I stand with John Edwards

This nonsense about his supposed 30k house is crap. Let's look at Edwards the person.

Let's start with Iraq. Yes he voted for the IWR. That's a black mark on his record in my opinion. However, he has said the three little words that so many pols seem to be afraid of: "I was wrong".


Who else has said those words, exactly? I was wrong... While the IWR is a black mark, he has redeemed himself in my view. At least, enough to make me listen to what he has to say.

I'll never forget that he came up to support Ned Lamont right after his primary victory. He came up to support him while the rest of the Dem Party establishment ran around with their arms in the air not knowing what to do. John Edwards was needed... and he came.



Among other areas, he has done a lot for poverty. His work with the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity has been nothing but impressive. Poverty kind of gets pushed out of our minds. I know it does for me. When I actually think about it though, I am brought to disgust because this is the richest goddamn country in the world and we have people who don't know when they're going to get a next meal. How many children suffer as a result of poverty? How about crime? I've come to realize that poverty is very real and connected with our lives. John Edwards understands this. He's all about opening up opportunity to all of us because he believes that with opportunity comes great success and a chance to improve one's living standard. This is a glimmer of hope for someone who is in dire straits. Katrina has been pushed out of the M$M. It's old news. It doesn't bring in the ratings. Shrubby had the audacity to not mention Katrina ONCE! John Edwards understands Katrina. In a speech in Baton Rouge, he said that Hurricane Katrina has made the poor "impossible to ignore". During spring break of 2006, John Edwards came down to New Orleans to help students who traded their time in the sun to help rebuild.



John Edwards launched "Project Opportunity", a grassroots campaign to encourage youths to engage in the movement against poverty. Edwards supports strong unions. He teamed up with "Unite Here" and pressured the hotels to improve wages for all its workers, not just the wages of their union workers. He received the 2006 AFL-CIO's Wellstone Award, an award that recognizes leaders who "take a strong stand for workers' freedom to form unions and who fight for social and economic justice". He believes that college should be made accessible to every citizen, those from the lower class to the middle, because again, college is another opportunity. College tuition has increased 50% within the past seven years (it's worse here in Connecticut); something has to be done soon. With Edwards' strong labor ties, his work to combat poverty and his plan to increase college accessibility, there's no doubt in my mind that Edwards has a vision of an America that I want to be a part of. Not an America of war, rape and death but an America where we can all work together to combat one of the filthiest diseases in our country (the other being homelessness).

There is room to criticize John Edwards but some of the comments here, on a Democratic message board, are putrid to say the least. They are nothing but disgusting smears leveled at Edwards. I can look past his "McMansion" and his barn and his rec center and see the true issues that shine. John Edwards is a dedicated voice against poverty, the disease that plagues this great nation. I cannot tell you how elated I am that Edwards is going to be participating in the debates and getting his ideas out into the open. I can't be more prouder that he's on our side. Before you trash John Edwards, get your ass off of the chair and look around. We all have that one "luxury" item that we can live without. Nobody has any place to smear Edwards over his new home. You need to look at the issues instead of the headlines and utter hype. If you run the water while your brushing your teeth, eat meat, use a dishwasher, use incandescent bulbs, don't power down your computer, drink bottled water, don't conserve energy/water then you are just as guilty and I am and neither of us has a place to bitch at Edwards for "sucking up resources". Give me an effing break people.

I'm tired of the smear-slinging. I will freely admit that I'm not Hillary's biggest fan and I may have said some things in the past that were a little uncalled for but I give you my word DU: Never again will I engage in that sort of thing.

John Edwards, Cleaning Up in New Orleans

"I am strongly committed to moving people out of poverty and into the middle class"

"The best anti-poverty strategy is a strong labor movement."







Tomorrow Begins Today.

believe in and anyway, the house thing is so silly....

The loss of their son, breast cancer, nothing stops them.

They have optimism, hope, and belief in our country. Nor do they operate under a dark cloud where they want to kill everyone who they think might be a possible threat.

I love the Edwards.

and I say Good For Them!! :toast:

We consume a variety of resources and products today having moved beyond basic needs to include luxury items and technological innovations to try to improve efficiency. Such consumption beyond minimal and basic needs is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, as throughout history we have always sought to find ways to make our lives a bit easier to live. However, increasingly, there are important issues around consumerism that need to be understood. For example:

* How are the products and resources we consume actually produced?
* What are the impacts of that process of production on the environment, society, on individuals?
* What are the impacts of certain forms of consumption on the environment, on society, on individuals?
* Which actors influence our choices of consumption?
* Which actors influence how and why things are produced or not?
* What is a necessity and what is a luxury?
* How do demands on items affect the requirements placed upon the environment?
* How do consumption habits change as societies change?
* Also influential is the very culture of today in many countries, as well as the media and the political institutions themselves. What is the impact on poorer nations and people on the demands of the wealthier nations and people that are able to afford to consume more?
* How do material values influence our relationships with other people?
* What impact does that have on our personal values?

...until he became a APAC backer and their message (i.e supporter of bombing Iran).

Thanks.

Is it just a plain old conference -- or is there other stuff going on at this hyper-well attended assembly organized this week in Herziliya?

Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times reports in his blog that the following mix of Luke Skywalkers and Darth Vaders (many more Darth Vaders) attended a meeting at a coastal resort near Tel Aviv:

Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (well, he's local)

Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu (he's local too)

Defense Minister Amir Peretz (another local)

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (another local)

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England (replaced Wolfowitz)

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns (has been acting simultaneously as Condi's Deputy, Counselor, and UN Ambassador lately)

Presidential Candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator John McCain (via satellite)

Presidential Candidate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Presidential Candidate and former U.S. Senator John Edwards (via satellite)

Richard Perle (needs no qualifiers)

Former CIA Director and Committee on the Present Danger Chairman R. James Woolsey

Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (probably the only European neocon)

Read Gideon's good piece. The conference sounds a lot like a war party -- and if not that at least a cheerleading party for the idea of militarily confronting Iran.

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001890.php

You’re obviously a fan of Edwards...

I was taken in by his “I’m for the poor” spiel too.


Here’s a link showing how Edwards co-sponsored Lieberman’s resolution to go into Iraq...

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P


Here’s a news article reporting Edwards’ view on Iraq...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html

...he's a DLC hawk.

Or state where he did. Thanks.

Anything else would be just plain crazy.

see if you can guess what it is.

:eyes: We can't kill everyone, can we? Or can we?

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html


John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002


"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002


You can look it up.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

"...former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, who recently launched a new presidential campaign, also said that Israel should be allowed to join NATO.

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/24/133737/037

He is not looking too good to me.

Then went on to say, we need to keep all options on the table. That's just plain common sense. America should always leave all options on the table in any situation. Anything less could be very dangerous.

He emphasizes "all options on the tables" way too many times. While others emphasize the diplomacy and the details of how that would help, JE uses strong rhetoric to basically threaten Iran, the same type of rhetoric was used on the buildup to Iraq.

Again,

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

How many times did he mention diplomacy, talks, AND how many times did he mention leaving "all options on the table"? He hasn't learned now has he? In case you don't get it "all options on the table" means US attacking Iran.

the last few years that isn't my assumption at all. He has always said we should be talking not only with Iran but with Syria also. That just doesn't sound like attacking Iran or anyone else to me. Quite frankly I'm more worried about Bush attacking Iran.

My count is ZERO.

For a person who co-sponsored IWR and then voted for it and then took another 2 - 3 years to admit that he was wrong, this is very telling. It tells me that this man will revert back to hawkish talk IF and WHEN he feels like it. He was wrong yesterday, apologized yesterday and today he is ratcheting the "tough" "hawkish" talk yet again...... He isn't consistent, because he doesn't really know what he is talking about. His opinion changes with the wind. Wait, he will back down off of this strong rhetoric soon, you just wait and see, he crossed the line and he will retract or deny what he has just implied. He is a trial lawyer after all, he should be really good at that.


"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

Edwards added, "Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table"

Bush, partly, was put into office by an electorate that was not informed or discriminating enough. I don't want to be responsible for putting another disaster into office, do you? We have to be very careful with whom we support, and with all of the problems that this country is presently experiencing, we don't need somebody that has already proven extraordinarily bad judgement in the past accompanied by a total lack of experience in many of the critical areas where we need only the best expertise in order to survive. It would even be worse than putting a 1st year medical student in to do brain surgery.

Not a good idea.

It is very interesting to me, that we all have different perspectives, which is a good thing. We each have one vote, mine goes to Edwards. I'm sure your candidate is very capable also. We are very lucky to have such a wide variety of candidates running. In fact thus far, I like all of the dems. No one is perfect and they all have strengths and weaknesses. We have to use our intelect to discern those differences.

Although we are in different camps as it were, when walking into that voting booth, we both will vote for the person that we think will bring honor, peace, and prospertity to our beloved country. In that we are united.

troubles me that so many will accept so little from a possible POTUS. It saddens me that we all don't realize that Iraq is the most important issue of today and that on that issue, JE has been totally wrong. His lack of experience in Foreign Affairs is so astounding that I don't think any one of the Democratic candidates has less than JE. His judgements wrong, his experience next to nothing and the fact that for the last two years, his job has been campaigning for himself and positioning himself for 08', painfully shows how much "working for the people" really means to JE.

He, in comparison to all of the other candidates has done the least for the common good of the people. Other candidates have been actively working on the behalf of the people of this country while possibly getting their name out there as a possible contender for POTUS, JE has done nothing but camaign for that.... Why do people so easily fall for so little substance. While JE was a formidable trial attorney, THAT in no way qualifies him for POTUS. There is a great deal more to the job than being a great Trial Attorney. This guy is so transparent....ambition, lack of credentials and arrogance. What will it take for people to really raise the bar of expectations when it comes to the most important job in the world??????

Seems like I have been protesting against war since the 60's, forty years later and I still protest. My husband served in the navy for 20 years, it was time for a review of his Top Secret Security clearance, my named showed up on a petition against the Nam war. He was called on the carpet, stood firm and said that he served so that I had the right to march in the street and sign anything I wanted too. He eventually died for our flag, service connected disability, and yet he had no regrets and would have done it all over again. I know first hand the dedication and love of country that our soldiers have. So as you can see, I am not a hawk but a dove.

We must, the both of us, go into that voting booth and vote for the person that we think has the ability to try to do the best for the american people and our country.

Thank you for the kind comments.

Shar

information is posted?

I can forgive John Edwards for voted for the IWR.

I can forgive John Edwards for sponsoring the IWR.

I don't really think the house is something upon which to make a decision, though it raises questions about his values.

I admired his "I was wrong. position on the IWR.

I was attracted to his candidacy primarily because, of the 3 leading announced presidential candidates, he seemed to make the strongest case against the Iraq war.


But there is one thing that appears a perhaps insurmountable problem: His recent beating of the war drums regarding Iran:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=49201&mesg_id=49201


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html









Has John Edwards learned anything from his experience with the IWR?

Will John Edwards continue to beat the drums for war with Iran, and an endlessly wider mideast war?

What "education" do you have in mind for us difficult & "reticent" Americans?

Please, John, say it one more time: "I - - - was - - - wrong!"


















(Where are Al Gore and Wes Clark when you need them?)

In what they say about Iran? :shrug:

John Edwards for President 2008

And this all smacks too much of how Rush attacked our Dems last time. I refuse to tear our Dems apart during primary time.

he has some kickass garage space I can fill with crap.

I do stand with him. Thanks god for Lord Acton, John Stuart Mill, John Edwards, et al.

I reject all this fuss over his damn house.

I've got other things to focus on generally and in politics specifically.

We have a horrendous administration to replace beginning with the first caucus and primary votes roughly a year from now.

Let's get to work.

..not sure if I'll vote for him.

Really don't give a rat's ass that he's building a new house. It's his money, he can spend it however he wants.

Cheers

I just want people to read what good he has done. If we all focused on the "bad things" then we all lose. :kick:

I stand with you. I was at the New Haven Rally, it was great to see Edwards/Lamont together, united, both trying to make a change for a better america. I envision them working together again in the future.

He's got plenty of room

champagne, brie cheese with grey poupon, though.


Just kidding.

More interested in chocolate chip cookies, chili, etc. I think I've seen only one photo of him with a glass of white wine, and I think it was hardly touched.

