There's a reason the most liberal Senators won't endorse JE

It's the same as my reason for not supporting him: They don't trust him. Feingold said it; Leahy didn't, but that's the bottom line. These are people who served with him and hhave progressive/liberal records. They know him. What is it that they know that keeps them them from supporting him? Don't expect to see any of the Senate's liberal lions endorse him. And try as you might, you can't simply write people like Leahy and Feingold off as "corporate tools'. Neither of them are remotely that.

in the White House. It could be due to lack of trust. On the other hand, it could be due to the fact that they feel that Edwards would actually attack the status quo, not a very popular notion on Capitol Hill.

Will you people say anything to get your guy elected? Sounds familiar... like your candidate!

"debatepro"...:rofl:

How many of these 'liberal' senators want to take on Cheney? I can count them on one finger.

Leahy has consistently taken on Cheney and bush. Why do you think he was sent anthrax? If only during the period between 2001 to 2005, Edwards had helped out Leahy a little, maybe he would have gotten his endorsement.

some fighter....just like Obama...ISN'T.

Neither Feingold or Leahy have corporate ties. Neither of them have profitted from their time in the Senate. It's hard to see what "status quo" you're referring to that they'd be so resistant to changing. And both have a far, far more progressive history than Edwards.

I'm sure both Leahy and Feingold have their own ideas about the way things should be changed, and perhaps they feel Edwards would interfere with it more than Obama would. That's all I was referring to.

As a reasonable Obama supporter, I'm curious what your thoughts are regarding his Reagan comment?

Congrats to Obama on his various endorsements.

I think it was a good point- he was saying he wanted to be a transformational president who fundamentally changes the course the country's on. There are lots of things that bug me about Barack, like his voting for the energy bill and his not taking a leadership position on the war. I'm not happy with him for not slapping Jackson down. This thing just didn't bother me at all. It was a cerebral deconstruction. I'm not surprised it didn't fly on the political left internet.

I don't think many people decide whom to support based on who they get endorsements from. Lots of horse-trading in DC...

A lot of his liberal supporters on DU apparently don't.

When you look at how little the Democrats have done or even tried to do since the 2006 election, it's not surprising that Edwards doesn't get their endorsements. The President ignores subpoenas, and what has Leahy done? Wring his hands. The Congress is useless. Bought and paid for, even the "supposedly" progressive ones. Let's face it. The people have NO REPRESENTATION. Pelosi can't think of any law that Cheney or the President have broken...Conyers was all for impeachment...until it was time to DO it. There is only the illusion that we have a two-party system. Edwards is not running a popularity contest. He is fighting a corrupt system that is thwarting the will of the people and we need to support him. Edwards scares the hell out of the Congress and business community because he will throw the rats off the ship. As more endorsements roll in, see them for what they are... a road to ensure there IS NO CHANGE.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

although I generally try not to be paranoid, I really agree with you. It's been so depressing to see people I believed in do nothing after they won congress. Conyers is perhaps the most disappointing - but all of them in the house and to a lesser extent in the senate (because their majority is so slim) have let us down. I am fortunate that I have a good senator - Sherrod Brown - but other than that I do feel like I have NO REPRESENTATION. This is why I am supporting Edwards. He is the only one speaking up for people like me. And by "people like me" I mean everyone except the rich.

Don't forget to donate to Edwards tomorrow, Friday January 18th at johnedwards.com . We can raise $7 million in one day. Go for the gold!

Leahy got rid of Gonzales. He authored the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. He authored the War Profiteering Prevention Act. Have you read it? Tough piece of legislation. Hardly his fault that Reid won't bring it to the floor. Leahy subpoenaed Rove and Bolton. He passed contempt citations for those two through the JC. He singlehandedly stripped telecom immunity from the FISA bill. And much more. And he's done it in one year. In fact, he's done more for progressive causes than JE did in 6 years in the Senate, and his entire life before that.

Furthermore, in his 34 years in the Senate, Leahy has never benefitted financially. Unlike some people, becoming rich was not a big priority for him. And no, he certainly did not come from a wealthy family. Leahy is the 96th wealthiest Senator. He has no stocks, bonds, fancy houses, etc. His estimated worth is $100,000 dollars. He doesn't invest in Halliburton through Hedge Funds like John Edwards. He was anti-corporate control before JE ever gave it a thought- decades before.

Edwards has proven nothing. All talk, nothing whatsoever that backs it up. He should have listened to Leahy on the war- instead of cozying up to Lieberman.

How the hell could ANY United States Senator have an estimated worth of $100,000? If that's true, then Leahy must be worse at managing money than the DOD. :shrug:

that John Edwards today is NOT the same Edwards he was back then. And if The Congress can't see it, it only reinforces my belief that THEY really don't want much done!

What HAVE they done since 2006?? Not very much... it's cozy up there I guess! And I for one really am looking for somewhere else to turn. It would be a big plus to have a THIRD Party, because I think it would make a lot of heads turn!

But, bashing John Edwards and IGNORING him as MSM has been tells me VOLUMES!! You don't have to agree, I don't CARE if you agree... I SEE what I SEE and I'm ashamed by what I'm SEEING!!

