John Edwards' Role in the New Administration

[pamela]

I'm just curious what role my fellow Edwards supporters would like to see John play in the new administration. I didn't think he had a shot at the Vice-Presidency again but I think that changed yesterday. I doubt that Obama will pick him, but it would be nice. That would put JE in a great position to be our President in 2016.

I think it is more likely that he will be Attorney General or that he will be put in charge of HUD. I suspect that the former is his dream job but the latter would position him to do more for the issue of poverty than the AG post. I am really curious to know if there is a deal already in the works and, if so, what that deal entails.

I think John played his cards right. Some will say it was an opportunistic move to endorse Obama but I think John just wanted his issues addressed and sees this as the most likely way for that to happen. There was already talk yesterday of John's issues being given a prominent place on the Dem platform. That's a very good thing in my book.

I'm still disappointed he dropped out and I may still write him in in the GE. But I could be swayed if I thought that John would have an important role in the new administration and if, more importantly, his platform is adopted as a priority.

[cornermouse]

1. Illogical and unlikely.

More likely scenarios would be Bush has messed things up so badly that whoever wins can't turn it around enough to make the voters happy (this one gets my vote for most likely) and only gets one term, followed by someone from the opposite party due to an angry reaction from the voters OR two terms with whoever wins, followed again, with someone from the opposite party.

[bobbolink]

2. I keep saying that he is the only voice that we poor folk have, and don't want that

hidden in some post where he can't speak out.

BUt, it seems most DUers aren't concerned about that, and just want him visible, so I'm losing more and more hope that poverty will ever be a real issue.

:cry:

[pamela]

3. That's one reason I started this thread.

I've seen this discussion a bit in other threads and wanted everyone's opinion. I would like to see him in a position where he would be able to concentrate on his issues. I honestly don't know what position would be best in that respect. I'm thinking the HUD position or VP would be better for his anti-poverty efforts.

It's tempting to want to see him as AG because I'd love to see him bring the Bushies to justice. I just don't think AG is the best platform for his issues.

I think John being more visible is good for the issue of poverty because when he's visible he is talking about poverty. I think the window of opportunity for Edwards is closing though. He needs something to keep him in the public eye, something that will insure that he is considered a leader in the Democratic party for many years. Without a cabinet post or VP position, I'm afraid he will be forgotten. That's why I think his endorsement was a smart move and I love that he used most of his speech to talk about poverty.

[lame54]

47. I think AG would be a great platform for his issues....

I remember what Bobby did while AG. He could bring more than the bushies to justice, think corporate criminals and their affect on the poor and working class.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/Visit+the+Library+and+Museum/Museum+Exhibits/Attorney+Generals+Office.htm?active=permanent_exhibits

Equality Before The Law
When Robert Kennedy became attorney general, the civil rights struggle was entering a new phase of activism. In February 1960, four black college students in Greensboro, North Carolina sat in at the "whites only" section of a segregated Woolworth’s lunch counter and launched a national wave of similar protests. Fifteen months later, in May 1961, a small group of Freedom Riders left Washington, D.C. by Greyhound bus aiming to integrate interstate bus terminals throughout the South. The mob violence they encountered, and local police indifference to it, precipitated Justice Department involvement in protecting them and upholding their rights.
Relations between the Justice Department and the growing civil rights movement were both close and heated. Challenged by the courageous actions of movement activists, the attorney general and his staff helped to desegregate schools and public facilities, integrate the public universities of Alabama and Mississippi, shape new civil rights legislation, and support the registration of black voters throughout the South. Although many civil rights workers questioned the Justice Department’s depth of commitment, the two groups shared common goals and worked closely together.
Fighting Organized Crime
To meet the challenge of our times, so that we can later look back upon this era not as one of which we need be ashamed but as a turning point on the way to a better America, we must first defeat the enemy within.—Robert F. Kennedy


He could do a lot in this position...remember that is where he shines as a litigator for those without a voice.

[unapatriciated]

48. I did it again...

posted without checking who was logged in, lame or me. the above comment was mine not lame's. Sorry lame see you after I get off work.
love your wife.

[PresidentObama]

4. I'm getting deja vu, and I believe he'll be the VP nominee again. I hope so anyway.

Otherwise I'd love for him to follow in my personal heroes footsteps, RFK, and become AG and run for President later down the road.

