perfection either personally
or in their record. You have to look at the big picture and one's entire
life and career, and also what they're saying and doing now.
I believe that Edwards is genuine. He has headed up a poverty center,
was a huge backer of an afterschool program, has started 1-Corps,
and fought the big corporations in courtrooms for many years. I think he
will be a great fighter for the middle, working, and lower classes,
and he has the best chance to beat the Republicans and expand our electoral
map in the general election. The silly infighting needs to stop, and we need
to focus on the positive. Train your fire on the Republicans where it belongs.
Stop bashing our own! That crap needs to stop!
SUPPORT JOHN EDWARDS !!

I am a supporter of Edward's words. I have read his book Four Trials and I am a supporter of the battles he has fought and his right to earn tons of money for his effort.

BUT—Your list is —at least partially— a valid indictment and any Edward's supporter who is not disturbed by at least some of these votes is indeed fooling themselves.

I have read Obama's book Dreams of My Father, and I am in the middle of The Audacity of Hope. In Barack's own words he admits that any politician has to have a large view of them selves (in reference to all politicians being opportunists not that there is anything wrong with that). They have to believe that they are some how special and right for the job. That is a singular feeling. He also talks about the relentless pressure of voting because you ALWAYS lose part of your grass roots because none of them agree on everything. As you lose your grass roots you become more and more beholden to the "boys in the club" (my quote not his—I am paraphrasing from his book.)

What disturbs me about Obama, from his own words, is how he does not seem to see that we ARE in an epic fight, and the whole "my esteemed colleague across the aisle" stuff will not get it done. There is a very strange "take away" from Obama's broad life experiences. With what he has experienced one would think he might have at least an inkling of the Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine narrative. A little of the Fascist shift articulated by Naomi Wolf. He does not seem to see it at all. I am reading his book in the hopes of catching a glimmer of that basic understanding of the gravity of the corporate take over.

Even Kucinich's Department of Peace pales. We don't need another department right now.

What Edwards seems to have as a take away resonates with me. These people will not give away their power, and they ARE in the way of what we want. If talking to them worked we would have what we need by now. Read his book if you haven't. At the least if it comes down the way you fear, at least you won't be quite as depressed over it. Reading Obama's book made me happier! At least he is a constitutional expert and we sure could use one of those as President.:)

In closing can Edwards walk his talk? Clearly you don't think so, and you have good reasons for doubting. Kucinich is really the only candidate that I have seen walk the talk IN OFFICE.

For now, for me, Edwards is the only one of the top 3 who is drawing the battle lines of the fight I know has to be waged for the change we want.

I trust Obama to do what he says, but he is not saying enough of what I need to hear.

Edwards is saying more of what I need to hear. Do I believe him? I want to.

After reading what Obama wrote about how it feels to be a Senator and the frustration of the voting/fund raising dilemmas, I think Edwards would be a great president even though he was not a great Senator. His skills are much better used from the Bully Pulpit as opposed to the black and white nature of the voting that goes on in the Senate. Am I making a new excuse to ad to your list? Probably... damn this human suit.

Frankly I want Kucinich in the congress writing the bills we need, with a President who will allow them to pass. I want a VP like Obama who can bring John the kind of info and Charisma he will need to get things done.

I want Biden as Secretary of State.

You have done a great job in outlining what we would have to fight the GOP over if JE wins the nomination. I am not being sarcastic. I don't read anyone's "previous posts" unless I am asked to do so for reference. I think you have drawn the battle lines well. I think you are right that there is less that they can find to fight Obama with. Unfortunately there is also less fight to Obama.

If the things in your list can sway me even a little and I LIKE Edward's platform, the GOP will have a field day.
If there are John Edwards people that can debate your list with more than excuses they better start doing it now because practice makes perfect.

Wow! I think I agree with every point you've made -- especially when it comes to Kucinich and Biden.

I, too, feel Edwards is drawing the right battle lines -- lines that others are ignoring. With the recent FCC gift to big (corporate) media, we need his voice. He's anything but tolerant -- he's speaking out against corporatism where no one else is. This is an enormous threat to our democracy that few seem to recognize.

Thanks for the eloquent post.

DU is kind of scary these days, but luckily I still find the best info here.

It seems the most objective.

Edwards 08

If Edwards is putting in the extra effort to make sure that his money in the hedge fund isn't going to sub-prime lenders, what's the problem? It's in the article you cite, but you somehow don't mention it.

