Who is John Edwards and why is he considered Democratic front-runner?

CNN just announced that in a recent Iowa poll, Edwards has eclipsed Hillary Clinton as Democratic front-runner. I bet she's glad to dodge a little heat, even if it includes losing the limelight for a while.



Before entering politics, Edwards was a successful personal injury trial attorney. He represented families and children that had allegedly been wrongly injured by negligent corporations and government entities, or by medical malpractice.

Edwards is widely regarded as a potential candidate for the 2008 U.S. presidential election; his concession speech at the close of the 2004 race hinted at his continued presidential ambitions: "You can be disappointed, but you cannot walk away. This fight has just begun."

During the following months, Edwards was courted by a number of organizations; he told interviewer Larry King that he doubted he would return to his occupation as a trial lawyer and showed no interest in the possibility of becoming the Democratic National Committee chairman, a post sought by fellow nomination contender Howard Dean. He finally chose to accept an offer from his alma mater, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, of a part-time faculty position as director of a new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the university.

The Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was established because millions of hard-working Americans still find themselves living in poverty. Poverty is one of the great issues of our time. It cuts to the heart of America's great promise: that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules will have the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their family. I can't think of a better group of people to work on solving this problem than the remarkable students and faculty here at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The Center brings the best minds in the country together with some of America's best and brightest young people. We do not pretend to have all the answers, but we will ask the hard questions:

How can we restore the promise of America for those living in poverty?
How can we combat poverty in a way that also honors our core beliefs in hard work, responsibility and family?
How can we find ways to build more homes and fewer shelters, more small businesses and fewer minimum wage jobs?
How can we find a way for government and charities and religious groups to work as more effective partners and honor America's traditions?

that is why we will have weak loser as the candidate. I agree with a lot he has to say but he is not the one

It's a stupid method that should be standardized out of existence, along with the fact that the primaries aren't all on the same date. By the time Florida's primary came around, Kerry was already all but nominated.

That's a good thing. It takes power away from the astroturf campaigns that make the debate about 60 second TV commercials and biased media coverage.

the talking heads. Real people make real decisions with real information.

popularity contests (with lots of bullying and "fixing") and there is rarely any informed discussion taking place.

California BELONGED to Dean -- then came Iowa, the DLC dirty tricks and the Bush-bot MSM. We were basically forced to vote for Kerry (not me) when Kerry didn't even have anything resembling grass roots support here (lots and lots and lots of fundraisers though -- $2,000 a plate).

Edward's has made many trips to Iowa this year and he is a more familiar face Right now than Kerry. Kerry has plenty of time to move ahead if he runs. Frankly, even as VP, Edward's was never an enthusiastic choice of mine- he stuck me as not being very genuine.

but he might not run at all. Even if he decides to run, at least he's focused on the right thing today: NOVEMBER!

I am so tired of this crap. Give it up .Kerry won the primary fair and square. And now more than ever it appears he won the election. I just can't believe somer are STILL fighting the 2004 primary elections. It is 2006 !

who live in Iowa dictate group-think to the rest of America??

Because of the way IOWA chooses IOWA's candidate, the whole US has to fall in line...you're right.

Talk about groupthink.

processes.

Thanks for the region-bash, though.

though. It isn't corrupt.

:-)

That's hardly a good reason.

needs to be junked completely, and the primary season reduced to four months in four regions, order of campaign to be rotated every four years so that no one area of the country can dominate the process like New Hampshire and Iowa like to pretend they do.

However, I'm a little surprised that Edwards has done so well, surprised and gratified. I think people are just a little sick of yuppie elitists and will go for someone who has a chance of remembering what it's like to have a job instead of a high powered career.

As such, I don't see how it can prove or disprove anything about the process.

at least something was emphatically shown to be stupid, right?

the source was but I'm sorry I can't recall the newspaper they mentioned.

which was my point as well...it was a poll, not a caucus, the way the poster above made it seem.

avoid the Iowa caucuses like the plague.

:sarcasm:

Clark was never a real presidential candidate. He was merely a DLC tool. Try again.

Now, please provide the proof to this accusation that you are making against Wes Clark, and hurry up...cause I'm waitin'!

Sounds like he's running again.

what did you think of it?

