Why are people spending so much time on Edwards?

Why are Americans putting so much time and effort into shaping the message of John Edwards' presidential campaign?

Why are you doing this when Dennis Kucinich already stands for everything you hope John would stand for?

If you put your time, money, and effort into Dennis, Dennis would be right behind Barack Obama for the presidency and have a shot at being a top-tier candidate for Americans to consider.

We saw John in 2004. We saw Dennis too but John made it to the Democratic ticket as a vice-presidential ticket.

He didn't ignite and rally the Democratic Party and he won't now. He's too fake.

Dennis---now, he's the real thing. He's the only REAL Democrat running for president.

not going to be our nominee.

There is no doubt that he's true and blue and the ideological favorite of many. His supporters are among the coolest Democrats there are, or ever have been.

But there has to be a practical mechanism for victory in politics. Campaigns without one or the other of those two things -- inspiration and victory mechanism -- don't usually make it.

Edwards is running third behind Obama and Clinton. Iowa's 38 days away. He's positioned for a competitive finish as things now stand.

He's a good man too.

in getting support from the American people or his own party. The bigger question is why would you waste any effort on someone you KNOW can't be elected, isn't going to get the nomination and won't make it past Iowa or NH? I'm not saying he's not a fine politican and man, but a candidate? No.

Because of people like you who let the powers that be get the best of you.

We don't "owe" him anything.

But you owe it to yourself to be honest and vote for your interests.

Because I think he'd be a fucking horrible president.

(and I paraphrase)

Dennis is my philosophical choice, Biden is my pragmatic choice.

I think OC stated the reality of the situation excellently.

the top 3 in Iowa -- either first, or second, or third -- not sure which -- but in the top 3.

I'm not seeing Senator Clinton better than 4th, and maybe 5th if Gov. Richardson's team heats things up.

:hi:

That is where I am at. Dennis is absolutely my philosophical choice, but Edwards is my pragmatic choice.

I wish to God Dennis had a shot of being the actual nominee-I just don't see it happening at this point in time in America :-/.

sums up how many of us view this.

It's too bad it is what it is, huh?

Doesn't it stink that in America people can't vote for the people they really want to vote for? I mean, man, looks like our democracy really is in ruins.

If Edwards really is as likely to win as you think he is, than vote for Kucinich. After all, if Dennis is going to lose to Edwards, what does it matter? You'll still get your pragmatic choice. We'll still get the person who was "electable"---whatever that means.

I'm voting my conscience---I'm voting my interest too. More should do the same.

If we're going to vote "pragmatically", I think I will be voting Hillary. She can continue this nation on the path we are on and lead it into more finer glory days. However, if you really want change...if you really want to end this downward spiral we are, quit being afraid and support Kucinich.

Well, he's got the inspiration. He's got the makings of a victory mechanism. He just needs this divided Democratic Party to find its soul.

is the nominee, if it is not to be Dennis, should HIRE Kuicnich supporters to help shape public opinion more to Kucinich's end of the party's ideology.

My only real complaint with Kucinich supporters is that there should be more of them. Some of the very best conversations on politics and culture I have EVER had were with people closely aligned with Kucinich in 04 and 08.

Because it's true.

while others are real. I truly want to understand this criticism because I hear it a lot, but don't know why some feel this way. Is Obama Fake? Hillary Fake? How do you measure "fake-ness"?

check out his voting record when he deigned it important enough to vote.

While you're checking out his voting record, please report what good he did while he was in the one and only elected position he has ever held.

His words today do not match his actions in the near past.

"fake"-ery. I mean, are there specific things he voted against regarding healthcare funding or poverty programs? I know he took money from the Attorney lobbyists, but hey, he IS an attorney himself. Is he taking money from the Defense Contractors? Healthcare Moguls? Seriously, these would sound like "fake" stuff to me. His voting record about the Iraq disaster is on record and he took the blame. I look forward to a response.

Are "fake" because he voted and supported the NAFTA bill that helped foster the situation where we now have poisonous toys coming into America.

Kucinich stated http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28888">this:

"John Kerry was hammered by the Republicans and by many in the media for changing his positions on the war and other issues in the 2004 campaign," Kucinich noted. "The fact of the matter is that he wanted to come out against the war in 2004, and John Edwards argued against it."

"Now," Kucinich continued, "we have a candidate who voted for the war and voted to fund the war, but says he's against it. He voted for the Patriot Act, and now he complains about its abuses. He voted for China Trade in 2000 knowing that Americans would be hurt, and now he's decrying the unsafe products pouring into this nation from China. He supported nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, now he's against it."

Since those quotes are from a largely biased source---someone who has it in their interest to say John Edwards is "fake"---I will state clearly...This information is the truth and nothing but the truth unless you and any other John Edwards supporter can prove otherwise.

DO YOU KNOW HOW LAWS ARE MADE????

