If Edwards is so upset about the war, why did he leave Congress?

[BluegrassDem]

It's kinda hypocritical for him to be jumping on our members of Congress to pull the funding for the war, when he weaseled out of Congress by choosing not to run for re-election!! If the war is such a big deal, as he says, I think he should've kept his ass in the Senate and made the hard decisions himself instead of trying to pass the buck.

If he truly wanted to show the party that he regretted his vote and sponsorship of IWR, then he could've voted to pull funding as a sitting Senator. But now, he is accountable to no one. So all of a sudden, he's had an epiphany and now jumping on our congressmen and women to fix the mistake that he made.

[citygal]

1. I really think the opposite...

I don't think he weaseled his way out of Congress, I think he believed he and Kerry would win and, therefore, there was no need to run for his Senate seat. That's the kind of running mate any presidential candidate should seek. I actually found fault with Lieberman in 2000 when he continued to run for his Senate seat all the while seeking to be Gore's VP. I think it is remarkable that Edwards is technically out of government, yet maintains such strong name recognition and media attention.

[Mass]

11. He announced he would not run long before he was chosen as VP,

in fact long before the presidential nomination was decided.

[citygal]

13. I honestly don't remember, but I believe I respected his decision

to pick one contest over the other. It is not rare for a presidential contender to later become the VP on another's ticket. I liked that he committed to one battle or another, rather than trying to have it both ways.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. The dates...

Edwards announced he was running for President on September 15, 2003. At that point it would safe to assume that Edwards was not planning to run for re-election to the Senate (since it would be odd to be running for both offices simultaneously). He did not officially withdraw from the primaries until March 3, 2004. Starting a re-election campaign from scratch at that point would have been logistically challenging, and patently unfair to fellow Democrat Eskine Bowles, who had been campaigning to replace Edwards in the Senate.

[No Exit]

37. Yours is a sensible post.

The original poster is making spurious arguments. He should sit his "ass" (as he expresses it) down and think before he presumes to criticize one of the best current presidential candidates.

Stay in congress in order to stop the war? Yeah, sure, we're all really awed by the way the congress has been able to put an instant stop to this war! I'm not necessarily blaming them; I think they are running into some separation of powers difficulties. But it shows us just how little ONE senator can do to stop the war. Does the original poster think Russ Feingold wouldn't stop this war now, if it were really in the power of a single senator to do so?

Methinks the OP simply wants to find something to criticize in Edwards. Must be envy.

[vanboggie]

50. I totally agree

Plus I wondered way back in 2000 if Joe the Turncoat always KNEW about the coup d'etat and that he would still need that Senate seat.

Edwards in '08!

[karynnj]

54. I doubt it - I think there are two reasons for the difference

1) Edwards ran for President and Leiberman didn't. I assume that Edwards would have had difficulty running for Senate in NC while spending the time needed to run for President. That is when he made the decision.

2) Had he NOT announced that he wouldn't stand for the Senate, NC is not CT. Leiberman could spend very little time in CT and win there. I suspect Edwards would have had to spend more time in NC.(The bigger problem I had was that - it would have given the CT seat to the Republicans had Gore won.)

[XemaSab]

2. .

:popcorn:

[KingFlorez]

3. You have a point

He left where he could have been of more use to run a failed Presidential campaign

[DaveinMD]

4. he left

because he had to choose running for re-election or running for President. He made the choice.

[ultraist]

12. Exactly. He chose to run for President

Edwards chose to bet it all on a run for Presidency and did not think it was appropriate to run for both the Senate and the Presidency at the same time. (He was up for re-election that same cycle and Bowles ran for his seat). He was clear on this around the time he announced his candidacy.

Some elected officials choose to hold onto their seats, just in case they lose.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I agree. It's easier to critique people when you don't have to do the heavy lifting

He's a billionaire, does nothing all day and so has the time to do whatever he wants and say whatever he wants. Others have to take into concideration their voters, their co workers and the office they represent. It doesn't excuse Hillary for saying nothing when she was needed and instead hightails it to Iraq so she can have an excuse to not be for the war and grab headlines with some speech. she only does things that benefit her. but, most of the others are somewhat constrained while the party and the body are deciding the best way to handle a horrible situation and get enough republicans to back them up. so they can't just be all blah blah blah.

