I've had an epiphany: I'm supporting John Edwards for President

[bigtree]

Most here know that I've been solidly in the Richardson camp. I still believe he has the experience, the integrity, and the platform (esp. Iraq) which meshes with my own concerns. That said, I'm not going to hang on a moment longer hoping he can rise above the dismal poll numbers he's been able to manage.

But, I don't come to the Edwards camp by default. I'm not a great fan of John Edwards. He was completely wrong on his support for Bush's invasion of Iraq. He admits as much. That admission felt hollow and opportunistic in the wake of his earlier refusal to acknowledge his mistake. To the point, I just haven't been able to accept that he would be the best candidate to lead our troops out of Iraq. I felt he was posturing the way some of our Democrats do to make it appear they're 'tough on terror,' and I just haven't been able to convince myself that he's sincere about managing our national security affairs 'outside the box' that our party establishment has constructed to shield them from the criticisms of being 'weak on defense.'

I haven't even been a great believer in John Edward's signature appeals to the working poor and disadvantaged. Despite his experience taking on corporate America through the lawsuits he's managed on behalf of injured plaintiffs, I felt his appeal just might be as superficial as his brief term in the U.S. Senate.

However, throughout this campaign (John started early) Edwards has been consistent in promising to respond to and address the real and pressing needs and concerns of poor and working class Americans. There is no better commitment for our elected representatives to adhere to than to champion the causes surrounding health care, income disparities, educational opportunities, and the like. John Edwards has highlighted these challenges as his primary mission and ambition in office, if elected. Nothing will bring our country around like an unswerving support and defense of those Americans who are at the bottom of the income/opportunity hole republicans have dug for us at the behest of their president. He's definitely on the right track.

As for my major concerns -- ending the Iraq occupation and reigning in Bush's reflexive militarism -- John Edwards is the only candidate among the top polling three Democrats who has promised to end the Iraq occupation within a year of his inauguration. He's still for training Iraqis, but only outside of Iraq. Edwards promises to pull all troops out of Iraq, including those troops guarding embassy personnel. Troops which he believes may be necessary to put down some threat -- which may very well come from that region in the wake of our withdrawal -- would also be stationed outside Iraq.

Neither Clinton or Obama will commit to ending the occupation before the end of their term in 2013.

But, the epiphany I speak of came last night as I watched my original candidate's support evaporate into nothingness as Obama, Edwards and Clinton took the top spots in the Iowa caucus. I listened to the victory (and concession) speeches and was struck by the tone and substance of Edward's populist appeal. Most impressive in his address was the attention he gave those Americans who are disadvantaged or locked out of opportunity. There was a passion and eloquence in his address as he focused on the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans with specifics that rivaled Clinton's and Obama's superficial focus on the planks of their platforms. It was at that moment when I chose to believe John Edwards' promises. Here's an excerpt: http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/iowa-caucuses/

"The one thing that's clear from tonight's caucus is that the status quo lost and change won," Edwards said. "The results show that the American people are ready for a president who will stand up to corporate greed and fight for hard-working families, someone who will fix the broken system in Washington and achieve real change in this country.

"Tonight showed that if you're willing to have a little backbone, a little courage, and stand up to corporate greed, we will be unstoppable – no matter how much money is spent," Edwards continued. "The Clinton campaign thought big money would make them inevitable – but despite being dramatically outspent by not one, but two celebrity candidates, we finished a strong second. And now we move on to New Hampshire and the other early states, where the voters will choose who is best suited to bring about the change this country so desperately needs."

John also took time to highlight the concerns (health care) of some individuals he had met on the campaign trail, and he impressed me with his dogged determination to voice those concerns from his elevated platform. It is my hope that, with our support, John Edwards will carry those concerns with him into the White House in January 2009. It will be my pleasure to help him in that effort with all of the resources and talent which I have at my disposal.

Thanks for listening.

[kurth]

1. Edwards is the best choice for the average working American - and the best Democratic candidate

for November 2008.

[sam sarrha]

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

reasons.. protection of their homes etc..

he is the only openly.. thus the "ONLY" Anti-Fascist candadate..
..

[Ninga]

I am a small business owner and you are plain wrong.

Small business, family farms and other businesses can chose how to report their business to the IRS.....and your use of the word "corporations" is incorrect.

There is "incorporation" and there are SUB-Chapter S and C and on and on and on.

