John Edwards: "Real Solutions for America".

I have read several posts from people saying John Edwards is only running on his being the son of a mill worker. At all the candidate forums, I have seen a lot more - a candidate who does emphasize his humble roots, but explains how that shaped his values - that hard work should be rewarded and valued in a way that the pResident and his economy do not. Edwards has espoused numerous ideas to tackle the many problems this country faces.

For those of you who missed those, please visit John Edwards' website at www.johnedwards2004.com

Watch his fantastic new tv ads, which are running in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And please read his new 60 page booklet , "Real Solutions for America", which outlines, according to his website,

"his vision for the country on important areas like getting the economy back on track, lowering health care costs, giving every student the chance to attend college and strengthening homeland security.

"America deserves a president who will offer real solutions to the problems people face in their everyday lives," said Edwards. "I have a responsibility to tell you not just what I'm against, but what I'm for. That's what this campaign is all about."

"I've spent the last year putting together a detailed plan to get our country moving again," said Edwards. "The heart of my plan is based on the simple promise of America that I learned growing up in a small town in North Carolina: if you work hard and do the right thing, America will give you the chance to build a better life for your family."
< PRESS RELEASE >
< DOWNLOAD PDF >

Read about John Edwards' solutions and send your thoughts to RealSolutions@JohnEdwards2004.com.
 

Sometimes I think DU'ers don't read enough original sources. This would be a good start.

Thoughtful, intelligent, well-spoken, southern.

I hope he and the Democratic Party resolve the open question of how to keep North Carolina's Senate seat in the D column in 2004. That seat is critically important.

He'd win over a lot of converts.

??????? You know that one he voted for.

"The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of the manner in which the Administration went about the invasion. And in both cases, the aftermath has been badly mishandled."

http://www.moveon.org/gore-speech.html

He feels mostly the way Gore does. That Saddam should have been removed, that the way we went about it sucked, that the aftermath is being poorly mishandled and that we should enlist the help of the international community.

prior to the war's start. Now he is patting Bush on the back? Jeez, who can you trust these days.

I believe in my heart of hearts that war is a failure, and Bush has failed. This is a sick world when we can view war as a success. Treating it like a damn football game.

if he didn't think Saddam had to be removed. Leiberman signed the Iraqui liberation act in 1998.

Gore is very much a politician, and I really don't think he made that Frisco speech for any other reason than politics

Thus, you are following Karl Rove's plan to a T.

Please stop.

That would appear impossible when the war is a wedge issue where Dean got much of his support.

I'm starting to think it's imperative now, for Gore to endorse one of the 'pro-war' candidates--if party unification is what we're looking for.

Either of the guys he SHOULD have picked to be his running mate.

I don't think it's intentional or anything, that's just my assessment of what's going on.

We can't afford to be divided. This is what primaries are for, however, so I hope that all of us will duke it out until a winner is clear and ALL unite behind our candidate, no matter what. ABB.

No matter who? No matter what they stand for? No matter that they supported the fratboy emperor's war?

Why would we want to do that? Just to be loyal to a candidate that was disloyal to the ideals of the party he supposedly represents?

Did it ever occur to you that this war had nothing to do with "ideals of the party?". Where do you get the idea that the democratic party is noninterventionist? WW2? The Marshall plan? Korea?

One would think that the party might have learned something from that little intervention.

More than likely, the division is due to the candidates that voted for the Iraqi slaughter.

Today, an Iraqi family was shot dead by panicking US troops. The family's cries, "Stop, stop, we are a family", went unheeded. Some of the family members, including an eight year old could have lived, if the troops had not refused to allow anyone to take them to a hospital.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=432202

That one vote could have saved thousands and thousands of innocent human beings.

But he represents North Carolina - where support was overwhelming. He has said numerous times that we did it the wrong way, and should get international support now.

On every other issue Edwards is outstanding. I feel very good supporting someone whom I only have one disagreement with out of dozens of issues - and someone who can win.

Bullshit.

What about:


The Patriot Act

The Judge D. Brooks Smith nomination

Homeland Security

Yucca Mountain

*'s war resolution

The bankruptcy bill

Exempting fuel refiners from liability

Regulation of drinking water

Please supply a link where he has said numerous times that we did it the wrong way. We? He voted for the slaughter!

nt

about stating facts? Every vote Edwards made is recorded.

