Edwards to decide soon on '08 White House bid

[ripple]

'Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, finishing a three-day trip to Iowa, said Monday he's seriously considering another run for the presidency and won't let the potential entry of fellow Democrat Tom Vilsack into the race affect his decision about campaigning in Iowa.

"Obviously if the governor decides to run that will be a huge factor here in his own state," Edwards said.

"I don't think what other people do is going to influence what decision I make, and then if I decide to run, how."'

more...

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS09/604110395/1056

[The Wielding Truth]

1. I hope he gets in there and tests the waters. He has been true to his

words ans would make a great Federal leader.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Good news.....Edwards needs to hit the ground running to overcome

the media obsession with Mark Warner. There's only going to be ONE serious candidate left to fight Hillary after New Hampshire, and Edwards, Warner, Clark and Feingold all look like possibilities at this point.

[Triana]

12. Has Hillary said she may run?

I remember her saying she would not. The only people insisting she will are Republicans and the "news" media.

[Rowdyboy]

14. I don't believe she's ever stated firmly one way or the other on 2008....

I'd like to believe her plans were to remain in the senate, but her fundraising indicates otherwise. Her bank account is reputed to be over $50 million at present with expectations of close to $100 million by the fall election. Neither of her opponents is likely to offer any serious challenge, and there's no need for nearly that much money unless she had grander ambitions.

There's a difference between Republicans and the media "insisting" that she will run", and a simple, common-sense observation that assumes she'll be a major candidate. I think most politically aware voters of both parties assumes she'll run.

[reprobate]

22. Robert Dreyfuss on TomPaine.com says Billary has the party support.

TomPaine.com


At least one leading Democratic foreign policy strategist is upset with the party's refusal to contradict the president. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter administration über-hawk who become an Iraq dove, provided the bluntest commentary on why the Democrats shy away from confronting the Bush administration’s war-based foreign policy. Brzezinski, appearing on the April 5 "Diane Rehm Show" on NPR, noted the traditional sad critique that Democrats fear being seen as weak or vacillating on issues related to national security. But then he put the real blame squarely where it belongs: on Bill and Hillary Clinton. The former president, he said, wants his wife to be president, and together they have determined that this goal can best be reached by Hillary disguising herself as the reincarnation of Maggie Thatcher. And since Hillary the Iron Lady II is the frontrunner for the 2008 nomination, she sets the tone for the rest of the party, said the former national security adviser.

<end snip

If she gets the nomination after all she's said, almost admitting to shifting to the republican right, I'm finally going to give up the Democrat Party as a dead horse, and go green.

[brentspeak]

23. The Republicans want Hillary Clinton to be the Dem nominee

Because they know she would carry a total of about five states.

[Copperred]

64. SHE WILL BE CRUSH

FROM AN OHIOAN WHO HAS LIVED ON BOTH COAST FROM YEARS>..

HILLARY IS DEAD IN THE HEARTLAND ...WE WILL BE GIVING THIS AWAY.


PUT EDWARDS/CLARK UP THERE AND YOU MAY HAVE A 16-YEAR WINNER ON YOUR HANDS

[Seabiscuit]

25. You forgot about Poland, er... Al Gore.

[Rowdyboy]

29. Trust me, if I believed there was ANY chance he might run, I'd have him...

annointed as the "anti-Hillary". If Gore entered it would immediately become a 2 person race with Senator Clinton the underdog. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any way Gore could be persuaded to run. Until he shows some TINY hint that he might, I'd rather not get my hopes up.

Yes, he COULD do it, he just doesn't appear to have the stomach for it. Considering his experience in the past, I really can't say that I blame him much. It has to hurt to win the presidency and still lose the election.

[Seabiscuit]

35. I agree, but still hold out hope...

If things continue to deteriorate at the pace they have during the past year, Al may be convinced to discard his professor's robes and save the nation from impending catastrophe.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. He'll run and he should

Obfuscated during the hubbub of the '04 primary season (well, the '03 to '04 season) was that he is a true populist. His tireless haranguing against those who want to shift the tax burden that sustains society from wealth to work was largely ignored by the corporate media, and his initiatives for rural aid, respect for unions and a host of other issues that SHOULD be the core of liberal and progressive desires were also drowned in the simplistic dismissal of him as a kid and an opportunist. The right fears him because the left and the middle like him.

