Edwards Won't Necessarily Defer to Ex-Running Mate Kerry in '08

[Moloch]

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) will not talk about whether he plans to run for the White House in 2008, but he is not pledging to stand aside if former running mate Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) tries again.

Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he and Kerry (D-Mass.) had talked often since they lost in November to President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites).

He would not say if he would follow the example set by Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of Connecticut, who was chosen by Al Gore (news - web sites) as the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2000. Lieberman said he would not run in 2004 if Gore wanted to seek the presidency again. Gore did not, and Lieberman campaigned for the Democratic nomination.

"Not only are John Kerry (news - web sites) and I friends, our families are close," Edwards said. "I have enormous respect for him. But I'll decide what's the right thing to do based on what's going on with my own family."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=6&u=/latimests/20050221/ts_latimes/edwardswontnecessarilydefertoexrunningmatekerryin08

[BiggJawn]

1. I wish people would expend as many calories looking towards '06...

Maybe we should focus on the House and Senate first, THEN the White House?

How much work would a President Kerry get through with the "Sons of Newt" fighting his every move?

[corbett]

3. Point Taken

That's why I like the PDA so much. They know that unless meaningful election reform is pushed through right away, to take effect before November, 2006, the 2008 Democratic president will have an even tougher time. The veto pen will be about all he/she will have.

[aintitfunny]

4. Absolutely Correct!

The House, the Senate and the Governor's mansions up for grabs.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Ding ding ding!

It's that winner-take-all celebrity/star mentality that's such an annoying part of our national character.

We crave simplicity and clarity as a people, and it is PRECISELY the wrong approach to understand life. Power rests in many systems, and The House of Representatives could, in an instant, turn this country on a dime. We've seen how the controlling party can cover up criminal negligence, fraud, outright thievery, destruction of civil liberties and plain ol' fashioned MASS MURDER.

We can take back the House if we pick out the stragglers and hammer them hard as haters of the poor, thugs, liars, brutes, greedy tools of privilege and a host of other very understandable things.

Hell, if it hadn't been for the gerrymandering of the Texas Delegation, we would have GAINED seats this last election. That shows that even with the fearmongering, bigoted hatespeech and vote rigging, they are losing ground in the broad sweep of this country's hearts and minds.

We only need to gain fifteen or so seats to take control, and then we can open the floodgates for many investigations and get this greasy little latter-day Louis the sixteenth under oath and facing the music.

Who cares about the big whoop-de-doo in four years? Control of this country is well within our grasp NOW, and if that is taken to heart, so much ugliness of the reactionaries will be exposed that they wouldn't have a prayer in '08.

[corbett]

2. Check Out His New Website

Thanks for posting this story! Even though I voted for Kerry in the primaries, I never would have had a problem with Edwards as prez. In fact, I've been most impressed with his activities since the infrauduration. His One America Committee is a dynamite idea with a dynamite website:

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com

I still say,

Go, John²!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

5. I know he wanted to continue the fight when Kerry conceded

Perhaps their roles should have been reversed from the beginning. It could have turned out differently.

Kerry will NOT get MY vote again.

[politicasista]

10. You are mean

I didn't want Kerry to concede either, and I was disappointed. If he would have shouted the word FRAUD without evidence, don't you think the media would have roasted him? :mad: :grr: :cry:

[bearfan454]

84. Huh ?

"If he would have shouted the word FRAUD without evidence, don't you think the media would have roasted him?"

Without evidence ? Bush cannot have more votes then there are voters in several precincts in Ohio. Plain and simple.

[Say_What]

12. BushLite. I reserved judgement after the latest Selection and came to

the conclusion that Kerry is so obessed with being president that he'll do whatever it takes to try to accomplish that--even at the expense of the country. Talk about Bush_F*ck'n_Lite--he'll never get another vote from me either.

[bearfan454]

85. I agree

He gave up without a fight.

[robbedvoter]

82. Too bad he was bound and gagged - still is - as I hear nothing

on fraudulent election, only on his future ambitions. Nice little scenario though.

[Renew Deal]

6. Edwards needs a job.

He shouldn't run for president again until he gets one.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. I must agree

one Senate term and a career as a trial lawyer need some added dimension to get people to see him as a leader.

