Thoughts on Edwards (some of you may not like it)

[Avalux]

So John Edwards decides to open his mouth and criticize Dean today. Tell me - since the election, what has he done to help the Democratic party? What has he done to stop the liars and cheaters running our government?

Edwards seems like a good guy and is very likeable but I think essentially, he's focused on his own ambitions to be President and nothing else. It's a shame really, he could be a real voice since he's not in office right now.

I'm very disappointed. Edwards must not understand the analogy of the circular firing squad.

[Coexist]

1. oh my!

I don't like emoticons, but....:popcorn:

[Radical Activist]

2. What exactly do you expect?

Is every Democrat supposed to fall on their sword every time Dean opens his mouth and inserts his foot? Get real.

Edwards is doing work on poverty and economic inequality, something DLC style Democrats like Dean don't talk about too often.

[napi21]

6. Gee, and we wonder why our party leaders can't get together!

I just finished reading lots of posts here that claimed Biden & Edwards were all part of the DLC, and now, you're saying Dean is???

Looks like the Dem Party is in disagreement, all the way through, from top to bottom!

[Avalux]

8. I expect Edwards to do more than criticize Dean

I know he's started a foundation at UNC, but he could be doing more.

[Radical Activist]

10. He's doing plenty more

In fact, wasn't the event where he was asked a question a fundraiser for other Democrats? He's been doing more than a few fundraisers for other Dems, including a push to help elect Democratic state legislatures around the country.

[ultraist]

21. Edwards is doing quite a lot

Particularly considering his wife just completed her treatments for cancer. Elizabeth stated on a podcast, that John was with her for every treatment and very attentive.

Partial list from:
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/11793561.htm

Posted on Thu, Jun. 02, 2005
Edwards leaves D.C., stays busy
Ex-senator stays in spotlight with foreign policy work, speeches
JIM MORRILL
Staff Writer


For a man not officially running for anything, Democrat John Edwards has been keeping a campaign-like schedule.

* Last week he met with the British prime minister, spoke at the London School of Economics and lobbied members of the Albuquerque, N.M., city council to pass a higher minimum wage.

*This week he was named to co-chair a Council on Foreign Relations task force on Russia.

*A New York publisher announced his latest book.

*Today he speaks in Washington to one of the nation's largest liberal advocacy groups.

*Edwards has been blogging about poverty. Edwards was the guest blogger at Talking Points Memo and posts on his OAC blog.

*Edwards walked a picket line in Iowa and help Democratic legislators across the country.

*He is running UNC's new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

*Edwards, 51, has visited at least 15 states since January. Saturday he speaks to Tennessee Democrats in Nashville. He'll visit at least eight more states in the coming months.

[Avalux]

25. thanks for the info! n/t

[Skwmom]

15. Many may view Edwards work on poverty as just another

self-serving political move. It's been posted many times that what Dean said was taken out of context. Maybe instead of worrying about their own political ambitions, they should start calling the media on their manipulation.

I'm really starting to like Dean.

[Radical Activist]

17. Many would say the same about what Dean does

or any other figure they don't especially like. Its a matter of perspective and bias.

I really don't see anything to gain by insulting a large number of Republican voters who we want to switch over to our side. It was a dumb comment and I don't see why anyone should be expected to defend it.

[ultraist]

23. Even Dean realized he made a mistake, that's why he CORRECTED his remark!

Interesting, that Dean can admit when he has made a mistake and correct it, but some, refuse to accept that he is not infallible.

[Radical Activist]

32. Good point. Why expect Edwards to stand by a point Dean himself retracted

[ultraist]

27. Working to alleviate poverty is a bad thing?

Shining a big light on the issue of poverty is self serving?

http://www.onetableconference.org/amosjoseph.html



Amos and Joseph Awards Presentation

Monday, June 6
8:00 am - 10:00 am
Metropolitan Memorial United Methodist Church
3401 Nebraska Ave. NW - Washington, DC

We pleased to honor Dr. Mary Nelson and Sen. John Edwards with this year's Amos and Joseph awards for their steadfast work to overcome poverty. Please join us at this year's award presentation.

The Call to Renewal Joseph Award is given to a person who faithfully used a position of influence to benefit those in poverty. The 2005 award is given to Senator John Edwards for lifting up the issue of poverty in the 2004 election, and for his continuing work as the Director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Previous Amos and Joseph Winners

2002 Joseph - Rep. Tony Hall
Amos - Rev. Darren Ferguson
2003 Joseph - Rep. John Lewis
Amos - Rev. Jim Dickerson
2004 Joseph - Prof. Susan Pace Hammil
Amos - Rev. Dr. John M. Perkins

[Skwmom]

55. It's amazing how Edwards became so concerned with the

poor after deciding he wanted to become president. He's a corporate attorney who became a personal injury attorney after winning a large award for a corporate client. He's a guy who did zero pro bono work and was hardly generous with the charitable donations.