Unlike many other potential candidates, he is approachable. A southern representative who would be committing political suicide by talking seriously with a Kerry or Hillary could easily be seen dealing with a backwoods boy like him who made good. He's also got the touch: he knows how to communicate with people and he has his temper in check. More than anything else, the presidency demands poise, diplomacy and subtlety; he is unmatched in these traits. There's also the charisma and style that truly works.

May his time in the wilderness be fruitful.

Once again, too: remember that the American fixation with the leading man concept is ridiculous. Should he not be able to be a viable candidate for president for any number of reasons, the man is a great resource to us as a people. With his poverty center, he is shedding light onto one of the great unmentionables of American life: all is not perfect in "paradise". There are many positions that are extremely important and generally left ignored by our cultural winner-take-all mania about the top slot: Attorney General, Secretary of State, Ambassador, Supreme Court Justice and a host of others. He has heeded the call to service, and will hopefully be taken up on his offer.

This is a man who admits his mistakes. This is a man who doesn't shy away from them, while also explaining the various influences along the way.

I still say that had we nominated him in '04 it would have been impossible for the reactionaries to get close enough in the polls to steal the election, but that's just me...

[KittyWampus]

41. Edwards is emphatically NOT a populist if you look at his policy platforms

at least, he's no more then Kerry, Dean or pretty much any of the other Democrats running were.

[GreenArrow]

44. right

he utilizes populist themes for his own ends, but he is hardly a populist.

[1932]

66. more detail?

what policies are you talking about?

[saltpoint]

4. For me, the question Edwards has been asked about whether he's

running for president in 2008 is less the point than whether we want someone of his temperament and character near power.

I certainly do.

And to Edwards' great credit, most of last year when reporters asked him if he was running, his answers heavily involved concern over Elizabeth's health and well-being.

I think there are a lot of politically viable and ethically strong candidates in the Democrat line-up for 2008.

John Edwards is undeniably one of them.

[dolstein]

5. If only we could create a hybrid of John Edwards and Mark Warner

If only Mark Warner had John Edward's "son of a mill worker" back story and folksy disposition. The resulting Mark Edwards hybrid would be unstoppable. As it is, if both Edwards and Warner run, they'll probably cancel each other out across the South and Hillary will run away with the nomination.

[Ayesha]

18. They should run together!

I think I'd put Edwards in the VP spot again, and the combo could be, as you say, unstoppable.

[Ignacio Upton]

24. Unfortunately, you might be right about them canceling each other out

In the next election, the six big candidates will be (if we buy into speculation): Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Warner, and Feingold....with possibly Biden, Bayh, and Vilsack, who won't poll higher than 2% a piece. Clark, Warner, and Edwards are all southern candidates, and fit the "electability" porfile the best (while many here get frustrated with his, in 2008 a Democrat who is from or lives in a southern state will still be our best chance.) Unfortunately, they will divy up many of their votes, and Clark may lose netroots support to Feingold (who, especially with his courageous, but politically-unpopular support of gay marriage, is unelectable, even if he would make the best President out of any in the field.) Kerry will gain some support from the left for aligning himself with Feingold an Murtha, but people will remember 2004, and for that reason alone he will lose, but possibily get he second-largest amount of delegates. This will give us a Hillary Clinton nomination, sadly.

[Frank Cannon]

6. If Edwards ran in 2008, I'D vote for him

I really didn't know anything about the guy prior to the 2004 election, but he's impressed me at every turn ever since. He'd definitely get my vote.

[Raine]

7. I really like him

I hope he runs! :thumbsup:

[Pastiche423]

8. No way, no how

will I ever support or vote for him. No Bilderberger for me.

[rodeodance]

11. and what if he was the candidate?

[Pastiche423]

15. If you're asking how I would vote...

In my state, we have a write-in line on our Paper Ballots.

