Kucinich blasts Edwards on IWR and credibility

Press Release

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/edwards%92-pro%11war-posture-in-%9204-raises-serious-credibility-questions/

Dennis!

K&R

Successful trial lawyers know you don't have to believe the shit you're selling. You just have to get the voters... er, I mean jury, to believe you believe it.

I respect that guy for his uncompromising integrity.

She doesn't say one thing without checking the polls first. But I'll give her credit for at least being somewhat more genuine than Mitt Romney.

between those 2 in 2008 in Iowa. The enmity building up between them is pretty obvious.

nothing else to throw at John Edwards? I like Dennis and John..I know Edwards was fucking around at the time of the IWR..like hillary, Kerry, and whomever and Dennis got it right but I believe some people can evolve from stupid presidential stars in their eyes and Kerry and Edwards are among them.

Call me naive.

many prestigious Dems had it right from the start. JE hasn't evolved. People need to start judging these candidates by their actions, not just their words.

I knew the IWR was wrong, but MR. PRESIDENTIAL material didn't know??????? there is ABSOLUTELY no excuse for that error. How could people just forgive and forget such an obvious and horrendous error of judgment. Along with China trade, Yucca Mtn, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill, voting right for ex-cons....what did he do right? Whats he going to do, win over the Dems in the Primaries and revert back to his pretty dominant Republican stances in the General? There is really very little diff. between Hillary and JE, and as far as I am concerned, neither one of them would be any good for our country.

Big Difference. And, people can change drastically. Some can't..I'll give ya that.

he not only voted for it, he co-sponsored it. That's the damning thing.

He was on the Intelligence Committee, never bothered to read the NIE, and still co-sponsored it.

Y'know, he says good things, but I don't buy them for just these reasons.

Do you buy her excuse?

I will say Hillary voted for an alternative amendment to limit the force authority to one year, which is more than Edwards did. He voted against it. He voted against every single one.

We could go tit for tat on this -

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00400

Bill Number: S 1689
Issue: Defense
Date: 10/17/2003
Sponsor:Sen Stevens, Ted

Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $87 billion to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. $65.6 billion of which is designated for military operations.

NAYs ---12
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Edwards (D-NC)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sarbanes (D-MD)

YEAs ---87
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Please. You asked me for a link and I provided it to back up what I said.

As for the supplemental vote, in line with what? We were talking about October 2002, not October 2003. I imagine you are claiming that vote as an anti-war vote, if I am figuring out correctly what point you are making and since you don't say. However, as I recall, it was not an anti-war vote. It was an anti-no bid contracts vote, about buying equipment; thus no blank check for Bush. I think Edwards was correct in that vote.

Please explain, they all voted to go to war on 10/11, the Byrd Amendment was put forth the day before? That doesn't make sense, Clinton voted for the Byrd Amendment and then the next day voted to go to war? And you are blasting Edwards for that? Here are the dates:

Question: On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended )
Vote Number: 232 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 09:43 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

There were other amendments, however, including Byrd 2, brought by Democrats to mitigate the resolution that Bush wanted. I give her credit for voting for one of them. I give credit to those who voted for other mitigating amendments. Edwards, who voted against every last one of the alternatives and co-sponsored and hawked the one Bush asked for, he gets no credit. I forgive nobody who voted for the IWR, let's be clear on that, and I won't give my primary vote to any of them, but Edwards is the lowest of the low in my estimation.

was asking for the sense of voting for the Byrd Amendment and the the very next day, voting to go to war. Let's not pretend here that in 2001/2002, this country was not screwed up and in so many ways, and regardless of any votes, PNAC and the BFEE were taking this country to war whether we liked it or not. I don't care too much for Edwards vote myself, but he has apologized and taken ownership and responsibility for it and I respect him for that. As for my support of Edwards, let me explain it to you this way, I have two small children and the future he is proposing is the one I want my children to have. He has hit the nail on every head of what is ailing this country and big corporations are just the tip of the iceberg. He has the most thought out, detailed plans on so many issues, from combating poverty to restoring trust in America with the rest of the world. I chose to look forward, not back.

Good luck to your candidate, whomever that may be.

Good luck to you and your family :hi:

He told his supporters to caucus for Edwards if he wasn't viable in Iowa.

And he wasn't.

So how credible does that make Kucinich now?

after he threw his support behind him? How could that hurt his credibility?

The IWR was in October 2002....I'm too bored with this to go on.

not when he voted - he has changed all his positions on those after the 2004 election, that I am aware of.

Wacky.

the OP said this made Kucinich lose credibility because in 2004 he had his supporters go for Edwards in Iowa - before Edwards changed his positions.

Edwards ran as a moderate in 2004 and Kucinich as an anti-war progressive. In 2008 they are competing for the same base, so there is no rationale for an alliance. I was confused by the alliance at the time, but a couple of Iowa DUers have explained it in a way that makes sense to me. It wasn't what they had in common, but what they didn't have in common, that made an alliance politically possible. Edwards was looking to get Gephardt supporters while Kucinich was looking to pick up Dean or Clark supporters. The idea was to gain delegates. Say Kucinich was close but not quite there in a caucus district, but Edwards had more than enough, the Edwards camp could send a few people over to Kucinich to bring him up, if it was possible. Where it was clear Kucinich would not have 15% his supporters could join Edwards to pump Edwards up. In case of a subsequent round, if it looked like Kucinich could do better, those supporters who had crossed over to Edwards could return to Kucinich, but if they had not done that crossover, they would not have been eligible to caucus again for Kucinich. I believe, even in the end, they could still be Kucinich delegates, in some circumstances, but would not have had that opportunity had they not crossed over in the caucus stage. I believe you are in Iowa, so you can correct me if I have any of it wrong.

But the point is it was politics, not support of Edwards that drove Kucinich's thinking in 2004. And it's politics today. Edwards appears to have cut into Kucinich's base to some extent. Kucinich can't possibly like it. But I did think Kucinich respected and liked Edwards in 2004. Not that he agreed with Edwards, but believed Edwards believed what he did was right. That's where Kucinich seems to have lost regard for Edwards. He doesn't believe him anymore.

I like you Dennis, but don't play the holier than thou card.

in his teeny weeny Senate career. At least Dennis is much more consistent and RIGHT about his positions. JE supporters cannot say that and be truthful.

Dennis is just calling a fake a fake, which is EXACTLY what JE is.

Oh, ok. Gotcha.

he changed his position and makes no fuss about it. He still believes abortion is wrong but he respects a women's right to choose. Simple as that, and he changed his position 2 years ago, that's hardly right before the election.

If Edwards, Obama or Hillary do it...they're inferior.

Look, I like Dennis. But he's not holier than thou, and when he waffles it isn't any more or any less of a flip-flop than when Edwards or Clinton changes positions.

"waffle" hemming and hawing and such. Dennis changed his mind let everyone know that he changed his mind and explained why. He did not hesitate, he did not backtrack, he did not make regrets. He repositioned his stance and explained clearly why. Also that is the one position he could possible get flak for while we have a myriad of examples from the afore mentioned candidates.

I have to wonder about anyone who can't get that a woman has the right to choose from the very beginning. Wars and foreign policy change, but individual rights don't.

You'r right it is a womens right to choose. One thing that alot of people forget is that they have a third option between keeping and killing and that is adoption. If you believed someone was being murdered I'm sure you would want to stop it. It's a case of trying to protect someone from themselves

if you don't believe me what do you think about people who are suicidal? should they have the right to choose
(granted I know most suicides are not in the right frame of mind just trying to make a point)

and personally I have always been pro choice becasue I don't think life begins at birth

No, I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what to do with their body. You want someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months, endure all the pain and problems it brings, just so you can not "kill" the baby? That's another problem I have. It's not "killing" the baby, because it's not alive.

