There are some things that bother me about Edwards

Mainly, it’s the following 3 things:

1. I guess to convince Democrats or laborers that he’s one of them, he has made repeated references about his childhood, his family working hard at the mill, struggling to make ends meet, and so on. He keeps telling this same old story. However, I understand that his dad was a supervisor and his dad was also a Republican. So if that’s the best line he has to convince us that he has democratic roots, it appears to be a weak one.

2. He now lives in one of those Super Rich monster size mansions. So, doesn’t this bother anyone? How can someone who places such a high value on materialistic possessions be any better than the average selfish person? I guess it’s just hard for me to believe that he would be a genuinely compassionate leader when he values money so much.

3. He claims to be the superior, more liberal candidate whenever he argues that his democratic opponents are taking money from powerful harmful interest groups. Yet, according to a neutral, reputable website the ratings he received from several organizations repeatedly indicate that he appears to be the LEAST liberal candidate out of the 3 democratic candidates. For example, Edwards received a higher rating than the other candidates from the American Conservative Union while actually receiving a lower rating from the ACLU, Americans for Democratic Action, Am. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Children’s Defense Fund, Disabled American Veterans, League of Conservation Voters, NAACP, National Farmers Union, National Association of Social Workers, United Auto Workers and others.
Edwards is a big talker but shouldn’t one’s actual voting record count more than one’s words?

In summary, I would vote for Edwards if he wins the primaries but there is just something phony about him to me.

Now, look for Edwards' erstwhile supporters to NOT refute any of it and, instead call YOU a ton of names or whine that you're "smearing" their candidate.

Good job, pathansen, for pointing all those truths out.

1. Best line? That's in your opinion? Who decided that's his 'best line'?

2. Which candidate isn't well off? Did the Kennedy family have any less of a commitment to America because of their wealth. Ted is the single most effective legislator in Congress' HISTORY. The money hate is a non-starter, In my view.

3. The claims about the money are entirely correct. NOWHERE has Edwards claimed that this makes him the 'most liberal candidate.' I've never heard him make that claim. However, his platform and positions on issues is the most progressive. Several reputable individuals have already declared this, so I don't really know what purpose some interest groups' rating on his congressional record serves in that measure.

And, the op needs to find somewhere else, other than Vote Smart, to link to to prove his assertions about the ratings from these interest groups he's listed. "Project Vote Smart does not have ratings available for this candidate." http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=21107

I'm from a neighboring state of Edwards and have family in North Carolina. Trust me, I knew of him long before most on this board - and I knew that he'd do anything to win a vote... even lie.

BTW, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "best line." And I don't care that he has money - only that he didn't come from being dirt poor. He was upper middle class, which is fine, but don't fucking lie about it. And, no, Edwards isn't the most liberal candidate, by far, but he does nothing to correct this among the blinded netroots who think he's a pretty Kucinich - he's not.

Out of the 'top' three, Edwards has the most progressive positions and platform. Your showing your own disregard for facts with your unsupported smear accusing him of doing anything to win a vote, lying. What a desperate, factless smear, like in the op.

You've seen pictures of the house he grew up in, right?

It was not the house of an upper middle class family.

Because you claim to be someone who "knows" someone...thats pretty weak...even for the internet.

He made it possible for rightwing propaganda (lies) to be spewed more efficiently and effectively by signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

So what does where you live have to do with it? FDR lived in a mansion too, his policies were pretty progressive.

If these are the things that you consider in picking a presidential candidate, then I wish you the best with whatever candidate you choose to support, and am not particularly worried about it.

:popcorn:

Got any more talking points to put out here? I was suprirsed you weren't "concerned" about the costs of his haircuts.

I also have my reservations about Senator Edwards...as I do with all the candidates...but these are not even on my list.

If you wish the information seek it out via search or go to johnedwards.com

:rofl:

The man is play-acting at being a populist and running for president and you expect his website to give an unbiased answer to the questions the OP raised?

:rofl:

I think the OP DID do some excellent research and cited more critical (read: unbiased, based on record) sources where necessary, thank you.

It's a critical view of your candidate - and a well-sourced one.