[ultraist]

15. WHO is a billionare and "does nothing all day?"

You certainly aren't talking about John Edwards, who is not a billionare (you're confused and thinking about Theresa Heinz Kerry).

As far as not doing anything all day...check out some of what Edwards has been doing lately, he's maintaining a schedule that few could keep up with: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/27/2858/1411

[karynnj]

55. Pretty tacky - Someone unfairly attacks Edwards, so you unfairly attack Teresa

She is a billionaire, but she has a long term record of working very very hard for people who are not billionaires and for the environment.

This is a woman with enough morality and guts to march against appartheid in South Africa. She met Senator Kerry in 1992 as a non-governmental delegate at the Rio conference on the environment. At that point, she was chosen because of work on cleaning up and greening Pittsburg.

In fact, her record on working for the environment, health insurance and women's pensions goes back further than Edwards does - his political activity doesn't go back much before 1998.

[mtnsnake]

64. I'm curious. How do you know that Teresa Heinz Kerry does nothing all day?

Are you one of her servants or something? :evilgrin:

[rhombus]

6. John Edwards reminds me of the weasely kid at school

The kid who let the big kids do all the fighting on his behalf, and when everything seems safe for him, he claims he actually won the fight, and not the big kids.

JE has very little conviction - he's a typical panderer of the highest order. When I heard him call out Dems to cut off funding for the troops, I just about laughed. This coming from a cosponsor of the IWR that has cost over 3000 American lives, 20,000 wounded and at a minimum 50,000 dead Iraqis? sheesh.


Edwards will fold very quickly under close scrutiny. Just wait.

[citygal]

8. Well, Edwards is not my pick for this election cycle.

He has the same weaknesses as Obama and I like Obama. I think his time was 2004 and it's over. However, choosing to focus upon one campaign, rather than two, is not a bad idea. I still think that was one reason I lacked faith in Lieberman's VP campaign. It appeared as though even Lieberman did not believe he would become VP and so he played it safe by seeking Senate re-election. Does anyone remember if Gore did the same? I cannot recall if he was up for re-election or not when he was VP on Clinton's ticket.

[Bucky]

45. No only a few states let their senators do that: Texas and Connecticut among them.

[ultraist]

18. One of the top ten trial attorneys

Edwards didn't win case after case and become one of the country's top ten trial attorney's by being "weasly" and not fighting.

What's up with the Limbaugh style name calling of Democratic leaders?

[rhombus]

21. please. Don't campare Edwards trial lawyer career to what's at stake here

The big difference? Fighting for personal gain ie. multimillion dollars to line one's own pocket is totally different from fighting when one has very little to gain personally.


Can you actually name anything of significance Edwards accomplished in his six long years in the senate, apart from his awful IWR cosponsorship and cheerleading? Like I said, to hear this guy call out Democrats to cut funding for the war when he could have done so in the senate just smells of crass pandering and political opportunism.
:puke:

[ultraist]

22. I was responding to the name calling

I quoted the person I was responding to who was discussing the type of kid in school that reminded him of Edwards. Apparently, you did not read my post or the post I was responding to.

Although, Edwards' work fighting for people like Val Lakey, a little girl who had her intenstines sucked out by a pool pump due to a corps negligence of installing a two cent part, certainly doesn't hurt Edwards.

[dad]

26. Edwards was running for prez from the minute he started out as a Senator

and don't think his constituents didn't notice. He did a poor job of representing us in NC after we put such high hopes in him. The Senate was a stepping stone to him. He would have LOST had he run for re-election. I don't know what the polls said, but I am sure of this. The fucker voted for the Iraq war, don't forget this. He never responded to any of the correspondence I sent him either... I just think he's a real phony.

[No Exit]

38. If it comes to that, so was Hillary.

And she voted for the war, too.