Here it goes:

People see a problem. They sense the need to regulate an issue so that problems do not increase or occur any longer. Or they sense the need to create a prohibition so that something doesn't happen again. After that they sit around until someone who claims to be a "leader" steps up and says, I have a plan for regulation or prohibition to solve this issue. The people watch the talking heads on television talk about this plan "objectively." Many people call in and help the leader by supporting his plan. People write in to newspapers and call in to talk radio expressing the support for his or her plan. The "leader" puts the plan into a draft that we call a bill. The bill or legislation is introduced into the House or Senate if the "leader" is a federal leader. If the "leader" is not, than people get screwed because it will take longer to make any regulations or prohibitions. The "leader" having introduced his or her bill waits for other "leaders" to join in supporting the measure. When enough "leaders" feel there is "support" in America for passing the measure or when "leaders" decide Americans don't care and therefore, they can do as they damn well please, then they pass the measure. They talk about the bill in conference, vote on it in Congress, send a bill to the President who vetoes it if it will help Americans and signs it if it will not help Americans. The bill if vetoed comes back to Congress where "Democratic leaders" typically opt to fold under pressure and change the bill so that it can pass because they know from experience if they don't, than their "reform" will fail and cost them re-election. "Republican leaders" can do whatever they want on the measure because it is naturally accepted that they have a blatant disregard for Americans, government, and this nation's Constitution. When the bill is signed, a law goes into effect. And the Supreme Court goes to work doing all that it can to exploit the law in ways that further suppress minorities or simply, people who aren't white or who do not support unrestrained white power.

I put my finger on it the other day: I could just see the man chasing ambulances in Fuquay Varina, NC.

is Dennis.

I'd kinds like to move the country forward at this point.

And with who?

wait for it...






















to learn about poverty!

John Edwards, are just too fake to recognize Kucinich's superiority.

Very persuasive, but then that probably isn't your real intent.

He's too fake :eyes:

Do other candidate's supporters do this as much as DK supporters? Maybe I miss those threads.

If they did they'd be lying.

?????

Running around dumping an all the other candidates by saying Dennis is the only real Democrat, claiming that anyone who doesn't support Dennis is corporate tool or victim of MSM, etc (which many, but not all DK supporters do)... it makes me want to go from ignoring Kucinich and keeping my criticisms to myself (what I used to do) to openly criticizing him whenever I feel like it.

Every candidate has their obnoxious supporters and detractors, but the snobbery from some DK supporters is way above and beyond.

:thumbsup:

But in any case

DO IT

Go around criticizing Dennis. Please please please. You are doing me no favor by holding back. This country's future depends on you sharing whatever opinions, stories, or facts you have on either candidate running right now.

If a Dennis presidency could mean the end of America, tell people about it.

Free speech should should still be revered and held up as one of the most important rights. It seems though when people exercise their rights to free speech that don't agree with yours, the name calling starts.

Seeing DK as the only real Democrat is rather easy though, since all you have to do is look at the issues and the Democratic ideology and then compare what the candidates have actually done during their political career - and PRESTO! - realizations happen! Really very easy to see once the rose colored glasses come off.

Good thing we have primaries. And your condescending tone is going to work wonders for your candidate. Keep it up.

anti DK and just plain attacking the OP. If you even bothered to notice the OP is a young man/woman taking a sincere and very exemplary interest in politics and has tried to engage in an intelligent conversation. Asking questions, responding politely and just very sincerely engaging others in dialogue. YOU, on the other hand, don't seem to show much respect and used much sarcasm in your posts......mainly disrespectful and disruptive. So be it free speech and all, but that FREE SPEECH goes two ways and while the OP is too polite to respond rudely to you, I am not. I meet sarcasm with as much ATTITUDE and facts that I can manage, deal with it - and please vote for whomever...JE would be my guess

I will not respond to those lies kindly. I don't care if the poster is a few years younger than I am.
Deal with it.

Republican than a Dem. The following are not LIES.

"The FACTS and actions about JE are totally contradictory to what he is saying now - and People DON'T have a problem with that - WHY????? is really an important question.

"Edwards helping to Bankrupt Americans..

which makes the middle class highly susceptible to Poverty. (the centerpiece of his platform)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwards has been part and parcel of the GOP agenda all the way. Edwards voting record is one of the worst of our Dem Senators. Edwards is helping create poverty in the middle class with his bankruptcy vote and earning millions for himself when working for the Hedge Fund sector. The same Hedge Fund sector that was buying sub-prime mortgages for their investment portfolios.. The same "POVERTY" he now professes to help as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It must be hard for Edward's supporters to understand the meaning of the words "poverty" and "hypocrisy", when their candidate, John Edwards exemplifies it so well.

Why shouldn't he, he voted for it!

I have great respect for Biden for the work he's put into getting our troops out of Iraq. Edwards, not so much. AFAIC, Edwards has NO redeeming factors that would put him in the category of presidential hopeful. The best news is, he isn't running as an incumbent VP.

We dodged a bullet on that one."

