Who Saw Edwards on Meet The Press, And What Did You Think?

My personal view was Russert tried to get Edwards to contradict himself on admitting that his vote to authorize use of force in Iraq was wrong. Asked the same question over and over for first 10 minutes, using various video clips. Edwards did not shirk taking responsibility for his vote and saying it was wrong.

In all I thought Edwards gave lots of yes/no answers to questions, and then explained his answers. This is so different from the Bush presidency, people should see a clear difference.

Obviously Edwards has thought out his responses to all of Russert's questions, and has specific ideas of how to approach solutions to these problems.

Edwards did not duck the question about raising taxes to provide universal healthcare, and gave the figure of 90-120 billion a year to make it happen. Not ducking the hard questions.

People who criticized Edwards for carrying water for Bush, just have not read or listened to his positions --he could not be more different.

IF you saw MTP today, what was your opinion?

Do NOT LET THE MEDIA SHAPE THE MESSAGE. My opinion was that the potato man spent the entire show looking for a 'gotcha' moment. Didn't get it. Boring show. No conclusions. Horseshit.

Meanwhile there is a TRIAL GOING ON THAT COULD BRING DOWN THIS FUCKING ADMINISTRATION.

...I agree that Russert spent lots of time trying to get Edwards to contradict himself.

But did Edwards answer the questions differently than you would have liked? Political discussion and discourse helps everyone to solidify their opinions based upon facts rather than appearances.

I also agree that the Libby trial could lead to resignations in this WH, most like VP Cheney.
However, the Congressional investigations are about to reveal massive egregious greed, corruption and corporate pillaging of the public treasury which should arouse public outrage on a scale that should eclipse Watergate.

I'm in the air about who will get my vote. My frustration comes from hearing Edwards talk for an hour. He can't effect medicare, taxes, Iran or anything. He is a private citizen. A candidate. He can DO nothing BUT talk at this point. Yet this coming week Congress is debating THE MAJOR ISSUE IN AMERICA TODAY...THE WAR. And MTP is discussing what Edwards opinion of all this is. Sorry, I'd rather have Warner or Levin or Hagel or Hillary....There's plenty of time to evaluate candidates.

I did not mean any disrespect for your thread.

Was the trial covered on ANY of the Sunday shows?

... depending upon what Cheney does, the revelations coming out are too big for the MSM to keep under wraps for too much longer.

By next week this time, Uncle Dick will have likely have made his decision as to what he will do, and the MSM will have to cover it. I lean toward Cheney creating a constitutional crisis by refusing to testify on certain matters, but there are at least a dozen possibilities which I outlined on another post here.

:) But I'm happy to hear your prediction for next week.

... and at this point no one knows for sure exactly who and what will be exposed.

You can bet that Timmy Russert is not looking forward to taking the witness stand.

I am still hopeful that Novak will be called. What he has to say will be damaging to both the White House and himself.

Edwards is a big threat to Clinton --that is why they are coming out and criticizing him by name.

Look at Edwards' polling positions in Iowa and other states, and the other candidates know the threat he poses.

I would not say excitement is 'not happening.' It is still early in the 2008 campaign, and Edwards knows this is a marathon not a sprint.

and would like to know a little more about what he plans to do about Medicare and SS. It didn't seem like he wanted to throw young people into "saving for their own retirement" and his statement that he would roll back Bush's tax cuts was a good one. That he admitted taxes would have to be increased for those making over $200,000.

Also I really like his idea of forcing Nuclear plants to have to bury their waste on site or nearby. Having nuclear material transported all over the US on major highways is a scary thought. And, it would definitely make folks think twice before buiding new plants because most folks don't want the waste in their back yard.

I wasn't convinced about his views on Iran and Iraq. Sanctions on Iran whether they are "carrots and sticks" as he said (Bush just uses sticks) don't seem to make sense since we already did that with Saddam over weapons he no longer had. And I think he has gone back and forth in statements about his Iraq Policy.

He did well against Russert and didn't seem to get tripped up anywhere...but then he's a trial lawyer who should be able to get himself in and out of tricky situtations.

I didn't pick up that he has real remorse over his Iraq War Resolution vote (other than it was bad politically in hindsite) or that he wants to hold the people who gave the Senate "bad information" accountable. He just feels it's in our past and we should move on with a different strategy.

