Edwards is out of work. I wonder if he's interested in running for DNC

[genius]

Chairman. I know where he stands on the issues. I don't agree with him on everything but he's got some pretty good positions on most issues. And he really got screwed by the concession.

Does anyone have a current address and phone number?

[mdmc]

1. I think that he would be better than Dean at the DNC

Dean still has DFA and could work on campaigns by the dozens.

[genius]

10. I agree.

[imenja]

22. Why? What experience does he have that would make him better?

[mdmc]

72. none - but he does have that draw

I wonder if the Democrats, or Dean, are ready to go progressive. If they are not ready to be a progressive party, then Edwards should chair the DNC.

[imenja]

80. DNC job isn't about personal appeal

It's an important strategy and organizing position. It doesn't depend on the kind of personal charisma that works well for politicians. We need someone with a clear sense of where they want the party to go (in terms of direction, not necessarily issues), and strategy for organizing and winning across the country.
I don't see that Edwards is the right person for that job. I like him, I'd consider him as a presidential candidate, but not for DNC chair. We need someone with more experience running campaigns. Dean's involvement with DFA makes him more qualified than the typical politician, it seems to me. I wouldn't be crushed if Dean didn't get the job, but I would be very disappointed if Roemer got it, or if McAuliffe was reappointed. As Lewis Black said tonight on the Daily Show, the Democrats figure the devil they know is more important than winning. Hmmm. We've lost enough. McAuliffe has to go.

[mdmc]

88. I hear you

Edwards was able to stay on message, a skill that Dean could have used to survice the scream.

Anyone would be better than McCheese, except Al From and Bruce Reed.

[Kahuna]

98. There's a lot to be said for a courteous and professional demeanor...

He also has name recognition. He's also a proven fundraiser.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Out of work? Hardly.

Isn't he going back to practicing law?

[hopein08]

86. Nope...

He's clearly ruled that out. Something like "My heart's in public service now." I think the most likely work for him seems to be teaching and stragizing.

I don't want him to run the DNC because then he wouldn't be able to run for president in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I thought that supporting the Iraq war was a no-no

for the DNC Chairman? Or was that just a rumor?

[Leilani]

6. I guess that's a requirement for some people, but not others.

EOM

[robbedvoter]

74. Depends against whom the guy is used.

Sometimes war seems to be everything, but not on Fridays....

[genius]

7. He voted against the $87 billion which Dean supported.

He also voted for a weaker Iraq resolution than the one Dean backed. Dean was expecting to be there for Edwards is for cancelling NAFTA and withdrawing from the WTO and he has a better approach to criminal justice and civil rights than Dean.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I could have sworn that

Edwards voted for the IWR that was put in front of the Senate...I also remember reading on his floor speech to the senate that he co-sponsored the IWR that passed.

I am wrong? Plus he said that he still feels that Iraq was a good idea, wrong plan for execution. Where did I get that idea?

Plus he seems to have voted for the Patriot Act....so criminal justice and civil rights couldn't be THAT important to him.

Strange that a anti-war Kucinich supporter would advocate for Edwards....who voted for these things. What happened to the famous Kucinich "principles"? US out, UN in?

[genius]

13. There was a resolution which was worse that Dean backed. That's history.

as was Dean's questioning of our need for civil liberties after 9/11. Edwards realized the dangers of USA-PATRIOT after it was passed. He should have read the thing just as the Senate needed to read the Intelligence Reform Act (PATRIOT II) before all Senate Democrats but Byrd voted for it. We need to look more at their present positions.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Could you give me the name of that resolution.....

the one Edwards voted for, before he voted for the one that did pass?

In terms of recent positions....considering that he only had 6 years in the Senate, I think that the fall of 2001 is not so "past". We are still suffering from the results of the Patriot act....currently. If I have to look at more "recent" events than 2001 and 2002......wouldn't that make me kinda of foolish....or would you just call those years his "wild youth".

[Larkspur]

87. Wrong again!!! Dean backed an IWR proposal that was tougher on Bush

than the IWR Edwards and Kerry signed. The Biden-Lugar amendment would have required Bush to come back to Congress 30 days prior to initiating military action against Iraq if Saddam was not forthright about his WMD's or the UN inspectors caught Saddam cheating.

Dean, not Edwards, continued to criticize the pro-Iraq war position of Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt, etc..

Dean is not anti-war because a President takes a solemn oath to defend the USA from attack and that may require war or military action. Dean strongly opposed the Iraq War because Bush deceived the American people intentionally. Neither Edwards nor Kerry nor any of the pro-war Dems running for the 2004 Prez nomination saw through that deception or decided to use that deception for their political ambitions.

[robbedvoter]

75. Maybe because of that:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[Leilani]

12. "No sense makes sense..."

said Charlie Manson.

You vote to go to war, & vote against the funding?

I'd rather they vote against the war, & for the funding.

[genius]

16. If you want to talk about history, Dean backed a resolution which

would have guaranteed war. Under the IWPR, there would have been a good chance that there would not be a war if we had had a competent President. Edwards misjudged Bush. But Bush violated the IWPR in order to start the war. Later, after the anti-war movement grew and prior to the war, Dean changed his position. During the debates, Dean said unequivically that he would vote for the $87 billion if he were in Congress. Edwards voted against this as he didn't want to fund the Halliburton venture. This is all history though and I am more interested in the current positions. I'm not clear what Dean's current position is.

[Leilani]

20. I am anti-Iraq War

I'm not a foreign policy genius & knew it stunk from the get-go.

Wes Clark testified against the war.

I'm a Wes Clark supporter, which is entirely a consistent position.

Finally, we can wrangle about Dean, but that's silly. He didn't have a vote, but Kerry & Edwards did, & they voted aye. And when asked if they had changed their minds, they both said NO.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Thus far ....

You say.....Edwards "Misjudged" Bush and voted for the IWR....,
Edwards "shoulda" read the Patriot Act before voting for it...cause he's into civil rights and criminal justice.

Anything else we should know about in reference to Edwards' getting on board until the boat had sailed out of the harbor? Did Edwards paddle then back to shore?

Did he also vote for the 87 billion before voting against it?

[atre]

31. Ding! Ding! Ding!

"Did he also vote for the 87 billion before voting against it?"

You know Republican propoganda - even the incredibly stupid stuff like the quote above - is effective when even liberals and leftist run around touting them. The quote above betrays a lack of even the most fundamental understanding of the way in which a bill becomes a law. No one who would buy that line could possibly understand the definition of a "rider" and how they come to be attached to certain bills.

I finally get my answer as to who bites this bait. The most susceptible to Republican propoganda nearly unanimously fall in the Wesley Clark camp.

It's sad. Clark was my first choice at one point. But it's scary to see that he brings out the worst in his supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

34. So....

when supporters of other choices were calling Wes Clark a War criminal, a Republican, a Clinton puppet, a secret PNACer....how scary was that?

Also, does the 87 billion issue negate Edwards' IWR vote and his Patriot Act vote??? You don't seem to address those issues in your post.

I quite understand how congress "works". I've been watching the working democrats roll over donning pink tu-tus on for some time now.

[atre]

52. Re: So....

"when supporters of other choices were calling Wes Clark a War criminal, a Republican, a Clinton puppet, a secret PNACer....how scary was that?"

It's not the proudest moment of those respective campaigns, but it certainly wasn't Republican propaganda, was it? You'd never hear any of that on Fox News. And the only group who persist in making attacks on other candidates at this late date are Clark supporters. You know, I was drawn to the medal, too, but then I realized that there's a reason he brings out the worst in people; the people who yearned for him were in search of the same psychological security that many people yearned for in Bush. Bush, the "war president," and Clark, the "General." Two completely different men, but they shared same base in a particular psychological temperment.

"Also, does the 87 billion issue negate Edwards' IWR vote and his Patriot Act vote??? You don't seem to address those issues in your post."

No, I don't seem to be, because I didn't. That's not at issue. Edwards is not at issue. I don't need to argue internal consistency with you, because the only issue is your attack of Kerry's comment that "he voted against the 87 billion before he voted against it." If you knew what a rider was and how several procedural votes are required for a single bill, you would understand why a person might vote against a bill after voting for it. The statement is only absurd to those who lack such understanding.

[AP]

54. This is one of those rare DU posts that is actually saying something

substantial.

This post hit the nail on the head.

I just finished Lakoff's Moral Politics, and what artre says about Clark bringing out the worst in people because he appeals to a framework of thought Bush created is something that really makes sense to me today.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Plu-eazzzze

Edwards is the subject of this thread, if you didn't notice.

And yes, what we read on DU during the primaries....Clark attacks....were Republican attacks. Remember Seventhson. He came out on election night as a Republican operative....and he was doing mainly "Wes Clark" threads.

Clinton's puppet? A Republican attack for sure. Kept hearing on fox from the likes of Anne Coulter, and so many others.

Not a real Democrat? Wonder how Drudge got that "cut real short" videotape of Clark at that infamous GOP fundraiser.

Not really against the War? Wonder why Gillespie showed up in Arkansas with the doctored Clark transcript.....in where Drudge and others claimed that Clark was really for the war.

Secret PNACer? Hell who knows where that came from.....but Clark is the only candidate that even mentioned PNAC fore-ver. Hell...now Chris Matthews and some on CNN are calling the NEOCONS, NEOCONS.....why? Because Wes Clark repeated it enough times.

So yes....most of it was Republican propaganda.

Sure, you had the far left who wanted Wes Clark to be a War Criminal.....cause they didn't give a F*ck about those 1.3 million lives that Wes Clark helped save....only about DU and SOA.

Do some research and understand that Clark WAS ALWAYS the Republican's real nightmare.

Sure, Clark brings the worst out of people..... anything you say:

The fact that Wes Clark helped write the Amecius Brief supporting Affirmative Action in the U of Michigan case; wrote OP-eds, which appeared in Major publications in support of having all Democrats "condemm" the Confederate Flag; promoted Black officers consistently in great numbers during his 35 years of service as an officer; and did very vocally discuss the "stolen" 2000 election; was the only high ranking officer who made major noise about what was happening in Rwanda at the time that it was happening; and wrote extensively on subjects such as Aid relief and recently Darfur ..... are all powerful acts of combined consistency in support of the underdog on issues that affect them directly.

Wes Clark also encouraged Sy Hersch to publish the "torture" Abu Grahi photos (as Hersch explained in a Vanity Fair interview) and Richard Clarke to go public with his views on the failings of George Bush (Richard Clarke also publicly makes mention of his meeting with Wes, in which Wes counseled him to do it....even if the admin ended up smearing Richard Clarke....which Wes assured him they would).

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power’s book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda.
Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330).

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

[atre]

63. You misunderstood my statement

Clark is a wonderful human being. The problem was not with him, but what he meant to his supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I don't think you really know....

what Clark means to his supporters.....obviously. As one of his supporters, I can assure you that you have yet to describe anything remotely resembling my reason for supporting him.

The things Clark did with his life, the achievements that he has accomplished...you know, when he was walking the walk, while others were talking the talk is what made me support him. It wasn't the medals....but how he got them and for what he stood to lose in the process of earning them.

You may have had the wrong motives in supporting him....but for you to second guess other supporters of his, is just plain wrong....IMHO.

I know what Dean means to his supporters...and that is not anything that I would even try to discount.

I know what Edwards means to his supporter...and that is not anything that I will discount.

I know what Kucinich, Sharpton, Kerry and the other candidates meant to their supporters....and I won't try to take that away.

I will discuss the various ex-candidate's stances, their actions, what they said and what they did. But for me to second guess the motives of supporters of these Democrats would be foolish, patronizing, and just plain dumb. Why would I even think of doing such a thing? How dare I?

[atre]

30. This is extraordinarily simplistic thinking

Any time you see someone attack a politician for voting against a particular bill, a red flag should always raise: what else was in the bill?

Congress doesn't pass bills that say, "fund the troops." They're considerably more complex than that. You have to distinguish between a bill's objective and the means by which the bill attempts to carry that out. The latter is always more important. To assume that a politician is against a particular objective of a bill simply because of a "no" vote is a lousy excuse for sophistry.