[waiting for hope]

5. I have mixed feelings about this -

On one hand, I just don't see Obama following through - he has never given me the feeling that he's a leader, with all the "Present" votes in the IL senate, and not voting on Kyl-Lieberman, the whole Wright mess (come on, you go to this man's church for 20 years and don't stop to think that the Reverend's rhetoric may be considered inflammatory by mainstream America?) and McClurkin too - I see an opportunistic politician. If John were to take the VP slot and let's say they won, would he give John room to pursue the issues that are the causes of his life? I'm on the fence with that one. On the other hand, I would love to see him go the way of Gore - I think he would be more effective by taking that route. Any other position in a new administration would be bogged down by governmental red tape, everyone knows it takes forever to get anything done - Edwards teaming up with the Half in Ten team tells me that he is not willing to be the tortoise here. Just my 2 cents.

[redqueen]

7. Soooooo... we're not allowed to talk positively about Obama...

but we can trash him?

Those are the rules here?

Fuckin hell this place.

[waiting for hope]

8. I'm not trashing him - I am

raising my concerns - concerns that many other Democrats have in his ability to lead. pamela asked a question and I replied - this is The Edwards Forum, you know and the last time I checked, there are still a few places here that allow a bit of free and critical thinking - I wouldn't dare post anything like this in GD-P, heaven forbid. Fuckin hell this place? Why are you in this forum?

[redqueen]

9. Wright is a concern?

Wright was hammered on 24/7 for how many weeks? And where is Obama?

Yes, still in the lead.

I'm here because I support John Edwards, and I like talking about him and his ideas, and the possibility of what role he might play in an Obama administration. Not hard to figure that out, really, is it?

If others are allowed to spew RW BS talking points about Obama, those who don't subscribe to that BS should be allowed to speak positively in his defense. It's called fairness.

[waiting for hope]

13. Fairness? RW talking points?

I'm was referring to judgment and the ability to win in November - there are many Americans where the situation with his former reverend are raising concerns, many cross over voters, and if you can't wake up to the fact that it will be an issues come GE time, then I suggest you step away from your computer and DU for a while and breathe some fresh air. DU is a vacuum and you know it - just because Obama has the majority of support here, that DOES NOT translate to the rest of the country. Ask the Hillary campaign that, the last time I checked, there still wasn't a nominee and if Obama was the second coming, he would have had this nomination sewn up MONTHS ago. Fairness? You want to talk about fairness? Where was the fairness when Edwards was getting trashed for his big house and the haircut? Fairness would have been to show all the candidate assets and how much they spend on grooming for TV appearances. Fairness? FAIRNESS would have been that certain posters here would have been banned for all the vile RW talking points against Clinton (It's acceptable now to post articles from Drudge?) - and let me be very clear here - I DO NOT CARE FOR EITHER OBAMA OR CLINTON. Fairness? Fairness was John Edwards telling his supporters to make up their own mind on who to support. I do not have to support Obama to support John Edwards and I will vote Dem come November so you get off your frickin high Obama horse and take of the rose colored glasses, because come November, there may be a Republican taking home the prize.

[redqueen]

14. Wright wasn't just hyped on DU. He was hammered on all over the news.

Did you miss it?

Did you miss his numbers slightly dipping after the barrage of RW attacks (helped by Hillary, whom you seem not to want to trash, despite her still muddying the waters with her FL and MI nonsense, and her exuberance for spreading RW BS talking points... interesting) but then the numbers rising again? So that he now leads both Hillary and Old John McCain... again?

His numbers didn't rise only on DU. Those were Gallup numbers. Nationwide. So that kills that nonsense.

He is the nominee. If this were any other election, the media would have stopped discussing her laughable campaign months ago. As it is, the Republian Party is DESPERATE to have her on the ticket if at all possible, so the M$M is pretending like there's a reason to cover her campaign.

I don't expect you to support Obama. I never said that. I don't konw why that came up in your rant there... strawman I guess... they're very popular. Don't support him if you don't want to.

I'm just sick and fucking tired of haters here trashing OUR CANDIDATE and then throwing temper tantrums if anyone so much as DARES to stick up for him.

Oh and Hillary's campaign had a liaison fucking DEDICATED to Drudge. So please, consider trashing the more RW DLC Status-Quo (per JRE) candidate once in a while. It'll make your claims to "not like either" at least SEEM more credible.

