John Edwards--NOT necessarily the BEST choice, and certainly NOT the ONLY choice

I'm sorry....but I despise authoritarian orders mixed in with my democracy....and so I have decided to post this thread.

I like something about all of the candidates (yep, even John Edwards) and dislike something about them all as well (but I do like some better than others).

The bottomline is what is important to ME in figuring out who I will vote for, not what is important to some other poster. I won't go into why I don't necessarily think that Edwards is the best choice (and he is certainly NOT the ONLY CHOICE)......but I will say that I don't see him as a towering figure over the other "choices" that we have.

I already have the media attempting to determine and propagandize who my choices are. I certainly don't need to see this on the Democratic Underground as well.

So please primary DU candidate activists....please DO NOT TELL ME that I have NO CHOICE because I actually do. Thank you.

as though I don't know enough about politics.....and need some instructions from one who knows better! :wtf:

let me say that I completely agree with you. I thought the whole "you are either with us or against us" attitude was for the other guys. Be as ardent in your support as you want, but everyone needs to have an open mind.

I don't have a problem with threads titled...."Why, John Edwards"...or, "Obama is for me"...or "Hillary's my Girl!"........

But this "Our ONLY CHOICE"......now, that's just way more than any of us need to take.

The elections in general, and in particular our Democratic primaries are exactly about "Choice".

I said "the" only choice.

Speaking for myself. And, apparently, quite a few others without specifically intending to do so at all.

See the difference?

Probably not.

Something like that. Rather arrogant. I couldn't think of anything nice to say in that thread, so I said nothing. I didn't want to slam poor old Edwards for the acts of his followers.

:)

and then hid the thread.

The content wasn't so bad....but the title was a real killer!

K&R

:thumbsup:

All right, baby

'n' R'd

I'd bet my bank account on that. I liked him in 2004 but his pandering is apparent these days.

unlike Obama...

I don't know who you are currently supporting, but Edwards (and Dodd's for that matter) detailed plans on Iraq have been well documented over the last few days at DKos; where's obama and clinton to be found?

Just in case "that thread" is still floating up there!

There are bad choices, and good choices, and we're all free to make either.

Personally, I see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as, frankly, suicidal choices. I simply will not make those choices.

I don't think Edwards is the best choice either, for many reasons. Some of which were trumpeted quite loudly in the thread you are referring to.

He represents the weaker choice, imo, which still puts him ahead of the non-choices.

we should all want.....whatever that choice is.

and it would be nice if others would just respect our choices instead of bashing the candidate and/or the supporters making a case for that choice.

because debating is good...which is why we have this political board called "Discussion-Politics". This is not a propaganda board......or so, I thought.

I felt the exact same way when I saw that thread.
And I really do like Edwards. Tell me what he said in a speech.
Tell me what he's proposing if elected, but don't tell me I have to vote for him.

Am I right or am I right?

Here's what I think about the candidates - Clinton took $400,000 from lobbyists and Obamma nailed her for it; Obamma took about that much but not from "lobbyists," rather from executives of companies like the Carlyle Group...so Hillary said, see you're doing the same thing and he was; and they both "purchased" as it were, legally of course, but still under contract. Obamma and Hillary both rolled out the pathetic line - it will take a "long tme" to leave Iraq even when we decide to do so. The British left in a few days. So the're lobbyist/corporatist candidates with serious "options" and "debts" to corporate America.

What's to like about them? Not that either can win, because they can't.

Eddwrds said H was concerned about the poor, which got him nothing. He just believed it. Then he went to the unions and spoke to them. They endorsed. He's the only FDR tradition Democrat, as opposed to the Evan Bhay Democrats - Clinton, Obamma.

Personally, I'd like my choices to be frm a field of proven leaders who opposed or voted against the Iraq war. So that gets rid of Edwards (although I'd take him with a smile if he prevailed). It's just Gore, Clark, Dennis, Gravel. You tell me;)

The guy who voted for the bankruptcy law and made a killing from the post-Katrina foreclosures (months after WE KNOW he was fully aware of it)is the friend of the poor?
I think not. Next!

Edwards has either matured over time and developed an awareness of economic inequities and injustices, with an emphasis on the latter, or he picked a politically useless (but totally correct) focus of his initial campaign - an emphasis on income inequities and the poor.

