John Edwards And Richard Clarke On ABC's This Week With George!

[DistressedAmerican]

Going to watch.

Bonus: Bush Will Not Talk About His Past Drug Use Tapes!

[DistressedAmerican]

1. Edwards Will Not Say He'd Have Voted Against Rice!

Waffling, Waffling, Waffling! Should have stood up to her!

Why not go on record? I do not get it.

[DemDogs]

3. Criticized RIce and Gonzalez, blamed Bush

I thought he was clear about where he would stand -- and better than that, he blamed Bush and Cheney. That was the better response -- lay it at his feet, including the torture memoes.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. How does fighting Rice and Gonzalez not lay the blame at Bush's feet?

They would be opposed for the things they did as part of his administration.

[AP]

14. Because it says that if you don't approve them it solves the problems.

And it presumes that there's someone out there you can vote yes on when it's clear that anyone who gets appointed will do exactly what Bush wants.

That's not saying that there aren't situations where a no vote can say something else besides the buck doesn't stop with Bush, and that's what Edwawrds was trying to explain.

And I'm more impressed with his statement that he's not going to speculate on how he would have voted than I am with some candidates who run for president telling you that if they had a vote they would have voted no when they clearly would have had dozens of considerations that would have had to have made. Would Senator Clark from Arkansas, two years from reelection, in a state where everyone wants a yes vote on the IWR really have voted no, knowing that it could have been used against him and would have got him booted from the Senate. meaning he wouldn't be able to have ANY influence on American FP, even in the capacity of moderating Republican policy goals? Who knows? But if it can get you a few votes, maybe you'll pretend that the senate isn't like a big sausage factory.

[KittyWampus]

17. Since GENERAL Clark Was Willing To Testify Against Invading Iraq

and wrote a book fingering PNAC... it seems pretty likely.

[AP]

19. No it doesn't. Being in the senate, and wanting to stay in the senate

and having to run for reelection is not the same thing as testifying and writing a book.

[Skwmom]

23. Suggesting that Clark would have cast a political self serving

vote like Edwards, Clinton, Kerry, Gephardt and others did is WAY off base. Clark put his future on the line to do what was right in Kosovo. None of these political hacks would have done the same.

[ultraist]

34. It's bad form to speculate how one would vote

Clark voted for Reagan, shall we assume he may vote again for a Republican?

It sounds very presumptious for someone to say, 'IF I WERE ABLE TO VOTE, I'D VOTE AGAINST IT. I am so much better than my collegues. I'm a God.' That's how it comes off.

[blm]

35. That's not true. You don't have to rewrite history to boost Clark. He's a

fine man who wouldn't be anxious to agree with your cutdowns of the others. Every one of them had put forth some strong effort and were dynamic in some areas of government service. ALL of them. To call them self-serving hacks is just petty and ignorant.

You can find one lawmaker who put themself MORE in the line of fire than Kerry, then please post that person's name.

In the meantime, you surely couldn't have forgotten Kerry's efforts to bring Vietnam to an end after his courageous service there?

Then his work in Mass. to install this nation's first rape-crisis center and his prosecution of mob leaders.

Then, bucking the ENTIRE DC powerstructure, Kerry investigated and exposed IranContra, BCCI, and the illegal wars in Central America and wrote a prescient book about the funding of global terror by a network of international financiers and dirty banks that service them.

He was the first Senator to submit legislation to end discrimination of gays and later advocated for gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military, backed up by only a brave few, like his friend Gen. Wes Clark.

He worked for 10 years with other officials from all over the world to craft the Kyoto Protocol and Treaty.

None of these things meet your criteria for what constitutes a good lawmaker willing to put his neck on the line?

[DistressedAmerican]

26. What I Asume Is That I Want Leaders That Will vote NO Everytime

They send up an unacceptable. If we stopped a few rather than just confirming EVERY ONE of them. Let's just try it ONE and see how it goes.

We've tried the playing nicely with them route for 4 yeas. Enough is enough. Reject them AND make it clear that they reject them for their participation in the Bushco. scam.

Who is bad enough appointee for US to stand up? Hitler?

[AP]

31. The bad ones are the four judges the Dems stopped because they'd be

around long after Bush was gone.

[DistressedAmerican]

2. Edwards: "I Don't Support Gay Marriage."

Neither does john Kerry.

That was just another of the soft meaningless positions they took during the campaign. Loosing positions!

[julialnyc]

6. wrong direction

they are still pandering to the imaginary swing voter instead of figuring out who their base is.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. I'm With You. It Is Like Those Of Us That Voted For Them

are assumed to continue voting for them in future. No longer a safe assumption in my opinion!

[DemDogs]

8. He has always been willing to let states decide

Just like they decide all marriage issues. He stated his personal position, which is what he and Kerry always did.
He is personally and politically for all other rights.

The one thing that is clear from Edwards is that he is not pandering. His positions have remained constant on all these hot button issues and he has talked about the issue of poverty and two Americas from the beginning with the understanding that the poor don't vote in as great a number.

You have to respect that, even if you have a different candidate.

[AP]

11. His position is the exact same position Lisa Duggan advocates in...

...The Twilight of Equality, which is an incredibly smart statement of how progressives can win elections.

People who don't understand what Edwards is doing -- which is not waffling, which is not pandering -- are condemned to continue advocating for politicians who are going to lose national elections.

[julialnyc]

13. I don't support what he and Kerry did in regard to

Statements like that. I don't see it as sincere, I see it as trying to have it both ways (which he would get pounced on with the flip flop title again). I want strong convictions instead of excuses. I'm sick of I personally am against it, but think states should choose, or although I am personally against abortion I don't think the government should decide. They need to appeal to a base (a huge base that is waiting to be woken up). Why can't they just say I believe in a woman's right to choose, I believe the gay marriage issue should be settled by the states. No more excuses.

If gay marriage or abortion is someone's number one issue.......and they are against them, they are voting for Republicans anyway.

There are people who are very passionate about social issues who are turned off by this wishy washy talk.

The republicans learned they can get votes by wearing their hate on their sleeve.Democrats can win if they wear their compassion on their sleeve.

[AP]

16. You need to read Lisa Duggan's Twilight of Equality

Saying that you believe one thing, but the role of the government isn't to express your personal religious beliefs IS a strong statement about the proper roll of the government.

[julialnyc]

21. I'm speaking tactically

If Edwards wants to run, he wants to win and I am saying he is not appealing to a base (either is Hillary or Kerry by going this route).

I want to win the next election and feel this drives no passion.

My gay friends cringed when Kerry/Edwards would talk about opposing marriage. These are a large demographic that would vote for them. If they simply said I think states should decide (even Cheney says that)you would have sparked allot more passion......and that is just on demographic.

You can't win by trying to make everyone happy, because in the process you turn off everybody. I think we must figure out who the dems really are and than talk to that base.It is a winning formula.

[AP]

30. Your gay friends need to read Lisa Duggan's book.

There probably isn't a demographic in America more bombarded with conservative propaganda, who are convinced that the wrong things matter, and who look at themselves in ways that aren't going to help, and who participate willingly in a debate that works against their best interests.

It's shocking that the debate about gay rights is framed in terms of fighting in the military and getting married -- ie, in terms of participating in the two most conservative institutions in American society. Why isn't it in terms of workers rights, benefits, health insurance, and in tolerance of differences and in removing hurdles so that talented people can fully apply those talents to society?

And from a pop culture perspective -- look at Will and Grace. Did you know that Republican women love Will & Grace. Know why? Because it desperately tries to fit two gay men into heterosexual relationships (with Grace and Karen). This is the show setting the tone for how gay people see themselves.

Like I said, your friends need to read Duggan's book.

[karynnj]

27. Can be very sincere

I never heard Edwards' reason, but Kerry was sensitive to the use of the word "marriage" which is both a legal and a religious construct. He was for civil unions with all the rights of marriage but not for calling it marriage. You may disagree with his position, but it is almost certainly not insincere. He also said the same thing to the Advocate and MTV that he did to MSM. Vanessa Kerry gave this as an example of where she disagreed with her dad and said it was because of religion. It seems that on this he did have strong convictions - they just disagreed with yours.

Ignoring Kerry or Edwards, if everyone could choose to have a civil union (officiated by people designated by the state) and/or a religious marriage (with a legal document as now), regardless of type of couple and rights flowed equally from these two unions, would this satisfy everyone on the left. To get to this, the fight is to equivalence the rights of civil union to the rights of marriage instead of fighting over the use of the word, marriage.

[julialnyc]

28. I agree with you in concept

but still think they tried to avoid the question. If Edwards had said (to the question of do you believe in gay marriage) I prefer civil unions with all of the same rights, I wouldn't have minded his answer (even though I believe in gay marriage), but it seems like the civil union aspect is only brought up when pushed for it (so they don't turn off people against gay marriage). This should be something they willingly talk about.