You did EXACTLY as I predicted in the first comment to the OP. You didn't refute it and instead called the thread "flame-bait," which is, basically, calling the OP a name.

Edwards supporters, by and large (not all), seem rather vapid on the point of defending their candidate. They simply cannot seem to answer for his record and either cry that he apologized or avoid it completely.

maybe YOU could defend him on that one? :shrug:

...and unlike some of the rich and super-rich people in Washington, he earned every penny of it.

when you're gearing up for a presidential run as a champion of the working man, it's a ridiculous time to be buying that kind of a house. something slightly more...modest might have been the prudent choice.
and with a lot of people losing their homes or even facing the threat of foreclosure, it gives it that much more of an aura of elitism.

with gore staying out, edwards is the guy i'm supporting- but his decision to buy that house when he did, does bother me. and if he does by some chance become the nominee- much hay will be made of it by the other side.

...I really think it's a made-up issue.

I think that by buying into it we help spread the meme. The less we buy into it, the less hay can be made.

It is simply not true that a rich person cannot champion causes that help the poor. FDR and several Kennedys come to mind.

it's pretty silly that he couldn't put off that kind of a purchase for another 18 months or so, at the most- especially when he's going to be begging people for money to support his candidacy.

There are big houses that are more energy efficient than small old ones, also.

just when you're gearing up to run for president as a champion of the 'common man'.

Most of the assistance given to the "common" has come from the wealthy "uncommon" through the years.
You don't have to be middle class or poor to have a soul. Lots of rich people are good and decent people.

what's the point of me trying to explain it...?:shrug:

as i've said before- edwards is the candidate i support, but it shows a tremendous lack of judgement, that he couldn't put that kind of purchase off for another 18 months or so, at the most. A LOT of people, maybe not so enamoured of the man as you seem to be, will see it as a bit elitist- and will cause his cries of understanding the plight of the common man to ring fairly hollow in a lot of ears.

The whole idea of "common man" in the first place is elitist (to say nothing of gender biased). And the idea that the size of someone's houseis directly correlative to their sincerity is ludicrous. Sam Walton who founded Wal-Mart and helped destroy
the commercial foundation of the country lived in a 2000 sq foot home until he died. Does that make him a
greater champion of the "common"?

What defines us is our behavior in total. I look at John and his work and very clearly see someone who gets
what he's talking about. I like all our candidates and admire each of them. I'm making my decision for
rational reasons. I'm not "enamoured" of any of them. Neither do I insult the supporters of the others in
public forums (hint, hint).

like i said.

:shrug:

Beyond that, welcome to my ignore list.

nt

from. actually none of those things bother me. About his Dad, you reckon he only attained his suppervisor position, if that is true, after many years, that to me is a plus not a take away. he earned his money so he can spend it anyway he wants and if he wants a big assed house so be it. Of all the candidates on both sides he is the only one talking to Me. good day and good luck with this hit piece you have here.
peace, even though my better sense says otherwise

1. No one is accountable for their parents' orientation, political party, or behavior
2. This is a capitalist society, He made a lot of money He can live anywhere he wants. If someone hits the lottery, they can live anywhere they want.
3. This is the point upon which he should be judged.

seriously...

1. I really don't think his dad was a republican, but if he was..so what...there are poor democrats and repubs and unafils...that's not the point...and he eventually worked his way to being a supervisor..you know..like most of us do...work our way up in life.

2. Speaking of moving our way up...my first apartment was teeny tiny...now I live in a 2000 sq. ft. home on nearly an acre...and you know what...If I came into a windfall...lottery..whatever, I would move..and very likely may have even a bigger house...especially if I had 3 kids at home also..so, the huge mansion who refer to is actually somewhat plain looking from the outside and the 28k square footage includes sheds, barns, and other outbuildings that is not part of the main living quarters...the guy I work for..who lives in coastal NC...I'd be willing to bet his house is well over 5k square feet and that don't include garages, etc. So, no, THIS DOES NOT BOTHER ME AT ALL.

3. There is a good post on DU about his senate record, but the bottom line....our guy beats the others when paired up against any of the Republican candidates and that is all that counts...I would much rather vote for a middle of the road Democrat that can win in November!!!