But you are right on the bankruptcy stuff. I though of the most recent abomination, 2005, but here's what he's done over time, 2nd entry - Aug. 19. That's pretty devastating and the position is not defensible. Again, to believe him one must believe he changed because, as not noted, the record stinks.

With regard to Katrine, you're talking about the hedge fund business? Why didn't his campaign do due dilligence and dump it? Sloppy. Unless it's a blind trust, which nobody seems to have anymore.

I'm not a big Edwards supporter, other than his focus initially, the ACORN endorsement (which counts with me), and the fact that he's the best of the worst, in the three front runners. I very much prefer Gore as the only one right on politics and capable of getting elected. I agree with Dennis on most issues but there is such a smear campaign, no way. Shame isn't it?"

Why do you continually spell Obama's name wrong? Very telling.

I've misspelled the same words consistently since single digits.

It could be due to the fact he annoys me. I saw "Dinner with Obama" (see, your correction worked).
He was telling the couple who won this in some sort of fund raising raffle, "It will take months and
months to get out of Iraq." He and HRC started that about the same time and it was heard on the
other side, one of those charming mind benders the MSM just slips in our coffee when we're not looking.

I though, what a load of b.s. that is. It's the fall back position of the "War-Money" party,
(Democratic wing, kinder gentler). And here he is, with his opposition to the war on record and he's
backing off. For what? Richardson wrote a very intelligent article on getting out in 3 months and
laid out the benefits.

But it's not that I'm annoyed. from=form - that's not too good; now=not - real bad.

I'm pretty open minded on all of these candidates but when stuff like this rears its head, it is also
easy to say, adios. "The Count" caused me examine Edwards record on bankruptcy, which I hadn't, and
that informs me on him.

I'm waiting for Gore. If not him, I'm praying for grace.

But working with what we have before us and looking at the top three viable candidates, I have reached clarity in my own head on this issue and Obama is the only choice for me. And, yes, it has everything to do with Iraq.

Regarding Obama talking about the actual exit from Iraq, it reminds me of Hill warning people at the debate that leaving Iraq will not happen by magic wand but rather by the systematic removal of troops and equipment, and it is those logistics that Obama is referring to. My intention is not to proselytize but rather share my view on this; if that makes any difference.

our only hope.

We have our own faith-based community here.

So I do not think the real reason for this post is that you feel "dictated to" by the verbiage a poster on DU uses. And the implication that you include JE in the candidates you can find something to "like" in is laughable. Your prior posts indicate otherwise.I actually prefer it when you truthfully express your contempt.At least you are being honest instead of attempting a pretense of impartiality through an assumed offense of what you interpret as "authoritarian orders", which was only the opinion of a poster.I assume you do not feel that poster has the right to state her opinion on DU as it conflicts with your own.How very sad.

Unfortunately, what you think is just that...and what is sad is that you would dictate to me my thoughts on my actions as though being honest equals what you have assumed.

In reference to me stating that I like something "even" about John Edwards, that is actually true....it is just not enough to make me want to vote for him. If you have a problem with that, it is yours, not mine.

your "hatred" or "dislike" of Edwards.You have even stated you have personal reasons to do so.I do not dictate your thoughts in any way. But it is disingenuous to imply that you in any way find something to "like in Edwards" after your many posts denigrating him.That is what I have a problem with.But do as you wish.I was just expressing my opinion.

else prior to making accusations as to what I have said, you would at least be consciencious enough to at least locate these "I have hatred" for Edwards posts of mine that you mention in your certainty as to what I am doing and why. I'll wait for those.

"Many Denigrating post" is a phrase that you have thrown into your reasoning to personally attack me....however, I'm not sure why providing information on Edwards actions with links is to be considered Denigrating to him. If he voted for some bankrupcy bills that I didn't like, is it really "denigrating" for me to post the information that backs up the fact that he did this? Information that I supposed Edwards supporters would prefer not show up in any posts?

I believe that it is Edwards supporters that time after time again attempt to denigrate me with their personal attack posts to be what is happening here....and this approach of theirs has been a constant perhaps because they lack the material necessary to actual refute the information I present with facts.

As they say, and I guess, as you do...."if you can't defend the message because it is factual, then attack the messenger".

You have yourself confused with someone: someone who is consistent in expecting herself to abide by the rules she demands of others.