I have never understood why people heap so much blame on the democrats who "voted for the war". First of all, they were lied to and they were rushed. Those are trademark neocon methods. Secondly, the original blame goes to the architects of this war, including Bush/Cheney. The neocons and Bush/Cheney deliberately hurried the congress into "backing" this spurious war because they knew that that would draw congress into a share in the guilt. Anyone who has ever been around police courts know that all the really talented criminals line up their "fall guy" before committing the crime. And it works: people are so busy blaming the congress for the war, that they forget that the PRIMARY BLAME RESTS WITH BUSH/CHENEY, THE NEOCONS, AND THE REPUBLICANS. Period.

[Bucky]

46. So was Biden... though it's been a really long wait for him.

[madmunchie]

68. BAD JUDGEMENT even though there was plenty of evidence

to the contrary. The Iraq War is what happens from BAD JUDGEMENT....

There were people out there that had GOOD JUDGEMENT and didn't support going into Iraq:

Those people are at the top of my list for POTUS because they used GOOD JUDGEMENT in one if not THE most important JUDGEMENT of their careers:

Teddy Kennedy
Obamma
Clark
Gore
Feingold
Kucinich

THEY are at the top of my list because against the "popular" thing to do, they vocalized the CORRECT JUDGEMENT about Iraq.

We have too many great possible candidates to have to settle for less.

[Stand and Fight]

79. Boxer? n/t

[madmunchie]

82. Feel free to add to my list. It wasn't such a secret after all now was it?

There were smart enough people out there to figure it out and they talked about it, but many too many of the others didn't listen.

These genius's (?) figured it out and made the right judgement, why didn't - - - -? (fill in the name and then ask supporters of these people)

[Stand and Fight]

83. You're absolutely right...

I figured it out as a corporal in the Army with nothing but the Internet... Coincidentally I also started lurking on DU then as well!

[madmunchie]

86. I knew partly from watching a PBS show that talked about

how Bush I refused to go into Bagdad/Iraq for 3 reasons, which turned out to be prophetically true. They also really talked about Rove and Rumsfield...the whole group and what their ideals were. It really turned the light on for me.

Watching the drumbeats to go into Iraq was maddening....I could see them orchestrate the whole campaign to convince the American People to support them. I am really dissappointed with the Democrats in Washington that apparently knew less than I did...Yeah right.

[Andromeda]

84. You really have a sour way of looking at things.

Who is the saint you will be supporting for president?

[Bucky]

44. I think he had scrutiny three years ago. He held up then.

He's not my cup of tea, frankly. I don't see the appeal. But I don't think everyone he appealed to was a gullible cretin. He did alright for himself in 2004 and is well positioned for '08. I won't be voting for him until a few other candidates are removed from the process, but he's not exactly a pretty version of Dick Nixon, which seems to be your view of him.

[ChiciB1]

7. You Know It Just Dawned On Me!! John Edwards Is Getting An

awful lot of attention these days. I don't think he minds at all! Whether it's positive OR negative, I see sooooooo many posts about him and I find that interesting!

I'm also pretty happy about it too!

[BeatleBoot]

9. Especially Posts by Newbies With Low Post Counts

Too funny!

[citygal]

14. Being a "newbie" does not make an opinion any less

relevant to a discussion.

[ultraist]

19. Welcome to DU citygal! n/t

[citygal]

20. Thanks - And I am pretty sure that everyone on this board

was a "newbie" at some point.

[dad]

28. Seriously - I hate that shit

People think that posting 100x a day makes their points more relevant. I prefer those posters who are like Mr. Ed - they only speak when they've got something to say!

[Stand and Fight]

80. I couldn't agree more... n/t

[demo dutch]

88. That picture is disgusting!

[FrenchieCat]

17. Do you ever provide any substance, or just teen giggles in your posts? n/a

[ChiciB1]

31. Just Teen Giggles... n/t

[citizen snips]

52. As a teen I find that offensive

just joking it is not that big of a deal.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

62. As a habitual giggler...

oh, never mind!

