I've decided to throw my support behind John Edwards!

[Joanne98]

I was thinking I better make up my mind. But if Gore jumps in I'll have to switch and support Edwards for VP! So there it is...

JOHN EDWARDS 2008!

[SharonRB]

1. Gore is my first choice and I feel no need to rush to choose someone else right now

Everyone is making it seem like we have to pick a horse in the race now, but we don't. There's lots of time. I think I'm going to support Richardson if Gore really doesn't run. No one will get any money from me until I know definitely what he's going to do and I don't expect that to happen until the fall.

[Clark2008]

16. Thank you.

I feel the same way about Gore and Clark.

I honestly don't like any of the rest of them that much (and don't think any of the three "front runners" can beat a Guiliani or a Thompson, anyway).

I'll hang with you, Sharon.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Good choice, welcome aboard!

:thumbsup:

[Czolgosz]

3. Edwards, Gore, Kucinich, Clark, Dodd, Obama - it's all good.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Except for Dodd, about whom I know nothing, you got a very good list there

I will mention Bill Richardson in terms of his foreign policy and national security credentials. Richardson said today that he would meet with Chavez and with the leaders of Iran and Syria, to work out differences.

[Czolgosz]

25. Dodd is a little boring but he's a great Senator with a great progressive voting record. Here's a

source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chris_Dodd.htm

Here's a summary:

* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
* Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
* Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
* Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
* Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
* Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions.
* Voted NO on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy.
* Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals.
* Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing.
* Require DNA testing for all federal executions.
* Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses.
* Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education.
* Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors.
* Voted NO on school vouchers in DC.
* Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education.
* Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR.
* Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
* Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
* Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.
* Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
* Rated 84% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
* Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record.
* Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.
* Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.
* Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug.
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.
* Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages.
* Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.
* Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
* Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic
* Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record.
* Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program.
* Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship.
* Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.
* Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record.
* Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.
* Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.
* Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`.
* Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.
* Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition.
* Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

[David Zephyr]

27. And I agree with IG about the list, too. Don't forget Bill Richardson as she says.

I'd support any of them.

[robinlynne]

4. Edwards has been taking great positions. I'm still Gore-Feingold in my heart,

but if I need to choose between these 3, Edwards has it.

[etherealtruth]

5. I really love John Edwards ...

Al Gore:loveya: is my first love ... but, he hasn't announced anything ... yet.

I am actually very pleased with the potential contenders this time around.

[Colobo]

6. Edwards is and will be my second choice; he's a great candidate

[Joanne98]

7. Thanx everyone. I really like Edwards and it doesn't look like Gore

is going to run. John Edwards really is the best candidate. IMO! He's young, he's from the south, he talks about poverty, he's got a really nice family,...He's just needs more media attention. The only thing I worry about is the primary being moved up in CA! He needs to campaign out there more. It's such a big state I know..

[Labors of Hercules]

8. whoa now... It looks very much like Gore WILL run...

but Edwards is an excellent #2 choice!

[Tigress DEM]

14. Who says Gore is running?

I'm thinking it looks practically like a write in campaign is going on and he might get drafted, but I hadn't heard any official word.

[Labors of Hercules]

42. nope, and we won't hear anything official as long as he can continue to hold off...

The longer he can wait, the more things he can make fall into place ahead of an official announcement, the better.

[Czolgosz]

9. Actually, Edwards DOESN'T need more media attention. I promise, you and every other voter

will be SICK of the overexposed candidates (both parties') by February 2008 if their media overexposure runs at this rate and higher for the next 11 months.

10 months out from the Iowa Caucus last election cycle, the media had crowned the nomination fight a battle royal between Gephardt the traditional Democrat and Dean the new Democrat. By the Iowa Caucus in January, it was clear that both had PEAKED WAY TOO EARLY.

This is a triathlon, not a sprint. This is the grass-roots-in-early-caucus/primary-states-building and money-raising and position-paper-issuing leg of the triathlon. The candidates who are already entering into the media-sprint-to-the-finish-line leg of the triathlon are burning themselves out too early.

Edwards is taking care of the tasks which he should be focused upon while letting other candidates burn themselves out; he's getting enough media attention (i.e., more than Dodd) without getting too much (i.e., WWF Obama v. Hillary SMACKDOWN 2008!!!).

[Clarkie1]

10. Why? Just curious. I'm supporting Obama or Richardson unless Clark jumps in.

[pampango]

11. He's a good man. Got his head screwed on right. n/t

[ruggerson]

12. I've been leaning that way myself

n/t

[Tigress DEM]

13. I think Edwards is my first choice actually.

I believe Gore can accomplish more from where he is at right now.

He can be our DEM Rock Star and if anything is to be done about global warming once we get the full authority in 2008 he should be allowed to remain in that battle if it's what he wants to do.

[JohnLocke]

15. Welcome!

:hi:

[petepillow]

18. I'm still twiddling my thumbs waiting for Gore to step in...

Once it's too late for him to do so, then I'll figure out my second choice if I have to. Edwards was my second choice after Kerry last time around, and I have to believe he's going to be better this time around at conveying the weight of the issues at hand. I just wish the much-hyped Obama-Clinton banter would cease, so that we could really concentrate on what the candidates are concentrating on (especially Obama).