These are the cold hard facts EVIDENCE of what this man did while he was in office for 6 short years: He voted and cosponsored a war that I knew was a mistake
He voted for the Patriot Act
He voted for H1-b Visas
He voted w/ Pubs on Bankruptcy to convicted criminals
He voted for free trade w/China
He voted against reinstating voting rights -----------These are the facts of this man's record and during those 6 short years in office he spent over 2 of them running a campaign for V & POTUS. Maybe, if he actually just served out his term, and really studied the issues, he wouldn't have made such poor judgments, but ambition got in the way of the homework that he obviously needed to educate himself on what exactly his votes meant.

His priority has always been to advance his career, not educating himself so that he could do the right things. Saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong" isn't giving back life and limbs to millions. This guy, much like Bush's philosophy, wants a promotion after screwing up so badly. Look at Bush's bud's, all got promoted or awards after doing a miserable job. People seem to subscribe to the same way of choosing successors."

but Edwards isn't "my guy." I think many of the candidates would be good Presidents.

At least I own up and embrace my attitude. You are in denial.

and obviously not DK, why were you so involved in this thread? Nothing better to do? Nowhere else to dump???????

That is a complete dismissal of all the other candidates. Not a minor criticism of one or two, but a complete dismissal of all. I like DK, but the Tigger act is not endearing. The only candidates that I do not like are Hillary and Gravel. I'm not fond of Richardson either, but I probably would not call him a phony Democrat. Just too economically conservative for my tastes.

You also seem to understand the Democratic Party, what the Democratic Party should be, and what kind of stances or record the future Democratic presidential nominee should have.

Are we at the point where it is necessary to sit here for a couple hours each day and talk to people aggressively about the upcoming primaries? Are we at a point where we need to pass back and forth facts on all the candidates, talk about each one's track record, and talk about each one's stances or lack of stances on issues?

I think so. And if it means being a "troll" so what? What have I got to lose?

ideals. Here, above most any other place we should be free to discuss those ideals and not just the Democratic Candidates. That doesn't always happen here. When you take a strong stance, speak bluntly and call people out that say things that you strongly disagree with, you are many times censored. Unfortunately this happens everywhere. You don't have to name call, or even threaten, just say something that somebody doesn't like and you will be "deleted". No questions, no discussion - your post just disappears. So, all of this contributes to our thinking and discussions being controlled. Eventually we start to conform and think less and less and basically just react. Really just learning the rules to belong (anywhere, not just here) stop free thought and discourage independent thought.

Most of our present Candidates have a "D" by their names and that "qualifies" them to be a Democratic Candidate and to get support. Just reading this board educates you on that bitter pill. Look for the Democratic "Ideals" and then look at the track records of the candidates, then choose a candidate....right? Isn't that the way it should be? How about writing those "Ideals" out, then matching the actual records, votes, to those ideals, THEN choose the candidate? Novel idea huh?

is part of the reason, imo, he did so poorly in 2004 and will do just as poorly in 2008.

And he will continue to rise.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media could keep him from participating in the next debate?

Not gonna happen. The support for him is too strong.

in Kucinich. Millions of people see him in the debates, millions of people see him on TV. Millions of people can spend 5 minutes on the internet researching him. Yet, the odds of Kucinich getting the nomination over on intrade.com are 1 in 999 (the same odds are given for Lieberman and Powell strangely enough). Bet $100 dollars on him and make yourself $99,900. You can give me 5% for the hot tip.

First off, are you really the governor running or just someone who helps with the campaign or...

Either way, let me just fill you in. I'm 19. I'm worried about my future. Kucinich respects students like me and for one is the only candidate talking about really helping with the government student loan problem in America where students are graduating from college in debt. He would like to make college tuition-free and paid by the government by taking money from the bloated Pentagon budget and giving it to college students like me who would like to learn to be better productive citizens and make a good contribution to America.

He also would like to lower the drinking age which shows me he respects college students and believes at 18 students should take responsibility for their future.

He also would like to lower the voting age to 16 and I say why not? If high school students were more involved in civics, just think of where America might be? High school students and college students have the potential to be such a massive force in this democracy because they have such a massive stake in America. What presidents do now will determine their future.

I could go on. But rejecting war and supporting single-payer health care as well as having a magnificent track record, the courage to survive, and the ability to speak out with out any restraint whatsoever is what draws me to him.


I'll take you up on your bet. I'll do it through my PayPal Account and I will send you the hundred dollars in March if it does not look like Kucinich can win the nomination.

I'll never forget supporting Dennis. It will always be a milestone in my life because he's the first presidential candidate I ever volunteered to campaign for, ever donated money to (an amount that will surpass 100 dollars before the election is over), ever wrote opinion articles and letters to the editor for, ever phoned my congressman on behalf of (I've called a few times to demand action on impeachment), etc.

I'm willing to put what little income I get where my mouth is.

