Edwards Transitions From "Fresh Face To Crusader"

Click here for the whole story.

<snip>

Who is Edwards crusading for? The same people he has sought to help since the 2004 election cycle, through his work as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

It's a crusade worth fighting, on the heels of a Republican leadership that has so overwhelmingly looked out for the well-to-do, and time and time again left behind lower-income families.

Republicans have for six years spun about being "compassionate conservatives." It's meaningless words, not backed by actions. Edwards has a message that he plans to back up with action, and it could lead him to the White House.

He might want to re-think the word crusade, given that we have a lot of making up to do with Muslims, but the sentiment is great.

I hope he rubs Bush's nose in reality when he makes his statement from NOLA. I honestly believe most people think the city has been fixed by now.

He's putting his words into action. Go JRE!

even if it tends to be associated with hypocrites like Falwell and Robertson.

The second that Our Fearless Leader used "crusade" to describe a war based on false pretenses fought against Muslims, he singlehandedly resurrected the archaic definition, which described wars based on false pretenses fought against Muslims.

And to illustrate my point I present the thread currently just above this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3025582

Are you saying Damascus did NOT take Jerusalem from Cairo?

Are you saying they did NOT begin abusing European pilgrims who had previously been welcomed by the Cairo Caliphate?

Are you saying they did NOT step up their efforts to conquer Constantinople after securing Jerusalem?

Are you saying they did NOT conquer the Iberian peninsula and invade France?

But the intent of many of those crusades were far different, such as: selling children into slavery (Children's Crusade); killing off social undesirables (People's Crusade); making sure those people wouldn't come back (Crusade of the Faint-Hearted); conquering the Orthodox Christian Byzantines (Fourth Crusade); and other Christians (Cathar Crusade); commercial gain (Alexandrian Crusade).

The pretenses themselves do not have to be factually false to be false pretenses. Most of those Crusades I listed above were justified by the incidents you listed above. But even the Crusades which actually did what they claimed to do--destroy Muslim influence along the Mediterranean coast--had the ulterior motives of getting the privileged and armored class of people to fight someone, anyone, other than themselves in western Europe and of reducing the influence of the sophisticated and efficient trade routes established by the Muslims.

Power and money were the real reasons for the crusades. God, as usual, was dragged into it as the justification. Just like today.

They're doing their "Decision 2008" segment and just stated that Edwards is 3 points above McCain in the latest poll they conducted.

Also talked about him making his announcement into the race from the Lower Ninth Ward soon.

Good for John Edwards!

Go Edwards.

He is a voice for the REAL MAJORITY of Americans.

edwards/warner or edwards/cleland. you can take it to the bank that either team can beat mccain/brownback or whatever combo the GOP comes up with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001328.html

Labor's Man In '08?
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, December 21, 2006; Page A29


While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama soak up media attention, John Edwards has pushed for organized labor's support. No decisions have been made, but the former senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential nominee is the front-runner for winning over the big, dynamic unions that left the AFL-CIO almost 18 months ago.

Edwards is a leading prospect for backing from Andrew Stern's Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and James P. Hoffa's International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the unions that led the breakaway, forming the Change to Win coalition. Stern and Hoffa are wary of early decisions, and there are things about the Edwards operation that their unions do not like. But their interest in him reflects largely unspoken discontent in Democratic ranks over a choice limited to Clinton and Obama.


Withdrawal from presidential consideration of former Virginia governor Mark Warner and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana prompted the analysis that Clinton and Obama consume all the political oxygen, leaving nothing for another candidate. But many labor leaders question Clinton's electability and worry about Obama's inexperience. While Warner and Bayh would have been positioned to front-runner Clinton's right, Edwards is on her left. That is no liability in seeking support from Change to Win unions.

-snip-

In addition to the SEIU and the Teamsters, Edwards has been making points with two other Change to Win unions: Unite Here (apparel and hotel and restaurant workers) and Laborers' International. He is also popular with AFL-CIO unions, especially the United Steelworkers, Iron Workers and Communications Workers. He won the AFL-CIO's Wellstone Award for backing labor initiatives in 2006.

-snip-

But Edwards's sunny aura and commanding presence can transcend the negative impact of anybody at his side. When Bayh dropped out last Saturday, there was speculation that Edwards would be the next to go. On the contrary, Edwards is where he wants to be, hoping for a big shove forward from labor.

the evans-novak report cited in the linked article. Seems pretty solid.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, RFK had it in the past. Bill Clinton via CGI has it now. That's Al Gore like stature on an issue.

The experts call upon The Gates Foundation (don't think Edwards is on that board) or William Julius Wislon of Harvard (he's not mentioned as a citation in any of his work or as a personage advocating his books), Bono's bi-partisan work (Matt Damon has that covered) or Marian Wright Edelman (hmmm, never heard her say he's the one either). The foremeost authorities on the topic aren't eactly flocking to him, though his presence on the scene now is appreciated.

I'm not talking about celebs and non-politicos.

Advocating doesn't mean stature in the issue - Al Gore has spent a lifetime building credibility. Edwards is calling attention to it amongst others. the two are not the same in terms of standing in stature on an issue. One calls attention and one has done something, IMO those are two different extreme levels. The examples used were politicians who had standing or the experts in the field. Calling attention to something is not the same as being an expert like Gore is in his subject matter and while he was an elected offical and after. Gore did way more than call attention.

he is roadkill and doesn't know it yet.

at a fundraiser for his campaign financial officer who ran for Congress in my District. I was doing a lot of volunteer work for this candidate, Andrew Hurst, and I got to go to the event for free, and I was helping hand out name tags and taking checks and stuff. I think Edwards is the real deal. When he walked in the room, he made for the tables where three of us were working first. He didn't scan the room looking for who to politic with. That impressed me. I decided then that I would work for him if he runs.

And we all remember what a beautiful person his wife was when she posted right here on DU. I hope she can come back and spend some time with us again.