“The Edwardses were solidly middle class” when Johnny was growing up, according to a four-part profile of the North Carolina senator in his home state’s most prestigious daily, the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s true that for a few years as a young man Edwards’ father worked on the floor of a Roger Milliken textile mill. But Edwards père (a lifelong Republican, like his reactionary boss) quickly climbed upward, becoming a monitor of worker productivity as a “time-study” man — which any labor organizer in the South will tell you is a polite term for a stoolie who spies on the proletarian mill hands to get them to speed up production for the same low wages. Daddy Edwards’ grassing got him promoted to supervisor, then to plant manager — and he finally resigned to start his own business as a consultant to the textile industry. As a Boston Globe profile of Edwards put it last year, the senator never “notes that his father was part of management . . . ‘John was more middle class than most of us,’” says Bill Garner, a high school friend and college roommate.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/a-populist-make-over/2034/

I'm not arguing that middle class folk shouldn't be president - I'm bothered by the fact that Edwards doesn't try to correct the wide-spread belief that his parents were poor. They weren't. They were upper middle class, Republican and his father, at least, made his money spying on union employees.

Nice.

what the candidates' parents did.

:shrug:

He has likely said that he is "a son of a millworker" 100,000 times in the last 4 years. In 2004, both Dean and Kerry were from elite, well connected families. (Kerry's immediate family was not wealthy, but even on his then frozen MA site, he spoke of being privileged, because he was.) In 2008, his opponents did not grow up much, if at all, wealthier than he did.

It also bothers me, as a daughter of a milkman, who did well in school and got a job that led to an upper middle class income, that he doesn't get that he has been well off, if not wealthy most of his life. In his case, he and Elizabeth went from middle class to wealthy by the time they were 30. In fact, they were wealthier than either the Clintons or the Obamas when you compare their economic status as 20 somethings, 30 somethings and 40 somethings.

What is clear is the Edwards came out of law school and they were very good in their careers and they amassed a fortune. Edwards did win large verdicts from corporations for little people, but all successful trial lawyers do - that's the nature of the job and he was far more successful than most and chose his cases well. Nothing bad about that, but hardly noble either. He risked and sacrificed nothing. I am more impressed by the jobs Obama took out of college and out of law school. They did involve a sacrifice. he could have stepped into a great salary, but he chose working for poor people on the South side of Chicago.

People have referenced Ted Kennedy. He is wealthy and always was and has said so - he also consistently led the fight against bad bankruptcy bills. My problem is that the Edwards do not admit that they are privileged. (I also was put off by Elizabeth's obsessive concern that her multimillion dollar house would not be good enough to host the Kerrys. This had nothing to do with the Kerrys, but with her.)

for workers. Personally I am surprised he didn't get all the unions support including Culinary in NV.

spying on union employees.

:shrug:

something the candidates should have to atone for though. He is his own person, and he has shown it. I really haven't decided who I am caucusing for in the election. I just really believe all debate should be relevant and fair, and honest. We can pick all of them apart if we really want to. I don't think we should.

like, moving into a mcmansion for instance...

But given the current situation, short of an overt, non violent revolution of the public mind, one is left having to side with the lesser of the evil candidates. I'd go with DK or Gravel, but JE is the next on that very short list. However, never look to a politician to bring about substantive change for the better. That's up to the people to do, hence the enormous propaganda effort here in the U.S.

the judgment needed to be president.

Voting for Iraq war and not even reading the NIE
Voting for Yucca
Voting for the bankruptcy bill

1. This is just a total bullshit statement. MY Father is a Republican, so is my Brother, so does that somehow make me less of a Democrat? What BULLSHIT. Edwards wasn't born into wealth, he never had a trust fund to rely on. He knows what it's like to not have every single thing you could possibly want. In short, he's able to identify with the average American, who's just trying to get by day to day.

2. All of the candidates live well. You make it sound like the Obamas live in a 3 room walk-up in a seedy part of town. And we all know about Hillary and Bill's house in New York - hardly a fixer upper. Stop being a hypocrite: all of them live pretty well.

3. None of the candidates are going to have perfect voting records, nor are any of them going to align with specific individual interests 100% of the time.