[upsidedown]

17. Edwards has a job.

He's the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC.

[Renew Deal]

68. OK, lets make him president then.

How about an elected position? Something more than a 1 term senator who didn't run for reelection because there was a decent chance he wouldn't win.

[AP]

23. Edwards's job -- talking about Poverty, Opportunity and Work -- will...

...probably make him the most qualified person to run for president in 2008.

(Lincoln, after losing a Senate race in 1858 spent two years on the lecture circuit talking about slavery, won the presidency. In 1860 this, along with the support of the railroad industry which was being stonewalled by conservatives trying to protect an outdated economic system that delivered guarnateed wealth to their friends while costing society great social wealth, made him very relevant. Incidentally, the only federal office Lincoln held before that was a two-year term as congressman ten years earlier. People hated Lincoln when he was president, but we'd probably be living in a much crappier America with a fascist banana republic on our southern border if not for him.)

[Renew Deal]

67. Talking will make him the most qualified candidate?

Talking about poverty will make him the most qualified candidate to run an urban charity. Unless Edwards somehow becomes governor, congressman or something else, he's less qualified than Fiengold, Warner, Hillary (if she's reelected), Clark, Richardson and some others.

His talk didn't get him anywhere in the 2004 primary or GE. Why would it in 2008?

[AP]

72. Caring about issues that matter to people does make a candidate the most..

...qualified in my opinon.

What could be more important?

Why put a candidate on ice for a few years to pad a resume when it's so clear that they already care about what matters and have what it takes to make those concerns into real policy?

If Clinton had the persona and resume Edwards had today and were in the same exact position Edwards is in career-wise, Clinton wouldn't go run for Governor. Clinton would realize that America is in dire straits and needs someone with the priorities like the ones Edwards has, and Clinton wouldn't back off from trying to make the biggest, best difference to Ameircan history that he could make (and smart Democrats wouldn't be trying to come up with scenarios whereby they talk down a potential contribution to American history like that).

And, incidentally, Edwards's talk got him incredibly far in the 2004 primary.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/paag.phtml

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/tally.phtml

[Renew Deal]

76. That's a personal preference.

I understand that no politician is going to match my views perfectly. There are also other factors such as experience, background, education.

The difference between your view of Edwards and my view of Edwards is that you believe that it is "it's so clear that they already care about what matters and have what it takes to make those concerns into real policy" and I don't."

Edwards is a good guy and a decent candidate. I just don't think he's ready to be President. And don't let Bush lower the bar on that.

[AP]

77. What matters is conviction...

...and the ability to make a persuasive case to the American people.

What skills do you think he needs to develop?

[Renew Deal]

78. Experience

It's not his persuasion that is a problem. He talks well. He makes good points. The fact is that Kucinich would have been elected if it was all about issues. Experience is where he is lacking the most and not having a job now doesn't help. I'm not anti-Edwards or almost anyone else. I just think it would be better for him if he could lay out accomplishments, not just ideas. Clark, Warner, Richardson, and even Hillary can claim that they have a list of measurable accomplishments and skills. I don't think Edwards has that. He is not strong enough on defense and economics. He has some legislative ability, but doesn't have much executive experience.

[AP]

Experience? Then Bush should be president because he has the most

experience being president.

Seriously, it's what you believe in and whether you have the skills to convert your beliefs into policy, and usually the biggest motivation for people building up a resume isn't to get that valuable experience you need to be president, but to make up for problems.

Ther'es no career track for being president. People have done it all different ways. John Edwards has now probably done more with his life than Abe Lincoln had by 1860. Edwards has three times as much Federal experience, and is a much more successful attorney without ever being hired by a big corporation.

Look at other presidents. Reagan didn't need to be Governor to be president. He needed to get people to forget that he had been an actor.

JFK didn't need 8 years in the senate to be the kind of president he was. He needed some time in the senate to make it look like he was serious and not just a privileged millionaire playboy with a powerful father.

Clinton didn't need to be governor of Arkansas for years. He needed to look like he wasn't some hick overachiever.