Some postings of yours where you protest about your fairness to Edwards have been literally met with laughter, and that's from a few different people.

You've accused the hardcore Edwards supporters of being unwilling to admit any fault of his and have sneered repeatedly at this double standard. Even though I'm one of the longest-standing diehards of the group and have been one of the foci of your ire, I've been pretty consistent about voicing dismay about possible missteps with some of the funding of one of his non-profits, over the IWR vote, over the bankrupcy bill and others.

Let's get back to that elephant in the room: you are an extremist among the Clark camp, and as such have a bee in your bonnet about Mr. Edwards. While you hold him to the strictest accountability for his actions, you are worse than merely evasive or obfuscatory about Gen. Clark's actions and rail with indignity when pressed. I and other Edwards supporters have expressed dismay about these issues, and about others like some of the sneaky provisions in the Workplace Religious Freedom Act bill, but you and the Clark supporters are studious in your unwavering unwillingness to either explain, excuse or deny his LYING about tax votes, support of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, support of school vouchers then lying that he'd ever done so and his recommendation to others to vote for the IWR and admitting his own occasional support for it while painting himself as a steadfast opponent from the start.

Those of the Edwards camp have a pretty good record of admitting the mistakes of their candidate, and keeping the discourse on the level of issues rather than posters' personalities has been pretty decent. Some, of course, have not been so good, but there always seem to be a few voices who can accept and admit failings and missteps. The same cannot be said in return.

You, personally, have used many personal insults and dismissals against individuals while specifically ducking the issues they've raised. Railing about this is beyond mere extreme, horrendous hypocricy. The extent of this double standard, while slathered with the hurt dudgeon of the wronged victim rises to the point where currently available words simply fail to describe the phenomenon; a new word is in order to define this extreme duplicitous sanctimony, perhaps: "hypercricy".

As the case may be, there are things about the other major candidates that bother me FAR more. I ALWAYS try to make any debate about what I consider to be the underlying issues. My criticisms of Hillary, Obama, and Kucinich are on point. Hillary strikes me as a "status quo" candidate who'll change as little as possible when change is precisely what we need. Obama strikes me as dangerously naive about the nature of his adversaries and all too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to people who'd take advantage of it, and Kucinich is just too oddball to gain the strong support necessary to beat the Republican candidate, whoever he may end up being.

The fact remains that I have solid reasons for supporting Edwards over the other candidates. All of them have their flaws, some more serious than others. This whole thread is nothing more than a exercise in faux outrage trying to make something out of MY thread it was never meant to be.

You guys keep pouring the BS quite thickly then try to clobber those who don't want to step in it. lookey what I saved to remind you of
Does Bill and Hillary owe their legacy to John Edwards?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3258629&mesg_id=3258629

What on earth are you talking about?

Click on your own link and see.

to jump onto your bandwagon.

Here's my proof of your own attacks on DUers aka your "hypercricy"....while you wag your finger at me about constantly.....and there are so many more, it ain't even funny. Maybe if you were a DU donor, you could do a search to back your rant up.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-07-07 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. For someone so proud of being an educator, your spelling sucks
It's only a small button; hit it once in a while.

Sloppy spelling and grammar just makes your opinion less credible to others, and if the pomposity of this rejoinder irks you, it's no more than a response in kind; you've lectured us with a fairly regular spew of pedantry and should be able to bear this correction.

We are aware that you intensely dislike the man, but if you think that his policies are more hostile toward Iran than Clinton's or Obama's, I'd like to hear a quick point-by-point summary.

Perhaps you can have a chat with your T.A. and get an unbiased second opinion...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3504430&mesg_id=3504453

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-30-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. Start more threads! Start more threads! Only YOUR pain matters.
Florida demands to bring the rest of the country to heel and rages like a victim when we don't obey.

It's like that line from "The Boss Monster from Hell" in an old Matt Groening cartoon:

"How DARE you duck when I throw things at you!"

Don't just sit there fuming at your thwarted schemes for superiority, start some more threads. Suck up ALL the bandwidth. What swine we are to not stop the earth turning on its axis and bend our every effort to making sure your state gets to do as it pleases in defiance of its agreements. Only inferiors are bound by their words of honor.