Yes, I'm sure I would want to stop it if I thought someone was being murdered. But they're not, and Kucinich was flat out wrong on this. Save someone from theirselves? Why is that your fucking job? And yes, why shouldn't someone have the right to kill themselves? What ever happened to being responsible for your own body and not having anyone tell you what to do with it? Do you think assisted suicide is wrong?

its about perception. And his perception was that a life is ending when a women goes through abortion. Yes he has changed his stance, he has stated so and he said he was wrong to vote for his consious instead of the right for a women to choose. And yes I think suicide is wrong because most of the times its because they have mental problems, issues or drug problems. now suicide because quality of life will never get better (ie old age, extereme illness , etc) i don't have a problem with.

my point being he's a good man in his heart and he had to battle some demons to let go of the though of babies dying. He did change and he did own up to his responsablities. thats my point.

you know, but JE......now HOW MANY FRIGGIN APOLOGIES has he given for a short 6 yrs in office? Compare that to one change in HOW MANY YEARS of DK in office??????? Do you people even think????? EVER?

On Iraq. He was wrong. So was every other candidate for President minus Gravel, Obama or Kucinich. But Edwards has come around, and believes we should end the war. Which I respect, because add that to his incredible vision for our country--and we have a winner!! Compare that to Kucinich, who Hillary Clinton has an even better chance of being elected than Dennis. HELL that slimeball Joe Lieberman would have a better change being elected. I love Dennis, love his message, love he speaks the truth more times than not, but come on. Seriously, don't hold him above all the other candidates because you like him. He's not perfect either. And he's certainly not the most electable choice we have.

Look, I understand. You guys think Dennis gets a pass on any flip-flops, and everyone else doesn't. It's ok. I guess you think people don't change their positions ever. If that were the case I'd be pro-life instead of pro-choice, and five years ago I was very anti-gay because of the way I was raised...but you know what? I'm actually a homosexual. People change, and like Edwards said...if you don't change when you know you're wrong or things change, you're ignorant.

Just like Dennis was right to change on abortion. Even though is timing, right before running for President, was troubling and revealing WHY he changed positions. But oops, I forget...can't badmouth him, he's holier than thou. At least in the eyes of a good portion of DU.

How many wrong votes did JE cast?

IWR
PATRIOT ACT (taking away our rights?)
BANKRUPTCY (now he is for the poor and middle class- a bit hypocritical)
EX CONS VOTING REINSTATEMENT (again human rights)
YUCCA MTN (Now he is green)

His votes were not Democratic, they were Republican. What is that so hard to realize? here?

:toast: Let's call a phoney a phoney. I like JE personally. He seems like a nice enough person but I am somewhat dubious regarding his 11th hour conversion. I won't buy it until I see EVIDENCE of his change. Thus far we only have his words.

If there were we would be in much better shape! It has really saddened me to see so many here just so totally buy - hook, line and sinker - what this guy is trying to sell to us. JE so totally changed his stripes and so recently - that I don't understand how anybody will just accept his words and ignore his (very recent) actions.....

The way things are looking, many are going to get EXACTLY what they have been asking for, unfortunately we will have to endure the consequences of their actions.

I hope the voters will too.

So, yet another subject you cannot compare those two favorably to your guy.

Some people are so despicable about other's misfortunes. And how ironic considering that JE built himself on (poor me I was poor) "son of a millworker"...... Don't like what Dennis says about JE??????? How about what JE has said about others??????? Or doesn't that count?

the misfortunes that Dennis had to contend with. And your post makes no sense whatsofucking ever except as a gratuitous attack. Lame response.

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

How dare you.

Don't tell me I'm an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. I've been a Democrat all my life. I've never voted for a Republican...ever.

supported BUSH and the IWR and the Patriot Act along with many other votes that went AGAINST Democratic philosophies. NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, He has changed all of his positions???? and you buy into that????? I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but this guy is so fake it isn't even funny. What bothers me most is that is EXACTLY what Bush did, he campaigned on false promises and then turned around and reneged on much of what he said. Remember - "returning integrity to the WH"? remember - "no nation building".... Just because they say something - doesn't mean they will DO it. Bush showed us that over and over he would say one thing and then do just the opposite. The thing was, that the Pubs bought into the rhetoric and ignored his actions for way too long of a time. Now look, it is too late. Look at all of the damage that has been done. What is it going to take for people to realize that rhetoric is just that....rhetoric. For Dems to be buying into JE's rhetoric w/o a shred of evidence of what he will DO, is irresponsible at best. It appears no lessons were learned. Way too many Dems cannot see past promises. I thought that we were smarter as a whole. Now I don't think so.

An "R" by Bush's name doesn't make him a Republican. He doesn't stand for any of the Republican standards

Just because JE has a "D" by his name doesn't automatically make him a true Democrat and if you don't understand this then, yes, I stand by my words.

Get over yourself.

Don't be so rude with me.

"been a Democrat all my life. I've never voted for a Republican...ever." Your candidate voted as a Republican AFTER he was elected as a Democrat (not once, not twice but several times on the most important issues of his career).....that doesn't bother you?

Courtesy of: "I don't believe anyone can top Edwards
Posted by Tellurian

Edwards helping to Bankrupt Americans..

which makes the middle class highly susceptible to Poverty. (the centerpiece of his platform)

Remember who Co-Sponsored the Iraq Vote?.. John Edwards in case you've forgotten..

and promoted the Iraq War for two years on the White House website?

* Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt. 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans rejected this bill, including Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. President Clinton eventually vetoed this bill because it was too hard on debtors.

* Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure. Chris Dodd voted to reject this bill, joining Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone. In all, the bill was rejected by 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

* Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone.

* Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test "will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives." 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy.

* Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure.

The bill Edwards supported "punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., a leading opponent of the legislation. "We are heading into hard economic times and we're going to make it hard for people to rebuild their lives."

Edwards has been part and parcel of the GOP agenda all the way. Edwards voting record is one of the worst of our Dem Senators. Edwards is helping create poverty in the middle class with his bankruptcy vote and earning millions for himself when working for the Hedge Fund sector. The same Hedge Fund sector that was buying sub-prime mortgages for their investment portfolios.. The same "POVERTY" he now professes to help as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It must be hard for Edward's supporters to understand the meaning of the words "poverty" and "hypocrisy", when their candidate, John Edwards exemplifies it so well.

Why shouldn't he, he voted for it!

I have great respect for Biden for the work he's put into getting our troops out of Iraq. Edwards, not so much. AFAIC, Edwards has NO redeeming factors that would put him in the category of presidential hopeful. The best news is, he isn't running as an incumbent VP.

We dodged a bullet on that one."

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

EVERY candidate supporter. NO ONE candidate is perfect. Everyone one of them could be an embarrassment to the dem party, if you look close enough. People are not perfect, everyone makes mistakes. Kucinich is as back stabbing as any other candidate.

Absolutely no dem candidate is an embarrassment, and shame on you for saying that. And shame on you for denigrating people who support a candidate that you don't like. There are candidates I don't agree with, but I would NEVER call their supporters an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. Not cool, bro.

zalinda

"Dennis acts like someone who's still living in his car."

I do.

I really don't think it is cool to say that someone, who has been a Democrat all their life, is an embarrassment just because you don't like the candidate they support.

Say what you want about a candidate...and you do. Leave the supporters alone.

Yet you had no objection. So much for all that poverty shit and all, I guess.

I care deeply about poverty.

well, a little out there. I'm not condoning the statement, but sometimes when you hit a guy that someone likes, they hit back. And, sometimes it is not pleasant, and is below the belt. I think there are many on this board that are tired of seeing their candidates beat up by Kucinich supporters like he is the ONLY true dem in the entire US. Yes, Kucinich supporters can get a little arrogant, like "his shit doesn't stink".