He was pretty good, in general. His poll numbers will probably go up if lots of folks watched this.

It's hard to get excited about a man who says one thing one day and another the next.

I find him extremely lacking in his foreign policy and national security opinions. As the MTP interview showed, he says what he thinks people want to hear. It's quite the opposite of what he was telling the AIPAC folks or what he said on the Senate floor when he voted for the Iraqi War.

I also think that the fact that he's taken such a mantle in campaigning for the poor while never introducing bill one in the senate when he was there hurts his "honesty" threshhold, as well.

Sorry, but there's no reason for me to get excited about him.

Give me a quote of what he said, in context of course, at his AIPAC address that is 'the opposite' of what he said on Meet the Press today.

It is easy to put conclusions out there. Back it up with factual 'quotes.'

Have you been living in a cave? How many times does Edwards have to state that his vote authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was wrong? Did you somehow miss that fact? Or does every political candidate get only one opportunity to make a mistake, and you never let them forget it regardless of whether they own up to it publicly?

Edwards has given over a million dollars to specific projects helping the poor. I know because my son attended one of the high schools where the Edwards bought a building, gave the computers and infrastructure, hired people to run it, and made it available for free to those students who did not have access to a computer. He and Elizabeth also have put together funding to send kids to college who could not otherwise attend without their help.

I have no problem with Clark, but if this is your standard for being qualified to be President, has Clark done this?

Has Clark put together millions of dollars to create an anti-poverty center at a major university, which he promoted at no costs to the university? Has Clark brought together the leading advocates for fighting poverty, and helped them work together? Edwards has.

I would truly like to see evidence of all these times Edwards has said 'one thing one day and another the next.' If this is more than a general impression on your part, then go ahead and post them and let's see if your accusations are true.

And for HIM to say that is quite something.

I agree with your assessment. There is such a difference between Edwards and the obfuscations of bushco.

Russert was working overtime trying to get Edwards to contradict himself. And Edwards--in places--did, but did so admitting that's what he was doing. The Leno show remark is an example.

I think Edwards handled himself well. We are really lucky that we have so many attractive, good candidates out there.



Cher

Even if Edwards does not get the nomination, he will certainly advance the debate of issues that would not otherwise be exposed for public consideration. Right now he is the voice of the poor and the middle class on issues that are not getting the attention they deserve.

I'm trying hard to think of someone with a scintilla of charisma.

It surely isn't Guiliani. McCain has a reputation as a maverick that's fast fading. Help me out here. Anyone?



Cher

Even with the Corporate Media propping up the 08 Repub candidates (and that will happen), I still think it'll be a hard sell to the majority of American people to elect an R in 2008.

"world views". Therefore the way we perceive RepublicanCandidates
differs from that of Republicans and average citizens view candidates.

While we see their baggage, others may see "strong tough men
who can manage foreign policy, Iran, the wider war on terrorism.

The Republican hope is that when people are in the voting booth
they will be fearful enough to think "I will hold my nose and
vote for Guilliani, MCCain, Romney" because Republicans are
better on Defense of the Country.

Here is one of the many reasons for my response in this way.
In 2006, Florida election, a whole group of women went into
the voting both with the intention of voting for Kerry.
Just as they started to vote, flashes (memory) of all the ads put
out by Republicans, made them, on the spot, change their vote.
When the Reporter checked with them to confirm that they
had carried through with Kerry vote, the women some in tears
told him they had decided they should not change horses
midstream.

We must in these two years convince the public we can govern
and when necessary be strong and tough.

To me , we should be working to find good strong candidates
for the House and Senate. We must make these strong and
in Democrats' hands for years to come.

anymore.

Take a look at some recent polling. Republicans now lose, by far, on Defense, Economy, and even Trustworthiness as compared to Democrats.

The 2008 race will not be the same as the 2004 race because Repubs have proven themselves to the vast majority of the American public to be total screw-ups on the issues that they (the Repubs) used to win on.

However, I'm biased in favor of Edwards. If Wes Clark doesn't run, Edwards is close to the top of my preferred list of candidates.

I was impressed by his answers. Especially on foreign policy and the Iraq War.

support him. He will and can win. Not true for Clinton and O'Bama and (sadly) Kucinich; Gore is not running and neither is Clark. Edwards is my current candidate of choice right now, and I've not yet listened to his recent speech which I hear was excellent.

you can look back at the history of political campaigns for President, and whoever is drawing the most fire from other candidates and having their positions distorted tends to be the greatest threat.