[mtnsnake]

19. Edwards would make a good president but it's gonna be a tough primary fight

among him, Hillary, and Obama. I don't think he'll beat out Obama or Hillary, but he just might surprise me. If he gets the nod, I think he'd easily beat whoever the Repubs throw at us. The hardest battle will be in the Dem primaries, though.

[PresidentObama]

20. Very nice choice. He's my favorite in this field as well.

If others get in, I'll throw my support to them. But right now, Johnny boy has my support!!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[PresidentObama]

24. This is why I hate DU sometimes: "We Love Our Flip-Floppers"

Tisk, tisk.

[Czolgosz]

26. Don't hate DU over a troll who's posted less than 100 times.

[GreenTea]

22. I think John Edwars is a good man & strong cadidate and I'd be fine voting for him

if he were the nominee.

[bluehighways911]

23. No Excuse For War Vote

Belated remorse can't excuse Iraq war votes

March 20, 2007
BY DON ROSE
The war in Iraq grinds into its fifth bloody year this week. Back in 2003 the public supported it by a 4-to-1 margin. Today the numbers have almost flip-flopped, as have most of the Democratic legislators who voted to authorize the war -- particularly those running for president.
That fateful vote of October 2002 carried both houses more than 2 to 1 with half the Democrats voting "yes," but we hear little about those bold and insightful souls who opposed the war from the start. It's fashionable for most who supported the war authorization to say if they knew then what they know now they would not have voted the way they did. If only they had known there were no weapons of mass destruction . . . if only they understood there were no links between al-Qaida and Iraq . . . if only they were less trusting of the intelligence . . . if only they realized how badly the war would be run . . . if only . . .

Poor John Kerry couldn't utter those words in 2004 and it may have cost him the election. He did only after President Bush was reinaugurated.

The 2008 field includes one former senator and three incumbents who voted "yes" -- John Edwards, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd. All now agree they would have voted "no" if they knew then, etc.

The difference is whether they admit their "yes" votes were mistakes. Most do -- Edwards first and most profusely. Clinton, despite what is now a vigorous anti-war position, somehow cannot bring herself to acknowledge error. The field includes Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the war; also Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who gave a strong anti-war speech at a Chicago rally in 2002 when running for office.

An interviewer reminded Edwards that Obama was against the war early on. The former senator snidely noted that Obama, as a mere candidate, was not "burdened" by the intelligence presented to Congress -- hinting Obama might have voted differently had he been in office. The answer is speculative, but it's fair to suppose that Obama would have voted against the war, along with Illinois senior Sen. Dick Durbin and eight out of nine Democratic members of the House: Chicagoans Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson Jr., William Lipinski, Luis Gutierrez, Danny Davis and Jan Schakowsky, plus Downstaters Lane Evans and Jerry Costello.

Only then-congressman Rod Blagojevich, running for governor, abandoned fellow Democrats, while Rahm Emanuel, running to succeed him, ran from the issue.

Who knows why?

Pete Visclosky, from an adjacent district in Indiana voted no -- as did Republicans John Hostettler of Indiana and Jim Leach of Iowa. In all, six brave Republicans joined 127 House Democrats opposing the war.

The big issue that's never been pursued in questioning Edwards, Clinton, Biden and others is why they were gulled by the bad intelligence or trusted Bush more than 21 other Democratic senators. The 21 came from all across the nation, not just liberal Massachusetts where Ted Kennedy voted "no" while Kerry strangely didn't join his role model. Nays also came from New England's Republican Lincoln Chafee and Republican-Independent Jim Jeffords.

Was it ideology, a lack of insight, a too-great trust of Bush or simply fearful politics and a failure of nerve that led generally sound thinkers such as Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and other Democrats to vote as they did?

You expected the usual suspects -- progressives Barbara Boxer of California, Pat Leahy of Vermont and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- to vote "no," with Minnesota's late Paul Wellstone, up for re-election. But Senate dean Robert Byrd from red-state West Virginia -- no great liberal -- voted against and continues the fight. Military expert Bob Graham of red-state Florida, a candidate for president in 2004, recognized the bad intelligence and called for a "no" vote.

Why weren't more listening to them, or to Michigan's highly respected Carl Levin? Kent Conrad, from Bush-loving North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico were paying heed -- why weren't Biden, Dodd and Edwards?

Ask Clinton why she didn't join women Patty Murray of Washington State, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Speeches by Murray and many others cut through the cloud of cherry-picked intelligence and easily foresaw the disaster to follow the initial military phase. As Murray presciently put it: "Without a clear objective, victory cannot be measured. Indeed, it appears the administration established a solution -- going to war -- before it defined the problem or the goal. . . . I'm very concerned that a unilateral race to make war on Iraq will weaken the support we need worldwide to win the war on terrorism."

It was all clear back then.