And it's not like Edwards hasn't done anything. He's lived his principles all his life, and has been quite successful. The problem is that some people don't rate the things he's done. I think, if you look at the results in the primaries and if you look at things like http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html you realize that the people who think that way are acutally out of touch with the way a significant percentage of Americans think.

Clark has HUGE hurdles to get over, despite his experience. Hillary too. Warner is not going to come accross as a guy who's in touch with the progressive value system -- he'll look like a cynical attempt to tick off boxes (white, southern, male, handsome) without much concern for what he actually stands for. Richardson's has similar problems. It's clearly not all about how long you've been in the executive branch or in any job that matters. It's what you believe in and whether you have the skills to make it reality. If Kucinich had the skills Edwards had, Kucinich would have made it as far as Edwards. And if you'd pick Clark, Warner, Clinton or Richardson over Edwards just because of experience, then you are WAY out of touch with how Americans vote.

[Renew Deal]

80. So I suppose that you fully support the Iraq war?

I never said that experience was the only factor. It's one of the factors. It's one, in regars to Edwards, we disagree. This is John Edwards in his own words on 10/10/02. I am sure that you would say that he speaks for you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq .

If inspectors go back into Iraq , they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq . Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq .

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament

programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107l9ml2R:e858562:

[AP]

81. Gore Sr, McCarthy, Humphrey, Fulbright all voted for the Gulf of Tonkin

Resolution.

Edwards's argument is right. That's a pretty long quote from Edwards. What in it do you find objectionable? Anything?

The Yes vote on the IWR made sense. The blame for the invasion doesn't lie with the Yes voters on the res. It lies with Bush.

If the Vietnam anti-war movement embraced senators who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, then I think Democratic voters today can open their mind a little winder on this issue.

[Renew Deal]

86. My point is that you are not pro-war.

I don't believe that you wanted to go into Iraq under any circumstance. Edwards was much more hawkish. It's impossible to support a candidate with your or my belief system 100% because there is no one like that. So we have to decide what's important to us. For you it's poverty and equality issues. I support strong campaign finance reform, universal health-care, education for all and a strong defense. No candidate is going to match me 100% on those issues and I understand that. I would take a good Dem like Edwards over any republican. My big issues are different than yours. It makes for a fun primary fight.

BTW, I am really looking forward to Freeperville picking sides in the next primaries. We had to do it in 2004. Unfortunately we have to do it again in 2008, and so do they.

[AP]

87. I'm not sure what Edwards said about Iraq makes him a hawk.

He said the intelligence he saw -- much of it classified, which the public never saw -- justified the IWR vote. He said that subsequent events suggest that we should have an investigation to see what the problem with the intelligence was.

I think people who decribe him as hawkish do so without listening to what he was actually saying. Imperialism has a very precise process and precise aims, and what Edwards talked about during the primaries wasn't about being an imperialist.

These are not the worlds of a hawk:

{incidentally, my issues are class, opportunity, democracy, and fighting fascism at home and abroad, and I think these issues are all deeply connected and only Edwards is offering the antidote to the problems caused by turning our backs on democracy and by turning towards fascism, and I feel like America has gone through this all once before, and FDR knew how to fight it -- with hope, and by putting as much wealth as possible into the hands of people who work for a living -- and I can't figure out why ONLY John Edwards seems to understand FDR's lesson)


JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=257&topic_id=95&mesg_id=188&page=

[AP]

79. double...

...post.

[autorank]

8. Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Neither will stand a chance.

Kerry keeps $15 million in reserve while he loses the fucking election!

Edwards and Kerry were outright supporters of the fucking Iraq war!

I am grateful to both of them for all their hard work and I'd vote for them again today and any day against *. However, time moves on.

2006 is the Super Bowl and the issues are impending eco-catastrophes, election fraud, foreign policy, and stopping the assault on the American worker.

We need new candidates. Clark opposed the war, is highly experienced in foreign policy and the military, and sounds like a DUer on domestic policy.

[karynnj]

9. The money was from the primary campaign

and could not legally be used by Kerry, (It could have been given away to other campaigns)
Kerry did not support attacking Iraq, nor did the IWR say there would be war. He was clearly boxed in on the vote.