My big thing right now is how corporate interests outweigh everything else: our right to privacy, our right to earn a living wage, our right to health care, etc. Corporate greed is at an all-time high, and much of what is wrong with this country can be traced right back to these powerful corporations lobbying Congress and pulling the puppet strings at the White House.

I think Edwards is the only candidate who will cut those strings and tell the lobbyists to go take a hike. And that is exactly what this country needs right now.

I suppose it's all a matter of priorities. I want REAL CHANGE, not more of the same. Hillary and Barack will bring us more of the same, labeled as change.

The corporations wanted war in Iraq, Edwards gave them that war, he gave Bush the benefit of the doubt even after the lies were exposed. Edwards didn't even need to look at the intel(NIE) ...he just handed the corporations the war they wanted...no fight what-so-ever , he just laid right down.

The corporations also wanted a new bankruptcy bill, Edwards laid right down again...and handed them what they wanted.

If Edwards started fighting now, that would make him a flip flopper

The IWR had a lot of things in it that could have prevented a war with Iraq; Bush was the one who jumped the gun, shut down the United Nations investigations, and started a war using lies to the American people to do it.

And let's not forget that ever since Barack has been a Senator, he's voted for every Iraq funding bill, except for one last May where he and Hillary quietly entered at the last minute and voted - when the outcome had already been decided and their votes would change nothing - and cast their "no" votes. That is a considerable contradiction. If he wants to end the war, why vote over and over again to keep funding it?

As for the Bankruptcy Bill, Barack was originally going to vote for it until it was leaked to his constituency that this was the way he was going to vote. They thought otherwise, and convinced him to change his vote. So he was for it before he was against it, as they say.

Barack and Hillary also both voted to extend the Patriot Act, and Barack did so after he stated he would vote to repeal it.

And I agree with you on Points 1 and 2 - they don't really matter other than the fact that Edwards doesn't seem to address them and, instead, allows a much softer whitewash to become standard "truth"\."

However, on point 3, the actual meat when making judgments regarding which candidate to support, I'll disagree. He may say a lot regarding the issues you raise - healthcare, corporate greed, etc. - however, when he was given a chance to do something, anything, about them, he wimped out. He sided with DLC Democrats and Republicans on many of the major issues that have brought us to where we are today.

Personally, I don't find any of the candidates worth spitting on, which is a crying shame, but I find Edwards the most dishonest.

Obama is the most dishonest to me. He says he supports gays, yet he allows someone like Donnie McClurkin an audience at an Obama function to preach about how "prayer cured my homosexuality." In addition to being wrong, it's an insult to all gay people, a slap in the face from Barack. And I'm supposed to believe anything he says?

As a black man, I expect Barack to be more sensitive to issues such as this, and while he said he didn't agree with McClurkin, the fact is he allowed the guy an opportunity to preach this crap. To me, that makes Barack a bigot and a hypocrite.

I can give you examples of both Hillary and Barack voting with the Republicans as well. However, neither of them have put corporate America on notice that things are going to change the way John Edwards has.

He's even going after the hedge funds. He's already said their lending practices are sketchy, their tax breaks are unfair, and their executive pay practices are out of line. So, he's literally biting the hand that feeds him. That takes courage, and that's exactly what we need going forward.

Considering he grew up in a middle class family, he has never claimed to have grown up "poor" but rather his parents couldn't afford to send him to college. He understands "the struggle" to make it in this country.

After college he went to work for corporations and had the opportunity to experience how the corporate lawyers operate. He then goes into private practice and starts defending clients suing corporations (( ah ha, see his experience is paying off )) and winning.

He then runs against a staunch incumbent republicon Sen. Faircloth and wins with a large percentage of the vote.

Ah, now he's on the inside of how laws are passed through lobbyists and the corporations they work for, once again on a learning experience. Of course he "knows" how the DLC works, he "knows" how lobbyists works, he "knows" how greed works against people who are working middle class families. I applaud John Edwards for his insight into going to DC to learn something from the experience.