But he's no David Van Os.

Clark at TDP

Van Os at TDP

Van Os was totally excellent as well, but his was a "Throw them red meat speech" from a Texan to Texans. Van Os was powerful, and used colorful language and got the crowd roused, no doubt about it! But his speech was 6 minutes long....Clark's was approx 35 minutes, and touched on issues ranging from the 9/11 to the Sciences to health care in a much more detailed and intellectual manner! That's my take anyways!

is lacking...

considerably.

Go John!!!!

before today I knew very little about the guy but I'm up on Hillary who still hasn't taken a strong anti-war position, nor has she condemned the USA Patriot Act. The Bill of Rights and war are the biggest issues with me.

I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton and I will NEVER AGAIN vote for John Kerry.
Like Lewis Black said in his new special "Red White and Screwed" voting between Kerry & Bush was like
choosing between 2 piles of shit.

I worked my ass off for that campaign & I can tell you I did it not for Kerry, but for Edwards.
I adore him.

I like Edwards too and I'm leaning towards him for '08, but I find intra-Democratic cynicism to be a major problem as well. I'm not saying this is your issue with Hillary and Kerry, but I find that too many Democrats let themselves be dissuaded by media coverage and by the perceptions of pundits. There are legitimate reasons to dislike Kerry and especially Hillary, but it urks me when people say that voting between Kerry and Bush was like choosing between "2 piles of shit". Democrats ALWAYS do this. We often run perfectly good, competent people for office and then criticize the hell out of them. It wasn't just Kerry - people did the same thing to Gore in 2000 and afterward (still, Al Gore's favorability rating is quite low in polls) and even to Clinton during his presidency. Certainly we shouldn't be like the other guys and go for people with no substance and we shouldn't be lockstep - criticism is good and healthy but that contrarianism and cynicism becomes too pervasive it hurts our ability to communicate our case. Why should anybody else like Democrats if Democrats themselves don't like each other?

Kerry would have been a FAR better President than Bush and while he made plenty of mistakes he was right on many, many issues. Although his refusal to take back his Iraq War vote was a mistake, he clearly stated that the war was a mistake several times, made credible suggestions on how to change the course of the war in Iraq, proposed a viable health care plan that was politically feasible AND innovative, had an innovative policy proposal on teacher tenure that was ignored by the media, was firm about cutting the deficit and restoring a balanced budget and also proposed raising the minimum wage, ending corporate tax loopholes, repealing the upper end of the Bush tax cuts, and seriously tackling global warming and environmental degradation.

What's there to disagree about in there?

Yeah, what gives with the Edwards bashing around here? Edwards wouldn't bash anyone here. He's a REAL uniter. IMHO he's EXACTLY what America needs right now. Grab Boxer or Feingold to run with him, and we've got ourselves the perfect ticket. I sure hope he'll run. Republicans are scared of him because Republicans and Indies will vote for him.

experience. I mean, being a personal injury attorney doesn't give one the background to deal with such heddy problems as Iraq, Iran, the economy, etc.

It's not a bash, per se. It's just that he has little to no experience in the necessary issues needed to be a president (yes, like Bush - but without the evil. Edwards isn't evil - just self-promoting).

Poverty's important and should be addressed, but it's not the only issue and won't even be THE main issue in 2008.

That's why.

Edwards has been spending a good deal of time in Iowa, so any extra support he gets at this point is likely deserved. I do wish he'd join with others to expose machine fraud, because no other issue matters when you can't collect all your votes.

votes that get flipped to the GOP.

And the media, too.

had he run again, so I hardly think landslide.

Just saying...

(Not that your point about Diebold wasn't valid).

that's who he always looks like to me.

who has put Hillary in the front spot.
She hasn't accomplished anything to deserve it. She doesn't hold to many
of the basic democratic ideals.
They keep spitting out her name hoping it'll stick, and to some degree it has.
Will the dems actually get to pick the candidate they want?
I think not!

who is shoving Edwards down our throats. I don't know if you guys have noticed or not but the progressives have left the building and you can't win without us.

If Bill puts on a fund-raiser it's worth at least a half and usually a full million bucks.

However I liked his populist two americas message when he was able to articulate it in the primaries. If he can gear a real campaign up, and figure out where he really stands on neocon/neoliberal corporatist bullshit, I could easily support him.

inevitably most of the coverage the media gives candidates is to the two presidential candidates--I don't recall Cheney getting alot of media attention either. But Edwards campaigned hard for the ticket and from what I recall reading he did get good crowds. He held his own, and in my opinion, beat Cheney in their one debate.

hard too along with their daughter. The entire family was on the trail with the two little ones riding on the bus. Edwards and his family were honest people and they meant every word they were saying. That says a lot.

During the campaign I had opportunities to listen to John,Elizabeth & Cate. They all touched my heart.
I read Johns book, "Four Trials"- VERY interesting.
The way John speaks really resonates with me. I also felt the entire time that I would
have preferred to have Elizabeth Edwards as first lady as opposed to Teresa Heinz Kerry.
I believe in the Edwards vision- he's a real person and that touches me.
The last time I saw him was about 30 days before the election- he was still wearing a Sears suit.
Still shaking every hand he could- still talking about how wrong the war was... and he wasn't mincing words.


I find John Edwards fascinating-much like how I feel about Bill Clinton.

in Sept. of 2004. The place was packed. John Murtha spoke also.

I loved it. :)

I am sure he gave lots of great real world speeches. Unfortunately it is the other world - what is on your tube and perhaps by 08 what is on your pc - that matters far more than how well you give a real world stump speech.

I am also not really criticising Edwards for being invisible - the VP generally is. The only point I am making is that he has yet to be his own man in a major national campaign. The Democratic primary was a good test, but I still don't know what I'd be getting with an Edwards presidential candidacy. This is also true, even more so, with some of the other non-Hillary choices - Clarke, Feingold etc. Clark ran a pretty awful primary campaign, hopefully he has learned how to do better, and Russ is just a big unknown. Hillary is equally untested by the way.

I'd love it if Gore ran. He has the full experience including getting blindsided by outright fraud in the endgame. He has also gone through a personal epiphany and rejected the whole neocon/lib pnacer bullshit. I know where he stands, and I know who I'd be getting in the big show.

lighter weight media ops. IMHO, the activitism he has taken up since the election has made him seem more serious.

Edwards really got my admiration when he took the college kids to New Orleans to rebuild homes over spring break. He also has been advocating quite admirably for worker's rights and raising the minimum wage.

It's nice to know that we are going to have some really viable choices in 2008. :)

this is a red state guy that talks red state language.... It's too early to get your nickers in a bind, but Edwards/ Warner has a ring to it!

And I agree--Franco was fantastic at that rally. :)

We drove an hour and a half each way to Johnstown that Sunday and waited outside for another hour and a half. It was sooo worth it. I was lucky enough to speak to Edwards and shake his hand. The guy genuinely seems to care about the average American.

There were lots of unions at that event.

I keep hoping I'll get to meet Edwards. He's the one who inspired me to get active and involved. I'd love to thank him someday. Meeting Bill Clinton was fun though. :)

I remember that girl in her late 20's across the street with her signs screaming like a Harpie that Kerry was a traitor. I asked the guy next to me, who was also a Vietnam vet, " What the hell did she ever do for her country?" He shook his head and said "Not a damn thing" Weird how people who faced the bullets become cowards, and those who wouldn't go became the heros.....never did figure that one out!

Kerry and the DNC didn't use Edwards effectively. They had him doing small fundraising trips in blue states a month before the election. He also had to scrap his populist themes and try not to outshine Kerry. If Edwards had been used more effectively (or been at the top of the ticket) it could have made the difference.

I like him as a person, I think he has charisma, but I don't think he makes a strong presidential candidate. I like Gore, Clark, Feingold and probably Kerry way more. I even think Hillary is a lot stronger, but I still don't think she can win the general election.

for the last two years, lightweight is the last thing that comes to mind. The elections of Bush II, Reagan and Carter show how little the public is worried about extensive experience. I don't think it matters for much in terms of electability compared to things like having conviction and a clear, compelling message.

I like him too, very much, but watching him get eaten alive by Cheney in
those last debates is all to much a reminder of light.vs.heavy. (also light.vs.darkness)

I don't know Feingold, but the others you mention all mark on my list with enough
gravitas as well..

That said, here's to winning the house and the senate this year and not
getting caught up ahead of ourselves.

to the American people at every level. Right from the people sleeping on the streets, to the large majority of the remaining Americans, who are bearing the scandalously inordinate tax burden, to Forbes 500 types, who have never understood where their best interests lay, any more than those of the country.

I also think Gore and Feingold, as well as Clark, are just as committed as Edwards and Kerry.

:hug:

I sometimes come across as hating Edwards, but I don't. I just don't think he's got the experience or the weight to be a presidential nominess with any hope of winning. I have never seen this "charisma" thing, either. I think it was media-made. I mean, I'm sure he's a nice guy and some people find him cute (not I), but that's not what we need to steam-roll over Diebold and the Republican machine.

LOVE your choices, though! :loveya:

He talked about the "two Americas," one for the poor and one for the rich. He should make a platform to wage a new "war on poverty."

what about other issues and does he have any info about discussing the war indepth because that will be the main talking points along with poverty,healthcare,immigration and jobs

I think the Democratic Party is rapidly reaching the consensus that we can no longer sustain the occupation of Iraq.

A war on poverty isn't sincere if the poorest are still dying on distant battlefields for the sake of the rich and their business interests.

just sayin
:shrug:

I've already told my boss if that happens I am taking a sabbatical & will work exclusively on that campaign.

Feingold, Clark or Boxer. I'm sure Kerry would never take the #2 spot.

I like Gore first, but Edwards has been working hard on poverty
solutions.

they didn't listen to him on Global Warming, in the not to distant future.

he has an issue--poverty--which is a good one and while he was a US Senator he only served one term so he isn't tainted by Washington. He has a great wife who is a real asset and a fine family. He apparently has no skeletons in the closet. He is still relatively young and attractive. Downside is if the American people think he has enough experience. I think he does.

Clark 2008!!!

Clark's good looking too, and I hate to say it, but in our culture looks do help as does charisma.

speculation among CT'ers that is why Kerry chose him.

For me, it was a tough choice between him and Clark during the 2004 primaries. I like alot of what he says, he's quite a populist when he speaks really. And I think he's got a "Clintonesque" personality that makes people like him.


http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040606-103603-4126r.htm

He's a great speaker and his heart is in the right place. I think he's got a better chance and a better message than any of the others.

Edwards would be fine with me.

Pretty much if they have a D after their name, they got my vote.

There is one thing about Edwards I really respect - I remember after that Painful day in November of 04 - when Kerry was conceding, that the word was Edwards wanted to fight it out - my memory of that debacle. SO, maybe he is a fighter.

Edwards would be a fine choice. I do think he understands really well that our country is a blue collar middle class country and without a real middle class we sink to the bottom of history.

Joe

I personally want the General as SOD - cause I think we REALLY need him there, I really do - it is so f*cked up now.

But you are right on.

Joe

the war is good, the economy is bad.

I could get behind him, as soon as the draft Gore effort dies.

I think that he would make a great running mate for Gore.

Please Lord, let there be a way!

This is much too early to be declared the frontrunner.

Then again, at this point in '02 Kerry was considered the frontrunner before Dean was given the title.

"Edwards leads '08 presidential poll...Campaining in Iowa today..."

I thought that that was their strategy to bury him. Everyone knows that if you're at the top today, you'll be last on primary day because there's no way to maintain high expectations for that long and any slip will kill your chances.

I'd vote for him again.

Too early to speak about a frontrunner, whoever it is. Edwards is a serious contender, no doubt about that.

Feingold, Edwards, Clark and hopefully Gore. By the way, I heard that Sen. Clinton may be running, but I'm not sure for which party.

but no gravitas, seems a bit of an opportunist.....in other words he hasn't paid his dues.

also the Real Deal. I just love her! But I agree on one thing; he is majorly hunky.

eom

Do a little more research on his life, his experiences, and his accomplishments.

A one term Senator who can't carry his own state and who's talk (and voted) out of both sides of his mouth. Voted for the bankruptcy bill first time around (even though his wife's a bankruptcy attorney). He now admits that was a "mistake." Among others.

