Thoughts after watching John Edwards on Hardball

[Armstead]

It drives me crazy. I really like this guy. And, despite his youthful cherubic face, it's obvious he's got a spine of steel and fire in the belly.

I disagree with him about the war, which is a big deal. But he at least defended his position.

Otherwise, there's nothing I can really disagree with him about, and much I can agree. He talks about empowering the middle class, and the poor.

And yet....

He isn't catching "it." I don't mean the charismatic "it." I mean the philosophical it. The grabbing of the bull by the horns and telling the truth about what is happening to our country. He's avoiding striking at the core of the truth, like a Kucinich or a Wellstone.

And that leaves me clenching my fists. He must know it. He hints at it. But he fails to grab the truth that Bernie Sanders once said the Democrats need to state clearly to regain its connection to the majority. "America is becoming an Oligarchy."

[William_WaLLace_]

1. what about his votes

On initiating legislation to establish the dept of Homeland Security.

how about him voting for The Patriot Act, and it is inferrable he would support par II, you like those votes?

There is more than just the IWR to disagree on with Edwards.

In my book he is a guy who will say whatever to get elected, he seems to have shifted his policies when it served his interest.

[Syrinx]

2. Edwards

The Deptartment of Homeland Security was, I think, Lieberman's (a Democrat) idea, and every senator except for Feingold voted for the "Patriot" Act. Itotally disagree with the latter, but the Department might be okay, but not in the hands of this administration.

[AP]

11. I believe the phrase "Office of Homeland Security" and the basic idea was

the product of a report Gore wrote as VP.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. I think it came from the Hart-Rudman Report -- they were heads of

a bipartisan committee appointed by Clinton to make recommendations about dealing with terrorism. Their report was due in January after Bush* took office. He basically ignored it, put it on Cheney's desk. Cheney was, of course, busy huddling with Kenny Boy Lay and others to draw up a national energy policy. In the days after 9-11, Hart told about making calls to Cheney, more or less begging him to do something.

As I recall, there was a good bit of publicity about the Hart-Rudman Report in August, before September 11, 2001. Former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman were concerned that we would be hit with a major attack before we had our ducks in a row, and they managed to get some media attention. Still no WH attention, though.

Gore headed a committee that studied the problem of terrorism directed at aircraft, airports, etc. His report was presented while he and Bill were still in office but the GOP majority in Congress said terrorism was a far-fetched idea and the suggestions made would be too expensive to implement (i.e., cut into the airlines' profits.)

So. . . I'd say it's a safe bet Gore, Hart, and Rudman, and their committee members had some conversations about the issues, and many of the ideas could have come from Gore. But you know how much trouble Al gets in if it's even suggested that he did anything, ever.

:shrug:

I would be interested to know if Gore is responsible for the concept, though. I'm just dredging memory here.

[Bombtrack]

3. you really have a hard time with the truth

he didn't initiate the DHS, Leiberman did,

he hasn't implied at all that he would support patriot act 2, and he is the only candidate with a comprehensive proposal to permanantly protect civil liberties, unlike one of your choices Dean who would have voted for the act, and has no plan for permanant protection

and he hasn't shifted his policies, unlike Dean who has on social security, his own campaign financing, the retirement age, and he's the one candidate who made a reputation for his repeated apologies early on.

[AP]

10. You're going to have to start being honest with the Patriot Act line

We went through that a couple monts ago here at DU. He contributed to one tiny section about stockpiling medicine, or something like that. Everyone with nay sense agreed that his contribution was good.

The Homeland Security one is new to me. You have a cite?

By the way, if he'd say anything to get elected, he wouldn't be having the problems Kerry and Dean are having describing where they stand on Iraq, and he wouldn't have to be appologizing for mispeaking they way Dean has to every once in a while.

[RichM]

4. I don't think he actually knows it. He's not that far from knowing it, but

he's not there yet, either. Kucinich has said that of all the Dem candidates, he's socially most friendly with Edwards.