You can support Kucinich for various reasons. I can not support him for various reaons. That's why we have primaries. Clinton, Gravel and Kucinich are my last choices in 08, but I would never accuse someone who supports them as being fake Democrats or stupid for supporting them.

Don't worry about what others here may say, there are a lot of stupid people everywhere. I admire your ability to really care about what is going on in this country and I hope that you continue to do things that you believe in. Your peer members are very strong assets right now. Take to the streets, go after the media, protest against the "Establishment" because that is what is killing us more than any other thing right now. You are a very smart person and I look to you to lead your peers and maybe someday help lead some of us in Washington. Your futures are at stake - as well as all the rest of us, but half of my life is already over. I'll be dead and gone and you guys are going to have to live the results of this really screwed up system in place now.

and whoever she is battling with at the time.....Come on, get real. It isn't our election, it is a dog and pony show..

of Kucinich. The media gave little attention to Kerry and he still won in Iowa. Kucinich won't even come close to winning Ohio.

The media has a lot of influence over our candidates, but millions of people know who Kucinich is and choose not to support him. This OP does nothing to help the cause.

is a phenomenom. Watch how he is ignored by media though and how polls are shut down when Paul leads overwhelmingly on them.....The Establishment won't let him succeed either.

Millions who choose not to support DK are not hearing much about him either. They have to LOOK for info on him. The media keeps him looking like he is on the fringes - partly because he is and mainly because they DON'T want him to gain in popularity. Most voters are lazy and will only look at info on a candidate that is readily available and blasted about day after day on the media.

Paul as a running mate for example. DK has some good ideas, but I don't have any faith that he could either have a good enough campaign to get elected or have a good enough administration to keep Democrats in power in congress or after he leaves office. Just my opinion of course. Plus John Edwards plans are progressive and realistic at the same time. His plans are well developed and detailed unlike many others.

Because Johnny Boy would never select Ron Paul as his VP? Are you serious?

I'm not the only one that calls him his true name - johnnyboy!

It makes me seriously question his judgment.

I considered DK briefly, but as of now I am leaning towards Biden. The WH needs some wisdom right now.

I think he has passion, not wisdom.

have it run on the Bush White House's website.


:eyes:

Yes... he's fake. Edwards is about as real as his handlers allow him to be at any given time.

All I ever see from you on this forum are pissy little snide attacks on Edwards. Do you even have a candidate now that Wes Clark isn't running? If so, why not spend more time supporting them and less time writing nasty posts about other candidates.

So, I can spend my time offering pissy little comments about a joke of a candidate like Edwards.

I think they all pretty much suck - on both sides. Too many corporatists.

P.S. The fact that I cannot find a candidate has also determined my avatar. It's sad that with so many candidates running, I think they all SUCK (some way more than others) and it's made me rather Grinchy.

Spending all your time writing negative, nasty posts about one candidate and seeking out threads that involve him then ever actually writing anything positive about anything.

And, being negative is MY business. I think he's the worst candidate ever on the Dem side and cannot, for the life of me, figure out how he got all these liberals and progressives so duped. It boggles my mind. I thought we were smarter than that.

kucinich CANNOT be elected potus at this time for that reason alone.

I haven't heard this before. That's interesting. Would you care to talk about this some more?

It's sad, but there is is.

That you do not feel in America people can vote for the people they most identify with and believe in the most. It's sad that you have to vote for the one WHO WILL WIN and not WHO SHOULD WIN.

If you vote for him.

Not without a majority of Kucinich clones in both the house and senate. Kucinich as president would announce all these great plans that I actually care about. But because he alienates both Dems and Thugs, his proposals are ignored by congress or worse, slammed in every vote. A President has very limited power to enforce his or her leadership. A true lame duck or universally disliked president (disliked by congress, that is) can do virtually nothing.

I'd love to see socialized medicine in the U.S., but I don't believe the best way to get is to vote for the guy who agrees but has no power. I don't think most changes to the big things happen in a single step. You're not going to see revolutionary change in this country without a real revolution and a real revolution is a long way off in my opinion. We can hope to move the "center" to the left, and I do think we can get to socialized medicine in a couple steps. Trying to make the leap with Kucinich would just delay the chances.

This is why I think Kucinich is unelectable--people agree with him, but he isn't able to play politics within the system.

nt

People can support Edwards if they want to! Quit trying to guilt-trip everyone!

This is about seriously talking about this election.

Edwards claims he is a populist candidate. He is saying all these things about corporations and broken government. He's talking special interests all day and all night. He's talking about ending the war and doing this and that for global warming and unions. All the while people are buying into it when he hasn't the record or the capability to do all the things he says.

Kucinich on the other hand does. If elected, it would be because the people paid him to be president. It would not be because some corporations or special interests elected him expecting a favor.

I'm not supporting anyone at this point--largely because of threads like this. :rofl:

Or because you are afraid to stand up for a better future for America?