How about that Edwards, as senator, had nothing to do with state right-to-work law, and opposed a federal one, which is the office he was in? How about that North Carolina is hardly a labor-friendly place at all? It's in the article, but you somehow forget to mention it.

How about that Byron Dorgan, a man who wrote the book on the problems of Free Trade, voted for normalization of trade relations with China, along with clear progressives like Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin? Its in the roll call you cite, but you somehow forget to mention it.

How about that pro-bono work matters more in criminal law than in liability, where Edwards wasn't going to get anything any way if he didn't win, because he got paid on the contingency basis? You somehow don't mention that.

How about that that article on 527s is about Edwards condemning Bush for not distancing himself specifically from the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, as opposed to a vague call against all 527s? You somehow forget to mention that.

How about the fact that the same blog you cite for Edwards' position on H1-B visas admits that Edwards has said that he will makes sure that workers with those visas should not get the jobs if American workers are available? You sure are forgetful.

Ah, but if people only read your commentary and don't click on the links (which is more likely when there are a lot of them), they get an inaccurate and distorted picture, courtesy of your hatred of John Edwards, a hatred that seems almost personal. Does he owe you money or something? Did he run over your dog?

I'm honestly trying to understand what would drive someone to play so fast and loose with the facts, while killing their credibility by providing the very links that reveal their spin.

Funny that.

Funny.

is described as "bashing" by you.

I have vetted the candidates, and that includes John Edwards....who I have known since long ago,
would be the eventual chosen nominee for the Democrats. I wrote about this as far back as February of 2007. It has something to do with his whiteness and his southness and the fact that the media has yet to vet John Edwards to the world, and they allowed him to be positioned exactly where he is....by not overexposing him, and by coming in with positive media right when it counts.....

Too bad if you don't like the results of what one sees when one looks at Edwards close up....but I'd suggest that you grow a backbone on this issue instead of whining and objecting about Edwards' negatives being exposed.....for John Edwards' sake if for no other reason; you're both gonna need it.

I think it was before February 2007.

Anyway, Get back to me when you have eight Journals.

One for each candidate to look at them "close up", instead of one dedicated to "expose" a single candidate.

FrenchieCat and I agree!

Great OP, btw.

Although one "Tolerant" supporter did take the time to "rationalize" every one of Edwards' inconsistency.....because I guess poster believes Edwards is for the most part "perfect".

Funny thing is that I posted stances that he, Edwards himself, has apologized for.

Wonder why his supporters believes that their candidate goes around apologizing if he has not really make the mistakes that I have outlined?

of each other four years ago when you were rooting for Wes and I was rooting for Howard. (I was jealous of your research, though.)

But I believe, were are less tolerant because neither one of us wants a poseur in our White House.

I have asked one question of johnnyboy's supporters, yet no one seems to be able to answer:

What has he done?

It's a thread stopper, for sure.

I'll say that Although I'm sad about it.....I'm kinda of glad that neither Dean or Clark are running this time around, and I am proud that they each, in their own way, helped the nation see the deficit in what Republicans were all about at a time when this nation had gone totally blind.

Dean and Clark really did bring their own personal strength to the Democratic Party when it needed it the most....and each played as large and as effective a role as each possibly could. They are both leaders in their own rights, and wonderful Americans who cared enough to try to make a difference.

In reference to John Edwards, I simply think that he has latched on to the "if you say the right things to the right audience enough times, it becomes the abbreviated truth"....and with many voters, unfortunately, it all is about what is "said" today and maybe yesterday that counts.......while actions are dispassionately discounted, and months and years are counted as "ancient" history. The hunger to hear the right things has come to override all else after 7 years of this uber belligerent administration.

Edwards' approach really does remind me of the fast taking stereotyped characters selling their elixir at the state fairs back in the early 1900s telling you that it will cure all of your ailments....while having no personal clue as to the ingredients inside the bottle.

lol

Now I can tell you why I did not want Clark to win. I was convinced that he was chosen to be a seat sitter for Hillary Clinton.

Ah, I do believe you have johnnyboy's number. It is cystal clear to me that his talk doesn't mesh w/his talk. Because my vote helped him get into the senate, I kept an eye on his votes. It din't take long for disappointment to set in.

Maybe 2008 will bring badly needed good news and America will have her 1st black president; a president that cares about the citizens of our country.

and to a happy new year! :toast:

a :toast:

to a Hopeful and Happy New Year!

