Defense 1 Edwards, and his Record in the Senate

[asdjrocky]

I've been asked to defend so many things, honestly, an average Joe like myself can find his head spinning. So here's my plan tonight people, we'll take it one at a time.

No house talk, snake oil talk, sick wife talk, haircut talk, Fortress talk. I promise, I will give my answers to all of those talking points and more in later posts.

If you read forward, I'm assuming you accept that as a condition of talking about the issue I'm posting on. Fair enough?

First, let's take a look at his senate career.

I'm asked to defend John Edwards senate record in every single thread. And you know what? I'll say it upfront, I'm not nuts about it. But guess what people? I'm sure as hell not wild about the Senate careers of any of the candidates. Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden, have all got positives and negatives, they all have votes good and bad. To me, that's just fine, because I know any time you pick a candidates senate record apart, you will find reasons not to like him or her. The reason it doesn't bother me is this, I've read a lot of history. The Senate, as I've ofter said here before, is a place of endless compromise. See Henry Clay.

So sue me for not being a 'vote junkie'. Look back and see, I never challenge supporters on voting records, that, to me, is a fools errand. I don't want to argue this any longer. On IWR Edwards was wrong. On some other things he was right. If you can show me a perfect, or near perfect Senate record, on the war, on a progressive agenda, on health care, on the minimum wage, on anything that truly helps the least of us, then I'll shut up. Until you do, don't talk to me about Senate records. And I've never brought up the fact that the two other front runners seem to have no major legislation in their names. I mean, what have Dems from blue states done to help us?

Edwards was a blue Senator from a red state. He ran a hard campaign, and he won a seat that most people thought he would never win.

And here's a deserved aside to Kucinich supporters, he is a congressman. History shows us many examples of the freedom congress enjoys, when compared to the Senate. Just take a look. However, I'll say I think he is great, but in saying that, I'll say it's far easier to vote pure conscience votes in the House. I might be wrong, hell I might be wrong about most of this, it is opinion, but I think most people would support me on that.

So that wraps up my Senate record defense. I'm happy to discuss it with any of you.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/asdjrocky

[liskddksil]

1. Excellent Post

Edwards did many great things as a Senator from fighting to put the Sunset clause into the patriot act, to ensure that provisions would have to be reevauluated in the future, to his fierce advocacy of the patients bill of rights, and his vote against the 87 billion Iraq appropriation because the Republicans wouldnt ensure that it would go to funding body armor for troops. Do I disagree with some of his votes, yes, but representing a red state, his record is quite good.

[asdjrocky]

5. Thank you!

But again, I simply see his record as that of a Democrat, I don't put any of the candidates records under a microscope. When it comes to them running for President, it's more about what they plan to do.

Perhaps it's because I've always dreamed very big for America, when I hear a candide finally give those dreams a voice, I find it within me the need to stand, rally, and defend. I won't stop, until John Edwards proves me wrong.

[yourout]

2. I agree with you in a big way.

Feingold probably has the best voting record in the Senate for my taste.
Kucinich in the House.

But I think Edwards has the best combination of things that I want in a candidate with Obama a close second.

[SaveElmer]

3. I think Edwards has a very good Senate Record...

For the time he was there...

The problem is not his record, but his hypocritical effort to dismiss it while criticizing others for their records...

He is attempting a gear stripping makeover that just does not ring true...one or two issues maybe...but he has repudiated virtually every position he took...

Just not credible...

[asdjrocky]

7. Foul

HRC has been a Senator for exactly one year longer than Edwards.

What has he done to dismiss his record? He's taken responsibility for his record. A record you characterized as, very good.

I'll give it to ya, you're crafty.

[SaveElmer]

10. Talk about crafty...

In this campaign he has repudiated the following positions he took while a United States Senator...

1. China Trade

2. IWR

3. Drivers licenses for undocumented workers

4. Universal health care

5. Yucca Mountain

6. State right to work laws...

And he now favors getting rid of NAFTA, which he once said should exist...

And I am sure I am forgetting several...

All the while criticizing others for taking these same positions...

It's hutzpah I'll grant you...but it is also hypocritical..

[asdjrocky]

12. OK, we'll take this one at a time-

What vote on China trade are you talking about? I am only asking because I don't know.

I've answered to IWR, as had John Edwards. The big sin to me is continuing to fund this mess, but I guess that would be expected from a Senator that takes so much from defense contractors.

