Why I don't support John Edwards:

[cali]

I don't trust him. It's not just his uninspiring Senate record, or his co-sponsoring the IWR and cheerleading hard for war. Or his sticking by his vote and the the war for almost three years, it's his little gig with Fortress Investments and his having invested huge amounts of money in a hedge fund. Hedge funds are the sleaziest players on Wall Street. They're underregulated and they serve as tax dodges for the very wealthiest. They invest in all kinds of dodgy businesses that hurt poor and working Americans. There is nothing progressive about making money that way. Nothing. And this didn't happen years ago. It happened recently.

That doesn't look remotely anti-corporatate to me. It's one thing to talk the talk- and he's good at that, but he hasn't demonstrated through action, that he walks the walk. I'd like to believe him. I like what he's saying, but that Fortress crap is big obstruction to my overcoming my doubts.

If he's the candidate, I'll vote for him, and I'd reluctantly prefer him to Clinton for a host of reasons, but I don't think he's demonstrated good judgment. At all.

[Ninga]

1. Nothing new here. The food is bad and the price is too high. Don't stop and feed here.

[cali]

2. can't address the points in the OP

so you're reduced to a meaningless comment.

[Ninga]

So is the OP...my point is...it is without merit in terms of substance, just emotional badgering.

[ClassWarrior]

6. That seems to be the M.O.

NGU.

[Ninga]

5. So is the OP...my point is...it is without merit in terms of substance, just emotional badgering.

[cali]

7. really? so his senate record is out of bounds and so is his

contradictory investing? How convenient for his supporters.

[Botany]

3. Please join us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3880049

[MADem]

8. What are you doing hanging around the buffet, then, if the food sucks so bad?

Jesus, move on if you don't want to discuss the OP's points.

Christ--the OP was a reasoned OPINION. You excoriate the poster for HAVING ONE. That's pretty childish.

Get over yourself--you're not the Forum Nanny. Use that Ignore Thread feature if you're so fucking twitchy about the contents of this thread. Obsession isn't good for the soul...

[MonkeyFunk]

4. I can't stand him

but I see no reason to start a thread saying so. It just adds to the poisonous atmosphere here.

[cali]

10. Look, I didn't call him names

or bring up fatuous crap about him. I wasn't nasty about it. Nothing I said was untrue. The points I raised were substantive. And lastly, the atmosphere around here is so hopelessly poisonous anyway- in large part because of the endless threads about your candidate- that I hardly see this post as being a big contributor to the overall pile of nasty shit.

[acmavm]

14. Yeah buddy, here it is! The always predictable 'I didn't mean this' or

'I didn't say that' response. That's an event more reliable than expecting the sun to rise in the east and set in the west.

That's why no one cares what she thinks.

[cali]

22. oh get over yourself - or don't.

I could care less about your little outrage. or what you think. And I, unlike you, don't feel the need to speak for everybody. That's always so pathetic. Figure you'd be that insecure.

[acmavm]

45. Oh shit, you're funny. You deliver another one of your trite and tacky

sermons from Mount Spewage and then you tell someone else to get over themselves.

I only look in on your threads to see how soon it is that you start denying that you said what you said.

Just goes to show ya, give a fool a keyboard and they start thinking they're the 21st answer to the Oracle at Dephi.

Good bye.

[cali]

59. temper, temper

lil acmavm. I doubt I'll be denying anything. But continue throwing false accusations around and fuming. It's rather amusing. Have a lump of coal, pumpkin.

:hi:

[DS1]

57. I'm an Edwards supporter

and I agree with you that there are questions need answering, and the people who are piling on you for asking them are simply assholes.

:hi:

[cali]

60. Thank you.

The truth is I like what Edwards has to say. And I'd roll the dice on him before trusting Clinton, but there are things that I keep stumbling against, and as always at DU, when there's a politician supported by the majority, any criticism is met with anger and denial.

[Ninga]

15. Really, why in the world are you surprised?? NOT. Are you someone famous or important? If you are,

please let us know so we can understand why we should give your OP the respect you seek.