All you have done is taken some links...mix alittle truth in with alittle hate....come up with a flamebait war....
Rather than tell me or convince me why I should vote for OBAMA.....
Now don't get me wrong SOME of what you have posted are of substance,

1. Like His China Free Trade Vote and Support, yes he did vote for it 83 yays and 15 nays, but what was this bill for? It to protect the United States from market abuses, I personally like that. Secondly China was going to enter the WTO with or without the US at the time, by entering into this act, at the time. actually allowed the US to have more provisions as stated in the amendment.


See More from USIS Washington file: http://www.fas.org/news/china/2000/000509-prc-usia11.htm


H.R. 4444 was an amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, it was to give relief for market disruption or possible disruption.

`SEC. 421. ACTION TO ADDRESS MARKET DISRUPTION.

`(a) PRESIDENTIAL ACTION- If a product of the People's Republic of China is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of a like or directly competitive product, the President shall, in accordance with the provisions of this section, proclaim increased duties or other import restrictions with respect to such product, to the extent and for such period as the President considers necessary to prevent or remedy the market disruption.

`(b) INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION- (1) Upon the filing of a petition by an entity described in section 202(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)), upon the request of the President or the United States Trade Representative (in this subtitle referred to as the `Trade Representative'), upon resolution of either the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, or the Committee on Finance of the Senate (in this subtitle referred to as the `Committees') or on its own motion, the United States International Trade Commission (in this subtitle referred to as the `Commission') shall promptly make an investigation to determine whether products of the People's Republic of China are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like or directly competitive products.

Read Entire Text from Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c106:5:./temp/~c106g9A8DO:e6759:




2. and voted for bankruptcy bills, yes he did vote for it 82 YAYS and 16 NAYS, but what was this bill for? It was to prevent bankruptcy abuses, I kind of like that too.

H.R.333-Needs for bankruptcy

`(2)(A)(i) In considering under paragraph (1) whether the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall presume abuse exists if the debtor's current monthly income reduced by the amounts determined under clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv), and multiplied by 60 is not less than the lesser of--

`(I) 25 percent of the debtor's nonpriority unsecured claims in the case, or $6,000, whichever is greater; or

`(II) $10,000.

Full text from Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:5:./temp/~c107k01Hj6:e19912:


3. or Yucca Mountain Depository, yes he did vote for it 2002 then when he learned more about possible contamination and faultiness with the program, he voted against it, in 2004.

Edwards voted for the proposal in 2002, but switched his position in 2004 to match John F. Kerry’s when he joined the Democratic ticket as the vice presidential nominee. Campaign officials said Edwards changed his mind after coming to believe that faulty science underlay assurances that the dump would not contaminate nearby water.

Now Edwards says that concerns about safety in disposing radioactive waste form the heart of his rejection of new nuclear plants. He is unequivocal. “Would you be in favor of developing more nuclear power here in the United States?” someone asked him in Hanover, N.H. “No,” Edwards answered. “Period?” the man persisted. “No,” Edwards repeated.

More about John Edwards stance from commondreams: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/30/6060/

4. and supporting "right to work" legislature. I am not sure what you mean. Larry Rasky, Joe Bidens' Communications Director states in this report the following:

‘We understand that the Jim Hunts of the world and John Edwards of the world . . . are certainly not going to oppose the current law,’ Andrews said. ‘Politically, I don't expect to have anyone leading the charge to change that. We understand and accept that. Edwards is not going to be 100 percent with us on all our issues, but he certainly has expressed commitment and understanding of working families.’”

Joe Biden for President: http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressreleases?id=0136

Here are some of North Carolinas Right to Work Laws:

§ 95-80. Membership in labor organization as condition of employment prohibited.

No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer. (Enacted March 18, 1947.)

§ 95-81. Nonmembership as condition of employment prohibited.

No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment. (Enacted March 18, 1947.)

North Carolina law: http://www.nrtw.org/c/ncrtwlaw.htm

So basically it is the choice of the employee whether or not they want to join a union? Start a union? But, you are right that he did not repeal end the "right to work" laws in North Carolina. North Carolina is 1 of 22 states that are a "right to work" state and at the time there has been significant job growth among the "right to work" states.

http://www.nilrr.org/node/5

You can't have all union and you can't have all "right to work", I mean I am no expert by any means, but I do believe it is about balance. It just seems like common sense to me to look at the whole picture.