I think the polls in Iowa are driving some of the political campaign directors up the wall. Edwards could clearly benefit from the Congressional investigations that will stoke the public's outrage at he level of corruption that has gone on, and got rich as a result of it.

would be on full attack, which he was. But Edwards was so honest and sincere and thoughtful. I want him to be President.

He keeps changing his positions and that faux populism is off-putting.

I previously challenged you on this at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=121962&mesg_id=122727

If you have facts to back this up, I want to see them.

Edwards is doing the dance for the dollars which is why Edwards is really for business as usual,
which I guess he feels compelled to in order to remain viable. :shrug:

Edwards does shift his message depending on who's doing the listening. That difference is highlighted here.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

also information below which has not found it way to Edwards' website.
Not one article, video, audio, photo, or text of speeches that he gave in reference to the last 4 meetings he has had with APAIC et al (since March 2006) are anywhere to be found at his website. Considering his lack of foreign policy experience I would think he would highlight his thoughts on Iran at his site like he does his call to redeploy 50,000 in Iraq.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_23828.shtml
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

John Edwards stresses emphasis differently depending on the audience.
For AIPAC his approach emphasizes belligerence and bellicose warnings to Iran,
and for the activists, the priority becomes "sanctions" or little talk about Iran.

He states in his DNC speech that we should stand up for what is right at whatever risk,
but when I think of risks he has really taken, I find none. Some will say, well he talked about poverty...that's not popular! But it is popular with is why most here are supporting him. Gore used it in 2000 and it was very effective. Edwards started using it with his speech in late 2003, and it saved his candidacy during the primaries.

People will probably accuse me by saying that this is an attack, and to them I say you are free to believe this....I know better. Me, I consider this responding to the OP with my opinion...which is what it is, and providing sources to illustrate why I think what I think. My opinion can be discarded just as easily as it can be taken into consideration....so no one needs to get offended, nor take this personally.

Thank you for allowing me the same courteous opportunity as everyone else in responding to the OP with this post.

You have my attention. What are the specific quotes you think are contradictory depending upon which audience Edwards was addressing. Otherwise, your allegations are unsupported.

It should be easy for you to do this, since you have drawn such clear conclusions.

BTW Edwards has done more than 'talk about poverty' --if you read the other entries in this thread you will discover how Edwards donated over a million dollars of his own money, devoted lots of time and has helped kids go to college and have computer access. I think that qualifies as doing more than talking about poverty --not mentioning the anti-poverty center he founded and obtained funding for.

I don't need to cut and paste, or regurgitate the words of something that the Washington Monthly writer says aptly enough.
The link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

the other links are just back up for those who are interested in foreign policy and what the IRAN positioning is all about.

If you don't want to click on a link to answer the question you yourself posed, than I am not sure if you are truly interested in an answer.

You asked in general to provide you with an example. You did not state how that example should be provided to you. Where I come from, when one asks a question it is because they sincerely want an answer....

In this case, maybe your interest really isn't truly about understanding the way in which John Edwards massages messages differently depending on the venue in order to have folks think about him differently depending on what that constituency demands. The one link demonstrates that Edwards is doing politics as usual....nothing new, courageous or "stand up" like in how he is truly operating. The example I provided shows that Edwards is interested in AIPAC and Israel getting a different flavor of his emphasis about how he would deal with Iran than the flavor he wants Democratic activists to get.

Click on the link if you truly wanted an answer, don't click on it if you were just postering. Your choice.

I surmise that you have an entirely different agenda than being truthful and providing proof of what you say. When you provide the proof, I will listen. Until then know that you have been exposed.....

I have no need to click on a link to answer my own question when you know the truth so well, and can certainly provide it in a couple of quoted sentences, but I see you would rather write 6 paragraphs explaining why you will not do so.

The partial sound bite quote cited "... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. ... Let me reiterate – all options."

Edwards was talking about his approach compared to the present Bush approach to heading off Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, in which Bush's approach has been limited to a show of military force and failure to talk to Iran directly and eventually using military force.