I certainly appreciate Edwards' many fine qualities. He seems like an exceptionally decent guy. But his philosophical position is not quite where Bernie & DK are. The distance from him to them isn't insurmountable, but it's undeniably always there. As funny as it may sound to say this about a 50 yr old multimillionaire United States senator, he seems a little naive. He doesn't quite see how dangerously & thoroughly rotten his country has become.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. No, Rich, I think he's more perceptive than we think

It's hard to ask a country to vote for you when you tell them that they're rotten and blind.

He is also more of a workmanlike adjustor than a raze-and-rebuilder. His principal approach is that the system is workable, but that it needs better regulation, controls, governmental programs and market substitution. (I'd say that he's largely correct on all of that, except for healthcare. Healthcare is just a system of patches and fixes on an inherent boondoggle of immense proportions; it cannot be fixed without complete socialized medicine. Kucinich is right about this; I say: "medicine for money is murder". I'd like to think that Edwards is moving as far on this as he considers tolerable at this point, but has grander things in mind.)

I'd wager that Edwards knows full well the ugliness of the oligarchy and how close they are to their goals, but I think he thinks the best way to get to a better place is to praise the essential system and fix it from there. By doing so, what he'd be doing is containing the influence of extreme wealth and power. Not for a second do I think he doesn't know this, and not for a second do I think he'll say so.

He knows he needs to have the support of the middle, and to do so, it's best to validate their basic assumptions about the essential fairplay of the system. I'm actually with him on this: there's been a duality throughout our whole history; we never had a revolution, we had a war of independence where the local wealthy overthrew the absentee mercantile masters. Throughout our history, we've had mechanisms that allowed us to progress socially, and all-in-all, we've done fairly well. The system allows some success to the lower classes, since that's the carrot that keeps the whole treadmill moving. He pointed out, once again, that we do better when everyone's doing better by making examples of the aftermath of the New Deal and the Clinton 90s. What needs to be said is that the system only works when workers make good wages and buy stuff. This is the key. In a system where 2/3rds of the GDP is consumer spending, there's no such thing as a jobless recovery.

Just as Compassionate Conservative is the equivalent of "predatory vegetarian"; a jobless recovery is the same as "earnings-free prosperity."

I think he more than just gets it, remember: he's been fighting big corporations for years. You know people have tried to buy him off, smear him, ruin him and outfox him in every way that people with big ol' slag-heaps of cash can and do.

George Seldes said "tell the truth, then run". He was a journalist, not a politician.

[indigo32]

7. "It's hard to ask a country to vote for you

when you tell them that they're rotten and blind."
Very good way of putting it.

[spooky3]

19. Well said. I agree with you. I think he "gets it" completely.

I thought he did a good job articulating positions (his website is equally clear) on domestic issues. I don't agree with his position on the war, and I think he had some difficulty with the professor's excellent question about accountability and blank checks. I'll bet he will review that Q&A and have a better answer for the next time. And he'll have a favorite movie to talk about. :-)

Chris Matthews was clearly trying to provoke him out of the "silk assassin" mode and succeeded to a large extent; I found this annoying. We don't need more shouting on TV; we need reason. I wonder if Edwards' "fire" was simply being let loose now that he was given more than 8 minutes of talking time, or if had calculated that he needed to come across as having more "fire" so he played along, or if the provocation worked (can't imagine it for a courtroom attorney). I did appreciate Edwards' standing up to him repeatedly.

On another shallow note, he needs to get some Chapstick so he won't have to lick his lips as often.

[AP]

13. Actually the only insurmountable difference between Edwards and those two

is that Edwards could be elected president of the United States and those other two guys could never.

Furthermore, nobody is every going to win the race campaigning on how thoroughly rotten America is (DUH!).

Do you know why Edwards ran for the Senate? He decided he needed to make a difference in people lives at a rate of more than one person at a time. He was going to run for a state office, but his friends told him that the NC state house was no place to go if you want to make a difference. He and his wife took a look at Lauch Faircloth and what he was doing to Clinton and said "we have to take this guy out."

That was the phrase they used. "We have to take this guy out."