[ChiciB1]

81. It's the Best I Could Come Up With At The Moment! I'm Not Into Constant

BICKERING! Fussin' & fightin' ain't gonna get us anywhere! So I just figured I'd just go along for the "Halibut!"

[ultraist]

23. It's true ChiciB1

There are a lot of posters talking about John Edwards, both long term (like us and others) and newbies, which is great too of course that more people are coming to the site. I'm sure the admins here are glad of that.

For the most part, with the exception of a very small gang of vocal people, the posters are very positive about John Edwards!

Good news indeed. His campaign is getting off to a fab start.

[ChiciB1]

32. I Like Your Picture Of Him MUCH Better....

Where did you get it??

[Le Taz Hot]

30. Please be aware that DU has a goodly share

of paid operatives. They're actually pretty easy to spot if you know the signs.

[ChiciB1]

33. Gee, Anyone With MONEY Out There... I Will Gladly Take Some...

I can post a LOT of "teen giggles" for Edwards, especially if "The Price Is Right!"

[JI7]

10. Nancy Pelosi represents the new Congress

i'm not sure the attacks on Congress can work with someone like Pelosi representing it. it is easier when it's people like Hastert, Frist, Delay, Gingrich, Lott etc who are in control.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Maybe it's all a show.....for his voting audience.....

Instead of quietly talking to the leaders to get an assessement as to what they will be proposing......and giving them input.

You know....feigned outrage nice and loud and public. Makes him look strong and determined! :eyes:

Hell, I'm tired with the public shows from Bush. Hope we don't end up with another president that needs a news conference everytime he farts!

I know....I'm so mean tonight!
Must have gotten set off when some where comparing Edwards to MLK, RFK, FDR, and JFK all at once! :shrug:

[madfloridian]

24. Who do we bash tomorrow?

Just wondering.

[Generator]

49. Hillary Clinton, of course

She's always up for it.

[Kerry fan]

25. Edwards left the Senate

because he was polling extremely low in the polls for re-election, and didn't have a snow ball's chance of winning reelection.

[dk2]

29. do you have a link to those poll?

I sure would like to see them.

[underpants]

It is true I have heard it at least twice

so it must be true.

:sarcasm:

That line was picked up by the MSM and (this only hit me recently) I never saw anything that supported it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. April 2002: Edwards' support slips in latest Elon University Poll

Less than half of North Carolinians approve of the job U.S. Senator John Edwards is doing on Capitol Hill, while a majority of citizens are paying little attention to the upcoming Senate race to replace Jesse Helms.

Those are among the findings of a new Elon University Poll, conducted April 15-18 by the Elon Institute for Politics and Public Affairs. The poll sampled the opinions of 648 adults in the state and has a margin of error of ± 3.9 percent.

Only 43 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate, down significantly from a February Elon Poll which measured his approval rating at 53 percent, and an October Elon Poll which gave him a 57 percent approval rating. Enthusiasm was also low for a potential White House bid by Edwards, with just 41 percent of citizens indicating their support.

"The lack of support Edwards is receiving in his home state for a possible presidential nomination is somewhat surprising," says Sharon Spray, assistant professor of political science and director of the Elon University Poll. "But Edwards has not received a lot of publicity at home for his accomplishments in Washington. He has received a great deal of attention recently indicating he spends a lot of time outside Washington. People may think that he is not spending enough time doing what they expect him to do as a senator," says Spray.

more: http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/apr02.asp

[Catchawave]

34. Not true, quite the opposite...

I'm sure you have a reference link to prove me wrong though :hi:

[Freddie Stubbs]

57. April 2002: Edwards' support slips in latest Elon University Poll

Less than half of North Carolinians approve of the job U.S. Senator John Edwards is doing on Capitol Hill, while a majority of citizens are paying little attention to the upcoming Senate race to replace Jesse Helms.

Those are among the findings of a new Elon University Poll, conducted April 15-18 by the Elon Institute for Politics and Public Affairs. The poll sampled the opinions of 648 adults in the state and has a margin of error of ± 3.9 percent.

