On the record, who thinks Edwards will win South Carolina?

The last time he ran, he got over 120,000 votes. John Kerry received just over 80,000 votes. I have a difficult time believing that the majority of those voters will desert Edwards for Hillary or Obama. I may be wrong? But I think John Edwards will win the SC primary. Anyone else think he has a chance?

I believe Obama will come in second and Hillary will come in third. If Edwards can win SC, then we are back to square one. There will be no inevitable candidates. We will have 3 candidates fighting it out all the way to the convention.

He really will have some soul searching to do after SC.

I doubt that 2 out of 3 of the voters that voted for Edwards will desert him for Hillary or Obama. They voted for him over Kerry and Sharpton the last time. I think most of those will return. If he can get 100,000 of them, he should win the primary.

Of that, I am certain!

Clinton and Obama should both have plenty of support there ~ it'll be interesting for sure!
<><><>

These bumper stickers, t-shirts & more at: http://www.cafepress.com/powerboutique GET OUT THE VOTE!

Edwards is already tied with Hillary among whites and with this happening and Edwards campaigning there he has a chance to carry the white vote and maybe beat Hillary if her thirty point advantage over blacks disappears. Edwards today pointed out that he was fourth in South Carolina weeks before the primary and he won it by double digits. His campaigning there should give him a win with the white vote. What is unclear is how much of Hill's advantage with blacks will erode. If it erodes enough Edwards will finish a strong second in South Carolina.

Race is a double-edged sword. Obama will lose some white support too by this. It will hurt him more on Super Tuesday than South Carolina when he won't have gains among blacks being able to more than overcome his loss among whites. Think of places like Kansas.

Cuz Obama has a substantial advantage with blacks over Hill.

I think he is being treated very unfairly. The big money wants him out.

I hope he does well in Nevada, also.

The Debate on the 15th will be a good one!

I am a big Edwards supporter but he won't win until Super Tuesday. What he needs to do is finish strong in South Carolina. He has a chance at second, especially since Obama's campaign is making a concerted effort to destroy Hillary's black support. If Edwards can win the white vote by a big margin and Hillary's thirty point lead over him among blacks is reduced, or even eliminated, thanks to the Obama campaign's attacks relating to race, he can finish second. Beating any of the $100 million candidates is a big feat for Edwards at this point.

Hillary's black support? And do you provide so much as a single link for this scurrilous statement? No. Furtermore if the vote is divided strongly along racial lines there, we're in a world of hurt.

Obama has said NOTHING that could be interpreted in the way you suggest.

Shameless of you.

As well as his national co-chair JJJ. Bill Clinton was not on Sharpton's show by chance yesterday.

The only person who has made a piss poor comment is Jesse Jackson Jr. And why would you blame Clinton being on Sharpton's show on Obama? That's rather odd. Or ahould I say, suspicious.

I'll be happy just to see him finish second; looking at the current polls, he has a lot of ground to cover to come within striking distance of either of them.

They will change between now and the primary...bet on it.

He is the only candidate openly fighting against the corporations in favor of the people.

Let's hope the people in South Carolina can see that.

...because his record says the opposite and is not much to run on. I guess everyone can have a change of heart, but I trust someone who has walked the walk to someone who has only talked the talk.

One of the constant attacks against Edwards from Obamites, and Obama himself in New Hampshire, is this. It is accepted by them as Scripture. I guess it comes with "hope"? They never discuss his record though. Funny how the "uniter" Obama uses negative scorched Earth tactics against his opponents. What were you saying about walking the walk again?

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?


gmudem (239 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. You mean this voting record?

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)


And much more when you click on the link. Perhaps YOU should be the one looking at his voting record, pastiche.

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

....He voted for job-obliterating permanent "free" trade status for China. He was a member of a hedge fund that specialized in predatory lending even AFTER running on the Two Americas platform in 2004. He voted to attack Iraq, even though, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he knew better than most about the "evidence" against Iraq. His record does not square with what he is 'saying' now and is certainly enough to give some reason to question his judgment.

If you repeat it often enough people will believe it. The same flyspecking can be done about Obama (why did he vote for Dick Cheney's energy bill? Tort "reform"? Funding the war after running against the war? For the Patriot Act after running against it? Why did the ethics bill he helped pass have loopholes wide enough to ram an aircraft carrier through, such as banning lobbyists from arranging travel but allowing lobbyist's aides to arrange travel?). Edwards does not need to lie about another's record. The candidate of "hope" and "hopeful politics" does.