Do you think that's the way somebody thinks if they don't understand who rotten to the core America is. "Take this guy out."

That's how I feel about everyone of those fascists after watching how they behaved (and still behave). I want democrats to take them out one at a time. Edwards took out Faircloth, and now, if he wins the presidential race, he's going to take out the Big Bad -- Bush.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Were we watching the same show?

He said what he's been saying on this subject: that what Bush is doing is much more serious than all that, he's systematically shifting the tax burden from wealth and passive earnings to workers and the middle class. Without climbing on a barrel and becoming a Danton about it, that's pretty direct.

Perhaps he's not as incentiary as he should be, but he's consistently pointing out the creeping privilege of this bunch.

Matthews quoted Edwards with another standard bit of his rhetoric of how Junior respects wealth and only wealth, and he wants to protect the ones who have it and slam the door shut on anyone else becoming prosperous. (That's a pretty direct paraphrasing.) Edwards stuck right by that, and Matthews went into canine mode trying to get him to say "Bush is a bad guy"; to this, Edwards said that there's no way for him to know if he's evil in his heart, but this is the result of his policies. This is pretty solid stuff here, and it also benefits from having been said with decency and not from a shrill and ad hominem rant.

Again, this is not quite what I'd do; I'd personally point out every sick and selfish act of pissy privileged ugliness and bring the character of Junior into question. Edwards is maintaining a much more high-toned approach, and it has great merit. Notice how he praised Dean and Kerry and pointed out that somehow their life-lessons got them to the better conclusion.

[spooky3]

20. Again, you put it so well and I totally agree.

He also followed it up by very specific proposals on how he intends to redress the reverse Robin Hood syndrome. Why is passive income taxed less than earned income? He'd change that. While people might legitimately disagree about how much higher a marginal rate the wealthy should pay, anyone who is not completely self-interested should agree that a lower rate on capital gains than on a firefighter's wages, and no taxation of dividends, is unjust.

I think the major reason why he hasn't caught on yet is that the media have essentially ignored him.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. I was wondering the same thing, wondering if others had missed

those words from Edwards. I thought he was telling it like it is, and doing a very nice job, avoiding Matthews' little traps.

I think he really gets it, and remembers where he came from, though he's careful not to criticize Kerry or Dean for coming from wealth. I think people who grew up in the circumstances that Edwards and Kucinich did are more passionate about helping the poor than people who grew up like Kerry or Dean can be, simply because it's different when you've been there. It's not a case of Kerry or Dean being at fault in any way, and I think they do care, but it's personal for Edwards and Kucinich. And we NEED that from our leaders. Saddam was personal for Junior and he made sure to get his war against him. Imagine what good he could have done if poverty had been personal for him.

Edwards has good Southern-style manners but he's not afraid to say what he thinks. He's a good speaker, too, and gives the impression of being a nice, easy-going guy. Behind the charm and good looks, you know he's tough, though, or he wouldn't have succeeded as a trial lawyer and won a Senate seat from an incumbent Republican in a state that loves Bush*. I'd like to see a Kucinich/ Edwards or Edwards/ Kucinich ticket. (And I'm picturing Dennis climbing on a barrel and emulating Danton.)

[Julien Sorel]

32. I'm speaking as an Edwards fan, mind you;

he's moving up to a tie for my second choice with Kerry, but he still needs to sharpen up quite a bit. The stupid question Greenfield hit him with at the most recent debate, 'Why is your background important?' should have been a gimme, but I thought his answer demonstrated a lack of depth and political awareness. The correct answer was something along the lines of, 'Because my background made me who I am, gave me the drive, the empathy, and the desire to help others succeed. It's what makes me want to lead America, what makes me uniquely qualified to lead America, because I know if I can do it, there are millions of Americans who can as well, given the opportunity. I want to see that they get that opportunity.' Instead, he got sidetracked and talked about 'credibility,' which is an essentially meaningless word in politics. Clinton would have eaten that question alive and turned it into a soundbite for the rest of the campaign; Edwards was caught off guard and missed an opportunity. Had he invested some thought into his background, instead of just wanting to use it as a political lever, he would have slammed that question back into Greenfield's face, which is what I suspect Greenfield wanted him to do.

I still have hope for Edwards, but he can't miss many chances like that given his position in the polls.

[Yupster]

40. Another gimmee question

Chris asked him what his favorite movie was and he was stumped. Candidates should have answers to this kind of crap worked out in advance baecause they know they're going to get it -- favorite book, favorite sone, favorite food, ...

BTW -- If a candidate is asked favorite movie and he doesn't say "The Princess Bride," then how can his judgement be trusted? It was after all Andre The Giant's best role.

[AP]

8. I think Edwards probably understands that Wellstone or Kucinich would

and will probably never be president because of exactly what you just described.

Think about Clinton and Jerry Brown. Clinton was like the way you describe Edwards. I didn't like Clinton because I thought he didn't get it. I thought Jerry Brown knew exactly what I thought. I LOVED Brown. Well, it turned out that Clinton was probably ten times as liberal and 100 times smarter than Brown, and one of the things he did that was smart was to appeal to people as a moderate while having the soul of a liberal. Clinton had the sense to realize that the only way to move policy forward and out the door and onto the streets in DC is incrementally, and with a little bit of compromise and a lot of wrangling and effort -- which requires the demeanor of a person like Clinton.

You say you want Sanders, Wellstone, or Kucinich. But you have to ask yourself, yas America ever elected someone like that President? No. (And we haven't knowlingly elected someone who was the RW version of that either - Buchanan or Goldwater). And there's probably a good reason. You have to appeal to a majority of all Americans. And all America isn't like VT, MN and Cleveland.

[Armstead]

35. We have, numerous times

>>>You say you want Sanders, Wellstone, or Kucinich. But you have to ask yourself, yas America ever elected someone like that President?<<

If you look at their policies and platforms -- All they represent is the same stream of traditional liberal values as FDR, TRuman, JFK, LBJ. Those positions are what built the Democratic Party's strengths and built the middle class and made strides towards reducing poverty and advancing civil righgts.

They may seem "radical" today -- but only because we have sold our brains and political system and media to the highest bidders. The political debate is so narrow to center and right-of-center that someone like Kucinich or Wellstone are branded before people get a chance to hear what they are really about.

Even Bernie Sanders -- despite his "socialist" label -- is basically just a liberal.


Maybe they do seem a bit eccentric because of their personalitiers. But in terms of their message and ideas it is mainstream values.

[AP]

44. The far left hated each one of those presdents

Only in retrospect do we think of them as liberals.

FDR took a lot of heat from liberal isolationists (the Kuciniches of his time) and there were people on the left who agreed with people on the right that he was ignoring and rewriting the constiutions. JKF ran to the right of Nixon on foreign relations (he was a staunch anti-communist during the election). LBJ was the quintessential DC insider, and a dealmaker, willing to compromise to get a law passed. He was a racist if he was in a room full of Southern Dems and Republicans and he wanted to trick them into signing the Civil Rights Act, and, if he was in a room with MLK, he was as enlightened and liberal as anyone. Truman was the guy who actually, inadvertantly, got the Red Scare rolling by using anti-communism to convince people that the US needed to engage with world.

But I don't doubt that 20 years from now we'll look back at Edwards and say, man was that guy liberal. And then you can post at DU and tell all the young kids that he actually ran as and one becacuse he appeared to be a moderate...like FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ.

Winning an election is about appearing to be a moderate, but being something much more well-formed at your core -- in others, Edwards.

[Armstead]

50. I thought you might say that

I should have qualified my statement with a phrase like "though they were of their times..."

None of them were angels, and they did play hardball with a vengence. But the philosophy of their basic domestic programs and politics were similar domestically to Kucinich, et. al.

And international relations arte not static. What seems a right approach for one era doesn't apply to another. Many who opposed the Iraq War are internationalists -- not isolationists. (LBJ was undone by a stupid war, not by his domestic policies. And if he had to play the game to get the country moving on civil rights and poverty, more power to him.)... Kucinich's way of expressing himself is probably too doveish for most Americans. But if you ever get a chance to hear him in a calmer context, he is a lot more realistic than his image. (He also has turned out to be more correct in his early analysis of the Iraq War than almost anyone else.)

[JCMach1]

9. He reminds me of Gore's 1988 run

Not quite ready for Prime Time...

[KoKo]

43. Agree as a NC'linian. He's not ready for Prime Time. He alienated folks

here by running for President from the time he became our new Senator to replace the vile RW Lauch Faircloth.
We had high hopes for him, but he hit the road. Then he alienated another huge chunck of us with his war vote and then sent form letters which were highly impersonal to all of us who contacted him. He refused to meet with anti-invasion protestors and had them "removed" from his Raleigh Office. He had a fundraiser where demostrators were outside with signs asking him to come talk with them and he refused to even come out of the Mansion where the high rollers were giving him money. (I had been invited to the "high roller" dinner at the Mansion because we gave some big money to him) but there we were outside with our "anti Iraq Invasion protest signs."

One of the protestors had gone "door to door" raising money for him during his Senate race and he had a sign with a list of promises Edwards had failed to keep.....he was really angry.

His behavior to those who gave him support in the "Grassroots" has hurt him here, and while the Party Machine in NC is very supportive of him......there is much disillusionment with him from "the people."

He has a charming personality. I have no doubt he has a "fire in the belly" to be President. But, what he stands for? Who knows. His charm has worn thin because many of us wonder what his true core beliefs are. What he says is not much different from the other Dems as far as health insurance, jobs, social security, etc. It's the other areas that are hard to define.

Gore would have done well to have made him his VP in 2000, imho. But, he needs to "mature." It's sad, because there seems to be so much potential there.

[dkf]

12. The man is extremely likable

but his explanation about Iraq did nothing for me.

Not strong agreement as I completely disagree with his rationale, not strong revulsion, just blah.

[Awsi Dooger]

14. Not being able to identify a favorite movie was absurd

Edwards stumbled for several minutes and never managed anything other than, "that one where they were in prison...," or something like that. Tweety had to supply the title, Shawshank Redemption.

I have watched enough presidential debates with apolotical friends to guarantee this: that would have been the primary thing they remembered, and it might have been enough to disqualify Edwards from receiving their vote.

Tweety is known for asking every-day questions like that, along with twisting everything against Democrats. As an Edwards supporter I couldn't believe he wasn't prepared, especially with his theme of representing the average Joe. How many of us would have taken that long without a response?

Overall I thought Matthews was unusually respectful and gentle to Edwards.

[AP]

15. I read an interview with him -- he didn't know what model car he drove.

Obviously this guy has other things on his mind.

It's not like he has hard time staying on message and saying realy smart things when he talks about policy.

I saw another article where he coldn't remember the title of the book he was reading -- The DaVinci Code(?).

So hes' got a little bit of a pop culture/title dyslexia. It's kind of refreshing. At least he didn't blurt out something his daughter likes in a pathetic attempt to pander to some demographic to which he's having a hard time appealing

What was that story about Einstein -- he had no idea what his phone number was?

[incapsulated]

17. "What is your name?"

"What is your quest?"

"What is your favorite color?"

"What is the airspeed volicity of an unladen swallow??

I couldn't help it, it reminded me of Monty Python.

I find it interesting that he is so forgetfull. But troubling, considering the job he's after. Sometimes it's the little details that can trip you up.

[AP]

18. I don't think he forgot. Perhaps he just doesn't care that much about cars

and movies and bestsellers. I love movies. I'm not going to hold it against someone if they don't share that enthusiasm. So long as he's enthusiastic about spreading a little wealth an political power among the masses, and so long as doesn't forget his roots, I'll be happy.

[Awsi Dooger]

23. What do you mean...

an African or a European swallow?

[PurityOfEssence]

16. You thought Matthews was GENTLE?

From his first breath the whole thing was an ambush. He did everything he could to get him to either admit to being a warmonger or try to weasel out of his vote. He tried to goad him into saying "Bush is a bad guy" to the point that Edwards had to protest that he was putting words in his mouth.