Only 43 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate, down significantly from a February Elon Poll which measured his approval rating at 53 percent, and an October Elon Poll which gave him a 57 percent approval rating. Enthusiasm was also low for a potential White House bid by Edwards, with just 41 percent of citizens indicating their support.

"The lack of support Edwards is receiving in his home state for a possible presidential nomination is somewhat surprising," says Sharon Spray, assistant professor of political science and director of the Elon University Poll. "But Edwards has not received a lot of publicity at home for his accomplishments in Washington. He has received a great deal of attention recently indicating he spends a lot of time outside Washington. People may think that he is not spending enough time doing what they expect him to do as a senator," says Spray.

more: http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/apr02.asp

[venable]

35. wrong.

He would have won. He believed it was insincere to run for two jobs at once, as many do. And so he got out early enough to let NC Dems find a good candidate.

He believed, too, that it showed his commitment to his Presidential candidacy.

This OP is the weakest, lamest, most far stretched of the countless attacks on Edwards.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. April 2002: Edwards' support slips in latest Elon University Poll

Less than half of North Carolinians approve of the job U.S. Senator John Edwards is doing on Capitol Hill, while a majority of citizens are paying little attention to the upcoming Senate race to replace Jesse Helms.

Those are among the findings of a new Elon University Poll, conducted April 15-18 by the Elon Institute for Politics and Public Affairs. The poll sampled the opinions of 648 adults in the state and has a margin of error of ± 3.9 percent.

Only 43 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate, down significantly from a February Elon Poll which measured his approval rating at 53 percent, and an October Elon Poll which gave him a 57 percent approval rating. Enthusiasm was also low for a potential White House bid by Edwards, with just 41 percent of citizens indicating their support.

"The lack of support Edwards is receiving in his home state for a possible presidential nomination is somewhat surprising," says Sharon Spray, assistant professor of political science and director of the Elon University Poll. "But Edwards has not received a lot of publicity at home for his accomplishments in Washington. He has received a great deal of attention recently indicating he spends a lot of time outside Washington. People may think that he is not spending enough time doing what they expect him to do as a senator," says Spray.

more: http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/apr02.asp

[rinsd]

43. What? His approval numbers were at least in the mid 40's

Which while not great for an incumbent aren't a death knell to re-election.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Yet his disapproval numbers were higher than his approval numbers:

Poll Results: April 15-18, 2002

Edwards' support slips in latest Elon University Poll

Less than half of North Carolinians approve of the job U.S. Senator John Edwards is doing on Capitol Hill, while a majority of citizens are paying little attention to the upcoming Senate race to replace Jesse Helms.

Those are among the findings of a new Elon University Poll, conducted April 15-18 by the Elon Institute for Politics and Public Affairs. The poll sampled the opinions of 648 adults in the state and has a margin of error of ± 3.9 percent.

Only 43 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate, down significantly from a February Elon Poll which measured his approval rating at 53 percent, and an October Elon Poll which gave him a 57 percent approval rating. Enthusiasm was also low for a potential White House bid by Edwards, with just 41 percent of citizens indicating their support.

"The lack of support Edwards is receiving in his home state for a possible presidential nomination is somewhat surprising," says Sharon Spray, assistant professor of political science and director of the Elon University Poll. "But Edwards has not received a lot of publicity at home for his accomplishments in Washington. He has received a great deal of attention recently indicating he spends a lot of time outside Washington. People may think that he is not spending enough time doing what they expect him to do as a senator," says Spray.

more: http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/apr02.asp

[rinsd]

69. That was actually earlier. His poll numbers were trending better closer to his decision

He announced in Sept. 2003 that he would retire from the Senate.

His poll numbers from May 03

http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/may03.asp

I can't believe the only poll either of us seem to be able to loctae is Elon's small sample MOE 4+ polls.

[citizen snips]

51. link?

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. April 2002: Edwards' support slips in latest Elon University Poll

Less than half of North Carolinians approve of the job U.S. Senator John Edwards is doing on Capitol Hill, while a majority of citizens are paying little attention to the upcoming Senate race to replace Jesse Helms.