When did the Senate vote on Drivers Licenses for undocumented workers? Did I miss that vote too?

Again, I don't remember the Senate ever voting on Universal health care, again, life's been good to me, so I could have missed that one while have a good time.

Yucca Mountain, yep, far as I know, he changed his mind.

On right to work, I think you should take that up with the millions of Union members that support him. I mean, he does have a lot of support from the unions.

Your reply is a bit unclear, but that was the best answer I could give. He's changed his mind on some issues.

At least he's CHANGED his mind. The candide you support is in favor of just about all of the things you state as being a problem for John Edwards.

Man, I just can't figure you out.

[SaveElmer]

13. ...

China free trade bill. Kucinich ( who I cannot stand) criticized him for it in the last debate

There was no vote for drivers licenses in the senate...he did however come out in support of it while a United States Senator...

IN the 2004 campaign John Edwards's health care proposal was by his admission not universal...and he in fact heavily criticized John Kerry's universal proposal as going too far.

Many unions that have not supported him have cited his support for state right to work laws...as exist in Noprth Carolina...he did oppose a national law

On the IWR he took responsibility while blaming his position on Busha and CLinton...despite the fact as a member of the intelligence committee he had access to all portions of the NIE...


I don't believe he has changed his mind...I believe he is trying to make people believe he changed his mind...this kind of shift in that short a time is not credible...

I often hear from Edwards and Obama supporters how Hillary's IWR vote showed a lack of judgment...

Well on IWR and a whole host of issues Edwards has shown an even greater lack of judgement while he was a Senator...and he is forgiven...

As to your incorrect statement on Hillary's positions...

She has always been opposed to right to work laws, always opposed Yucca Mountain, always SUPPORTED Universal health care, and does not support drivers licenses for undocumented workers. She did vote for the China free trade bill, but opposed CAFTA and is in favor of a NAFTA overhaul...

And most importantly, she has not tried to hide her record on these issues...

[asdjrocky]

17. First you said his record was good-

Now your saying it was bad. Who has the lack of judgment?

[SaveElmer]

19. I agreed with the China free trade bill...

I supported NAFTA (I do support modifications)...and understood his reticence to propose a universal health care proposal...which is why I was not critical of him at the time

He was wrong on YUCCA mountain and on right to work laws...and I think he was wrong to apologize for his IWR vote...an apology was not required...

But on balance a thoughtful middle of the road record...

[asdjrocky]

22. Wait a minute, I did a little checking...

What exactly was your problem with his YUCCA vote?

You have a way of just throwing everything out there to see what sticks.

[SaveElmer]

23. While a Senator...

He voted twice to open the nuclear waste dump at Yucca mountain...

[asdjrocky]

25. He voted against it.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V2664
Take a look. But like I said, I'm not a vote junkie, so it matters little to me.

[asdjrocky]

30. Did you check the link-

and you're just to embarrassed to come back and say you're wrong?

It's cool, we keep telling you, Edwards supporters are good people.

We won't make you feel bad.:hi:

[SaveElmer]

32. He voted for it twice...and once against it...

Check again...

[asdjrocky]

33. I'll tell ya what-

You go back and check again. Once was enough for me.

As I stated at the beginning of the post, I'm not a vote junkie.

Good luck, and have fun.

Have a nice day

[Catchawave]

4. Edwards is definitely battle tested....

From 2001:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html

[Mythsaje]

6. Let me add something else, if I may

I think, at the time of the IWR vote, our representatives were under immense pressure to do something, anything, to further the war on terror. Bush's approval ratings were still quite high, congress was controlled by the Repugs, and the intelligence that they were shown--stuff we've never seen, btw--presumably indicated that Iraq was a threat.

I can accept it as a mistake. Those of us who weren't plugged into the MsM at the time, filled with dire threats and the like, didn't necessarily buy into the argument. But we weren't being force-fed the idea that maybe Saddam WAS a threat.

The IWR vote was a mistake. But I don't use it against Clinton, and I don't think it's something necessarily overwhelming in any argument about Edwards. I don't know WHY he voted yes, but more than one person has suggested that it was never meant as an excuse to go to war.

:shrug: Heck if I know.

But I'm not a one-issue voter. Well, I am, but only in the broadest sense. I think damn near everything we're facing as a nation is connected to the class war being waged against anyone who isn't part of the mega-rich establishment. And that includes the war.