It would be nice if people were a little more kind in their comments. Could we stick to the issues? I know that every one wants their candidate to win, but they won't. Don't burn your bridges just because you are passionate. We will need each other after the primaries, we can't be divided. And that is why I will vote for the dem nominee, no matter if I like him or her, or not.

zalinda

policy or politics that has sounded a little out their.

We see how fragile our Democracy is. We see the thousands and thousands killed over a war that we were lied into, yet we are supposed to wear our white gloves and not question the morality, intelligence of people who support a candidate that voted more like a Republican than a Democrat? A candidate that has pretty much reversed most of his positions in a few short years??????? How could people on this board not see thru this guy??????? He voted us into a war (I knew it was a mistake and so did other Dems (real Dems), He voted taking away many of our rights, He voted for free trade w/China, He voted in favor of the bankruptcy bill, he voted against giving EX cons voting rights.....these aren't Democratic ideals....YET people here support this guy, because he SAYS he has changed? Well, if he has changed let him get his ass back in the Senate - Congress and work his way up and let us see him put his vote where it is supposed to be before we make him POTUS.

Are people supporting Democratic values to somebody that has proven they can be trusted with carrying out what we beleive or are they just supporting "the guy"

:applause:

Again, I've nothing personal against Edwards. But I don't take people at their word. I never have. I learned by the time I was six that you should go by what you seeand not by what you hear. People will say anything. That goes for all people. So I can't judge whether John Edwards has actually changed until I see proof of that change. All I get right now is flowery language that is very appealing. But still, I ain't buying it until I see it. That goes for Edwards and everybody else.

Argue against the points Kucinich makes, if you can.

at least he knows what living in a car is like.

tsk tsk.

with Edwards. Most Dems in '02 and 04 were not in the right boat where Iraq was concerned. Edwards has accepted responsibility for his vote calling it his worst mistake in the Senate, while some (Hillary) still won't do so. Seriously, If Dennis has an axe to grind, he should be all over Obama and Hillary for not cutting the recent funding bills. I like Dennis a lot, but I think he's misplacing his ire.

Mr. Kucinich has made pretty similar assertions regarding all the Senatorial candidates.

the AUMF. In the Senate a very slight majority of dems in the Sentate voted to authorize it, and such liberal lions as Kennedy, Bryrd and Leahy voted against it, and warned there colleagues exactly WHY voting for it was such a disaster.

I just don't know. DK makes some valid points, at times, but lately, it's as if he thinks the sound of his cacophonous voice will swing people to him. I just don't think that's the case. JE may lose a vote or two, but my guess is, DK wouldn't get them.

Dennis told his supporters to caucus for Edwards when he wasn't viable in the 2004 Iowa caucus. I don't know what bug is up his ass about Edwards now but it is disingenuous considering what happened in 2004.

As a Kucinich supporter. The deal that was struck between DJK and JE was meant to help increase the viability of both candidates. Interestingly, it was a bit of a one-way street. JE supporters, with only one exception that I am aware of (and I went through the precinct, district and state conventions), did not hold up their end of the deal. Perhaps JE forgot to tell them about it. Maybe once he made such a surprising showing he felt like he didn't owe anybody anything.

It's not a holier-than-thou thing. It's called integrity, and JE could use a lesson or two on the subject.

And now he is running on a corporatized version of DJK's platform, and has anointed himself the voice for the downtrodden and an anti-war candidate? I don't believe a word JE says.

And I hope you won't either.

What end of the bargain did Edwards supporters not hold up to? The deal was if Kucinich was not viable, his supporters were to go to Edwards. I suppose if Edwards wasn't viable then his supporters were to go to Kucinich. I don't know about your precinct but in mine, Edwards won by a large margin. Kucinich wasn't close to being viable. A few of his supporters went to Edwards but not all of them. Maybe Kucinich forgot to tell them all?

What exactly is a corporatized version of DJK's platform anyway? Edwards is not the corporate candidate.

I'm sorry you don't believe a word he says. I do.