Until you can prove otherwise, I will just have to assume that Edwards still sticks by his vote for the slaughter.

And everyday, another human being dies because of his vote.

I heard an interview with Clinton about Gore after he initially criticized Bush for going into Iraq. Clinton said "I should be careful how I phrase this" and "I haven't heard Al's exact words on this matter," however, "Al Gore was the person in his administration who most vociferously advocated a military attack on Iraq."

I believe this interview was on Tavis Smiley, but it may have been the CSPAN talk at the UofA.

on October 10, 2002. Therefore, he could not vote for *'s war resolution. He is also not a candidate for president.

Who knows what he'd have done if confronted with all of the propaganda cobbled together by the administration.

n/t

I suppose you think he's an honest guy. So, if that's the case, why can't he say something like, "Hey, I come from North Carolina, and the reason I supported the war, is because I couldn't afford to lose those votes." You even acknowledge that was the reason for his support of the war.

Inviting in "international support" sounds good. But, what he and BushCorp is inviting in "international support" under US control. How about advocating that the US turn over control to the UN and act in a supporting role?

Only one issue? That one little old issue costs untold thousands of lives and alienated the rest of the world. As for the "dozens" of other issues, all of the candidates are pretty much the same.

So what makes Edwards so attractive to you that you can overlook that one issue?

John Edwards IS a Senator from NC, and if the state as a whole supported Bush's misbegotten war, then he simply did the job he was elected to do.......represent his constituents.
I've been paying attention to Edwards for a long time now, and being a person who is willing to believe NO candidate is perfect, I do like what he has to say, and more and more, I like the way he's saying it.
He may be too inexperienced to go the distance, but if he is the nominee, I will be only too happy to vote for him. There are 8 other candidates that I wouldn't say the same thing about.
I WILL vote Dem in 2004, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to do it while holding my nose if the name at the top of the ticket is any other than Edwards.
I'm also willing to admit that the election is a long way away, and in the meantime some other candidate may capture my attention and imagination, and Edwards could quite possibly make any number of huge missteps, but as his record stands at the moment, I feel very comfortable supporting him.

-chef-

that most of the country supported the "war" (slaughter, massacre, seem more apt) yet 23 senators found the courage to vote against it.

I, for one, will not vote for Edwards (or, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry) in either the primaries or the general election. I'm unable to hold my nose strongly enough to prevent the stench of cowardice and hypocrisy to seep through.

Just heard on NPR how the "our troops" bravely "liberated" 6 more Iraqis. An electric transmormer exploded and frightened them so they started firing wildly at nearby cars. Cost: 1 car contained a man and his 4 children - all killed. The other contained a 17 year old boy. The car was set on fire, the American troops kept the Iraqis from helping - the boy burned to death.

Perhaps the good senator could explain his vote to the father of the boy, or the family of the father and his children. Perhaps they would be relieved to hear that he was "only doing his job and representing his constituents."

Senator Edwards WAS representing his constituents, and doing the job they elected him to do.
I'm sure the families would find little solace in that fact, but Sen. Edwards is NOT responsible for the 'morans' that fired on those Iraqi citizens. I cannot comment further on that situation as I've not heard or read anything about it yet.
As for 23 Senators who found the courage to vote against war in Iraq, how many did so while 'representing their constituents'?
I have been vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq since the first rumblings began, however, IMO, deciding not to vote for a candidate based on one position that you disagree with will most certainly cost us the election. (an election we could very likely be cheated out of anyway) Why make it even easier for this gang of thieves?
All of life is a compromise, and while this ill timed, ill managed, completely unnecessary war enrages me, I will not base my preference of candidates on any single issue. To my mind that is simply naive and unproductive.
Just as a matter of curiosity, who WILL you vote for if Gephardt, Lieberman or Kerry gets the nom?
As I said before, there are 8 candidates I would have to hold my nose to vote for, but hold my nose I will if it means theres half a chance of getting rid of the current idiot in our White House.
To do less is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

-chef-

responsible for the 'morans' that fired on those Iraqi citizens. He voted for the slaughter.

