(John) Edwards signals shift against war

[wicket]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20050822/ts_chicagotrib/edwardssignalsshiftagainstwar

Throughout his campaign for president and then vice president in 2004, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina made it clear that the death of his teenage son in a car accident was off-limits, not for discussion in a political context.

But now his wife, Elizabeth, has sent an e-mail to supporters voicing a connection she shares with Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. As Sheehan was camped near President Bush's Texas ranch, protesting the war, Edwards called on her own family's backers to support Sheehan.

And, in a departure from a campaign-trail silence that the Edwardses kept about the death of their 16-year-old son, Wade, Elizabeth Edwards noted that Sheehan's son, Casey, 24, died in Iraq eight years to the day after her own son.

For John Edwards, who voted as a senator to support the invasion of Iraq, his wife's outreach to subscribers of their One America Committee Web site bears a distinct anti-war voice that could augur a new tack for Edwards as he prepares for a potential run for president in 2008.

[henslee]

1. I want to believe John "Skywalker" Edwards is the "One" but I can't.

[cliss]

47. You & me both.

I have serious doubts about John Edwards. Even though he's got Charisma to spare, I feel he is nothing but a Wolf in Dem clothing.

Some serious problems:

1) sometime before the election, Edwards went to Europe to sit in on a Bilderberg meeting. I'm sure the Real Powers behind the Powers told him what he must do. = do our bidding.

2) Edwards made it clear we need to stay in Iraq. Why? There's oil, Cliss. Silly gullible Democrat. Don't judge a beautiful book by its cover.

[KoKo]

82. You and poster makes 3... John Edwards totally supported this war and

kids who tried to deliver an "Anti-Iraq Invasion Petition" to him at his Raleigh office were faced with litigation to be thrown in jail unless they got a good lawyer. Edwards didn't take kindly to his constuents who were opposed to Iraq Invasion.

There are many bitter, angry NC'linians who didn't want the Iraq Invasion even though they supported the Afghanistan Invasion..who worked hard and gave what they could for Edwards to defeat our RW/Repug Faircloth. We thought Edwards would be the first STRONG DEM to be in the SENATE for North Carolina.

We never saw anything from him but DINO Votes on every Bill ...and that he hit the ground running for the Presidency. His vote for Invasion of Iraq was the last straw when he wouldn't even meet with those of us AGAINST THAT.

His Wife...is a horse of a different color. Elizabeth always "Got It."

But...he never has... He might be a wonderful human being...but his sense of Politics and his own Constiuents' who "brung him to the party" was LACKING...every step of the way as he crossed his loyal supporters and ran after the DLC Crown.

I don't think much of him. But, I and other NC'linians walked the streets for Edwards and Kerry...we worked our butts off...even knowing what we did because we knew Kerry would be the President and Edwards would be Vice-President. We thought he might have time to grow in that slot.

Sadly...it's what it was...and they lost. But, if only they had listened to the information that was coming out about PNAC/NeoCon's and the lies that got us into the Iraq Quagmire.

And, if only, they had listened to those who knew "Something Crooked was going on in Ohio."

They didn't. So, I have no "respect" for them. When a politician doesn't listen to their constiuents...they will always lose no matter how many "High Profile Dem Public Relations Ops they bring in to "Spin their Message" in the end...they should listen to those who voted them in. Neither Kerry nor Edwards ever understood that ...it seems, anyway.

[Catchawave]

108. Why are you slamming Edwards ?

Just curious as the only negative stuff I read about him in on DU :hi:

[Imagevision]

146. All Senators backed Bush based on slamdunks war intel adjusted

to sound like the real deal for senator and public support.
This all boils down to Bush lied us into a war and we bought it! Only for Bush to investigate as to who was to blame as Powell & Rice went along with it.

Can't blame edwards for Bush's deceptions!

[confludemocrat]

157. If he himself eventually says he's against the war, I'll take it.

Why wouldn't one? Gonna call it a flip-flop? Go ahead, I'll accept any Demo who gives up the idiot support of this illegal atrocity and consider them along with other positions they take.

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Edwards can really kick ass.

Her husband's pretty good too.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

45. Ha! Great point, and I agree whole heartedly.

Elizabeth is one amazing woman!

[fricasseed_gourmet_rat]

50. Elizabeth Edwards is one of my personal heroes.

My mom had breast cancer, really looks favorably upon Mrs. Edwards, and thinks she could've taught Teresa Heinz Kerry a thing or two.

[laureloak]

69. Amen. A fine lady. Very classy.

[Ilsa]

112. Agreed. E.E. is a lady for young people (especially) to look up to. eom

[ultraist]

147. Elizabeth's letter of support for Cindy was amazing!

Elizabeth is a gifted writer and speaks from the heart. I was really pleased to recieve that email.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

62. Wish she would run for Pres. n/t

[xultar]

3. I've always wondered how JE was allowed to pass on this yet Clark

who was against it the whole time always got beat up around here.
:popcorn:

[jobycom]

7. I thought it was odd he got so much liberal support, too

I know the rest of his agenda was fairly liberal, but his views on Iraq were to the right of Kerry and not far from Lieberman, yet there were people claiming Edwards was the better liberal.

He's a trial lawyer, he knows what to say to sway an audience. I liked him as a VP pick because he could raise people's spirits and made great speeches. I don't think he has enough leadersip experience to be president, though. Just because he has pretty views doesn't mean he would have the skill to do anything with those views once in office.

[PurityOfEssence]

92. speaking out against predatory lending and unfair tax codes are one reason

Here's a guy who comes from the state with the second-largest banking industry in the country, and he was constantly railing against predatory lending. For some bizarre reason, the media depicted Dean as the big liberal (when his domestic policies were to the right of virtually every other nominee) and Edwards as some kind of stealth conservative.

His early stump speeches were about fairness and providing useful safety nets. "The only thing George Bush respects is wealth" was the zinger of his early speeches, and his priorities were for not allowing the tax burden to be shifted away from investment income to workers' wages. His policies for rural medical access was another major issue. There was a true populist and pluralist approach, and much as his detractors dislike the son of a mill worker schtick, it was used as a platform to show that he intended to improve the lot of the poor and struggling.