Those are among the findings of a new Elon University Poll, conducted April 15-18 by the Elon Institute for Politics and Public Affairs. The poll sampled the opinions of 648 adults in the state and has a margin of error of ± 3.9 percent.

Only 43 percent of North Carolinians approve of the job Edwards is doing in the Senate, down significantly from a February Elon Poll which measured his approval rating at 53 percent, and an October Elon Poll which gave him a 57 percent approval rating. Enthusiasm was also low for a potential White House bid by Edwards, with just 41 percent of citizens indicating their support.

"The lack of support Edwards is receiving in his home state for a possible presidential nomination is somewhat surprising," says Sharon Spray, assistant professor of political science and director of the Elon University Poll. "But Edwards has not received a lot of publicity at home for his accomplishments in Washington. He has received a great deal of attention recently indicating he spends a lot of time outside Washington. People may think that he is not spending enough time doing what they expect him to do as a senator," says Spray.

more: http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/apr02.asp

[Catchawave]

63. You found this link on Free Republic, right ?

That's the only place I've seen it posted, other than the schools website, Drudge and spamming of it here!

:rofl:

And it proves what? He had a bad 4 days in April 2002? Gov Easly's numbers were down slightly too.

Here, bring more dirt from your research efforts:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816499/posts

Also a more current poll (Feb04) from ELON, had Bush's approval rating at 55%

http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/feb04.asp

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. I did a google search

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-44,GGLG:en&q=edwards+poll+2002+approve

As you can see, it came up as the top link from that search.

[Catchawave]

66. Good grief.....

maybe it had to do with your search words?

edwards poll 2002 approve


Try later years. I think the question was "could he have been re-elected?". 03/04 polls indicated people didn't want him running for both the presidency and the senate at the same time.....it gets muddled on conservative/freeper sites:

"....But few residents supported a campaign in which Edwards could run for president and the U.S. Senate at the same time in 2004. When asked to respond to this scenario, only 13 percent of North Carolinians thought he should seek both offices, 18 percent said he should only run for president and 35 percent said he should run only for the Senate.

The poll also found support for Edwards work in the Senate has dropped from 45 percent in April 2002 and September 2002 to 39 percent, but Spray says these figures may be due to the focus on his potential presidential bid. "The Senate has accomplished very little in the months since we last asked this question," said Spray. "Edwards' approval ratings may simply have dropped because most of the press he is receiving in the state is focusing on his presidential aspirations and not on his work in the Senate......."

http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/feb03.asp

and....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/848797/posts

Like I said, the elon polls only seem to be referenced on wingnut sites.

[rinsd]

70. That's not fair to Freddie. I found the same polls while looking for info

They seem to be the only polls available on Edwards approval numbers in 2002 & 2003 when he would make the decision whether or not to run again. Survey USA doesn't go back that far and I couldn;t find anything else listing his approval numbers for those years.

Freddie's mistake was linking to an earlier poll. The last poll taken by them beofre Edwards made his decision not to run for the Senate again shows him at 44% trending upward from their previous poll.

[Catchawave]

71. Freddie's mistake was posting that poll 4 times!

Once would have been enough :D His search words were a little more generic than mine.

Elon is a private Christian university, a wonderful school, but not a poll I would put my full liberal values faith in either. Probably why Free Republic keeps coming up in my searches.

[rinsd]

72. I have a friend who went to Elon

Its alot more laid back than you think. Mostly he and his friends hung out, smoked pot and followed Widespread Panic around.

And yes while I think a critical eye should be cast at their polls (from a sample size and MOE perspective) they are the only things I could find with any data.

[Catchawave]

73. I meant no offense to Elon, my son

was accepted there, but chose Pfeiffer for a Lacrosse scholarship.

[rinsd]

74. Congrats to your son.

Hopefully he takes his academics a bit more seriously than my friend did.

;-)

[Catchawave]

76. Thanks...he graduated in '96

with a CJ degree and is now a "fed".

[rinsd]

78. OK belated by a decade congrats!

:hi:

[MADem]

27. Wow, this is interesting, and so binary.

We haven't had a single Democratic debate yet. I'm gonna listen to the guy when he gets up and talks.