And I am glad I don't have a candidate right now, too much dirt being slung about candidates...

I thought that was what the right was for.

...yet Edwards is also pushing the lie that Iran ia a nuclear threat that must be stopped right now.

Does not compute. Help?

Though, before I condemn him, I want to hear more about what he has to say about it. From what I read, he said that there should be more political and economic sanctions, which I disagree, but that's a far cry from an invasion. That's from what I've read though.

LIEberMe has always been pro-war. I guess with Edwards, he came out and said "I was wrong", so he certainly should know better now and I do believe he was sincere in saying that. Bush Inc could bomb Iran into oblivion and LIEberMe would be right next to him jumping up and down.

I'm sure that doesn't help. I'm kind of conflicted over this.

Edit: Okay just read something posted in their thread where he said that "all options are on the table", damn. My support will slip if he continues his hawkish "Iran is a threat" crap.

Good gods almighty but DUers are in a head-where-the-sun-don't-shine mood just now. What are these people thinking -- that by trashing a good progressive for having done well in life that they will somehow advance the cause?

Or is this a case of the rankest form of jealousy -- crabs in a bucket pulling down the one that climbs higher?

Hekate

As well they should, he's a strong candidate.

oh my! and what about the Kennedy compound. These terrible people.

Maybe you should find some other example to make your point.

who on race was a product of his times, but certainly was more progressive than Wilson, and was also being pushed to do more by his wife. I also will stand with FDR who did a great deal to get this country moving again during the depression and had to deal with southerners who were in charge of congressional committees to get his New Deal passed. As far as being a warmonger, well, some wars are unavoidable such as World War Two, imo, we had to stop Hitler.

If he's rich, he's allowed to spend the $$ on what he wants. He earned it, as the freepers would say. In fact, the government "stole" as much again in taxes.

Why is he being picked on for this? Do we honestly think the * family and the Cheneys don't have every luxury. Or the Kerrys? or the Kennedys? Just don't see the big issue here.

It's apparently too easy to talk about the issues (or maybe too much trouble) but it's just so easy to knock someone for working hard and enjoying the fruits of his labor.

And I say that as I live in my house, in which I can only afford to heat one room at a time because I have no money right now. But I still think John Edwards will do more for people like me that the likes of a Bush or a (no, I won't mention a Democratic candidate because I absolutely will not contribute to bashing ANY Democrat.)

was in the Senate, what cause did he champion while he was in the Senate actually able to do something for the people?

Regardless of whether his personal choices are perfect, he deserves to be seen as a whole person.

Although I haven't decided yet which candidate to back, I've always thought him to be a decent, honorable, and potentially backable (is that a word?) person. All of these threads which seem pretty irrelevant, frankly, about his house have been kind of annoying and distracting to a newbie like me, and I have to admit that they kind of make me want to back him more, not less, than I might otherwise have done.

DU will get like this from time to time.

Oh, and welcome to DU friend. :toast:

I understand. It didn't take me long to figure out that my timing sucked, that's all :)

And thank you for the welcome! :toast:

I support Kucinich for his liberal views and next Edwards...Edwards has a real shot and would win.

I'll support him. :thumbsup:

And....I will not post negatives about any Dems. I'll only post negative stuff about Republik candidates.

If people can only come up with these crappy house arguments against him, he might be worthwhile after all.

The size of his house doesn't bother me. If people would read Elizabeth's book, (which I just finished) you'd get a sense of how important home and family are to both of them.

They USE their home. They have young kids. Their house in Raleigh was THE gathering spot for friends of Wade and Cate. I imagine they are hoping that with all the activities (basketball/pool/racquetball)
right there, it will be an enticement when Emma Claire and Jack are older for their friends to come to their house.

I think all this hyperventilating about the size of Edwards' house
removes focus from the issues.

PS--They are planning at least two more buildings: one a home for Cate and a separate place for visiting family/friends.

Plus, they maybe planning a large outdoor lawn area for soccer/football/
volleyball, and outdoor play equipment.

I support a strong social safety net, but I also realize it's impossible to have total income equality. If his policies help the poor, I really don't care what the size of his house is.