On edit: forgot the "in".

[The Wielding Truth]

17. First I've heard of this. Quite ominous. Thanks.the more we know, the

better our decisions. I will be more cautious on support for Edwards now.

[Pastiche423]

20. The discussions are private,

the location is not publicized and only the most powerful may attend.

The 53rd Bilderberg Meeting, a gathering shrouded in secrecy, allegedly took place this past weekend near Munich, Germany, at the Dorint Sofitel Uberfahrt hotel.

- Snip -

Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C) took a break from the campaign trail to attend the meeting last year.

- snip -

This year’s meeting opened with a discussion led by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger about the meaning of “freedom,” according to a May 1 article in the Financial Times.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/051205/leaders.html

[theobscure]

21. Anyone who takes lessons from Henry Kissinger on the meaning

of freedom and aspires to the most powerful position in the world should be feared, and stopped.

[1932]

30. Who was taking lessons from Henry Kissinger?

[theobscure]

31. sorry...my mistake....Edwards was at last years meeting....

Kissinger gave his lecture on the meaning of freedom at this year's meeting. Still, any organization that would consider Dr. Kissinger an appropriate authority on defining freedom should be feared and any person associated with such an organization should not be trusted.

[1932]

32. I might be wrong, but I thought the NYTimes reported that Edwards

went (at Kerry's request, because Kerry couldn't go, and because Kerry wanted to see how Edwards would do) so that he could participate in a Republican values vs. Democratic values debate with some Republican clown like Ralph Reed. If I remember correctly, as well, somebody (probably a Democrat partisan) said that Edwards got a standing ovation, and some other person (probably a Republican partisan) was quoted in the same article as saying that Edwards got a "warm" but not overwhelming response and that his presentation was essentially his stump speach.

Also, I don't think Edwards went but once (2004). I think they only invite two people per country to present (not including spectators?) and I think it was Edwards and the Republican he debated in '04. Last year Warner was one of the American presenters and, I think, Kissinger was the other. I think the only reason Edwards went at all was because Kerry was invited and passed the invite on to Edwards. I'd be surprised if he would get invited otherwise.

Anyway, this is all speculation and vague memory.

[theobscure]

33. well,,,,I don't know, seems to me a person who portrays themselves..

as a populist would decline an invitation to rub elbows with the power elite in their little secret society. Maybe that's just me. To be honest though, I tend to paint most Republicans and Democrats with the same brush in this regard. They no longer represent us. They've betrayed democracy for money, power, or both.

I assume most people though won't care about this and regard it as just the realities of politics.

[Catchawave]

36. Secret society ?

Conspiracy theory because it's invitation only and closed to the media ?

[theobscure]

38. ok whatever....closed society ..how's that?

geez...the hair splitting that will go on when people don't want to address the real point. It's a closed society of the power elite with a secret agenda. If it doesn't bother you and you want to keep pretending that Republicans and Democrats don't have anything in common, fine. I acknowledged that to most people this would be meaningless. So there's no reason to worry that this will tarnish your man at all. So it just looks silly to react with red herrings and hair splitting to try and mitigate it.

[Catchawave]

39. Couldn't find any reputable information

mostly conspiracy, anarchist or RW sources on the net. Did see a NYT article, but I'm not going to pay for it :)

Wiki has information too. The guest list seems to be the Who's Who of the world's rich and powerful (Melinda Gates?). Some sites listed Kerry, Gore and Bill Clinton as past attendees too?

From what I could tell, something terrible happens in the world, Bilderberg gets blamed ?

I'm not worried about tarnishing "my man", it's just that I like facts :hi:

[theobscure]

40. hey...like I said, if you want to labor under the delusion that we still

have a government of, by, and for the people, go for it. But don't expect everybody to be gullible enough to believe that Edwards is a populist or "man of the people".

[Pastiche423]

42. I highly recommend that you educate yourself on the "facts"

Otherwise, continue to be like 50% of the uneducated and apathetic Americans.

The Man knows what's best for us, right?

[GreenArrow]

51. Edwards was invited to the meeting, attended --

much like a debutante at a coming out party -- returned, and then, after his successful performance, was named running mate by Kerry.

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

U.S. Sen. John Edwards at Bilderberg

Milan, Italy, Jun. 6 (UPI) -- Among the 100 or so invitees to the annual Bilderberg conference under way Sunday in a northern Italy resort is potential U.S. vice president John Edwards.

Reporters generally are not invited and those who are observe the conference group's general pledge of secrecy, reinforcing the view of conspiracy theorists that the elite gathering is up to no good, London's The Guardian newspaper reported.

Sen. Edwards is regarded in Democratic circles as a good performer in his battle with Sen. John Kerry for the nomination to be presidential candidate and so is expected to be a finalist when Kerry chooses a running mate.

Other invitees are Mrs. Bill Gates and likely are regulars Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger and U.S. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld.

The Bilderberg tradition began in 1954 as a transatlantic post-war sounding board.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. You hate him because you long since decided he hates the disabled

To throw up flak about anything else is deeply disingenuous.

He voted to confirm a judge who had a spotty past regarding the disabled, and you've fought endlessly over the last three years to slag him to no end. Regardless of his stated policies on the rights of the challenged and his voting record, you simply refuse to admit that you're biased to a shocking and blinkered degree. We've tussled endlessly about this, and in the light of repeated refutations, you cling to a prejudice that is so personal that the very idea of questioning it would somehow be a public defeat that you simply couldn't endure.

Your issue is his vote on one judge, and your having lived in North Carolina is an excuse to have some kind of prescience.

If you could spend your energy in a constructive way, this wouldn't be so bothersome, but the only times you seem to post are to attack this man. Do you EVER post about anything else? It certainly doesn't seem so.

Were you to be consistent and at least carp honestly on the same issue, that would be one thing, but you don't.

To those of you not familiar with this, this person has been a tireless spoiler, and when confronted with Edwards' true stances on the rights of the disabled, she rages and diverts attention to other points. This is a long-standing bit of silliness, and should be seen as such.

Moderators, if this is something you see as a personal attack, try to be mindful and tolerant of the history here: this person seems to live to trash John Edwards, and has used personal attacks and innuendo to further her cause, while expecting some kind of blank check due to her physical issues.

This is beyond a vendetta, and it's tiresome. Certainly, to hide behind the ruse of being bothered by his having addressed a questionable organization is questionable at best, and dishonest by most measures.

This is revolting.

[theobscure]

28. good lord, that's the mother of all red herrings...

the man is a Bilderberger isn't he? Why go on a diatribe against someone for merely pointing out a fact and a personal conviction based on that fact?

[PurityOfEssence]

47. He spoke to them; does that make him a member?

This person uses every excuse to buttress her dislike, regardless of having her initial contention well refuted. More than that, she hides and snipes and simply can't show up for anything other than to rage against him.

Is he a bilderberger? Not as far as I know. I've followed this man for years, was an early supporter for his presidential bid (in 2001, no less) and find him to be a true champion of the downtrodden. You contend that he's one of the shadowy elite of globalization. Is he? What evidence do you have? Why tar one of the few heroes of the masses with this crap? Do you know ANYTHING other than his having spoken to them as a guest speaker?

This is worse than innuendo; it's sloppy gossip based on nothing.

No. He is not a "Bilderberger"; do you have any information to refute this?

Back to the main point: this poster has a knotted hatred that's wrapped up in her ego and a need to never admit a mistake. John Edwards is a champion of the common person, including those burdened with disabilities. The poster above rages against any evidence, and uses ANY means to slag him to no end.

Consult with the other old-timers around here (I've been posting regularly since the spring of '01) and you'll find nothing but knee-jerk paroxysms of rage against Edwards from this poster, even when confronted with point-by-point refutations of her contentions. Some people have such rigid personalities that they must prevail despite anything, and this poster is a poster child for such an affliction.

[theobscure]

48. I don't know if he's a card carrying member...

I don't have access to his wallet. It would seem to me, however, that someone who portrays themselves as a populist or "man of the people" would avoid a group of this sort like the plague. The fact that he chose not to, is reason enough for me to suspect his "non-elitist" credibility.

[PurityOfEssence]

49. Have you ever heard about outreach? It's one of his greatest traits.

This guy can walk with cabbages and kings, and chooses to do so in order to bind the wounds of the country and world. Those who don't want dialogue either don't understand how the world works or are habitual tough-guys who want to throw down the gauntlet and declare war against powerful entities. More than anything else, the value of this man is his approachability and his willingness to approach others. Nixon went to China; does that make him a communist?

The rich and powerful of this world are VERY rich and powerful; they need to be engaged and convinced that populist programs are to their advantage. To harangue, isolate, hector or demonize those who attempt dialogue with disparate factions is counterproductive.

Let's get back to the main point I raised: the speech to the Bilderbergers is a smokescreen for the poster in question; she has a ego-based prejudice of the worst kind against Edwards, and will use any smokescreen or camouflage to slag him to no end. Edwards is nowhere near being a tool of the elite; his having spoken to this power bloc that time was to show that he wasn't some screaming wild-eyed bolshevik bent on destroying them. He's inclusive. He's inclusive in a deep and sincere way, and this messes with the heads of strident obstructionists and factional maniacs. This guy is for real, and those who don't get that are constantly perplexed with their simplistic worldview being rattled.

By what conceivable measure do you think he's a tool of monied power? Here's a guy who's made his political cause the representation of the weak and abused. Here's a guy who's actively taken on the cynical shifting of the tax burden from the non-working rich to wage earners. There's a wacky belief that he's somehow "too good to be true", but this is torpedoed by any rational analysis of his votes and advocacy. Just because he's good-looking, polished, well-spoken and yet endearingly homespun, many want to paint him as a huckster. That's beyond cynicism. This guy is a for-real believer in the communal well-being, and he's risked his political career continuously to follow his heart.

You buy into the dismissal of him as a running dog for the man, but do you have any basis for this?

Don't listen to serial disruptors like the poster who spawned this mini-thread, and if you do, please check out the details of the politician in question.

[GreenArrow]

50. "Edwards is nowhere near being a tool of the elite"

Edwards is a tool of his own ambition, and thus easily used as a tool by the power elite.

"Risked his political career?" What's that, his one term in the Senate, a good portion of which was taken up with his failed bid for higher office?

But to each his or her own; I won't vote for the guy.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Fighting tax cuts, fighting banking "reform"

His one term was not just a springboard to greater glories; his record is exemplary.

Just whom WILL you support?

[GreenArrow]

54. just whom will I support?

A good question, that. Considering that I live in a red state, I have a bit of leeway there. I am not inclined to vote for anyone who voted for IWR and acted as an apologist for our efforts in Iraq. I am doubly dis-inclined to vote for anyone who voted for IWR and then, when the polls, and the facts on the ground, said it was safe to do so, suddenly saw the light, and regreted his or her vote, while still insisting on the primacy of US imperial goals in the region. I'm not taken with someone who makes a show of his good works while concurrently plotting a run for political office. I'm not interested in cliches, bromides, and pie-in-the-sky.

The system is rotten, and the scum, not the cream, tends to rise to the top. Should we be faced with, say, a McCain/Edwards battle in 2008, I'd be likely to vote third party, or abstain. Living in a red state affords one such luxuries.

There are any numbers of house members who I would support, Kucinich and Conyers being the most prominent among them.

I don't have real high hopes for 2008, even if the Democrats regain the Presidency.

[theobscure]

52. I fully confess to my cynicism....

I happen to believe we are in such precarious times that we can't take a chance on an establishment candidate or one that panders to them or one that even gives the appearance of possibly pandering to them. It's also entirely possible that we've already reached the point where a candidate doesn't even stand a chance to be elected without the blessing of elites of this sort.

If his plan is to get the elites to see the light, I don't think he has the brains to be president. He would be much better served spending his time talking to people in Walmart parking lots. But if he can somehow convince Henry Kissinger to turn himself in as a war criminal, I will personally carry John Edwards on my back to Washington D.C.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. sounds like self-reflective perfectionism

Boy, if this guy doesn't have "the brains to be president", then you've set the bar at a ridiculous level. Except for his wife, Barney Frank and perhaps Wes Clark, there isn't anyone on the national stage these days with comparable circuitry.