This wasn't a "let's get to know the guy" interview, it was an attempt to trip him up. I'm not surprised by this; Matthews is an attack dog with a thwarted critic's need to tear down the movers and shakers of the world.

[spooky3]

22. I completely agree.

[spooky3]

21. he said he hadn't seen one in three years!

Obviously going to movies is not a hobby of his. If I asked you who your favorite tennis player was, what would you say? I'm sure if he has good people in his campaign (and that I don't know) they will make up a list of pop culture answers with him, and he'll have it for the next time.

It is stupid to interview people on non-job-related stuff.

I also didn't think Matthews behaved especially well toward Edwards; I thought we got Typical Tweety. Some of his questions were quite good (he always has some good ones) but others were obviously intended to anger Edwards (he even admitted that, in different words). And he made for bad TV by not listening. Edwards had to repeat answers early in the show because Chris kept "restating" his positions inaccurately.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Ilie Nastase, in about one-tenth of a second

Movies are not a hobby of mine either, but I damn sure could summon one given that question.

And yes, compared to the oral lynching I expected, and what I saw in his coverage of the CA recall, Chris Matthews came off as gentle. For example, he just as easily could have insisted on asking Edwards the names of the 4 world leaders, or made some asshole comment when Edwards refused to go there.

[spooky3]

26. Sorry, we disagree.

[AP]

47. But if you honestly don't have a favorite movie...

...what would you do?

[LalahLand]

52. I can't think of a favorite movie

off the top of my head. I'm not really good with names, car model names, etc. I was slightly bothered when he said he had not heard about the forged letters, and didn't want to even attempt to name the 4 world leaders. With all thats going on now in the world, why would he not be able to answer those questions.

[AP]

45. I read a story about Ruth B Ginsburg going to the movies with her mail and

a flashlight. While her husband watched the movie, she read her mail.

Some people have hard jobs and don't have time for the movies.

I don't think it was a bad question. But I think what it reveals about Edwards is actually good.

If Bush couldn't remember the name of a movie, I'd worry, because he seems like the kind of guy wasting a lot of time at movies, playing golf, etc, and if he weren't paying attention...well, I don't know.

[bearfartinthewoods]

25. you have very shallow friends

tweety's everday questions are stupid. one step up from "if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be." who has ONE favorite movie?

no one over 15 yrs old i'd wager. and to badger him with slams about dem constituancies as he was thinking was low.

[Awsi Dooger]

31. Shallow friends are allowed to vote

Dismissing or de-emphasizing the values of apolotical Americans is a runaway problem on DU, IMO.

I am in an election pool with 15 opponents every 2 years. In presidential years, my friend and I intentionally gather about 15-20 apolitical voters to watch debates. Apolitical women are especially vital and shrewd.

You would be shocked at what the priorities are, and what garners most lasting reaction. Policies and positions are virtully irrelevant compared to general normalcy, likeability and a positive attitude.

For example, during debate #1 in 2000, the women en masse were appalled at Gore's theatrics when Bush was responding. I actually went into another room and clicked the channels, to see which stations were using the split screen as opposed to only focusing on the responder. With the split screen, Gore's facial expressions and sighs were front and center.

Didn't bother me in the slightest, because Bush's misstatements warranted impatient disbelief. But the reaction of the women told me Gore had instantly forfeited much of the crucial gender gap support he had snagged in the convention and thru September.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. I couldn't think of a single movie title after Matthews asked him

that. I could easily write a list of twenty-five movies I like, but pick one favorite? I don't have a favorite song or even a favorite color. My mind was as blank as Edwards's was, though he did come up with one but couldn't remember the title. And "Shawshank Redemption" was a good choice.

It's the kind of question sometimes sprung in job interviews, of course, so viewers may have identified with Edwards for blanking on such a nonessential question. We all know it has nothing to do with the job we're interviewing for but we also know the "wrong" answer could keep us from being hired. You wouldn't want to name a movie that has lots of sex and/ or violence, or one too intellectual (no sub-titles, please!), or one

And, hey, at least he didn't say "Forrest Gump."