Please apologize for your characterization of John Edwards and the words you use to smear his good name.

It you don't, then meet me outside.

[nxylas]

17. How is calling Edwards an anti-Fascist "smearing his good name"?

The characterisation of John Edwards seems entirely positive to me.

[cascadiance]

18. I think not all corporations are inherently evil, nor is capitalism...

But unregulated capitalism, especially that which is also allowed to in effect "regulate" our government through unfettered campaign contributions that are in reality institutionalized bribery, fosters the evil powers of many of the elites wielding the undemocratic and *fascist* powers that is being talked about here.

That's the problem I get when I talk about "corporatist" things a lot with friends in family. Too many of them interpret me as being "anti-corporate", which I'm not inherently. Corporatism I'd like to define is the bastaradization of that institution into being a proxy for wealthy elites to use it to institute a form of fascism, and in my book is separate from the viability of corporations that could be still a very useful part of our society, if the charters used to create corporations and the account rules, etc. that govern them are heavily revised.

A look at the documentary "The Corporation" is really a good way to look at this problem. It interviews MANY different people, including CEO's as well that try to look at all angles of the problem. The problem is that there are well meaning CEOs, etc. out there that would like to manage their companies responsibly, but current corporate law that puts profit above everything else, including society's welfare, forces them to have to deal with unhealthy competition, and makes it harder for them to manage their companies responsibly where they can make products and services that respect the rights of labor and don't externalize costs to our environment, etc.

I think Edwards would be a good leader to help do a lot of what "The Corporation" tends to recommend as radical changes to fix what is wrong with that institution now.

[bigtree]

19. nice post

. . . food for thought

[bjobotts]

29. Try using the term "Economic Royalists" that FDR used to put it in perspective.

Monopolies and too much money ending up in the hands of too few people who try to control the nations economics to continue putting too much money in the hands of too few people. Trillions in debt borrowed to pay these corporations as they empty are treasury to make their profits. This administration has borrowed more money than all other administrations combined by far. Exxon, AT&T, Haliburton, KBR, etc...have gone too far in the pursuit of profit at our expense. Big pharm, the health ins industries, it's an endless list of unregulated capitalism which has led to this situation that is destroying America economically and socially. These corps cannot regulate their own greed long enough to deal with global warming or the energy crisis to the point of placing more value on the dollar than human life and liberty. That's when you know it's out of control. Bridges will collapse but shopping malls will rise unhampered.
Edwards is saying we aren't going to take this anymore and is doing what FDR had to do to bring our nation back from the brink of disaster. The insurgents are the economic royalists who will quickly move everything to another country until that country is destroyed also. It must stop now and it won't stop by compromising with it. How can you bargain with corrupt and greedy thieves. We need Edwards to represent us in our stand against control by the "money" party. He's the one. He will keep the dream of democracy alive.

[PATRICK]

36. Power and money

are inherently dangerous. When the choice of regulating of, by and for the people can be widely owned, influenced and corrupted by what you are getting now is rule by worst of the worst drawn from a tiny subclass of people whose major psychology is plainly greed and self-entitlement- and fear and rage against contradiction. That those kinds of people and corporations by nature are- to put it mildly- highly objectionable as major voices in leading the common good is simple common sense. Capitalism is a theoretical word that itself is vacated by the kinds of rogues that seize political power to rule and break the rules as part of their personal thrust to exploit. We have a supportive world system that believes in their valued worth too much, that bends and changes LAW to accommodate their raw desire and protects it with a RELIGIOUS shield of absurd faith in a human economic abstract- all applying to the materialism in all of us(this God appears to give tangible bribes and surface Utopias and progress).

The types of corporations are usually very revealing. Poisonous, unsustainable products, piratical methods that steal and corrupt and build castles of wealth out of thin air and push mankind past the brink of survival so that they try to make themselves and their sand castles too dangerous to touch. They go the route of classical tyranny and modern fascism or just plain totalitarian control to replace ALL mortal risk and regulation with a priesthood and divinity of servitude of mankind to the few. The nature of any system created and run by the just could be good and safe. It is human nature that is the reason for the primacy of law and the rule of democracy. By the thrust of the "free market" those most empowered violate the very principles of the capitalist machinery, turning consumers into meaningless numbers and slaves that lose value even as the fake numbers of wealth swells to real meaninglessness ever needing the protection of brute power.

