Does Edwards have the most die hard followers?

I've practically lived on DU for the last few days and have read a lot of posts. It seems like Edwards people are really over the moon for their candidate. Their posts are usually the most enthusiastic in ramping him up or coming to his defense. Am I the only who's noticed this?

:bounce:

Why haven't I heard more about this outstanding candidate? Must be a media black-out.

JE is #1 at DU.

:thumbsup:

Stop being fooled by the corporate m$m and realize that America is America.

http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/home.html

..

"over the moon." But I'm deeply dedicated to Edwards for many reasons. None of them have any thing to do with something I would remotely consider being "over the moon."

And you know what happened after THAT!

:silly:

Scandalous!

:dem:

Thus changing the habit of a lifetime! I have never met such a dynamic candidate before.
I'll write him in if I have to come November.

people like you scare me with your over the top adulation and petulance about how if their candidate doesn't get the nom they'll flounce off in high dudgeon. Particularly this year.

Go register green now. Odds are hugely in favor of his not getting the nom.

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

From the Boston Globe.

Actually you guys SCARE ME!
Better Green than sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed.

Obama blocked own 'top Senate achievement'

By: Kenneth P. Vogel

Jan 16, 2008

LAS VEGAS — Barack Obama boasted at Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate that, thanks to his work in the Senate, the public can find out which special interest lobbyists are raising money for candidates.

In fact, the public cannot — also as a result of Obama's work in the Senate.

He led a partisan confirmation battle that crippled the agency charged with implementing the new law requiring candidates to disclose lobbyists who collect big checks for candidates — a process known as “bundling.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7929.html

The man being blocked was responsible for allowing voter suppression - he is a really bad person.

The agency can not decide policy, but it is not completely at a standstill. That information will still be collected and will be available.

Read the links here - Do you want your candidate to vote for this guy? (Or, if you are an Edwards supporter - Do you want him there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4090192

This is asinine. The first time Obama brought it up. HRC et all made it an issue that it was not yet law. It had passed the Senate and a comparable bill had passed the House, but it was still in conference. It has now passed.

The next Clinton point was that it was Reid's bill and she belittled Obama's contribution. Here's the NYT from when it passed:

"Given the reliance of many lawmakers on lobbyists as fund-raisers, the idea of requiring them to disclose their roles usually meets stiff resistance on Capitol Hill — all of it behind the scenes and almost none of it in public. House passage is far from assured, and its adoption by the Senate by a roll-call vote of 96 to 2 followed some backroom resistance among senators in both parties to allowing the idea to come up for a vote at all.

The Republicans who controlled the Senate last year refused to let it come up. And on Jan. 12, before the details of the proposal had been disclosed, Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of his party’s fund-raising as head of the senatorial campaign committee, used a run-in on the Senate floor to deliver an angry rebuke to the disclosure idea’s lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, several people present or briefed on the confrontation said.

In a subsequent conversation, Mr. Schumer said he worried that the proposal could cramp fund-raising by placing an undue burden on potential bundlers, said aides who were briefed and a lawmaker familiar with their talk, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the nature of the talks.

“Senator Obama has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,” said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill. Mr. Obama also this week started a bid for his party’s presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html?scp=1&sq=Senate+ethics+bill

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the third attempt to diminish Obama's real accomplishment.

All candidates attract true believers.

What you call "over the top adulation" could be a deep commitment to principle.

I see no "petulance" and it is demeaning to your fellow Democrats and is a form of bullying to accuse people of that.

"Flounce off in high dungeon" is also insulting and serves no good purpose.

"Particularly this year" is something I have been hearing before every election for the last 40 years.

You simultaneously are telling those on the left that they are not welcome in the party, and then ridiculing and insulting them for threatening to leave. That is a transparent attempt to bully people and steer and direct the discussion in the direction you want it to go. This trick has been used for years by people, and it is getting old. I think that it is time that all Democrats reject these tactics.

People have a right to express dissatisfaction with the party without being the target of this sort of mean-spirited, dishonest and destructive attack. It hurts the party, and unnecessarily divides and alienates people.


I invite you to post positive messages from the candidate you support. That way we all win. Endless smearing and ridicule of other candidates and their supporters serves no constructive purpose, and we all lose when people do that.

if he's not the nominee. No surrender, no compromise. He is simply the best choice for the country.

how much they try to spit out all the correct words, following Edwards' lead.

that will soon take us little people way down if we don't get someone to turn it around. The corporate-elite M$M is doing everything they can to keep America away from Edwards' message.

A candidate that is as willing to stand up for the common person as Edwards is comes along only every few decades, if even then. He is unlike anyone on our national political scene since I was a small child in the 60s, and the package of he and Elizabeth is likely the best ever in our country's history. I firmly believe this.

He had too many opportunities to do something other than what he is doing to help this country of ours and he has chosen the path he is on. AND, he runs with a message that is derided by most in the media and everyone in America's wealthy elite as "divisive", "angry", and/or "class warfare".