As Edwards explained in his Meet The Press appearance yesterday, and in his interview in The American Prospect, the 'all options on the table' approach includes diplomacy first, engagement with other regional countries in the Middle East, direct talks with Iran and Syria, partnering with Europe which has economic clout with Iran, crafting of economic incentives that appeal to the Iranian people, isolation of Ahmadinejad, ramped up economic sanctions if Ahmadinejad fails to respond, and above all no military attack on Iran which would rally the Iranian people to Ahmadinejad's side. He also explained, you never take the military option off the table in dealing with anyone, which Clinton and Carter both refused to do during their tenures as President.

Also he specifically stated a military attack on Iran would be a disaster, and he recommended that the US and Europe provide Iran with all the nuclear fuel they needed to make electricity on the condition that the US would handle the 'cycling' of the nuclear material so that it would never be turned into bomb making material.

Now there is no doubt that an Iranian government ruled by religious leaders having nuclear weapons would be a major threat to the existence of Israel, since they have not withdrawn their intent to wipe Israel off the map. There is no doubt Israel is a US ally. But much more important, Israel has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict in the Middle East would be the most catastrophic situation to arise for the world at large in this generation.

Those buying into this idea that Edwards was advocating Bush's use of military force against Iran need to separate the facts from the 'spin' that Pat Buchanan ascribes to this sound bite quote, and read the American Prospect interview and listen to Edwards on Meet the Press for a fuller understanding of exactly what Edwards means when he refers to 'keeping all options on the table.'

Edwards tailors his messages and in essence, speaks out of both sides of his mouth about the same subject to different folks. He was talking tough on Iran for the past year, heard about the upset of the netroot, and realized he had to tone it down. He called in the Prospect specifically for an interview AFTER he was informed about the fact that his Hawkish stance was making him lose support, and made sure that the first question he answered for that interview was answered in a way palateble for the grassroots.

It's politics, but it is also double faced and inauthentic....something that John Edwards claims to be. I personally feel that John Edwards will say whatever it takes. He's not special in any respect; a politician through and through....and one who voted for the IWR for political expediency at that.

So love him and call into suspect my motives......the difference is that my motives have nothing to do with attempting to get myself in the White House.....John Edwards' does.

Excerpt at the link I provided:

You are relying upon the opinion of an individual who is ascribing what he thinks Edwards is saying, and you seem to have adopted those same conclusions.

The 'keeping all options on the table' sound bite quote being used by critics of Edwards is being distorted, and you know it. He has clearly explained his approach is 180 degrees different from Bush's military force approach, and his reluctance to 'take any option off the table(by the President)' is shared by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Do you consider them to be 'hawks?'

You may not like Edwards, and you may like lots of other candidates better, but at least be honest in basing your criticism of Edwards on facts and not pull out distorted partial sound bite quotes in an attempt to support your skewed view of John Edwards.

If you have other quotes that make your point, let's have them.

Kevin Drummond and I just just happen to have the same view on Edwards.

I understood what Drummond was saying before he said it.

Plus, be a dear and go on the Edwards Website and see what you can find on Iran. Won't be his speech at that conference, I dare say...just the new stuff he's had to manufacture to save him from his base on these last few days.

Don't worry, his kind of slip up will happen again...they always do with those that practice politics as usual.

... and if Edwards were making all of these contradictory quotes you allege, then the MSM would be having a field day with them. THe quotes you allege do not exist.

The partial quotes you and Drum have turned into tea leaves for the purpose of exercising your alleged prognosticating powers are distorted, incomplete, and always populated with the ever present elipse '.....'.

My interest is in the facts to support your allegations. I cannot find them. You have not provided them. People can draw their own conclusions from this state of affairs.

sheep's clothing.

:argh:

but people all over the world. I think you may be having "visions". There was not one thing hawkish about Edwards. Nothing at all.

I was impressed by his responses. He was well-prepared for Timmy.

Any President is going to keep the option of military power 'on the table' since it is essential that in negotiating from a position of strength is a plus. I do not consider anything he said to be 'hawkish' in that he constantly pointed out to Russert that there are many diplomatic avenues that must be explored before using force, and that Bush has done none of these.

Iran does not have nukes, his worries about Iran are no less hawkish than his vote for the Iraq war.

He clearly pointed out that Ahmadinejad is losing support from his own political elites and the religious leaders, and now the people he promised economic reform. He is worried that an attack on Iran would rally the people to Ahmadinejad's side, and there would be retaliation against our troops stationed in Iraq and terroristic attacks here.