The fallacy of capitalism is materialism and greed put at the top of the chain in a world that cannot sustain its abuses. The Olympians at the top are never gazed upon or named except as they move arrogantly into the seats of national power. Whatever empowers the worst aspects of humanity must be bridled and the few held to exact account. Law and democracy must continue their imperfect supremacy.

[Two Americas]

31. three separate things

Corporatism, capitalism and business are three separate things.

The right wingers would have us believe that they are all one and the same - not to mention that they are also "natural law" raised to the level of a religious creed - and that our only two choices are either anything goes free market corporatism, or else the elimination of all three and then descending into some Stalinist nightmare.

Capitalism means placing capital (wealth) above labor (human beings.) As Democrats, we know that placing labor above capital does not hurt business nor the economy - in fact, both are strengthened when workers have rights and power. We know that human beings are not commodities to be bought and sold by the wealthy, and we know that the economy exists for the benefit of the people, not the other way around. We seek a healthy balance between capital (the wealthy few) and labor (the productive many.)

Corporations are merely a particular way to organize capital in the business world that alleviates those making money off of a business from personal liability or social accountability. It is a recipe for disaster - always has been, always will be. It was the root cause of the American Revolution - it was British Crown Corporations that were the oppressors, not Parliament or the King.

Of course not all people involved in corporations are bad people. It is the system that is bad, and it would be so easy to remedy. If we had a rigged and corrupt baseball game, we wouldn't say that the players were bad. If we wanted to get rid of the corrupt and rigged system, that wouldn't make us "anti-baseball."

Very, very few people are benefiting and are doing all of the profiteering from this corrupt corporate-dominated business system we are enduring.

Do not fall for the lies that being anti-corporate is the same as being anti-business, anti-capitalism, or anti-American.

[cascadiance]

41. I think it really gets down to how a corporation is defined...

Yes, I agree that the corporations as they are defined today have just about all of the evils you mention, which is why I have a big problem with "corporatism", where people try to use them as a proxy to ill ends.

What the movie "The Corporation" proposes is that we in effect redefine what the corporate charter is. And in fact as Thom Hartmann has reminded us on a number of occasions, how corporations are defined (either by law or judicial or court clerk activist decisions) now is quite different than what they were defined when they were first created in our country. They are now given WAY too much power, via those in control wielding too much control over those in our government, and vice versa.

Communism didn't work either, as it depended on a centrally planned economy, which is fraught with many more problems in terms of making a system work practically as well. The key is that corporations have to be DEFINED as something that are inherently regulated, are inherently servants of us and not us of them, subject to rules that force them to account for and deal with society's cost of their externalizing costs onto society (aka outsourcing jobs, environmental damage due to inadequate product life cycles or byproducts of their production techniques). If we craft law well to suit US, and not to suit their profits, I think they can be made into good entities that can function on their own and focus on making decent products and services that do more good than harm for all of us in society (and hopefully little harm and harm that only WE as the people choose to allow happen).

That's why I'm saying I'm not inherently anti-corporation, even though I'm anti-corporatist (which I define is the royalists in charge of these corporations' efforts to use corporations as a proxy for their control over our economy and society to further their selfish ends instead of working for the benefit of all of us in a measurable and accountable way).

And you are right that the right wingers will continue to try and confuse these terms to allow them to continue to obfuscate their bastardization of what could be useful entities in society for their own selfish ends.

To do this right we need to have a majority of people working on this problem that aren't in any way beholden to these corporation entities as they are today, so that they aren't prone to leaving the hooks of destruction in any regulation we might create to keep them under control. That is why I think having someone like Edwards (if he follows through on his campaign promises) is essential, to provide leadership and calling people out in both parties who are not trying to regulate in the interests of the people and instead are trying to curry favor with the corporate entities (K-street lobbyists or others).

[Ninga]

4. dupe - sorry

[Two Americas]

30. not family farms

I work with thousands of family farms. They are rarely incorporated.

In any case, being anti-corporation is not to be anti-business. Corporations are not the businesses themselves. Breaking up corporations would not harm businesses. In fact, I believe that this would very much strengthen business and the economy.

Fascism being the marriage of corporate and state power, you are correct in saying that Edwards is the only anti-fascist candidate running.

Edwards vows to fight against business - capital - having total control over our government, and against corporations having a stranglehold on our businesses and economy. In this he follows in the footsteps of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR, and is walking a path that no politician has walked in a long, long time.

