Edwards should withdraw from the 2008 race

[leftofthedial]

He has made it unambiguously clear in which of the "Two Americas" he lives, completely undermining his strongest issue.

He has endorsed the possibility of attacking Iran, for the exact same "reasons" given by the bush cabal.

I always kind of liked the guy, but now I don't think anyone can believe his populist campaign rhetoric and his new-found opposition to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

1. I don't see why he should withdraw.

That's tantamount to telling him he has no right to run. Let him run and let's hear what he has to say. He'll be questioned in debates by other candidates, and maybe the media will even ask something relevant for a change.

[leftofthedial]

9. I don't even hint he has no right to run. I don't know where you get that idea.

In fact, if he weathers this storm and somehow wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him in November of 2008.

I wasn't planning to support him in the primaries anyway. His record as a Senator had me on the fence, so I was eager to see what he did as a candidate. He has clearly addressed two main issues:

1. He said he was wrong to support IWR. BUT then he endorses a possible attack against Iran, based on the same reasoning he used to support the IWR.

2. He preaches economic populism, decrying the "Two Americas"--the haves and the have nots--and advocates economic justice. THEN his own life is show to be that of an economic elitist.

Plus, I believe the global climate meltdown is a major issue. He rhetorically spouts pro=environmental rhetoric and makes a few campaign stops to support it. Then he builds/buys a grotesquely resource-wasteful home.

I just think he's been exposed as a hypocrite. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

[mcar]

19. What storm?

"In fact, if he weathers this storm and somehow wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him in November of 2008."

What storm? Beside the one created here I mean. I haven't seen anything about Edwards' house outside of DU.

Why are we helping the right-wing do their worst by creating these crises about our own candidates?

[leftofthedial]

23. if our candidates deserve criticism,

better that we recognize it ourselves.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Aren't almost all politicians leading the life of 'economic elitists'?

Even those who come from poor backgrounds originally, generally have to become quite well-off before they have much of a chance of standing for high office. And of course a politician's life is pretty elitist anyway.

It would be better if it were made more possible for poorer people to enter politics and speak for the less well-off; but I don't think one can refuse to vote for someone with the right ideas just because he's rich, especially when there's not much of an alternative.

I don't know enough about Edwards in particular to know to what extent he does have the right ideas, so I'm not defending him in particular.

[shadowknows69]

2. I'm beginning to agree with you left

Actually I could give a crap about the whole house thing. Haven't given it much thought I guess but Iran is another matter. We have two choices. Come to a place where we let Iran have peaceful nuclear power or start WWIII. I vote diplomacy.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. How do you feel about Ted Kennedy?

Remember all his inherited wealth? Does that completely destroy his credibility for you, despite his decades of advocacy for the poor and middle class.

What about Franklin Roosevelt? He came from wealth, and did more for the have-nots, than any president until at least LBJ.

I'm not saying Edwards has the track record of either person, and I'm not saying that I support him. I support no candidate yet. What I am saying is that wealth alone should not discredit someone from standing up for the common person.

[leftofthedial]

11. Ted Kennedy is not running for President, asking me to vote for him.

I welcome Edwards and Kennedy speaking out on important issues.

My complaint with Edwards is not his wealth. It's the USE to which he puts his wealth.

It's also his statements on attacking Iran.



Although to be clear, I do believe we have reached a point as a species at which wealth is immoral.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. I agree with you that we should all put our values into practice in our personal lives

but imho, we are voting for a presidential candidate, not a saint or a monk. I'll be happy if our next Dem prez gets us public financing and out of Iraq.

[leftofthedial]

16. Even if he gets us into Iran as an exit strategy from Iraq?

:shrug:

[More Than A Feeling]

20. War with Iran isn't necessary or justified. n/t

[leftofthedial]

24. not according to John Edwards

He thinks force is justified to keep Iran from developing nuclear capability.

[More Than A Feeling]

26. He's wrong, if that is what he thinks.

I'm not defending him for his rhetoric at that conference regarding Iran.

[sallyseven]

61. If your refering to what the Israel paper said

your mistaken. That was bogus. Sometimes we hear what other people want us to hear AND NOT WHAT IS TRUE.

[More Than A Feeling]

64. Why don't you correct the record then?

[Nimrod2005]

4. He doesn't have to withdraw, if the voters don't agree, he will lose

I always prefer people take their message to the ballot box...

For example, I can't wait to see McCain be eliminated form American politics by the GOP voters in the primaries.

