Serious doubts about 'Presidential Edwards'

[Tweed]

The United States is quite possibly in one of its toughest positions in international relations ever. We have a conflict to settle in Iraq, we still have a large amount of US troops in Afghanistan, a sworn enemy of North Korea has nuclear capabilities, a wealthy madman continues to organize a jihad against our country, and most of the world has lost a great amount of respect for our country. The man who can lead us out of this situation the best is Senator John Edwards?

John Edwards is a great speaker and a great Democrat, I have some concerns about his ability to lead this country on the international level. His only national experience has been serving as a Senator for four years and he has been campaigning for President for half of that time. I don't think he would be able to hold his own against some of the world's leaders. I just can't imagine Edwards giving a speech in front of the UN or attempting to solve the problem in the Middle East. So domestic issues are his strength? Edwards has served four years in the senate and he was a lawyer before that. How does that make him the candidate best for domestic policy? He has never led in any sort of executive position before. I'm baffled at how Edwards is the best man to lead our country on the domestic or international front.

Edwards has many supporters here in the DU and across the country. Do you/they know stuff that I don't? Please share your defense of Edwards.

[Lefty48197]

1. He's better than Bush

.

[Tweed]

2. Bush, of course, better then the other Democratic candidates how?

[jenk]

3. I have concerns about Clarks mental stability and itchy trigger finger

there is the integrity question, then there was the incident when he tried to bomb the Russians. He's too much of a hot head to handle the presidency.

I've seen him go nuts on reporters (asman on fox) and make some crazy allegations and predictions. This guy just doesn't have what it takes.

[girl gone mad]

6. You're making this stuff up. n/t

[Democrats unite]

8. Concerns about Clark's mental stability?

I have concerns for Edwards so little time in the Senate, He doesn't know what the hell he's doing! Oh wait a minute yes he does, He helped authorize Bush's little war! Talk about stability.

Talking about Clark's mental stability has got to be the most disingenuous statement I have ever heard on DU!

[Tweed]

12. Maybe you would like to defend your candidate first before attacking?

I'll go ahead and defend mine. What incident are you referring to when he said that tried to bomb the Russians? If I know what you are talking about, he wanted to cut off the airport. Nothing about bombing anyone. What other intergrity issues? You are going to call Clark a hot head due to one experience? One incident over a 34 year carrer, I'll take my chances with Clark. Edwards has only shown us what he can do for four years and for two of those years he has been campaigning for president. Would you like to say what allegations and predictions Clark has made? I could say the same general thing about Edwards. You think Edwards has what it takes, why? How about defending Edwards this time?

[LandOLincoln]

13. How wonderful it is to see DUers

repeat Rovian/RNC talking points as if they were gospel.

[Leilani]

14. You know what they say in North Carolina?

"If You Can't Go To College Go To State!!!"

Go Duke Blue Devils!!!!

[spooky3]

18. as I said in another thread, why would a Democrat

ridicule someone whose family could not afford to send him to an expensive private school, and who instead worked his way through college in 3 years and graduated with honors?

[maddezmom]

29. don't know either

I finished in 4 yrs and both my sister added a 1/2 yr or more. BTW we all went to state schools( NY and MI). But for John Edwards to finish in 3 yrs is amazing.

[Leilani]

35. Because I am pissed off

I never post negative posts unless someone is going after my candidate , & then I answer back.

There are several obnoxious people here at DU who are constantly going after Clark, & being insulting, inflammatory, & ignorant.

I used to like John Edwards; now I realize like some of his supporters, he is a one-trick pony.

[maddezmom]

40. know how ya feel

but ya can't let one supporter get to you. :pals:

[surfermaw]

45. Only 10 percent of the top get into UNC....

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it...and as for North Carolina State they take NO dumb kids either..

[southern democrat]

20. John Edwards,John Kerry,and Wes Clark all three

will be able to handle it well.I feel you are completely wrong about Clark.Clark is respected throughout the rest of the world and the UN.He was well respected by both parties in congress before he started having presidential ambitions.These concerns you have raised were never a problem until he wanted to be president.He has testified to the UN,the US congress and the HAUGE with his prespectives and his knowledge.Mentally challenged people do not get this kind of respect.As I stated at the start I firmly believe all three Kerry,Edwards and Clark can Do the job,But foriegn policy and national security Wes Clark's record and credentials are second to none.