I cringe every time those on the other side do it, because -while clearly idiotic- it has proven so persuasive to the masses. When I see one of our own use it to attack one of our own, I get a little hint of why Republicans are doing so well; even our own bite their bait.

[Leilani]

33. I'm sorry I'm such a simpleton

while you are obviously a Congressional expert.

I am a daily viewer of C-Span, & watched the entire Senate debate on all bills concerning the Iraq War. I know what the bills were, & who voted how & why.

To vote for the war, you either had to be: 1) Dumb as a rock, or 2)politically expedient. I don't favor either.

And when you vote to send troops into a war, it is completely irresponsible to vote against the funding. See, you can't have it both ways. And I don't care whether it's the Republicans or the Martians using that argument, but it's true.

And plenty of good Dems agree with me...they voted against the war, but for the funding. But then again, they were not running for political office.

[atre]

47. I'm not an expert, but I do use my brain

You won't get any arguments from me on the IWR. Edwards got a not-too-friendly message from me on that one, and his reply did little to quell my disappointment. But your logic is so incredibly specious, it shames me that it comes from a liberal.

"And when you vote to send troops into a war, it is completely irresponsible to vote against the funding. See, you can't have it both ways."

You suggest that there is no possible reason why someone could have voted for the war resolution, but against a resolution whose purported objective was funding the troops? This can only be true if:

1) The IWR was truly a vote to send the troops to war, and not merely an authorization of the use of force (nuance, yes, but incredibly important for the logicistics of your argument);

2) There were no intervening events between the time of the IWR and the spending resolution that might cause one to change his mind about the merits of the war;

3) There was no reason to suspect that the funds were not being properly applied (they weren't);

4) There was no reason to suspect that the projects were not open only to competitive bidding (they weren't).

5) The amount was indisputably proper (certainly a spending resolution of $1.5 trillion should be rejected, no? a spending resolution of $50 should, likewise, no?);

6) That there was no possibility that - had the spending resolution failed - the Armed Forces might have returned back to the US (I guess your assumption is that they would have remained there -free of charge- without the funding? That doesn't make much sense, does it?); and

7) There were no other possible reasons why a person might vote for the war resolution but against a particular spending bill.

This isn't rocket science. I am certain you must be aware of all of this. Looking back, my last post more than adequately explained this, but you glibly ignored it so you can toss out a few simple-minded crowd-pleasers. I love Wesley Clark, but he sure does bring out the worst in people, doesn't he?

Tell you what. If you want to live in a world of black and white, where you don't have to trouble your mind with things like facts and nuance, maybe you belong on the other side of the political spectrum. Here, we expect more out of you.

[FrenchieCat]

50. I want to live in a world....

where our elected Democratic officials can see through the Rethuglican bullsh*t....instead of nuancing us to death (literally).

I want to live in a world where our Democratic elected official read the bills that they vote for.

I want to live in a world where principle not politics wins the day.

I want to live in a world where politician don't vote for war as political expedience.

I want to live in a world where my elected officials know more than me, not less. I knew that Bush and his neocons were full of sh*t...and that Iraq was not the place where we should have been going.

That's the world I want to live in. A world that tells the truth and nuance doesn't mean being ambigious and calculating.

[atre]

53. I share your dreams

... but our world doesn't exist.

While we daydream about such a world, though, we should at least view the one we've got through the lens of rationality and reason, and not through the lens of emotional knee-jerk reactionism.

Words mean things and logic is important.

[AP]

56. ...and the danger of demanding the ideal is that you set up a lot of very

good, committed, hard-working democrats to fail. And the people taking their place will not be better democrats. The people taking their place will be republicans.

[FrenchieCat]

60. So pink tu-tus....

will continue the dance?

So this thread about Edwards being appealing as DNC Chair means that the two step is a good thing in this difficult world??? Wow!

[Leilani]

58. Your posts offend me, because you are the person

doing all the insulting.

Let me just close this discussion with a final point.

Out of all 100 Senators, I rank Russ Feingold as the man with the most integrity. In fact, he has more integrity in his little finger that most of them have in total.

Russ Feingold voted against the War. Russ Feingold voted for the funding.

I won't comment on all of your insults about my intelligence, reasoning power, & positions. But I think I'm in good company, when my reasoning agrees with Feingold, who criticized Kerry for voting against the funding.

[atre]

61. Leilani

I usually try to confine my attacks to arguments, but I do occassionally slip up. If I overstepped those bounds with you, I apologize.

[JI7]

4. Edwards is helping his wife get through breast cancer treatment

right now and then has plans to maybe teach some classes and some other public service type work.

[genius]

8. Maybe we should send him a note. I bet the DNC members would

vote for him with minimal campaigning.

[atre]

5. The rumor is that he will accept a position as professor at UNC or Duke

nm

[Leilani]

9. Not Duke I hope

His supporters slammed Duke...it's not a school for "real people," it's just for snotty rich kids.

[imenja]

24. the schools are comparable in quality

Duke is private, UNC is public. Neither is a "school for real people" unless you're a real person with very good grades. "Real people" go to community colleges and minor state colleges.
The anti-intellectualism on the right is very strong. I'm surprised to see it on the left as well.

[Leilani]

82. Not really, imenja

UNC is a very good state school, but Duke is in the top tier every year.

For 2005, US News & World Reports ranks Duke #5, UNC #29

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php

[imenja]

85. So what is the criteria for judging "real people" schools?

Are all private schools excluded? Are all public schools okay? Is there a cut off on the US News and World Report rankings that makes it okay to attend or teach at? You're real as long as they don't rank your school in the top 20? Would the U of Michigan
be acceptable, despite the fact the tuition is astronomical for out of state residents?

Some of these rankings are absurd. Harvard is number 1. Harvard hasn't had a good graduate program in many years. African-American studies used to be quite strong until Cornell West and others left for Princeton after a confrontation with the University President.

I teach at a school for "real people." This is the reality: very low funding, an atrocious library, and while some students are as
good as you might find at any school, anyone can and does enter the university from a community college, despite poor performance. It's chief function is to serve the local community, and that it does.
Despite that, I see no particular virtue in attending or teaching at a poorly funded university rather than one that funds well it's academic programs.