This wasn't just window dressing; it was the consistent thrust of his campaign, which later morphed into the "two Americas" speech.

This is why liberals like me and populists like the guy; he was a unifier, and he had the star appeal to win. His oratorical and diplomatic skills were so good that he never had to make a major retraction, unlike all the other major candidates. He was also someone who could have conceivably been dealt with by hard-shelled conservatives; they'd have been looking over their shoulder if they had to seriously negotiate with a Kerry or a Dean, but they could be seen by their constituents dealing with a backwoods boy who made good.

[ultraist]

149. Edwards also co sponsored the Patient's Bill of Rights

I'm a far left liberal and I supported Edwards during the primaries and I would support him again!

Hello from NC. :hi:

[Kelvin Mace]

12. He didn't get a pass from me, that's for sure.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. What board were you reading?

Edwards was routinely excoriated for his vote on this board, and those of us very few who were supporters for a long time were none too pleased with it either.

Clark was not incredibly clear about it before the IWR vote, and didn't have to stand and vote, so we don't know how he would have.

Not only did he recommend that Katrina Swett vote for the resolution, his statements at the time are far from clear.

http://www.politicsus.com/011404jl.htm

But enough of that. Edwards took plenty of heat on this board for his vote, just as he did for his vote on the Patriot Act. He qualified the latter by pointing out provisions he thought necessary (tapping a person, instead of a number), he made sure there was a sunset clause in it, and he reapeatedly said that the way Ashcroft was using it was wrong. (He had also grilled Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings and voted against him.)

He never backed away from the IWR vote. I wish he had, even though to have done so would have been to say he was fooled by the administration; hard as he was on their social policies, I don't think he was hard enough on their foreign policy and I'd like to have heard him call them liars. Had he done this, though, he'd have been tarred as an opportunist now that the war was less popular. History will show the IWR to have been a masterpiece of political squeeze-plays, especially its timing.

[JNelson6563]

49. Yeah, no kidding

Nothing like a selective memory! I saw JE takes many a lump here.

Good to see you POE.

Julie

[Pastiche423]

70. Very well deserved lumps, IMHO

He voted for the IWR and campaigned positively for the Iraq war, both during the primaries and the general elections.

Liberal Schmiberal!

[PurityOfEssence]

71. Please lose the "H"; there's nothing humble about your opinions

Seems like old times.

[Pastiche423]

72. lol

The "H" in my IMHO stands for honest.

And I honestly believe johnny boy deserved all the lumps he recieved. But then, I don't have to tell you why I believe that. I'm sure you remember my posts on that subject.

[JNelson6563]

73. Was just stating the fact

to response to the assertion.

Peace.

[1932]

52. Clark wrote an entire book on the Iraq invasion

He praises the execution of the invasion in the first part, criticizes the post-invasion strategy in the second part, and argues that it's easier for America to impose virtual empire in the conclusion.

The book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an informative counter-argument to the notion that virtual empire is somehow morally and politically superior to military intervention. Other good books on virutal empire: Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents, and God's Politics by Jim Wallis.

[jpgray]

55. Remember DK's alliance with Edwards? JE took some serious punishment

n/t

[Ilsa]

113. ITA. Clark got slammed for being a ret. general against the war

yet others in the senate played the politics and got away with it. Clark had principles he stood for and did not waiver on. I'll vote for him again. And I'll work for him again when he starts his primary work.

[Teaser]

4. He's got his finger in the wind

Frankly, I don't care if politicians turn against this war because it's good politics or because they really have turned against it.

I just want the lads and lasses to come home.

[I concur]

19. yep...

...why didn't we hear it before the Monday morning quarterback sessions?

[short bus president]

25. That's not the wind

it's the gas displaced by his continually having his thumbs up his ass. Edwards is a poll-sniffing goodhair worthless hunk of crap.

[Arugula Latte]

27. Come on now, don't hold back ...

Tell us how you really feel! :rofl:

[laureloak]

96. As a public servant, should you attempt to determine what

the public wants before making decisions in their behalf?

Oh, now I get where you're coming from ... one should just sit with one's thumb up their ass critizing others who work to bring about positive changes. Yep, that's what separates class from crass.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

63. If so many weren't playing politics in the first place

They wouldn't have to do an about face now.

[endarkenment]

5. If Edwards combines his opposition to

neoliberal economics with opposition to neocon imperialism he could actually get something going. If he manages to get elected however, he should stay the heck out of Dallas.

[Kolesar]

6. JE flopped in Appalachian Ohio

The K/E ticket used him and his charming southern drawl to draw crowds in our counties in the Ohio River Valley, but it did not win Ohio for our ticket. Too bad. I thought he was swell, but he could not make the sale.

[AndyTiedye]

28. We Probably DID Win Ohio. WE GOT ROBBED!

[Kolesar]

33. Well, JE and candidate Kerry hardly did an overwhelming job here

They did put a lot of staffers in, but Ohio was a missed opportunity.

[Cha]

104. Oh Gross! I never did

know what that particular Villian looked like in Ohio.

[mike_c]

8. EE is not an appendage of JE-- her support for Cindy...

...shouldn't imply that her husband has changed his views. I'll wait for HIM to apologize for his IWR vote and subsequent support for the war against Iraq.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. This is a trial baloon

If it gets a warm reception, he will adopt it. If it doesn't, it will be "I don't share my wife's view".

Do we need yet another poll-driven politician?

[hippiechick]

22. Exactly.

Well put. :hi:

[laureloak]

98. You don't have any grounds for your theory, do you?

[Cha]

103. Too bad he didn't listen to his

constituents and his conscience Before the Iraqi War Resolution!

[ultraist]

150. No, it's not a trial balloon. Elizabeth wrote the letter herself.

Why are you accusing Elizabeth of being dishonest? Your accusation is unfounded.

In fact, she posted a response, herself, to a blogger on their blog regarding this letter. She connected with Cindy Sheehan and that's apparent by her letter.

Smearing Elizabeth reflects really poorly on you.

[H5N1]

24. Mr. 'Anyway the Wind Blows' is still testing the wind

He just may discover that he is 'a Profoundly a sorry a
for mistakes of the past a.'
Then again, maybe not.

