Was John Edwards right on anything while in the senate?

From David Plouffe today:

"John Edwards’ positions are not changing as rapidly, but on many core issues the Edwards of today is different than the Edwards of 1998, or even 2004. It’s admirable to admit mistakes but John Edwards has apologized for most of his record while in the Senate, saying he got it wrong on trade with China, Right to Work, Packer Ban, No Child Left Behind, Bankruptcy reform and of course, the Iraq War."

what his excuse now? The devil made me do it?

So, he expects the electorate to make the same mistake over again by electing him President?

Pound sand John. While your pounding think of all the things you could have done to help People.

Voted for war with Iraq.

The Iran vote.

So many positions, so little time to keep changing them. :eyes:

Edwards was far worse than Clinton when you consider that he was on the Intel Committee, he had access to closed door sessions that weren't available to her, and he went further than vote, he stepped up to co-sponsor Lieberman's IRW. He also voted to the right of Clinton on all Iraq issues until his missed votes started to make a difference in the totals.

They were still shown cherry-picked intelligence to make Saddam seem like a threat and deliberately not shown any caveats. His mistake was in trusting the report he was shown without suspecting that the administration had pulled off an unprecedented and astonishingly brazen manipulation of the intelligence agencies.

So the fact that Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee does not make it worse than anyone else who voted for it.

was cooked to caution anyone from voting yes, but especially those on the intelligence committee. The NIE docs put holes in the Saddam WMD story, the Niger yellowcake and the aluminum tubes stories. Edwards based his disengenous apology on the deceit that he was given faulty intel, and if he knew then blah, blah, blah. But that is simply not true. He should have listened to Sen. Durbin and Graham, he should have paid attention during those closed door sessions, and he should have read the NIE docs.

He did get the unclassified version and not read it all. He trusted the summary. Lives were on the line.

In fairness, Edwards would have had to have read all the footnotes, according to Graham. The summary was distorted, and the admin was probably counting on the summary being good enough for several on the committee.

But that's not good enough for a President. So it's back to Obama with me. I don't like to have to choose candidates by the process of elimination, but in the long run it's probably wise.

(Biden supporters, I'm all ears.)

(Mmm...Obama/Biden...think about it...)

Yet another staged event for the benefit of the current audience? :shrug:

I am still sympathetic to Edwards, and will continue to defend him where I can.

I'll vote for Edwards in Oregon's primary. So what if he made mistakes early on. His health care plan will save more lives than anyone else's, and he'll draw down the troops just like HRC and BO.

And he *was* given faulty intelligence. If a summary is not a summary but a distortion, then it's the liar's fault. They hid the caveats in footnotes, fer Christ's sake. If the IWR required the president to go to the UN for authorization and the president didn't, he's a war criminal. Yes, Edwards trusted Bush and got burned. He won't do it again.

but please keep in mind that Edwards was a successful trial lawyer who's career depended on his ability to investigate legal documents and he wasn't alone, he had a staff and senior Democratic colleagues on the Intel committee to rely on. I'm not sure that all this was buried in the footnotes, but in a grave matter of sending Americans off to war, footnotes should be read.

It doesn't sound as though the evidence was hard to find:



Anyway, as I've said, you have to make up your own mind. I'll still hold him more responsible than Clinton because he co-sponsored the resolution, and was a member on the Intel Committee with better access, sometimes the only access to closed door meetings etc. but other's obviously feel differently.

Peace

and that's okay. I guess it comes down to whether you're more concerned with a candidate's past or their plans for the future. I think Edwards has learned from the past and has the best plan for the future.

May I ask whom you are supporting?

you first had to get to the top, and in order to do that, you needed to blend in so they wouldn't knock you off early. But once you get there, well, that determined your character and commitment. Because at that point when you finally reach the top it may be hard to remember the person you were at the beginning, before you started "blending" in.

I don't know the six year Senator from NC. But I do know the Edwards who is running for president and I am convinced that he's the real thing.

thanks.