ALL the candidates running have made many many mistakes and voted against us, but IT'S ONLY John Edwards who says he wants to give some POWER back to the people, who is being ignored and slammed!

So go ahead, follow MSM and what they are feeding you... I don't happen to think it's all that SMART!

As I SEE it and IMHO!!!!

corporations. The others candidates will not acknowledge their mistakes, and the other candidates cozy up to the corporations far too much.

The only candidate I have much confidence in is John Edwards.

And my only answer for that is this.

I see a great dichotomy between the rhetoric of Obama and his statements of policy. (I could pick nits with his Senate voting record ... but as my son the political science major keeps pointing out, it is unwise to read too much into that. Much horse trading, much voting for a bill that includes things one likes and dislikes, etc.) I see a lot of talk about change, but the exact nature of that change becomes nebulous or, at best, unambitious.

I have different cavils with Clinton ...

Edwards at least has a detailed platform that represents a substantial change, and I find myself in large agreement with what he proposes. So I can trust Leahy and Feingold's judgment, but that requires I abandon one of two people in this race that are saying any of things I think must needs be said.

Everybody makes mistakes. Some people actually learn from them and grow through the experience. Hoping Edwards is one of those ... and I find insufficient hope in Obama's or Clinton's policies and their general approach to dealing with the matter of excessive corporatist power.

to me. And I'll say it again and again.
Obama would not be a serious consideration for me without it.

Kerry and Edwards parted ways when Kerry refused to fight for the votes in Fla and Ohio in 2004..

and i was equally enraged with Kerry..and i was a delegate of theirs in 2004 for my state..and i gave alot of money to make sure every vote counted..and what did Kerry do..he bailed on us..

so the fact that Kerry endorsed Obama..i was happy..because i would not support Kerry for dog catcher again!

fly

There have been facts posted over and over again about Kerry speaking out on this since January 2005. Edwards was still silent until late 2006 and has not spoke of any proof and evidence since then.

As I said, best of luck to you and the Edwards campaign. I think you are taking your anger out on the wrong person instead of the people that did the most damage.

it would be hard had Kerry wanted, which he didn't, to endorse him. Edwards has takne pot shots at Kerry for years. How on earth after how Edwards has acted - which Kerry did not return in kind - could you possibly thing Kerry owed him anything.

Obama's temperament and his world view are closer to Kerry's than Edwards' are. He had a right to say what he thought was the most likely to be good for the party and country.

about "I or we'll show Kerry" that he was wrong about endorsing candidates than anything else. Or it could be more about not liking or wanting Obama.

Kerry's endorsement is the kiss of death for those of us that knew what he did in 2004

;)

You can't run a "change" campaign while running reruns.

He would be torn apart as the perennial VP candidate, and its the one thing I can 100% guarantee will not happen in this race.

Barney Frank and McGovern are pretty cool progressives, and their reasons for endorsing Hillary are what, according to your hypothesis above? Trust?

And Barney Frank's sister in Ann Lewis. That actually is meaningful. Don't know much about what McGovern's reasons are, but neither Barney nor McGovern were Senators; they did not have the kind of close contact with the candidates that those in the Senate did. And Feingold came right out and said he wouldn't consider supporting Edwards because of Edward's Senate record- and that says a lot.

RFK Jr. supporting Hillary? Explain that. Or are you positing that only those who have worked with these politicians in the Senate can reasonably claim to trust/mistrust a candidate?

spent years working with them. The Senate is a small place.

I wouldn't infer them in Leahy's case without more information, for example.

an immediate family member of his. I have a pretty good idea. And as I said in another thread, I've known since last summer that Leahy was going to endorse Obama. Vermont is a pretty small state, and I have some pretty good sources of information. I've posted several OPs saying that both Leahy and Sanders will endorse Obama. And I posted them a months ago, before I decided to support Obama.

If you have evidence, that's different. I wasn't aware that you did. But expanding the cause of a few endorsements to all progressives? I'd need to see a bit more to say that's accurate.

I don't expect people on an anonymous posting board to take my word. I'm cautious about taking the word of others myself.

Wouldn't be surprising if that plays into his endorsement! I know we don't like to think of someone like RFK Jr. doing certain things for self-centered reasons. I certainly don't. But if he feels that him able to get the Senate seat if she vacates it is the best way for him to affect change that he feels is good for all of us, then perhaps for him personally, Hillary winning makes sense. For the rest of us, we don't necessarily have that same interest, unless you truly believe that getting him in as a Senator as a result of her being president will also help us all moreso than having someone else in at president than Hillary.

she would be the first woman president was part of it.

I missed it. He's my senator.

bullshit?

read it and weep,

I don't cotton to people accusing me of lying.

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4092680

and paranoid to think i called you a liar. and hostile as a matter of course.
cotton to that.

"I don't doubt you". You're the one who's deluded, if you think anyone believes that.