I don't mean to intimidate, be rude, or guilt trip but what exactly do you people want? What do you want the next presidential candidate to do? Maybe if I get a pulse here and get an idea of what you people commenting would like to see happen to save America, than this won't be hilarious anymore. You will start to talk seriously about how this nation is creeping towards permanent fascism.

but there's many different ways of approaching the answers. I'm looking into all of them. But some of the groupies piss me off way more than they help...

BTW, I campaigned and voted for Kucinich in the '04 primary. Just sayin'...

Being that dismissive of anyone who doesn't share your views isn't going to win friends and influence people--and after months of posts like your OP (from all the different groupies), I'm finding the whole thing rather laughable.

Here's a hint--don't trash another candidate--make yours stand out in a positive way. I've been doing campaigns for 25 years. No one wants vinegar.

The supporters of John Edwards see him as a good man who would be a good President. That's their choice and they shouldn't be made to feel guilty about it.

problem. I support Edwards.

You aren't just voting for him because Dennis failed to do a good job in 2004 are you?

But I would like to know why Edwards over Dennis and then talk about it. In this forum, I'm creating a confrontation to help me better understand the people supporting Democratic candidates in this election.

Surely with these new polls out, Edwards people will be telling me how this establishment poll shows Obama or Edwards would do for president and certainly this shows Kucinich could never win.

in my lifetime.

DK is not ready to be president. I wouldn't vote for him even if he is nominated.

do you have something against peace?

as if a Dept of Peace is the best way to have peace. Are you as naive as Dennis? Read his proposal... and if you can't keep from laughing at its stupidity, you've lost your sense of humor, IMO.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/the-department-of-peace/

Write me an article and I will gladly post it on OpEdNews under your name.

what exactly is so naive?

there are 8 real democrats running for President, some of them with a chance of winning, unlike DK.

Watch the GOP debate tonight and then tell me that we only have one 'real' Democrat running for President. When you've digested several hours of warmongering, immigrant bashing, gay bashing, and general booga-booga beating of the fear drums then look at Edwards or any of our other candidates and tell me they aren't Democrats. You don't hear that crap from any of them.

I support Obama but I think Edwards is a good man and would make a good president. Can we stop this 'real Democrat' nonsense?

Not until I see Obama and Edwards take up issues and start saying the things that need to be said. Not until they start to establish a record and start to show policies for REAL change in America. I'm talking about the kind of policies that Dennis supports.

Supporting Impeachment would be good.

Supporting single-payer health care would be good.

Supporting the repeal of NAFTA instead of "fixing it" (whatever that means) would be good.

Supporting immediate withdrawal from Iraq followed by a move that would involve sending in UN peacekeeping or Muslim peackeeping forces into the region would be nice. I'm talking a plan to get us out in 2 or 3 months, not 5 years or 2013.

Supporting the repeal of the PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, and speaking out against this Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act would be good.

Being more vocal and actually talking about media consolidation at debates would be good too.

These aren't unreasonable requests to make of these "Democrats."

And perhaps a differentiation should be made here...do we wish to have a progressive Democrat elected or a Democrat elected?

I want a progressive Democrat and Dennis Kucinich seems to be the only one. That's what makes him a REAL Democrat. Go back to the days of FDR and his policies represent the heart and soul of what used to be a great Democratic Party.

with nasty threads like this :shrug:

As proven by the previous comments. And I just want to hear from them and respond. Maybe I only reach one or none potential voters. But this is for me to figure out what is driving Edwards supporters.

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

I don't want your food.

If you have nothing to add to this discussion of Edwards, than don't bother to comment.

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

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

from actors that can give a good speech. Sad but true, because if people looked at JE's ACTIONS - as in his voting record - they wouldn't give him a 2nd chance. Because JE says much of the right things - at least now in the last 2 years, people cannot wait to jump on his little bandwagon.

The facts and actions about JE are totally contradictory to what he is saying now - and People don't have a problem with that - WHY????? is really an important question.

"Edwards helping to Bankrupt Americans..

which makes the middle class highly susceptible to Poverty. (the centerpiece of his platform)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwards has been part and parcel of the GOP agenda all the way. Edwards voting record is one of the worst of our Dem Senators. Edwards is helping create poverty in the middle class with his bankruptcy vote and earning millions for himself when working for the Hedge Fund sector. The same Hedge Fund sector that was buying sub-prime mortgages for their investment portfolios.. The same "POVERTY" he now professes to help as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It must be hard for Edward's supporters to understand the meaning of the words "poverty" and "hypocrisy", when their candidate, John Edwards exemplifies it so well.

Why shouldn't he, he voted for it!

I have great respect for Biden for the work he's put into getting our troops out of Iraq. Edwards, not so much. AFAIC, Edwards has NO redeeming factors that would put him in the category of presidential hopeful. The best news is, he isn't running as an incumbent VP.

We dodged a bullet on that one."