[waiting for hope]

15. "I don't expect you to support Obama -

I never said that." Then why tell me how I was trashing him? And about trashing Hillary - I did that soooo last year and came to a realization that trashing her is trashing all the Democrats that voted for her and are supporting her. Where did I trash Obama? Please, show me. I presented a critical talking point - Not a RW one and it would have been Hillary and her corporate ties, her Kyl-Lieberman yea vote, her Sunday morning "Prayer Group", her misleading fliers against Obama during the beginning of all this - but Obama is the presumptive nominee and the person in question in the OP - and you know what? I'm fucking sick and tired of people here trashing those that are not on the Kool-Aid bandwagon. And again, please - where did I trash Obama?

Point One: His Present votes in IL State Senate - it that a lie?

Point Two: Not voting on the Kyl-Lieberman bill - is that a lie?

Point Three: Reverend Wright and his rhetoric - is that a lie that there are Americans that find a problem with that? Obama sure did, he threw him under the bus.

Point Three: McClurkin ... do I even need to go there? Or do you want to tell all those good DU'ers in LGBT forums that were outraged by that move that their opinion never mattered and that they should march lock-step behind Obama, regardless of how they feel.

I have said many times - I will vote Dem come November and frankly, that is what really matters. Preaching Obama's message here is like preaching to the choir, I guess it feels good to have so many pats on the back and never really having to look too deeply now doesn't it?

[redqueen]

17. You were trashing him by spewing that Wright BS.

Wright is a RW talking point. I'm amazed you don't see that. Yes... *some* right-leaning Americans have a problem with it. Obviously, not enough. He's ahead in NATIONWIDE polls. What will it take for you to get over your "concern" about it?

Where did I trash someone not on "the Kool-Aid bandwagon"? (God I cannot WAIT for that kind of shit to be a bannable offense.)

No, the Present votes are not a lie... but they are a BS talking point. I'm sorry you haven't caught on to that already.

McClurkin... that's funny. Yeah, he hasn't apologized and that's troubling... but Obama includes "gays and straights" in his speeches when he's NOT in front of the right "target" audiences for that crap. He's lectured CHURCH AUDIENCES about being bigoted against gays. So go ahead and scream "McClurkin!" as much as you like... but realize that you're showing that you're only seizing on ONE thing, and ignoring the rest... in order to unfairly criticize OUR NOMINEE. Not all "good DUers" (and not all gay ones, even) are going ape-shit over McClurkin. You seriously should think about WHY. (And no, it's not Kool Aid. :eyes:)

I didn't come here intending to "preach" (nice, keep it up) about Obama. I saw you spewing those bullshit talking points and figured why not try for some even-handedness? You don't seem as pathological as some of the head cases around here... and I don't think you're troll (like I do them)... so I gave it a shot.

Why do assume I haven't looked deeply?

[waiting for hope]

23. Sigh - you used to support Edwards. If

you really did back then you would understand where I was coming from. All I did was voice "my" concerns over Obama. They are only bullshit talking points to you and those in the front row cheering. As I said, DU is a vacuum. I know quite a few people through my job and my husbands' where the Wright issue is a big one. My area of concern from my original reply to "pamela" was the General Election. Not everyone is a Democrat I hope you know.

[redqueen]

27. It doesn't logically follow that if I really supported John

that I would understand your concerns.

I really, really did support him... but I still don't understand why you would be concerned over those so-called "issues", sorry.

Thanks for discussing your point of view with me without resorting to being insulting or nasty. I sincerely appreciate that. :hug:

[Catchawave]

11. Because it's the John Edwards Supporters Group ?

Just a hunch.

I agree with WFH, and will add, Obama's rhetoric does not match his actions. The best, BEST, I will hope for Obama is Carter's second term. See, I said something nice :eyes:

[redqueen]

12. That doesn't make sense.

It doesn't matter WHOSE supporters group it is... if you're going to allow TRASHING candidates, then you should allow people to defend it.

But the trashing is allowed and cheered (by some types)... and any positive talk is shouted down as "proselytizing" (enough already with the Messiah bullshit).

Sad.

I'll be so glad when the trolls leave.

[Catchawave]

18. Nobody's "trashing" Obama here....

Just voicing A LOT of concern over his leadership abilities.

Obama and Hillary have forums, I don't see "defense" pile on's in those?

Not ALL Edwards supporters support Obama either, some support Hillary, some are neutral. With due respect to those Edwards supporters, please.

[redqueen]

20. I guess it depends on what one considers "trashing".

When I see bullshit talking points, that's trashing.

And yeah... "concerns" like Wright? Americans were beaten over the head and neck with the Wright "issue" for what, a month? And still... he's winning.