Goes to work for a major Wall Street firm, Fortress Investment Group

"Fortress manages approximately $10 billion in private equity capital on behalf of leading institutional investors and high net worth individuals. The private equity funds primarily make control-oriented investments in cash flowing businesses and asset portfolios in the United States and Western Europe."

http://www.fortressinv.com/site_content.aspx?p=12

THEN, he promptly turns around and goes on a national tour promoting his "two America's" deal!

WTF was that?

Seriously, I believe he is the one person who could win in '08.

I think he'd be a pretty good choice.

the press.
He has a good message, and by '08 could be a viable candidate.
I think he got screwed in '04. It was rumored he wanted to stay and fight when Kerry capitulated.

is what the left needs as a candidate?

is the only reason that he's not considered/listed as a dlc'er now mostly attributable to not currently holding public office?

until/unless he renounces it- i'll always consider him a member.

I've been behind Edwards since 2002. He is the only sure fire winner the Dems have. I think that Rove jacked the Dem primaries in 2004 so that Edwards would not get the nomination, and I think they will try to do it again in 2008, because if he is nominated

HE WILL WIN!

Edwards is strong, strong, strong on domestic issues that people care about like health care, jobs, the economy, big business vs the little guy (which includes the fixed price of oil under its umbrella), he is southerner so he knows all about voter disenfranchisement and is not afraid to tackle the problem, he can pull in southern states which are angry at W. for his crappy domestic and foreign policies. I think Ewards could do particularly well in the Gulf states which have been screwed during the second reconstruction. He has been out of the Senate long enough that he is no longer a "Senator". He has one VP run under his belt, so he has been national. The base---lawyers, unions, women--will love him to death.

I wish both Clinton and Gore would get behind him, and let Hillary continue being a Senator which she does well.

Oh wait...he did...

"CNN just announced that in a recent Iowa poll, Edwards has eclipsed Hillary Clinton as Democratic front-runner. I bet she's glad to dodge a little heat, even if it includes losing the limelight for a while."

That's riot! You should write for The Daily Show.
Is there any evidence Hillary knows who this almost-was even is?

don't forget to ask scotty to beam you up now that you're through with the little rant.

We all know who he is, little one. He was the first veep candidate ever to disappear *before* the election.

good luck to you newby!

on edit: how do you speak for so many being so new here? "we all know" lol

So many possibilities!

...but have some reservations....

first of all, although he has apologized, he was really pushing for the war in Iraq and we have wasted so much money there...that could have been helping the poor at home.

Also, I remember he canceled a speaking engagement at the 'take back america' conference during the election season to attend the bilderberger meeting. Hopefully he didn't really bond with them though.

last election.. I like Feingold as well.. It is going to be a tough race with all these good candidates....

A man who co-sponsored the IWR Blank check that Lieberman sponsored.

(find another Dino on that list that you would vote for as President. I dare ya!)


A War that has cost America 1/2 trillion.

A Vote that at the time he voted for it, he stated that America should go in for "Geopolitical" reasons.
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

A Vote that he didn't apologize for until more than 3 years after he voted for it....after the polls turned against the war and he and John Kerry were no longer bidding for the White House. In his apology, he stated that he had been "Misled"......and so, it took him 3 years to get un-misled, I guess. A vote that all other Democrats sitting on in the same intelligence committee voted against.

Our foreign policy affect our domestic policies directly. John Edwards' Poverty Center must be helping those that his participation on our foreign policy made even poorer through the budget cuts required for us to pay for this war.

John Edwards didn't understand principle while in the senate then....and so, I don't put much stock that he'll do what's right in the White House to clean up the shit that's piling up.

I don't care if he's got 3 thumbs up, that he's cute and young looking, that his wife is nice, that his children are adorable, and that his father was a Mill Worker and that he's got a really, really good memorized speech.

To be honest with you, I'm not even sure how he helped Kerry being on the ticket.....but his defenders will say that he had to be at the top of the ticket for his "charm" to work. Further, his "new" speech (after being touted as being able to talk owls out of their tree by the msm) at the Democratic convention was stale and totally non-inpiring.

His populist routine is effective, and I'm sure that's all that most will ever remember, since many don't even know how much John Edwards supported this war and why.