[autorank]

32. Check your facts.

First, Kerry voted to authorize * to use force in Iraq. What part of "he's going to war" didn't Kerry understand. Senator Byrd understood. Senator Graham understood.

Second, Kerry could have dispersed the funds in a way that would have helped his campaign and Democrats period. His campaign claimed that they held it in reserve to deal with legal challenges. Well he CAVED in after just a few hours. Our voting rights folks are still working their tails off in OH, NM, and elsewhere. Why doesn't he give them some money.

I supported Kerry, I worked for him, and I gave him as much money as I could. He made a big sacrifice but now his day is done. MoveOn to someone new who had a good record on the war and is a real fighter.

[TankLV]

57. We have. And they both said they would just FIGHT IT BETTER!

And, even tho we all know all the lies have been proven, THEY WOULD STILL VOTE TO AUTHORIZE bunkerboy's ILLEGAL WAR!

Yeah, we all know what they say.

Thanks anyway.

[politicasista]

11. No wonder the GOP laughs at us

We just toss our candidates around as "has-beens," "losers," etc. while the GOP gives their candidates second chances. We could learn a lot from them in that area.

[AgadorSparticus]

25. they laugh at us anyways. who cares what they think?

they are TOLD to give their candidate a second chance. we are given the choice to decide for ourselves. thank god i'm not a republican.

[autorank]

33. Bring back Carter; bring back Dukakis; Bring back Mondale. Sure

These candidates either withdrew from presidential politics or were justifiably ignored by the party because of significant liabilities as national candidates. Who might you be thinking of, Nixon. No thanks.

Kerry had his shot, he wavered, and he let every single on of us down who worked and gave, and that's quite a few people around her.

Things are moving very quickly. The war is a disaster, * is out to destroy social security, and 60% of the public (WSJ Poll) want Democrats to mount a serious opposition to *. Oh, and BTW, the fucking election was stolen (unless you want to totally deny the basis for real science, statistical analysis). Where is Kerry on these issues? He caved on election fraud, he's still mealy mouthed on the war, and he ought to be screaming about social security.

Clark would have been great. He's a general who opposed the war, his domestic program was DU friendly, and he said he was going to "kick the shit" out of the Republicans when they came after him.

We need new blood. If you want us to be ex-candidate friendly, think of Clark as our Reagan; ran once and lost, ran again and whooped ass.

[Laurab]

59. I worked and gave and don't think Kerry let me down

gave more than I could afford, and did it gladly. I also think he won the election, or would have, had it been honest. I don't think anyone could have won the election under the circumstances, and I'm sure as hell not concerned about '08 until there's been some serious election reform.

I don't think Kerry could have done anything differently, really - the election was not close enough for an automatic recall, and there was no actual proof of fraud - matter of fact, I think they're still working on getting the actual proof. He was in a lose/lose situation.

I really don't like to get into these Kerry bashing things anymore, after a while they become tiresome, but as someone who also "worked and gave", I just wanted to make it clear that I for one do not feel Kerry let me down. He was robbed, and we were robbed, and say what you will about ANY other candidate - I think they would have been in the exact same position.

Our election process let me down.

[autorank]

60. We agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was stolen and he did win. You are right. I don't regret anything I did and I'd do it again. I'm not bashing I just want us to really stand for something other than 'smarter and better' at foreign intervention. We will win next time, 2006 and 2008, largely due to the great work the voting rights people are doing. Not that they won't try to steal it again but it will be a whole lot harder and we've got about 14 months to get some major changes to the voting system or major oversight functions in place.

:hi:

[iamjoy]

15. I'm Tired Of Candidates Who "Didn't Support The War"

funny how many of them never had an opportunity to actually vote for or against it but after it all went to hell started barking how they opposed it. I trust what they say only if they actually had an opportunity and voted against it (or are on record with their opposition BEFORE the vote).

I liked Edwards, but thought it was such BS in the primary debates when he said he would have been against NAFTA (when he voted for the China Trade Agreement).

Hindsight is 20/20.

[AP]

20. The problem with the China Trade Agreement...

...wasn't the bill that passed. The problem is that the Chinese ignore it now.