These are the cold hard facts EVIDENCE of what this man did while he was in office for 6 short years: He voted and cosponsored a war that I knew was a mistake
He voted for the Patriot Act
He voted for H1-b Visas
He voted w/ Pubs on Bankruptcy to convicted criminals
He voted for free trade w/China
He voted against reinstating voting rights -----------These are the facts of this man's record and during those 6 short years in office he spent over 2 of them running a campaign for V & POTUS. Maybe, if he actually just served out his term, and really studied the issues, he wouldn't have made such poor judgments, but ambition got in the way of the homework that he obviously needed to educate himself on what exactly his votes meant.

His priority has always been to advance his career, not educating himself so that he could do the right things. Saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong" isn't giving back life and limbs to millions. This guy, much like Bush's philosophy, wants a promotion after screwing up so badly. Look at Bush's bud's, all got promoted or awards after doing a miserable job. People seem to subscribe to the same way of choosing successors.

:headbang:

It's good to know someone knows the candidates and actually is worried about a future under Edwards if not under Obama or Clinton.

very little difference in them. DK is really the only consistent candidate who really stands up for Dem Values and speaks our words for us. He is not perfect, but then who is, but looking at all of the pros and cons on each candidate, if you want somebody with real Democratic values and consistency and a voting record that puts his money where his mouth is, DK is an obvious choice.

Excellent summation, counselor. ;)

but I do believe that he's the most honest, to himself and to his constituents.

Depends on what you think this Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.

After some time, I have come to decide that what Dennis stands for is what the Democratic Party should stand for. His stance on war, civil liberties, human rights, the economy, worker's rights, jobs, environment and global climate change, energy, health care, electoral system, media consolidation, the Constitution, etc. His stances are all where all Democrats should be.

I like his stances. He's quite liberal, and I appreciate that about him! I just hesitate to throw out "REAL" about any of the candidates. I think that they are all representative of different but overlapping segments of the Dem party. DK is one of my personal favorites in the pack, but there are Democrats that I am friends with who are much less liberal than what is represented here on DU. And I would consider them real democrats.

I did know what you mean, though. :)

He has not the name recognition, deep financial pockets, or M$M buy in to win.

He articulates our message and passions better then anyone else currently running, though when the dust settles - I want to be sure to field a candidate that can beat the rethugs.

That candidate will not be Dennis sadly, and damn well better not be Hillary.

John is my number 3 choice (Gore, Kucinich, Edwards) - I may just have to settle...

Vote for him in the primaries and hold your head up.

We've got a month and a half. I'm going to be of the view that anything can happen not only because it will allow me to continue to shamelessly support Dennis but because I must think this way because the future of America depends on it.

I particularly don't agree with his stance with regards to illegal immigrants - OOPS, sorry, Dennis, I mean undocumented workers. Kucinich voted NO on SCHIP because it didn't include the children of illegal - I mean, undocumented - workers.

You may consider Dennis your "real thing," but he's not mine.

Edwards is.

SCHIP had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It had everything to do with children of immigrants who are citizens of this country.

Okay so you support Edwards. Great. What is Edwards' plan to deal with illegal immigration? We have a problem here. Corporations are allowing illegals to work. They are creating a system of cheap labor or slave labor in this country that serves them. This is causing the influx of illegals and largely part of the reason why people are upset and want to make our national language English so we can persecute those who speak Spanish.

What does Edwards plan to do to humanely deal with this situation with illegals?

He did vote for NAFTA, which has a lot to do with the Mexican immigrant problem.

for other reasons than - the real issues - As long as there are so many that could support such an obvious overly ambitious, under qualified fake, this country is really sunk.

I still want to know how you "fix" NAFTA.

but I do feel that we need to protect our economy, yet realize that we are living in a global economy. Possibly not doing business with countries that violate human rights. Possibly looking at import and export taxes. There are many things to look at with this, and I am the first to admit, that I don't have all of the answers.

I would repeal it and start over. After all that I have heard about NAFTA, it isn't worth fixing or keeping in place.

is the details.....right?

The policy I believe is meant to get us to trade with all countries in North America. The expansions on it help us increase trade with other regions of the world. But the people who have articulated those agreements have created situations that are rife with human rights abuses and filled with injustice. They have created poverty and affected jobs negatively here and abroad. NAFTA has a lot to do with our illegal immigrant situation. China under NAFTA and its expansions has allowed poisonous toys to enter America. And so, yes, the details are the problem. But the details make up more than 90% of the agreement, which is why I wish to scrap it. Scrapping it would have a symbolic effect on the world as it would mean America is turning a corner. And after we scrap it, with a real president that will talk with countries, have good international relations, promote diplomacy, seek to expand human rights and worker's rights in countries all over the world, we will be able to recreate a trade plan with all countries that works.

However, I caution you. NAFTA and its expansions create a superstructure that is part of neoliberalism. The last decade's rise in neoliberalism has crippled many areas of the world.

doesn't support non-U.S.-born children of illegal aliens being included in SCHIP, I was wrong and deserved to be called on it. (U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are U.S. citizens.)