[karynnj]

29. I didn't know Edwards position, was commenting on Kerry's

where he did say precisely that in the gay press and on the MTV "choose or loose." I was impressed that Kerry used the same reason (marriage is a sacrement) even where it might not be politically the answer they want to hear.

I never heard much on gay marriage (or almost anything) by Edwards during the campaign = the media seemed to almost never cover him.

[ultraist]

32. Edwards didn't ever avoid the question

He stated from the beginning, before Kerry adopted his same answer, that it should be left up to the states and that an amendment to the Constitution banning Gay marriage was unnecessary and should not be made. If you followed him early in the primaries, you would have heard him say this. Maybe you weren't really following him early on in the primaries.

He continued to say this during the GE campaign as well.

[LizW]

20. I disagree with his position

This is not a marriage issue, it is a civil rights issue. Whether Edwards approves or not, gay people do marry. They have private ceremonies, some religious, some not, with their friends and families present and they set up households and raise cats and dogs and kids.

The difference is that the government does not bestow on homosexual couples the same privileges and benefits it bestows on heterosexual couples who make the same committment. The federal government has historically stepped in when states persist in denying rights to certain groups of individuals.

Edwards' position is politically expedient, and I respect that, but I don't agree with him.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Well and Good. How Did He Feel About Federally Mandated Integration?

Was that just a State's Rights issue too?

That argument would be fine if it was always the standard. But it is applied selectively. Why is one civil rights issue (minority rights) the domain of the federal government while the other (gay right)should be left up to the states?

I do respect a lot of what he stands for but this is soft, spineless and allows discrimination to continue. That is WRONG.

We need to hold our elected officials to some hard standards even if the other party does not.

[ultraist]

33. Edwards was the only candidate that talked about racism

Aside from Sharpton. That's an unfair and illogical stretch. His work on poverty further evidences his concerns about racism since poverty disproportionately affects minorities.

There are no federal laws on marriage except CLINTON'S DOMA. THAT is what really screwed the chances for Gay marriage. Edwards is saying that regardless of DOMA, STATES should have the right to decide. In other words, fuck DOMA.

[DemDogs]

9. He has always been willing to let states decide

Just like they decide all marriage issues. He stated his personal position, which is what he and Kerry always did.
He is personally and politically for all other rights.

The one thing that is clear from Edwards is that he is not pandering. His positions have remained constant on all these hot button issues and he has talked about the issue of poverty and two Americas from the beginning with the understanding that the poor don't vote in as great a number.

You have to respect that, even if you have a different candidate.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Clark and Clarke 2008!

Wes and Richard WOULD kick some serious Bush ass them they might actually catch Osama...

[DemDogs]

10. Another effort to grab an Edwards thread

What is it about Clarkies that they can't stand an Edwards' thread? Every Edwards; thread gets hijacked by Clarkies usually sooner but always later. Clark himself timed so much of what he did to what Edwards' did -- leaked his announcement on Edwards' announcement day (no other candidate did that to any other candidate. They all left a civil amount of days.), gave Edwards economic speech over (that was done by more than one), stayed in the race after all of his consultants told him it was over, which played to Kerry's benefit against Edwards.

[AP]

12. Seriously.

[julialnyc]

15. The only Clark statement

was in regard to Richard Clarke (they wrote Clark/Clarke).

The title on this thread was Edwards and Clarke

[AP]

18. Post 5 puts posts 2, 4 and 7 in context.

[julialnyc]

22. why

the person didn't mention Clark.....they just didn't like Edwards interview. Even if they are a Clark supporter, it wasn't their point.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Since This Thread Is One That I Started,

I expect I am welcome to steer the discussion any direction I'd like. You alright with that?

Sorry you have such a thing with those of us that supported the guy that would have beat Bush.

On Edit: For the record I started this thread under the title "Richard Clarke Coming Up On ABC's This Week With George".
I only added Edwards when he came on because he was also on the show.

[ultraist]

36. Clark wont even be running in 08, he is working in the private sector

Clark has private contract jobs with Nextel, Axicom, and CNN. He isn't even positioning himself for a run for public office. Why some get so bent out of shape over Edwards is beyond me.

Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan and worked for a Repuke WH admin in the seventies, yet he is a perfect "God" is some Clarkies' eyes.