Wright, the Present votes, and McClurkin are BS RW talking points. IMO spreading RW talking points = trashing.


oh and on edit: I don't visit Clinton's or Obama's forums... I can get news & discussion about them in the GDP forum. I come here to talk about EDWARDS but every time I visit I see mostly just trashing of Obama AND his supporters. I don't know why people there don't care about fairness. I do, and I'm visiting this forum, HOPING to talk about EDWARDS.

[Catchawave]

21. Sigh.

So talk about John Edwards :shrug:

[redqueen]

22. I do.

And I also address other crap that I see here.

[Two Americas]

25. nonsense

The ONLY thing you do in here is attack anyone who disagrees with you, derail all conversations, and insist on mis-characterizing what others are saying in the most hostile and inflammatory terms. And now you insinuate that it is those who disagree with you who are the trolls, and hint that you will support purging them - a veiled threat.

You are highly motivated to beat down those expressing certain points of view, trashing out discussions any time you can, and creating resentments and hostility. That can only be because you lack all confidence in your own point of view and are wrestling with contradictions in your own mind. You can't seriously believe that you are winning anyone over to your point of view - whatever that may be; all we hear are your vicious attacks on people expressing points of view with which you are apparently uncomfortable.

I think that if you had an opinion that you had any confidence in, we would hear that from you - calmly stated and supported - rather than insults and inflammatory and divisive rhetoric and personal attacks. Yet you say that it is others who are hostile - who are "trashing" your hero - others who are causing divisiveness. Could we have a more clear and obvious example of projection than that?

People are criticizing a politician, at the very worst - that is called dissent and that is out moral duty as responsible citizens. You on the other hand are personally attacking people for doing that.

[waiting for hope]

26. TA - you're the best.

Said it better than I ever could. Thanks. :)

[redqueen]

28. Wrong yet again.

Check my posts. Check the order.

The other day there was a thread about John's poverty initiative and there was not ONE comment on it. At the same time, the insults and bashing were going on apace in other threads.

I hadn't been back after John dropped for a while... and your best buddy, after going all postal on me in GDP, said that I should check this forum, cause he was SO convinced that his opinion that most Edwards' supporters didn't support Obama was correct. His "logic" was that since y'all were so fucking nasty about Obama and his supporters in here, that it verified his theory. He's wrong of course. And so are you.

When he said that, I decided to see what he was talking about... and lo and behold, I see a topic that said "just checking in" or "just saying hello". In it, the only responses were from your best bud... being antagonizing, like he always is to Obama's supporters on this board.

I don't trash out discussions... or beat down anyone. Neither do I create the resentments and hostility. If you really cared about the situation, you'd go back and look at the actual chain of events.

Your armchair diagnosis about my confidence is laughable. Really.

Voicing "concern" about talking points about the nominee is not criticizing. It's spewing talking points that have been spewed ad nauseam here and in the M$M... for months.

Nice spin though. The framing is positively Clintonian.

That's at least three times now that you've been completely wrong in your accusations about me, but went on ahead and said whatever you wanted anyway.

[balantz]

29. After all of this I'd like to know what constructive things you are bringing

to the conversations here.

I have forgotten.

And, is it O.K. with you (not that it really matters to me) that some of us can actually disagree with Edwards supporting Obama? Or at least that we are looking into and questioning it?

[redqueen]

33. Where did I give you the impression I cared whether you disagreed

with Edwards' endorsement?

My only problem is with the attacks on our nominee and his supporters.

I suggested Edwards would be best utilized as Secretary of Labor.

But unlike the threads that do nothing but whinge about how awful our situation is, threads like this don't get much attention... unless someone dares to question the repeating of RW BS talking points about our nominee. Funny, that.

Don't worry. I won't bother anymore. No need to worry about me daring to address RW BS talking points when I see them.

It's the Edwards / Hate Obama & His Supporters / Whine About Reality forum. I get it.

[balantz]

36. I don't know.

I pretty much see you hop-skippin' and spewin' all over the place, calling people out for not agreeing with unquestioning support of "our nominee". Are you done now?

[redqueen]

37. I wasn't hop-skippin and spewin.

I addressed the RW BS talking points in ONE post, and we were off to the races.

Cause despite the fact that Wright was hammered into our skulls for a month straight from nearly every media outlet available, and Obama's still around... apparently it's still considered a valid "concern" to some.

Pardon me for responding to the others who jumped in to tell me why I shouldn't be defending our nominee against the talking points.

Yeah, I'm done.

[Two Americas]

31. I can't speak for another member

I am not responsible for another poster. Fight with him if you like. All I have asked is that you take it to GD-P.