I'm sorry, but I can't reward someone with such poor judgement on War and Peace with the Presidency; the most important decision that a President has to make.

But I do find it ironic how his "apology" made everything honkey dorey again.
The guy has a great PR team....and he has been to Iowa 8 times this year...

With John Edwards as our nominee, we will be repeating the same mistake we made in 2004; having a nominee who didn't have the presence of mind to stand up for what was right when it counted. With Foreign policy and National Security the only topic of news 24/7 in 5 years (and the WH being able to manipulate that issue the most easily), John Edwards will just lose it for us again.

PS. Sorry if I'm not being "politically correct" and won't jump on this Iowa bandwagon. My BS meter is set really high even if John Edwards is good at pulling the wool over some eyes. My choices include a long list before I get to John Edwards. Clark, Gore, Fiengold, Kerry, Warner, and even Hillary (cause at least she's up front about her calculations).

I'll be waiting for the Edwards calvary to come to the rescue. No problem!

It doesn't matter who my one little measly vote goes to (which would be for the Democratic nominee)....but what does matter is who comes out on top with the majority of voters, cause that's who wins the prize. And this won't be a primary...so it won't be just Democratic voters who will be voting. That snake photo ain't gonna mean jack shit, when it comes right down to comparing McCain to Edwards.

Know this opinion of mine: I don't think that North Carolina cute guy Edwards can beat Arizona tough guy McCain for one milliminute. All "they" (those who control the WH at the time of the election and their Corporate media minions) have to do is have an "attempted" "terrarist" attack at a small airport in Virginia 3 days before the vote.....and there yo go; Bu-Buy John Edwards AND the Democratic party for 2008! (it's really not a far stretch....my scenario. Just think Osama Tape on 10/31/04, and it will come back to you. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0A1EFB3A590C728FDDA90994DC404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBin%20Laden%2c%20Osama )

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out....just someone who's fucking tired of losing with these candidates picked for Lord knows what reason and keeping your fingers crossed! I want a real strategy and some "Kick their ass on their turf" action in 2008! Not the "He's cute and optimistic"....cause that ain't gonna quite "get it", imo.

He is not the man to lead us to victory in 2008.

Aside from being physically attractive on the surface, he's a crap candidate.

to just write him off.

I lived in LA, but I grew up in West PA -

Something is happening here - some kind of cultural shift.

This country was founded in a philosophy that work mattered and that an "average" person could make an "average" living in the working class. It is not true anymore.

Shit, at least he talks about it.

And I do think he may be a fighter - maybe more so than Kerry.

Maybe "we can't spare him, he fights".

Maybe,

Joe

He walloped snarley in that debate. Crap candidate? Lots of crap candidates. Edwards isn't one of them.

by Dick "Fuck off!" Cheney who was lying but aggressive.

If he couldn't even defeat a liar, how do we expect him to lead a party and a nation?

Plus, remember in his convention speech when he reached that line and looked into the cameras while saying "We will destroy you", it was damn near comical. He just can't pull off that kind of posturing.

Just wow.
Actually not just wow. If you go on about dems like this, I'd LOVE to put you up against a republican. You should lead up a republican attack team. You'd be great!

It was a pretty sorry performance- ESPECIALLY considering that the man's a trial lawyer!

I just had to shake my head on that one- though I'll say he did better than Lieberman and made a few good points.

No infighting! Go to your room until you cool down!

Because Kerry's campaign adviser Mary Beth Cahill advised him to do so. This was because Edwards had a more vibrant personality than Kerry & they didn't want Kerry to look bad. This was widely reported on, especially at the end. The people Bill Clinton suggested to work on the campaign (Lockhart, Susnik, Johnson)advised that Edwards needed play a more public role because he connects with people.

So lets not think that he took a back seat because he was a non player.


http://oneamericacommittee.com/

It was a huge mistake. They should have unleashed Edwards on Southern Ohio and Iowa to talk about trade and his Two Americas theme for the last two months of the election. It probably would have made the difference.

I already knew that, of course. Edwards is a good guy, but Clark is the one.

I'm afraid we will have to select from mere mortals, as usual.