Beyond this assessment of his ability, one should examine his actions. This is the man who fought tirelessly to refuse Ashcroft the position of Attorney General, taking the fore when just a newcomer. As a junior senator, he literally cashed in a lot of capital to deny Ashcroft a position of power, he fought for campaign finance reform and was tireless in fighting the ruinous tax cuts.

If this guy's not smart enough, we're in a real pickle. If he's not noble enough for you, you need to research his record.

If bringing Kissinger to justice is some kind of benchmark for you, then there is no politician in office these days who meets your stringent standards. Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark, Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders, Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and a host of others are just poseurs not worthy of note by these standards.

This is silly.

[LittleClarkie]

55. One year. Only one

And only invited I reckon because he might be president.

Meanwhile, I rank Bilderberger talk up there with Skull and Bones talk, as in "Gee, it's secret so it must be evil." I expect to hear that on Coast to Coast, not here.

[jaysunb]

9. Don't run John !

Pesident Gore will need you as either Secretary of State or a replacement for Justice Stevens........

[rodeodance]

10. Peachy face (my term of endearment) was my choice before kerry got

the primary.

[Ignacio Upton]

13. If he wasn't Kerry's runningmate, then I would say he has a chance

But he has a taint to him that will hurt his chances. However, it's not like being the VP nominee of a losing ticket can prevent you from becoming President. FDR was James Cox's runningmate in 1920 and they got crushed. Of course, FDR become Governor of New York long after that. Should Edwards run for Governor in 2008 if Mike Easley steps down, then he could run in 2016.

[BlueInPhilly]

16. He did not even carry his state in '04!!!

There are really no 2nd chances in presidential politics, I don't think.

[Ignacio Upton]

19. Being the running-mate doesn't make a different in carrying certain states

Lloyd Bentsen couldn't carry Texas for Dukakis, but that it because voters never think of the guy on the bottom of the ticket. Yet simultaneously people associate the guy at the bottom with being a "loser."

[skipos]

26. Sure, but I doubt Edwards would win NC even if he was our nominee

It is too red.

[NJ Democrats]

43. I hope he runs for Gov in '08

and Easley runs against Dole for Senate. i would support Edwards for Gov but not Prez in 2008.

[Catchawave]

34. Go Johnny Go !

He's my first choice so far :loveya:

[goodhue]

37. He should run

He brings much needed attention to issue of poverty. He won't likely be my first choice (at this point it is looking like Feingold), but certainly he is a candidate that I could get behind and support wholeheartedly in a general election.

[admsitio]

45. ANYONE BUT BUSH, PLEASE!

ALL SENATORS AND POLITICS ARE WELCOME ( NOT REALLY ), BUT GOD, I PRAYING... ANYONE BUT BUSH FOR 2008... PLEASE, I CAN DO WHAT YOU DECIDE.

[scout123]

46. He's a charming, intelligent southerner; he can win; HILLARY CAN'T.

I have always thought Edwards was and is the best candidate...for all the reasons many here have already listed. Having said that, I would vote for Hillary if she could win, but she can't. Mark Warner could win, but I think Edwards will outshine him in the debates, as he should because he's more qualified, and probably more likeable. I hope to God people will get a clue in the primaries, and not shoot themselves in the foot and 'split the Southerners'.

...And who wouldn't want a First Lady who's this funny?--

Friday at the Edwards
By Elizabeth Edwards
12/31/2005 at 1:00 EST

Our Christmas was probably a lot like the Christmases celebrated across the country. Family, friends, impatient children. And our after-Christmas has been much like everyone else's too, and today was a good example. The children had little trees in the playroom, and we took those down, leaving the trail of needles across the carpet that we will be digging out until July. The freezer door wouldn't close, so we got a repairman out, who diagnosed the problem right away. He asked me on the phone if my husband is handy. I told him no, but that my next husband would be. He asked how many husbands I expected to have. I told him as many as it took to get a handy one. Then I admitted we had been married twenty-eight years. And since today is my parent's fifty-eighth anniversary, we have a pretty decent target to shoot for, so I guess we will stick it out. :rofl:

[Blackhatjack]

56. Edwards is Smart, Quick Study, Sincere, and stands for poor/middle class

I have followed John Edwards' career as an attorney since I began practicing law in Raleigh, NC, about the same time he did. He is uniquely gifted, outworked all of his opponents, and always gained the praise of those who went up against him. If his son Wade had not died in a tragic automobile accident, I suspect we would not be looking at him in this venue. He is sincere about what he believes in, and puts his money where that belief lies. He invested a huge sum of his own money in establishing a computer learning lab in the name of his son, right across the street from a public school so that underprivileged students could benefit from the best education possible, all at no cost to the students. The computer learning lab also reaches out to the community with free computer courses for adults, and brings in speakers for presentations. He worked with the University of Chapel Hill and established an Anti-Poverty Center, which is doing great work to publicize the need and the policies of this Administration which are increasing poverty. He has travelled extensively overseas and met with foreign leaders and government officials since the last presidential election. I am aware of no other individual who has been totally self-made like John Edwards and brings so much to the table as a candidate. The one thing going against him in the last presidential campaign was a lack of experience. He is much more experienced now, and is not afraid to admit when he has made a mistake. Imagine the opposite of Bush, and you get a clearer picture of who John Edwards is. As for the bilderberg rap, I suspect John Edwards would address most any gathering of rich, powerful, elite individuals --but you would get the same values and the same message he lives by. I do not expect him to be endorsed by the money elite since he would never take on their agenda, and would expect them to start contributing rather than just taking from this country. The question is will people see Edwards for who he really is and what he could do for our country, or will they be dissuaded by 30 sec sound bite attacks, and unsupported criticisms. If you want someone who is not beholden to corporate and wealthy interests, someone who would be a fresh breath of air in the White House, someone who would remind you of JFK in his demeanor and substance, vote for John Edwards. P.S. In case you did not know it, NC is moving back to its historical democratic position --and he would carry NC if the election were today.

[Hobarticus]

57. Heard him speak last weekend in Iowa...

He's hit his stride, I was an Edwards man in '04 and I'm even more impressed by him today. He's gone from perturbed to downright pissed at what's happened to our nation and to the less fortunate on Bush's watch. He's going to be tough to beat, if he throws his hat in.

[Skwmom]

67. It was reported that Edwards told his future wife (Elizabeth) that one

of his future goals was to run for president. (I remember reading it in an article during the 04 primary). Edwards PR team might be good at spinning the facts but he'd be demolished by the GOP in the general election. Edwards is no JFK.

[1932]

69. Ever find that quote from Bush's videogrpher, Andrea (?) Pelosi?

She wrote a lot of nasty, dumb things about the Dems in her book, but I couldn't find the quote you cited.

[Placebo]

59. Never.

It isn't going to happen.

Hillary has the nomination in the bag, deal with it people.

[EFerrari]

60. Hil is the Thug's pipe dream. n/t

[sandnsea]

61. Hillary won't win

The left hates her and is going to go for Feingold. The middle is scared of her and will go for Warner. Alot of women see right through her opportunism. The in-between left and middle have other preferences, like Edwards, Kerry, and Clark. I don't know who will win, but it won't be Hillary.

[ecstatic]

62. One of the only Dem Senators I'm not angry with

Although I should be. I'm disappointed with most of our Senators, but Edwards has kept a low profile, avoiding the hostility of many folks. He should run, for that reason alone.

[Copperred]

63. I dont see how an Edwards/Clark ticket could lose.....

anyone?

[Canuckistanian]

65. Ah, he's just a rich lawyer, he doesn't care

After all, isn't that what Tweety said to Tom Delay?

We must bow to the focus groups. They know all.

[AzDar]

68. John Edwards (minus the IWR vote) is everything I'm looking for

in a candidate. A self-made man; intelligent, and decidedly non-simian in appearance....