Let's remember after the rethuglicons took control in '01 the agenda and tone became more apparent then ever before as the RNC/GOP were vicious and dangerous. We have found out through some of the exposed scandals that the repiglicons inserted "new Language" into a BILL AFTER IT HAD BEEN PASSED.

Now, how do we know for a fact that didn't happen with some of the Bills that Sen. Edwards voted for??? I haven't a clue, but I do know for a FACT that the repubs did indeed SNEAK new language into the Patriot Act.

That's how we ended up with the US Attorney scandals. Tell me you haven't forgotten about that?

So, John once again had the fortitude to find out how the system works and what he's up against. He knows what the "fight" is all about and how to fight them. He has been in the "Belly of the Beasts" more times than just once. That's why I think John's the BEST candidate. I have found John to be very genuine.




Sheesh, why would you want to "spit" on ANY of OUR candidates?:shrug:

This is really funny. :eyes:

My dad worked his way up to a supervisor position.

Didn't mean that he stopped believing in Unions/workers rights. It was purely a financial decision since he was getting close to retirement age.

Obama is more republican than HRC.

Edwards is not as Republican as either.

HRC has the knowledge and experience to push back.

Karl Rove speech at the Press Club calls them Liberals.

If your view is silmilar to Rove then ok they are liberals.
If your world view is from a liberal's prism Republican Lite.
Obama is more Republican than Hilary.

This chart says Obama is to the left of HRC


This poll says Democrats think Obama is the most liberal http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/democratic_ideology

This link says Obama is the most liberal per the voting record. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/news/article/32046/obama-more-liberal-than-kucinich-analysis-reveals/

I offer the chart, an opinion poll of Democrats, and a rating of the voting record.

What do you have ? ...thats what I thought

the only candidates that exist in my quadrant are Kucinich and Gravel. Also based on that chart, saying Hillary is more conservative than Obama or vice versa is like splitting hairs. What's truly depressing is that ALL of the candidates the corporate masters are permitting us to vote for are either Republican or Republican-Lite based on that chart. No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket.

And here I was thinking it was just because I'm a stripper.
Learn something new every day!:sarcasm:

Wonder if they pay was good.
Yes,yes, I know, post deleted. Sorry.

The following two links are the ones I recommend you read based on your concerns. The first is a link to the thread discussing his Senate record: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This link is a general discussion that may be helpful. I've copied and pasted two posts from this thread below as well, as I think it gets to the heart of the matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I wrote the following last night with regard to some people looking at Edwards and not trusting him versus those of us who do:

Many here despise the "gut" thing...gut instinct rather than something vetted and written in a report and published with all the details that can't be disputed, set out for all to see in black and white. Damn, I wish all our decisions could be made on such a nice, neat basis, but rarely are there facts that are that all-encompassing and indisputable. Our individual interpretations (unless one is a lemming) and perceptions then come into play after we've gathered information.

It's like those ink blot tests: everyone looks at the same image and they all see (interpret) different things. It doesn't mean one drank the Kool-Aid or didn't do his/her homework, they simply react differently and perceive differently based on his/her experiences.

My gut instinct says I can trust Edwards; indeed, I believe the passion he is displaying can ignite the people to feel empowered once again, reclaim the "process" and demand accountability. That decision is based on having read all the good, bad and ugly about him there is to read, and then weighing that against my gut instinct and doing the same with the other candidates.

I completely understand that another reasonable, realistic, informed person can look at him, his record, his platform and his delivery and think "he can't be trusted, he's too slick," "his record doesn't reflect what he's saying now," "his hair is too nice for me to like him," "he can't possibly do what he's saying he's gonna do."

That's how others may react to him, and in turn they (hopefully) resonate with another Dem candidate. And that's cool!

But when I hear that, like me, he lost a child, and after that loss he and Elizabeth clarified their path and decided upon public service when he had plenty of money to do what he wanted, I see integrity. Others may see him as "using" this loss as a sympathy vote. But based on MY personal experience, I see integrity and a selfless decision.

When I hear him admit to having made mistakes and admittedly having gone through a major learning process during his time in the Senate, I see someone who is holding himself accountable and acknowledging that we continue to learn and hopefully strive to do better. Others hear him admit to multiple mistakes and see a screw-up.