:spank:

:shrug:

but I did note that, along with Joe Lieberman and some others, he was a founding member of the DLC's New Democrats, the DLC's branch office in the Senate at that time:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=426&kaid=103&subid=111

It's significant to point out you referred to him as a founder of the "DLC's New Democrats."

By the very definition of the term, the DLC is/are "New Democrats," the term being a generic one (at least at the time) for the DLC.

I don't even bother with this crap any more.

eom

No matter what his stand on past record, someone would be ripping him a new one over it.

Should he just "stay the course" We all know where that got this country.

I'll take the "what you did in the past is prologue to the future" gambit and am going full throttle for OBAMA08.

is how he attacks his opponents with bare fists every time they show a hint of centrism, while he was as centrist as they come whenever he had to be accountable to an electorate. It's nothing but cheap opportunism.

The next budget vote? They will be spineless. If a cabinet secretary dies, they'll bend over for bush and approve the next guy. DU knows it. What else do you need to know :sarcasm:

like some sorts of rigid folks we generally don't like to associate with here or in real life, it's reasonable to assume that being back out in the real world outside the I-495 beltway has caused Edwards to rethink a lot of what he took for granted as a freshman Senator.

I've seen a similar change in Bill Richardson since he's been out of DC. His first two years as governor were not good ones, but he's more than made up for them since then.

Edwards has the right populist rhetoric and it might make him the candidate. However, it will not keep him there for two terms if he doesn't follow up on it.

It's not like he was born silver-spoon and had a Buddha moment as soon as he stepped out of his palace and saw misery and suffering. Heck, in 2004, his working-class past was the centerpiece of his campaign. People are capable of change, yes. But when people repeatedly change as soon as they see the political winds shifting--and then attack their opponents for doing the same thing he did in office--it seems superficial.

I don't quite trust it, either. However, he's just greasy enough to get elected.

Like I've often said, I'll vote for the nominee. There are just a few of them who would make me happier to fill out the ballot than others would.

and that's not enough. :shrug:

that Edwards is running for president for his EGO! not the American public.

:rofl:

of the Democratic party, here to make everything as clean and pure as he is. His past record isn't relevant, behold, he has been reborn!

Critical of Clinton, so you think he thinks of himself as a savior? Be reasonable.

Have you stopped beating your wife/husband/dog/cat/goldfish? Nice question.

Those questions are assuming a false condition--that the wife was beaten. The only way this could be a similar question would be if Edwards was not a Senator. The problem with this question is that there is no good answer for the innocent man--a "no" says he still beats her, and a "yes" admits that he used to beat her.

If you disagree, simply say "Yes," and post what he did that was good.

But since you are a supporter.. I would like to hear what you think of his legislative record

definately was the right thing to do. So was his advocacy of the Patients Bill of Rights which the corporate lobbyists moved to defeat.

Among many other things....John Edwards is the same today as he was yesterday, he can tear up the republicans in a debate.

That is one of the myths propagated by Edwards supporters on DU. The vote was already determined, several times, when Edwards gave his speech. He didn't change any minds. That was Dale Bumpers.

most presented detailed legal cases, bringing up issues and precedents that have nothing to do with Edwards' speech, each indicating which way they would vote. (It is very likely the texts of their speeches were released before they spoke.) I looked through about 20 speeches after Edwards - none mentioned Edwards. There were mentions of Levin and Moynihan. Leahy gave a very detailed speech going through every element of the charge.

The speeches - look in Thomas at February 12, 1999 - are fascinating. I doubt that there is one that is clearly the best - many were more persuasive to me than Edwards'. The point is that not a single Senator had likely begun the trial not knowing how they would vote. Many are lawyers of great distinction. I assume that none looked to any of their peers for guidance.

He has consistently voted pro-environment, I know that. His votes have been disappointing to me on some issues, but I'm betting on his promises of today to be true. I expect him to be a strong supporter of working people and the poor even though his record in the past hasn't been consistent.

He'll have a lot of pressure to follow through.