You can use any pretty words you want to, but it was his decision to kiss *'s ass and pre-emptively invade Iraq.

You are wearing terribly thin.

is just as important as yours. So, no, I will not stay out of Edwards threads.

I want everyone, whether they post or just read, to know about the warmongering DLCer and his voting record.

Edwards is one of the best candidates in the field, who really has a shot at beating *.

It really makes you wonder about the agendas of some around here.

My agenda, is what I said above. You don't want to read the facts, put me on ignore.

Simple!

I like the exchange of ideas, even with people I disagree with. But you are special.

The anti-war candidate - no matter which party.

If "representing one's constituency" means simply following the polls, why bother with representatives at all? I think that one of my senators (Patty Murray) and my rep (Brian Baird) did a fine job representing their constituency and the best interests of the country and the world by voting against the war - despite the polls. I hold Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman guilty of failing their constituents.

As for Edwards not being responsible for the "morons" (your word - not mine - I see them as scared kids in an untenable situation who panicked) who shot up the civilians despite his support for putting them there...now who's naive?

I see the war as an exercise in raw power for political and economic gain. That "single issue" has cost thousands of lives, so far, and will cost yet more. At one point does Edwards start representing his constituents by doing the right, rather than the politically expedient, thing?

"Scared kids in an untenable situation who panicked"? And I'm naive??

I'm sorry, but no matter how you spin it, Sen. Edwards is not responsible for those 'soldiers' (better?) opening fire on innocent Iraqi citizens. It is the responsibility of every man or woman in uniform not to fire their weapon without just cause. Simply hearing a loud noise doesnt exactly meet the standard.
You could lay the responsibility for the war at the feet of those who voted to approve it, but NOT the actions of individual soldiers. Sorry, it just doesnt work that way.
The real reason those soldiers reacted that way, I suspect, has much more to do with a badly mismanaged operation than whether or not that operation was necessary.
I'm willing to bet that when Sen. Edwards voted to approve the war, he had every reasonable expectation that it would at least be handled correctly (relatively speaking).
And frankly, I never mentioned anything about 'polls' when I said he was 'representing his constituency'. Those are your words. The point I was making was that if he was elected to go to D.C. and do a job for the people of N.C. and those people supported the war, he would have been derelict if he had NOT voted to approve. If you disagree that he was doing the job he was sent there to do......If you think that he should have said 'To hell with the constituents, I'm voting how I choose to vote, regardless of their wishes', then I will submit that it is still not me who is being naive.

-chef-

would probably conclude that the war was right. Fewer people will die at the hands of the US than at the hands of Sadaam Hussein, thus making Edwards's vote the, uh, correct vote on this issue. However, the issue is NOT lives saved vs lives lost, it's about American imperialism, and the US's desire to make sure Europe and Asia can't compete economically with the US (which means, the US can continue to pursue anti-competitive policies, to wit, the Bush policy of welfare for the super rich).

On this front -- American Imperialism and anti-competitiveness -- Edwards is on the exact right track...it matters what the US does next, and Edwards, better than anyone, understands what it takes for America to have both an enthical, non-imperialist, cooperative foreign policy, and (hand-in-glove) a competitive Keynes-style domestic economy which doesn't uneffeiciently reward only the rich and, thus, require subterfuge abroad to make others miserable so that a few rich American families can get richer and more powerful.

And the pro-war candidates would unite the party? Well, it would unite the pro-war part of the party. What would it do for the anti-war, anti-bush, part of the party?

so Dems would coalesce around the most unelectable anti-war Democratic candidate.

coalescing around the supposedly electable, most like Bush, candidate?

The four sellouts did that all by themselves when they voted FOR the war and bushCorps policies. Now they want us to conveniently forget their betrayal, fall in line, keep our mouths shut, and vote for them.

I think not.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=104

Tuesday, May 20, 2003

Senator Edwards Charts Path From Chaos To Secure And Independent Iraq

WASHINGTON - Senator John Edwards on Tuesday called United States policy in postwar Iraq "confused and chaotic," and outlined steps America and our allies should take to make Iraq a stable democracy that is a model for the Arab world.
"Since that statue of Saddam Hussein came crashing down, America's postwar policy has been confused and chaotic," Senator Edwards said. "The American-led civil administration is under-staffed, under-equipped and unprepared."