I won't say anything hurtful against Kucinich to you because I respect your choice. I will just leave it at that.

and only one more would have made Kucinich viable. There was a whole lot of quid-, but very little pro-quo going on.

Edwards' national health plan sounds a lot like Kucinich's, until you read further and see that he continues to hand the American workers over as cash crops to the insurance companies. That's one example of what I referred to as a corporatized version of DJK's platform.

Thank you for your restraint. I don't mean to bash JE, only to explain my theory as to why perhaps there is a less amicable vibe going on between the two candidates this time around.

:hi:

I've wondered how it actually worked out in the event. I've seen a few reports and it seems to have varied from caucus to caucus how beneficial the deal was for either candidate.

that makes more sense.

in some respects, Kucinich is right about Edwards. In order to support Edwards, one had to believe that he changed course in the past few years. I personally believe Edwards came around, but that's my opinion and it really can't be proven until he's in office.

I also think Kucinich has something personal against Edwards. He could easily point out similar issues with Clinton and it would make much more sense for him to do that since she is the front runner. When he goes after the third place candidate, it seems odd. Again, that's just an opinion.

I don't support Edwards anymore, but something is definitely bugging DK....

all of the other candidates (except, perhaps Mike).

Its the holier than thou thing.

and knew that voters where so fooled by Republicans that it would have been a sure losing strategy to be anti-war. He was right that Kerry would have lost any chance of winning if he admitted he made a mistake before Nov '04, just like he was right about windsurfing being a bad idea.

type of people. JE, now, is appealing to the same Dems that actually might support DK. Plus, with JE, there is such obvious hypocrisy AND JE has all of a sudden (different from the "nice ole' boy" image of 04") has been full force attacking others. Just a few thoughts.

No one wants to hear this crap from someone who knows he has no chance to win. He makes me sick.

candidates and attempting to run as the progressive candidate when many times that is not how he voted.

Some of the other candidates will let the attacks slide because they voted the same way as Edwards, and they know when to keep their mouths shut.

The most telling thing for me is that Edwards does not see the danger in attacking others when his record can easily be challenged. That is not a smart thing for Edwards to do, one can almost say that Edwards brought this on himself???

Now that Kucinich has tried to bring Edwards' record into question he is being attacked by some Edwards supporters.

:shrug:

Maybe Kucinich is pushing back because he feels that Edwards is trying to 'run on his record?'

Fact:
Edwards was co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution with Joe Lieberman.
Effect:
We are now in a quagmire that no apology can bring back.

Fact:
Edwards voted for the China Most Favored Nation Status/Free Trade bill as well as the same for Vietnam.
Effect:
The obvious effects of losing our steel industry to China and imports that contain lead as well as no real human rights reform.

These are two primary reasons that Edwards has no credibility in lashing out at others for the Occupation and free trade issues. If Kucinich brings these issues up, apparently it's his problem and his fault. Is it beyond any scrutiny to bring these obvious flaws in a candidate up?

:shrug:

And the two 'mistake' votes you listed are not small items :(

Edwards may have apologized for his vote, but he has never, at least to my knowledge, explained why after learning there was no NIE at the 9/5/02 Intelligence Meeting went ahead and gave his 9/12/02 speech and then a week later wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post. Several other Senators wrote letters asking for updated intelligence during this time as Edwards stated that we know Saddam has WMD's.

For me there are just too many questions and inconsistencies.

:shrug:


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter11.htm

snip>>

"In September 2002, in the midst of a debate about taking military action against Iraq, Congress, specifically several Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), requested that the Intelligence Community (IC) produce an National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The IC had not produced an in-depth, comprehensive, coordinated IC assessment of Iraq's WMD programs since the production of the December 2000 Intelligence Community (IC)Assessment, Iraq: Steadily Pursuing WMD Capabilities and had never produced an NIE devoted to Iraq's WMD programs.