The CTA was an attempt to make China play by fair rules. Without a CTA, China would have decimated (or worse) the US economy.

There were five trade bills that Edwards voted for. His threshold criteria was that he was not going to vote for any bill that didn't include protections for the environment or labor because he wasn't going to force America to compete when the bar was set so low for the other side. That meant that, other than the China bill, the only trade bill he voted Yes on was one with Jordan because Jordan protects the environment and workers' rights.

Edwards three other no votes on trade bills made him very unpopular with the the DLC.

Now, if any progressive has a problem with a potential US president with values like those, you're insane.

And if you think the IWR vote is the sin qua non of a good Democrat, you should check out the list of Dems who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. McGovern and Gore are on that list, along with all but two Democrats whose names you wouldn't recognize.

[iamjoy]

31. Thanks For Clarifying Edwards' China Vote

although, I am still cynical of candidates who say they would have voted against something IF they had an opportunity.

I don't blame the Democrats who voted for IWR. I think the truth is many of them were duped or threatened. I also think they knew if they didn't vote for it Bush would have gone to war anyway and they were trying to have some semblence of Democracy. Doesn't make them the greatest people, but neither does it make them evil or DINOs as many of our most hard core claim.

[Andrea]

53. Totally agree with your comments about Edwards, but

...wanted to point out that it was Al Gore, Sr. who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, not Al Gore, Jr., former VP.

[AP]

65. I didn't think Al Gore Jr was in the senate in the early 60s.

:)

[autorank]

35. iamjoy, you are RIGHT!

HALL OF FAME
SENATORS VOTING NAY
ON IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
10/11/2002

They knew, why didn't Kerry and Edwards. The outcome of the war permanently disqualifies Kerry & Edwards from consideration as a Democratic Presidential candidate. Sorry.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[CanOfWhoopAss]

13. It would be disappointing if Edwards deferred Kerry

I think Edwards let Kerry run their campaign. Had it been up to Edwards they wouldn't have conceded so quickly. His chimperial majesty would have sweat it out for a month or 2 before completing his buy one election and steal one free. It looked like it was killing Edwards and even Theresa Heinz-Kerry to concede so easily. I know it killed me and damn if I'll vote for Kerry in the primaries. If he wins the primaries then I'll have no choice.

[The Zanti Regent]

14. Both Bonesman Kerry and Bilderberger Edwards can stuff it.

Both of them voted to send my son, my only child, to die.

F both of them.

[paulk]

16. Bush sent your son to die

Not Kerry. Not Edwards.

George W. Bush, who is President of the United States.

[The Zanti Regent]

18. Who voted to use force?

Kerry and Edwards.

They always give Bush what he wants. Both of them can go to hell.

[AP]

21. I've never heard parents of dead Vietnam War soldiers blame Al Gore Sr or

George McGovern or William Fulbright for their sons' deaths. They voted Yes on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

As for Edwards always giving Bush what he wants, Congressional Quarterly or The Hill had an article during the primaries that said that Edwards voted AGAINST Bush more than any other Senator or Representative.

[autorank]

36. Totally agree. Enough of time waste on people w/out a brain or spine!

[benny05]

40. Only if necessary

And Bush decided he had a "man date" to run with it without further consultation, which is not what Kerry and Edwards understood.

[robbedvoter]

83. Edwards co-sponsored the bill - didn't just vote on it.Some responsibility

is attached.

http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq...
I'm here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored.

[rasputin1952]

28. While I understand your grief and anger...you should know that the

lies of this administration placed your son in danger in the first place.

The dramatic push for this war was based on lies from bush and co., not Kerry, Edwards, or a host of others that voted for this horrid war.

How did the Senators of your state vote?

I have seen the horror of war, so did Kerry; did bush or his loyal minions from hell, the Chickenhawks, ever contemplate how much this venture would affect those who were left behind to pick up the pieces?

Your anger is misplaced sir.

[keta11]

19. Edwards needs to go quietly into the sunset!!

He is dreaming if he thinks he can be elected president. Watching him on the stump this last cycle was excrutiating even though I held my nose and voted for them.