[Tesha]

3. Welcome! (NT)

[SpiralHawk]

5. Damn good speech

k & r

[bigtree]

12. transcript

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03edwards-transcript.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[lisainmilo]

6. John Edwards....true hope for change!

:)

[randr]

7. Most electable

I hope as we work our way through this primary process we keep our eye on the prize.
The final Democratic Platform will be a synthesis of all best our candidates have to offer. These ideals are what brings us together.
We must make a rational decision as to who will be the most electable.

[shadowknows69]

8. Welcome aboard!

K+R

[emanymton]

9. Standing With Edwards Is The Best For All. Until The People Win.

.
It is people versus corporations. It is time to bring back humanity for the sake of humanity.
.

[Ilsa]

10. Excellent! Welcome to the Edwards camp! nt

[Marrah_G]

11. Edwards has my support now

I would gladly work for him in the GE just like I did in '04.

[Angela Shelley]

13. Go Edwards!

[balantz]

14. Edwards is THE progressive candidate.

[redqueen]

15. Yay!

He's my second choice as well. I'll vote Kucinich but likely end up caucusing for Edwards. :)

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. K&R!

:-)

[drm604]

20. Welcome!

I think more and more people are realizing the things you said.

[Time for change]

21. I agree he's the far better choice of the three

for many of the reasons you give.

And don't forget that Edwards is the most electable too, as dozens of polls have shown.

I too am concerned about his vote for the IWR, which was a main reason why I preferred Kucinich over him.

I do have to say that I am profoundly disappointed in the results of the Iowa caucus. I felt going into it that Edwards would be out of the running if he failed to win that, given his lagging behind the 2 frontrunners in money and poll numbers.

It seems that some here at DU still feel he has a reasonable chance -- which gives me some hope, though I don't see where that optimism is coming from.

[bigtree]

22. I think New Hampshire voters tend to produce votes for 'electable' candidates

I'm still not convinced that Obama has that kind of appeal in a primary contest in a homogenized state like New Hampshire . . . or most elsewhere. And, I think Clinton's veneer may have cracked enough for Edwards to move up in the eyes of those who value 'electability'

[Time for change]

23. Well, I sure hope you're right about that.

I'm feeling very pessimistic about it right now.

[truedelphi]

24. I would be pleased to see Edwards move up n/t

[bigtree]

25. from your keyboard to New Hampshire's ears, truedelphi

[judaspriestess]

26. here is a fitting quote

"When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before."
--- Jacob August Riis

yes I know I've used it before I just think its so fitting.

[mzmolly]

27. Marvelously stated.

:toast:

[rockybelt]

28. I did not have an epiphony

but I am now supporting Edwards.

My man was Kucinich but Edwards will make an equally fine President of the U.S.

Is John Edwards a psychic?

I believe John and his wife are about as good as you are going to get in Washington. I believe, hopefully not falsely, that edwards is sincere about what he speaks about. After all the lies that have been spewed over the past decades, it is hard to cull out the truth.

[whatdoyouthink]

32. Welcome Aboard

I think Kuch - would have been good also

But reality for his supporters and Bidden, Richardson's, Dod, and others need to decide - same old or someone (Edwards) that will make change - instead of the same old or just talk about it (while kissing there ass - for money!!!)

You want a progressive in the white House or not - should be your main choice now!!! Sure if I could have X (fill in dream) __________ (Here) in Office or better yet why not even (you or)me? well
not going to happen- at this time.

And if we really get lucky - (if he wins) will bring a few of them above on Board also - He seams more open to that then others? (would be smart)to try to bridge the gap.

That why I,m voting for him

[stickernation]

33. Council Of Foreign Relations and Bilderbergers

Hi folks - does anyone want to opine what it means that John has been involved with these two groups ? it sounds to me that his participation has to do with fierce intellectualism and a powerful background in foreign policy. but these names are sort of conspiracy theory things. with CFR it could be as simple as he co-authored a paper on their site, and with the bilderbergers just that he went to debate Ralph Reed and meet Melinda Gates and spit in Henry Kissinger's potato salad. does anyone know much about this ? his participation is easily googlable and we'll maybe have to answer for it at some point.