In life none of us are perfect, worthy nor exempt from past mistakes and or out and out mistruths. And so goes all candidates, not one is exempt.

I think enough people on this board have debated and posted links to support and not support Edwards.

I am sorry I have not acted like a grown up and apologize to you.....I should not have bitten on your bitter fruit....and I am sorry I did and sorry I was snotty.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. Your thread doesn't have to be a big contributor

to still be a contributor.

I've made it clear many times that I think it's pointlessly divisive and provocative to start threads like this.

Cali, I agree with you more often than not, but I think stuff like this is just useless, and is the sign of somebody itching for a fight more than someone seeking honest discussion.

[cali]

28. No, it's that I don't think the hosannas are justified and that people

should be reminded of the facts. There's a whole DU mythology growing around JE, and yes, it irks me. But, c'mon, MF. I agree with you quite often too, but I distinctly remember the thread you posted not so long ago in GDP about wanting to see anti-Hillary people go completely apeshit if she wins. How can you chide me for this, considering your own posting history?

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Because

It wasn't a thread attacking another candidate.

[cali]

37. No. that's true. But it was a thread attacking numerous DUers

you don't think that contributes more to the poisonous atmosphere than this rather mild piece of candidate criticism?

[brentspeak]

77. "I didn't...bring up fatuous crap about him"

Really? You sure did here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3862433

That's where you brought up the National Enquirer smear about Edwards' pregnant staffer (who, it turns out, is pregnant simply by another Edwards staffer). Your disingenuous and insincere way of introducing the smear-story to DU:

I wish they hadn't done this. I read the Enquirer story (yeah, I know) and it's all innuendo and twisting. It's one thing for this story to be in the Enquirer, it's another when it hits the MSM. I don't support Edwards politically, but I sure do personally, and I think this crap is toxic.

[ixion]

9. personally, the ONLY one I trust is Kucinich

the rest of them are entirely untrustworthy.

[Ninga]

17. Unless you know Dennis personally, it is best to not put him on a higher plane than others.

Dennis is no different than any other person on this earth....he is not perfect, and some would say, not even close,

[GreenArrow]

21. agreed

but his record does match his rhetoric.

[Ninga]

25. You are correct about that. My point is that to isolate and latch on to one particular value, even

if it is possitive.....is just as unwise as latching on to negatives with out considering the whole.

[ixion]

41. I'm not sure "higher-plane" would be descriptive of my views

I simply think that of the available field running, he is the best choice. I agree that no one is perfect, but some are better than others. Kucinich has been relatively consistent, which is more than I can say for anyone else on the field at the moment.

[undeterred]

94. I trust Dennis more than I trust Edwards

although for me they are #1 and #2 which means that since Kucinich is unlikely to be the nominee I hope that Edwards does pull ahead of Obama and Clinton. I do have a sense that his "reinvention" of himself is just a little bit much, even though it may be a reinvention that I like. Its not entirely believable. He's a rich man with empathy for the poor. Kucinich is a man who has been poor, who is running a grassroots campaign, and who still seems like the same person he's always been.

Having said that, Edwards is a good man, and probably should have been at the top of the ticket in 2004. We might be in a much better place today.

[sam sarrha]

11. he isnt anti-corporate, he's anti-Fascist, every family farm and business is a corporation for legal...

protection

[DU9598]

12. Other than his reluctant vote on the IWR

what about his senate record was so bad? I remember him being a pretty strong supporter of the Democratic party agenda. I do not ever remember him cheerleading for war. Any links to back up that assertion?

I also have a difficult time figuring out exactly why it is such a bad thing for any former Democratic lawmaker to make money and support his/her family. He is a very smart, connected man. There are a lot of worse things that he could have done to protect his family's financial well-being.

[GreenArrow]

19. His "reluctant vote"?

He co-sponsored the the fucking thing! With Joe fucking Leiberman, fer chrissake!

[cali]

20. It wasn't reluctant. He co-sponsored the IWR and his speeches at

the time were agressive. He supported his vote and the war for well over 2 years. His words:

"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."