The China thing is because it would put China in the WTO and he, and most Democrats and the Democratic president, believed this would cause China to play by the rules. Bush has not enforced China's obligations and that is a problem.

The hedge fund is a Swiftboat tactic that the champions of "unity" and "hopeful politics" use. Edwards did not know about the hedge fund's predatory tactics.

Iraq has been talked about Edwards often.

Here is a case study in the discrepancy between truth and Obama and his supporters attacks on Edwards.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here are some things to think about

This is an exchange from earlier this month:

DODD: : Back in 2001 the congress passed I think one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time: the so called the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Senators Clinton, Biden, and Edwards voted for that bill, which drove a lot of people working class families into poverty, & made it very difficult for them to manage their lives & to get back on their feet again. John, you made a big issue of poverty, something you have dedicated your life to. So could you explain to me why you'd vote for a piece of legislation like that which did so much damage to so many families in our country?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I was wrong. I was wrong and you were right Chris. I should not have voted for that bankruptcy bill. It was a bad, bad piece of legislation. I think any of us who voted for it were wrong to have voted for it. I think there were some good provisions in it but I think on the whole when you look it at it actually did damage to low income families and working families in this country.

Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum Dec 1, 2007

Why did he vote for it? For one thing, it also included AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, something that has been a pet issue for him from the beginning.

I don't find any explanations from a quick web search, so even this is putting words in his mouth. Since I've already started to do so, I guess I'll continue.

The bill was novel in its means testing, which made it more difficult for people to completely wipe the slate clean if they had some ability to repay some of the debts. It didn't mean that people would be completely denied bankruptcy and made debt-slaves for the rest of their lives, just that they'd have to repay up to 25% of the debt if they could. The bill has been sweepingly mischaracterized as one that would deny ANY protection for individuals in a tight spot, and that's not the case.

It also tried to cap the homestead rules at $125K, so rich people in Texas and Florida couldn't play the time-honored game of the rich of piling up a huge mountain of debt by (among other things) buying a mansion and then welshing on their obligations and keeping the house. (Why do you think Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against it?)

Another big provision was the changing of rules on privacy brought in by Leahy. This actually gave a form of protection to those filing bankruptcy that they'd never had before. You may not be aware of it, but this is a big early cause of Edwards, with one of the two bills he sponsored being the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000".

Legislation is often a rearguard action against looming legislation that could be worse, and there was a great deal of tactical maneuvering done in the sculpting of S.420. In the end, it wasn't a good bill, but the idea that some accountability should be had by those seeking protection from their creditors is hardly complete submission to corporations.

There are also the less pleasant aspects to it: it was a bill with overwhelming support, so perhaps it wasn't a battle worth fighting, especially coming from a state with a huge banking industry. I don't like to think that this was a major reason, but it would be disingenuous to not point out such a thing as an influence.

Please do remember, though, that he repeatedly used the term "predatory lending" in his stump speeches in '03 and '04, so he certainly stuck out his neck in the face of the powerhouse industry back home.

I would welcome any comments he's made on the bill, but I couldn't find any.

Once again, he has come down very specifically on the side of the little guys with his current proposals, and that should be taken into account.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

I've been here for quite a while. And I am in South Carolina...where I voted for John Edwards in 2004 primary. And I do believe the points I gave you were FACTS as well....facts that caused me to NOT support Edwards this time around. But I don't go around calling people fools or skunks just because they reach a different conclusion from the facts as I do. Welcome to the board, but you might want to make original replies to posts rather than copying and pasting one that is 'prepared' but might not always fit the discussion.

I was a Howard Dean supporter but realized he was out of it by the time it got to SC. I voted for John Edwards because I preferred him as a candidate to John Kerry. I am a Barack Obama supporter now....so there goes your theory.

you may be right?

But a) he is being virtually decapitated by the media, and more importantly

b) I understand that the votes will be on touchscreen with no paper trail for verification.

It looks to me like South Carolina will be chosen by the man behind the curtain, and I wouldn't gamble on the choice being Edwards.

Sorry if I sound cynical these days, but I believe I'm starting to learn how the cards get stacked in this country.

and get a chance to hear it directly from him on the news and radio. GE NEWS, err I mean NBC NEWS gave John 4 seconds the day after he beat Hillary in Iowa, so I'm not banking on much TV support. The bastards are attempting to stifle the voice of the American people who know what is going on.

No way.

But I thought Obama would win NH, so who knows?