[Eloriel]

34. Yes. An apology is essential. He'll get no interest from me until then. nt

[NYC Liberal]

37. I want an apology as well...if he has changed his views

It's great if he has, but sorry, it's too little too late. EVERYTHING we know about Iraq now I could have told you before we invaded.

It's time for him and everyone else who voted to authorize the Boy King's mad travails into Iraq to APOLOGIZE.

[BlueStater]

38. What's the point?

He'd only be called an opportunist by you people again.

Hypocrites.

[NYC Liberal]

39. Well there really is no "point" for him to apologize at this point

unless he really HAS changed his views. In which case he'd be showing he had.

Unfortunately, seeing as he lost his Senate seat, he can't vote against future Iraq bills/appropriations.

[laureloak]

93. Oh. How did he LOSE his Senate seat?

[NYC Liberal]

122. Sorry I meant "lost" as in he's not there anymore

Not like he ran and then was defeated

[laureloak]

126. Big difference and very misleading.

[Cha]

105. We People?

We The People?

And who's a Hypocrite?

[BlueStater]

115. Lame-o Edwards haters who expect an apology from him

When they would just accuse him of being an opportunist (again) if he did that.

[Cha]

116. I would hope Edwards would

evolve to that. Not everybody that voted for the IWR could be happy with that vote today.

I believe Tom Harkin voted for it and was sorry about it..at least that's what I think I remember.

[rfkrfk]

137. Lame-o 's record in the Senate was weak, 1st termers don't do much

you have to start somewhere

consider Hilary,
she seems to be on the
Senate sub-sub-sub-committee on violent computer games,
1st termers don't do much

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. kick

[Kixel]

10. He's Dreamy...

I actually really liked what he stood for (other than his war stance). Honestly, though, we really thought he was fun to look at as well...he really does wonders for getting people energized. Could our country handle having an eloquent speaker, though? Seriously, after Bush, it could shock the heck out of the nation!

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Could we pick a president for his ability

rather than his looks?

I mean Lincoln couldn't get elected these days.

[Kixel]

20. I agree...

It was always a big joke with my friends.

[Cha]

107. Maybe, but a chimpanzee

got selected and then Rammed through.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

16. Never struck me as all that eloquent.

Though the bar has obviously been lowered the last 5 or so years.

[Kixel]

21. When he spoke locally

He did a really great job. There was an amazing energy in the crowd, he had a Clinton like charisma ( I thought). I think it's too early to back someone for President, though. We need to know who the options are and go from there...

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Hey John?

Where the fuck were you when we marched past your office against the war in 2003? You wouldn't even come out and talk with us. You sat in your office and backed your Lord and Master, George W. Bush.

Then when you ran with Kerry, you still supported the war.

Then when you lost, you said you would fight, but your boss said no, so you didn't fight.

Thanks, but no thanks!

[Burried News]

15. Actions have consequences in my reality.

[leftchick]

17. This is Elizabeth Edwards....

not John Edward's words. :shrug:

[Neecy]

18. I think this is hopeful

Personally, I've been thinking that Edwards would, in time, come out against this war. Anyone who joins with us I'd welcome with open arms.

[davidinalameda]

23. sorry John

but you had your chance when you were still in the Senate

you could have come out then rather than wait to see if public sentiment was going to go against the war

[1932]

26. In the interest of relying on original sources and not being spun:

Here's Elizabeth Edwards's letter:

Casey Sheehan was born May 29, 1979, the first born child of Cindy and Pat Sheehan. It was a long labor. Fifty-one days after Casey was born, our first child, Wade was born, also after a long labor. They started school the same year, played the same games, watched the same television shows, loved the same country. On April 4, 1996, three weeks after going to Washington as a winner in a national contest about what America meant to him, Wade died in an automobile accident. On April 4, 2004, eight years later to the day, Casey, who loved his country enough to wear its uniform, died in Iraq. Cindy and Pat's hearts broke, as had ours.

We teach our children right from wrong. We teach them compassion and honor. We teach them the dignity of each life. And then, sometimes, the lessons we taught are turned on their heads. Cindy Sheehan is asking a very simple thing of her government, and she and her family, and most particularly Casey, have paid a very dear price for the right to ask this.

Cindy wants Casey's death to have meant as much as his life - lived fully - might have meant. I know this, as does every mother who has ever stood where we stand. And the President says he knows enough, doesn't need to hear from Casey's mother, doesn't need to assure her that Casey's is not one small death in a long and seemingly never-ending drip of deaths, that there is a plan here that will bring our sons and daughters home. He doesn't need to hear from her, he says. He claims he understands how some people feel about the deaths in Iraq.

The President is wrong.

Whether you agree or disagree with every part, or any part, of what Cindy wants to say, you know it is better that the President hear different opinions, particularly from those with such a deep and personal interest in the decisions of our government. Today, another voice would be helpful.

Cindy Sheehan can be that voice. She has earned the right to be that voice.

Please join me in supporting Cindy's right to be heard.

I grew up in a military family. My father and my grandfather were career Navy pilots. I saw what it meant to live a life every single day when the possibility of an honorable death is always there, at the dinner table, on the playground, at the base school. Will someone's father not come home tonight? And I didn't just feel the possibility, I saw the real thing, and, believe me, it stays with you, it changes you.

I also saw, then and more recently as I campaigned across this country and spent time with courageous military mothers and wives, how little attention is paid to the needs and the voices of military families. It has to change. The sacrifices that our military men and women make assure us that we have the strongest military in the world, but the sacrifices that their families make are too often ignored. The President's cavalier dismissal of Cindy Sheehan is emblematic of a greater problem. This is a mother who raised her son to love his country enough to serve. This is a mother who lived the impossible life of a mother of a soldier serving in Iraq, unable to sleep when he sleeps, unable to sleep when he is on duty, unable to watch the television, unable to stop watching the television.

And when the worst does happen, when the world comes crashing down and she puts the boy she bore, the boy she taught, the boy she loved in the ground, what does that government say to her? It says we'll do the talking; we don't need to hear from you. If we are decent and compassionate, if we know the lessons we taught our children, or if, selfishly, all we want is the long line of the brave to protect us in the future, we should listen to the mothers now.