He defended his vote on an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, saying "I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why stand behind our vote on the resolution".<19> However, he subsequently changed his mind about the war and apologized for that military authorization vote. Edwards also voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

There is nothing wrong with his having wealth. There is a lot wrong with investing in a hedge fund while excoriating the corporate culture that you- and only a small number of the very wealthy- are profiting off of.

[Pastiche423]

85. A slice of his voting record...

His ADA voting record - 60%

Voted for the Patriot Act

Voted for Homeland Security

Voted for Yucca mtn

Voted for bankruptcy bill

Voted to exempt fuel refiners from liability

Voted against regulation of drinking water

Did not even bother to vote for the Iraq investigations

And let us not forget, he not only voted for little pissypant's war, he co-sponsored it

This voting record is from a DLCer and Bilderberger

[Inspired]

13. It's too bad you can't see the man that I do.

I can't explain the hedge fund job. While I support John Edwards with everything I have, I don't think he is God. I KNOW he is NOT perfect. Things like the hedge fund, the house, etc., only bother me because of the fodder it has created for people like you.

I know you don't like anecdotes but I told my husband (a new Democrat who will caucus for Edwards) that I was afraid this could hurt him. He looked at me puzzled and said, "You Democrats really focus on stupid shit. It only hurts him because you let it".

Maybe my husband is right.

[bemildred]

16. I don't trust any politician.

But I vote for the one whose public position I most agree with.

[cascadiance]

48. Bingo, doing that is what brings US power! Endorsing the best platform is saying what WE want!

Every one of these politicians has skeletons in their closet. Even Dennis, as much as I think he's consistent on most of his views has switched his position on abortion.

I think every politician has a right to, and I would in fact EXPECT them to change their positions over time if they are growing in terms of their knowledge of the world and their understanding of how the system works and affects all of us. I've switched from being an ardent supporter of Al Gore back in the days he ran against Clinton for the presidency initially, to being almost ready to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 against Gore, to hoping like hell he'd run this time around. He's changed a lot over the years on his perspective of what's important and so have I. In looking at him though, I think he's for the most part had good goals for what he wants and thinks the country wanted and needed, even if at times I think they were misplaced.

I think John Edwards may have started earlier with some misplaced goals, but he's evolved to his present stance which is what I want most of all of the candidates except for Kucinich. I think that Edwards has a way of getting more support than Kucinich and actually winning with such a message though.

You have to ask yourself these fundamental questions, assuming that you dont' really trust ANY of the candidates, which I don't think we can do arguably at this point fully:

Would you rather vote for:
1) Someone who has a good shot at winning who's consistently worked against your interests in most cases, even if they were inconsistent on others, and someone argues because they were consistent in their positions against what you want that they are more "honest".

2) Someone who has a good shot at winning who's switched their positions from what you might have viewed as against your positions earlier to embracing what you do want now, and someone argues that you can't trust them because they do that.

or

3) Someone who many feel doesn't have a good shot at winning, who more often than not is consitently for the positions you want.

That's what we're basically facing here in terms of a choice. A choice where someone having a good shot at winning who has consistently put out your viewpoints doesn't exist in this election for many people like me. Therefore, I opt for someone who's taking option #2, who, if they are making an honest attempt at changing their views, could be a damned good representative for us.

Even if they go back against what we vote them in to office for, at least we will have spoken as a people for a mandate of what they touted to get elected. That will be then out there for everyone else to see and will be harder to argue against.

If we vote for #1, people will argue that there in fact IS NO MANDATE for what people really want in this country, and they will continue to serve the special interests who fund them getting there against our will.

If we vote for #3, then people will argue that since they lose, there's no mandate from the people on the issues of that candidate, so they can continue to ignore those issues.

Voting for #2 though, whether or not the candidate is trustworthy, DOES GIVE US A MANDATE to work from moving forward!

That is why I'm voting for Edwards!