When I see pictures of his huge house and reports about his wealth, I wonder, "Why the heck are you putting you and your wife and family through such a brutal process when you clearly don't HAVE to?" And then the integrity issue and the choices they have made as a family, after and during loss, come to my mind to answer my own question. And I appreciate the fact that he acknowledges that he has been so lucky that his hard work paid off and his family is secure, and he wants to fight so that everyone who works hard has the same opportunity. I always say, I'd rather have a rich man fighting for me than a rich man fighting against me (we have plenty of that, eh?).

Others see pics of his house and reports of his wealth and see a hypocrite. That's their opinion.

Even armed with information, we see what we want to see based on our interests, our perspectives, and our experiences. I personally would feel better about life in general if more people tapped into their gut instinct and followed it.

As always, this is all just my humble opinion.

This post is from Two Americas, and I believe it describes his CANDIDACY perfectly. Not the man, but his candidacy:

"Speaking for myself, and from what other Edwards supporters have told me, it is not Edwards that people are "over the moon" for, it is the promise and power implicit in his message and the potential that has for overhauling the entire political landscape.

Other candidates have much more "star appeal," and better resumes, more charisma, more talent and are better speakers.

There are, of course, some who are infatuated with Edwards, just as there always are with every candidate, but there is something different going on with the Edwards following.

I will support any Democrat who says what Edwards is saying. I strongly believe that if every Democrat were saying what Edwards is saying, that the right wingers would be totally routed for a generation or more. If every Democrat said what Edwards is saying - even if they were lying or failed to come through (as people insinuate about Edwards) - the revitalization and success of the Democratic party would be assured, because an aroused population would demand it and sooner or later the politicians would have to come through for us.

I also believe that there are Democrats who are resisting this because they do not want the Democratic party to return to its roots and regain its former prowess and success. They are personally comfortable with the party the way it is.

Edwards is far from perfect. If politicians were rainstorms, he would be a sprinkle. But that could grow into the downpour we need, and after decades of drought people who are dying of thirst are excited by the first sign of rain and that is why their heads are pointed skyward and their palms are outstretched to catch every drop. For those who are themselves not dying of thirst, and who are oblivious to the millions around them who are, it is difficult for them to understand the Edwards phenomenon. That is OK. Everyone will come around eventually. It is just a matter of time now, and is much, much bigger than the Edwards candidacy."


Hope that helps. Best wishes in your "discovery process"!



:hi:

:applause: :applause:

The facts seem to bear this out, as well.

While I'm sorry that he lost a child, I fail to see the relevance of his loss in his decision to run for public office.

I'm sorry he made mistakes during his Senate term. If he had not, perhaps he'd be getting a little more traction in the race - but I doubt it. Unfortunately for him, his worst Senate votes happen to be on the most important issues. He made some poor judgements and ended up making some pro-Corporate, pro-War and pro-Police State votes on extraordinarily impportant pieces of legislation. One can thereby infer that his judgement is obviously suspect. It's pretty disingenuous of him to attempt to run now as an anti-Corporate, anti-War, anti-Police State candidate. It's demonstrably and patently FALSE.

Unfortunately, his wealth is a big issue. He wants to run as an anti-poverty activist, but comes off as being completely false because he stretches the truth to the point of incredulity:
-He did not grow up "poor," as his campaign has continually stated.
-His father was a middle-class mill supervisor, not some poverty-stricken millworker.
-He HAD to know that Fortress' specialization was leveraging sub-prime lenders. It's ridiculous to assume that he worked for them for 14 months and invested HALF HIS TOTAL WEALTH in a company he knew nothing about.
-How can you be an effective advocate for poverty issues when you fly your hairdresser in from California at a cost of $1000 to get a $400 haircut? When you accept a $500,000 advance and $300,000 payment from NewsCorp owned HarperCollins? When you make $4 - $6 million dollars in the subprime and hedge fund markets that are currently evicting thousands?
-His campaign keeps saying that he hasn't accepted a lot of money from lobbyists or corporations. This is false, too, given the $9 million he has received from law firms alone. Legal firms have been bundling and laundering lobbyist cash to candidates for generations. It's ridiculous to believe that they will stop for Edwards.
-It's not the amount of money that makes him false, either. It's the percentage of his total contributions coming from corporate donors. It's not merely his wealth that makes him suspect, either - it's how he got that way, too.