Before the Bush administration "undermines all that we have accomplished," Senator Edwards said the United States should:

Involve our allies, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in establishing a free Iraqi government with legitimacy in the region and around the world.

Create a NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that the Iraqi people live in a place that is safe and secure.

Ensure that the Iraqi people - not some puppet government - shape the nation's future under a government that reflects the nation's diversity.

Help develop a prosperous economy by making clear that Iraq's vast oil reserves will not be exploited by the United States or others.
Unless the United States takes those steps to meet its ongoing responsibilities in Iraq, Senator Edwards cautioned, the victory that our military achieved could be squandered as radical clerics take advantage of a power vacuum in the postwar chaos.
A cosponsor of the resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, Senator Edwards and others stressed during the run up to the war last fall that the administration needed to focus on what would happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power.

The senator first laid out his four-step proposal for postwar Iraq in a Senate statement on April 10, one day after the fall of Baghdad.

"It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner," Senator Edwards said.



-------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator John Edwards
Senate Statement on Postwar Iraq
May 20, 2003

Over a month ago, our military achieved an impressive victory in Iraq - a victory earned by the brave men and women of our armed forces, and a victory that serves as a testament to the bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our military remains the best in the world. Through these efforts, we removed a brutal regime and helped liberate a people.

This victory also brought an enormous responsibility upon the United States: to help the Iraqi people rebuild their lives in peace and prosperity. Meeting this challenge is a test of our leadership; a test of our commitment and resolve; and a test of our willingness to engage with the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has put us on a course to fail these tests. Since that statue of Saddam Hussein came crashing down, America's postwar policy has been confused and chaotic. The American-led civil administration is under-staffed, under-equipped and unprepared. Already many of its senior leaders have come and gone. The international community has expressed a willingness to help, but has been kept on the sidelines. Baghdad and other key cities remain unsafe. There has been widespread looting of hospitals, businesses, museums, and homes. Mass gravesites have not been protected. Refugees are fleeing to neighboring countries like Jordan. Radical clerics have begun to fill the power vacuum. Saddam Hussein and many of his senior henchmen are still at large. And, most disturbing, nuclear, chemical and biological facilities have been left unprotected and have been ransacked - not only destroying possible evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but presenting a real threat such materials will end up in the hands of terrorists.

Continuing on this path not only hurts the Iraqi people - who have suffered enough and deserve better - but it squanders all that our military achieved in Iraq, threatens our security, and undermines our standing in the world.

I'm concerned that we are about to repeat the same mistakes we have made in Afghanistan, where this administration's efforts to win the peace have been ineffective and weak. The lack of American leadership has left Afghanistan dangerously unstable. We cannot make the same mistake in Iraq.

Last fall, many of us who supported the use of military force in Iraq warned President Bush about this problem. We argued that the United States needed to put the same amount of energy, effort and creativity into planning for what to do after Saddam was gone.

We supported the use of force to ensure that Iraq complied with its commitments to the international community. But we also called on the president to carefully plan for a new Iraq - a prosperous democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The president obviously did not heed our advice. The administration did not make adequate plans for the situation which now threatens the success of our mission in Iraq -- and in some instances, it apparently didn't plan at all. It now tries to explain away its failures as the "untidy" realities of postwar Iraq. Rather than make excuses, the administration must act before it undermines all that we have accomplished.

Because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of victory, we now face the prospect of an Iraq that descends into chaos. We must take action now to stop this.

Almost six weeks ago, the day after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces, I outlined four clear and simple principles to guide U.S. policy in postwar Iraq.

First, the U.S. must bring other countries into this effort, as well as institutions like the United Nations and NATO. Including others will not just increase the likelihood of success. It will help create a free Iraqi government with legitimacy and authority in the region and the rest of the world. And by sharing the costs of this massive effort, including others will ease the burdens on the American people.

Second, the U.S. must do more to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people. It makes no sense that we didn't have enough military forces on the ground to protect critical weapons sites or stop looting from spinning out of control. Clearly, we should have had more forces ready to meet these challenges.