I think Rove would love Edwards to be the Democratic nominee (even more than Hillary) because it wouldn't take much effort to portray him as a phony, calculating, self-serving political opportunist.

[ultraist]

66. Edwards clients were NOT corporations

They were regular Americans like the little girl who had her intestines sucked out from a faulty pool pump. This child had to be on a feeding tube for over a decade and still has serious medical issues. She is in and out of the hospital with life threatening conditions still, to this day, because some corporation failed to buy a 5 cent part for their equipment. If you could ask her how she feels about Edwards, you would not be saying such things about Edwards work as a trial attorney who FOUGHT against BIG CORPS throughout his career.

Additionally, Edwards has been very generous with donations. He and Elizabeth have a center that tutors kids for free and have made numerous donations to charity orgs.

You obviously do not have your facts straight on Edwards career.

[Skwmom]

76. Edwards started out as a corporate attorney.

Therefore, his clients were corporations! He switched to personal injury after he won the big award for a corporate client. (I think the case you discuss is the case his corporate law firm handled as a favor to one of their corporate clients - but I'm not sure). Yes it's really sad about the little girl and I'm all in favor of holding corporations accountable. However, what about the doctors that Edwards sued? It's amazing how often that little fact is glossed over.

And when did these donations occur (at the same time he decided to work with the poverty center)? During the primary the issue of pro bono work and charitable contributions were raised on more than one occasion so my money is on after he realized it was a campaign issue.

[Mass]

43. Me too,

I was not a supporter of Dean during the primary, but if you ask me to choose between him and Edwards, the answer will come quickly.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. The DLC loves Dean.

Yep.

Pay no attention to the kicking and scratching behind the curtain.

[JohnLocke]

74. Excellent post!

:)

[janx]

3. Edwards didn't just decide to do that.

He was given a snippet of a quote from a reporter and asked to respond. He is entitled to his opinion. I hope that from now on, Dems will be prepared for this media tactic.

[Avalux]

7. So he responded to an out-of-context quote -

if that's the game the media is playing, then Democrats need to be smarter than them.

[janx]

I couldn't agree with you more. n/t

[cornermouse]

19. But...

Edwards is not a novice. He has been in politics for quite a few years. He really should have been prepared for this tactic. Its not like our so-called news media was doing anything they haven't done countless times.

[janx]

47. True, but the media are doing it more often.

Look at Tim Russert's program--the whole thing is organized around the "gotcha" technique. He cherry picks, too, though not as often as some others.

[Clark2008]

4. Better watch it.

They'll accuse you of starting a "flamebait" thread like they did me because I asked why Edwards would say this about Dean.

:eyes:

It's not like its not all over the news today. Geesch.

[Avalux]

12. I don't care if people call it flamebait -

we are in a battle for the soul of this country right now, and it makes me angry when I see Democrats criticizing other Democrats. And to expect an apology for Republicans? Our party needs unity and until we ALL realize it, we're screwed.

[Clark2008]

16. I happen to agree with you and started a thread when it first

came across my Google alerts (I'm in Tennessee and the statement was made in my state).

But, I was called all kinds of names by Edwards supporters because I happen to NOT support Edwards even though I was asking a legitimate question.

I even refrained from saying anything bad about Edwards for making the statement, but that mattered not to the thread nazis.

[ultraist]

28. Your post is so inflammatory

Calling us thread nazis and whatnot. I suggest that if anyone wants to REALLY know what was said on that thread is to visit it, in the GD Politics forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1829484&mesg_id=1829484

[Clark2008]

31. And your posts (and others) to me were inflammatory.

You acted as though you could read my mind.

I didn't once bash either Dean or Edwards, but you accused me of flamebait because I posted a comment, heard far and wide in the news, regarding what Edwards said about a Dean statement.

You have no idea why I started that thread, other than what I stated: it happened in my state at the JJ Dinner, I got it on a Google alert and it made ME raise my eyebrows.

Because I DON'T care much for Edwards, I refrained from bad-mouthing him and asked YOU - his supporters- what YOU thought about it.

So, tell me, how would I NOT feel oppressed by you and the other Edwards supporters?

[PurityOfEssence]

67. it confirms what I've felt about both Edwards and Dean for a long time.

These are your very words. This is bad-mouthing. It's a very nasty type of bad-mouthing because it leaves the reader to fill in the blanks. You bashed both Dean and Edwards with this line, and it was done in a sly way to give you cover if called to account.

Moderators, please don't let people convince you to flush this post as you have two others of mine today. This person is deliberately fanning the flames and not being candid.

How can you feign persecution when you specifically "call out" Edwards and Dean supporters to explain themselves for such obvious wickedness? You're an avowed Clark partisan and you specifically demanded others to toe your line and meet your demands. The fact that it "confirms" what you've felt about these two guys for so very, very long is an extremely cheap shot and aggressive to boot.

You started it. If you receive some resistance, it's not persecution, it's causal reaction. Do you claim the right to say anything you please and never be disparaged for it? It sounds like it.

