Do you still like John Edwards?

:shrug:

He had the BEST message. I could care less about where he puts his dick. Not my husband, not my business.

If he couldn't stay true to his wedding vows, he sure as hell wont stay true to his political promises.

But the teabaggers do.

why should I?

One of the things I LOVE about Biker13 is his loyalty. He's a fine looking man and a semi-famous musician. Women fall all over him....and I yawn. He keeps his word, and that means EVERYTHING!

Biker's Old Lady

ONLY if he was my husband. I adored Elizabeth. She did what she needed to do to meet her needs and I respect her for it.
But, she was the judge, jury and executioner for John's dick. I have no claims on it--could care less where he puts it as long as it is in a consenting adult.
His sex life and his political life were two different things. If I decided to have an affair--it would not reflect on my job in the least.

They were both hungry for the presidency and they both seriously jeopardized us in 2008. She knew he was having an affair, and if he were the nominee and it got out, would tank him. She was just as lustful for power as he was. Obama is not making me happy, but at least we have two new very good Supreme Court justices, which we would not have had if candidate Edwards tanked. We would be saying, "Madam VP Palin."

Ethel Kennedy couldn't trust Robert. Corretta Scott King couldn't trust MLK. As far as we know, though, W never cheated on Laura.

because of social morays and lack of employment opportunities.

I'm quite sure that Eleanor was crushed and that Jackie and Corretta felt trapped.

who are greatly respected by most Democrats despite their infidelity.

with themselves, first.

Talk about a woman with options and yet she remained married to her cheating husband.

Julie

Yeah, it's probably none of my beeswax, but, for my opinion, I think she is a wimp. I'm very proud of Elizabeth for kicking the bum out.

of the bitching about President Obama, I'm just not sure how a whole lot of people could damn wherever that might have taken him/us.

a lying duplicitous war mongering asswipe out for no one but little Johny.

sadly is true.

on his dick. If he had gotten the nomination and then this came out, we'd have the John and Sarah show. It was inexcusable.

:shrug:

As to Clinton, polling showed that she actually hurt him with independents. A Chicago paper said that Kerry's first choice was Durbin, but he was talked out of it by those who helped with his search. Edwards was the media favorite and they were already pushing the story that if Kerry didn't pick him it was because Kerry knew Edwards would outshine him - in spite of Kerry solidly beating him in primary after primary.

I wish Kerry would have gone with Durbin, Gephardt or someone unusual like Gary Hart - Hart could have emphasized Kerry's very real credentials of being concerned about non state terrorists long before others which Hart shared.

At any rate almost any other VP would have had the President's back - which Edwards refused to do.

And, yes, I realize that Clinton's numbers didn't improve until she won re-election in '06, but the ticket might have had the same shock value that McCain/Palin did until the world realized that Palin was an IDIOT.

Do you remember the polling after McCain named Palin?


It looked scary for about 10 days. That was until she was forced to give interviews... ;)

Would you say the same thing about then Governor Seblious (sp ?? now HHS head)? She might be a better analog to Palin. (It would have been a double silvered hair team!)

Kathleen Sebelius was only Governor of KS since January 2003.

the media in June and July 2004 on his book tour. The timing of that was extremely bad for any Democratic nominee as it took time away and it had every interviewer using the index - looking under the letter "L". That and Clinton blasting any Democrats questioning Bush's running of the wars - which Kerry was doing.

Practically, it would have caused a problem when Bill Clinton had his heart problems.

Call my cynical though, but maybe Bill's bypass might have generated some sympathy votes for a Kerry/Clinton ticket? :shrug:

And still do.

I expect that I never will.

Much like I feel about all of you motherfuckers.

:hide:

:rofl:

;-)

:rofl:

:applause:

:yourock:

:hug:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:spray:

And I thought what he said about "two Americas" was right on.

Oh well, even a broken clock is right twice a day...

can't stand the thought of him now, tho...he's scum...

Too much of a slicky boy with a fake down home demeanor.

and I said he was a phony through both campaigns,I didn't like it when Kerry chose him as his running mate..

The replacement children (2, because the first one was another useless girl) creeped the fuck out of me. Among other things about the happy shiny perfect couple.

about the children. I always felt like all of the duties and care of the children were on her and caused a lot of stress among other things,but I liked Elizabeth.

the guy had no convictions.

because he would have helped us with the South, but I came to Edwards after Bill Richardson was eliminated, who I liked first and best because he was being the most up front about complete unqualified withdrawal from Iraq, message again being paramount at that point in the process.