It's good that reinforcements are on the way, but I believe that the best way to deal with this problem now would be to create a multinational peacekeeping force, led by NATO. We all know that many NATO members were deeply divided over the issue of what to do about Iraq. But now that the war is over, I believe that we have an opportunity to reaffirm NATO's importance and relevance - as well as America's commitment to the alliance -- by looking for ways to include NATO in providing security today in Iraq.

Third, we have to do better at ensuring that the Iraqi people, not some puppet government, will shape Iraq's future. So far, our efforts to support an open political process have been unimpressive, raising doubts about our commitment to giving the Iraqi people a voice in the process and a government that reflects their diversity. The administration has not articulated a clear path to help the Iraqi people achieve self-government, preserve basic freedoms, and uphold the rule of law. This process must be seen as legitimate. Therefore we should act now to give the broader international community a role.

Fourth, we have to ensure that the Iraqi people can build a prosperous economy that is theirs alone. Iraq has enormous economic potential, and we have to help the Iraqi people tap into that potential and make clear that the oil is theirs and not for the U.S. or others to exploit. Many of the recent decisions about which companies will help rebuild Iraq have raised doubts around the world about our motives. We need a transparent and open process to guarantee that the awarding of contracts is fair.

While our national interest requires that we make this commitment to help rebuild Iraq, the American people deserve to know how much this is going to cost. This administration has consistently been unclear about the duration and costs of our commitment in a post-Saddam Iraq. We must have a better accounting. How much will it cost the American taxpayer? How much will other countries contribute? What are the signposts for measuring success in a transition to an independent, democratic Iraqi government?

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. A free Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. And if done right - with humility, patience and cooperation -- this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world together and return America to a place where it is respected and admired.

I wonder what people he means.

Maybe this family?

"The abd al-Kerim family didn't have a chance. American soldiers opened fire on their car with no warning and at close quarters. They killed the father and three of the children, one of them only eight years old. Now only the mother, Anwar, and a 13-year-old daughter are alive to tell how the bullets tore through the windscreen and how they screamed for the Americans to stop."


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=432202

He and others have been begging Bush for months to internationalize the post war effort by giving up control to the UN and NATO. The same soldiers who fought the war should not be the ones policing Iraq and trying to keep the peace. It makes it harder to show the Iraqis we are not there to colonize them when we continue to occupy Iraq on our own, without backing from the international community. If we gave up control to the international community, hundreds of thousands of international forces could be brought in to assist our troops and the horrible incident you link to would not have happened.

for the slaughter in the 1st place, he would not have to beg anyone now.

Plus, he is still backing his decision to slaughter innocent people.

pandering (and therefore cynical) -- position.

This war wasn't started for either U.S. defense or humanitarian reasons. It was started to seize Iraq's oil, create a "footprint" in the ME, and proceed to "remake the face of the ME."

If Edwards doesn't know this, he doesn't deserve to be President. If he does know it, all his fine pronouncements are for naught -- Bush will NEVER give up control of Iraq, at least not until everything is privatized, and I mean EVERYTHING.

Eloriel

Where was he prior to his co-sponsorship supporting the "liberation"? Busy waving the flag and looking somber with his pals shrub and the other 3 dwarves?

Now that public opinion is starting to turn against this B.S. "liberation" he's trying to cover his tracks.

I, on the other hand denounce the war. I thought it was an unnecessary, immoral, illegal, illadvised, and ultimately will be ruinous to America. Even if the occupation was going relatively well, I would still be outraged at the greed, lies, and callousness that went in to every aspect of this debacle. Getting rid of Saddam through open warfare is not worth enabling PNAC's designs for Pax-Americana. Edwards war vote was wrong. His criticism of the occupation is not good enough for me. I will still vote for Edwards if he is the candidate, but I won't support him until he is honest about the actual reasons we went to war.
I hold him to this standard because frankly, otherwise I could never trust him.

Especially all you undecideds.

It's very impressive and yet practical. He has really spent a lot of time and effort working these issues and his plan deserves a read at least.

-1st year of college free for students who work. Great idea. :thumbsup:

-Health care for all kids.