[MODemocrat]

25. Jenks, are you a trained medical doctor?

If you're not, it's unfair for you to make those serious charges against General Clark. Why not be more specific about your accusation that you've seen him go nuts on reporters, yada yada yada; You don't have to like him, but for heaven's sake, that kind of malarky makes you sound like a hot head yourself.
:argh: :grr:

[maddezmom]

28. loved what he did to ASSMAN on Faux

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[tishaLA]

34. Ah. Unstable.

Our very own democratic version of Charles Krauthammer.

[mlawson]

39. Happy now, jenk?????

How many Clark supporters will now NEVER support Edwards??

[Bonobo]

42. You do an injustice to your own candidate, sir.

Edwards has not resorted to such dirty and false accusations and I think you would be wise to follow his lead.

Res Ipsa Loquitor.

[ShaneGR]

4. He's only been on the Intelligence committee for 5 years

He knows what is going on.

[mlawson]

5. How much 'international experience' did Clinton have?

Or Ronnie? Or Harry Truman? Or John Kennedy? Or Lincoln (who had 2 years in the House & was a trial lawyer)?? Or many other presidents who were governors, or NOT Secretary of State?? Remember, presidents have ADVISORS... And good presidents choose good advisors.

[jenk]

7. Generals don't always make the best presidents

look at Ulysses Grant

Clark just doesn't have the temperment for the job.

[mlawson]

10. Um, we want to convert Clark supporters,

not drive them away. You know??? :-)

[jenk]

15. eventually

But I would vote for Clark in the GE, no hesitation. just goes to show how I feel about bush

[KnucklesBuchanan]

31. Do you actually know anything about Clark?

1) He didn't try to bomb the Russians. Their military took an airfield in Pristina against the direct instructions of Moscow. Clark gave the order to prevent them from taking the airfield, and Gen. Jackson said (and has admitted since then that it was complete hyperbole), "I won't start WWIII for you." NATO ultimately blockaded them in at the airfield and prevented any reinforcements or supplies from getting there. Served the same purpose.

2) He went off on Assman because Assman deserved it. Period. Assman attempted to take his statement out of context and turn it into an insult to the troops in Iraq. And if you watched the exchange, Clark was in control the whole time.

3) If you don't like the guy, don't try to couch it in bullshit and half-truths. Have the balls to say, "I don't like the guy. Couldn't tell you why, I just don't." Here, I'll show you how it's done: I don't like Edwards. I don't really have a reason for it. I don't disagree with him on policy, nor do I have a problem with him 'giving a speech to the UN.' I find him shallow and smarmy, but haven't any solid examples to give you. That's just how he resonates on a visceral level with me. I want to take his "message of optimism and hope," and sock him in the beezer with it. Not because I don't like optimism and hope, nor because I don't have any. It's simply because he annoys me.

[maddezmom]

21. good point

and Jenk isn't helping the cause.

[Tweed]

17. Would someone actually defend Edwards? AND George Washington anyone?

Ulysses Grant and Wesley Clark are two different people.... not even in the same generation... But hey, since we are throwing things around: George Washington was a general.

[mlawson]

36. Why should we have to defend him against 'deficits' that

most of our 'greatest' presidents also had??? Very few were foreign specialists prior to their WH years. Wilson and Poppy bush probably were, and look how they did.

Edwards doesn't have an advanced degree in economics either, but so what? He can have the advice of the best economists from anywhere, and he is smart enough to understand what they say.

And he wouldn't know how to conduct a military campaign, down to the last detail, but again so what?? That is what his military advisors ar for. NO one knows everything.

[Tweed]

22. We can't elect the advisors..... but according to you, maybe we should?

So you are suggesting that Edwards should be made president because he can hire smart advisors? Why not just elect his advisors to be president? What is so great about Edwards? How do we know that Edwards will pick the right advisors?

[mlawson]

38. Oh, so he is to be the first president without advisors??

It sounds as if you expect that. But your candidate can have them, I suppose. Look, if you don't LIKE him, just say so, and save us all this typing back and forth...