I do remember at the time thinking there was something smarmy in Edwards' face. He did seem marketable though, for the same reasons I guess that Palin is marketable.

very useful expertise.

was the fact that he wanted to pursue the election recounts even when Kerry and Ted Kennedy wanted to stop.

However, when I read Elizabeth's first book (I think it was her first) there was an interesting passage in there. (I'll synopsise as best I recall) After the 2000 election, Edwards was casting about for some issue to "champion". Someone (was it Elizabeth?) suggested poverty and John said, "Yes! good idea" or something like that.

It struck me that the same intense yearning to better the lives of the poor and oppressed -- the yearning that Bobby Kennedy authentically seemed to have -- was not a part of John Edwards' nature. After I read that passage, I never felt the same about him. Too opportunistic, not genuine.

The fact is that Tuesday night, Kerry did not want to concede because the number of not counted Ohio votes was high enough that there was still a long shot chance that they had won. By the next morning the numbers were such that there were not enough votes to win. The same team that told Gore to contest, told Kerry there was no case.

Years later - after the Democrats held the Governor and Secretary of State in Ohio - no one has ever found that more votes were cast for Kerry. They suppressed the vote by putting too few voting machines in Democratic strongholds leading to 4 plus hour lines. RFKjr used an estimate of the number of votes this lost for Kerry - but Kerry could not have used that.

The fact is Kerry is the toughest interrogator in the Senate - and he will fight hard, but there was nothing here that he could have used.

As to Edwards, he pushed the idea that he would have fought without ever saying what he would have used as a reason. He also said this ONLY in the blogosphere.

Kerry has a 4 decade record as someone who is honest - Edwards is a liar - and will say whatever advantages him.

I have nothing but huge respect for him.

I don't know why I have this bias; but Edwards has this habit of closing his eyes as he tells stories. People who do that send my bullshit meter into over drive.

Joel Osteen does that crap as well.

and to have made a sex tape, he is a phony and a fucking idiot.

Please allow me to add that I don't condone his extramarital affair, as I'm as hypocritical as the next guy. Regardless, I think he should be Vice President of the United States today.

As things stand, the crooks got away with it.

All of it.

the one of the main issues that created Obama's win, he managed to have a foot on both sides of the line on that issue, so he won, but too late since They dropped the hammer on the Derivative Crash in 2008. The hole we are in might have been at least a little less deep if Kerry had succeeded on "defense" issues, a.k.a. the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, in 2004.

(Dan) Rather than address any attention on George AWOL, Corporate McPravda provided 24/7 coverage to a bunch of smear artists, gratis. Rove knew, as you and I, patrice, that the election in '04 would be all about national security. And Rove had an answer for whatever our side offered -- which was the truth from Tora-Bora to what's devolved into a near-hopeless situation of war without end.

Still, even with the Smear Boaters, I really don't know many people who voted for Bush in '04 -- that's counting people in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Family in California, Texas and Florida reported the same. Even the pukes I know didn't vote for the crazy warmonkey. Where his votes came from, only Diebold and the Urosevich brothers know.

What got me crazy was to see the same crooks who emptied the banks in the first place allowed to keep their jobs and then rewarded with money -- U.S. taxpayer money -- for their trouble. Meanwhile, most every aspect of progress of the 20th century is up for dismantling, from social security to public education.

We are past the point of re-tooling the machine. It's broken and it can't get up. And need a new ride, for rapidly approaching is a column of hobnailed and heavily armed know-nothings. They're just the advance men.

Sorry to sound so cheerless. It's the constant struggle and the constant reaction for any moment of progress that's got me down for a sec. Let us be hearty and fight them. Our weapon is the truth. The future is not theirs.

for people to get over 911 - was an incredible surrogate willing and capable of debating the foreign policy and national security issues. That was Kerry and he was incredible - he perfectly framed the issue in his 2008 convention speech that distinguished the long time Senator McCain, that the media, independents and some Democrats admired from the McCain running in 2008 and finished with a heartfelt challenge to the Republicans usurping patriotism and the flag as just theirs. The NYT called it the best non-acceptance speech at a Democratic convention in two decades. That speech was given poor coverage in the broadcast media, but lines and themes from it were used by Obama and many Democrats in the general election.

There was a reason that Obama sent Kerry as the Democrat to the final MTP before the election - and Kerry seemingly effortlessly made Lindsey Graham look completely ineffectual.

I still wonder if Kerry would have gambled and selected Gary Hart, who wrote the terror report with Rudman that Bush ignored, if they could have jointly made national security their issue. Kerry had warned of the dangers of non state terrorism and of narco states in his 1997 book, the New War. That was written after Kerry's 5 year investigation of BCCI. From what Kerry learned then, he wrote international money laundering legislation - that was blocked by both parties until it was added to the Patriot Act.

The strategists and top Democrats including Clinton all advised him to make the economy the issue and he did in August. His numbers improved when in September he gave a great speech at NYU on Iraq and a speech on terrorism at the University of Philadelphia. This shift was pushed by David Thorne and Cam Kerry against the experienced politicians. These preceded Kerry's excellent debate on foreign policy.

Sadly, I wonder if Kerry had followed his own inclinations (and Thorne's and Cam's) earlier if he could have won. Given that August is usually not a key month, I tend to doubt it would have mattered. It also might have helped if the Begala/Carville contingent would have pushed Kerry's message then rather than whining that he was not listening to Clinton, the master politician. The key may be what key said it was - too many people were still too tied by the bond forged after 911 to Bush. (That and Blackwell cheated in Ohio by the way he assigned voting machines.)

Even though I was/am a Deanocrat, I had settled with myself, with Dean's urging, about Kerry for the sake of being taken seriously on the wars.

I did want just a little contrapuntal thematic emphasis on any issue of Kerry's choice, but I also understood why Kerry's style was what it was.

Kept hoping for more in response to the Swift Boaters from those around Kerry, including Edwards, but other party leaders too. I suppose they all were doing whatever it is that they do behind closed doors, but it just seemed like too many people were too afraid in public and no one was doing any kind of organized strategizing for the WHOLE party at the top end. The margins were too narrow for the voting machine "fudge factor", i.e. vote robbery.

I get fed up with people yelling about Obama's lack of courage. I'm a Liberal, so I'm NOT happy with LOTS of policy stuff, but one thing you can't deny considering for anyone in those presidential shoes. What they do can directly or indirectly cause hurt to LOTS and LOTS of innocent vulnerable people.

Too many people demanding whatever don't seem to think about what the consequences of various types of change could be, even when those changes are the "right" thing, or they think about them solely from their own point of view. Imagine what it would be like as a presidential candidate or as president and to be the one who triggers things that deepen and perpetuate widespread harm; this has to be worse than being a doctor.

It isn't just about the courage to sacrifice one's OWN political opportunities, which couldn't matter that much to a guy in Kerry's position; it's also about the realities of the situation this country is in. We were being held hostage in 2004 and we ARE being held hostage now. All of us and though the rich can adapt to whatever change comes their way, lots of other people can't. Some people care about that, others don't. John Kerry was playing a certain role to win in the situation at hand, which is what we want from any of them. It really is sad that he didn't have a bigger, better, more focused, team around him and too bad Republicans will steal anything they can.

:puke:

Some of you people act like he's the only politician that has ever had an adulterous affair -- or maybe even fell out of love with his wife. This kind of stuff happens in the real world, you know.

Only here in America would it even matter. Our Puritan ancestors would be proud.

And, sorry, "buddy," but cheating on the person who has vowed to be faithful to you and you to them is abuse. It hurts. It hurts as bad as being punched in the nose and for far longer.

Trust me, I've been there and hate the T-shirt.

person who had a right to demand faithfullness. And she was the only person who had a right to decide how she would react when he cheated.

Before you answer think about John Kennedy and FDR. My point is that I believed that despite his marital infidelities I thought he had good ideas for running the country. My other point was that our concern about such matters makes us look silly in other parts of the world where they don't have such a "puritan" bent.

what he did was his own business, Elizabeth was a true human, he made a mistake

None of us are perfect but he hurt a lot of people and he also hurt the message he represented.

And I'm from the South.

I knew a con man when I saw him. I was a Clarkie.

He had good looks and little experience. I was annoyed when so many Dems in my home state chose him as THE ONE to support. I always thought he was just a little too slick and I never really trusted that the man and his message were a match. And basically, my gut instincts about him turned out to be correct.

IWR-Co-sponsoring Patriot-Act-voting worthless windbag of a hypocrite.

-app

No, I'm not talking about Edwards ...

Who gives a shit if anyone "likes" them or not????