Listen to Cindy.

Join me so Cindy knows we believe she has earned the right to be heard.

Elizabeth Edwards

Take Action: Click here to support Cindy Sheehan in her struggle to be heard.

http://ga3.org/campaign/speakout/ww37ee74155k73t?

[speedoo]

40. Elizabeth Edwards is her own woman.

She is a mother who lost her son, speaking from the heart about another mother who lost her son, under even more tragic circumstances (that last is my opinion).

I am not cynical enough to believe ther is anything more to her letter than that.

[high density]

29. Well, I don't see any quotes from John Edwards in that article

Though, like earlier posters in this thread, it would not surprise me to see him pointing a moist finger up into the wind and coming to the conclusion that his pro-war stance is not going to get him anywhere in 2008.

[4_Legs_Good]

30. Who?

[Jacobin]

31. It's amazing how our up and coming leaders

shoot themselves in the foot time and time again, taking idiotic positions, thinking it will help them get elected, and then when the consequences of their votes start finally coming to fruition, they start to back away and take another position, only after they deem it politically expedient.

This goddamned adventure in Iraq had FUCK UP written ALL OVER IT from day one.


I'm sick of these people. Sick sick sick.

[beetbox]

32. Political Expediency

Opportunists.

Cut the military budget by 70% and then I'll listen John.

[Township75]

35. Good Post!!!

I agree big time, and I was NEVER excited about the K/E ticket, in fact, I thought it sucked from day 1.

I don't want to name names, and hijack this thread, but I can only imagine how much worse this will be with the Dem nominee in 2008.

[Jacobin]

58. Gawd, I know what you mean

May we speak of the woman wishing for 80,000 more targets in IraqNam?

Nah, I just had lunch.

[Cha]

109. There was a fascinating article

in The Nation about "The Strategic Class" by Ari Berman

Oh Great! I found it online..

<snip>
"The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate."
<snip>
" It's helpful to think of the Democratic strategic class as a pyramid. At the top are politicians like Biden and Clinton, forming the most important and visible public face. Just below are high-ranking former government officials, like UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin. These are the people who devise and execute foreign policy and frame the substance of the message. Virtually all the top advisers supported the Iraq War; Holbrooke, who's been dubbed the "closest thing the party has to a Kissinger" by one foreign policy analyst, even tacked to Bush's right, arguing in February 2003 that anything less than an invasion of Iraq would undermine international law. Many of the officials held high-ranking positions in the Kerry campaign. Holbrooke, frequently mentioned as a potential Secretary of State, urged Kerry to keep his vision on Iraq "deliberately vague," the New York Observer reported. Rubin appeared on television sixty times in May 2004 alone. Nine days before the election, Holbrooke addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and reiterated Kerry's support for the war and occupation, belittled European negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program and endorsed the Israeli separation wall. Hardly a Dove Among Dems' Brain Trusters, read a headline from the Forward newspaper."

" Today, despite the growing evidence that the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq have been a colossal--some would say criminal--failure, what's striking is how much of the pyramid remains essentially in place. As the Iraqi insurgency turned increasingly violent, and the much-hyped WMDs never turned up, the hawks attempted a bit of self-evaluation. Slate and The New Republic both hosted windy pseudo-mea culpa forums. Of the eight liberal hawks invited by Slate, journalist Fred Kaplan remarked, "I seem to be the only one in the club who's changed his mind." TNR's confession was even more limited, with Beinart admitting that he overcame his distrust of Bush so that he could "feel superior to the Democrats." Pollack took part in both forums, and then earned five figures for an Atlantic Monthly essay on "what went wrong." Even at their darkest hour, the strategic class found a way to profit from its errors, coalescing around a view that its members had been misled by the Bush Administration and that too little planning, too few troops and too much ideology were largely to blame for the chaos in Iraq. The hawks decided it was acceptable to criticize the execution of the war, but not the war itself--a view Kerry found particularly attractive. A "yes, but" or "no, but" mentality defined this thinking. Having subsequently pinned the blame for Kerry's defeat largely on the political consultants or the candidate himself, the strategic class has moved forward largely unscarred."<end snip>


I just took snips to show how interesting it is..the whole article lays it out nicely about our little dems..


Much More..
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

[OzarkDem]

118. Like A Bad Flashback

I'll never forget thinking "WTF?" when Kerry began to outline his policies after the primary. They were godawful, vague, contradictory and half baked. His health care policy sucked big time too.

Is it possible to establish an "early retirement fund" for these Dem insider hacks? I'd be happy to contribute. Somebody give them a steady paycheck and send them home.

As for Kerry and the other war hawk candidates, I will have a very hard time trusting them again. Thank goodness for Dean.

[Peace Patriot]

132. Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post! I was wondering who

was feeding Kerry that crap about doing a better war. Now I have names! They probably own shares of Diebold and ES&S, too. Traitors! Criminals! Ghouls! These Dems are making me sick unto death!

[laureloak]

41. Dems don't attack Dems unless they are criminal.

Right?

[blue neen]

119. This Dem is saving her attacking for the criminals in the White House.

I think it would be a good idea for all of us, IMHO.

[CrazyForKucinich]

42. Bush never would have had the power had it none been for

people like Edwards in the Senate and House handing it over to him.

A little too late John, a little too late.

[hopein08]

43. Here's what I noticed about Mrs. Edwards' email...

Every other time I've gotten an email from her it has always had the "One America" banner/logo thing on top. With the email letter about Cindy Sheehan, the "One America" banner was conspicuously absent. Instead the banner read simply, "A Message from Elizabeth Edwards." I realize that could mean a variety of things.

1. Elizabeth Edwards did it on her own accord and not as a voice and political tool of her husband. This is highly probable in my humble opinion given the fact that she clearly has a mind of her own and is not afraid to use it.

2. Elizabeth Edwards did it as a measuring stick for what John Edwards should do regarding the war in the future. But then again, I have to wonder why the email was not associated with the One America Committee save for the smallest of print.

3. The message really wasn't from Elizabeth Edwards at all, it was from a strategist lurking in the dark corners of Washington who wants to plan John Edwards' campaign in 2008...or perhaps sink it early. Now there's a conspiracy!