In the past few years, since that vote, Edwards has smelled the charnel breath of the Republican attack machine, its single-minded dedication to winning at any cost, and been delivered some of the most devestating news a husband could ever receive.

Some people don't accept his awakening. I see no good reason to doubt it. All things considered, it's actually a fairly reasonable turn of events that he'd realize how important his message could be to America as a whole.

At this point it's nearly impossible to change anyone's mind. I realize this. But I think it's unfair for those who haven't made up their mind to have their opinions based upon someone else's prejudices.

Edwards might not be the right pick for everyone. I, however, think he'd make a fine candidate and a fine President.

[asdjrocky]

8. Very well said.

:applause:

[frogcycle]

15. well said

kudos to you

[Triana]

24. well said mythsage! (n/t)

[adnelson60087]

9. Word, my brother!

I am from IL, and I cannot think of much our Junior Senator has done for this state in his VERY brief time in DC. Edwards at least takes ownership of his past blunders...how about Hillary? Has she ever??? On anything?

[asdjrocky]

11. Right back at ya!

And if I've missed you before, a big welcome to DU!

Edwards 08

[adnelson60087]

14. Thanks dude...I'm a long timer, just haven't been posting much...

but with the Primaries set to start, I have to make my voice known.

[asdjrocky]

18. Good to know you're here!

[frogcycle]

16. well said

damn I hope the houses of cards come tumbling down and we have to actually decide between legitimate contenders instead of media pretenders

[smokey nj]

20. K&R

[asdjrocky]

21. Thanks Smokey!

[ChiciB1]

26. May I Suggest What I've Seen As Differences Between Clinton Supporters And

Edwards supporters?? Before I make my comment I will admit that I don't read all the threads all the time, but from where I'm sitting I've noticed a certain pattern.

Those of us who support Edwards try to post positive points about him and what he's trying to, then we add our comments while trying to stay positive. Almost as soon as something positive is posted I see some of the "same" names quickly jumping in to bait our discount our comments. I've seen many threads about other candidates and know others get attacked too, but there a certain viciousness when it comes to Edwards. I can almost feel the hate these negative comments generate and wonder about this avid "nitpicking" that constantly occurs.

For myself, I rarely jump in and attack other candidates, but watch what is being said. On occasion I may agree or disagree with an issue here or there, or I may say that I don't support a certain candidate for reasons of my own. Generally I don't explain the reasons and at times I might comment that I feel another candidate is being attacked and I think it might be unfair. And I'm not without guilt because I know I've replied back to some with some negative rhetoric. However, I don't seek out threads just to "bait" others into a flame war.

Those of us who support Edwards have been called so many names and told we are simpletons, or un-informed and just plain stupid. Why is this?

I have learned not to let the attacks bother me anymore, but many of us who support him do so with some very deep and real loyalty. I know my support is very deep and feel it from others who would like to see John Edwards get credit that's long over due. Many polls taken here always show him either winning or at least coming in 2nd. The ActBlue donations show Edwards in the lead, even though many of us don't have all that much money to donate. I realize that these polls are simple snapshots, but I actually feel that MSM is handing him a raw deal. So it must be that the "powers that be" just want to make sure he's beaten down and try to minimize his efforts. While the Debates on TV are sort of silly at times, Edwards always gets high marks too. Still, the next day we're right back to Hillary & Obama. And I also think it's unfair to all the other candidates too.

Why do we always have to go point by point on each and every word that's written? It baffles me and it worries me that there seems to be an excessive effort to call out Edwards supporters and demean them.

I just needed to say what's on my mind and realize it happens to other candidates as well, but John Edwards IS NOT evil incarnate and find the petty comments extremely hurtful!

And yes, I do remember, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! For me it has nothing to with that... it has to do with those who apparently can't help themselves from being downright MEAN!

[asdjrocky]

27. Nice!

It's funny, I spend a great deal of time answering questions they have no interest in knowing the real answer to. And then once I've answered everything I can, to the best of my ability, they run.

You know, bullies are mean, but they are really cowards. If you just punch em in the nose once, they tend to stay away.

Also, they have this terrible problem of lying, and distorting records. For their candidate, and against others.

My question- Dose this tactic reflect their candidate, or is it just a few bad apples?