[Leilani]

97. I don't have a criteria for "real people"

I think all people are real people.

When discussing UNC vs Duke, during the primaries, there's was lots of negative talk about Duke, & I got angry about it. As a matter of fact, John Edwards had some negative things to say about Duke, & it riled up the people at Duke. And I know this first hand.

Duke & UNC have an intense basketball rivalry..."Tobacco Road"...& sometimes it spills over into bitterness on the part of both sides.

What adds to the insults is that UNC, as a state school has a very large population of in-state residents, whereas Duke is much more diverse in their student profile. UNC considers Dukies rich, snotty kids, & Duke considers itself academically superior with a much higher refusal rate.

I'm just giving you the background of this story.

My own personal beliefs are that the country doesn't spend enough on education. Students, of whatever age, are our country's future. I wish ALL schools, wherever they're located, could allow each person to go as far as their talents take them.

And my big gripe is the gov't cutting science & research funding. They are the silliest, most shortsighted cuts that could happen.

So this is just a story that goes back to some primary arguments, & really doesn't have anything at all to do with education.

[imenja]

100. I'm with you on the cuts in funding

and both the state and federal level. I expect that contributes to the animosity toward private schools, since they don't face those same problems. I myself could care less about basketball or other sports rivalries. None of that has to do with the quality of the school or the students. I went to the U of Texas for graduate school and they have big football rivalries with Texas A & M and the U of Oklahoma, but my only contact with any of that is when I'd see the longhorn steer wandering around the campus with some cheerleader type characters dressed as cowboys.

If you ask me, North Carolinians should be proud they have two such good schools in their state.

[AP]

102. Christian Laettner stepped on a guy once and he took Shaq's

position on the Olympic team. I can understand why non-Duke fans might not like the way Duke played ball in the late 80s and early to mid 90s.

There's nothing wrong with liking basketball alot and seeing things in it, like feeling that a team has a character or personality.

The key thing is that you can separate sports from everything else in life.

[Leilani]

104. How did I know you'd turn up?

[AP]

106. What a coincidence!

I was thinking the same thing about you.

[atre]

27. I hope not

Populism is great, but demagoguery is vile.

In my book, you're a "real person" if you exist and you're a "person." The antonyms are "fictional person" or "real non-person." This nonsense - defining only a certain class of person as "real" - is something Bush would do (and something he did in fact do). It has no place among true liberals.

Actually, the rumor around these parts (Triangle of NC) is that Duke's political science department will be his home; I added UNC because it made sense. Regardless, I don't think Duke would hold his supporters' comments against him.

[AP]

35. Even though "real people" is in quotes above, I doubt it's a quote.

The only discussion of Duke in the primaries in relation to Edwards that I remember was a comment about not liking Duke basketball. And that comment probably helped him with all the ACC schools because they all know what it's like to sincerely care about NCAA basketball.

[AP]

14. My money is on him starting a Lefty McLefterson Think Tank -- the kind

that Lakoff says the Democrats are sorely lacking.

[pamela]

15. He probably wants to run again in '08.

This wouldn't be a good move for him if he has plans to run again.

[AP]

17. I agree. If you're more interested in ideas than pulling strings...

...then this isn't the right job.

But it would keep a person in front of the cameras to a certain degree.

But then, wouldn't it be more exciting to get in front of the cameras based on the ideas that you're talking about?

[genius]

18. He's got a better shot than Kerry but I think the Kerry concession-stigma

could hurt him in the primaries.

[imenja]

21. no, he wants to be president

And he's only taken part in two campaigns. His for the senate and the failed presidential campaign. He doesn't have anywhere near the kind of organizational or strategic experience that a DNC chair needs. Remember, this is principally a political management job.

[Sleepless In NY]

25. Losing his home state didn't help either

I like Edwards but that worries me.

[imenja]

28. I don't think anyone expected him to win NC

but it is certainly a concern for any future presidential nomination.
Where someone has been successful electorally, it seems to me, doesn't qualify or disqualify him for DNC chair. It's a strategy and organizational position.

[elsiesummers]

29. At top of ticket he would win NC but...

if he doesn't increase his national security experience I don't see how he runs and wins the GE in '08, though maybe he could do the early cabinet announcement bit like shrub in 2000. His opponent will have to have low international experience or Edwards won't make it (though Jeb's tsunami time will not be enough to trump Edwards).

[AP]

38. Edwards needs to worry more about framing Democratic politics in a way

that allows voters to see a coherent morality to it and less about making Democratic politics fit into a right wing morality which places a premium on protecting us from nebulous external threats. And I think that's what he's going to try to do as an academic.

[FrenchieCat]

39. How does he win NC at the top of the ticket?

when he couln't even win his own county running for the 2nd most powerful position in the land?

[AP]

40. His own county is a Republican enclave populated by Richie Riches.

And it has always gone Republican.

The Dems did win a working class Republican county which hadn't gone Democratic in a couple decades, thanks to Edwards on the ticket. With Edwards on the top of the ticket, they'll win even more counties like that one.

[FrenchieCat]

43. So I see......Edwards

couldn't get his own COUNTY to vote for him....but he will turn Red NC Blue. What-E-ver

[AP]

45. The working class NC Republican Cty which voted Dem is more like Edwards's

county than the county in Raleigh to which he moved as an adult.

And if you want to look at the sorts of counties Dems need to win in order to win the election, it's going to be working class counties where people are hurting. If we can get those southerners to vote Dem, the Dems will win.

I doubt Clinton ever won Raleigh. But I bet he did win other working class counties like that one in NC that went Dem this year (and he never won the one that Kerry and Edwards won this year).

[FrenchieCat]

48. So why is it so positive that

Edwards wins NC if he's at the top of the ticket in 2008? Will it be his "I'll keep you safe" message....cause the Rethuglicans aren't about to give up that calling card.