[bemildred]

50. Indeed.

:hi:

[sandyd921]

71. A very common sense approach

And then if he's elected, it's our job as citizens to hold him and the Congress to those positions we voted for! I like what Edwards is saying and I love the way he's saying it, but I fully understand that it's not just my job to help him get elected and to vote for him, but to also hold his feet to the fire.

:hi:

[cascadiance]

72. It will also help us push harder on congress who DID ignore what we voted them in for!

And remind them that what they say leading up to the election DOES count and is what we THE BOSSES expect them to do, and not just a means to get elected and live off of the government dole a few more years!

[sandyd921]

75. Absolutely!

It better be more than abundantly clear to them what we want! If not, we make sure that there will be no business as usual until the people's business is their priority and gets done!

[nradisic]

18. you need to get over it....

I don't feel...he doesn't look.....I'd like to believe him....can you grasp at any more straws? You are obviously a very poor judge of character and your post is all personal opinion and conjecture.

[cali]

23. Fortress. His co-sponsoring the IWR. His vote for bankruptcy reform

That's not personal opinion. Those are facts. To bad you can't tell the difference between opinion and fact. But hey, want to defend that shit, go right ahead.

[King Coal]

52. Cali is for Hillary, enough said. If Cali is that empty, which she is, don't read her posts.

Besides Cali is not pleasant. She should probably be more like Ann and be done with it.

[cali]

54. pleasant or not pleasant. I don't support hillary

In fact,I said in the OP I reluctantly prefer JE to Clinton. And no, I'm not pleasant to people who blatantly lie or compare me to Ann Coulter. Do you actually not see what a hypocrite you are, your lowness?

[King Coal]

58. Are you kidding? You are so nasty in tone. You are a lot like Ann.

Why are you so nasty mean?

[cali]

63. I push back when people attack me. It's that simple

why are you such a piece of work that you'd compare me to Coulter?

[Tesha]

67. Oh no she's not. She'll tell you that with every pro-Hillary post she writes. (NT)

[cali]

69. ok, honeybuns. put up

or shut the f**k up. As you insist I post pro-Clinton, it shouldn't be a problem for you to find scads of those posts you say I put up. And remember, dumpling, defending Clinton against bullshit isn't being pro-Clinton. Anymore than yesterday, when I called a poster on the charge that Edwards owned a mortgage company that foreclosed on NOLA residents. I called bull on that just as I'm calling bull on your slime, sweetcheeks.

:hi:

[Tesha]

73. Actually, the most amazing thing (to me) is how long your flamebait posts...

...last before being locked or deleted. And you routinely
post more personal attacks and insults than any other three
of us put together.

Tesha

[cali]

76. after what you posted to me, I have no compunction

about being unpleasant to you. And I throw insults back at people. You started this. You get to reap the results. You posted a filthy lie about me on a thread that was completely innocuous. I have no use for you because of it. And this OP is not remotely flamebait. I got attacked for it. I hit back. And you had to run in and post yet another bit of mendacious crap.

[Tesha]

79. Actually, the rules at DU apply to you too. Well, some of the time, anyway. (NT)

[cali]

80. I can't compete with your level

of mendaciousness. And yes the rules apply to me and the suggestion that I get special treatment is nonsense, dana.

[laureloak]

24. You're afraid. You stalk pro Edwards threads and post

opinions from two sides of the fence. YOU are not to be trusted.

[Prefer]

29. Thanks for cluing me in

I wouldn't have known this without your vigilant eyes.

[Quixote1818]

53. I agree. The OP seems obsessed with JE. nt

[cali]

56. lets see. I've started 7 threads about JE

in as many months. I've posted on threads about him, and somehow in your mind that's obsession. So many of you JE supporters seem to have such syncophant type personalitie- and you're completely unable to deal with any criticism of your candidate.

[ClassWarrior]

95. Did you know that only the...

...best disruptors can effectively turn the blame back at their victims?

NGU.

[BlueJac]

27. Yes Hillary

[cali]

31. What part of, "I prefer JE over Clinton" is beyond your reading comprehension

cupcake? That was in the OP.