5. While supporting to expand HB1 visas as a path to citizenship. Did you check this guys blog first? He states, "It’s well known there is NO WORKER SHORTAGE and it is also well known that the H-1B Visa program is being used to labor arbitrage American workers."

First off, according to the CNet News in 2002, there was (still is) a shortage of tech workers.

After a year of massive layoffs in the tech sector, hiring managers now say they may be unable to fill as many as 600,000 tech jobs in 2002, according to a survey by the Information Technology Association of America.

"We were pleasantly surprised by the optimism of hiring managers," ITAA president Harris Miller said. "It's been a tough year, but the worst is behind us."

Despite the pool of approximately 2 million U.S. programmers, the survey of more than 500 managers found that many will be unable to find qualified applicants.

The number of technology jobs in the United States shrank about 5 percent last year, falling from 10.4 million workers to 9.9 million as the economy contracted. The majority of those laid off were technical-support workers, even though software programmers and engineers represented the largest category of IT workers, making up 21 percent of the total work force.

But for the rest of 2002, managers said they anticipate a shortage of IT workers at both high-tech and non-tech companies. The managers said they expect that more than 1.1 million tech jobs will be available, but they predict they will be unable to fill some 578,000 of those positions. Part of the discrepancy arises from a consistent "gap" between supply and demand of IT workers of around 50 percent during the past three years, despite the fact that demand fell off during the recession.

http://www.news.com/2100-1017-899730.html

Secondly, this blogger sites an article, that I happen to think is a great endorsement for Edwards, it actually is great news for technology.

SANTA CLARA (AP) ― Presidential contender John Edwards promised to keep political ideology out of science as he outlined Wednesday a technology agenda to promote innovation.

At a speech in Silicon Valley, a region he considers the world's epicenter of innovation, the Democratic former North Carolina senator said he would work to reverse the Bush administration's politically driven policies, which he thinks have hampered America's competitive edge in the global economy.

From imposing limits on stem cell research to overriding agencies' scientific findings, Bush presides over "the most anti-science administration ever," Edwards said before some 200 members of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

The trade group, which represents the region's employers, recently hosted other events where political opponents Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John McCain similarly emphasized their commitments to foster technological innovation.

"We must respect science, and we must let science take us to where we want to go," Edwards said.

The article goes on to quote John Edwards plan.

More: http://cbs5.com/politics/2.458109.html

The only problem, the seemingly angry blogger also posted the letter that Edwards wrote in regards to the HB1 visas, which is fantastic, because it states the importance John Edwards places on education and why these visas are needed.

Letter:http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Politicians/Edwards.htm

The problem continues, there is still a shortage of workers. According to Bizjournals,

While senators argue in Washington, D.C., about the fate of mostly low-skilled undocumented immigrants, tech executives in Silicon Valley worry that their need for highly educated engineers will not be met.

A shortage of workers in coming years is expected to reduce the economic potential of the valley and of California, ending an era in which a steady flow of talent from the nation and the world made a path to the state and the valley

Bizjournals: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007/05/28/story5.html

Which tells me Bushs' "No Child Left Behind" is not working, if we, as a nation, cannot fill these postions.

Anyway, Lastly, this blogger goes on to state, "So, as Silicon valley demands Democrats throw U.S. workers to the dogs, what kind of financial haul did Edwards get? at least $3.1 million."

However, if you click on his link, you will find, an article from the Oakland tribune that states the following,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070718/ai_n19373506




6. later in profiting from Fortress Hedgefunds in multiply ways though out 05-07, while I agree with you about skepticism with regard to the hedgefunds, this seems to be a popular way for senators to make money. Please make no mistake, I am not excusing this practice, I think it is wrong and if it is underhanded as it seems to be, needs to end. I hope that reform will take place and will be transparent. However, as your article points out:

"John Edwards believes offshore tax shelters are wrong," Bedingfield said last week. "As president, he will end them. By voluntarily going public, Fortress has ended the practice of using offshore tax shelters for deferred compensation and has committed itself to a whole set of transparency and disclosure obligations that no other hedge fund has committed itself to before."



7. not to mention confusion between Edwards' "help the poor" enterprises and which ones did what and for whom.