4. Maybe Elizabeth Edwards was against the war from the beginning, before John Edwards voted for it. Maybe now just happened to be the best time for her to say something.

But regardless, I thank Elizabeth Edwards for email. I am glad that she takes the time to care and say something about is important to me. I didn't agree with John Edwards' war stance, it was one of his only pitfalls with me. Perhaps, for that reason, I am a naive apologist but it is just my humble opinion. By the way, I do remember that John Edwards would not talk about his son during the campaign but I also remember a few instances when Elizabeth Edwards did talk about him to make a point, just as she did in the email.

[Skwmom]

44. What a political self-serving opportunist schmuck.

I wonder if the jerk has lost one night of sleep over sending our sons and daughters off to die in Iraq.

[BlueStater]

46. He probably does

You don't know the man. And he certainly doesn't deserve the kind of shit that has been said about him in this topic.

If anything, he doesn't deserve to be called a schmuck.

[TankLV]

54. He's a schmuck.

schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck schmuck

There. I feel better now.

Never liked him all that much in the first place, either - which proves my gut instincts right in the first place.

[BlueStater]

60. Obviously, your instincts aren't worth a shit

I apologize for being so crass but it becomes tiring day after day to read this unjustified bullshit about Edwards (and Kerry). He made a mistake in voting for the war like many other Dem senators. We haven't seen much of him at all in the last nine months so how the hell are any of you supposed to know when he changed his viewpoint about the war?

Frankly, I didn't like Dean all that much as a candidate but I believe he is a good man with his heart in the right place and I would certaintly never call him a schmuck.

Edwards deserves better than this.

[Skwmom]

75. A mistake? Voting because you think it will benefit you politically

is now called a "mistake?" Or maybe it's now a "mistake" because the war is now no longer politically popular.

[BlueStater]

79. Really?

And do you have any proof that Edwards voted for the war because he thought the war would help him politically and not just because he believed, like many other Dem senators, that Iraq was a threat?

God. Where do you people dredge up such bullshit?

[Peace Patriot]

135. The whole world knew that Iraq wasn't a threat! And only U.S.

Senators didn't know? Easy enough to dial up the UN weapons inspectors and ask them--especially knowing what a reliable source Donald Rumsfeld is. (Not.)

*I* knew that Iraq wasn't a threat--just surfing the internet!

That really is deserving of the word "bullshit"--that they didn't know.

Their problem as not that the lies weren't lies, and not that they weren't perfectly aware of it, but that the lies were being touted on the front page of the New York Times, and by all of the U.S. news monopolies. It was a PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEM. Casey Sheehan's death. And all the other deaths, including tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by our bombs. A PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEM, to our beknighted War Democrats.

[blue neen]

120. Your sig line says:

"Together we are many. We cannot be defeated."

Calling John Edwards a schmuck 97 times to someone who obviously admires the man does not match your stated philosophy.

Look, I don't know who I want for a candidate in 2008. I don't even want to think about it yet. 2006 is too important. I do know that when the time comes, my mind will be open to credible candidates. At this point, I believe credibility would come to Edwards if he sincerely apologized for his vote on IWR. He'd have to be really convincing though, and back that up with facts that prove it!!

[laureloak]

48. WHEN will some of you understand that we were ALL mislead.

Senators included. Let it go. It's water under the bridge.

I am curious as to why you chose this particular time to stir anti-Edwards sentiment? It's a time when we need to pull together and launch a Peace Movement, not attack our Democratic leaders.

[yurbud]

51. I would support Edward, but Ray McGovern said Senators weren't misled

They were largely in on the joke--and we were the butts.

I wouldn't want someone to run for president who was that gullible and ignorant of foreign policy and history. Few of these guys are pure as the driven snow. I would just prefer that more of them spoke to us like adults instead of like fucking children.

you got it right, Mike. as for congresspeople....some were complicit
others deceived Hope you are doing all you can to spread the truth around
these parlous times r

-----Original Message-----
From: Yurbud
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: a stupid question on case for Iraq war


Mr. McGovern,

I have appreciated your analysis of the lead up to the war in Iraq and
willingness to point out the lies of the Bush administration, but one
aspect of the case still bothers me that few have touched on.

Even if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, and even more improbably,
the means to deliver them, why would he ever consider using them on theUnited States when it would invite not only his own certain death but the destruction of his entire country? Do people sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil often commit suicide?

There are enough people in Congress with military records to understand this basic calculus, and even more who lived through the Cold War when we were not attacked by an enemy that thousands of nukes, not a handful. Every country that has these seem to use them as a deterrent to attack with the exception of our ally Pakistan who decided to make them one of their export products.

I want to see the Bush people prosecuted to the fullest for their lies
about Iraq, but I wonder if Congress wasn't tacitly if not explicitly
in on the joke, especially given the drooling of the powerful oil
interests over Iraq.

[laureloak]

67. And so who would be your presidential choice?

[yurbud]

84. Edwards, Boxer, Kerry, Gore, Durbin, Conyers...

not necessarily in that order.

I'm a realist about this stuff. I know they know they are lying to us, so we just have a choice of a lesser of two evils, or at best an evil and a partial good.

If you get someone who is at least part good, there's a chance the good will dominate, or they will do more good than harm, or at least less harm than someone like Bush.

Anyone who knows about military affairs and foreign policy who says Iraq is about terrorists or WMD or spreading democracy is lying. Reporters and members of the public who get handed this steaming pile of shit shouldn't even let the pol finish his sentence and tell him to stop insulting their intelligence.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

85. Here's an idea: call Edwards and ask if he was misled or knew they were

lying.

The first would show incompetence on Edwards part.

If he chose the second, ask what he thought it was really about.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[laureloak]

88. OK. You go first. nt

[speedoo]

56. Speak for yourself.

I was not mislead. I knew these mofu's were lying right from the start. And the Senators supposedly had more info that showed they were lying than any of us did.

[Jacobin]

57. Uhm, speak for yourself

DU was not misled. 10 million protesters were not misled.

Anyone paying attention was not mislead.

It was political expediency and it was a stupid vote.