He is proposing economic benefits and costs that would further isolate Ahmadinejad from his people, and is proposing that the US join with Europe to make the approach work.

I did not see anything to indicate he would attack Iran, and do not see how you can fault him for admitting his vote was wrong to authorize the President to use force in Iraq.

What more could you ask of him regarding his vote to allow Bush to use force in Iraq? Would you be satisfied if he went around wearing sackcloth and ashes on his head until the next election?

I very much appreciate the summary. :hi:

You have to wonder how posters here could get his positions on Iran so wrong.

Edwards has been very clear on his positions related to Iran, and to this day people are still posting here that Edwards is a 'hawk' or carrying water for Bush.

:shrug:

I am thankful for your clarification. :)

I am an Edwards supporter so I'm somewhat biased, but his responce to the Iran question really should put the naysayers at ease with his position.

If you don't think attempting regime change in another country is hawkish then it's OK.

If you are referring to the US using its economic power to promote 'regime change' where the policies are bad for the governed, you are going against hundreds of years of world history.

THe United States was the world leader in using its economic power to effect changes for the better in the 'human rights' policies of other countries. We did this in regard to China for many years, and many other latin american countries that wanted trade with us.

I think you are wrongly characterizing Edwards as a 'hawk' just because he recognizes that the political elites, religious leaders, and most people looking for economic reform, want a different leader in Iran. IF the consent of the governed is lost, then the government is not legitimate. THe economic proposals that Edwards put forth on MTP might result in regime change, but it would occur from within Iran and not by force from without.

but still promoting regime change.

If you're promoting regime change, you're violating the democratic process with a hawkish agenda. When the people of Iran are ready to change their elected leaders, it is their right and not the right of Edwards or anyone else in the US.

Countries have diplomatic relations that do not agree with one another on their leaders.

Should the US not agree with leaders like Kim in North Korea, we naturally do all we can to improve human rights conditions in that country (where the people are starving) and our economic benefits package naturally either supports or promotes a change in the existing leadership.

Clinton signed an order while President saying the US position on Saddam was commitment to regime change, but he did not send any troops to do so miltarily. Carter took similar actions while in office.

A straight talking politician for a change.

It's likely that many people appreciated the direct answers Edwards gave to the baited questions Russert asked.

Russert's gotcha journalism gets pretty old pretty fast. It didn't get him very far this morning with John Edwards.

Russert is far from being a good investigative journalist.

I would have enjoyed an exchange in which Edwards was asking the questions and Timmy was answering. I am betting Timmy would not have done as well as Edwards did.

if Bill Moyers were its host.

I'm not saying Russert is the worst possible journalist, only that Moyers is the best possible journalist. Agree with you that were the roles reversed in his interviews, Russert might not fare as well. Also he escapes the scrutiny his staff applies to guests by virtue of his being the "celebrity host" on a popular news program. Over at CBS, I think Schieffer's questions are much more to the point, generally more fair across the ideological spectrum, and less mean-spirited. I don't get the Russert vibe without sensing a power-play, whereas with other interviewers there is far more emphasis on analysis. Christianne Amanpour is mighty good, for instance. 'Would love to hear more from her. I realize U.S. politics isn't her beat. But that's my loss, not hers.

I always come away from listening to Bill Moyers thinking that he epitomizes what true journalism should be today.

He is too truthful, too insightful, and unwilling to bend to the corporate/party line to included on any MSM show.

Little Timmy likes to use his 'sound bites' and slanted questions to throw guests off, since the guest invariably has to explain the context in which the 'sound bite' came from.

IMHO Edwards ought to arrange a series of interviews with Bill Moyers, and then spread them over the net since the MSM would never air them.

the Republican nominee, Bill Moyers comes aboard as Chief of Staff.

John and Elizabeth Edwards in the White House and Bill Moyers overseeing the daily operations of the government.

I'd feel a whole lot better than I do now.

The benefit of having Bill Moyers aboard, as Chief of Staff or some other position, is that he would bring a thoughtful analytical opinion to the table and would challenge the President to make the very best decision possible --and he would not be punished for having an opinion different than the President.

I think both Edwards and Moyers would flourish in that environment. Informed and thoughtful dissent needs to be brought back to the White House. It surely is not treasonous to have a different idea or opinion.