He voted wrong on Yucca Mountain. He voted wrong on mountaintop removal mining.

mountaintop mining pro-environment, and his record has been something worse than merely inconsistant for working people:

"The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors."

Dodd further questioned Edwards as a poverty fighter by saying that his opponent voted in favor of a similar version of the Bankruptcy Reform bill in 2001. Specifically, that bill required debtors to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over time under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan rather than letting them seek a discharge via Chapter 7 bankruptcy."

...Edwards sided with Republicans in favoring the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Dodd said that Edwards even aligned with the Republican caucus in rejecting an amendment to the bill by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. That amendment would have given an exemption to debtors who were forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Naturally, Dodd was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of this amendment."

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john_edwards.htm

None of the other candidates have straight pro-environment, pro-consumer, pro-whatever. Edwards' record is strongest on voting for the interests of the poor, the elderly, and women. He's got a decent record, but not perfect on environmental interests. If you look at his record and compare it with other candidates, you'll see he has a good voting record on many issues. It all comes down to what are most important issues for each person.

He's not the senate "type" - deliberative to the point of exasperation - He would have been a better suited Congressman, or a Governer. I think he ought to do just that, manage something and then try again.

That was a good sign ! He earned being a Senator :D

He was suited :D

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

But the guys who were right (like Feingold) ain't running. More's the pity.

His worst judgment of all?

Campaigning for president when his family needs him the most. He will regret his actions, I'm almost sure of it.

It's almost like you have a personal vendetta against the guy.

More like professional.

He was good on abortion and choice issues, for instance.

:cry:

:evilgrin:

Hill's triangulation leads to support for H1Bs, perpetual war...

and not one Democratic candidate is for perpetual war. Look up Edwards' Herziliya conference speech on Iran, and his 'refinements' afterwords if you're looking for tiangulation.

because unless they have been in a position to make the rules, they have to abide by what their constituents want. Edwards came from a red state, of course he was going to vote conservatively, that was his job. Haven't we also been hearing rumors of how freshmen are kind of told how to vote, sometimes forcibly. As for the IWR, I don't hold that against any rep. No one could have guessed that Bush would have attacked Iraq, no one thought he was that stupid. We all know better now, you never give him an inch.

As for him running in 2004, he did very little of that before he became the VP of Kerry. When he did that he dropped his two Americas theme and campaigned under Kerry's banner. Then, what he said was Kerry's platform, not necessarily his.

Okay, so Edwards didn't grow up dirt poor, big deal. He wasn't rich either. The problem with this history is that you don't know when anything happened. I remember the big brouhaha about Al Gore's father being rich. Yeah, Gore senior did become wealthy after Al was an adult, before that he had been just a farmer, with Al working on the farm. So when did Edwards senior become a manager, was John already in college, because his father certainly didn't pay for his education. Edwards worked while he went to college, including a job as a carpet layer, which is not an easy job.

As for the hedge fund, what better way to find out about something than working with it. Studying something doesn't necessarily give you the real world answers. He has started different poverty projects, to see how they would work. What if Bush had actually had a real world working "no child left behind" to see the results. Before the US would have adopted that dumb idea, it would have be squashed (well, I hope it would have).

Has Edwards made mistakes, of course he has, he is not perfect. But I really think he learns from his mistakes. How many people here at DU screamed when Kerry didn't fight back fast enough, yet when Edwards fights back, he is the lowest of the low. He is attacking policies and positions, he has to distinguish myself from the other dems. He is to the left of every one except Kucinich and Gravel. He may be able to swing this country enough to the left where a Kucinich would be taken as a serious candidate.

For the record, I don't hate any of the candidates. I also resent being called a "whoever" hater if I don't agree with their positions and don't want them to be President. I do not ridicule anyone. If you have ever noticed, while I have a hate for Bush, I have never called him something other than Bush. I respect your right to think the way you do, but I also have the right to think the way I do.

zalinda

Thank you so much. And best of luck with whoever you choose.