There are just too many issues of "trust" with Edwards - this is why, even with such a great progressive and populist platform, he has not gotten enough votes to win a primary.


I love the populist message and I wish the other top tier candidates could "tune in" on the same message.

BUT: I don't trust Edwards, I don't believe that what he says is what he will do, simply because he never has before and he continues to stretch the truth.

Nobody MADE him untrustworthy. He has proven himself to be so, time and time again.

great post indeed.

to try again, Our neighbors were a lot better off then we were and they,none of them worked in this position. Some of them worked as line workers (union) and they were even better off. So just because his father was a supervisor doesn't mean squat!

"I would vote for Edwards if he wins the primaries but there is just something phony about him to me"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

then I assume the list is much longer that bother you about Senators Clinton and Obama? :shrug: So do you vote for Julie Annie?

His dad didn't just wake up and become a supervisor... that doesn't happen overnight.. AND that mill is gone now. So, its no longer providing that town with a source of income. I'm pretty sure there were a few struggling moments in their lives. He worked for what he has earned and he has fought a long fight.

Who knows why they chose a big home? I personally feel its none of my business. No other candidate is justifying their homes quite the same... its an MSM talking point.

I don't think he's phony.. I think he really is in this with his heart and head.

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

He has said why. That's better to me than pretending to be liberal, not admitting mistakes, silence about what has been happening in this country, and supporting a dishonest US imperial footprint based on a lie it's to combat terrorism.

of what I think too. The other thread on here about Feingold not trusting Edwards because of his senate votes-what can you say? You can't say it's a-okay he voted that way-it's NOT. You can't deny he did it-maybe for all the wrong reasons-being a greenhorn in the senate.

But many do NOT believe that humans can evolve-and be real. I understand why they could think Edwards is not sincere.

But I think between the election nightmare of 2004, Katrina, the Iraq war,and seeing the real damage of the Bush administration before you, and YES, your wife being diagnosed with terminal cancer-that yes a not so great man can change and maybe become a great one. It's possible. If George fucking Bush has been president for seven fucking years then THAT other thing is certainly possible. Right now I feel only John Edwards (very marginalized) and Kucinich (EXTREMELY marginalized are speaking for me.

1. It's still hard, dirty, blue collar work. And the man WORKED his way up that hard, filthy, dangerous ladder rung by rung. My father is in textiles, started as a stock boy and worked up to white collar level. Big frigging deal. IT'S THE AMERICAN DREAM to work hard and be able to improve your place in life for you and your family.

My father is a Republican, I'm a Democratic Socialist.



2. Good God.

3. He's no different than SEnators Obama and Clinton. I like Edwards, but I don't consider him the "purer" candidate.

So it's important to you what size someone's house is? If the candidate is rich we shouldn't vote for them? Or is it okay to be rich as long as you live in a small house? I don't think there are any "poor" candidates...so they all must value money. So then by your logic, they can't be a compassionate leader..right?

too many times to count.

Maybe if you just researched a few threads here making the same allegations you would actually inform yourself rather than stir up another flamebait thread.

;-)

A standard action by wannabe trolls.

1. Unsubstantive, irrelevant.

2. Unsubstantive, irrelevant. You're not going to vote for someone in the primary because they were successful in their career, made money and have a big house? :eyes: I don't think its reasonable to criticize someone for success, and I think its pretty stereotypical to assume that all people who have been successful must be incapable of compassion? :wtf:

3. Using these "rankings" from the various interests groups as good gauges of how "liberal" or "conservative" a congressperson is has been pretty well debunked here, during my time as a lurker. For instance, one poster made two posts in the same thread: one that said Hillary Clinton has the most liberal voting record of all democratic senators and another that said she had the most conservative record of all democratic senators. Both rattled off a long list of organizations making such lists, both sounded as credible as your list does.

Until you look at ever single ranking by every group and find out - what that MEANS, and how it is scored and what counts as a "liberal" or "not liberal" vote and in what context, it means very little.