[Clark2008]

68. No.. you are deliberately fanning the flames as I have chosen NOT

to get "into it" with Edwards supporters.

I have a very personal reason why I don't support Edwards and it's personal to ME and is NONE of your business unless I choose to tell you.

I do have a couple of friends on this board who are Edwards fans and in whom I've confided about why I don't support him. I don't know you.

The only thing I "started" was a thread - in the wee hours of the night - that I didn't keep up with and didn't immediately answer concerns about until later today. The reason I asked for the supporters of both Edwards and Dean to discuss this topic is that so many Dean supporters jumped over to the Edwards camp once it was obvious Dean wasn't going to win: nothing more. There was nothing viscious in my attempt to illicit conversation. You're the person who started the viscious attempts to read my mind to "discover" some ulterior motive when there was none.

You need to stop assuming that all Clark supporters have ulterior motives. I didn't like Edwards for said personal reason before Clark ever even announced.

You need to stop jumping to conclusions, head-butting and attempting to mind-read.

[PurityOfEssence]

69. There's an awful lot of "me" in your retorts

You'll do as you please. Nobody's going to stop you from whatever.

Your post literally called out others to explain themselves. By side-arming a crack about how this confirmed what you've felt about these guys for a long time, you were slinging mud. You still claim some kind of neutrality and mere doe-eyed curiosity, yet the continued postings show ulterior motives.

What about the general spirit of the board? If you care about the unity of the party's press moments, why deliberately set the supporters of the two candidates your favorite had the most trouble with against each other? Dean called Clark a Republican, and he did it quite a few times. Edwards was a demographic rival who didn't slag Clark. Clark attacked Edwards, and wouldn't retract a very blatant lie, instead substituting flagrant distortion as a secondary attack.

I equate conservatism with selfishness, and hearing versions of "I'll do as I damn well please" plays into this stereotype.

Let's backtrack a minute. Do you seriously contend that your 'okay Edwards and Dean guys, explain yourself' thread was simply information gathering? Were you not trying to sow seeds of dissent? Were you not trying to incite some infighting? Your motives were ABSOLUTELY innocent and you were merely a gentle pilgrim in search of enlightenment? I don't buy that for a second, and it doesn't take ESP to divine such behavior.

Here's a quote from "Patton", the Franklin Schaffner movie written by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund North.

PATTON: Hell, Brad, I know I'm a prima-donna; the thing I hate about Montgomery is he won't ADMIT it.

Your protestations ring hollow, and not just to me.

So why DID you vote for Republicans? Are you over that now? Clark won't even come clean just how many times he did, and for someone as smart as him to "not remember" either shows that he doesn't really give a damn or isn't telling the truth. I'd like to hear why he did. Hell, I'd like some form of crocodile tears and tale of epiphany; Republicans are vicious, selfish assholes and have been since long before I was born.

It's not some self-congratulatory mind-reading that has others interpreting your actions, it's very simple reading of the obvious. Yep, having voted for Republicans doesn't make you one, but it doesn't mean you won't do it again. Scorning anyone's inquiries into your motives certainly doesn't sound too neighborly either.

The scorched-earth tactics of conservatives, wrought while drenched in propriety is remarkably similar to many of these threads. Care to make a comment? It sure as hell doesn't sound too pluralist to me.

[FrenchieCat]

70. The 2004 PRIMARIES ARE SO OVER!

We lost, remember? John Edwards was the VP candidate....and he lost. Remember?

I notice that you cry out when folks bash John Edwards...yet you continue to bash Clark at every opportunity.

Clark lied about Edwards?
Hell, I've got a newsflash for you *****all of the candidates put their own spin on a lot of things. Just ask General Shelton!

Edwards ain't no angel now. Let's not make the mistake of believing that mess. If he was....then he wouldn't have gotten to where he got to playing a blood sport. To paint Edwards as a saint is to underestimate his success in politics. You may have been following the primaries closely, but you were not the only one.

In reference to Clark's voting record....Clark is the one who publicly stated that he had voted for Republicans. it's not like anyone forced him to "admit" to anything. So for you to attempt to make him dishonest cause you still have a question, is pretty stoopid on your part.

Who in the Fuck did Edwards even vote for the last 6 presidential elections? Do you even know? My understanding is that he didn't even vote 1/2 of the time. But who's dogging his ass about that?

The primaries are over. Get over it!

When they start back, lemme know!

[PurityOfEssence]

71. Then accept some damned responsibility

In the past day, three EXTREMELY anti-Edwards threads have been started, two by obvious Clark partisans (to such a degree that their monikers identify them as such) and another by someone whose affiliation is unknown to me.