On this tragic anniversary, saluting the wise, courageous legislators who voted "no," we also must question the judgment of those who voted to give Bush his predictably disastrous war. Especially those who want to lead us now.

[w4rma]

28. don't troll, man. (nt)

[AshevilleGuy]

29. So no one should ever be forgiven for a mistake in your world?

Even though they freely admit the mistake and try to atone for it? Do you hold to this, when dealing with friends and family??? Must be nice being perfect...

[Clarkie1]

30. It's on his resume. It's not a matter of "forgiveness."

He's applying for a job, and it's on his resume.

[AshevilleGuy]

31. It is exactly about forgiveness.

He does NOT brag about the mistake and is doing everything he can to rectify it. He can not go back in time and fix his blunder, none of us can. You have never done anything you are sorry for? How nice for you.

[Clarkie1]

32. You are misunderstanding me.

I'm all for forgiveness, but we are evaluating who is best qualified to be President of the United States.

When someone presents a history poor judgment in the business world, that is taken into consideration when they apply for a job. That's how it should be, whether or not they say they are sorry. Even more so for elected officials.

[AshevilleGuy]

33. You are allowing for no errors.

Good luck finding someone who never makes mistakes. I am trying to think of any president (or candidate) who never made one; they all made BIG ones, but the good presidents learned from their mistakes and never repeated them. Do you think that Edwards hasn't learned from his?

[Clarkie1]

34. Again, you are misunderstanding me.

Of course, everyone makes mistakes. Nobody is perfect, but there are different degrees of mistakes and different kinds of mistakes. Some are given more or less weight than others, obviously.

We ought to vote for our candidates like Donald Trump. It's nothing personal. Look at the performance.

[AshevilleGuy]

35. Nothing personal? I'll bet...

This is just an excuse to dump on Edwards, you know it. I know it. Always from the same group; it's getting really TIRESOME.

[Clark2008]

38. What's TIRESOME is you Edwards people always assuming

Clark people are doing the dumping.

I have no CLUE who this bluehighway person is. Not a Clarkie - or not one I've ever seen.

Get a grip. Your peaches and cream candidate isn't appreciated by A LOT of people.

[mmonk]

40. "peaches and cream" candidate?

Nothing personal?

[AshevilleGuy]

48. The person I am arguing with

is Clarkie1, with a Clark avatar! Duh....... I wasn't referring to BlueHighway after the first post.

Why don't you talk your candidate into running, instead of dumping on everyone else? And it's NEVER anything personal, you aren't doing anything, etc etc etc., we have heard this for years. All this goes back to 2004, to some incident, real or imagined, that none of us even know about. But every time Edwards gets a positive post, here come the Clark avatars!! I tell you what: after all this I would NEVER, and I mean NEVER vote for Clark under any circumstances, period! Do you really want to do this to him?

[GreenArrow]

46. this was no "error"

he made a calculated political decision, and it didn't pan out the way he thought it would. Given the wording of his "apologies" it would seem he views his "mistake" in light of the political damage it might cause him, rather than in the light of a) ceding Constitutional authority to a President the size of whose lies were exceeded only by the size of his ego, ambition, and utter contempt for public opinion, b) supporting an illegal agressive/pre-emptive war, c)the utter lack of moral rationale to wage a war of conquest against Iraq, a country which offered us no military threat, imminent or otherwise, and d) the inability or unwillingness to give credence or credit to the people whose judgements about the war were correct even before its inception.

In short, his judgement has proven to be lacking both strategically and morally, though, he has undoubtedly learned or already understands, that simply offering an apology, however transparent, tangential, or inapt, will be adequate to secure the good tidings of those he wishes to persuade; it is the act of apology itself, a product of the persona, rather than the content, born of character, that will persuade them. Edwards is nothing if not expert at the art of emotional persuasion, telling people what they want to hear in a way they wish to hear it, and steering them to overlook that which is disturbing or unpleasant.

I won't support him, frankly, because his "mistake" was so eggregious, and his tangential apology so self-serving, and ulitimately, insulting.

[JNelson6563]

37. Well that is how it works when your world

is black and white. ;-)

[Jack Sprat]

36. I, too, have Edwards and Kucinish as my

top 2 choices for now. Dennis has been so consistent that I think he is my first choice, but it is still early.

[DrDan]

39. I am with you also

I would like Dennis K, but he will never get the votes. Edwards is my present choice.

[johnnyrocket]

41. I voted for Edwards in 2004, he's the man!

Hope he pulls it out, plays it smart.

[saltpoint]

43. Edwards would bring quite a bit to the job. The current office holder

seems to have come up well short of the mark.

[Dr Fate]

44. Cant blame ya- Eddie ROCKS! n/t

n/t

[Learn2Swim]

45. Edwards, Clark, Obama, Kucinich, and Richardson

all good choices, and candidates, imo. We're lucky to have so many wonderful choices. Hell, just look at the other side of the aisle, you'll see what I mean. ;)

And quite obviously, Gore would be on that list too, if he joins the fray. B-)

[mitchtv]

47. I too, am just about decided

That is, if Gore doesn't run