As for the charges about me spewing or spinning or framing or spreading right wing talking points and characterizing my posts with that word "concern" and calling my arguments "Clintonian" - all evidence I suppose that you are not attacking people and don't trash threads - I will let them stand and the readers here can judge their value for themselves.

[redqueen]

35. Not asking you to speak for him.

Just for you to recognize hypocrisy.

Don't worry. I won't bother to try to defend him, or interrupt the hate fests anymore. Bash our nominee all you like, while you can.

Enjoy.

[Two Americas]

42. not "bashing" the nominee

Resisting bashing being done in the name of the nominee is not "bashing the nominee." Critical analysis of ALL of the politicians is a key component of a healthy representative democracy, not disloyalty. Bullying and trying to suppress and silence dissidents - which is what these loyalty tests and attacks on critics is - does not help the party, and is undemocratic.

[Catchawave]

30. Pinned at the top of this forum

is a note that starts "important message". Please read it ...

:hi:

[redqueen]

34. You read it.

"We still think the theory is sound. But it appears that it was not perfect. It has already become apparent that providing people with mini echo-chambers can have the opposite effect of what we intended. A few members have taken the candidate supporters' groups as an open invitation to fire up the old primary wars, and focus on the negative rather than the positive."

But y'all go on ahead and keep bashing our nominee and his supporters here.

Don't worry. I won't bother to try to speak up in his defense anymore.

Have at it.


edit: that "focus on the negative" -- y'all need to think really fucking hard about that one.

[unc70]

38. You have done much of the trashing in this group

I am one of those who supported Edwards and has become increasingly alarmed at the prospect that Obama might well lose to McCain. A lot of what you call RW talking points have been known to many of us for 6-12 months, but we mostly quit talking about it when Edwards suspended. I discussed some of these by PM to avoid public discussions until the issue had become widely known on the net.

Rev. Wright has been a known problem for Obama going back many years. As long as he was running for office from his district, Trinity was a plus. As soon as he ran statewide it was an issue. It didn't matter and got little notice because Alan Keyes was his token opponent. The Wright problem is only partly about what Wright actually said; the videos certainly got everyone's attention. It was how Obama tried to dismiss the problem and deny he had heard any of those type statements in twenty years with the church; everyone could see and hear as Obama tried to talk his way out of a jam like a teenager before skeptical parents.

The RW is also using Wright as part of their larger theme of attack on Obama as a fraud who has tried to hide and mislead everyone on who it really is. I think Obama left himself open a bit to some of the criticisms when he embellished some things or had memory lapses on others when he wrote Dreams. If Obama is the nominee, it will be frustrating trying to defend some of the stuff about him. Would have been different type of things with Clinton.

[waiting for hope]

24. Thanks Catch ...

Appreciate that.

[redqueen]

6. Secretary of Labor!

That's where I think he could do the most good.

[asdjrocky]

10. Good question.

I know the speech he gave sounded like a speech being made by the VP candidate. A big part of that choice has got to depend on which way McCain goes. If the pugs go youth, then Obama will have to go the experience and foreign policy route, and visa versa the other way.

Now, I know it's all politics, but just imagine the pictures of Obama and Edwards playing a little basketball together, or running. That alone would blow McLame out of the water, and help to solidify the youth vote that is already there and coming on stronger than ever.

I believe the Kerry camp tied John's hands in 04, and now the pundits blame John Edwards for being too soft. I would love to see an older wiser John Edwards in the roll of attack dog against McLame and the player to be named later.

All that being said, I would love to see John in any roll within a new, Democratic administration.

[medeak]

16. great post Pamela

here is latest with Edwards denying VP role but not ruling out being in administration...also said he voted for Obama:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN164016342...

[benny05]

19. Come on by the Political Video Forum

Ultraist has a video of JRE's appearance on the Today show.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x133134

[pamela]

50. Thanks for the link, Benny.

I've been camping all weekend and missed that. Thanks!

[balantz]

As for my opinion on Edwards' positioning in an Obama administration?

(Trying to get back on topic here)

It's obvious by my other posts in the forum that I am outside a broken system and looking in. I have lost faith that our government in its current state of corruption can actuall deliver the goods to the American people. I think we need to do what J.E. was saying months back and turn this thing upside-down.

But since we have no real choice but to see the game continue to unfold, I hope that Mr. Edwards can obtain a position where he can actually do some real good.

From what I recall the man is smart, though I have to question the wisdom of some of his moves, like dropping out of the race. Perhaps he has flaws that will always haunt him.