[sandnsea]

30. To Kill A Mockingbird

My all time favorite and seems to me a movie that would appeal to almost every group of Democratic voters and I would have thought might also appeal to his lawyer-side. But I loved Shawshank too, very cool that he chose that movie. I wonder if he's gonna' win this Presidency one little spoonful at a time!!!

[union_maid]

33. Both good movie choices

I didn't see Hardball, but nevertheless I think that all candidates should feel free to say that they can't think of a particular favorite movie if they can't think of one, that they don't have one favorite song and that they don't know what kind of tree they'd be. If they just do that with good humor and confidence it'll take away the onus of having to prepare for utter crap.

[sandnsea]

34. Poor guy

You could sort of see him trying to change gears, run through movies in his head, then try to think of the name of 'that movie with the two guys in prison'. It is refreshing for someone to not just have a canned response. Or to not be so completely pop culture that they actually have to think about movies they've seen.

And Chris also asked him about when Bush was asked the four leaders of foreign countries and Edwards just said 'nope, not gonna' go there'. It was funny. He did great. He was very strong and very concise in making his points. If we didn't have this terrorism thing, he'd be in aleady.

[JI7]

36. agree

i don't really watch movies and if someone asked me my favorite i would say i have none and just don't really watch them. that's just the truth. not everyone watches movies much as he himself said so they wont be able to or care to answer these questions. and i also like it that it was a real moment. what frightens me is gwbush saying he doesn't care for the news . i mean, shouldn't this be a HUGE issue ? i sure wouldn't want the leader of our nation to be so ignorant and proud of being ignorant as bush is.

[CWebster]

39. It's exactly what I was thinking at that moment.

"To Kill A Mockingbird". Classic southern lawyer fighting for truth and justice.

Edwards lacks a certain character strength. Lieberman has an agenda, Gephardt has the rose garden performance, Kerry ignored his undeniably liberal constituency and Edwards lacked depth of conviction and was easily played.

[mbali]

41. Hardly

You can say just about whatever you want about Edwards, but you can't accuse him of lacking character strength. Just take a look at his bio, his background and family and learn about what he and his family have gone through in their lives. He has endured considerable loss and pain and demonstrated remarkable strength of character through it all. He just doesn't wear it on his sleeve and milk it for political gain.

And, by the way - his younger son's middle name is Atticus.

[CWebster]

42. Sorry

You might be able to use that argument for Kucinich - for he faces and demands accountability for the illusions of our leaders (when it comes to the most dramatic mis-step of our congress relinquishing their responsibilty).

There is no getting around it.

[AP]

48. edwards has a strength of his convictions

which comes through loud and clear.

[CWebster]

49. See post #43.

[CWebster]

37. No, he didn't defend his position on the resolution

sufficiently well. When the head of the school asked the clear, concise, well-worded question, Edwards danced around it.

Otherwise concur.

[KaraokeKarlton]

38. I like Edwards, but don't think he's got enough experience yet

I'd like to see him as Attorney General in a Howard Dean White House. Eight years there and then the VP pick on the next Dem ticket. I think Edwards will definitely be president in the future, but that he just needs some time under his belt before enough people can really get behind him. He'd also be a great AG to deal with big business and injustice.

[AP]

46. a lot of people think experience is measured by more than how many

years you spend in DC. (That's how edwards puts it.)

In fact, I'd say the more time you spend in DC, the less suitable you might be to lead.

Certainly, Carter isn't a lesson of that. Bush was deeply connected to DC and look what we with him. Clinton, on the other hand, and JFK brought a ton of fresh faces -- people who rose on merit, not connections -- into DC, and they didn't owe any industries and favors.

There's a lot to be said for not being in politics your whole life, or, at least, not being part of the NY-DC power corridor.

[janekat]

51. awww - he's a politician - doncha know that if they told the REAL truth

they'd be branded a "looney-toon" or "conspiracy theorist" and be run out of Congress? They can only "hint around."