[ChiciB1]

29. For Me... I Lose A Lot Of Respect For Them, Therefore Their Comments

have much less meaning to me! And I'm sure YOU know some of the names by heart by now! I KNOW I do!

They're a real turn off to me, and they seem to be trying harder and harder to spit and spudder and throw mud which really isn't needed.

I'm much more focused on having Edwards credited for his outspoken views for "we the people!" Despite past mistakes, I KNOW we've ALL made them, and ALL the candidates have made them as well!

This magnifying glass coverage keeps us from moving forward! Now if there is some "real" corruption that comes to light, such a what Guiliani is encountering, I think the truth needs to be told.

But nitpicking is only that... nitpicking!

[asdjrocky]

31. Actually,

It's kind of fun, all I have to do is post a positive post on Edwards, then sit back, and wait for a few select nuts to come crawling out of the wood work.

I actually quite like it, and find it extremely entertaining.


Edwards 08

[Ninga]

37. Hi from Ohio, Chici......I love your posts, so right on and so passionate.

:hi:

[ChiciB1]

50. Hey There... Thanks For The Kudos & Thank YOU For Your Passion Too!

We must remain dedicated and fight the "good" fight. I don't know what will happen with me after THIS election, but for now I've made a decision NOT to let any road blocks stand in my way until November!

Several times I've taken breaks because I became depressed by the "nasty noise" but then I realized it's better to keep my "spirits" high regardless of the outcome. When all is said and done I'll be able to look into my mirror and say I tried to make a difference. I don't support Edwards because of his looks or so called charisma, I support him because his compassion and heart touches me and I TRULY believe he wants to what's best for America.

Each candidate has his or her foibles, and while mistakes made in the past resulted in some awful consequences, to admit you made them is more palatable than "stubbornness!"

[Nutmegger]

28. R&K [n\t]

[waiting for hope]

34. Thanks Rocky!

People tend to forget that being a One Issue voter narrows the field and weakens support. I live in North Carolina and know exactly what Edwards was up against, hopefully ole Libby will get her arse handed to her next year, but that's going to be tough. Even with how inept she has been, she has a "loyal" base (included my neighbors on either side of me - heh, at least we don't do through endless cups of sugar that's been "borrowed").

K&R!

[asdjrocky]

35. Thanks Hope

I agree.

Edwards 08

[Ninga]

36. "rocky" strikes again....with a hammer for Edwards! Thanks and a big k & r.

Keep on, keepin on.....just like our candidate.

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

38. Awwwwww-

Stop!:blush:

[Ninga]

39. Better yet...........try this....

:loveya:

:hi:

[rinsd]

40. So your defense is Senate records don't matter?

:rofl:

[asdjrocky]

41. Yes rinsd,

That is exactly my defense.

What is your defense of Hillary's record?

(You know, they're almost exactly the same.)

[rinsd]

42. Actually Edwards record is slightly more conservative than Hillary's.

The problem is not Edwards record but his refusal to acknowledge it ever happened while prmoting different positions on the campaign trail.

But I think its hilarious that you buy campaign rhetoric over when someone had to take an actual stand and vote.

[asdjrocky]

43. First the problem is his record...

Then it's not his record, but his refusal to acknowledge it happened. (BS)

So make up your mind. Is his problem his record or not?

You really do crack me up.

Kind of reminds me of my teenager.

[rinsd]

45. The reason his record is a problem is that it contradicts his campaign rhetoric.

Obviously some are easily confused.

This might surprise you but politicians act differently on the campaign trail vs in office.

[asdjrocky]

46. That's all you got?

Trying to call me confused?

What a sad little person you are.

Again, I ask- what defense do you make of Hillary's record?

[rinsd]

48. Oh I'm sorry you wanted to get into name calling?

I mean I can think of things more creative to say than confused but I thought it might be genuine naivety.

I mean you seem to think political opinion equals the truth so I thought maybe you were unaware that politicians are more accurately defined by their votes vs their words.

[asdjrocky]

51. Where did I call you a name?

Did I miss something?

[rinsd]

52. self delete...enough is enough

[asdjrocky]

44. By the way-

Why is it you never even attempt to answer a question when one is put to you-
but you have no problem asking questions yourself?

So what do you think of Hillary's record?