That does not exist with the BUSHCO Presidency.

said, he'd bark, "You're goddamned right!."

Let me borrow from his coarse but exuberant affirmation and say you're goddamned right, Blackhatjack.

We really desperately need to return to White House to Democratic hands, and I am very homesick for the kind of governance you describe in that scenario.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy supposedly opened each discussion by his top advisors wanting to hear the counterargument for what had been proposed --and in many cases, the counterargument prevailed over the majority thinking at the beginning.

You just cannot make the best decisions as President if you do not hear all sides. Bush is a prime example of what you get when everyone adopts 'the President's position' in making their recommendations.

I am old enough to remember what that was like, and hope to see it again soon.

And another round for us older Democrats.

We'll have that kind of governance back. We're less than a year away now from the first caucus vote in Iowa.

Dubya's toast.

Let the historians have at him.

if the election was held today.

Face it, neither Obama nor Hillary will get the nomination. The people who "crossed party lines" in November and voted to fire the Republican Congress don't care for either of them.

to pale in comparison. Edwards did a good job on the show and actually talked about the subjects asked of him... I give him credit for that..

Both are young, bright and articulate. Each has a moral standard they are not willing to compromise, and I think they each would view their tenure in the White House as an opportunity to serve the American people, and change things for the better for the 90% of the population that does not live off their inherited money, stocks and investments.

I am a fan of both, and would love to see that ticket presented in the atmosphere that will exist after all the greed and corruption is exposed through Congressional investigatory hearings.

If Feingold does not garner a VP position, I look forward to what he will do in the Senate. IMHO he is one to watch carefully. His stock continues to climb even though he is out in front of the public opinion right now.

getting sick of of that question. His show was all about Hillary and her vote to authorize force in Iraq. I'm at the point now where I've heard every candidate asked this question on every show every day every week every month. We all know how they voted and/or what they thought at the time. We all know what they think now. How is this question going to change anything in the future?

There are so many things going on in politics lately, but all the shows are just continuing to flog this poor old mare. I turned the station, simply because it now just bores me.

convention and he was great. Then there is Dennis Kucinich. I will have a hard time voting again for someone who voted for this war to begin with.
I venture to bet that the vast majority of DU members back then were against it as I was. And for me, not only because I am a pacifist, but because the "Intel" that was leaking from Bushco sounded like utter crap. You had Scott Ritter out there telling us the truth, Ray McGovern, Barbara Boxer who knew the truth, and the info was there on the Internet. Most telling was a 1995 deposition of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law..he had defected from Iraq and had been in charge of chem, bio and nuclear progams, admitting that all of those programs ended right after the first Gulf War.
There was also the AIEA's report too.
I was also totally versed in PNAC.

So here I am, little ole me knowing... Senators and Representatives Had No Excuse for not knowing that the wool was being pulled over their eyes, and worse..the other ones that I believe were complicit.

But of course that does not mean equal time. MSNBC corporate would not stand for that.

him as a candidate.

I supported Kucinich last time and I will support him again. It is too bad the media keeps marginalizing him and his message, because I think it would resonate with a lot of people.

I noted this article (Timetables) on the dailykos site:

http://www.dailykos.com/

If you compare the timetables proposed for withdrawal from Iraq - candidate by candidate - Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones calling for an immediate withdrawal. This occupation was wrong at the beginning, and it is wrong today. Out of Iraq. now.

of the mess the neocons have gotten us into.

Balanced Priorities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801510.html

The war in Iraq is estimated to now be costing $365 billion, with end totals to between $1 to $2 trillion ! Forget medicare and social security, the M/I complex is planning to 'crowd out' any social spending at all. Then who'll pay the country's bills ? Those with the money aren't paying their fair share and corporate America is another name for 'criminal element'. Shame.

Cost of war in Iraq
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

this year and last fall.

If Dionne had qualms, he would lay them out front and center. He'd do it with his usal civil tongue, but he'd leave no doubt that he held them.

His praise of John Edwards is a gauge of the merits of a workable and inspired plan.

I guess that's the payback. Nor did Timmy bring up the hawkish stances on Iran.
And to see someone who used to say he wasn't misled by Bush lay it over others was...jaw dropping? Other than that, same old, same old.

Edwards layed out lots of ideas, especially regarding his treatment of Iran.