[Forkboy]

32. There you go with the food insults again.

You need new material. :P

[cali]

35. It's my thing,

petunia.

[Forkboy]

39. Finally!

[LeftCoast]

30. Cali, I think you've just proven it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion

Cali, I think you've just proven it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the candidates in GD anymore. I think you have offered a well-substantiated opinion. People may disagree with the opinion, but I see this as far different from the flame/smear posts you regularly (and rightly) call to task. So you get a :thumbsup: from me. :) Also, I'd like to know what those railing against this post would deem as acceptable in its place since they feel this is such a travesty. LOL

[cali]

33. It's what always happens when DU builds itself an untouchable hero

You can't write anything remotely critical without the furies escaping. It's the DU borg mentality. Thanks for the kind words.

[Beaverhausen]

55. Wow- you have obviously missed her daily screeds against Edwards in GD-P

She starts 2 or 3 a day on why she doesn't trust Edwards. Now shes here to spread her "opinion' in GD.

[cali]

62. That's simply bullshit. I have started 7 Edwards threads over that

many months. Furthermore, I have defended Edwards when I've seen outright lies about him, and I avoid posting in pro-Edwards threads unless I post something pleasant. You are distorting the truth. And that's a kind way of putting it. In fact it's pure mendacity.

[Beaverhausen]

66. Well then there must be two Cali's here on DU

That or someone else uses your screen name to constantly go into pro-Edwards threads and post nearly the same thing you posted in this OP over and over and over and over...

[cali]

70. Or you simply have a very distorted lens because it's seriously distorted

by partisanship. All you have to do is go search. You'll find I'm telling the truth about how many threads I've posted about him. And yes, I've posted quite a few critical posts of him- but very, very few of them are in pro-Edwards threads. Unlike certain people, I try and keep my criticism out of the pro threads.

[mmonk]

36. I don't trust Clinton and Obama hasn't revealed enough to me.

Everyone has their reasoning I guess.

[cali]

38. What bothers me is that I find the Fortress thing directly contradicts

his rhetoric. I'm at a loss as to why it doesn't bother others. It's not exactly like investing or working for a mutual fund.

[lazer47]

42. If you can double your investment in a "Hedge Fund"

what is the problem????

[cali]

43. You're kidding, right? n/t

[lazer47]

44. What is a Hedge Fund???

A hedge fund is a fund that can take both long and short positions, use arbitrage, buy and sell undervalued securities, trade options or bonds, and invest in almost any opportunity in any market where it foresees impressive gains at reduced risk. Hedge fund strategies vary enormously -- many hedge against downturns in the markets -- especially important today with volatility and anticipation of corrections in overheated stock markets. The primary aim of most hedge funds is to reduce volatility and risk while attempting to preserve capital and deliver positive returns under all market conditions,,,, explain to me the problem you have with that....

[cali]

46. Hedge funds are wildly underregulated. Hedge Fund managers are grossly undertaxed.

They are reserved for the very wealthy and often are involved with off shore accounts. Because they operate behind a veil of semi-secrecy, they're investments are largely unscrutinized. They serve as a handy dandy tax dodge. And the claim that their primary aim is to reduce volatility and risk is laughable. Those are the problems I have with hedge funds. Oh, and they haven't been exactly scandal free, have they?

[book_worm]

40. I agree with you to a certain respect.

People attack Obama because he is running for president in his first term, but seem to forget that John Edwards also ran for president in his first term in the Senate within four years of being elected, and that in terms of elective politics Obama actually has more experience than John Edwards due to his years in state government. Also, it is true that JE is now running totally opposite on Iraq than was his position in the Senate in '04. I still think that Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, ect who voted for the Iraq resolution did it primarily because they didn't want to look soft on defense. And now that Iraq is unpopular JE is opposed to it. In some ways he is an opportunist--but then so are most politicians.