By all means, scream and rage and kick the walls. Hold your breath 'til you turn blue, that'll show us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3487830

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-08-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
30. No effort is too great when Edwards slagging is to be done
I wonder how Clark's dreamy and steely gaze was when full-frontally lying about Kerry's and Edwards' voting for Bush's tax cuts...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3436371&mesg_id=3436949

when Bush defenders are faced with criticisms they have no legitimate answer for...Accuse the critic of 'hatred', attack the critic, then bring into the conversation someone who has nothing to do with the discussion and attack them to deflect the original criticism...but do nothing to answer the criticism. Kind of disheartening to see it employed so often here though. :(

the difference between stating one person's opinion (mine) and trying to dictate to someone else.

Frenchie just wrote what she thought and your response was totally attack mode BECAUSE Frenchie stated an opinion that didn't agree with yours....... Frenchie didn't attack you, as you did Frenchie. "Frenchie seems unable to grasp" comment was totally unnecessary.

your high handed diatribe about your views of Frenchie's non spoken opinions.

I in no way support JE for POTUS, but I like his hair, his talent for making speeches, his southern drawl and that he is an active spokesperson against Bush and his policies. Can't you see that two opposing views can exist in one human being? Frenchie said that there were things that she viewed as positive in JE, as well as negative - Frenchie didn't use sarcasm as you just did (and like I am about to use). Get off of your pedestal and review the FACTS there are plenty to discount pretty boy JE for POTUS, it is just too bad that you choose to ignore them.....much the same as the supporters in 2004 of Bush, they saw his rotten record, saw the disastrous decisions that he was part of making and then voted for him anyway???!!!!!????? They apparently couldn't see past their nose either.

I like to look at a person's record, (otherwise known as proof) of where they stand and what they CAN DO, while holding public office and being a public servant, which JE did all of 6 short short years, while 2 -3 of those years he was campaigning for a raise and the #1 position of the free world. I bet his constituents appreciated voting for a guy that couldn't even give them 1 full term of good work....I bet that is why he didn't run again....he knew he would lose. Kind of again like Bush, screw up one job and then go for a higher position.

What would have been nice is if JE tried to stay in the Senate and tried to put his neck on the line to try to help clean up a mess that he was very much part of creating, what would have been nice is if JE would have admitted that going into Iraq was a mistake sooner than the 2 - 3 years after his vote (a little slow in the realization of his mistake I'd say). What would have been nice is JE learning from his dangerous rhetoric of Saddam and Iraq, instead of using the same tone and intimating the same threats towards Iraq recently....

Why don't people open their eyes and really see, open their ears and really hear, engage their brains and really start to think?

get to go into the booth with me, I will vote as my heart and principles dictate. And yes, there are current Democratic presidential candidates that don't make the cut. What is interesting is that people will demand fealty to their ideals while ignoring another voters right to choose and speak freely in a Democracy. That is twisting past irony into full scale hypocrisy.

With that said, I have a garden party in Santa Barbara to rhapsodize about today.

:hi: Frenchie!

there should be 10000000's of choices, to find the best person for the JOB!!!!

In fact, the aggressiveness of the operatives of this minor candidate makes me stay away from DU a lot of times. It's bad enough I can't get inspired by any of the candidates running, to have someone ramming the worst choice down my throat is almost the equivalent of the MSM fawning over W. Propaganda is propaganda is propaganda.

I've been following politics for a long time, and I must say, sweeping statements like "Candidate X is the only choice" are hardly unheard of coming from passionate supporters. What's the harm? It's either a sincere belief on the part of the poster - which other posters are completely free to disagree with or it's simply puffery - like a cigarette company stating "Brand X is the smoker's only choice". I'm an Edwards supporter, but I'd feel the same way if the statement was about Clinton or Obama. For what it's worth, I don't think Edwards is the ONLY choice (he's my preferred choice by a large margin), but if someone feels differently, it's certainly their right to say so.

I was speaking for myself. Stating MY opinion. And nowhere in that OP, or in the thread itself, did I say otherwise.

need to seek a website - formerly my sanity oasis - only to encounter more propaganda.
I come here for facts and intelligent commentary not for hyperbolic statements rivaling the ones in the MSM.

Where in my post did I EVER claim to speak for anyone but myself?

what you did do was claim that you were trying to influence others to think the same as you...in other words "John Edwards is the only choice for me, and if everyone would only listen to my indisputable arguments, he'd be the only choice for you too."