This is a recurring pattern, although it's been in remission of late. Clark supporters post many threads to support their guy, and most of them are left to play out as they will. Should anyone post a pro-Edwards thread, it will be quickly assailed by Clark supporters. Dean supporters don't do this. Supporters of any other plausible candidate don't. It is a unique dynamic, and it is VERY one-sided. Many pro-Clark threads get posted, and they get to play out with the chorusing of the faithful. Just about no anti-Clark threads get posted (except for the one I did a few weeks ago). Virtually all pro-Edwards threads get assailed by many Clark supporters, and many anti-Edwards threads crop up, usually from the extremists within the Clark camp. Somehow, Clark supporters are victimized by all this; presumably, their thrown barbs shouldn't ever be countered. This is ongoing and consistent.

Get over it? Get over an ongoing one-sided assault? Accept our fate as inferiors? Bow to the will of the willful?

Edwards' career has been pretty damned obvious: he fought for wronged individuals against corporations. When he had his wake-up call after his son died, he went into politics with a vengeance. He is not a corporatist, like Clark. His stance on vouchers is consistent and documented, unlike Clark's. He's never lied about an opponent's public actions.

My problem isn't so much with Clark--he's got many things going for him--my problem is with his supporters. The tactics are scorched-earth conservatism: the ends justify the means and the demand to be above reproach is anti-democratic. That sets my teeth on edge. I HATE privilege. We should all be held accountable for our actions, and we should ANSWER for them.

Clark supporters start virtually all of these brushfires, and for them to bellyache that they're being persecuted when countered is nothing short of an expression of ARISTOCRACY. This must have been a delicious moment for many of the extremists within the Clark camp: Dean is hated and Edwards is reviled. What's nauseating is the protestation that Edwards is causing some kind of disruption when he was responding to a VERY loaded question. The very gall of Clark supporters wailing about discord within the party when trying to sow seeds of rancor between the two prominent politicians they hate the most is beyond hypocrisy. Dean and Edwards don't seem to be in much of a snit about all this; Dean actually rephrased his statement.

Simply put, it's thus: Dean shot off his mouth and said something truthful but ill-stated. Caught on the fly, Edwards honestly and wisely disputed the spirit of the statement, and then went on to question the structure of the party. Conservatives seized upon this to try to show internal strife where there was none, and Clark supporters have now seized upon this sloppiness for personal gain. It's ugly. That the strident Clark supporters won't admit any ulterior motivations is silly.

If the problem is party solidarity, the Clark supporters have caused much more trouble than anyone else. This was seized upon as a tactical opportunity, and it benefits nobody but Clark. For shame.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Your very shortcoming is that,, as against DU rules....

you consistently one group of supporters with a broad brush....and continue to cry about Edwards....while all the while bashing Wes Clark....like when you said in your response to me...just now

He is not a corporatist, like Clark. His stance on vouchers is consistent and documented, unlike Clark's. He's never lied about an opponent's public actions.

Look into the mirror the next time you want to call someone a partisan, because that's what you'll see. I have threads bookmarked, in which you have gone off on Clark and his supporters...time and time again.

You think John Edwards is this wonderful guy...and I don't. I think that Wes Clark is this great guy, and you don't. Sounds about even to me, so enough already! Like I said, the primaries are over, and John Edwards and Wes Clark, and Howard Dean lost. Your indignant cries are doing no more favor to John Edwards than you believe some Clark Supporters are doing for Clark. period.

[PurityOfEssence]

73. Let's tally up the comparisons

Yep, I'm a partisan; if you've bookmarked my missives, you'll see many admissions of that.

Up until the big blowout about a month ago that prompted Skinner's thread, there were many more combative postings between the two camps than recently.

Clark supporters post many laudatory threads about their guy, and they are generally not attacked by Edwards supporters.

Except for me and my one thread about Clark being inconsistent on the subject of vouchers, there are essentially NO anti-Clark threads.

There are many anti-Edwards threads, many started by obvious Clark supporters, and virtually all have the usual Clark partisans chiming in with a vengeance.

Pro-Edwards threads are not left unmolested, as are pro-Clark threads, and the prime movers tend to be Clark supporters.

What's repeatedly nauseating is how someone will post a pro-Edwards thread, Clark supporters will slag him, and then when met with resistance, the Clark supporters will shriek about how they're such an abused minority.

To recap: pro-Clark threads are respected, and there are virtually no anti-Clark threads; pro-Edwards threads are systematically harassed by Clark supporters and there are many anti-Edwards threads which are either started or substantially sustained by Clark supporters who simultaneously bemoan being downtrodden. It's sickening.
What do you say, folks? Does this sound accurate?

[FrenchieCat]

75. So fucking

:boring: boring, till it's not even funny.

Like Alexandra Pelosi said...there is no there, there.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

78. I think you need a cold shower....that's what I think.

You are so bent on starting back the primary wars, and that's destructive and really doesn't do anything for the Democratic party.

You should continue to hold your grudge, carry that heavy chip on your shoulder and be mad at what you choose to be mad at....for the next century, if you so choose.

Personally, I don't give a shit what is troubling you. I know that some of us have gone on....and some are trapped in the past....demanding answers to what most no longer give a damn about.

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/000101.asp
...the LA Times itself has written, there were indeed three major Bush tax cuts (2001, 2002, and 2003) as The Washington Post reports, not two, as the Times states in error.