If he does think that children of legal immigrants (not the same thing as citizens) should qualify for SCHIP, the only real problem I have with that is that although legal immigrants pay taxes, they don't pay as much as U.S. citizens do. (I realize that is because generally speaking, they earn less money than citizens do and have more kids.)

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/coffers.html

(snip)

In 1999, 74 percent of households headed by natives had to pay at least some federal income tax, compared to only 59 percent of Mexican immigrant households. Even if one confines the analysis to legal Mexican immigrants, the gap between their tax contributions and those of natives remains large. Using the same method as before to distinguish legal and illegal Mexican immigrant households, the estimated federal income liability of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants in 1999 was $2,538.

(snip)

Using the estimates developed by the NRC and based on the educational attainment and age of newly arrived adult Mexican immigrants in 2000, we find that the lifetime fiscal burden created by the average adult Mexican immigrant is $50,300. It should be pointed out that these figures were based on 1996 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the fiscal burden would be $55,200 in 2000.

And what would the fiscal burden be now?

Where does Edwards stand on illegal immigration? you asked.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/6/8/14261/53734

(snip)

Our property taxes are through the roof because of high latino birth rates that are causing over-crowding in schools while most parents pay little or no property taxes that support the schools.

Our medical infrastructure is pushed to the limit since the emergency room has become the primary care physician while we the tax payers pick up the tab. Before some of you begin to jump up and scream "bigotry" I'd like to state in advance that this is not a race issue, it's a legal one. It just so happens that most illegals are of hispanic origin. We should uphold our immigration laws no matter if one is from Nicaragua or Sweden. Laws are in place for a reason and they're simply not being enforced.

We don't need to squander money on a fence or hire more border guards. The solution is simple. Stiff penalties for employers that hire undocumented workers.

Btw, I agree with most here that NAFTA was a big mistake.

And I support Edwards and back him up for saying and articulating those points on illegal immigration. Believe it or not, he is on my side when I am looking at the race for the presidency.

I divide the candidates like this:

The Good... Gravel Kucinich
The Bad but Worth Considering...Dodd Edwards
The Ugly... Clinton Obama Richardson Biden

I'm going to vote Dodd before I vote Edwards. And I will vote Kucinich before Dodd. But hearing Edwards repeat what Dodd or Kucinich are saying makes the debate or discussion among Democratic candidates more of what it should be.

Because they are confrontational and ask people to take a stand?

What's wrong with asking people why they are asking John to be the next president and trying to get him to have all the Democratic stances we the American people want when Dennis has a track record of championing all the stances Americans want the next president to champion?

Dennis is viable. I'm not going to abandon my question because Edwards is performing better in polls (polls that are biased, media run, and supported by the establishment we get upset with every day).

...and then you put on this air of condensation at those who may not see things the way you do, as if they are somehow less intelligent for not realizing that your opinions are indeed facts, simply because deemed them to be.

But I think you knew all this before you even posted.

These posts rub me the wrong way and are generally made to cause arguments and flame wars between supporters of different candidates.

:shrug:

We should discuss the differences between Edwards and Kucinich. I set my post up to have this conflict.

I respect and admire Kucinich, and at one time he had my support.

Edwards has bold ideas, and he actually has a shot at this.

Edwards 2008!

Like what?

NOT.

Oops, just kidding.

It's a lame attack post on another candidate rather than a substantial statement on anything Kucinich has to offer.

It's about people supporting Edwards and me wondering about that support.

AND IF YOU KNEW ABOUT HIS LEGAL CAREER THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL YOU WOULD SAY SUCH IDIOTIC THINGS!

If he was so successful, why did he leave his job and run for president twice now?

If he's so great at what he does, then why not stay put?

Edwards-

Elected to the Senate in 1998
Campaigned for President in 2004
Campaigning for President in 2008

Kucinich-

Elected mayor becoming the youngest mayor ever to be elected at that time in 1977
Ran for a Secretary of State position in 1982
Won a special election to fill a councilman position in 1983
Left the position and ran for governor as an Independent (later withdrawing)in 1985
Elected to the state senate in 1994
Elected to the House in 1996
Elected to the House in 1998
Elected to the House in 2000
Elected to the House in 2002
Campaigned for President in 2004
Elected to the House in 2004
Elected to the House in 2006
Campaigning for President in 2008

Clearly, Kucinich has a history of serving the people in positions in government. Edwards' history of serving people from positions in government is nothing compared to Dennis'.

Dennis--- "Because he was right."

That's okay, though. Didn't expect an answer.

Why do you choose to ignore this?

Just a hunch.

You can do it....

Because I have better things to do than research Edwards. I would just point people in the direction of his book "Four Trials" if they wish to learn more about Edwards' past. I imagine it's a great read.

Yet any marginalization, real or imagined, of DK's career likely gets you in a tizzy.

Sorry, it's hard to take this thread seriously, with this kind of nonsense.