-Health care for small businesses.

Here's his health care fact sheet: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-fact-sheet.asp

-Raise taxes on the top 1%, lower taxes for the middle class

(Adding another lonely voice in the wilderness in support of Edwards.)

people learn more about Edwards.

But man, there have been some tough times on this board. That is changing, as our guy is picking up steam and support.

His "humble" roots is a plus-am I a reverse snob? Yeah, sometimes.

I will go to his web site and read more about him! He will appeal to the South as well, as a Son of the South.

Some candidates start out of the gate and seem to be pulling ahead of the pack, and fall behind because, over time, they cannot sustain their message or support.

Have heart Edwards' supporters!

My dream ticket would be Kerry and Edwards, in any combination.

Remember, it was a Southern boy with humble roots who won way back in '92!

and Carol Moseley Brown, the others I am less knowledgeable about, but the only thing that sucks for me is that we have to choose. We have an imperial presidency now, so why don't we just do away with it and have a nine of the roundtable thing.

Oh, I left out Kerry, he'll do a bang-up too, I'm sure.

:)

I like Gephardt, Kerry, Graham, and Edwards.

I have lived in FL since I was 11 so it will be hard to vote against Graham if he's still viable.

If he's not viable I'll prolly vote for one of the other three that it could do most good.

Do you REALLY think that your behavior on this board, your very mean-spirited Dean bashing, makes any of us Dean supporters the least bit interested in hearing your pleas to "read" that Edwards stuff and consider your candidate?

Chimpy, you've been the worst, but Sophree's comment upthread that "Dean is dividing the Dems" was so vapid and baseless that she qualifies in this category too.

Sorry, your repetitive, constant and usually intellectually dishonest Dean-bashing has pretty much ruined your credibility with me. Too bad you couldn't have spent all that energy promoting Edwards to start with. This is a much more appealing post -- if only I were interested, which I'm not.

Eloriel

Why are you not interested? Have you made up your mind so thoroughly "for" a candidate that the subject is closed?

There has been a great deal of instantly shrill outcry when anyone points out any downside to, qualifications about or even suggestions for Dean. It's nice to see people enthused about a candidate, but I've watched and experienced an incredible amount of derision from the Deanies.

Repeatedly, I say that I like the guy, but that's not enough for many.

We (Edwards supporters) constantly fight an endless series of attacks from a certain poster on the subject of "our" guy, and get thumped on regularly. Geez.

As for the subject of this response, why are you not interested? What happens if some unforseen (and lamentable) development takes Dean out of the race? Shouldn't you be interested--for the good of our country and world--in all of the candidates who don't flat-out disgust you? Have you reached that point with Edwards?

You are now part of the local majority; think of the many annoyances, frustrations and such that you've felt at the hand of those who hold sway, and remind yourself that you're now in that group. Many Deanies are behaving like it's a religion, and any questioning is met with outrage. Some of the rest of us have suffered too...

This man (Edwards) is a gem; he could be a truly historic statesman if given a chance. If some of my cohorts have been difficult, remember that Edwards and his supporters take serious and constant hits and derision. Hell, that one poster paints him as some hate-filled Dr. Mengele on a eugenics kick, and does so with the righteous dudgeon of the downtrodden.

May I apologize for wrongs or stridentness, but you'll also find some other ardent supporters who have some decent things to say about other candidates too. This should also be an educational process.

Fair enough?

A "certain poster" always provides facts. When all of the facts are presented, you ignore them.

Edwards voted the way he did and should be held accountable for those votes.

You said he "voted against the handicapped" (the quote may have been "disabled", I don't recall) when he voted to confirm a judge with a record you don't like. You have absolutely no "fact", "evidence" or anything else that this was what determined his decision. Your cause does not give you a blank check with the entire rest of the universe.

You don't understand this because you feel that your personal issue trumps everything else, and any ingrate who disagrees is less than despicable. You do not know what was on Edwards' mind when he voted as he did. You have no idea, yet you have no compunction about making emotionally charged attacks based upon guesses.