As your article stated: "The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave out $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director of the College for Everyone Program that is part of the foundation. The center, often praised for helping poor students in Greene County, N.C., get into college, is on track to give out $476,000 this year, Ms. Garland said.

Mr. Edwards broke his ties to that charity once he announced his candidacy for president. “It’s really just me now,” said Ms. Garland, who began her job last May. She credited Mr. Edwards with devising the program, raising the money and speaking to high school students, using his own up-from-poverty story to inspire them."

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?pagewanted=2&_r=4&hp

Edwards stayed above board. Still he takes NO CORPORATE LOBBYING MONIES!


8. Nor does Edwards' not doing pro-bono cases while a practicing lawyer bothers.....What???

To say that Edwards took no "pro bono cases" is a half-truth at best. Every case a trial lawyer like Edwards handles is taken on a contingent basis. That means the lawyer takes no money from the client up front. In fact, the lawyer normally funds all the costs of the case from his own pocket. Those costs can run into the millions of dollars, all being funded by the lawyer and with no guarantee he'll get any of it back.

So the "no pro bono cases" remark, coming from the Washington Times, is intentionally misleading. Every case Edwards handled is "pro bono" in the sense that he asks for nothing from the client up front. Or to put it differently, a lack of funds does not prevent poor people from gaining access to the legal system - the classic definition of "pro bono."

But the irony of the remark from the Washington Times goes beyond that. Right wing publications like the Times frequently object to the contingent fee arrangement because it gives people too much access to the courts, thereby (in the view of the right wing) resulting in spurious litigation. For the Times first to criticize trial lawyers from making litigation too easy and then criticize John Edwards for not taking "pro bono" cases is laughable.

More from the Alantic.com: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/12/in_defence_of_j.html

9. But of course his Health Plan is "to die for" or at least, kinda better than the rest, or not, or whatever. Did you lose a little focus here?
It is clear, Obama has his ideas for healthcare, Hillary has hers' and Edwards has his. Edwards has a detailed plan in PDF format at his site: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

10. meanwhile while implying race and gender makes him most electable. While I believe a few people are voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman, and a few people are voting for Obama simply because he is black, I doubt anyone is voting for JRE because he is white. John Edwards who is ALL about equality whether you are black, green, yellow,poor, or gay. That article is simply ridiculous. He has fought for injustices ALL his life. Everyone knows that. As far as electablity, polls show JRE is the most electable against ALL the republicans running.

The Jed Report: http://www.jedreport.com/2007/12/john-edwards-is.html
Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071220/cm_thenation/45261924

11. but not mentioning the problems he will encounter due to his acceptance of matching funds. Well to sum that up, He is a Peoples Candidate.

What is public financing?

Public financing is a voluntary system that gives a limited amount of public funding to qualified candidates for office.



Public financing of elections means that our elected officials work for the voters, and not for the special interests. It allows lawmakers to focus on the issues that concern their constituents, like jobs and education, and not on doling out pork to campaign contributors. It also levels the political playing field, giving all citizens a fair shot at getting elected.



In full public financing systems - also known as "clean elections" or "voter-owned elections" - a candidate must demonstrate public support by collecting a certain number of small (usually $5 or $10) donations from voters, and must agree to not accept any further money from private sources. The amount of public funding received is usually determined by the average cost of a race for that office over the last few election cycles. There is also a possibility of receiving extra "fair fight" funds if the candidate's opponent opts out of public financing or if the race is targeted by independent expenditures.



Some states and cities also have partial public financing systems. Under these systems, candidates still raise private money, but they are eligible for matching public funds. The presidential public financing system is an example of this. Partial public financing systems offer candidates some freedom from fundraising, but not to the degree of full public financing.

Common Cause:http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1415173

I really don't see a problem with that since most of us are hoping for a "Peoples President"

12. While denouncing 527's in 04.....Well he is still denouncing them.

Jennifer O'Malleys statement (his state director for Iowa): http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071223-statement/

John Edwards statement: http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071222-stop-these-ads/

12. who cares about his co-sponsorship of IWR while advocating support for a war and waiting 3 years to apologize. John Edwards has
apologized for his vote. John was in the intelligence committee, recieving CIA infomation first hand. The facts in Iraq changed as time went on, what is clear is now is Bushs' deception, leading misperception, not only our Senate, but all people and parties involved.

13. plus calling out Iran then changing his tune. All I can say to that, is Iran recently stopped taking U.S. dollars for oil, much like Saddam did. I believe propaganda was starting as a result of this, much like the war in Iraq. I don't know, just looking at the similarities. I do believe JRE is sincere in ending the war in Iraq. He knows it has been a racket. I also believe if we were threatened legitimately he would defend us.

Israel Herald: http://story.israelherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/940f2bfd509e743b/id/307514/cs/1/


The facts change all the time, I want a president who can change his mind once new evidence is presented. I want a president who can apologize if he/she made a wrong choice.







:kick:

Edit: forgot some links

In the text as follows:

Anyway, Lastly, this blogger goes on to state, "So, as Silicon valley demands Democrats throw U.S. workers to the dogs, what kind of financial haul did Edwards get? at least $3.1 million."

However, if you click on his link, you will find, an article from the Oakland tribune that states the following,


THE LINK PROVIDED IS BROKE


here it is
Bnet: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070718/ai_n19373506

This is exactly what is needed. Even if someone rebuts a few things here and there, you helped ME. One can not keep up with everything and at some point I have to make up my mind. I am sick to death of Bush's gut so I don't have much faith in anyone elses. I want facts and details and answers. You provided some detail and filled in some blanks for me.
Thank you.

deceptions that are being perpetuated.

your candidate goes around apologizing for nothing done wrong?
that seems Weird for a politician to do! :crazy:

I don't find your refutations all that compelling....but at least you tried. kudos for that!
But know that lot of your posts are flimsy and kind of funny in terms of the justifications you use, and for the most part there appears to be an awful lot of your opinion thrown in...attempting to legitimize that what Edwards supported was A-OK, even if he no longer supports it and has apologized for it......e.g.,

below are some of your words....

1. Like His China Free Trade Vote and Support, yes he did vote for it 83 yays and 15 nays, but what was this bill for? It to protect the United States from market abuses, I personally like that. :rofl:

2. bankruptcy bills, yes he did vote for it 82 YAYS and 16 NAYS, but what was this bill for? It was to prevent bankruptcy abuses, I kind of like that too. :rofl:

3. Yucca Mountain Depository, yes he did vote for it 2002 then when he learned more about possible contamination and faultiness with the program, he voted against it, in 2004.
Edwards voted for the proposal in 2002, but switched his position in 2004 to match John F. Kerry’s when he joined the Democratic ticket as the vice presidential nominee. :rofl:

4. You can't have all union and you can't have all "right to work", I mean I am no expert by any means, but I do believe it is about balance. It just seems like common sense to me to look at the whole picture. But, you are right that he did not repeal end the "right to work" laws in North Carolina. :rofl:

5. in regards to the HB1 visas.....there was (still is) a shortage of tech workers. :rofl:
(FrenchieCat notes that you note that No Child Left Behind...that Edwards voted for, doesn't seem to be working)

6. while I agree with you about skepticism with regard to the hedgefunds, this seems to be a popular way for senators to make money. Please make no mistake, I am not excusing this practice, I think it is wrong and if it is underhanded as it seems to be, needs to end. I hope that reform will take place and will be transparent. :rofl:

7. John Edwards has apologized for his vote. John was in the intelligence committee, recieving CIA infomation first hand. The facts in Iraq changed as time went on, what is clear is now is Bushs' deception, leading misperception, not only our Senate, but all people and parties involved. :rofl:

8. The facts change all the time :rofl:

So much tolerance exhibited in your lengthy post....just as I have come to expect. You could have shortened it all and just stated...."Shit Happens!" :hi:

But I guess the FACTS are not important to you...as noted in your OP...Good Luck with that.

Edwards said sorry about his China vote
Edwards said sorry about his Bankrupcy vote
Edwards said sorry about his Yucca mountain vote
Edwards said sorry about his IWR vote
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/18/524093.aspx

Edwards changed his mind on taking public financing in 6 months time
Edwards used 527s to his advantage after denouncing them
Edwards benefitted from a Hedge Fund via investments, salary, and contributions

Edwards used same name for three different private enterprises all called similar names akin to "poverty center" to skirt certain election candidacy issues.

Even this....Edwards Acknowledges Wal-Mart Gaffe
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LEJIOO0&show_article=1


Edwards did and has said a lot of things, and a lot will become public knowledge....and none of your opining and massaging is going to change that....

The links that I provided in the op are not "paraphrased" by me. They stand on their own....
cause them "what he said"