I'm not in a tizzy over anything. I am talking about an issue here. So, whatever...you think what you want. Luckily Edwards won't be having to vote on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act so I cannot talk to you about the possibility of "thought control" by government becoming more and more of a reality. Kucinich voted against this act by the way. Anyways...

I think experience in public offices is important when selecting the next president. I think Edwards' record of public service is lacking when compared to Kucinich's. That's my opinion. What I use to support it is the comparison of all the positions each has held in public office. Kucinich has been elected and trusted in by the people more than John.

If this is nonsense, quit coming back to this thread. Nobody is forcing you to undergo this stress that is being created in your mind from what you are having to read.

as a lawyer, he was extremely successful became filthy rich and rolled right into an opulent lifestyle. Not too different than many rich and powerful self made men. As a lawyer, I'd hire him, as POTUS, not a chance - I say he needs to do a lot more preparation before he is QUALIFIED to be POTUS and he needs to prove how he could have had these votes a few short years ago, and now - all of a sudden - has had a complete metamorphis -

He voted and cosponsored a war that I knew was a mistake
He voted for the Patriot Act
He voted for H1-b Visas
He voted w/ Pubs on Bankruptcy to convicted criminals
He voted for free trade w/China
He voted against reinstating voting rights -----------These are the facts of this man's record and during those 6 short years in office he spent over 2 of them running a campaign for V & POTUS. Maybe, if he actually just served out his term, and really studied the issues, he wouldn't have made such poor judgments, but ambition got in the way of the homework that he obviously needed to educate himself on what exactly his votes meant.

A more indepth look at the "FAKENESS" on JE:

"Edwards helping to Bankrupt Americans.

which makes the middle class highly susceptible to Poverty. (the centerpiece of his platform)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwards has been part and parcel of the GOP agenda all the way. Edwards voting record is one of the worst of our Dem Senators. Edwards is helping create poverty in the middle class with his bankruptcy vote and earning millions for himself when working for the Hedge Fund sector. The same Hedge Fund sector that was buying sub-prime mortgages for their investment portfolios.. The same "POVERTY" he now professes to help as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It must be hard for Edward's supporters to understand the meaning of the words "poverty" and "hypocrisy", when their candidate, John Edwards exemplifies it so well.

Why shouldn't he, he voted for it!

I have great respect for Biden for the work he's put into getting our troops out of Iraq. Edwards, not so much. AFAIC, Edwards has NO redeeming factors that would put him in the category of presidential hopeful. The best news is, he isn't running as an incumbent VP.

We dodged a bullet on that one.

Is it any wonder so many of us undecideds can't take ANY of it seriously?! :rofl:

Just what is Edwards going to do for unions?

There is a disconnect between 'democratic values' voters and 'image/electability' voters.

This is a golden opportunity for Democrats to elect a 'Roosevelt' Democrat (Dennis Kucinich)

It is way past time to end the dysfunctional relationship some Democrats have with their party, and nothing will send that message out louder than supporting Congressman Kucinich.

The Healthcare issue alone makes him the best choice.

His record speaks of standing up for the people, union workers, and the average joe.

He is the practical choice for 'issue oriented' Democrats.

And the most electable, He doesn't have the 'I was for the war before I was against it' baggage that hurt us so much in '04.

But rather a thread to ask, "Why when someone who supports what Americans want Democrats to support do people spend time trying to mold Edwards into the candidate they want him to be?", please tell me...

Do you have an answer to this question? Coming from someone who will most likely vote for Dennis, why are people wasting time with Edwards and not just jumping on board the Kucinich peace train?

sorry....:shrug:

That's why?

because it's a HUGH issue with a lot of actual voters. while there might be a lot of people who might favour the type of ban that kucinich envisions/endorses- most of them aren't as passionate about it as the people on the other side of the issue are- they WILL come out and vote to protect the right they've been granted in the 2nd amendment. and whether you or anyone else feels that it's questionable that such a right is granted in that amendment- THEY feel that it is, and THEY will vote to protect that right.

hopefully the supreme court hearing the d.c. case next summer will clear the issue up before the election, but either way, kucinich will never even get close to the nomination- so his stance on the issue is really nothing more than just a moot point...sorry...again...:shrug:

I would like to vote for someone with his ideals, but who also actually has the skills to be president. DK simply doesn't have what it takes to run a country. His '04 campaign was poorly managed, and '08 is as well. He missed the deadline to be included in the Alabama primary, http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/NEWS02/711080314/1009/NEWS05, and he has no campaign, to speak of, going on in Iowa. If he can't organize a campaign, how is he to be trusted with the presidency? Even if it means compromising some of my own ideals, I'd rather vote for someone I don't totally agree with and see some forward progress.

Nope, I'd rather eat glass than to write him in on my primary ballot. (btw, I'm not an Edwards supporter).

Does not make it easy to manage a campaign. But I think this year his campaign staff has done a good job.