I do not ignore your facts, but you DO present conjecture as gospel. You deliberately gush vitriol based on assumptions. When met with any resistance, you attempt to tar your detractors as cruelly insensitive to your plight. Gosh, thanks. When you are on a bent of vengeance, don't be surprised if some don't like getting slagged in the furore. I'll accept your dare to wheel a mile in your wheelchair, but will that temper your tongue?

He was one of the most effective Senators when grilling Ashcroft for confirmation and voted against him. Does he get any credit from you?

I've asked you to prove your point that the D. Brooks Smith decision had anything to do with your issue. You offer no proof, yet keep railing about "facts". At least rephrase your rancor so the uninitiated won't be automatically horrified at his wickedness.

When faced with "true" facts, Pastiche mysteriously disappears until he/she finds another thread to spread he rhetoric on.

He rails against Edwards constantly, yet offers no alternative.

I even posted a link to Edwards website yesterday for Pastiche, but I doubt if he/she took the time to visit there.

So in that spirit, this is the last time I post to, or about Pastiche.
I find it to be a waste of time.

Other Edward's supporters could learn a lot from you.

I would also like to note, I saw this thread started yesterday and by whom. I thought to myself, I hope others do not repay this poster in kind and turn this thread into a bash-fest. Mostly because I was pleased to see a thread promoting his candidate of choice, not slamming one who wasn't, which is what I'd like to see from all. I hope for the impossible as you can see, the bitterness all over this board spills like poison in a Medici palace.

I do not like the attacks from any camp on any candidate (though the Lieberman slams don't bother me much-haha). If ever unity among Dems was needed it's now.

I like Dean but have no inclination to tear down others. The truth of the matter is I will vote for just about any of them who should get the nom~~some I'd work harder for than others.

Julie

I merely pointed out that based on a historical analysis it is hard to create a scenario where Dean can win a majority of votes in the Electoral College. I have never attacked him persoanlly. Dean's supporter have told me to "vote for Bush" , "I just don't get it", etcetera.

Who the fuck are these Dean supporters to tell me to vote for Bush. I'll match my Democratic bona fides against their's anyday. My mom was a Stevenson delegate in 1952, she walked precints for John Kennedy in 1960. She took me to the front of a rope line in 1965 when I was only seven years old to shake RFK's hand. I was a Kennedy delegate in 1980. I have autographed pictures in my home of my heroes, Bill Clinton, Robert F Kennedy and Muhummmad Ali. I have met Al and Tipper, Joe and Hadassah.
In 1998 I was at Buddy McKay's Ocala home when the 1998 results came in . I digress.....

Back to the analysis. The last northern Democrat to be elected president was JFK. Since then, three Democrats have captured the White House; LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. I see a pattern here.

I'll go further, I predict Dean will not carry one state south of Maryland and will get trounced in border states like Missouri and Indiana.

Epidemiologists, good detectives, and even good gamblers look for patterns.

I have a problem seeing an Electoral College scenario where Dean is elected. I have never attacked him personally as the Dean supporters have attacked me.

When you point a finger at someone, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself.

P.S. On revision, I see the criticism wasn't directed at me but I feel it. I desperately want to beat Bush and thats why I'm speaking out. It reminds me of 84 when I b-e-g-g-e-d my grad school friends, many of whom were voting for McGovern to support Gary Hart who gave us the best chance of beating Bush.

I love your reports on Edwards and always look forward to your posts. It takes guts to keep posting when you know half the responses are going to be attacks and bickering, but you just keep hanging in there! Good for you and thanks!

Or DuPont? Or GE?

But I'll read it. ABB.

Information is power.

We're all dancing around the one fact that really matters: John Edwards is the most electable candidate by FAR! He's the only candidate who brings new voters into the Democratic Party with his POSITIVE message, instead of just inflaming the passions of existing Democrats. He also scores through the roof in focus groups, which is why he probably jumps in the polls every time his face is shown on TV. You may disagree with him on some issues, but politics is the art of compromise, and winning with a moderate is better than losing with an ideologue.

BTW, if Edwards is such a DLC'er, then how come Ralph Nader likes him, and why does he have more endorsements from the Congressional Black Caucus than any other candidate? He has the real potential to be a unifying force in the party.

Still not sure? Then check out these ads, and I guarantee you you'll see that he can beat Bush:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/television-ads.asp