[rinsd]

47. Brief thoughts on Hillary's Senate record.

Ok on trade though I would prefer her to go with free trade deals that have worker & environmental protections like the recent expansion of NAFTA.

She was wrong the IWR. But she did vote for some of the things that may have mitigated that resolution. Her votes in the last year on this have been encouraging with the exception of Kyl-Lieberman though I think fears are overblown on that one.

Her environmental record is pretty good

She has a done quite a bit helping ground zero rescue workers get the attention and healthcare they need which is a personal issue for myself.

[asdjrocky]

49. That last one is kind of a "issue" for me as well-

Having lost a loved on there, on that day.

My problem, why do we still just have a big hole in the ground?

Every time I'm there it just makes me sick.

[ChiciB1]

53. Ya Know, Perhaps It's Because You Live In CA & It's Easier For You

to be cavalier about many things, I don't really know. But I live in Florida and have had to deal with some very awful realities when it comes to politics. It's made me more cynical than I ever though I would be, and I'm not afraid to admit that I don't like feeling this way. I was introduced to politics at a very young age (11) by my father who was a "lifer" in the Army. Coming from a large family of 6 girls I was the only one to catch the "bug" and jumped into the fray with a passion. My sisters always vote, but I have one who still, to this day thinks The Idiot, Decider should have a statue erected for him. Yet we love each other as we always have, we just know better than to "talk politics" because it will only generate an uncomfortable atmosphere.

I only said this because something "strange" happened to her recently. While she still supports The Idiot, she said she isn't happy with the Repuke candidates and told me she "could" vote for Edwards! I didn't influence her in any way, but why do suppose this happened?? He certainly is more "liberal" than Clinton and I've heard other Repukes say the same thing too.

I should know, I live in the county that reeks of voter fraud and is colored RED. You know, the one where 18,000 plus votes have never been found. Then there's the last two GE elections that IMO were also fraudulent, so to me when I see this constant drum beat for Hillary Clinton, and the hoopla for Obama, somewhat suspicious. Perhaps MSM simply finds the Woman/Black candidate to be "entertaining" and I admit it's unique. I too would like to see a woman or black elected myself, but not JUST BECAUSE it's a woman or a black person.

I once supported Clinton, and feel Obama is a good man, however I feel he may need a little more maturity. But each one of them have benefited GREATLY by having MSM feature them "daily" and in effect rendering the other candidates less viable. So in a country that touts "justice" I find myself seeing "justice" as JUST-ICE! I'm tired of how this country has been run, and I REALLY believe that there IS a wall around Washington, and one that works very hard to KEEP some people OUT! And one of those people they want out is John Edwards. If National Journalists say it's so on National TV, there must be some truth there.

Making wrong decisions are one thing, but promoting yourself one way while having your hands out to those who only care as long as they have an inside track to power turns me off! And of course, many corporations do good things, and there are lobbyists who DO lobby for "the people" BUT far too many DON'T! Not today anyway!

[asdjrocky]

54. Brava!!

Very nice.

[ChiciB1]

56. Thank You... Just Sharing Thoughts! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

55. Nobody has ever responded re: the 9/5/02 Intelligence Meeting

and the subsequent actions by Edwards.

According to reports Tenet said at the meeting that no NIE had been prepared, several other senators wrote letters requesting updated intelligence reports. Did Edwards join them in their request with his own letter?

Edwards gave a speech on 9/12/02 and then on 9/19/02 wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post urging a quick vote on Iraq.

Why would he argue a case for removing Saddam when he knew the intelligence records were old and maybe even incomplete?

[slipslidingaway]

57. Kick n/t

[asdjrocky]

58. And I thank you Paul

[slipslidingaway]

59. Do you have a reply to #55, I have posted this to several

supporters but the issue is always ignored?

This is totally separate issue from the IWR. Why make statements such as he did after learning there was no up to date intelligence? Five other Senators were pursuing updated intelligence reports???


Senator Durbin...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_richard-durbin.htm

"The Background to the October 2002 ME

Because of the Administration's growing drumbeat regarding the threat posed to our country by Iraq --and the Administration's apparent determination to address this perceived threat by military force — I wanted to know what the Intelligence Community's coordinated assessment was of the threat posed by Iraq.

As a Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), I was concerned that Administration statements were painting a more ominous view of Iraq's threat to the United States than was reflected in the intelligence analysis. We rely on the Intelligence Community to make the most thorough and unbiased analytical assessment of threats facing our country. I was particularly concerned that neither the Intelligence Community nor policymakers in the Administration had initiated the production of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs.