[Naturyl]

34. Good choice

I'm still keeping Kucinich in my avatar on principle. But Dennis won't even be on my state's primary ballot. For all intents and purposes, I'm an Edwards guy now. If Kucinich is not a viable option, we can't do any better than Edwards.

[WilliamPitt]

35. Gold standard for pro-candidate posts.

Nicely done. And thank you...from an old DUer who still loves to read.

You and I either agree completely or disagree wildly (in my view, anyway), but you are and have ever been someone who always always always makes excellent arguments, so much so that even when I disagree, I admire and respect the way you stand forth. Your writings have always revealed the fact that you are one who believes and advocates only after taking time for deep consideration of the issue(s) at hand.

That's a great mind you have, and it shows. Thanks for sharing it so often, and so well.

:toast:

:hug:

[bigtree]

39. *big smile*

what a wonderful post to wake up to :D

My humble thanks to you, Will, for your kind words.

[WilliamPitt]

45. My genuine pleasure

:hug:

[ColesCountyDem]

37. I also came late to the Edward's camp.

In one sense, I probably started a few steps closer to supporting him than you did: I liked him in 2004, although his support of both the IRW and bankruptcy bills bothered me. Nonetheless, I've somewhat kept tabs on Edwards and his work since 2004, and I've been impressed by it, most especially his establishing a center for the study of poverty, etc., at UNC.

His speech in Louisville where he clearly repudiated his war vote did a great deal to dispel some of the reservations I still had about him as a candidate for POTUS, and his steadfast vocalization on the themes of poverty, health care, corporate greed and institutionalized 'distance' between the cultural mindset in Washington DC vs. the reality of life outside the Beltway chipped away at the last of my doubts about him and his sincerity.

I forget where I first read the phrase 'FDR with a Southern accent', but that's what I've come to truly believe about Edwards. I believe he is the person we absolutely NEED to reverse the disastrous downhill slide toward totalitarianism and corporatism that 12 years of a Republican-controlled Congress and 7 years of a Bush administration has pushed our republic.

That's why I'm supporting John Edwards for our party's nomination.

I'll be quiet now, and thanks for hearing me out.

[bigtree]

38. 'FDR with a Southern accent'

I'm ready for that. Keep talking CCD. . .

[ColesCountyDem]

40. Thank you.

:)

[judaspriestess]

42. Welcome to DU

ColesCountyDem

[ColesCountyDem]

44. Thank you.

I joined quite some time ago, but didn't begin posting until recently.

:)

[truedelphi]

47. Welcome aboard the DU choo-choo

May all your travels here be merry ones.

(Or at least interesting)

[ColesCountyDem]

48. Thank you.

:hi:

[ninkasi]

43. He is my choice, as well

[bklyncowgirl]

46. Edwards has moved from the "I won't vote for this guy" to the "I could vote for this guy" level

I too am a Richardson supporter and still like the guy very much. I like his experience. I believe that he would know how to get done the things that are so much in need of doing. Assuming he's still in the race by Super Tuesday, I will most likely vote for him but realistically, I need to keep my options open.

I like Barack Obama, his theme of hope resonates with me. Last night he came off as a man not only comfortable with the issues but also extremely comfortable with himself.

But I also found myself responding to Edward's passion and energy last night. I didn't much care for Edwards in 2004 and until very recently, did not see much to change my mind. I have serious problems with his not just vote for but active support for the Iraq war. The $400 haircut thing didn't do much to endear him to me either. I'd always marked him off as something of a phony.

But last week I heard him give a speech and found myself cheering him through the TV. In the debate last night he cut through to the chase and said a great many things that needed to be said.

As for Senator Clinton, she too impressed but deep down she is a part of, a creature of the establishment that has essentially gotten us into this mess. Would she make a better president than any of the Republicans. Unquestionably. But is she capable of making the sort of changes that this country is crying out for given the people she surrounds herself with, probably not.

Now I have three candidates and three visions of how to achieve change. Obama, the charismatic newcomer, the inspirational candidate, the man who believes that he can lead a movement to bring America together in a great transitional movement. Richardson, the creature of Washington, who had been given a hard dose of reality therapy as Governor of a struggling border state who knows the nuts and bolts and has demonstrated the ability to make changes. Now enter Edwards, the scrappy fighter for the common man, a modern Teddy Roosevelt, who promises to curb corporate greed and make America work for all of us.

One thing which last night's debate brought home to me for the first time was that America would be very well served by any of these candidates. That is a revelation.