I never understood the appeal of the guy in the first place. Pretty face, no substance, full of slogans, thats my opinion. I even think he lost the ticket the election because of his obvious starry-eyed inexperience. See how Cheney made mince-meat of him in the debates.

Going forward, I would never vote for any Democrat again who is not in the Kucinich, Dean "anti-unnecesary war", progressive mold.

Enough of these 2-faced faux liberals and BSers who talk out of both sides of their mouths.Dont pee on me and tell me its raining.

[Toucano]

34. Cheney did no such thing.

All Cheney accomplished was to prove what fat liar he is. "I've never met you until this moment."

I saw Edwards 5 times last year, and he never failed to electrify the crowd.

He worked hard the the ticket, he worked hard for Democrats, and he worked hard for the nation.

I'm sure we've not seen the last of him.

[Hamlette]

22. Complete bullshit headline

I saw the interview. It is OUTRAGEOUS they just make shit up. Edwards said he had not thought about it yet. George S pressed him: "Lieberman said he wouldn't run in 2004 if Gore did, will you make Kerry the same pledge?" Edwards said: I'll say it again. I've not even thought about it yet!

And the headline reads "Edwards won't take the pledge." As if the only thing of interest in the interview was a possible fight/contest/falling out between Kerry and Edwards. Puuulllllezzze.

itsn't it more important to headline Elizabeth's health, or John's plans for the future, or what he's doing now?

The friggin media turns everything into a prize fight. Even if they have to lie about it.

[AP]

24. I agree. The headline just makes Democrats think Edwards is an ass.

Just look at some of the responses here.

And it's a lie about what Edwards really said.

[paulk]

26. the media turns everything into

"the Democrats are fighting each other"

and conversely -

"the Republicans are united"


Really, I'm sure Edwards has more important things going on in his life right now than worrying about the 2008 presidential race.

[benny05]

41. If I understood you

You thought as I did that the interview would highlight more of what JRE was doing now instead of trying to pit JRE against his former Presidental running mate, John Kerry.

Well, JRE was sincere. I think he appreciated the experience. While he may have an eye on 2008, he is sincere about getting his wife well. If surgery next month turns up anything different from what he and Elizabeth expected (based on doctors' expectations), they will change course and continue the focus on their family.

Perhaps you didn't know John and Elizabeth have never been on a vacation together without the kids, and if separate, they each had a kid with them.

[Placebo]

27. Not like he's going to win a single primary ANYWAY...

and if Hillary runs like we all know she's going to, the whole discussion is moot. :)

[candy331]

29. Well he should have just said yes or at least I am looking at my

options or something to that effect,who doesn't know he is/has considered it. Sometimes short answers are really the best.

[SoCalDem]

37. Sorry to be the skunk at the party, but a recipe for losiing again

Kerry
Edwards
Clinton
Lieberman
Bayh
and many others..

Senators do NOT make good candidates.. They have too much "on the record" baggage, and are used to "polite debate" instead of the necessary roughness style of campaigning today..

We need to think outside the box....

The most important things necessary to win, we do NOT have..

Control of mass media
Control of voting mechanisms

We start out behind, and if we do not have a vibrant, NEW, and exciting candidate, we lose again:(

I am not being "defeatist"..just realistic

[LiberallyInclined]

38. Fuck them both- i hope the door DOES hit them in the ass on the way out...

and could they PLEASE take hillary, gore, and LIEberman with them?

they are the PAST.

[benny05]

43. Hi

Considering Elizabeth Edwards cruises this site pretty often (and has posted in the past), I wish we could say instead, "Fond Farewell" and good luck until of viciousness. Are we going to be the party that eats its own? I hope not. Thanks for reading.

[LiberallyInclined]

45. but i don't wish him a "fond farewell", the dlc fuckwad.

he had his shot- if he wanted to stay in national politics, he should have held onto his senate seat.
and if he wanted to be vice-president or president, he should have held bush's feet to the fire over iraq.
FUCK HIM- the little coward.
and i hope lizzy reads this and tells him so.

[benny05]

51. A OK

:bounce:

[LiberallyInclined]

61. anytime...