[surfermaw]

47. Isn't that what Clinton did..Pick intelligent men for advisor's and cabinet

Yes I think he did just that..And isn't he going down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern time?

[BootinUp]

9. I loved the part about, he has been campaigning for 1/2 that time

Oh, how true.

[jpgpenn]

11. That title scares me!

[mlawson]

19. As much as "President Bush"?????

:eyes:

[Tweed]

23. Edwards MUCH better then Bush

But most people would be, this is a poor defense

[spooky3]

16. Please go to johnedwards2004.com and read all of his

domestic and foreign policy proposals. I can't do them justice. Also, this is Edwards' sixth year as Senator.

Clinton never served outside of a small state and IMHO was one of the best presidents--foreign and domestic--we ever had. That is far less experience than Edwards now has. Obviously Clinton made some critical mistakes. But we were respected around the world by far more people than we are today. Reagan, *, and Carter, likewise had NO experience in foreign policy but I am afraid you'll point out how that led them astray! :-) I also think someone who has built up and managed a successful private sector business is to be admired--much more than someone like * who claims to have a Harvard b-school approach but in reality run every business he was ever given by his family into the ground. Successful business experience is valuable to a President. It is simply untrue that he never led in an executive position before. He ran his own business and had at least five offices. And, unlike the military, he built it from the ground up, after succeeding in an existing law firm, with all of its demands.

I don't see how a person who is willing to take the inferential leap that a long career in the military command renders one qualified to manage a government in which cooperation and compromise are essential, yet can't take a similar leap re: experience in a professional service that is highly related to government (how many of our Congress people and high govt officials have law degrees--a TON of them), instead somehow viewing it as irrelevant. It just makes no sense at all from a human resource standpoint. It is an inconsistent position.

To get at the point from another angle, * now has more policy experience and more relevant experience than any of candidates, Clark and Edwards included, because he has served 3 years as pResident. Would you consider him more qualified than our candidates?

My point is that so much depends on the person, who he is, what he values, how smart he is, and so forth. In my opinion, I would be absolutely thrilled to support Edwards and nearly as excited if Clark were the candidate. Edwards has never failed at anything important in his life, and has beaten the odds and much better resourced opponents time after time. I am (figuratively and literally) willing to bet on him, to (a) win this election if he is the nominee and (b) do an outstanding job surrounding himself with highly competent people (as all good Presidents do) who will help him be an outstanding President.

[Tweed]

24. Thank you for actually defending him

I'll check this out ASAP and get back to you

[spooky3]

27. thanks--I edited it while you were posting, because I just can't shut up.

[Tweed]

30. LOL, well at least we both have passion

[spooky3]

32. gotta have that, don't you? :-)

[Jerseycoa]

49. funny

:D

[Tweed]

41. Good points, but SURPRISE: we don't see eye to eye

I think you would agree with me right off the bat that 2004 and 1992 are two tottally different times. I would argue that Bush has faced more international problems in his short term then Clinton faced in all eight. I think the next guy to replace Bush will face more international problems then Bush did in four and Clinton did in all eight as well. For this reason, the next president will have to jump RIGHT into the international politics. I don't think Edwards has the experience or knowledge to lead us there.

Clark has been there and done that. Clark is gold when it comes to the international level. Also, Clark never had supreme power, while he was supreme commander, Clark had to work with a lot of different people in the army. Think about how many times Clark has worked out deals and treaties with international leaders. He has wonderful experience to lead our country.

Yes, I would say that Bush has more experience at being president then Clark or Edwards or Kerry. That's why you have to run someone against Bush that has intangibles that can override him. That's where Clark's military experience comes in.

Finally, Edwards has done a good job of beating out other oppenents, but why is he running for President so soon? Is it because he couldn't win if he ran for reelection in North Carolina? I've heard some bad things about him serving his state in the senate. Could you defend him on this?

[PaDUer]

26. Edwards will do great

He's brilliant!! and honest!!!
Plus, he's not a "pretender" and "liar"!

[iamjoy]

37. Edwards will do fine

Experience isn't everything; Edwards has the qualities needed to be President. Knowing that he clawed his way up from lower-middle class to super wealthy...