[Skwmom]

59. Give me a break! The old "we were mislead" line doesn't cut it.

Furthermore, to many it's not just water under the bridge. Rewarding those who sent this country to war would only serve to encourage further self-serving political votes in the future.

Democratic "leaders" like Edwards are the reason the Democratic Party is in such bad shape.

[laureloak]

66. No, we're not in trouble due to Democratic leaders.

We're in trouble because of political games.

[Skwmom]

77. And who plays those political games? n/m

[laureloak]

90. Ahhhh. Fellow Dems - a great lot.

[MrTriumph]

111. The Dem "leadership" has appeased Bush at every turn

Get real, Laureloak! The Dem.s in the Senate went "fishin'" and gave W a blank check to go to war. If remember correctly about 1/3 of the Dem.s in the House supported the war resolution, but the Democratic leadership fully supported it.

It wasn't that long ago. We remember.

Oh, and if I and millions of other patriotic Americans knew the Iraq invasion was a terrible idea and would likely end in disaster, how come my party leaders couldn't anticipate the problems?

[laureloak]

133. It hasn't ended and don't tell me to GET REAL.

[MrTriumph]

134. You can cry and pout, but the reasons for Iraq war were a fraud. GET REAL

You can cry and pout, but the reasons for Iraq war were a fraud and the leadership of the Democrats is congress was complicit.

Democrats should and do take their leaders to task when their leaders are wrong.

GET REAL!

[laureloak]

139. Attack the Bush administration - NOT DEMOCRATS!

[Robeson]

65. I wasn't, and not many here were...

...we knew Bush had a hard-on to go into Iraq, and politicians who use that "we were mislead" stuff are being totally disingenuous. They knew more than we did, that Bush was going in come hell or high water.

Sorry, I don't by the "we were mislead" excuse. Anyway, if they actually believed the words coming out of Bush's mouth, then they are too naive for my taste.

[not fooled]

99. oops...

"WHEN will some of you understand that we were ALL mislead."

...ain't necessarily so. It was very possible to find out that the reasons for going to war were trumped-up bs. Many many people knew this and knew that the PNACers were hell-bent on attacking Iraq regardless of the reasons or consequences.

Politicians voting for the IWR should have known better (e.g., Kindasleazy stating that Iraq was no threat--see F 9/11 for the clip.). So, those who voted Yes were either ill-informed or knew better and thought they were doing the politically expedient thing. Either way, sucks big-time.

[ariesgem]

106. Mislead? Speak for yourself.

Millions of informed people were marching in the streets protesting *ush's plans to go to war.

A child could have asked common sense questions and sorted through the issues that lead to this war and came to conclusion that war with Iraq was not justified.

A. Iraq did not attack this country.

B. They were NOT capable of attacking this country. The US had them CONTAINED.

C. The weapons inspectors were in place and had access to inspect for any further weapons programs.

D. What about Osama?

*ush did NOT connect the dots to justify going to war with Iraq. For the millions of people that were marching, writing, emailing & faxing "representatives" BEGGING them to vote against this insanity our "representatives" tuned us out and voted for this, including Edwards.

[turbo_satan]

53. Bzzzzzzzzzt!!! Too late...

Thank you for playing, though. Too bad you couldn't find your balls when you had the chance.

[BlueStater]

61. More hate-filled crap

So because he and Kerry lost in a very close election, it's thier fault for "not finding thier balls".

Hate to break it to you but vice presidents typically don't have much of an impact on national elections.

[laureloak]

68. Isn't this infighting the silliest thing ever?

Talking about shooting oneself in the foot. Guess it could be set up intentionally though. I wonder.

[Skwmom]

76. Shooting oneself (or the Democratic Party) in the foot would

be running a pandering phony like Edwards in 08.

[BlueStater]

81. Who has Edwards pandered to?

Well?

[1932]

83. Poor people (and victims of corporate negligence).

The bastard.

[Skwmom]

101. Give me a break.

Where are the FACTS to support Edwards the defender of the poor and abused? Rhetoric from a politician (or his paid pr team) isn't really worth the paper it is written on.

What did he do to help the poor prior to running for president? As an attorney he did ZERO (yes ZERO) pro bono work and he refused to release his tax returns. Then again, what has he really done for the poor since loosing in 04? The whole poverty center thing seems to benefit an Edward's 08 run more than it benefits the poor of this country.

Edwards started off as a corporate attorney and only became a personal injury attorney after winning a big settlement for a corporate client that his firm represented as a favor to the client. Furthermore, while Edwards PR people go on and on about the one case they conveniently forget the doctors that he sued (cases that were weak on evidence but strong on Edward's playing the jury - "She speaks to you through me," the lawyer (Edwards) went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." (A voice over of this alone would hand the election to the Republicans and make a laughing stock of the Democratic Party).

[1932]

143. I'd like to read more about Edwards.

Where'd you get your information?

[ultraist]

148. You obviously are not familiar with his cases.

Your comments sound like a repeat of lies from a primaries Clarkie blog. :eyes:

[BeyondGeography]

74. Especially Edwards

who got blown out in his home state, did nothing for us in the South and failed to deliver rural voters in WV, OH, IA and everywhere else for that matter.

His woeful inability to add votes in key battleground areas should give anyone pause about taking him seriously in 2008.

[BlueStater]

80. Like I said, Vice Presidents do not usually impact elections

Now about you and the rest of the Edwards attackers get over your childish hatred for a good man.

I'm not sure if I want Edwards to be the nominee. Right now I'm sort of backing Wesley Clark. But if Edwards does win the nomination I will vote for him in a heartbeat without hesitation.

[BeyondGeography]

124. Childish post

Hint to newbie: When you respond to a post, address the facts contained therein next time.

Other than that, welcome to the board.

[laureloak]

125. Welcome to the primaries and DU too...

where the silly battle between Edwards and Clark supporters just won't die.

[KamaAina]

64. Would that it be true!

I'd be back in the Edwards camp in a heartbeat. I've always loved what he had to say about the 48 states (uh, wait a minute, we finally got statehood, didn't we? :-) ), but his rah-rah support for the war was a dealbreaker.

Of course, everything in the article is coming from Elizabeth Edwards (is she still on DU?), not John, so it could just be that the reporter is trying to gin up a controversy where nothing exists (sigh)...