[Joe Fields]

47. I have to agree.

He reminds me of a sleazy used car salesman. If he had been born 150 years ago he would have been a traveling snake oil salesman. Nothing he has done, to my knowledge is illegal, but many things he has done as a public servant have been ill thought out, and ultimately immoral. The Hedge fund investing is just the icing on a lousy cake.

And, I will add that, even though he may be able to plausibly deny any connection to dirty campaigning from a 527 , in support of the Edwards campaign, I do have my suspicions.

[tammywammy]

61. I agree

I work at a car dealership and I've always gotten that smarmy used car salesman feel from Edwards too. And the hedge fund thing was just really over the top and solidified my reasons to not vote for him.

It boils down to, I just don't trust him.

[sendero]

49. That's a laugh riot..

.. coming from an HRC supporter. At least Edwards is consistent once in a while.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quixote1818]

64. The reason I do trust him is because he doesn't stumble

It's obvious Hillary doesn't believe everything she says because she makes mistakes and parses words. Edwards has been flawless on the stump and in the debates. I think the reason for this is because he truly believes what he is saying. Look at what is happening to Mitt Romney from lying. When you don't actually believe what you are saying you tend to slip and make mistakes. When you truly believe what you are saying then all you have to do is speak from your heart. The one thing most people say about Edwards when they watch him is that he seems authentic. So either you are right and he is a slime bag making him the greatest actor on the planet or he truly believes what he is saying.

[cali]

65. Thanks for explaining why you do support him.

And I don't think he's a slimy bag. I don't know what to think. That's the problem. I have trouble with things like his saying he went to work for a hedge fund to learn about poverty, as well as his transformation. And I'd expect him to be excellent on the stump; he's a former trial lawyer. I do think he's making promises that he can't deliver- like the ad in which he promises to take healthcare coverage away from the Congress if they don't pass his healthcare reform plan. I don't hate him, and nothing is based merely on a "feeling". I just don't know whether I'm witnissing the real thing or simply another very ambitious politician. Granted they're all ambitious, but I want him to be ambitious for the right reasons.

[Quixote1818]

68. We are rolling the dice with all of them

For all we know they all could be full of shit. I think Edwards has the best chance to win though and that is enough for me to roll the dice on him because he will most certainly be 100 times better than any of the Republicans.

[brentspeak]

74. This coming from the same OP who complained that Edwards isn't "middle" enough

Your lack of credibility is showing.

BTW, you still tell haven't told us what you consider to be a "middle" platform.

[cali]

78. wtf?? I posted a query about whether, if he's the nom,

he can successfully shift his campaign into general election mode. Among people who actually know something about politics and elections that's an interesting question. And it's about process, not content. You do understand the difference, don't you? Actually, I guess you don't. Or you're simply distorting what I wrote for your own purposes. In any case, I certainly did not complain that he isn't middle enough. Yet another lie to counter. And you're blathering about credibility?

[brentspeak]

81. The only "blathering" is coming from your end

The thread I'm referring to contains a lot of your contradictions, all in one handy scoop:

a) You still haven't defined for the rest of us what you consider to be a "middle" platform or campaign.

b) You said this in response to another poster who cited friends of theirs' who are Edwards supporters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3876067&mesg_id=3876153

cali Sat Dec-22-07 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Anecdotal stories about knowing this person or that are meaningless. Why does it bother you so much. You're building an impossible construct. He has to move to the middle to win the general. And he will.

And yet, here's what you wrote in one of your other OPs, just a few days earlier: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3864999

cali Wed Dec-19-07 07:33 PM
Original message
Two very close friends of mine in NH are going for Edwards, and they're people I respect immensely

She's a very respected and well known lawyer in the state. He's a biologist. They are two of the people I respect most. They've both been involved with NH politics for years. They're both planning to vote for Edwards. For me nothing could count more than their support. No, I'm still not supporting Edwards, but that these guys are, means something to me.

c) You claimed that FDR and Truman didn't run populist general election campaigns -- and were proven completely wrong by one of the other posters: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3876067#3877131

[cali]

84. I claimed that all candidates from both parties always shift from

primary mode to general election mode. And Truman was an incumbent when he ran- and incumbents face a slightly different scenario than the others. They run on incumbency. And that includes Truman. FDR did not run heavily as populist in '32. And anyone with reading ability can see precisely what I meant by reading the OP and my subsequent post in that thread. I said JE will tone down his language about corporations; that he'll stress certain themes and downplay others in an attempt to reach the greatest number of voters. He's currently trying to reach the base of the democratic party. If he gets the nomination, he'll be targeting the rest of the party and independents.