IMHO - John Edwards is intelligent (jokes about attorneys aside, not just anyone can go to law school) and charismatic (how else do you make juries cry and turn over multi-million dollar awards to malpractice victims? Besides, how can you watch his "Two Americas" speech and not be moved?). Plus, Edwards has a good sense of humor. I don't know why I think this should be a desirable trait in a President...

I must admit, I don't like John Kerry. His resume is good. But, when I think of spending four years watching him address the nation, I cringe. Kerry still runs circles around Bush.

Don't knock the power of charisma and like-ability. Al Gore was way right about so many issues but Dubya still "won."

And "President Edwards" could hire advisers, with his intelligence and thoughtfulness, I think he would incorporate a number of opinions and then decide.

[SangamonTaylor]

43. The man was a lawyer. He knows when to negotiate and when to take action

He spent his entire life judging character of other highly paid attorney's, the facts comprising the circumstances of the case, and knew how to best negotiate for his cause.

When he felt that he wasn't being offered a fair deal, or if it would not truly benefit his client, he would take corporations to court. This, it turns out is extremely risky for his clients (just as in international affairs), yet his clients would say to him "I trust you" (see the first few pages of his book Four Trials). Knowing when, and how to take risks like that, that will significantly affect people's lives is the cornerstone of being a good leader, and it is an area in which Edwards excells.

He truly knows the art of negotiation, and when that negotiation is not up to par, he knows when to act.

This seems to be the essential quality that Bush is lacking in foreign policy. He doesn't work well with others, he has no idea of negotiation, and he does not know how to work with foreign heads of state.

[surfermaw]

44. Yes Edwards is up to the job

Just wait a little longer in the game, you will see Edwards step up to the bat,at the right time , in his own time...beleive me

[MIMStigator]

46. another baffled kick

.

[ngGale]

48. "Senator John Edwards is...

the 'real' thing. He can do the job, and he gives us hope.

[Ivote]

50. Ask some of these people

about Clarks stability.


February 2, 2004 For Immediate Release: Fifty-five US Ambassadors and Diplomats Endorse Clark visit www.clark04.com/press/release/221/ for text

[genius]

51. He is the diplomatic type and he's on the right side of NAFTA

as far as I can tell. He'll bring jobs back and bring back respect. Kerry's better on the environment and it might be an easier win with a war hero. Kucinich is the best on everything. But to those who aren't voting for him, Edwards is an excellent choice.

[ChiefJoseph]

52. The same concerns were voiced about Kennedy

That he was smart, talented and had a pretty face, but was a playboy and a lightweight. Look at what a GREAT president he turned out to be.

Anyway, I want Edwards because he has a better chance of beating Bush than Kerry, not because I think he'd make a great President.

[DjTj]

53. Never in the past...

...has "foreign policy experience" proven essential to the ability of a President to lead this country.

How much foreign policy experience did John F. Kennedy have before he had to handle the Cuban Missile Crisis?

How much foreign policy experience did Franklin Delano Roosevelt had before he led the country in World War 2?

How much foreign policy experience did Woodrow Wilson have before he led the country in World War 1?

A great majority of American Presidents have had their primary experience in domestic affairs. A great majority of them have been successful, as we are still the most powerful nation on earth.

The truth is, there is no prerequisite to being President, and that is the beauty of America. We do not have a ruling class; anyone can be President. Who decides what experience is necessary? We the people.

I believe John Edwards is the right man to lead our foreign policy. One day after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, John Edwards stood on the Senate floor and urged President Bush to share this vision: "A free Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. And if done right - with humility, patience and cooperation - this effort to rebuild Iraq will bring the world together and return America to a place where it is respected and admired."

On the stump, John Edwards speaks of returning the United States to a place where we are respected and looked up to. He wants to work more closely with other countries and bring the world community together. I believe he can do this because he has done far better than any other candidate at bringing the American people together. He does not only appeal to angry Democrats who hate President Bush; he reaches centrist voters in every part of the country, and he reaches the disenfranchised voters who are more worried about jobs than ideology.

The first step towards bringing the world together is bringing this country together, and I believe John Edwards can do that.

I'm not electing a resume, I'm electing a man I believe in. That's what America did with Bill Clinton and with John Kennedy. That's the kind of President I want, and that's the kind of President America will choose.