One thing you can't deny about Edwards

[blm]

No matter how you feel about Edwards, Kucinich, or Clark, should he choose to enter this race, each of them had the COURAGE to jump in to compete against the Bush machine when it was operating at its most powerful, and with 90% of the broadcast media protecting the dictatortot at every turn. It wasn't going to be easy for ANY Democrat. And there is plenty of evidence that the NATIONAL Dem organization rolled over on Sept. 12, 2001, also not expecting to win in 2002 and 2004.

There are many who took a pass on the 2004 race because Bush was always expected to win by the media. And many Dem lawmakers and powerful bignames stayed AWAY from doing the heavy lifting that is usually performed during election years especially in the last few months of the campaign.

So, imo, guys like Edwards, Kucinich, and Clark are continuing to do what they have been doing NONSTOP for the last 4-5 years, OPPOSING BushInc. and not WAITING till his poll numbers stayed low enough to feel safe to jump out and say "I am the best fighter. I am the leader needed." Especially when choices were made to deliberately NOT LEAD so as not to face a confrontation with the Bush machine at a time when the country needed it most.

So, here is a salute to the 2008 candidates who made the TOUGHEST choice to oppose BushInc at the toughest time, not at the easiest time AFTER his administration imploded.

Salute to 2008 candidates who demonstrated courage when it was LEAST expected, least appreciated and least supported: John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Gen. Clark.

[saltpoint]

1. THIS is a GREAT post.

Thank you.

When I log on to DU it's my privilege to read posts this thoughtful and this fair.

Bravo.

[underpants]

2. Let's not forget Dean

Howard was the first national figure to step up and say "This war is wrong" and we all came out into the sunshine, looked around and saw that we really weren't alone and thus the grassroots movement that became the Kerry/Edwards campaign rose out to the MESS that was the Dem party after the 2002 midterms.

Let's not forget that. Ever.

[blm]

5. This was specifically about 2008 CANDIDATES, but of course your point is taken.

I remember wanting Democrats to join together to nail Bush on Tora Bora back in January 2002, but few DARED to say Bush failed there.

[mtnsnake]

3. I agree. This is the one factor that separates Edwards from our last candidate

It's his ability to stand up to the Bush machine, unlike what Kerry did in 2004 when he turned his cheek the other way instead of fighting like Edwards will.

Having said that, I still hope Obama gets the nod, or Clark, should he decide to run.

[Firespirit]

7. Just can't help it.

This post may get deleted, and so be it.

Can you lay the hell off just for five seconds? Is that too much to ask?

[AtomicKitten]

19. I'll attempt to broker a deal here.

How bout Team Kerry lays of Team Clinton for five seconds? I think mtnsnake is amenable. How about it? No? The dropped pronoun crowd requires insight before consideration of such an offer. Oh well. Smooth lateral move to boost the opposition as an indirect blow. I believe it's your move mtnsnake.

Ah, I love the smell of primary season in the morning!

[blm]

21. Leave them be. Let them kick the thread.

;)

[blm]

8. Beat it to Terry McAuliffe - we all know McAuliffe is a liar. Kerry won. DNC failed

to secure the votes and lost it for them, just like they did in 2000 and 2002.

[blossomstar]

16. True that, good post.

[Skwmom]

24. Yeah, Edwards really did a great job standing up to the war

machine when it really counted (they were pushing the Iraq Debacle). At least Kerry wasn't the co-sponsoring cheerleader Edwards was.

[redqueen]

4. Great post.

I'm volunteering for Kucinich. Again. :)

[saltpoint]

10. Now just a damn minute, redqueen. I admire your modesty in

praising Kucinich and the OP of this thread. Both are genuinely deserving -- no argument from me at all on that.

But what they stir in you is virtue that's been there a long, long time. Credit where it is due on your recommitment to Dennis Kucinich: the OP put up a GREAT post here; Kucinich is the cat's pajamas; but you have done the good soul work for years that serve as receptor and now participant in the big picture.

You're A-Ok and that's all there is to it.

[Firespirit]

6. Thank you!!

The national Democratic Party rolled over on September 12, 2001. It didn't plan on winning in 2002 and didn't plan on winning in 2004. (I have my theory about that, but for the time being I'll keep it to myself.) But there WERE people who DID get in and challenge Bush, and put him on the defensive, despite that Bush wasn't weakened then, and despite that they didn't have the full party behind them.

They deserve our respect.

Some were too green then (Obama), and others were holding other offices that they were truly dedicated to. I don't hold that against them. However, there are also opportunists who only bothered to attack after they smelled blood in the water.

They do not deserve our respect.

[Skwmom]

17. Well I feel that way about opportunists who only decided to

go on record against the war AFTER support for the war dropped to an all-time low.

[AtomicKitten]

29. word

[venable]

9. Great post, which reminds us all why we are here

to bring our country back from the abyss, by confronting these crooks.

Those three are - currently - the most outspoken adversaries, TODAY, of this administration, at least among those likely to run, or already running.

[blm]

14. Yes - that was the distinction I wanted to be clear. We all know who's been fighting

BushInc for a long time, and especially after 9-11 when it was unthinkable to doubt him according to 90% of America and the media. They are known well here at DU.