[David Zephyr]

78. Great news. Happy to see this.

It's never too late.

[KoKo]

86. About John Edwards and War....

John Edwards totally supported this war and kids who tried to deliver an "Anti-Iraq Invasion Petition" to him at his Raleigh office were faced with litigation to be thrown in jail unless they got a good lawyer. Edwards didn't take kindly to his constuents who were opposed to Iraq Invasion.

There are many bitter, angry NC'linians who didn't want the Iraq Invasion even though they supported the Afghanistan Invasion..who worked hard and gave what they could for Edwards to defeat our RW/Repug Faircloth. We thought Edwards would be the first STRONG DEM to be in the SENATE for North Carolina.

We never saw anything from him but DINO Votes on every Bill ...and that he hit the ground running for the Presidency. His vote for Invasion of Iraq was the last straw when he wouldn't even meet with those of us AGAINST THAT.

His Wife...is a horse of a different color. Elizabeth always "Got It."

But...he never has... He might be a wonderful human being...but his sense of Politics and his own Constiuents' who "brung him to the party" was LACKING...every step of the way as he crossed his loyal supporters and ran after the DLC Crown.

I don't think much of him. But, I and other NC'linians walked the streets for Edwards and Kerry...we worked our butts off...even knowing what we did because we knew Kerry would be the President and Edwards would be Vice-President. We thought he might have time to grow in that slot.

Sadly...it's what it was...and they lost. But, if only they had listened to the information that was coming out about PNAC/NeoCon's and the lies that got us into the Iraq Quagmire.

And, if only, they had listened to those who knew "Something Crooked was going on in Ohio."

They didn't. So, I have no "respect" for them. When a politician doesn't listen to their constiuents...they will always lose no matter how many "High Profile Dem Public Relations Ops they bring in to "Spin their Message" in the end...they should listen to those who voted them in. Neither Kerry nor Edwards ever understood that ...it seems, anyway.

[1932]

87. Is this the protest you're talking about?

http://indyweek.com/durham/2002-10-02/porch.html

It doesn't say anything about being threatened with litigation (or being arrested).

[KoKo]

91. There was a Protest in his Raleigh Office where "Peace Workers" from

Raleigh Unitarian Church who was VERY active in "Anti Iraq Invasion Activities" went with their kids to try to meet Edwards and were held back from meeting with him. The more "agressive amongst them" ended up in Jail and their parents were pissed. They had no idea Edwards folks would actually go after their children.

THEN...many of us including some who are active DU'ers protested with almost 300 Protestors outside a $1,000.00 a Plate Dinner where the "High Roller Dems" were meeting to Fete Edwards. We stood out there for several hours with our signs, and "THIS DU'er" and probably many others had recieved an "Invite" to this very function because we'd given heavily to Edwards.

Instead we who had given and worked for him were "cordoned off" outside the Dem Mansion for the FundRaiser...and Edwards appeared with his coterie of guards and went inside without so much as a wave to all of us with our protest "Iraq Invasion Signs" standing outside. We waited...and waited...and waited and after a couple or maybe close to three hours he sent a "spokesperson out." Whatever his person said..most of us in the very back of this large protest could hardley hear it..and it seemed to be (looking back) almost a Bush Speech..canned, ready for delivery by a Lackey in case the Messenger wasn't up to it...and it fell flat.

I could have done alot of things that night I stood outside waiting for MY SENATOR to speak to me...but instead I chose to stand with my sign...hoping he would tell us why he voted to send "Innocents to their Death...hoping he could explain why when no matter what Info we sent him ...like "forged documents," questions about Intelligence and why the "Selection 2000 had gone forward with very few Dems even protesting" No matter what we faxed him...he didn't listen. He sent us "form letters" about "Saddam is a bad man...our national security is focused on routing the Terrorists..yadda...yadda...yadda.

Edwards was such a HUGE Disappointment along with that POS Erskine Bowles who set my family back some$$$'s on his first run that I've been bitter and angry about it ever since.

They were NO BETTER than Repugs....I wasted my money and efforts on the both of them...and I was involved...so don't give me crap that I don't know what I'm talking about, here. It was all disgusting...and that's why NC has a STRONG HEALTHY DEAN ACTIVIST GROUP! Former Nader, Kucinich and anybody but Bush folks are working DAY AND NIGHT TO GET THE DINO'S OUT OF NC!!

[1932]

95. do you have a link for that event?

Are you sure it's not the one in the article?

[KoKo]

121. No this isn't the link to the group of students at NCState who went to

his office with a petition...but the same thing happened to them as the couple mentioned in this article except that they were arrested. Edwards did apologize later but not until the parents had to get a lawyer. He didn't personally call the cops it was his staff that did it, but all the same it shows where he was coming from on the Iraq Invasion.

The other protest I talked about was mostly adults who stood with signs quietly outside Edwards $1,000 a plate fundraiser in Raleigh. Many of us had been invited to attend it! But, we were outside hoping he would come and speak to us about how and why he supported Iraq.

I'd have to go through the Raleigh News & Observer articles to find the articles...don't have time to do it. There was a time when I thought John Edwards could be president...when he first ran for Senate here. Loved his charm and enthusiasm. He went after it too soon, I think. He needed time to grow, and learn that your constituents are the most important. Maybe he's the "new breed" who thinks the fundraisers and party politico's are the most important, though. In that case, don't think given how angry we Dems are, at this point,that he will get another chance to run. It would be very hard for him to go from "private life" back to running for President. Maybe he could do it...but hopefully someone else will emerge. A Governor with experience. We seem to do better with Governors.

[1932]

144. I think I read somewhere that Senators do better in open elections

and Governors do better against incumbants.

Gore (ex-Sen) beat Bush (gov) in an open year.

Clinton beat a senator in a closed year, but beat an incumb as a gov.

Dukakis, a gov. lost against Bush in an open year.

Reagan, a gov, beat a senator as an incumb, and, as gov beat and incumb (exception to rule).

Carter (gov) beat an incumb.

Nixon, an incumb, beat a senator, but won as senator in an open election.

Johnson, an incumb beat a senator.

Kennedy, a senator, beat another senator in an open year.

and so on...