More important, Kerry did not "oppose both of the Bush tax cuts" (of which there were in fact three). As the Post tells us, he voted for one, against another, and did not vote on a third.

As for Edwards, instead of simply running his campaign's canned response, the Times might have helped readers get to the bottom of the issue, by pointing out that though Edwards did vote against two of the cuts (in 2001 and 2003), he voted for the 2002 cut. And the Post wins no prizes here either. Instead of saying simply that "Edwards voted against two of the three major tax cuts", Schwartzmann and Williams might have added that he voted for another.

(In fact, both papers did better than the local Knoxville News Sentinel, which, other than running Edwards's statement, didn't even bother to point out that there was anything misleading about Clark's original charge.)

It's precisely when charges are flying in the heat of battle that reporters can be of the most value to readers, simply by laying out the facts.

In this case, all parties cited flunked that elementary test.

Why don't you go post in this thread? Just let it RIP! K? :shrug:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1362116&mesg_id=1362116

[mike_c]

5. no flames here....

I agree with you 100 percent. John Edwards is first and foremost a politician, at least in this context. He's weighing the political calculus and making statements based on his anticipation of the direction future support will run. I hope he's wrong, but like most good pols, he'll probably come out without any of the brown stuff stuck to his suit.

[KoKo]

33. Edwards should have fought Bowles and stayed out his Senate term like

Kerry. But, he caved to Bowles who ran and lost who shouldn't have run again. Edwards gave the citizens who fought like hell to get him in to replace the Faircloth/Helms racist/big business repugs the "finger" when he decided to run for President and gave up his seat.

Now we have a new Right Wing Repug,Richard Burr just elected to the Senate along with Liddy Dole in North Carolina. Edwards could still be there if he hadn't caved.

Some in NC feel he started running for President the minute we Dems got him into the Senate and was so sure he would be President or VP that he gave up his seat to Bowles who had already lost.

It was a bad strategy for Edwards. It makes it hard to understand his "political savvy." And, it has hurt his standing with many Dems here in NC who really pulled out all stops to get him elected to the Senate. He let us down by not finishing out his term and many of his votes and his "attitude" about the Iraq Invasion.

I wish him well, and love his wife who really has it all together. But, it's a puzzle as to why he would trash Howard Dean when folks in his OWN STATE have worked so hard for reform, without any support, comment or acknowledgement from him since the election.

I don't know quite what to make of him, but think his "ambition" may exceed his understanding of the issues for the Democratic parties suvival and an ignorance of those of us out here fighting for reforms.
He may not think the Dem Party needs the reforms we do...and that's sad to me. He has a charming personality. It's gotten him far. :shrug:

[mike_c]

36. thank you-- that was an excellent and informative post....

Out here on the left coast we rarely hear about the ramifications of Edwards' political decisions in his home state. I suppose only time will tell whether he's a consummate and savvy politician or a charming but ultimately inexperienced footnote in the history of the democratic party.

[ultraist]

37. Where did you get that false info?

Edwards did not "cave to Bowles." Edwards stated very clearly that he felt it was not fair to NC to run for Senator while simultaneously running for VP.

Edwards put NC on the NATIONAL stage. The NC Dem party was thrilled he ran for VP and we had THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of volunteers at the KE HQ in Raleigh. 25,000 attended the Edwards Homecoming K-E event.

He has done more for our state than most. He is now continuing to bring the issue of poverty to the NATIONAL stage.

Edwards and Bowles are close friends, there was no "caving" involved. Edwards appeared at a big fundraiser for Bowles and talked Bowles up at every NC event during the campaign.

Did you volunteer in NC or attend any KE events? It seems like you are really out of touch with the local Dem climate. Your points are right out of the Repuke State Party talking points memo.

[KoKo]

48. Edwards and Bowles were "close friends." A Deal. Hey I'm NC and

we are fighting for voting reform to get the DRE machines out of our state which caused total mess in 04 and other elections causing candidates who ran to wait and wait not even being able to get a reliable recount so that one Dem had to cave.

Edwards has never addressed the recounts, the voting problems or those of us who were so angry with him for his vote for Iraq Resolution when we wrote, phoned and faxed and "tried to meet with him." Those who tried to meet in his office to give him a statement against the Iraq War were thrown into jail. Students and sons of Peace Activists!

Also, Bowles lost and I was a supporter of Bowles on his first run, but for Bowles and Edwards to have reached some agreement ...well it speaks for itself, doesn't it.

Bowles never contested that he lost. Yet many NC'linians could look at the vote and say that Bowles won because the count was so skewed that a professor of statistics thinks that we need a recount of the two larges counties.

YET...to this day neither Edwards nor Bowles are supporting the groups who are working their butts off to get the "paperless trail voting machines out of NC."

I could tell you more...but you might not be intersted.

[Clark2008]

51. I didn't like him because he absolutely refused to meet with

Arab and Muslim-American groups from his home state after 9/11.