I really dunno. It is all beyond my scope of vision.

[unc70]

40. I think I would like him as AG, but open

I think Attorney General would provide an interesting place to exert pressure on corruption, voting rights, etc. Places like HUD don't seem all that exciting -- more of an administrator, less policy.

I too wonder sometimes about John Edwards decisions -- I don't think he has as good political instincts as Elizabeth. We know of a couple of times where he might have done better trusting her instincts rather than his. Long ago I posted that I thought that John would have been better served if he had been an undergrad in Chapel Hill with its questioning liberal arts education, rather than at the engineering schools at Clemson and NC State. Being a few years younger also meant that he was not so involved in the 1968 election where many of us cut our teeth.

BTW has anyone heard anything from Elizabeth this week?

[balantz]

41. I agree with you, Attorney General would be his romper room.

I always enjoy your calm and informative analysis of things.

Interesting perspective on J.E.'s college choice.

Yes, I think Elizabeth is the wise one of the duo. I haven't seen her lately.

Elizabeth Edwards for President, 2012 (or 2016)!!!

[balantz]

43. I guess that was kind of a weird way for me to put it.

It was not a put down or anything.

I meant he would have plenty of room and power to do what comes most natural to him and go after the criminals and see to it that the law is respected.

That's my best hope for J.E.

[unc70]

45. No problem. That is how I understood you.

Unless you meant to respond to others.


BTW in another post to this thread I mentioned a thread I started about an analysis at salon.com of the various states and the problems getting to 270 electoral college votes. Check out the little tidbit on page 17 of the letters responding to that article.

[balantz]

46. I will look at that. Thank you. n/t

[unc70]

44. Thank you. I also posted about finding the electoral votes in Nov.

Earlier today I posted a link to a discussion at Salon about what it would take for Obama to reach 270.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=359569&mesg_id=359569

Did not get much discussion. Obama looks like a risky candidate to me; too many states require too great a change in voting patterns. I can see a little change, but not the 7-10 points needed. I have seen a few landslides -- 1964, 1972, 1988. On a bad day, this feels like 1988 (on a really bad one, 1968).



BTW I was a year ahead of Elizabeth at UNC, knew (not well) Wellstone, great training in the tradition of Dr. Frank Porter Graham, Terry Sanford, Bill Friday. I am honored to have known each of them. We have a new leader in the same mold: Holden Thorp at UNC-Chapel Hill joins Erskine Bowles (pres of UNC System). I expect great things from them, too. If you are not familiar with UNC, go to the www.unc.edu site and check on the Covenant -- our goal is to eliminate most student debt/loans at graduation; we are well on our way to realizing that goal.

[pamela]

51. Well said, balantz.

I think I've been feeling much the same as you. I've become somewhat detached from the primary process and have just been watching things unfold without any real emotional connection to the outcome.

I was so disappointed when John dropped out. I thought he saw how rigged the system is and would stay in and keep pointing out how rigged it is. But John seems to have a burning desire to be a player in that system and I think that's why he caved. Now, I have mixed feelings about him. I wish he was braver, I wish he would have fought harder and stayed in longer to insure that his message was heard. But I'm kind of glad he plays the game because I still think we need his voice and I want him in a position where the media can't ignore him or his message.

I'm really proud of the Edwards supporters who continued to vote for him after he dropped out. I don't think it is a coincidence that the endorsement came the day after he got 7% of the vote in West Virginia. I just wish the media would quit stereotyping the Edwards' voter as the "white, male vote." Maybe I'm deluded but I'd like to think his strong support in West Virginia had more to do with his stance on poverty than with his sex or race.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[shimmergal]

39. To address your question--

I would love to see John Edwards as the VP nominee, mosstly because that _still_ seems the most likely of the many uncertain paths to the presidency.

But he could also do a lot of good as Attorney General. If he were allowed to. I can't think of a better post in which to pursue his goal of putting some limits on a power-drunk corporatocracy.

We'll just have to see.

[Beaverhausen]

49. John mentioned (I think on Larry King) something about a cabinet-level position on poverty

can't remember exactly what he said, but it sounded good to me. That way he could really focus on the issue.

[pamela]

52. That would be great.

I know Clinton had talked about John being in a position like that. Maybe he worked out a deal like that with Obama, too.

[MonteLukast]

53. My revolutionary suggestion:

John for AG.

And Elizabeth for Health & Human Services.

Move over, Obama/Clinton "dream-teamsters".