It makes more sense to talk specifics about Edward's senate record, than to quote bunch of these ranking without any idea of how they define their results. For example, you could most certainly talk about Edwards bad votes - his vote for Iraq war comes immediately to mind. There are specific votes he made that were just downright bad, and we should talk about how that ought to effect supporting him.

For me, as I've listened to Edwards over many years, the most consistent theme that seems to be most authentically him is his populist message. You found it in his writings from before his political career. You found it over and again in his campaigns. Then when he was elected to Washington, I feel like he was taken for a ride somewhat by the (at that time) very powerful DLC and I think he lost some of his center in his ambition and in the simple soul-sucking business that is washington politics.

The same thing happed to Al Gore by the way, who has a somewhat similar story of poor voting records and centrist behavior transforming into serious progressive attitudes and radicalism after a sort of political "awakening." I notice that Al Gore is not typically doubted or criticized as much.

The bottom line is this: no one is disputing Edward's mistakes - even Edwards. The real question is, do you see, feel, and believe his sincerity of message today? I do. In fact I think every time Edwards moves more towards his populist message, he moves more towards being his most authentic. He hasn't always been consistent throughout his years - but that's not an indictment. That's called being HUMAN. Anyone who expects a political leader not to ever make mistakes or change opinions wants a Bush in the White House. That's what you get when you get someone who is always consistent no matter what.

In the end, I believe in Edwards sincerity on the issues that I care about. If you don't, I respect that, and you should vote for someone else.

One post in the thread, stirs up a shit storm.

That makes my ignore list.

It would shock me if Edwards were to win the nomination. He not only voted for the IWR but co-sponsored the damn thing, he voted for the bankruptcy bill, and voted to override Clinton's veto of storing nuclear waste under Yucca Mtn. He was in no way left leaning during his time in the Senate, which he could not win re-election to. I would probably vote for him if he were to win the nomination but he certainly would not be my choice..I know that loyal Edwards fans will disagree with me but that is the American way...I also think him to be phony and just don't trust him. But he is after all a politician and everyone knows how trustworthy they are...

You don't have to be poor to give a damn about the poor. Period. You think Clinton or Obama--or any senator or governor--is poor?

He was obviously a terrible President. Brilliant analysis.

not the money thing. I grew up in a house that was a 12,000 sq ft Georgian brick colonial in New Canaan CT. I know how freakin' big 28,000 sq ft is. Houses that size are beyond being energy pigs, they're energy hogs. And he calls for Americans to give up SUVs for the sake of climate change. It's tone deaf.

With all the Obama-Hillary mudslinging the last few weeks, it was as though John Edwards did not exist. ("John Edwards does not exist"...hmm...that might make a good slogan.)

If the food fight starts involving Edwards more and more, that's a good thing...it means the "ignore" strategy isn't working and he's gaining momentum and they're worried about that.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” --Gandhi

who lived their entire lives in wealth, but who made the greatest difference for poor people of any president in the last 100 years or more.

A low rating from some organizations - like the ACLU - might be troubling because they are based on real choices of the nominee.

But his personal wealth tells you nothing about him.

He's not looking to replace Mother Teresa.

He and his wife maligned two good people in a book. Mind you, these two good people have had nothing but kind words for JE and EE. And the internet myth he wanted to concede when Kerry supposedly handcuffed him and put duck tape over his mouth :sarcasm: to stop him from supposedly doing something without showing hard core proof does not sit well here either.

Other than that, I repect him for putting out a classy statement on the Kerry endorsement of Obama.

The view that one cannot be wealthy and care about the poor, is one of the most pathetic right win talking points in existence. This argument belongs to people who think that if you believe government should help people, then you must be a commie socialist and it is hypocritical to have more than someone else.

I guess we should trash the New Deal since FDR was wealthy.

Now where has the OP run off to?

Is it more then 3 things? If it is, then I would say cut your loses and support Edwards.

makes me wonder about how deep any one's roots go.

OTOH, my parents are / were Republican but not the Bush breed. I believe in NY they are Rockafeller Republicans.

were they selfish?
were they genuinely compassionate leaders?

Wealth does not have to equal poor upbringing.