There were a good many of them who were moderate, love America and wanted to work to educate North Carolinians (and others) that what those hijackers did was not true to form for the majority of those who practice Islam.

And, Edwards snubbed them, several times.

I know, because my former brother-in-law was the chair of one of these groups.

I have also heard from other North Carolinians that he rarely did much for them.

So, to all those who think my anti-Edwards bias is regarding my pro-Clark positions, you're wrong. I'd ruled Edwards out before Clark even joined the race.

[Clark2008]

41. Thank you.

Living one state over from Edwards' state and IN the state in which this comment was made, I see the political ramifications, as well.

I was concerned when I first read it because Edwards acted as though everyone in Tennessee thinks Dean is a flaming idiot, which is far from the truth. Dean wasn't necessarily overly popular here as a candidate, but many people in the Dem Party supported his bid for chair.

However, I bit my tongue and didn't denounce Edwards because I know that, personally, I see nothing more to him than so many snake-oil salesmen. While I saw his statements as blind ambition, I refrained from making similar astute comments as you just have because I know how I feel about Edwards.

So, thank you for the reasoned comments.

[Darkamber]

9. What has he done to help the party?

Why don't you try to go to OneAmerican.com and see what he has been doing? He's been doing fund raising and many other things.

The press hit him with an out of context quote by Dean and you jump on Edwards? I'm glad Edwards said what he did. Both Dean and Edwards were together at the "Take Back America" conference the other day that gave Edwards name back into the press.

This is just news by the press that is trying to show how our party is falling to in fighting...don't fall for it.

[ultraist]

11. Dean CORRECTED his statement

Dean realized that he had made a mistake. So that's ok but it wasn't ok for Edwards to disagree with the inappropriate remark?

Edwards made his remark immediately following his keynote speech at the TN Jackson dinner. He was HONEST and forthright. It was NOT an attack on Dean. He merely stated that he disagreed with that ONE statement. The reporter obviously baited him, because he responded, that Dean is not THE spokesman for the party, but ONE VOICE. That is the TRUTH. We have MANY VOICES in our party. Should all other voices be SILENCED? How Repuke like.

Dean has a history of being loose with his words, at times. Fortunately, Dean realized his error and corrected it in a timely manner.

I applaud Edwards for being honest and I applaud Dean for promptly correcting his mistake.

[Avalux]

14. Dean made a mistake?

So let me get this straight - Republicans can call us names and even claim liberalism is a psychiatric disorder but Dean can't make a remark that's for the most part true?

Sorry. We need more outspoken individuals willing to stand up to the bullies ruining this country.

[ultraist]

30. Dean himself stated, that he made a mistake

He said, that he SHOULD have said, "Republican leaders" NOT "many Republicans."

Apparently, you are not up to date on Dean's remarks regarding his "many Republicans" statement.

I admire Dean for promptly correcting his mistake, just as he apologized for the rebel flag remark.

The MSM is trying to create absolute hysteria out of Dean's comments. JUST as they did with the YAAARGH.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. You make it sound like he started the whole thing

He was asked a VERY leading question about something Dean had been very clumsy to say. Do you want him to agree, so he can be depicted as someone who endorses an image of Republicans as being privileged, lazy bums who wouldn't know honest work if it bit them? Many Republicans are, for all their faults, absolute workaholics, and many are self-made.

What has he done to help the party? How about his Poverty Center? How about his speaking engagements? You might let the guy deal with his ailing wife, too. You're calling him a narcissistic opportunist, I think that's completely unfounded.

Edwards' answer was not the best thing he could have said, but he hardly assassinated Dean's character. Not only that, when one's ally makes a questionable statement and one is asked to comment on it, one isn't some kind of selfish traitor to differ.

[Avalux]

18. He should have been smart enough to keep his mouth shut -

if he had a real problem with Dean's comment, it should have been handled privately. I didn't say Edwards is a narcissistic opportunist but he is a politician and he wants to be President. He still sees Dean as an opponent.

[Clark2008]

26. And that's why I'm wondering why he said it?

Dean isn't an opponent. Dean is the DNC Chairman. Dean has SAID - and I believe him - that he will not seek the 2008 nomination because he is the DNC chair.

So - why the ranker from Edwards? I could see it if he were commenting about Clark, H. Clinton, Biden or even Kerry - all of whom probably will run in 2008.

[ultraist]

34. Edwards does not see Dean as an opponent

They have appeared together at events, such as the recent Take Back America Conference and a critical DNC meeting whereby they strongly agreed with eachother on what direction our party should take.

The MSM would like to make them out to be enemies, when in fact, they are not. Dean very much likes Edwards. They BOTH have publicly discussed the importance of speaking to our core values and working up support in all states.

Dean has the Fifty states program and Edwards has the Raise the States project. It almost seems as if they coordinated those programs.

[Avalux]

38. I hope you're right

and maybe I did fall for the corporate media bait. All Democrats need to be wary of their tricks.

[Tomee450]

52. I don't think

leaders of the Democratic Party should be attacking each other. I would have preferred that Biden and Edwards not comment on Dean's statement. They should have said that they had not read the transcript or talked to Dean and would rather wait until they did so. The Democratic party is in bad shape;where is the unity? Since when do you hear Republicans attacking each other for something one of them said about a Democrat. When Burton called Clinton a scumbag, no Republican called him on it, no one asked him to apologize to President Clinton. That was a horrible thing to say about the President of the United States. Democrats need to stop being the nice guy. The leaders of the Republican party do nothing but attack Democrats. The Clinton years were nothing but eight years of vitriol directed at him and the Democrats by Republicans. I recall all of the negative comments uttered by Repubs against President Carter when he won the Nobel Prize. Democrats should not have to apologize for the rare instance when harsh remarks are made against the Republicans. It's simply amazing that Republicans should be expressing outrage at Dean's comment given the many hateful comments they have uttered about Democrats. If our leaders want to criticize each other, they should do so in private. However, I cannot understand why they would ever think it necessary to attack another Democrat for making negative comments about the other party in view of the harshness of that party's attacks against Democrats.

[Darkamber]

57. exactly...they are not attacking each other the Press is

The press is just drooling for a story and the thought of the Democrats infighting is just want they want.

Dean and Edwards are not fighting each other. They have been seen together at fundraisers.

I can't believe anyone is making such a big deal about this.

[AmericanDream]

62. He was asked by the reporter if he agreed with Dean!

And, he said he did not... big deal? And, they are both appearing at a funraiser and another event together ... so I don't think they dislike each other. Edwards has already said that he thinks Dean is doing a great job... but that doesn't mean he has to agree with every word that comes out of Dean's mouth.

[cornermouse]

22. Edwards is an experienced politician who was responding

to a common tactic by the media. Edwards, just as much as Dean, should have known better. Its probably time to call it a draw on the mistake board and drop it.

[spooky3]

20. Exactly what was the "criticism"? The quotes I read contained none.

Edwards just said that Dean was A voice but not the spokesman for the party. That's correct. He said he disagreed. That's not criticism. That's Edwards thinking for himself.

As I posted on another thread, I see nothing wrong with what EITHER Dean or Edwards did/said.

Aside from their own minds, experiences, and personalities, which could account for their differing opinions, they also have different roles to play. Dean's supposed to fire up the base, attract new interest from sympathetic but previously inactive folk, and raise funds. He's doing that well. Edwards and others who may later be candidates may want to reserve the right to express their own views in ways that have broader appeal.

[saracat]

24. Wow. I would think you might do some research before slamming Edwards.

He has done an enormous amount for the Party. He has done continual fundraisers and donated his own money.He has been championing candidates. He has been everywhere speaking to the point of exhaustion. I saw him in Phoenix last month and he has been very involved in health care. He has also been involved with the think tanks abroad and dealing with our economic future. He is a "real voice". And Dean misspoke and admits it. What is Edwards supposed to do , ignore it or mi speak too.Dean made a MISTAKE. big deal.over and done.Maybe Dean will take his foot out of his mouth. It is ridiculous for anyone to pillory Edwards for noticing Deans mistake and wishing to distance himself from it.

[Heewack]

29. You're missing the point.

Edwards, and what he has or hasn't done, isn't the issue. The issue is a rogue Dean who is doing to the party what he did to his own campaign, and that is causing mass implosion. His heart is in the right place, but he is screwing each and every one of us with his red meat rhetoric. In case you don't get it, let me explain. To get back the presidency, senate, and the house we need voters that today idfentify themselves as repubs. Insulting that group in that way in no way helps our cause. It hurts it, in a BIG way! Dean is not the person we need in that position.

[Avalux]

35. TO EVERYONE WHO RESPONDED:

Thanks for your opinions from both sides. I started this post partly because I was upset Edwards' comment was even considered NEWS. Edwards should know better than to make a statement to the media such as this. I don't even want to get started on Biden.

So it all comes down to this for me. I DON'T CARE if some politicans have ambitions for 2008 and are perhaps motivated by that goal. I DON'T CARE if there are semantical differences between our Democratic leaders.

All I want - from every last one of them - is to do what's right for this country and for all of us, every last American. They're all so selfish they can't see the forest through the trees. Don't they realize how bad things are?

[ultraist]

39. Dean should know better than to make a statement he has to CORRECT

Edwards simply disagreed with the statement. He was honest. Dean has now corrected his error. Case closed.

[Avalux]

40. Actually, the case isn't closed -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1830915&mesg_id=1830915

The Democratic Party doesn't need this bullshit. As innocent as Edwards' comment may have seemed to you (and yes I understand Dean corrected his) - it will be blown out of proportion and run into the ground by the media when we should be focused on the DSM.

Edwards should have kept his mouth shut and talked to Dean in private if he disagreed (Biden too).

[Tomee450]

53. I couldn't agree more.

By criticizing Dean, Biden and Edwards gave the story legs.

[KoKo]

60. spanosare...well said. thanks...much! n/t

[tishaLA]

42. What's he done? Work on health care, economic rights,

unions/unionization, the center on poverty think tank, speak out on voting reform, and donate time and energy while his wife is sick.

I admit I'm not a huge supporter of Sen. Edwards, but you won't hear me suggest he doesn't have a right to speak out or that he isn't a vital, important voice in the Democratic party.

[saltpoint]

44. Lotta good Democrats out there. Edwards is one of them.

Most of our candidates in the primaries were strong in more than one area, including both Dean and Edwards, to name just two which you included in your post.

Lieberman notwithstanding, I liked that pack of folks real well.

Still like 'em.

[kentuck]

45. If you look at it politically..

Somebody has to criticize this regime. Dean is that man. The other politicians do not have to defend him. In fact, let Dean do the criticizing and the other politicians can keep their viability by criticizing Dean. It only matters if "we" make a big deal out of it. If the Repubs make a big deal out of it, it gets the publicity that it needs. He's out front - just where he is supposed to be. I have no problem with the comments thus far...

[Avalux]

46. So you're saying even bad attention is good attention?

I turned on CNN and they were "oooohing and aaaahing" over Dean's comment, the actress reading the teleprompter even exclaimed "oh my!". They topped it off with the scream footage. I'm not as sure as you but let's hope you're right.

[kentuck]

58. Deans job is different from Senator's...

They do not have to agree with him. I will not call him a "hatchet man" but he is in a position to criticize Bush and the Republicans that many of the Senators do not feel they can do. In my opinion, this is perfect, so long as the Democrats don't start stabbing him in the back. The Senators should not go out of their way to agree or disagree with Dean, bt if they are asked, they have a right not to have to agree with the "Chairman"... :)

[Texas_Kat]

50. So much for Mr Sunshine.

Edwards should have known enough not to respond. If he'd said something to the effect of "Before I comment I'd like to hear the quote in context" he could have avoided the whole thing.

So much for 'political experience'...

[Tomee450]

54. Exactly

[ultraist]

56. Dean's flub is Edwards fault?

Get real. Dean made a mistake and the media was already ON IT before Edwards and Biden made their comments.

Dean has since corrected his mistake and the media is STILL on it.

I really don't think it was that big of a deal. Stupid to insult voters, yes? Did Dean do irreparable damage? No.

Dean should stick to insulting leaders. It's common sense not to insult voters. We need to build up our party, not drive people away.

I have never heard a Dem leader insult prospective voters before! That is just stupid.

Why should Edwards be required to agree with a stupid, wreckless comment? Simply because he doesn't agree with one comment of Dean's does not mean he does not support Dean in general.

[Texas_Kat]

59. Whatever happened to...

... keeping your mouth shut?

Edwards was not obligated to comment. Why he just had to say something, I can't fathom.

It's possible that Edwards' just screwed up.... and opened his mouth before he thought about it. A slip of the tongue, if you will. But then, maybe not.

If the first case is true, he should have known better.... he's not a political novice. If the second is true, it makes it worse. His comment would then be calculated for effect.

We'll have to leave it up to our own imaginations, I suppose, unless he plans on "explaining' his comment.

Biden talks incessently... (Joe "Me, too" Biden) It's obvious HE intended a calculated result.

[AmericanDream]

61. He has been fundraising & making the case for Dems

It's a shame that you are out to criticize him when he is the one who makes the most passionate case for this party... he has been out there taking on the media people in every major speech and decisively saying that all those who think the Dems have lost their way are dead wrong. He has been making the most bold case of what the Dems stand for... far better than Dean or any other elected official. He has been contributing heavily by helping the states raise money for upcoming races. Frankly, the fact that he is disliked here is proof enough that he understands America better than those who simply want to cling to the extreme left-wing bashing.

You need to educate yourself about what Edwards has been doing since the election... and you will know the answer to your own question... go to his website.

[geckosfeet]

63. I also sense a little south vs. north posturing.

[Clark2008]

64. Which is unfortunate, given that there's:

A.) Already too much of that and;
B.) Not much Dean negativity (in regards to his being DNC chairman) in the South.

Just ticks me off that it was said in my state - like Tennesseans hate Dean as chair or something, which they don't.

[geckosfeet]

65. They don't hate Dean but,,

Dean is now the official attack dog. He can and should say things that raise some hackles. Lets hope they are republican hackles.

Edwards, and any other democratic candidate can then stand 10 feet away from Dean and be a calming voice of moderation if they want to.

My feeling is that the N vs S thing is always simmering two or three levels below the surface in the south. Can Edwards rally some southern democrats and maybe one or two republicans by being sympathetic to that?

Then again I may be reading way too much into it and Edwards just plain disagrees with Dean.

The dems need to start carrying some southern states though. The neocons have made careers out of exploiting hate and hysteria. Do the dems want to walk that road?