During the weeks of September 2002 when the NIE was being produced, the Administration continued its alarmist rhetoric regarding the threat posed to the U.S. by Iraq's WMD, and what the Administration was likely to do to address this threat:"

[slipslidingaway]

60. ......

[Cameron27]

61. lol

I'd like to point out that Edwards also voted against the provision that included limiting the war, and investigating the intelligence Bush used to justify the invasion.

[slipslidingaway]

63. I know about the first vote you mentioned, not the second.

Every time I check the records there is another inconsistency or mistake :shrug:

Hasn't he changed his position on the missile defense system?
He voted for it while in the Senate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=64449&mesg_id=64597


Also voted against the Wellstone amendment in the 2001 bankruptcy that would have helped those filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[Cameron27]

64. Here are the two of them:

S J Res 45, # 232, 10/10/02

Use of Force- Termination: Byrd amendment to Lieberman substitute amendment. The Byrd amendment would provide for the termination of Congressional authorization of the use of force by one year after the resolution's enactment unless the president certifies that extension is necessary or Congress enacts into law a one-year extension of the authorization.

HR 2658, # 287, 7/17/03

Fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations- Intelligence Funding: Stevens motion to kill Durbin amendment withholding $50 million in intelligence funding until the president submits reports on the role executive branch policymakers had on the development and use of intelligence relating to the war in Iraq. The report would have to be submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House International Relations Committee and the Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees of both chambers.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05/compare_and_contrast_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq

[slipslidingaway]

66. Thank you! Votes do matter :) n/t

[Cameron27]

67. I didn't see that thread,

but thanks, I didn't know about the missile defense system. Wellstone amendment, yep.

[slipslidingaway]

69. It's almost becoming too predictable...

or embarrassing? For example the ad about NAFTA quotes a headline in one of the leading papers, when I found the article there is a picture of Chinatown and talks of the jobs lost to China, it also mentioned NAFTA, but still there must have been another headline to use.

:shrug:

Not to mention that more jobs have been lost to China according to the same source, The Economic Policy Institute. It would be funny if so many people were not being hurt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=70538#70734

[Cameron27]

70. Well much to his credit, Dennis has clearly pointed out

the discrepancy between Edwards past record vs what Edwards attacks others for. If anyone has the right to point fingers in this primary, it's Kucininch.

[slipslidingaway]

71. Yes he has and he should, one major problem that Dennis has

is that he is also fighting most of the Dem candidates in addition to Republicans. The other Dem candidates can 'cover' for each other to some extent in regards to their votes, they just wish Dennis would go away and stop bringing up unpleasant topics :)

[Cameron27]

72. Dennis also has to battle for air time

and media attention which is the worst problem IMO. Tucker (of all people) said that if the Democrats were sincere about what they believed, then Kucininch would be the front runner at this point. I'm just grateful he's running; he's the real deal, the true anti-war, pro-union, populist candidate.

[slipslidingaway]

73. Yes that's another problem, but we know who controls the media

and which candidate really threatens the status quo. Thanks for the nice comments re Kucinich :)

[asdjrocky]

62. Sorry,

Didn't mean to leave you hanging there. I do have to work sometimes. It sucks, but it's true. My answer, I'm sure is not going to satisfy you, is yes, it's ok with me.

I understand going through fundamental changes in your life. I've been in some places, and I've had my head quite turned around. I've had my very perception of how I see the world changed more than once. But every time it happened, I came back smarter, knowing that I would not fall for that tactic
again. Eventually in life, you get to a place where you won't get fooled again.

That's where I see John Edwards at right now.

Just the way I see it.

And I stated in the OP, I'm not a vote-junkie. That's not what my support is about.

[slipslidingaway]

65. This was not a vote, it was making a case for war when you

know the information is not up to date. One has to wonder how often Edwards went to court to argue a case with old information. :shrug:


"Didn't mean to leave you hanging there. I do have to work sometimes."

No problem, I see you had to start another thread about a house.

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3793547&mesg_id=3793547


BTW great framing on 'vote issue' in the original OP, I would not want to look back on some of these votes either.

[asdjrocky]

68. Thank you-

And have a nice day!

Edwards 08