Those same folks think we are too stupid to see that these are the very tools they have used for years, decades, centuries to get us in the mess we are now. They are not John and Elizabeth's tools; they are the weapons of the greedy and powerful and selfish rulers of politics, religion, media, medicine, science, utilities, etc. that have served us all so badly.

John's tool is simple: truth. Well, that and passion. And love of his fellow man. That is why we believe in him. Next question?

Edwards is the only one sticky his neck out for middle class and for the poor.
So I definitely dedicated to his candidacy.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

When you feel 100% behind a candidate, it takes a lot to change that. That you're not reacting to issues of glamor or fame, but can feel it in your gut, the candidate who stands up for the average American, not the corporate class. That's Edwards.

Many here despise the "gut" thing...gut instinct rather than something vetted and written in a report and published with all the details that can't be disputed, set out for all to see in black and white. Damn, I wish all our decisions could be made on such a nice, neat basis, but rarely are there facts that are that all-encompassing and indisputable. Our individual interpretations (unless one is a lemming) and perceptions then come into play after we've gathered information.

It's like those ink blot tests: everyone looks at the same image and they all see (interpret) different things. It doesn't mean one drank the Kool-Aid or didn't do his/her homework, they simply react differently and perceive differently based on his/her experiences.

My gut instinct says I can trust Edwards; indeed, I believe the passion he is displaying can ignite the people to feel empowered once again, reclaim the "process" and demand accountability. That decision is based on having read all the good, bad and ugly about him there is to read, and then weighing that against my gut instinct and doing the same with the other candidates.

I completely understand that another reasonable, realistic, informed person can look at him, his record, his platform and his delivery and think "he can't be trusted, he's too slick," "his record doesn't reflect what he's saying now," "his hair is too nice for me to like him," "he can't possibly do what he's saying he's gonna do."

That's how others may react to him, and in turn they (hopefully) resonate with another Dem candidate. And that's cool!

But when I hear that, like me, he lost a child, and after that loss he and Elizabeth clarified their path and decided upon public service when he had plenty of money to do what he wanted, I see integrity. Others may see him as "using" this loss as a sympathy vote. But based on MY personal experience, I see integrity and a selfless decision.

When I hear him admit to having made mistakes and admittedly having gone through a major learning process during his time in the Senate, I see someone who is holding himself accountable and acknowledging that we continue to learn and hopefully strive to do better. Others hear him admit to multiple mistakes and see a screw-up.

When I see pictures of his huge house and reports about his wealth, I wonder, "Why the heck are you putting you and your wife and family through such a brutal process when you clearly don't HAVE to?" And then the integrity issue and the choices they have made as a family, after and during loss, come to my mind to answer my own question. And I appreciate the fact that he acknowledges that he has been so lucky that his hard work paid off and his family is secure, and he wants to fight so that everyone who works hard has the same opportunity. I always say, I'd rather have a rich man fighting for me than a rich man fighting against me (we have plenty of that, eh?).

Others see pics of his house and reports of his wealth and see a hypocrite. That's their opinion.

Even armed with information, we see what we want to see based on our interests, our perspectives, and our experiences. I personally would feel better about life in general if more people tapped into their gut instinct and followed it.

As always, this is all just my humble opinion. ;)

It's all:

"I'd die for Hillary in a heartbeat, she's MY GAL!"

"Obama, have my baby."

"Kucinich is my man, screw yours."

And don't even get me started on the Biden supporters. They NEVER give up.


I can't take it anymore.

( Have you heard the one about the brokered convention and Gore is the nominee? NOW those people are fanatics, god love 'em.)

you must have the JRE supporters on ignore.

Speaking for myself, and from what other Edwards supporters have told me, it is not Edwards that people are "over the moon" for, it is the promise and power implicit in his message and the potential that has for overhauling the entire political landscape.

Other candidates have much more "star appeal," and better resumes, more charisma, more talent and are better speakers.

There are, of course, some who are infatuated with Edwards, just as there always are with every candidate, but there is something different going on with the Edwards following.

I will support any Democrat who says what Edwards is saying. I strongly believe that if every Democrat were saying what Edwards is saying, that the right wingers would be totally routed for a generation or more. If every Democrat said what Edwards is saying - even if they were lying or failed to come through (as people insinuate about Edwards) - the revitalization and success of the Democratic party would be assured, because an aroused population would demand it and sooner or later the politicians would have to come through for us.

I also believe that there are Democrats who are resisting this because they do not want the Democratic party to return to its roots and regain its former prowess and success. They are personally comfortable with the party the way it is.

Edwards is far from perfect. If politicians were rainstorms, he would be a sprinkle. But that could grow into the downpour we need, and after decades of drought people who are dying of thirst are excited by the first sign of rain and that is why their heads are pointed skyward and their palms are outstretched to catch every drop. For those who are themselves not dying of thirst, and who are oblivious to the millions around them who are, it is difficult for them to understand the Edwards phenomenon. That is OK. Everyone will come around eventually. It is just a matter of time now, and is much, much bigger than the Edwards candidacy.

LOL

But, seriously, you said what I feel about his candidacy beautifully. Very, very well-written and a much-needed dose of inspiration this morning.

Thank you, Two Americas!

:hi:

You know what is great? Notice how the Edwards supporters kick the anti-Edwards threads? The message is so powerful that even the anti-Edwards threads are a great opportunity to talk about it.

I was thinking just about the same thing the other day.

I feel a bit guilty when I do that... but I can't seem to help myself sometimes. :blush:

It is the Edwards message that I believe in.

If Obama followers and Clinton followers really knew what their candidates stood for behind their empty and misleading campaign rhetoric, they might be tempted to join a Jim Jones die-in.

...but criticize Kucinich on these boards and you might reach a different conclusion about whose supporters are most fanatical.

I will always vigorously defend the Kucinich supporters. There is a difference between being passionately committed to a cause and to a message that transcends the candidate one the one hand and fanatical hero worship on the other. All candidates attract some hero worship, but I think the Kucinich supporters are mostly passionate about the cause Kucinich represents, maybe even more so than the Edwards supporters. I am even sympathetic to the criticisms they have of Edwards. I have made the decision that the broad general message of Edwards, so in line with the fundamental ideas of the traditional Democratic party New Deal coalition, that the serious errors Edwards has made shrink in comparison to the opportunity that the candidacy represents for all of us. I respect people who support Kucinich and who disagree with me about that. I would not support Edwards if I did not think that the Kucinich supporters will also win as a result of the Edwards candidacy.

Go Johnny for the Sake of Our Children!!!!!!!!!!!! and The Human Race!!!!!!!! :think:

And your point is?

(apparently) viable candidates. For some reason he seems like the only "real" Democrat among them.

I mean, all the candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, but it just seems like the Edwards who was in the senate is completely removed from the Edwards who is on the campaign trail. And his supporters just completely wipe away those six years he spent in Washington and want to focus only on what he's saying now.

He's saying a lot of things they want to hear, and that's great. But he does have a record to look at, and his record doesn't match his rhetoric nearly as well as his supporters would like to believe.

i'll take it one step further -- he is very critical of people who had the same positions that he did in the Senate.

Clinton could say she was wrong for voting for the war, and people would still hate her.

Obama could say he was wrong for voting for ... I don't know... something that pissed people off, and people wouldn't forgive him.

Edwards has three major votes that cast that he's apologized for, and his supporters are like, "okay, we forgive you" - which is fine, as long as you're willing to afford the same courtesy to other candidates, which I'm not sure they're able to do since a lot of them say it's Edwards or nobody.

how many times can a candidate apologize for a bad vote before we have to conclude that he's been wrong a lot of times?

I like to think that Edwards has evolved--maybe due to facing the mortality of his life's love and partner.

This is how I understand the change he's undergone and why I'm willing to ignore some of his past votes.

Paradigm shift. Look it up.

that maybe his shift had to do with it being a political strategy to form an identity as a populist who would appeal to a strong anti-war sentiment?

I mean, you don't go from being a guy who co-wrote the IWR to a opponent of the war overnight unless you saw the political writing on the wall.

I'm not saying he's not really against the war. I think he is. I also think he voted for it because it was politically expedient. I'd rather he admit that, rather than apologizing for the vote.

I think that would show more honesty than just saying you were wrong.

Apologize for being afraid to vote with your heart, not for voting on a war you changed your mind on.

intelligence and rationale for war. He wasn't alone. I think a lot of people couldn't believe
that they were really being lied into war.

I accept his apology.

Lots of voters might actually reconsider Clinton if she were to admit the IWR vote was wrong.

Obama might gain some support by saying his vote for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was wrong... or that his non-votes were wrong.

The "courtesy" isn't extended to other candidates because *they don't admit their mistakes*.

You are correct.

Clinton, Obama, Biden and Kucinich are in many ways "better" candidates than Edwards. Some are more talented, more charismatic, more deserving, better speakers, better funded, and have better track records or better platforms. Yet I support Edwards, and there are some who are no doubt confused by this seeming contradiction.

Were we hiring the most qualified CEO to run Americorp International, Edwards would perhaps not be the one.

Were we rewarding a loyal team member with the "prize" of the nomination, Edwards would perhaps not be the one.

Were we gravitating to the person most like us, or most "like-minded" Edwards would perhaps not be the one.

Were we selecting the winner on American Idol, the person with the most talent and charisma, Edwards would perhaps not be the one.

Were we thinking that idealism and practicality were separate and mutually exclusive, Edwards would perhaps not be the one.

Were we looking to express our personal values and selecting the guru most in alignment with our personal values, Edwards would perhaps not be the one.

However, I am not looking for any of those things, and in fact I think they represent a flawed and certain to fail approach to picking a nominee.

It is the message that Edwards is delivering that I support, and it is the everyday people who are responding to that message that I support. That is much more important than any other considerations - vastly more important.

I don't care about the candidate, I care about the candidacy. I don't care about the personality, I care about the people following the personality. I don't care about the past, I care about the future. I don't care about the track record, I care about the message. I don't care about the success of Edwards, I care about the success of the people. I don't care about supporting a candidate, I care about a candidate who supports the people. I don't care about what a leader can do for us, I care about what we all can do behind a leader.

I hope that clears up your confusion.