It never hurts to listen....unless, perhaps, it's Rush you're listening to....

[venable]

36. well said

I wish a lot of these bashers would take the prejudice out of their ears for a moment and take a good listen.

I don't believe they actually want to know who Edwards really is. They want him to be the bogeyman they have concocted.

[MADem]

40. Some regard it as a team sport, unfortunately. Not the future of the nation in the balance.

I'm from Massachusetts, so you can figure who I supported last time around. But even with that, I listened hard to the rest and liked a lot of what I heard. I would have worked just as hard if another one of the crowd had won the nom.

I think we, as Democrats, should be delighted at our embarrassment of riches in terms of candidates, and while each can exhort the good qualities of their particular favorite, they'd be better off not trying to denigrate others within our own tent. They may think that is the best way to try and boost the chances of their favored individual, but in actuality it makes the guy or gal look worse--suggesting that intolerant mouth breathers who bully others with vicious invective are the followers of such a person. And of course we know that isn't so, but negative impressions, even nebulous ones, have a way of sticking if they are constantly reinforced.

I don't have a problem with honest discussion of stances and issues, but when the "all bad" brush gets dragged out, and the "always" and "never" flags start flying, well, I tend to tune that shit out. It doesn't sway me when the first element of the discussion is a vicious attack on others.

[Catchawave]

47. "weasel" seems to be the word of the week !

Don Imus uses it a lot :evilgrin:

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. He was too busy running for President and missed a lot of Senate votes

He also moved away from the center, so combined with his absentee voting record, I'm not sure he could have been reelected.

[Connie_Corleone]

41. From what I remember, he was going to lose reelection if he ran again.

He was lagging in the polls.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. 'Cause he couldnt satisfy North Carolina conservative voters and USA at same time as VP?

This is a really silly splitter question.

And many of the positions he took in the Senate represented the will of his constituency in North Carolina. I am glad he cut loose from that state. He has been able to accomplish more as a citizen of the world. Same for Jimmy Carter when he stopped being Gov. of Georgia.

:eyes:

[dogman]

48. When you move out of the glass house, you can throw stones.

Unlike those he challenges, he does not have to appeal to a limited electorate. He can appeal to the public at large.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[dk2]

67. The answer is simple

He could do more out of congress, and learm more faster by not being tied to the political rangling that waste time there.

It only makes sense that if he were serious about a future Presidential run. TO me the question is Why would you think he could do more in Congress when Bush's admin had it locked up stock and barrel, what could have been accomplished. That is a problem on both Clintons and Obamas record to me, what have they gotten done, or Biden or any others sitting there in a deadlock with the Repubs in controll???

[question everything]

75. Edwards did the honorable thing: while he was running for one seat

(President, V.P.) he was not going to hold on to his senate seat as a security blanket.

Funny, many here trashed Lieberman for holding on to his senate seat in 2000 and, of course, Kerry did so, too.

I lived in California where many offices are subjected to term limits. Plus, many elections are on alternating years. And I was really disgusted how, say, members of the Assembly would run for a post of a county supervisor right before they would be termed out, and then their seats would have to be filled in special elections, often by another office holder generating a cascade of special elections paid for by.. of course, the tax payers.

[Infinite Hope]

77. He quit to run for Vice President in an effort to make Kerry president and change policy.

That's hardly hypocritical.

To imply one must stay in Congress in order to be legitimate, especially given the obvious reason he left the Congress, is beyond absurd.

[tkmorris]

85. Hit piece

This is PRECISELY the kind of post that turned this forum into a hellhole in 2002, 2004, and again in 2006. You could have made your argument civilly, but instead you just took a giant crap all over the guy.

If this forum is to have any hope of avoiding the ridiculous flamewars of the past this is where it needs to focus. Posts like yours.

Oh and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I mention that only in passing because I KNOW you won't be.

[laureloak]

87. Exactly, and the OP needs to be reported for this thread.

Hit threads on Democratic candidates should not be allowed on DU. It doesn't help ANYONE and hurts many.