:hi:

[benny05]

52. And Eat Your Own

:evilgrin:

[LiberallyInclined]

62. Edwards isn't one of "my own"...i'm a democrat-

he's a dlc FUCKWAD.

corporate lackeys and shills are the extent of the dlc.

[benny05]

66. Interesting

I'm glad to read your opinions anyway. I think you are one really pissed off person who hasn't forgotten what happened to the Chicago 8. Many of those folks moved on and some like Abby Hoffman before they died ended up making money on creating corporate products. I am a student of all of these things...rememberance past.

Moreover, Dennis K learned that it was better to elect Dems than to fight against all of them. He didn't leave his party. After all, he was one who brought up the problems in Ohio on blogs. Why Kerry didn't contest it is another story, but if Edwards had been at the top of the ticket, I have a feeling he would have been looking into it more. He is a person of conviction. Does he make mistakes, yes, and says so, unlike our dufus president.

Anyhow, it's clear you and I will have to disagree. But we do agree on one point, we both don't like W and many of his ilk.

[LiberallyInclined]

71. and in my opinion...edwards is one of those ilk.

those that seem to think that "republican-lite" is the best track for MY party to take, and they couldn't be more WRONG.

and i have no connection, recollection, or opinion one way or the other regarding the chicago 8, considering that's about how old i was when the '68 convention took place.

[AP]

75. That's absurd. Edwards talks about class, which republicans despise.

Edwards had the most anti-Bush voting record in Congress, including Kucinich and Boxer and everyone else.

He stands for things Republicans stand against.

Dont confuse a candidate for whom Republicans will vote with a candidate who is a Republican.

[politicasista]

39. Evil, evil, evil thread.

:mad: :argh: :grr:

[mtnester]

42. Neither Edwards or Kerry is the canddate for 2008

they both need to step aside.

[deminflorida]

44. Edwards and Kerry will both be stepping aside after Iowa. My

guess is that Clark will have the nomination in hand after that. Grass-Roots is now driving the Democratic Party and it's going to drive all the way to the White House.

[car54whereareyou]

55. Clark is our party's best candidate

and the only one who can get us out of this rovian mess!

[Auntie Bush]

70. Damn Right!

Clark will guide this country in the right direction.

Clark is a uniter!

[car54whereareyou]

73. Woohoow!

Best wishes to you and your family, Auntie!

[Imagevision]

46. Hillary is it in 2008 VS. Condi to boot!

More at 11:00

[Imagevision]

47. In My view? Dems are wimps -- or I guess oil is that deep!

[Imagevision]

48. Hillary in 08 -- don't kid yourself --vs. Condi? --sheeeat!

[wisteria]

49. Kerry/Edwards 2008

Why not a repeat performance, with some campaign changes, an big victory this time around? Both men did an excellent job against the crooked, win at any cost, republican machine. Many people, I know who voted for our ticket did so out of respect for these men,including me, and not because they were AOBB. They came so close to winning. I still have my buttons and bumper stickers!

[yinkaafrica]

50. They both need to step aside now

We don't want fifteen candidates tearing each
other to threads. Hillary also has absolutely no chance of winning.
I hope she doesn't waster our time.

[wisteria]

54. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, many people would disagree with you. John kerry still has much support and there are those who are hoping he will attempt another run for the presidency. I am curious why you feel they should step aside-especially Kerry.

[TankLV]

56. And I don't want EITHER of them!

They can go jump in the tidal basin for all I care.

I want REAL democrats to be the party's choice this time around.

They'll have to EARN my vote this time.

[benny05]

58. Real Democrats do _________ (blank) in order to win nat'l offices

This is the Match Game...fill in the blank...no freepers allowed

[wisteria]

63. Real democrats?

Please help me out here and explain whom you consider to be real democrats.

[Renew Deal]

69. No one is considered a real democrat besides me.

Sorry :shrug:

[barb162]

64. he was terrific on Stephanapoulos yesterday. He wanted Swiftie

ass bigtime and wanted to go after them as soon as they started their BS and lies. He was overruled by the campaign. The guy has good instincts and a great communications style.

[eridani]

74. What he damned well better defer to--

--is grassroots sentiment on fixing the damned Republican-controlled voting machine problem.