This was specific in regard to the CURRENT list of Dem candidates only.

[Skwmom]

15. Didn't Edwards support Bush in his push for the war after 9/11?

From what I recall, all of the 04 candidates where well pretty slamming Bush (except for Lieberman). In fact Edwards didn't come out against the Iraq War until many years later when polls dropped to an all-time low. Now Graham from FL I really respect.

On edit: Furthermore, I was told by a long-time Democratic Party person that the DLC and Clintons planned a Kerry/Edwards 04 ticket from the beginning (which has benefited Edwards b/c without the 04 run where would he be today).

[blm]

18. But still chose to challenge his presidency in 2004 race. That was my point

and no matter what downsides to his challenge, at least he stuck his neck out at a time when he would take the most hits for it. Unlike those jumping in now when the water is safer, and pretending they have been leading all along.

That is what this thread is about - and that is what I will stick by regarding all 3 of those I single out here.

[Skwmom]

20. Well from what I heard the DLC wanted a Kerry/Edwards race which

really benefited Edwards b/c it gave him name recognition. So running in 04 didn't seem to be any great, heroic endeavor on Edward's behalf. It was a win win for him b/c win or lose it would put him in good shape for 08.

Again, did Edwards support Bush after 9/11, supporting the Iraq War and only changing his mind after support for the war reached an all-time low? I don't recall Edwards speaking out against the Bush War machine until it became the political safe thing to do.

On edit: I really don't see how runing in 2004 was sticking one's neck out. Only in the world of politics......

[blm]

23. If he would've won the primary he would've taken the biggest hits, too. They all

would have. They knew it and did it anyway.

That was the point of the thread. And I stand by it.

[Skwmom]

22. What about those jumping on the anti-war train AFTER it became safe?

Does that bother you at all?

[blm]

25. It can bother me in another thread. This one is about knowing you'll get hit

by a machine operating at its fullest power, and still choosing to stick your neck out.

That was all. There are tons of threads about the specific downsides to each candidate. This thread is about making the difficult choice to run when a win is least expected by the rest of the country and the press and your own party.

That is all. That should be enough....for this thread.

[Skwmom]

27. I just don't see Edwards running in 04 as being brave

and sticking his neck out. The DLC wanted a Kerry/Edwards ticket and with Clinton working behind the scenes, I'm sure Edwards felt pretty good about his chances of being tapped for VP (and right after Bush got a second term, everyone was writing how Edwards being VP in 04 set him up good for 08). Furthermore, if I remember correctly, in 04 many felt Bush was very vulnerable.

On edit: The world of politics really is like the twilight zone.

[blm]

34. In 2002 and 2003 NO ONE thought Bush was vulnerable. Except us diehard antiBush folks.

The newsmedia was still in full swing protecting him and they STILL protected him in 2004 even after the 9-11 report came out.

The point is that ANY Dem would have taken MAJOR HITS from BushInc and the media if they won the primary. Edwards would have been destroyed and distorted to a great degree, and when the media doesn't allow your defense to be heard, that makes it even tougher.

So, knowing it would be no cakewalk and doing it anyway does get some creds from me, even if I do have problems with other areas I'm not thrilled about.

[havocmom]

11. Hear hear!

R-ed

[soswolf]

12. Getchyer Kicks

Here

:kick:

Thanks for the post.

[saltpoint]

13. Recommended.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Whomever is still fighting Bush.......

go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3084964

[blm]

28. Did it - VoteVets is one of my favorite groups to support.

This is great that groups are realizing that 2002 and 2004 proved you have to form your own groups because sometimes the national party just won't be there for you.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I agree....we must take the fight into our own hands....and be a power

to be reckoned with.

The corporate media shouldn't have the last say as to what we think....that's for sure!

[blm]

35. It's a shame McAuliffe is going around and trashing all those vets who DID put up a

fight even though they couldn't command the attention that bigname Dems could have but refused to join that battle.

Some of those vets are shattered and suffering from recurring PTS.

Don't know if you caught this post from the other day, but you probably know one of the vets I am referring to here, and he isn't the only one. McAuliffe and the whole Clinton strategy of blame the last few months has hurt people in ways that I am sure they will ignore.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3081015#3081333

[LittleClarkie]

30. Recommended

Well said

[wyldwolf]

32. In other words, every Dem who didn't run in 2004 is a coward.

Right?

[blm]

33. Anyone who NOW claims only they could beat Bush machine, but chose to not do it

in 2004 or at any point in the last 6 years of Bush's reign.

What do YOU think? Do you believe the self-proclaimed toughest fighters in the party who say they are the best leaders sat out 2002 and 2004 because............why?

[wyldwolf]

39. who says the NOW?

[hijinx87]

36. bingo.

now, who could that be? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

:eyes:

[hijinx87]

37. well, in the interest of full disclosure

it should be pointed out that * simply isn't running for anything
in 2008 (except possibly from the law), and that before you can get
to the general election, you have to have courage to challenge the
current (and potential) field of democratic candidates for the 2008
nomination.

that courage is decidedly lacking in some quarters.

[mzmolly]

38. Nice post.

:kick: