I'm sorry to see all the attacks aimed at Obama in this support group

[LiveLiberally]

Although they are NOTHING compared to GD-P, the often ugly attacks on Obama's character has made me hesitate to post here, even though I lurked in this forum for months before joining DU. I take the allegations very seriously (I'm a researcher and professor by profession) and thus far I have found little or no evidence to support the more extreme accusations of corruptness, cheating, extortion, voter tampering etc... If anyone would like to provide links to solid, verifiable proof, I'd be happy to read them.

As a supporter of Edwards since 2004, one of things I've most admired about him is his ability to grow, both as an individual and a politician. From my point of view, both Clinton and Obama have revealed at times what Edwards once referred to (in a self-deprecating reference to himself as a young senator) as a lack of "seasoning." More positively, however, my own research hasn't exposed either candidate as fraudulent or fundamentally lacking character, although both have had (and maintain) personal and professional associations that I find suspect.

As a lifelong democrat, however, I ultimately put my party above any individual politician because it will be the democratic nominee who must win this election. It is simply too important for the millions of ordinary Americans whose lives can be fundamentally bettered by implementing simple democratic values such as a minimum wage that is indexed to inflation. I don't see how I can support and seek to move forward John and Elizabeth's fight against poverty and socio-economic inequality and not support whomever wins the nomination. I can thus only hope that the ultimate nominee can mobilize the support of all democrats. And yes, if necessary, gain (or regain) the trust of those who have become disillusioned by the muck of this primary season.

Finally, I completely agree that partisan politics has gone completely overboard on DU. Which is why I very much hope the Edwards Support Group can be a haven for all of us who share progressive, democratic principles, irrespective of our different opinions regarding the remaining candidates.

[balantz]

1. I really didn't want to respond to this post, but will do so only to say

for myself that if JRE had endorsed either of the corporate-owned candidates, or until and if he ever does, I won't either. And also, though I can't speak for others here, this life-long Democrat has finally reached a certain level of disgust for the party, that has me wishing for a complete overhaul. Out of my few months at DU your post was the very first one that I nearly put on ignore as I haven't done that yet at DU. Congratulations for posting in the Edwards forum and nearly accomplishing that first for me.

[saracat]

3. This is the edwards Forum and whether we support Obama or not we come here to speak our mind without

censure. Some Edwards supporters have chosen to support Obama. More have drifted to Hillary and many support no one. That is our choice.

As for your "proof", we have among us long time party activists and Edwards supporters who personally witnessed the vote tampering of Obama and Co. Their word is good enough for many of us. They are not anonymous internet posters.We know their names and reputation. You may not have the benefit of that knowledge and we cannot impart it to you.

We remain free to speak our minds about candidates or anything else. We are free in this forum to disagree and to disagree about the party itself if we so choose.Free speech is important in this forum. I am sorry if that disappoints you.

[saltpoint]

6. I'm encouraged by your call for mutual respect for others' genuine

differences.

[cornermouse]

2. I don't care who or what you are.

If you're an Obama supporter, go support Obama on the Obama support thread.

Out!

[LiveLiberally]

4. I remain a loyal democrat & an Edwards supporter....

who first found DU because of this support group. I have never on this site attacked either remaining candidate, nor will I. As for "information" I may not be party to, that works both ways. Which is why the only rational way to discuss issues here is to rely upon known facts and reliable sources, rather than hearsay, secondhand information, or supposition. I remain deeply interested in discussing with other Edwards supporters (as I have on other Edwards sites) the causes and issues which John and Elizabeth continue to dedicate their lives to. I plan to vote for the democratic nominee. I remain saddened that it will not be John, at least in 2008. If you doubt my sincerity, check my journal.

I posted here in the hope that the partisan poison that has infested GD-P had not infected the John Edwards Support Group. Based on the first few responses, I was perhaps too optimistic. But I certainly did not expect to be threatened with "ignore" and told to get "out" simply because I expressed my dismay that one candidate was being attacked disproportionately in a support group dedicated to John Edwards. I would hope that everyone's right to express their own opinion would be extended to newcomers as well.

Just six weeks ago, this exchange would never have taken place. As Edwards supporters, we shared a common bond. He and Elizabeth brought us together in a common purpose which is now being torn to shreds by partisan in-fighting. That was the concern which led me to post. If it has offended, I apologize.

[bpeale]

8. i agree cornermouse

this is a place to discuss edwards. if you want to discuss anyone else, then be off with you! i have never before blocked an edwards supporter, but i am seriously considering putting PRT on ignore. i'm sick of this crap. take it elsewhere.

[saltpoint]

9. In the interest of fairness, does your policy apply also to the

pro-Clinton supporters from the Edwards group as well?

Anyone who loved and respected Edwards but who is now for Clinton/Obama/Gravel should just be booted out?

Leaving just the people who are for Edwards, even if he isn't running anymore?

SHEESH.

[cornermouse]

10. SHEESH.

I don't know why you've been over here harassing and trying to bully people either. So far I haven't noticed anyone from the Clinton camp. Hopefully they have better sense.

I don't go to the Obama group. For that matter, I don't go to the Clinton group either. I'm just horrified at the way people have been behaving lately and I'm tired of all the lies and total BS.

[saltpoint]

11. Then you know, cornermouse, you could have stated at a point

where others could have found reasons to support you in disappointment.

You aren't the only person disappointed in the outcome of the primaries.

The language used in this forum against Obama supporters, including those who support and respect John Edwards, and including those who support and respect DEMOCRATS has been frosty at best and contentious and line-in-the-sand-drawing at worst.

What are those people planning to do if he endorses Obama? Will John and Elizabeth be booted out of the DU JOhn Edwards Supporters Group?

As well, he could endorse HClinton. Or no one at all.

The hinge is how much respect we have for him on or off a ballot, and why we are indeed freed by his withdrawal from the race to vote for other candidates.

Pointing that out is not harrassment.

[saracat]

12. Well I don't particularly respect Obama. I don't like how he conducted his career

and I disapprove of the behind the scenes machinations of his campaign. I find fault with Hillary as well but she is not the anathema that I find Obama to be. I hop
While many of us have chosen candidates , some have not. I have chosen Sen, Clinton in part because she has John's health care plan and I believe has the maturity to handle the job. I do NOT however come to this forum to either defend her, or convert people to her candidacy.

You may be correct that there are more anti Obama postings in here and it may be that those of us who remain like him less. It may also be that his supporters are more aggressive. I have been condemned by Obama supporters as recently as today and had my support of John Edwards used against me. Many of us have not been treated well by Obama supporters and we retain the right to complain here un censured.

I do not believe that John will endorse anyone, especially not Obama. The last debate made it really obvious that any hope of a relationship was over. John expressed his doubts about Obama in his time magazine interview.

But if John were to endorse Obama is would not make a dufference to me. I would never give my support to Obama. Just as John can make a decison for himself, so can I.

[saltpoint]

13. And I respect your thoughts.

Edwards himself appears to take a much different tack, one that includes the entire mosaic of the nation.

From his closing remarks in New Orleans:

_ _ _

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.
And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

--John Edwards
_ _ _

[cornermouse]

14. You harrassed Saracat.

As far as Obama who, need I remind you, you have already stated that you voted for...?

As I said elsewhere. Obama may be a very nice person but you'd never know it from his supporters. And he may be an excellent candidate but looking at the posts on here, mostly you feel repulsed.

And as I said, I've not gone to either the Obama or the Clinton support groups; too much outright hate floating around in there. It was the Obama's who attacked Chelsea so viciously that they strongly reminded me of the freeper attacks on her when she was growing up. And as much as the Obama's would like it to be true, Hillary is no more a monster than Obama. The tax return stuff is a bunch of chest thumping. And as any mother (that's me) could tell you, most of the rest of your post is baloney and most mothers tend to not put up with much of that. Or at least, I never did.

[saltpoint]

16. Well, we go again to Edwards' own remarks, in which he plainly

and affirmingly stated that both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama would:

_ _ _

... make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.
And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

-- John Edwards
_ _ _

It is dismaying to see any Edwards supporter doubting his affirmations of either of the other frontrunning Democrats still in the race, and that would include some, not all, posters' disparaging remarks about the junior Senator from Illinois.

If it's wrong to speak ill of fellow Democrats, that has to include all the Democrats and not just the ones one might prefer.

And clearly, John Edwards' example leads the way.

[cornermouse]

17. I guess you forgot what you said?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=257&topic_id=7836&mesg_id=7836

Where and how often you get news is your call, saracat. Old Crusoe Mar-02-08 06:31 AM #15
Did I say it wasn't? Sorry OC, I really dislike Obama. And I would not like him even if saracat Mar-02-08 07:31 AM #16
You may have to pursue those interests on another site, then. Old Crusoe Mar-02-08 07:38 AM #17
Are you saying I have to leave DU if I dislike Obama? I do not have to post anything about Obama saracat Mar-02-08 07:45 AM #18
No, you said that. Your candidate and my candidate got out-flanked Old Crusoe Mar-02-08 07:52 AM #20
I will not slam the nominee but doubt I will find much to interest me here . Perhaps saracat Mar-02-08 08:38 AM #21
Skin-thin Democrat. Old Crusoe Mar-02-08 02:14 PM #2

[saltpoint]

18. Yes. I will reassert the "skin-thin" claim. Of anyone who makes

rash dismissals of Democratic candidates.

You bet.

[cornermouse]

20. So instead of apologizing to Saracat, you launch yet

another attack on the people you hope to convert...

[saltpoint]

22. O I'm not in this to convert anybody, cornermouse.

You've got that in the wrong bucket.

[saracat]

21. I didn't make a "rash dismissal" and it is patronizing to imply I did.I saifd I wouldn't support

Barack and I have reason not to do so. It is disrespectful to infer I am "rash" or "thin skinned".

[saltpoint]

23. Well, it follows the spirit of our favorite candidate, who defended

Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/edward-defends.html

Excerpt:

_ _ _ _

Edwards was speaking about a recent interview Sen. Clinton recently gave Fox News where she said, "Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done."

Clinton continued," That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives, because we had a president who said ‘we’re going to do it,’ and actually got it done."

Clinton’s comments were made late last Monday and were a direct reaction to what Obama said earlier in the day, defending himself against Clinton’s contention that he offers false hopes.

Today Edwards defended Obama saying, "We’ve come a long way in the 54 years that I’ve been on this earth. But not far enough. We still have work to do. And the hopes that both Sen. Obama and I have for this nation and this country that we love so much these are not false hopes, they’re real hopes."

At the start of his remarks Edwards noted, "As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Sen. Barack Obama having in this campaign." He joking added, "I’d be less than honest if I didn’t say that some days I wish he was having a little less success."
_ _ _ _

Note the good-spiritedness of John Edwards' remarks there, and not the affirmation for his central beliefs, which I'm guessing is one of the attributes of John and Elizabeth Edwards that drew us all toward them in the first place.

However, it isn't the only attribute. While many of us here have praised Edwards (and David Bonior, too) for his absolutely sensational domestic policy, I frankly feel he was just as prepared in foreign policy, which certain others of his opponents attacked. I think that was unfair to John Edwrds and especially unfair to his supporters, who after all, were following his development as a candidate perhaps as early as late 2004.

The hinge is affirmation.

[saracat]

19. And Obama has certainly not kept his word.He doesn't even "mention "poverty, while

Hillary has been "mocked" for sounding like Edwards.
You are aware, there was no endorsement even implied there? He references that they have made a committment to "him". he committs himself to hhis cause but not to them.And apparently you didn't read his time interview in which he does not speak "glowingly" of Obama. He does say he respects Clinton.

He does NOT affirm either frontrunner.And I hope you are not too "dismayed" by that.

[saltpoint]

24. Well, that's pretty much what I meant in my criticism, saracat. You and I

exchanged remarks the other evening on Abraham Lincoln.

It bears repeating. You dismissed Obama as saying, "Obama is no Lincoln."

I suggested that 'Lincoln was no Lincoln either," until after he was elected to the White House, after a divided convention by the way. He did not become the great healer of our land during that election cycle, but afterward, in his boldness and unpredictable integrity and faith in the union. No one listening to Lincoln the candidate could have imagined he'd be so deeply revered by generations to follow.

So your point against Obama is incorrect and unfair.

No one in an election cycle knows -- clinically knows -- how a given president-elect will conduct the office.

[saracat]

25. I am afraid neither of your answers in this thread address any of the points Imade.

One, I said it was obvious from your quote that Edwards was NOT endorsing anyone.He does NOT "affirm ' allegiance to either candidate.He "affirms" allegiance only to his cause. I also said that Obama had not kept his promise to Edwards in any way.
I also addressed the earlier thread in which I said I considered it "disrespectful to be termed 'rash" and thin skinned.You did not address any of these issues in any of your responses.But whatever.

[saltpoint]

26. I did. But you are stuck on how it offends you instead of John Edwards'

broader message, which I've renewed for consideration.

I'm simply asking that his broader landscape be the backdrop for affirmation.

Which would include HIS specific words affirming the commitments he received from Sens. Clinton and Obama.

And it is that broader landscape, the one Edwards points to, that should be our frame of reference.

We may hear from John Edwards that he chooses not to endorse anybody, or that he endorses Clinton, or Obama.

He will do that, or not, in the wider landscape.

[saracat]

28. Okay. But excuse me if I don't believe that those commitments are sincere.

Hillary is better than Barack but neither meant anything by the words they said.And I am sure John knows it.Why would he believe the people he was forced from the race for? These are the ones "making history" and he was forced to "step aside" so they could do so. And only a twit would believe them. At the time , the words were uttered to make it look better than it was and hint at a possible endorsement.
I believe John will honor his own commitment.As for the rest,"it is just words".

[saltpoint]

30. I doubt if any of us doubts John Edwards' commitment to ideas.

And the uplift of those iin poverty particularly.

That's one of the hallmarks of his campaign and what he stands for.

I'm surprised that you would speak against John Edwards' sincerity.

Quite a few of the rest of us believe that he was a man of his word.

[saracat]

31. Stop it.I didn't question John's sincerity . I questioned the others .

I question Obama's sincerity to John, and that is perfectly clear.

[saltpoint]

32. John's own words were true and clear. He affirmed the commitments

from the two remaining frontrunners -- not in my personal opinion but in the text of his own address in New Orleans.

My guess is he's always been a man of his word.

He holds his central issues dear, as I feel he should, and he knows that it's very likely that one or the other of the 2 remaining frontrunners will be in a position to affect change and meaningful reform roughly a year from now.

I doubt if it would do his aspirations for those central tenets much good if his backers were slamming the guy from Illinois, especially if two things were to happen, one, that Edwards himself endorses Obama before the Pennsylvania primary and two, if Obama goes on to become president and appoints Edwards to be AG.

Those considerations are also part of the mix of possibilities.

[saracat]

33. John can't "affirm " for someone else. That isn't possible.He can only affirm for himself.

That is not an opinion.That is the truth. It is even true under the law. My opinion is that Obama is not a man of his word.This conversation is ended.

[saltpoint]

34. In case you change your mind, saracat, I think you and I could really

have an honest discussion here.

I cite Edwards' own words. You seem to be repelled at his affirmations.

My dictionary says different about who can affirm whom.

I bet yours does too.

[unapatriciated]

87. Don't fall for it Sara...

"In case you change your mind, saracat, I think you and I could really have an honest discussion here" That same lined was used on me at work last night by a repug. :eyes:

[Two Americas]

37. this is nonsense

Your arguments are just a clever way to promote a candidate. You are being very unfair to saracat, and you are also misrepresenting Edwards.

Saracat did NOT question the integrity or word of Edwards. You are trying to spin what Edwards said to make it sound as though it supports your views.

[saltpoint]

38. My views are only mine. Hers are only hers.

I quoted John Edwards' affirmations on both -- count 'em -- both remaining frontrunning Dem candidates.

Get a calculator. John Edwards brought his to New Orleans and praised both.

[Two Americas]

44. whatever that means

What do "Edwards affirmations" have to do with the price of beans?

You are trying to say in a dishonest and manipulative way that failing to accept Obama sales pitches is disloyalty to Edwards, or disloyalty to Edwards' ideas. That stinks. Take it to GD-P.

Again, if you are not trying to promote Obama why are you arguing with me? What is the "disagreement?" You and I never had disagreements before OC. What has changed? You are smitten with Obama. What else could it be?

Now you presume to tell me and saracat that we are not loyal to Edwards or to his ideas? Are you really? If support for a candidate leads you to do that, you may want to reconsider what you are doing.

[saltpoint]

45. Hi, Two Americas. My guess is we'd have quite a bit to agree on

on a variety of issues.

And god knows these have been dark times under the Republicans.

[Two Americas]

46. yes of course...

...and the phrases "we have much to agree on" and "these have been dark times under Republicans" are a sales pitch. Can you not see that OC? Look, for all you know, I support Obama. My only objection is to sales pitches for candidates in this forum, so that it doesn't become the same way as it is out there. Don't turn that around and say that I am disloyal and demand that I justify my resistance to sales pitches in here and then characterize that as somehow harmful to the cause.

Yes, yes, yes we all pull together for the eventual nominee, and Republicans are horrible, and we need unity, and we need to whatever blah blah blah. I can't believe that anyone at DU thinks that any of us need to be reminded of that, yet we hear it again and again and again. When and why does that tactic get used? Why does a dumb ass obvious set of ideas get repeatedly used as a bludgeon against people? It gets used against Kucinich, it gets used against any and all critics of any little thing about the party or the leadership, it gets used against anyone expressing any left wing ideas, usually preceded by some mean-spirited jeering - "yeah whaddya gonna do?? Vote for Nader??" I can't believe that you, and Edwards supporter, are stooping to using this tactic against your fellow Edwards supporters in the Edwards forum.

It is bullying, it is coercion.

It is dishonestly used as a fear and bullying tactic to promote various ideas or candidates, and it is always used against the left wing of the party - which as Edwards supporters means us. Can you not remember when Edwards supporters were being badgered with the same crap?

Can you not see that if anything the tactics you are using are turning people against Obama?

[saltpoint]

47. Well, you are welcome to disagree on the points if you want.

Just as Edwards disagreed often with the points with the other 7 announced Democrats in the race.

Those people against Kucinich -- I urge you to not hang out with them. They're up to no good. I like Kucinich supporters a lot and have said so often on DU's boards.

Nader? I don't claim he's unintelligent but I don't find him to be a community thinker. HClinton's IT TAKES A VILLAGE, Obama's community work in Chicago, and Gravel's grassroots emphasis all beat the crap out of Nader's apparatus for influence, and IMO Edwards bests them all.

You're mistaken about my intentions.

I'm responding to many of the excellent points raised in the OP which I find very consistent with John Edwards' vision for a workable society.

It will be interesting to see if Edwards endorses Clinton, Obama, or no one in the coming weeks. Or if he serves in a high Cabinet position in the Democratic administraiton.

I hope you're on board for the best of all outcomes for the Party.

[cornermouse]

55. wrong slot.

[cornermouse]

56. Thank you, Two Americas.

You said it much better than I did.

[Two Americas]

35. such a disservice to Lincoln

Lincoln's political acumen was surprising to people, and his speech writing matured while he was in office, but there is no way that anyone could say that they did not know where Lincoln stood. Hell, it was so clear that states seceded over his election.

I see Lincoln and Obama as precise opposites. Lincoln took strong consistent highly partisan stands before being elected, and then after he was elected achieved consensus and unity through hard work and highly intelligent political action. Obama talks now as though he has already achieved what Lincoln did, and we are supposed to hope that he will stand for something after he is elected. Exactly opposite.

I don't mean this as a slam against Obama particularly, since few modern politicians are any better, so I hope I didnlt just step in it and start a debate about Obama.

[saltpoint]

36. Actually the acumen component was not doubted among those who

had listened to the man and followed him through the Senate race debates, etc. but to quite a large number of others and by far the majority, he was a scrawny backwoods hick with a ear-shattering high whine of a voice.

But he turned out to make one hell of a great president.

He did not become the Lincoln of our high school textbooks until well into his administration.

The issue is appropriate for many of history's visionaries and leaders who were often summarily dismissed as marginal in the early years of their ascent.

For examples besides Lincoln, there is for instance Alexander, who at age 19-20 became the hegemon of Greece despite Demosthenes' condescending dismissals.

History underestimates any future leader. But it holds all the card on making the ones from the past very distinct.

[Two Americas]

39. huh?

This makes no sense. "He did not become the Lincoln of our high school textbooks until well into his administration." He never DID become "the Lincoln of our high school textbooks," whatever that means.

Your argument could be used to support absolutely any candidate - "he doesn't look like much now, but who knows he could become great later." Anyone COULD magically become great later, so that is a reason to elect a particular person now? Think about what you are saying. Is there a more absurd reason to support a candidate?

That is a very weak argument to use to promote Obama. He COULD become a Lincoln, but he COULD also become a Calvin Coolidge. There are ten thousand times more examples of Calvin Coolidges than Abraham Lincolns.

[saltpoint]

40. I'm not promoting Obama, ya know? I'm posting in support of the OP.

You might actually call a high school history teacher for clarification.

My dad was one.

He would have understood that point just fine.

I'm honestly sorry you're stumbling over it.

If you'd like to understand it better, I'd be happy to do a mutual thread with you on the subject.

[Two Americas]

42. I don't need a lecture

I happen to be a Lincoln scholar. Your post is insulting - "sorry you're stumbling over it" and "if you'd like to understand it better?"

Let's go. You want to discuss Lincoln? Ready when you are.

The OP is an attempt to get a foot in the door for the purpose of promoting Obama, and that is why you are supporting the OP. Why not just be honest about it OC? I am not a Clinton supporter, and don't care either way. What I do care about is GD-P junk being dragged in here. If you aren't doing that, then why are you arguing with me?

[saltpoint]

43. I would be honored to co-host a thread on Lincoln at a mutually agreed-to

time.

I hold the man in high regard and have kept him close some many years now. I would argue that we should include the Scholarly Lincoln, the Political Lincoln, the Spiritual Lincoln, and also not least, the Lincoln of Vidal and Sandburg for as full a picture as possible. If it's ok with you, I'd also be keen for an examination of the Address at Gettysburg for literary impact as well as historical marking stone.

You go ahead and vote for anyone you wish to, Two Americas. As we all will this coming November. It looks like either HClinton or Obama for our side and dead-man McCain for theirs.

I support the OP's contention that a broader landscape is in play, and I support it strongly. Lincoln exhibited that belief in a perilous time, Edwards more recently but just as passionately.

[Two Americas]

48. that is fine

You claimed that the example of Lincoln was an argument for Obama. I disagreed and you responded by insulting me. I have posted dozens and dozens of times here about Lincoln, and no doubt will again in the future.

See, OC, here is the problem I am having with this. What is this remark about - "you go ahead and vote for anyone you wish to" followed by a choice between McCain and the Dem nominee. WTF? Who said I was considering voting for McCain, and what does that have to do with this discussion?

[saltpoint]

49. Don't get ahead of yourself. The general election isn't until November.

We're still deciding on a nominee during the primary/caucus season.

You haven't been insulted at all. You just stumbled over the calendar. Happens to everybody.

And don't hang around anybody who tries to tell you who to vote for. You have done some great DU posts and your vote is an independent and considered one. I'm behind whatever choice you make in the primaries and in the general, although of course I prefer the Democratic ticket to the Republican ticket.

That said, likely we both would prefer that John Edwards be on the ticket, and if not that, then at least a major player in who eventually is on the ticket.

He's a good man, and unfortunately, an underestimated man.

[saltpoint]

5. Thoughtful post, PRT. A huge many of us still think the world of John

Edwards and his family and his domestic proposals but find ourselves without his candidacy at this point in the game.

I came back here to find Sen. Obama being kicked around pretty good. I see virtue in our 8 announced Dem candidates and would question any strategy to debase them, no matter which forum it is.

I was treated quite well here and found the "haven" -- to borrow your excellent term for these good people -- but post-Edwards, it has become quite intrapartisan.

Some Edwards supporters are for Sen. Clinton, and they have a strong case. Some are for Obama, and they have a strong case. Some are in mid-air and I respect their disappointment, since after all, Edwards was our overwhelming first choice candidate.

I second your wish for a return to that "haven."

[LiveLiberally]

7. Thank you....

Your message means a lot. One of the many reasons I remain proud to be a democrat is that we don't walk in lock-step. So I understand the angst, and the division, and why many who supported John remain now in mid-air. But it is difficult now to feel at odds with so many fellow democrats with whom I shared so much in common just a few months ago. And I am ready to rally around a candidate, albeit an imperfect one and not my first choice. The stakes are just too high.

Thanks again for the response.

[Greylyn58]

15. I wasn't going to respond, but decided to comment.

Let me try to explain why some of the people here responded as they did.

As you noted, GD-P has become a pest hole of name calling, accusations, counter accusations and down right nastiness. Even before John Edwards suspended his campaign, the cries from Obama supporters for him to get out-that he was blocking history, keeping the Obama train from rolling toward the Presidency was constant and often. Edwards supporters were treated like dirt, ridiculed and unfortunately a lot of the animosity came from the Obama supporters.

A lot of us though upset with John's withdrawal, have tried to continue to participate in the process and to state our opinions about the two remaining candidates, only to be shouted down, screamed at, cussed at and basically told to tow the line...forget about the things we value and just support Hillary or Obama. Unfortunately, the Obama people have proven to be the loudest and the nastiest by far. When we questioned his policies, made comments about what he stands for, it got uglier still. Just as John Edwards was kicked to the curb, so too, have his supporters and we've been told to just get over our loss. Some folks here have been treated very badly by the Obama folks on DU.

Needless to say, we take a dim view of him and those involved with his "Lovefest". Also as Sara stated, there are some here that were on the ground in Iowa, SC and other places working for Edwards that saw some of the illegal goings on by the Obama folks.

I personally don't care for either candidate, but I dislike Obama. I won't go into my reason as they are my reasons. I don't know what I will do come November, but I will cross that bridge when it comes.

Having said all that, the Edwards forum has become our oasis from the flat-out insane behavior of some here on DU. A place where we can come and speak our minds without being attacked for the opinions we hold. I know the questions you asked were innocent enough, but I hope what I've just written explains why you got the reaction you did. I don't know which candidate you support and I don't care, but for you to come here and question the things we've written about Obama just hit all of us the wrong way.

I just felt some things needed explaining.

[LiveLiberally]

53. Thank you for giving me the background....

Greylyn58. I greatly appreciate it. I don't come from GD-P (I've only posted a few original posts on DU) and so I didn't see firsthand the backbiting and attacks on Edwards and his supporters. (But I take you word for it) What brought me to DU was this forum AND the ways in which Edwards supporters so effectively brought his message to the front page of DU. At a time when the media was virtually ignoring John and Elizabeth last fall (except to focus on completely spurious and irrelevant subjects) Edwards' videos were being posted daily, news of the campaign appeared regularly in breaking news, and GD-P was filled with posts about Edwards'. Aside from the Edwardses own website, DU was largest virtual gathering of supporters that I was aware of and it was the main reason I decided to join.

I understand from your post that that has changed. And I realize that many fans of Obama are rapid. Honestly, though, the mudslinging is hot and heavy on both sides now. I absolutely did not come here to promote Obama's candidacy OR, for that matter, Clinton's. Like others, I've made a choice but in this environment I don't see much point (even in this forum) in engaging in lengthy debates. As Saracat pointed out, we all have our sources of information and none of us wants to be lectured at. To repeat, I posted because a number of threads on this forum in the past few weeks have been virulently anti-Obama with little or no mention of Edwards. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but if this forum becomes an Obama hate-fest that will inevitably leave those of us who feel differently out. Some posters seems to feel that this is OK, but I would argue that it goes against the mission of this forum, which is to welcome all Edwards' supporters based on what we share in common, not what divides us.

Again, thank you for filling me in.

[unapatriciated]

83. I come here often to escape GDP and the "hate-fest" that Obama supporters...

have slung at anyone who does not support him. I voted for Edwards and have not crossed over to either Obama or Clinton. Obama supporters know little about cultivating votes when they make statements like this "lizard brained old white women" "afraid of the big black man". There has been more venom against women of my age group from Obama supporters simply because we disagree with his platform and policies. I find it insulting to use these type of tactics since I have been involved since the late 60's with equal rights, the late 80's and all through the 90's with health care reform. Marched against the Vietnam War protested and marched against this war long before it was in vogue. I struggled with poverty raising four children one who spent 15 years fighting a horrendous autoimmune disease. Yet some how I'm incapable of critical thinking when it comes to choosing a candidate. I must be a closet bigot if I do not support Obama. Look to your fellow supporters and clean your own house, until you do that you are not in a position to criticize.

[LiveLiberally]

84. My OP was not in any way directed at you OR

supporters of Hillary or Obama. It was simply a plea to not let this forum become yet another place to attack one candidate over another. When I came back to this forum about a week ago (after reading it for months in the fall) these were the new threads that topped the list:

"This sums it up for me: "The man is not Presidential..."
"Take a look at this post about the wonder "O"
"Interesting read about Obama. Mr."Clean" ain't so clean!"

I think discussions about issues and policies are extremely important and I have serious disagreements with both candidates regarding them (with Obama over vouchers for instance) But if we descend into partisan attacks about "Mr Clean" etc..., there is little room left for critical thinking or rational discussion.

As I've said already several times in this thread, it was not my intention to offend anyone. I respect your opinions and your activism. As for "my house," it is certainly not among Obama zealots. You're right -- we each must choose our own candidates. But we shouldn't be lumped with the worst of a candidate's supporters JUST because we might choose to vote for him or her as well.

[unapatriciated]

86. I doubt I will choose one of the front runners...

because neither has tipped the scales for me. I will vote D in November, because I'm quit aware of the risk of sitting home or using my option of writing in a candidate. It is your "house" and you have an obligation to your candidate and our party to correct those supporters who use lies and venom to attack another Dem. This is a lesson that many young voters have not learned about solidarity and it is our job to set the example. When I go into to GDP and I see an outrageous lie used just to inflame I stand up against it, whether it is being said about Obama or Clinton. I have seen very few from either camp do the same. That is what I mean by cleaning your "house" before you attempt to clean someone else's. This is a very good article that explains what I have tried to convey to the "zealots" from both camps. When they buy into those non-issue "he said she said" stories. They are being played by the RW and need to be corrected or we risk losing something far more important than their silly "he said she said" arguments. I remember quite well how we lost in 1972 because some bought into these tactics and were fooled by the RW. It seems we are destined to repeat history until we learn our lessons. So I ask that you help correct and teach the lessons we have forgotten not just ignore them because you are not one of them.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/282/
Buchanan made his specialty “opposition research,” the backbone of the Nixon campaign’s “covert ops,” i.e., dirty tricks against Democrats. Buchanan’s strategies were Rove-esque before Karl Rove had even graduated from high school. Buchanan and his top aide recommended staging counterfeit attacks by one Democrat on another, arranging demonstrations and spreading rumors to bring down the opposition, fouling up scheduled events, all the while being careful not to arouse the suspicions of authorities. Nixon was elected in 1968, and Buchanan went with him, becoming a White House speechwriter and advisor.

[LiveLiberally]

88. We are on exactly the same page....

You are right -- sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "your house." I've voted democratic all my life and politically this party is my house. And we are responsible for protecting it by confronting rabid untruths, distortions, and venom no matter which candidate it is directed against. Either that or leave the house. And, like you, I just can't do that. I too am haunted by previous elections, where we allowed ourselves to get divided and cornered by petty mudslinging. The problem, of course, is that my definition of mudslinging is often someone else's idea of "hard-hitting truth." And I do think that our preferences for one candidate or the other can cloud our judgment -- even when we consciously strive to not let them.

Rambling here... but in a nutshell, I am worried about the current state of the campaign. I see a unique opportunity to forge a new democratic majority on the verge of being squandered. I remain an Edwards supporter first and foremost, but I agree with you that if you care about our party you can't just hide and hope this all goes away.

p.s. I agree completely with that quote and don't get me started about Buchanan!

[Two Americas]

27. well so much for that

I see that the contentious and mindless arguments over the two remaining candidates has finally made its way here. The sanity was nice while it lasted. The OP starts with what is known in the sales business as a "shit sandwich" with a slam on everyone here - "the often ugly attacks on Obama's character" - sandwiched between flattering and reasonable sounding platitudes. And then we have the victim angle right in the opening - "made me hesitate to post here."

Funny, I didn't notice any "ugly attacks on Obama's character" or anyone caring much one way or another until a person came here complaining about that and lecturing us.

The the Edwards Support Group IS "a haven for all of us who share progressive, democratic principles, irrespective of our different opinions regarding the remaining candidates." If by that the OP really means that we should all be friendly to sales pitches for a candidate, that is a different matter altogether. It is deceitful and malicious to in effect say that if we are NOT receptive to a sales pitch, that we are therefore doing something wrong or being destructive. That is a classic bait and switch sales technique.

Promoting Obama - and that is what the OP is attempting to do - is what drags the GD-P crap in here, yet the OP wants us to believe that he (she) is here to purge us of that evil.

The OP is smitten with Obama and wants to promote him, or why post this. I remember when the Clarkies would do this - it is like a plague of sweet-talking starry-eyed Amway salespeople trying different pitches and approaches.

As far as I am concerned saracat can post whatever she damned well pleases here and speak her mind, without it being characterized negatively or having to worry about offending anyone. We can't talk openly anywhere else on DU.

[saracat]

29. Thank you.I appreciate it. I always felt so safe here. Now it seems as if I have to

"explain" and "defend " myself.

[saltpoint]

41. You are a great heart, saracat.

But you've been on the warpath against one of the two candidates still left in the race, both Democrats, and both of whom John Edwards has praised.

I think his model is instructive.

And that we could all learn from it. You, me, everybody.

I feel that is one of the take-away gems from the OP's message -- that party unity has to count for a lot, and maybe count for ultimately more in the long term.

[LiveLiberally]

54. Please don't speak for me....

particularly when all of your "observations" are so terribly wrong. Can you cite one statement in my OP that seeks to promote Obama over Clinton? You, of course, are free to think what you like, but if you find my words "crap" and a "shit sandwich" then you are engaging in the very same vicious, take-no-prisoners attacks that you said you deplored.

[saltpoint]

57. Re-reading your OP, I see a cool-browed observation and a level

playing field, with appropriate and earned praise for Edwards' ideals, which is in keeping with Edwards' own comments on his website.

Your OP appeared to me to open many windows of consideration.

Which is a damn valuable thing in the art of dialogue.

[Two Americas]

58. no

Attacking a person's argument is not the same as attacking the person.

I stand by what I said.

[saltpoint]

50. PRT, not least among the good points you raise in your OP is this one:

_ _ _

I don't see how I can support and seek to move forward John and Elizabeth's fight against poverty and socio-economic inequality and not support whomever wins the nomination.
_ _ _

That is really well written and deeply felt.

I'm right there with ya.

[Two Americas]

51. bullshit

That has no business in the Edwards forum.

OF COURSE everyone here will no doubt vote Democratic. Until then they are free to express their opinions without loyalty tests being applied by highly partisan promoters of other candidates.

[saltpoint]

52. Well I wouldn't want to subtract from the spirit of John Edwards' own

sense of inclusion.

He strongly and properly praised both Sens. Clinton and Obama in his withdraw-from-the-race speech in New Orleans.

I'm glad he did that.

I'm glad he did it so well and in such a classy manner.

[MissDeeds]

59. From reading this thread

it is apparent that GD-P has invaded the Edwards forum. A few posters have come here to promote their candidate/s and badger our long time posters.

And for the record, PRT, many of us here have credentials equal to or exceeding your own, but do not feel the need to trot them out to impress others. Nice try.

[LiveLiberally]

60. You have misread my post in just about every way possible,

I have never promoted any candidate except Edwards on DU and certainly have no desire to attack any candidate either. Nor do I seek to impress others with anonymous posts on a political forum. I don't see any particular value to "trotting out" credentials here except to explain where I'm coming from. I know that others here have much to teach me, otherwise I wouldn't have joined DU. If you -- or anyone else -- feel badgered by this post, I again apologize. That was never my intention.

[MissDeeds]

61. Misread your post?

So you think my post is all about you? Interesting.

[LiveLiberally]

62. If you're trying to insult me, it missed the mark -- sorry

You referred to me by name, so yes I did think you were referring to this thread and my OP. If not, wonderful.

[Jamastiene]

63. This is an example of Psychological Warfare practiced by

Obama supporters. Claim to support Edwards all you want, but I see the difference. You are not fooling me. Go somewhere else to intimidate people, will you?

[LiveLiberally]

64. Psychological Warfare???

If you found my OP intimidating or threatening, I'm sorry. It was never meant to be. As for your post, well, I found it disturbing -- as I'm pretty sure you meant it to be.

[cornermouse]

65. Psychological warfare pretty much covers it.

Yep.

[saltpoint]

68. Hi, Jamastiene.

Edwards' domestic agenda continues to impress me and I love the influence it has had on the remaining Democrats in the nomination race.

[MissDeeds]

71. Good call, Jamastiene

:hi:

[Catchawave]

66. Take it to GD-P

Please.

Thank you.

[saltpoint]

67. In the wake of Edwards' withdrawal from the race I think it's very

useful and specifically democratic to discuss his impact on the race, his influence in the potential agenda of others' platforms, and so forth down a very long laundry list.

If you can persuade John back into the race, that would be great.

[Catchawave]

69. I disagree....

We don't need no stinkin' lectures here, especially about putting party before people.

Polls are driving the issues, so please stop peeing down my back and telling me it's raining :hi:

[saltpoint]

70. We can disagree, I suppose, but if we do, let's disagree in a pro-Democratic

Party context.

I urge any Democrat to support our ticket.

I'd also like to see a national health care reform package ushered through the 111th Congress as a first-tier priority.

I'm not sure how you get to those end-goals without strong party backing.


:toast:

[saracat]

72. Just stop patronizing those who don't agree with you.Stop trying to

force people to march in lockstep. Many of us do not like the tactics that were used to "force" John out of this race so the friggen Party could make "history" Some of us don't support that action.And we ought not to be "condecended" to because we don't.

[saltpoint]

73. The voters of Virginia and Maryland and Idaho and Wisconsin, to name 4,

were not "condescending" to you, saracat.

Not at all.

Like you, those Democrats get one vote.

Like you, they are thoughtful people.

That's how it works.

[saracat]

74. What the heck are you talking about? I am talking about your attitude to some in this Forum

who do not care for Party tactics that forced John out. What have those states to do with that statement?

[saltpoint]

75. Try to cool off a moment, saracat. You missed the point.

Here's the thing laid out for you:

Those voters, no better and no worse than voters in any other state, voted in winning percentages for Barack Obama.

When John Edwards was in the primary, many voters supported him as well, but there were more of the other two fruntrunners' voters than there were of our candidate's voters.

See?

The people doing the "forcing out" are U.S. citizens.

One person, one vote.

[saracat]

76. Balony..But then some refuse to look at the "big picture".

And I am sure you think that John actually wrote that speech in NOLA? A man that never uses notes " read" a speech that he appeared to be unfamiliar with? A man that just took a 6 mil ad buy, had 19 mil in the bank and was starting to do well in the polls, and might have won OK and some other states? You are so big on taking John at his word, remember that he said he was in this race till the convention, no matter what? John had just broken fund raising records and was conducting another fund raising campaign.Are you saying he was asking for money knowing he was going to quit? He had confirmed fundraisers in WA the night before. None of his staff was informed of this withdrawal.He gave a campaign speech the night before.He referenced it in that NOLA speech.

I spoke to the staffers in Chapel Hill the night before.They were 'fired up". Everyone reaffirmed that they were in it till the convention.We had just orders $1000 worth of yard signs and were tracking their delivery!

Elizabeth is known for her bluntness and honesty yet in regard to the events of that day all she could say was this was a "complicated day".

But I am sure you know best.After all, it is one person one vote and the party would never intervene to prevent a "real primary from taking place. They would NEVER ask John to "step aside" to allow them to "make history". :sarcasm:

After all, the Democratic party wouldn't stoop to playing "politics" they are above that. Sheesh.

[saltpoint]

77. John Edwards ran an excellent campaign. He really did.

I respect John and Elizabeth very much. They won me long before this primary cycle.

I simply don't see evidence of their being forced out. I just don't. It could be there somewhere hidden from us, or it might not be there.

You are speculating, are you not?

[saracat]

78. I am not "speculating". It is obvious.

[saltpoint]

79. Obvious? Why is it obvious?

The court system runs on evidence presented, saracat.

If you have evidence of this having taken place, I would respectfully read it.

Short of evidence, though, it's speculation.

[saracat]

80. You wouldn't recognize it if it smacked you in the face. I am done here.

[saltpoint]

81. I was politely and respectfully asking into your sources.

I repeat my willingness to respectfually listen to any evidence you might have about that having taken place.

I keep up with the news fairlly well and haven't seen any such evidence.

[cornermouse]

82. So why didn't you vote for him?

I voted for him. The fact that he ended his campaign the day before made no difference to me. He was still my choice and I voted for him.

[saltpoint]

85. Well, pat yourself on the head. He was a great candidate but withdrew

from the race.

I supported Barack Obama among the remaining viable candidates.

Is that a problem for you?

[saracat]

89. Yes. he didn't 'withdraw". He suspended. He needed to gather as many

votes as he could in the primary to get some clout at the convention.If you had an opportunity to vote for him and didn't , that says it all about your alleged support.Oh and in case you didn't know, John has not released his delegates. He has asked them to stick and all are "proudly" doing so.

[Ninga]

90. I do not believe that John Edwards or any official spokes person representing him, has ever

made any statement about what the supporters should, or should not do.

There was a statement from someone in Iowa, who talked to the state party chair, who made a statement, and it was posted on Kos, and it was not from Edwards or his spokesman. It was people from Iowa that put out statements encouraging people to continue to support Edwards. It was not Edwards.

I do not know what John Edwards wants, because neither he, Elizabeth, Cate or anyone else has indicated either in a statement or in writing.

John Edwards does not have public status, he is a suspended candidate, with no standing.

Not one email from the official Edwards suspended campaign was ever sent out.

If Edwards ever decides to take on a public role again, I will be at his side. I left my home at my own expense to go to SC to work my heart out for him.

But it is done. It is over. And for those of us who supported Edwards with money, letters to the editors, signs and rally's know in our hearts what kind of supporters we are.

[saracat]

91. He does have standing. And he has not "released " his delegates.

It is a very different thing to "suspend" and not "withdraw" Kucinich "withdrew". Partly, it is a technicality so John can keep some folks on payroll but it also means , "technically" he is still a candidate. Make no mistake, I do not feel as though this is an active "campaign" or that John is going to somehow "win". The Campaign is certainly over.

You are correct that the Edwards campaign has not "officially" made any statement but they also have not contradicted the Iowa statement. Nor have they issued a statement "releasing" delegates.

I did talk to people in Chapel Hill who did indicate they hoped for more Delegates to be picked up or at the very least the vote count to be impressive as that would help John influence the platform.

I do not doubt the dedication of most on this board in any way.I particularly do not doubt you Ninga.
That being said, I cannot understand anyone having the opportunity to vote for John in a primary and not taking it. But each to his own.

[Ninga]

92. Let me tell you about what happened to some Edwards supporters here in Ohio.

First, I am not typical among my peers, because I am mired in the netroots, and they are not.

They get their political information from PBS NPR, reading various publications, and do not read DU or KOS.

So left on their own and without direction from Edwards, they drifted toward voting for another.
Some said that they wanted to "vote for an out come, a result".

I am sure you can see how that would happen. You may not like it, but I am sure you understand because they were good people, all of them.



If the people in Chapel hill wanted more votes for Edwards, then it was their responsibility to do more than "hope."

Because an awful lot of good people, never got the message.

[saracat]

93. I am sure you are right Ninga. Sigh. It is too bad. I think I am done with politics .

This has been an awful primary and probably will end in an awful GE , the end of whch will probably find me without a party. I am very saddened by it all.

[MissDeeds]

94. I think I'm done with politics too

I have always been a die hard Democrat. In fact - and I think I've said this before on DU - during the very first conversation with the man who is now my husband, I asked what his political affiliation was. It has always been that important to me.

But now, at this critical point in history, we have pathetic candidates, at a time when we need the best, the brightest, and the strongest possible candidates. I am beyond disgusted and disappointed with the Democratic Party. This is the best we can do? THIS?

If we are left to choose between HRC and BHO - not to mention "100 years of war" McCain - I fear for our country, and for the world.

[Ninga]

96. Oh dear, mass evacuation going on here?? Sometimes the things we fear become our

strength, we conquer them instead of them conquering us.

It is never as wonderful or as bad as we first think. I speak the truth.

[saracat]

97. I agree in many ways. That is why I can't vote forObama at all. I tried to explain it isn't racist

I genuinely believe he is a terrible choice.I fear for this country and the world but I am tired of defending myself. It is all so very sad. I feel I have flushed years of effort down the toilet.

[Ninga]

95. Oh saracat "that which does not kill you, makes you stronger". I know exactly how you

feel, I have felt that way, many times, long ago.

I wish I could ease your sadness, and make it go away. I have a feeling though, you are one strong cookie, and that is a good thing.

I will not patronize you and tell you that you will get over this.....I have no way of knowing.

It is all up to you. You will find value in this political process or not. You will roost in the party or you will fly away. Only time will tell.

Yes, this has been a roller coaster of a primary season that did not go the way I dreamed it would.

If I could bottle up your passion, i would be a millionaire.

[Two Americas]

100. you know what?

This isn't politics we have been struggling with, and it isn't politics that we would be walking away from. (Hey look at that - two dangling prepositions in one sentence :) )

This isn't politics. Something else has replaced politics. That "something else" is pure poison.

[saltpoint]

101. O now, you don't mean that. Politics has pretty much always been

politics.

Nothin' new 'bout it nowadays compared with back then.

[Two Americas]

103. please

Can we discuss anything here anymore without your patronizing lectures?

Politics has dramatically changed, and I think that would be something worthy of consideration and discussion. What is your problem with that? Might that upset your relentless "get with the program" scolding and nagging sales campaign?

The influence of a handful of corporations controlling most media outlets and manufacturing the news is one factor. The dumbing down of the population is another. Then there is the impact of a massive and well-funded right wing propaganda machine shoveling misinformation and hatred into the national political discussion 24 hours a day. The breakdown in community, the collapse of labor unions, and the isolation and alienation of modern society contribute to this. The ever-increasing saturation of our lives with corporate sales and marketing concepts has played a role.

The rise in cult-like thinking and behavior, as people desperately try to find something to replace the traditional sustaining roles in our lives that were once filled by community, church, and family, the frantic need to belong to something, to believe in something - the deep yearning to give oneself over entirely to something and find a herd to join - has perhaps had the most significant destructive effect on our politics of any of these factors.

There are things to discuss here, and your condescending dismissals are not a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

[saltpoint]

104. Well, I'm all for a truly expansive discussion of the issues.

I'll even offer to co-host a thead with you, 2 Americas.

We can find a mutually agreeable time, prepare our points, and invite many others.

What d'ya say?

[saltpoint]

107. Ah, heck, Two Americas. You just don't give folks a fair chance.

I'd be happy to have a discussion with you any time.

You appear lately distracted, though, and much harder to approach than before

[saracat]

108. Bravo Two Americas! Very thoughtful and well said!

[MissDeeds]

102. Agree completely

It isn't about issues and platforms anymore, it isn't about a way to address the problems facing the country and the world, it isn't about THE PEOPLE - it's about personalities, media hype, and 'he said, she said'.
And it is a disgrace.

[saltpoint]

99. Ninga, you are correct. John Edwards WOULD never do that, either.

Many of us respect John very much and hope his role as a public figure is a influential as possible, but you are quite correct in your point, IMO.

[saltpoint]

98. Edwards is out of the race, sorry to say.

It's quite a reach to imagine that he would leave the race and then expect Democrats to not shape the outcome of the ticket by choosing one of the remaining candidates.

If you can get John to post here and say so, I'm sure he'll get a lively feedback goin'.

Short of that, your claim is not credible.

[Two Americas]

105. he is?

You're kidding, right? Huh. John Edwards is out of the race, you say? I wonder why none of us heard that? This changes everything.

Hmmmm. What to do now? I feel so, lost, so alone. I guess I will have to hunt around for a new hero so I can get rid of these uncomfortable feelings. I don't know what to do if I don't have some messiah to hide behind and give my life over to.

[saltpoint]

106. You can contact the Edwards campaign on the website or check the

news from the primary seasons.

There was mention of it here and there.

On th website currently are affirmations for both remaining Democrats in contention by John Edwards.

[ClericJohnPreston]

109. You're PATHETIC

Old Crusoe. Keep lobbing your ineffectual platitudes of moonie-like cultist love speech. You are only fooling yourself. Everyone can see a HUCKSTER, when you see a benevolent preacher in the mirror.

You're some preacher Old Crusoe, a regular Elmer Gantry!

[saltpoint]

110. May all the good lights of heaven shine on ya, Cleric John.