[AP]

49. The argument for Edwards won't just be that he will win NC.

The argument for him will be that he is the most articulate and persuasive candidate arguing Democratic values. And I suspect those values will be much broader than "I'll keep you safe." And if he does it well, Republican fear-mongering will ring very hollow in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

55. I don't bet on "prediction"...

Instead I look at what has already happened. Thus far 2002 and 2004 were fear mongering elections....and I don't think that the Rethuglicans will hop off of that meal train. Hollow is relative.

It may be easy for you to make pronouncements as to what the issues will be....but you made those same predictions for the 2004 election, and sorry....but you were proven incorrect then....so the track record to say what you are saying just isn't there.

I realize that predicting is easy since it's hypothetical...but be certain that history does repeat itself....and all of the bozos that Bush is putting into cabinet positions will do his bidding and the GOP's.

Again, I stress, we have no control over the media, the current government nor unforseen events.....and therefore no real control over what the issues will be. Democrats always want the economy to be the issue...but since 9/11, that sort of wishful thinking has evaporated. Rethuglicans like National Security as an issue...and they seem to have the power....

So unfortunately your prediction sound quite naive, but helpful to Edwards.

[AP]

57. If you're not betting on prediction, let me know who you have for the...

...trifecta at Golden Gate tomorrow. Don't we all bet on prediction?

In any event, I was basing my prediction on what happened too. And I think what happened supports my arguments.

[FrenchieCat]

64. What.....

The Rethuglicans won because they preached a great economic message? The War on terror was not the prime focus of the GOP's Election strategy? The Kerry/Edwards ticket voting on the War resolution and against the 87 billion helped?

What were you right about in reference to 2004 that makes you reliable for now and for 2008?

[AP]

69. Priorities. The Republican priorities won out because the Democrats didn't

present an effective vision of Democratic values and Democratic morality.

If the Democrats CAN'T articualte a strong vision of Democratic priorities and Democratic values, then maybe we should run our version of a strict father. But I'm not ready to throw in the towel. Furthermore, I don't think accepting the strict father framework is going to be successful. I think it has a low probability of winning, and I think it delays farther the day when a lot of people will get what it means to be a Democratic and when a lot of people will start voting Democratic because they believe the democrats are right about the world.

[AP]

70. This deserves a little more response:

The Republicans won because they convinced the people that the issues they were good on were the most important issues -- ie, terror and war.

The Democrats lost because they couldn't convince enough Americans that their issues were the most important issues, and the media isn't entirely to blame for this. They don't make it easy for Democrats, but the Democrats definitely have the winning arguments and don't need the media on their side in order to convince Americans to embrace Democratic values.

As Lakoff would say, it's a matter of priorities. The Democrats could not get voters to put things in a priority that would lead to progressive victory.

John Edwards was extremely good at convincing voters that demorcatic values were better for Americans (and he was better at that than than any other Democratic candidate). I imagine that he would be able to get people to put things in the proper perspective -- ie, to give priorty to Democratic values -- if he were on the top of the ticket in 2008. I think that would help Democrats all over the ticket and all over the country, and it would help America shift to a mood in which we could actually make Democratic progress.

[elsiesummers]

105. This is a false arguement

Another example of this arguement was used against Ashcroft.

Ashcroft, IMO, is awful just because he's, well, awful - his record is awful - he's just an all around awful (in a weird kinda way too) guy. But the arguement against his nomination for AG was, "How can Bush nominate a man who lost to a dead guy?"

Totally misses the point. If he was a right minded, forward thinking, politician, who had a bad race, well who would care that he lost to a dead guy?



Example two. Did Mondale lose Minnesota in 2002 because he was a bad candidate, because he was not Senate material? Was Lautenberg Senatorial while Mondale wasn't?

No. Let's make arguements on the merits of candidates based on positions and on accomplishments, on what the offer in the future (and I'm not convinced Edwards will have what it takes - it will depend upon circumstances and the Republican opponent) not on the outcomes of particular districts.

Edwards won more primary delegates than Clark, yet I still think highly of Clark, and don't judge either man, not even as a candidate, on the number of primary delegates either one of them won or lost.

This arguement about Edwards in NC in 2004, with Kerry at the top of the ticket (not that I'm condemning Kerry either - I just don't think he's a NC kinda guy), simply doesn't make sense.

[In Truth We Trust]

26. I haven't heard from him since Nov. 3rd- I'm curious; do you think he

would espouse the position that fraWd took place on Nov. 2? Granted he is taking care of his wonderful wife Elizabeth however it only requires one hour of press conference time from him to bring this issue to the fore. Would of been nice to hear it pre 12/13 or at least pre 1/6.

Whoever is running or is selected as DNC chair they need to support Paper ballots NOW! and Hand counts NOW! So Mr. Edwards is that going to be your position?

[genius]

32. Kerry put him in a difficult position. I heard they had a fight over the

concession. I know the people inhis office were very upset with Kerry on November 3rd. I bet he'd be more likely to believe the election fraud that any of the candidates - except maybe Dennis.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Yep....

it's all Kerry's fault. Edwards is innocent. He can't hold a press conference....even now. It would be too risky?

[AP]

41. Did I miss the press conference where Clark said there was fraud

and they shouldn't have conceded?

[FrenchieCat]

42. Was Clark running????

Was he supposed to do the Kerry/Edward's ticket job for them...speak for them and unconceded for them? Don't think so.

Has he denounced our voting system? Hell yes!

He's made himself very clear on election reform prior to this vote.....

On this country's election system, Wes Clark said.....
.....we are far from the fundamental ideal of "one person, one vote." In America, your vote is your voice. That's what our democracy was built on. And our nation can't move forward if we silence the voices of any of our citizens.

We all know what happened in the 2000 election, when the only vote that George W. Bush won was the one that took place in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

It was an election marred by broken voting machines, outdated technology, and hanging chads.

It was an election where blacks and other minorities were disproportionately turned away from the polls, purged from the voting rolls, and intimidated when they showed up to vote.
And in the end, when it came to counting up the votes, the ballots cast by African Americans and other minorities were disproportionately undercounted.

After what happened in Florida, there was a whole lot of hand-wringing, but no real change.

People called for investigations, for election reform, for a complete overhaul of the voting system in America.
What did they get?
No serious investigation.
No election reform.
Nothing but a congressional bill that fewer than half the states have enforced.