They are supposed to be public servants. I don't see that "like" should enter the equation.

really knew the truth, at least 80% of those we elect have had at least one afair and most many more than that. I'd like to kick him in the b..s for being o stupid as to get caught becasue it hurt Elizabeth, and I feel bad for her. John has his heart for the Country in the right place, and I think it's too bad that he will never have the chance to implement his ideas.

and self-centered that he knew he had a scandal that would bury the Democratic party in the election yet still went after the nomination ... NO I don't like him. :grr:

- Once again my womens intuition is proven correct!

When you get to a position as important as his - a candidate in a presidential election - your life stops being about you.

I remember the videos of the people he met with at the free health clinic in West Virginia. Because John couldn't control his personal behavior, we got Obama.

The people in West Virginia will still go to the free clinic.

I'm pissed at him because he was the country's best hope and he blew it.

His message is what ciuld save this country...

Let him live out his life and try to make some sense of it all. We've still got work to do.

Edwards in his last debate in New Hampshire, spoke like virtually no other major figure I had ever seen. He called out all of Washington for being more concerned with what cocktail parties they're invited to, than what is happening to real people in this country. I still believe his message was genuine.

If he's willing to lie and cheat on his wife who had cancer...how well do you think he's going to treat all of us?

He's become a pariah. That's sad because I'm sure there must be something about him that's good and I do believe in atonement, although in his case he may not be trying much. On the other hand Elizabeth let him be by her side when she died. She must have forgiven him to some extent, even if just a little.

something about him just didn't sit right. Guess I nailed it.

part of what drew me to like/support John was Elizabeth.

of narcissism. His actions of the past few years have more than substantiated my opinion of him.

So no, I still don't like John Edwards because I never did!

Never was completely sold on the messenger.

I never could listen to what he was saying because I never believed one damn word.

He was a pure bred blue dog while in congress, he only became progressive when he decided to run for president.

and if I remember right anti-decriminalisation. I also thought he was disingenuous about gay marriage but almost all big Dem politicians have been. Personality-wise I don't dislike him.

and whatever else - I don't dislike him

I just keep thinking with Lieberman and with Edwards, it is a good thing we didn't win the WH, sometimes we get what we need and not what we want

Always a trial lawyer

He should have taken up the GUITAR instead of politics ... he's a jerk ...

Arrogant fucks who think rules don't apply to them. Hypocrites. Pigs at the trough.

George Carlin was right ... how I dearly I miss that wise soul ....

separate a mans politics from sexual practices. John Edwards is a good man, unfortunately he is handsome and loose women are attracted to him. Sometimes a mans sexual drive overrides his principles.

Ahnold came into politics as a weight lifter in LA who accepted money from gay men who provided blowjobs at the gym ... they PAID him ... he bragged about it publicly ... anyone who is that self-indulgent AND stupid doesn't need to be Governor of California ... or any state ... WHY these facts have been left out of the press is highly questionable?

If they'll lie about their proclivities .... they'll lie about all of it ... lying becomes a way of life ....

It's like saying, "But he was a great PRIEST, if he hadn't been molesting all those little boys" ...

It's who they are ....

WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business. "We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue. Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.

Even more than Republicans, Democratic candidates have boosted the volume of populist messages as the economy softens. Edwards, whose trial lawyer past has been openly criticized by Donohue for years, launched new advertisements that warn against the danger of replacing "corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats." The middle class, Edwards says in the new ad, is "losing ground while CEOs pocket million-dollar bonuses and corporate lobbyists get their way in Washington."

Donohue, in effect the nation's leading business advocate, kicked back hard at some of the leading Democratic proposals on taxes, labor law and the courts. If that agenda succeeds, he said, Democrats "will be gone from power for at least 40 years," though he acknowledged that the political rhetoric might moderate after the primary season.

"People on the other side have been very strong in the way they play in legislation and elections. We intend to do the same," he said.

tom.hamburger@latimes.com



DLC = COC = you know who



Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb

There I said it. However, I feel badly for the way things turned out for them and their children.

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

There's no bigger turn off in a candidate than the sense that he or she really doesn't even want the job s/he's after. I never doubted for a moment that Edwards desperately wanted to be president. Still does, I believe. So that's something.

A slick pretty boy attorney who craves power and is a habitual liar ... how is that good for democracy? ...

Never believed his rhetoric regarding poverty. Never believed he could win in the south.

Couldn't care less about his personal life, but his sex scandal indicates all the fame and power of being a politician went to his head, and it was stupid to seek the nomination while fucking around on his cancer stricken wife. If he had any real shot at winning the nomination we would have vice president Palin. Inexcusable.