Furthermore, my point about anecdotal stories is about when people try and extrapolate from them and apply them to the broader political world. I made clear in my post that I was not doing that: I was merely saying that two people I respect are going for Edwards- and in case you didn't get it, that was a plus in my book for Edwards and that's what I was saying there. Kind of undercuts your argument that I never post anything positive about him, doesn't it?

Your post is ridiculous, but thanks for posting something that proves I don't just post criticism of Edwards. I appreciate it.

[cooolandrew]

82. Phew. There was such following for John I dare not speak this but 04 was enough for me...

... We can't leave to chance another 04 with Edwards I fancy my chances with the top 2 more in this respect I do feel they will fight for it Obama more so. In an ideal world Kucinich would get it no contest.

[Tinksrival]

96. You can say that again!

HaaHaa! just kidding :rofl:


John is a real pro at campaigning by now. His record on campaigning is way longer than, well, his record of actual public service!
I think John has had designs on the Presidency since he went into politics. That's what his short record shows.

Here is a quote for ya....


"There is a moral dimension to this that needs to be looked at because it characterizes our times. We've got leaders that feel they are not bound by the law, that proceed in a way that is unconscionable, licensed by the media that becomes complicit in their lack of straightforward analysis and criticism. Our nation is being stained by this. They don’t get that the Patriot Acts took away our rights, they all voted for it. Edwards was a co-author. They don’t get that eavesdropping and wiretapping is against the very fiber of this country."

Dennis Kucinich

[cooolandrew]

83. Phew. There was such following for John I dare not speak this but 04 was enough for me...

... We can't leave to chance another 04 with Edwards I fancy my chances with the top 2 more in this respect I do feel they will fight for it Obama more so. In an ideal world Kucinich would get it no contest.

[Lex]

86. You are obsessed with John Edwards.

Seek help.

You post more about Edwards than you do about who you do support.

[cali]

88. More pointless hypebole. Today I posted a thread about

Perry Kucinich and mental illness. I posted a thread last night about the coming democratic majority. I posted another thread about something completely unrelated to JE today. And as I don't have a candidate, I can't post a thread about one, now can I?

You seem to have a problem with the truth. Seek help.

[Lex]

90. LOL

Predictable as always.

[cali]

92. As were you, my dear

as were you. talking point perfect as always.

:rofl:

[ThePowerofWill]

87. It's kinda a smear, but honest.

I've seen you cali bashing Edwards all over this forum, it seems every chance you get in any thread. I lean toward Edwards, but i admit it is due to his populist rhetoric. I also admit his must answer for his senate record.

I am guilty of chiding Hillary for her votes in the senate, so i can't give Edwards a blind pass either. I specifically roasted Hillary for her vote on the Bankruptcy bill, when she actually voted no(yeah i was a dummy). So i have to admit it makes me take a different look at Edwards.

[cali]

89. *sigh* I post far more often about other things.

Posting about Edwards clearly generates far more attention and much more heat. I do not "bash him all over the forum". I do not call him names. I do not post about him in any thread. In fact there are lots more threads about him that I don't post about him in, than ones I do.

[ThePowerofWill]

91. Oh i'm sure you do.

I just notice you most here on GDP. I only hang here, GD, and LBN. Always have. I don't fault you for posting your opinions, questions need to be raised. Even if it pains us.

[DutchLiberal]

93. DU is like any other freeper-dominated board: mention facts, get flamed.

It's ironic to see how 'Republican' DU'ers get in their responses when confronted with facts that don't fit their agenda.