The result is that today, it's only one person one vote if you live in the right county.
And if you vote at the right machine.
And if your name happens to be on the rolls.

Well, last I checked, there was no "if" in the 15th Amendment. One person one vote isn't just a slogan -- it's the highest law of this land.

We shouldn't have to wait for another Florida to fully fund election reform. Congress should get to work and put their money where their mouth is. And states need to buckle down now, and demand stiff penalties for election officials who turn away registered voters or purge them from the rolls.

This is a very personal issue for me. I spent thirty-four years in the United States military defending this right - starting back in 1963, when I was a student at West Point. Back then, we were fighting to protect America from threats to our democracy abroad. And equally patriotic young people were fighting here on American soil to make sure we lived up to the ideals of that democracy. --Wes Clark
http://clark04.com/speeches/024 /
http://clark04.com/speeches/033 /

[AP]

44. After early November, Edwards and Clark and every other Dem was in same

boat. Nobody was running, and any voice other than Kerry's would have been a voice telling Kerry what to do.

[FrenchieCat]

46. So the "would be VP" wants to be "President".....

was in the same boat as Wes Clark....

So when does Edwards start speaking up...now that the boss has officially decided not to speak up about this?

[AP]

51. When does he start speaking up? Probably as soon as the think tank gets

organized.

[robbedvoter]

77. Ah, the tank! All righty then.

[Kilkenny5]

89. Frenchie, put the Clark Kool-Aid down

Try to be reasonable.

You keep knocking Edwards for not winning his home state but do you have any proof that Clark would've won his home state of Arkansas?

[FrenchieCat]

91. Hel-lo, What are you smoking?

Was Clark running on the ticket as VP? NOP. So why do I have to prove a negative?...something that never happened

vs. Edwards losing his home state and his home COUNTY which did happen.

Why I am being requested to make an apple and orange comparison?

Why should I prove an hypothetical while Edwards actual results are there for the world to see.

You may not be drinking Kool-Aid...but I'll have some of what you are smoking.....K? Sack a macher? (That's Island Patoi....but judging from your avatar...you know what it means, right?)

[Kilkenny5]

123. Frenchie, I'm assuming NOP means NOPE

By the way, I don't smoke but I'm not an automatron like yourself saying: "CLARK IS GREAT! CLARK IS GREAT!" over and over again.

I consider myself objective. It's a pity you're not.

So if Gen. Walks on Water was the VP candidate he would've won more states?

I doubt it.

[genius]

73. Dennis signed a letter and voted to throw out Ohio electors.

[robbedvoter]

76. "I promise that IN THIS ELECTION every vote will count, every vote

will be counted" - famous last words that Unfiltered on AAR plays daily in their sarcasm department....

[genius]

37. So does anyone have any contact information?

[FrenchieCat]

62. I'm sure that if Edwards wanted to be DNC Chair.....

we would have known about it long ago. Doncha think?

[genius]

71. Now with his wife in that condition.

[Andromeda]

66. Dean would be better as Chair for the DNC.

He's scrappy and tenacious and he gets *it*.

Edwards will probably want to run again for president in 2008 if he wants to continue in politics. I think it's in his blood now and if Elizabeth beats this breast cancer I think he just might. Just my two bits.

[fishwax]

111. I think you're right

that he'll want to run again in 2008, once his wife's medical problems are (hopefully) in the past.

I also don't think that Edwards brought much substance to the ticket, and I don't see what he's done to make him qualified for this position.

[bklyncowgirl]

67. Edwards is a good guy but not for this job

I like him, don't get me wrong, he's a fine speaker, a polished politician and his heart generally seems to be in the right place, but here's why he's not the man for this particular position.

He has no grass roots political experience.

He has no executive experience.

If the Democrats want to continue to be pilloried as the party of the trial lawyers then appointing John Edwards to be party chairman would be the way to go--and would give Rush and Co. a gift from the gods.

[John_H]

68. He wants somehow to be prez. No can do as DNC chair. nt

[zulchzulu]

78. "he really got screwed by the concession"

What claptrap...

Actually, Edwards was pretty ineffective as a VP candidate if you ask me.

I hope he's doing well with the family crisis. That's where he should focus on.

[Leilani]

81. I agree that Edwards was pretty ineffective

the demographics that Edwards was supposed to help with...
the South
rural voters
women
blue collar workers

Kerry lost ground among all those groups as compared to Gore in 2000.

I think Kerry could have run a better campaign, but Edwards, for some strange reason, is never held responsible.

[fishwax]

112. I totally agree (n/t)

[Hippo_Tron]

79. I think Edwards wants to spend some time with his wife and kids...

Before he gets back onto the political scene.

[The Zanti Regent]

83. NO thanks.

He loves putting on the Pink Tutu too much. I'm sure his Bilderberger pals will take care of him. As for me, anyone who voted for this immoral war that sent my only child to die, well, they can go Cheney themselves...

[Cha]

94. I'm really sorry that your child died

in that illegal, immoral, invasion of Iraq..if I understood your post correctly! :hug:

[Catchawave]

84. There's a great JRE website at:

www.jregrassroots.org

They stay pretty much up to date on the Edwards family.

[lojasmo]

90. Fuck that.

Edwards spent the last four years on his knees for the Bush administration....That's NOT the kind of democrat we need leading the party.

[AP]

99. ? During the Debates, there was a voting record study that showed

that Edwards voted against the Bush administration more than any other candidate in the House or Senate.

And if he was on his knees for the Bush administration, why was he running against it for president?

[lojasmo]

107. Edwards said marriage is "between a man and a woman"

which dean NEVER said.

patriot act
IWR
NCLB

three of the most regressive pieces of legislation in my lifetime.

Dunno why Edwards was running...perhaps he wanted to be president.

[AP]

108. Edwards said:

that regardless of how churches or states or individuals defined marriage, the federal government should grant all the legal rights to same sex married couples that it grants to oppositie sex married couples. He said that before any other candidate said that. This is also exactly how Lisa Duggan says Democrats should frame this issue in her brilliant progressive treatise, The Twilight of Equality. Duggan says that that strategy is going to work, whereas letting the RW frame the issue in terms of ability to enter into the religious sacrament of marriage will not only not work, it will set the cause back a couple decades.