I remember some other frontrunner in Iowa in 2004 leading up to the caucuses with a "commanding lead"...

to live among the orangutans, and giving all my money to the Green party. We need an alpha progressive, and Edwards ain't it.

Just sad. I hope you feel better.

knowing that your bright-toothed boy is beloved, at least, by several people in Iowa. Must be depressing as hell for you, knowing that the nation as a whole didn't take to him all that much in '04--when he failed to deliver a single red state for his ticket. What was his slogan again--"hope is just around the corner?" Was that it?

And I owe a lot of that to John Edwards.

What is it you see in him, exactly? I still can't figure out how he was the best choice to be Kerry's running mate, other than the fact that he was kind of the Southern anti-Cheney.

I used to be a fundie/evangelical type Christian. Not a Republican - in my former religion, there was no place for politics in our religion. Christ was no part of the world, so neither were we. We didn't even vote.

Well I lost my religion. But I never became political. I didn't like Reagan or Bush 1 much, and it wasn't until Clinton was prez that I lost my faith. At the end of his presidency, however, I became thoroughly disgusted at what they were doing to him - because in my opinion, even though I wasn't political, didn't pay much attention to what was going on in the world, I thought he was a damn fine president.

I started to wake up.

Then - Bush jr. OMG, did I start to wake up. Bitch to my republican voting boyfriend day and night about the shrub. Actually had a long detailed conversation one night about what I would do, if I was president, to fix this country.

The very next day, I was driving home from work in my car, listening to the radio, when the news came on. And I heard this fabulous excerpt from a stump speech - some guy with a southern accent - he was saying nearly word for word everything I'd just said I would do to fix America if I was president. I couldn't believe my ears - someone who thought like me was actually running for president. I made sure to catch this fella's name. It was John Edwards.

When I got home I went online and looked up this John Edwards. The only problem I had with him was with the war. Everything else was right on par. Then I clicked this thing called a BLOG. WTF is a blog??? Next thing I know, I'm seeing more people who feel as I do, I'm blogging, I'm becoming active, I'm making donations, I'm campaigning. I'm researching. I'm catching up on years I missed out on. I'm registering to vote. And my very first vote was for John Edwards, in the Democratic Primary, Super Tuesday - 2004 - and it was then and there that I met Bill Clinton - right there on my very first vote. Next thing I know, Kerry taps him as VP, and I'm off to PA to campaign again.

All because a man named John Edwards lit a fire under my butt.

He may not run, he may not ever be president, but I'll support him every day till my last. Because I DO feel better. And I owe so much of it to him. I hope to thank him one day for opening my eyes and inspiring me to get involved. I really think I'm a better person for it.

And his wife, Elizabeth...and their children, Kate, and the little ones. They are a wonderful family...a tonic for the nation. Their time is now.

People. We better have that.

And so I say this plainly - General Clark - he is just on a different plain of existence.

Where can anyone expect to find a winning General that is also a competent economist and philosopher??

He is on a different level, our General.

Edwards would be ok as president - I want Clark as SOD though, I trust him.

Joe

He hasn't been retired long enough. Or so I'm told.

Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary efforts.

I do want him. This is just a waiver of congress - and it will be our congress at that point.

It is the number of years your out of the military that determines it.

The guy won the last war we fought, I doubt there will be many questions by 2008 in the middle east - as there shouldn't be!!

Joe

Someone who takes about poverty and corporate power, like Nader.

Oh wait, that describes Edwards too.

message that will groundswell the sheeple to throw off thier PNAC Overlords.

At least by depression-era standards. I'm just sayin'.

And there is no one better that ever stood up for us middle class peoples.

Joe

The fact that he started out in poverty and made millions works just fine for populists. There are plenty of poor and middle class people who don't represent their own economic interests. I think its more difficult for someone born into wealth who has never struggled, like Dean.

Elizabeth Edwards.

As early as tomorrow, the Senate may start debate on Senator Kerry's resolution 36, an amendment to bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of 2006. It is time for our Dem's to stop sitting on the fence on this issue. We either stand for something or we stand for nothing. Please call or e-mail your senators and all other senators who can make a real difference.



http://www.johnkerry.com/action/call/senate/?sc=hp