I was wondering what Feingold's thoughts were. Good to know that he recognizes that Edwards platform is what he himself has wanted. It validates my decision to choose Edwards over Obama and Clinton as an alternative to Feingold himself, on the basis of progressivity on the issues. Unlike him, I do trust Edwards, I don't trust Clinton, and I don't like Obama's message, so it makes sense that we would differ.

He's simply no longer part of the system. After he left four years ago, he shunned and even criticized the very group he used to belong to.

Plus he doesn't play the "you scratch my back..." game any more.

Leahy and Feingold are the opposite of Edwards; they've been fighting for what JE now professes he's fighting for for a very long time. They don't have to apologize constantly. Furthermore, I have it from a good source that Bernie feels the same way about Edwards. And no one criticizes the Congress as harshly as Sanders- certainly not JE.

Read what Feingold said about him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4092680

detriment of our country! But from what I've seen these past years, this isn't a country I KNOW anymore!

So, if they can't see what John Edwards is about... too bad! Too bad for so many of us! That's MY OPINION... so don't all jump at once! YOU don't HAVE to agree! You won't anyway, but I have my reservations about Clinton & Obama and WE SHALL SEE who is correct in the end!!

Didn't think so.

The reason liberal Senators won't endorse Edwards is that they are politicians. Yes they are liberal, but they are still first and foremost calculating pols. And they have calculated (maybe correctly, maybe incorrectly) that Edwards is not going to win, and they want to be on the winning team. Simple as that.

The scorn that Feingold feels is pretty obvious. And as I've said, Bernie, I understand, feels much the same way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4092680

The scorn that Feingold feels is pretty obvious. And as I've said, Bernie, I understand, feels much the same way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4092680

Although I disagree with his reasoning. I believe that Edwards has changed.

How bout a link on Bernie too?

I've heard that from him and other Senators. Is that being honest too? I'm having a hard time believing that he's being honest with his true progressive feelings there.

There's certainly many more things that I like Feingold on, but I'd really hoped he would have run. I would be voting for him if he were. If Al Gore were running I'd be voting for him if he were. But they aren't. And the only one standing up for our values that has a shot at winning, honest or no, is John Edwards. So give me little choices, then don't complain about what choices I make!

I'd have to say I think Feingold is being honest about what he thinks about impeachment. I just think he's wrong. Maybe he spends a little too much time in the staff/fellow member echo-chamber on Capital Hill and sometimes the conventional wisdom sinks in. I too would vote for him in a heart beat.

that info comes from sources I have here in VT. I posted months ago that I had heard from reliable folks who know what's what that both of them would eventually endorse Obama.

... and there are no others that provide that message, then I'm sorry, then THEY should be running if they also feel that message is what's needed and they feel that the person giving that message isn't trustworthy.

America needs someone to vote for HONESTLY for a given message. We can't afford to "read between the lines" of what a candidate will or won't do for us behind the reams of crap from the MSM about their personalities, etc. We need someone to speak for a message to stand up for the middle class and against corporate control. If noone else but Edwards will give it that can win, then I'm sorry, HE will get my vote! If Feingold or Leahy don't want to endorse him, then perhaps they should have thought more seriously about running themselves, or put pressure on someone like Obama to be more forceful themselves in such a message instead of talking about Reagan.

Whether I trust Edwards or not, and at this point, I don't see any hard reasons why I shouldn't, I'll be voting for his message, which whether he's honest or not will speak for itself if enough people vote like I do come November! And THAT is what America needs to kick the corporatists out of office every place, not just the office of the president.

:thumbsup:

he's not had the life experience of Clinton, nor has he the charisma or oratory skills of Obama. There's nothing about him that makes him "special" other than various policy positions that maybe go a little further - and I mean a little - than his opponents.

Combine that with his constant apologizing for his record, and you're left with a guy who was a one-term senator who probably would have lost his re-election bid, had he ran, didn't do much while he was in the senate, and voted horribly on a lot of important issues.

But he gets on the stump and says he wants to "FIGHT" for people. And that all these issues are "PERSONAL" to him. He says it so much you almost believe it - until you take a step back and look at who the guy really is, and there isn't much there.

But he tells people what they want to hear. I guess that counts for something.

Any of them helping you these days??

They're welcome to it. I don't.

and they know him well. Do you?

He seems to be somewhat of a shape-shifter to me, but that works well in politics, so I'm sure he'll go far. I'm not dissing your candidate particularly -- he's just not mine.

Feingold was one of the Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee who was most in favor of retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Who knows why. Maybe she is in the corporations pockets. Maybe they have blackmail info on her hubbie. Maybe it is because she always acts like a Republican.

And you tell me not to support Edwards because one of the most conservative Democratic Senators, Feingold does not like him?

President Edwards will prosecute the telecoms AND sue them.

With the Democratic Congress's approval ratings in the toilet, not having their support is supposed to hurt any of the presidential candidates how?

and good to see Cali is still not criticizing Edwards. :hi:

candidates he would support - so Feingold IS NOT on record as supporting
Obama no matter how much certain people insist he is

HE WAFFLES AND HE WILL NEVER GET MY VOTE.

and that's the way DC works