EVERY Democratic senator except one voted for the Patriot Act, and that senator's objection was that the Patriot Act should be subject to state law, which would result in 50 different interpretations and near impossible enforcement . Even that one senator along with every other senator agreed that it had good provisions (especially the money laundering provistions) that were needed immediately. Every Senator including Edwards believes it has bad provisions which they put sunset provisions on, and they campaigned against the bad provisions.

The IWR: well, isn't it just like a good "my way or the highway" Dem to blame any Democrat for the excution of the Iraq invasion before they blame Bush. No wonder the buck never stops on Bush's desk. And good of you to pick an issue that almost every Democrat voted yes on. The Democrats were between a rock and a hard place with that one. But to think that Bush wasn't going to figure out a way to do what he wanted there, or to think that Edwards would have invaded Iraq had he been president is beyond absurd.

NCLB-- yeah, Ted Kennedy's pet project is bad. The biggest problem with NCLB is that it is unfunded. I don't know many Democrats who say much is wrong with that act other than it is unfunded.

Now, even with those votes, Edwards had the fourth most liberal voting record in the Senate, and voted against Bush more than any other Congress member (those votes you mention didn't hurt him because every other Dem voted for them too). Where Edwards was voting against Bush was on all those pieces of legislation that concentrated wealth and power in the hands of the wealthy and which were destroying the value of an hour of American labor.

And that's what Edwards was running for president to stop. If you don't want that, fine. But that's not only what the Democrats are going to need to do to fix the damage Bush is doing, but it was the best progressive solution to America's problems that was available in the last election.

[lojasmo]

109. "Marriage is between a man and a woman"

is a DIRECT QUOTE, and a signal for a doorway to an anti-gay marriage prop.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, with legal benefits. The first ammendment prohibits stupid religious dogma such as the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman to influence US law. No right-thinking politician should EVER parrot that "man and a woman" crap.

I am indeed a good democrat, I have ALWAYS voted for democrats, but I am SICK SICK SICK about the way that our legislature has bent over for the bush administration.

My community pays more to comply with NCLB than it could get with federal funds.

These bills should be READ and UNDERSTOOD before they are voted upon.

And yes, Feingold has fortitude that Edwards could never hope to have.

As for blasting bush before our senators....I was all over Bush before IWR ever came to a vote, then most of the democrats bent right over...they deserve castigation for that crap.

[AP]

110. Read Lisa Duggan's The Twilight of Equality.

Edwards's strategy could have come right out of that book.

Re Feingold: he felt that many provisions in the PA were necessary and voted no because he wanted the PA to be interpreted according to state laws. That's not a guarantee that it will be more or less rigorously enforced. And many congresspeople felt that it would make it almost entirely unenforceable whenever there was a multi-state transaction. Certainly, Feingold didn't want the PA to be unworkable, since he did say that parts of it were necessary.

As for the "read and understood" comment, which laws do you think weren't read and understood? Conyer's statement in 9/11 notwithstanding, I don't think Edwards or any candidate for President this year said that they didn't read or understand any of these bills.

What I'd like people to read and understand is the parts of Clinton's "My Life" in which he describes how making law is like making sausage -- a lot of shit goes into it, some of which you agree with and some you don't, and at the end of it a Yes or No vote might not be an endorsement of all of it, but you can't found your legislative career on a history of no votes.

I think it's enough to say that Edwards has consistently voted for the interests of people who work for a living, and he spent a lot of time in the senate getting money to flow down to the powerless and poor in NC and he was committed to helping people without much opportunity get more, and he never took a single PAC dollar and never put the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of individuals and the working person.

[lojasmo]

119. Good points all. N/T

I sure won't vote for him, though.

[trezic]

92. Two points...

A. The infamous $87 billion appropriation seems misunderstood. Bush was unable to get a majority of REPUBLICANS initially because of the $20 billion handout to Iraq. House Republicans demanded that the money be loaned at low rates rather than effectively be given away. It took a full court press by the administration and the Congressional leadership, with plenty of pork passed around, to even get a GOP majority on this vote.

B. Edwards didn't lose NC. In fact, his being on the ticket actually made the race somewhat competitive. For the first time since the 70s (I think), the race was in single digits. The real truth is that Kerry lost the South all on his own back during the primaries. His comment that he didn't need the South to win an election and wouldn't bother with it was well reported in NC, at least.

Though I'm not a Dean fan, he may be the best person to head up the DNC due to his fundraising experience. Edwards is clearly the best available presidential candidate since he has at least one attribute that no other contender can boast: he's a Southerner. 1960 is the last time a non-Southerner/Californian won the presidency.

[FrenchieCat]

103. That's incorrect....

what you said here...."Edwards is clearly the best available presidential candidate since he has at least one attribute that no other contender can boast: he's a Southerner."

Guess Southern Generals can't make a dent in the south as well as a Southern Trial Attorney Senator. Who was the last southern senator president.....LBJ? Oh yeah.....he only became President due to JFK's murder. I remember now!

[trezic]

116. Southern general?

I oppose generals in politics, generally. Their career experience really isn't conducive to being a co-equal element of a government.

Clark doesn't really come off as a Southerner. Neither did Gore. Without rehashing 2000 and Florida, it was failure to contest the South that really lost the election. Clinton took 4 Confederate states in both elections. Neither Gore nor Kerry could take one. Edwards is clearly a Southerner, while Clark doesn't appear to have the same identification.

[FrenchieCat]

120. Maybe Clark can force his accent....

Like "some" politicians do....you know, maybe he can pander, depending on the crowd he is talking to.

Clark is southern. period. Whether he doesn't come off as southern, although he is, is a good thing, IMO. He's also International, and I think that he would attract votes on southern and non southern military bases as well as everywhere else.

Guess since 13 past presidents have been Generals, you being against Generals in politics is just an after-thought based on stereotypical prejudgements that aren't necessarily true nor wise.