(U) In an unclassified letter dated September 9, 2002, Senator Richard Durbin wrote to Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Tenet, expressing concern that the IC had not drafted an NIE on the status of Iraq's WMD program, and requested that the DCI "direct the production" of such an NIE - expressing the belief that "policymakers in both the executive branch and the Congress will benefit from the production of a coordinated, consensus document produced by all relevant components of the Intelligence Community" on this topic. Senator Durbin also requested that the DCI "produce an unclassified summary of this NIE" so "the American public can better understand this important issue."

(U) On September 10, 2002, then Committee Chairman Bob Graham sent a second letter to DCI Tenet requesting the production of an NIE, "on the status of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems; the status of the Iraqi military forces, including their readiness and willingness to fight; the effects a U.S.-led attack on Iraq would have on its neighbors; and Saddam Hussein's likely response to a U.S. military campaign designed to effect regime change in Iraq."

(U) On September 13, 2002, Senator Diane Feinstein wrote to President Bush to request his assistance in ensuring that the DCI prepare, on an immediate basis, an NIE "assessing the nature, magnitude and immediacy of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq." Senator Feinstein added that "there has not been a formal rigorous Intelligence Community assessment, such as a National Intelligence Estimate, addressing the issues relating to Iraq, and I deeply believe that such an estimate is vital to Congressional decision making, and most specifically, any resolution which may come before the Senate."

Now he's the meanest dog in the alley.

I trust Kucinich far more than Edwards. And Edwards is for keeping the insurance companies part of national health care. Doesn't that make Edwards a corporatist?

is trying to 'run on his record?'


In edit
Part of my post #52.

https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=aDlDFFT9TMGh0ghebdP6VkYKCfcT%2fFNw

:thumbsup:

;)

who made sneaky deals with the even more pro-war Kerry 4 years ago.

No doubt he's made some kind of similar arrangement with Clinton this time.

But I don't understand the rest of your post. I don't remember anything of a Kucinich-Kerry deal, if that's what you're saying.

Sneaky deals?? ...with Kerry??

Please, fill me in.

thx.

Edwards didn't. Also, the facts do not support the NYT assertion that he gave into Edwards - he spent all of September, October and early November saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." At the NYU speech that they mention, he said that he would never have taken the country to war as Bush did.

The NYT was complicit in the run up to war and in its 2004 REPORTING had a Bush groupie covering him and Jorie Wilgorin (who said Kerry was a social loner - and when challenged said that she had interviewed TWENTY life long friends!) and Adam Nougorney. They worked hard to conflate Kerry's comments on the Oct 2002 vote and the March 2003 decision to go to war.

With Edwards, there was no conflict - he was for the invcasion.

Kucinich (whom DU supports the most) blasts Edwards (whose DU support is #2 behind Kuch) with factual info on Edwards's "progressive" stance.

Break out the popcorn, the flame wars in this thread have all the potential to be EPIC!!!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

And how will he govern effectively after trashing former allies and future leaders of a Democratic Congress?

"And how will he govern effectively after trashing former allies and future leaders of a Democratic Congress?"
He's announced that everyone in DC is corrupt and dishonest and undeserving. That'll really encourage them to support his Presidency, won't it?

He cut's right to the chase

he gets in knowing he dosen't have a chance to win, then bashes people who might win, that is funny , funny, funny,

probably had a lot to do with that- but that's alright.

He apologized for his IWR vote, and I think he meant it. From what I've heard from him, he's not just spouting a script. He very much understands what has been wrong with the Dem's approach for the past several years.

I thought became rather repetitive and uncreative.

Edwards supporters: Let Kucinich attack whom he pleases. No one really listens to him anyway.

Kucinich supporters: You might ask your guy why he has done nothing to stop Diebold and to correct the horrible voting process in his home state? That he has not is one of the biggest black marks against him.

Gawd, I'll be glad when the primary is over.

So, okay. On Edwards, it seems to be a matter of believing or not believing him. You do. I don't. I think he should be mightily sorry, so it's not something I care about either way, his apologies. He should not be rewarded with the presidency for failing in leadership and judgment when it truly mattered. The results have been too catastrophic. That's how I see it.