So it seems like being a senator isn't really a liability in an open election, but being a governor helps against an incumbant.

Perhaps it's because you need to look like a chief-exec when you're running from someon who is a chief executive, but if nobody is a chief executive, people are willing to look at what you stand for.

I'm still interested in reading about the NC State students if you can find the article.

it seems like so often people's memories are colored by other things.

[ultraist]

152. "cordoned off" of the Gov's mansion?

Don't you mean you were not allowed within the fenced area that is contained by a locked gate? There is a large rod iron fence that surrounds the Gov's mansion. Get real. You are not conveying the FACTS.

It's not unreasonable to not allow protestors on the front yard, behind the fence.

[charlie]

153. NC Democratic Party Headquarters

Not the governor's mansion.

[ultraist]

154. OH! Well there really isn't a front yard at the NC Dem party HQ

There's a big ole front porch, with a tiny front yard. The house is right up on the sidewalk. So, what the poster is really saying, is that they weren't allowed INSIDE the party HQ to disrupt the fundraisr.

[charlie]

155. Dunno

You'll have to ask Koko. But it's true that a pair of representatives were denied audience -- they were first told that a $100 cover charge for each was required for entrance, then told that the money needed to be in the form of a check after it was raised amongst the protesters, then refused when the checks were produced. He really didn't want to meet with them.

http://www.trianglefreepress.org/april03/local.html

[ultraist]

156. Meet with them at a fundraiser? Get real.

The protestors were making a statement but certainly didn't expect to disrupt a fundraiser. If I had paid a hundred bucks, I'd be be pissed if protestors were allowed to take it over.

As the article notes, a paying anti war person DID get to talk to him at the fundraiser, but had purchased his ticket in advance. He wan't there to disrupt, but actually have a conversation.

It's silly to think they should have let a bunch of rowdy protestors into a private fundraiser.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

140. That Is a Pretty Shocking Allegation

Do you have any third party sources of any kind that relates this story? Thanks.

DTH

[struggle4progress]

89. If Edwards had taken a different stand on the war, he'd be in office today

[Catchawave]

110. But wasn't he supporting Bush "intelligence" too ?

I mean, based on the information the Congress was given at the time Bush wanted his War, didn't most vote for it?

[struggle4progress]

117. I think he's a smart small town boy who really didn't understand ..

.. what liars the Bushistas are, despite many of his constituents warning him ...

[Catchawave]

127. We were all duped after Colin's dog and pony UN show....

Ah, I remember it well.....



U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell holds up a vial to demonstrate how a small amount of anthrax could kill many people. He said U.N. figures suggest that Iraq has enough material to produce 6,600 gallons of anthrax. Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council Wednesday.
=====================http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/feb03/116225.asp

[laureloak]

130. I admire someone more for admitting a mistake than claiming

they were right all along(after the fact of course).

[Kolesar]

142. Hardly

[dad]

145. NO

We were not ALL duped... .a lot of us could smell bullshit from a mile away ... Kerry and Edwards should have known better too .. so speak for yourself.

[laureloak]

128. Sure. When support for the war was at what %?

If you guys want to unravel who did or said what to whom, do it against the Bush administration - not another Democrat. Ask yourself why this sort of thread always shows up on DU just when things are coming together for Democrats.

[The Traveler]

94. Only an insane man

would insist on staying the course and riding this bus over the edge of the cliff. This war was precipitated on false pretenses, and thus lacks moral grounding. It was planned under false assumptions about the reactions of the Iraqi people to our invasion and occupation. The postwar reconstruction was managed like a slop trough for all of Bush's gluttonous procine friends, rather than used as an opportunity to jump start the Iraqi economy and Iraqi pride.

It was inadvisable to have invaded Iraq under such flimsy grounds without much more explicit popular support from the Iraqis. Still, having done so, we could have won this fight. We could have won their hearts. But we acted like a pack of arrogant greedy assholes, and threw in some rape and torture scandals just to spice things up. Outside the Green Zone, Americans are at best mistrusted and worst hated.

With only 130,000 troops deployed over there, if a general rising occurs, we are truly fucked.

[laureloak]

97. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[The Traveler]

100. Yes it is.

Sad the man who cannot learn even from this, like Bush. He holds onto this war like a coke addict clutching his last little bag. Oh, he IS a ... never mind. :evilgrin:

[Skittles]

123. YOU QUIT IT

A LOT OF US WARNED OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WELL BEFORE WE INVADED

[laureloak]

131. And you can prove that?

[Skittles]

141. DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THE PROTESTS?

YES, GO BACK INTO THE DU ARCHIVES SEE FOR YOURSELF - there are quite a few of us here who were NEVER FOOLED by this piece of shit lying misadministration - WE ALWAYS KNEW INVADING A COUNTRY WHICH WAS NEVER A THREAT TO AMERICA WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA

[Paula Sims]

102. I must be really tired

When I read the heading about John Edwards I thought of the other John Edward, the guy who talks to dead people. Didn't CNN do a "breaking story" that John Edward supported *. With a different stance, now THAT would have been interesting. . .

[Catchawave]

114. Edwards 2008 !

I love this guy....whoo-hooo, who cares about politics <snort>

[laureloak]

129. And beyond!!! Go Edwards!

[MrTriumph]

136. Nice job of shilling for Edwards. Are you on his staff?

GET REAL.

If Edwards is such a fantastic leader, why couldn't he see Iraq was a foolish venture?

I will give him credit that in one of the last primary debates, when asked if he regretted his pro-war senate vote and he responded yes.

That's fine. But why, AGAIN I ASK YOU, if millions of us could see going into Iraq was a stupid mistake, couldn't a US Senator?

[Catchawave]

138. Thanks for noticing the anti-Edwards posts too!

The Trib article certainly set the mood, huh? Elizabeth's petition for Cindy is posted in the DU Activist forum :hi:

[ultraist]

151. When Elizabeth donated to Andy, she was a hero

And people pledged to work for her husband if she did donate. Interesting, how quickly some "forget" or jump to smear someone when they aren't doing for them.

[Pastiche423]

158. WTF?

If Elizabeth donated to Andy, it was long AFTER the election.

You make no sense.