[trezic]

121. Generals in politics

13 generals as president. 1 did well. 1 had his moments. The rest were failures. Washington and Jackson are the extent of effective generals as president. Zachary Taylor did nothing. U.S. Grant presided over the most corrupt administrations imaginable. William Henry Harrison managed to die from pneumonia. Eisenhower worked hard to lose the Cold War with his moronic 'New Look' strategy. In politics generally, the last one who was truly worthwhile was George Marshall. Before you say Colin Powell, he has found himself as an apologist for policies that he unequivocally denounced while Chairman of JCS.

As for pandering and coming off Southern...

Al Gore is the greatest argument that this is a losing method. How many Southern states did he carry? Zero. Al Gore might have been born in Tennessee, but he seemed to be from planet Washington. So much for pandering.

Clark's military record is impressive. So was Kerry's. The real test is whether people see one of their own when they see him. It's possible that this is true of Clark. It most definitely was true of Bill Clinton. Love him or hate him, there was no doubt that he was a Southerner. The same is true of Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

122. I just want to correct something....

Wes Clark offered National Security expertise...which is what defeated John Kerry (his lack thereof) and John Edwards.

One cannot compare John Kerry's military service going back nearly 40 years ago to Wes Clark's....who stayed in the military until 2000.

I would have prefered a southern General to go up against a Wartime president after the US suffered the worst intelligence failure on 9/11. The reason Kerry did not win, is not enough voters were willing to trust him with our National Security.

As for politicians, This is what I think they tend to do.....(and I am not convinced that politicians make the best presidents, or have the best qualifications...not these days anyway).

elected politicans do:

1. Not tell the truth if it might hurt politically.

2. communicate using Nuance so that even he/she can't understand what he/she is saying.

3. Make promises and then hope constituents will forget the promises.

4. Get Strings attached to special interest and corporations.

5. Utilize and exploit any tragedy occuring and that tragedies make great photo ops..... Or, flying in a plane over affected areas will raise approval points.

6. Think that talking the talk can be seen as walking the walk....just as long as no one is looking or listening.

7. Think that sitting in a room with a lot of other congresspersons mean that you have expertise in the subject matter being discussed (see committees).

8. How to read poll figures and how put finger to wind for testing purposes before deciding what to stand for.

9. Kiss losta Presstitute and media-hoe Ass.

10. Kiss constituent ass only, only, only as a last resort, or right before an election.

11. Lie about any opponent that might get in the way of your victory.

12. Stand up straight while in line to feed off the public draught.

13. Vote yourself a raise whenever possible.

14. Walk around and feel important and smarter than other just "mere" constituent mortals.

15. Learn that Public service doesn't really mean service...but rather being served.

16. Always make sure not to stand alone on any issue unless at least 1/2 of your constituents have emailed, faxed or called you and have asked that you stand up for them. Then think about it....and then think about it some more. Always ask yourself, What kind of media exposure will I get for this? If good, do it. If bad, think about it some more....or wait till 2/3 of your constituents have contacted you.

17. Always remember that it's not what you know, but who you know.

18. Talk a lot when you are on the "floor"....but always remember that making sense is not a pre-requisite.

[trezic]

124. Nice laundry list

but what's the point? Damn few people don't do the same in their private lives. The<a illegal code"window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" illegal code"location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=Love&id=31';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> love </a>of amateurs in American politics is irrational. The last amateur elected president was Carter. Not exactly a stirring endorsement of rookies, eh? In examining the record of state legislatures that are part-time, corruption tends to rise inverse to the amount of experience. One reason I've seen suggested is that amateur legislators are forced to rely on lobbyists more because they lack the basic skills, such as being able to read and write legislation.

As for generals, the last was Eisenhower. Eisenhower brilliantly encouraged the Soviets to support guerilla wars across the globe with the 'New Look.' For the commander of US ground forces in Europe in WW2, this was just pathetic. However, his misguided belief that nuclear weapons had somehow 'changed' warfare forever resurrected the old ideal of insurrection (which was mostly dormant since Ireland in the late teens/early 20s). While there is no guarantee that Clark would be as incompetent, you have to go back to Andy Jackson (half-cocked half the time) to find even a decent former general as president. The overwhelming trend of American history is that generals make extremely poor political leaders, possibly because they lack an understanding of the sheer chaos of civilian life (that was partly what Truman thought on this subject).

P.S. Your list applies to every Democratic president since Wilson, at least. Oh, and number 13 is banned, during a term, for the US Congress by the 27th amendment.

[janx]

93. Have you contacted Edwards yet about this?

I'm curious as to what you found out.

[genius]

96. I'd love to contact him if I had a phone number or address

If he still has supporters, here, they might want to contact him too. Based on the Kucinich-Edwards alliance in Iowa, I'm sure Dennis would be thrilled if Edwards became DNC Chairman.

[janx]

101. Wow, you have a point!

I'd forgotten about that.

But I don't have his address or phone number. Didn't he recently move or something?

[Kahuna]

95. I think he would be an excellent DNC chairperson.

nt

[eg101]

113. so where is Edwards' comment on Kennedy's call to arms of yesterday?

Referring to my post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1493847&mesg_id=1493847

regarding Ted Kennedy's clarion call to other Democrats to fight for Medicare for all and other social services, it looks like Edwards and the other so-called liberal 'crats are keeping a low profile and ignoring it all....

[AP]

115. Who's on that list of people who did speak up?

Since this only happened yesterday, I think it can't be too long of a list and probably includes people all along your one dimensional spectrum.

As for Edwards specifically: to me it sounds like Teddy is echoing Edwards. These are all things Edwards said in, for example, his interview last month with Charlie Rose, and Teddy sounds like he's describing the way Edwards campaigned throughout the primaries and general election.

I was wondering when "liberal 'crats" like Ted Kennedy were going to start thinking like Edwards rather than the other way around.

[mattclearing]

114. Genius = ABD in action.

Someone said this yesterday...you keep throwing up people who aren't Dean.

Edwards won't rule out 2008 and you know it. Why even ask?

[WI_DEM]

117. If he was interested I think he would have already been campaigning

like the other candidates.

[WI_DEM]

118. It would mean his not running in 2008

and he is to ambitious (not a knock) to do that.