[leftofthedial]

14. I'm just suggesting that he should recognize the writing on the wall and withdraw.

If he does, he might be able to salvage enough credibility to have a viable political career in the future. Repudiation by the voters now could be the end for him.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Which wall? The one in the boy's room at Freek Republik?

NGU.

[dogday]

81. bwa-hahahahahahaha

bingo roflmao :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[mzmolly]

5. Do Democrats have to take a life long vow of poverty to care about those who have less?

I think we have a double standard here. Democrats are not allowed the pursuit of the American dream? That's absurd.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Rape-Publicans have always believed there's a different...

...standard for us.

NGU.

[mzmolly]

32. Indeed, and I hate when some of our own help perpetuate that trash.

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

63. If they're helping perpetuate that trash...

...they're not our own.

:hi: molly!

NGU.

[mzmolly]

71. Hmmm

Can't argue much with that. :hi:

[leftofthedial]

21. ALL Americans need to rethink the limits of the "American Dream."

Our "dreams" are destroying the planet because we think:

a. the limitless accumulation of wealth is justifiable and something laudable

b. we can spend our money any way we want, no matter how wasteful or destructive.


That house is symbolic of the waste among the American privileged class that is the fuel of environmental destruction.

[mzmolly]

29. Ah, the "limits of the American dream"

how poetic. You don't know what "that house" has or does not have L-O-D. You're doing the work of Bill-O here by insinuating that Democrats are not allowed wealth.

[leftofthedial]

33. I'll go one step farther. I don't "insinuate" anything.

Under the current circumstances, wealth is immoral. It will take every resource we as a species can muster, just to save our sorry asses from drowning, roasting or starving to death. I don't see nearly enough Americans "dreaming" about that.

That is hardly a "Bill-O"-esque concept. Do you resort to accusing others of being like a disgusting fascist asshole liar in all your discussions, or are you giving me special treatment?

[mzmolly]

38. Wealth is immoral?

While I'm not wealthy, I find that laughable. Wealth is immoral if you don't care about those who have less and act upon that concern.

And, I'm not accusing you of being like a disgusting fascist asshole. I like you and your posts LOD. But, I think your direction is a bit out of line. What Democrats/Leftis do you admire? And, do you hold them all to the same standards?

I think you are holding Edwards to a higher standard than Nader, JFK, Kerry, etc.

[leftofthedial]

53. I think we've reached the point that we must recognize the cause

of the environmental disaster that is unfolding

it is not just evil oil companies or your neighbor's SUV.

The root cause of global environmental over-exploitation is economic inequality. Visit here ecoequity for more info about that. Economic inequality is created by the elitist accumulation of wealth, which is the goal of all participants in capitalist economies.

[mzmolly]

59. I recognize that, but am not sure what it has to do with the subject ?

Thanks for the link, I'll take a peek.

[Warpy]

6. People need to "get" that, although he lives in that lofty America

of wealth and privilege now, he sure didn't start out that way. Nor does he think that rank should come at the expense of working America.

How did he get that wealth? He sued the top class to get justice for our half.

Think of other men who have been wealthy: Teddy Roosevelt (busted the trusts) FD Roosevelt (presided over an astonishing recovery and set the stage for universal prosperity for two generations) and John F. Kennedy, a man whose promise was tremendous but who was murdered before he could bring it to fruition.

Yes, that residence (one can't call it a HOME) is huge and ostentatious. However, if he is elected, he will need all that space.

It's not like the present pig in the White House. He only built the Mayberry Mansion. We the taxpayers had to build all the other square footage on that property.

My guess is that if he isn't elected and doesn't end up in the Cabinet, that residence may be up for sale sooner than later.

[leftofthedial]

28. I'm not being asked to vote for the young ambitious lawyer.

I'm being asked to vote for another rich guy who's got his.

Did he sue the wealthy to get justice?

Or did he sue the wealthy so he could buy that house?

[Warpy]

41. Check out the cases he took

and get back to me.

[Skidmore]

7. Oh, please...

Enough already.

[mnhtnbb]

10. Bull. Edwards represents achievement of the quintissential American dream--

which is fast becoming less available to anyone not born to wealth.
I agree he should sink or swim on the issues.

Try promoting your candidate instead of disparaging others.

[leftofthedial]

31. The good old American Dream defense.

When will Americans understand that the "American Dream" does not give us the right to do anything we damned well want, so long as we can afford it?

The earth is in the process of kicking us "off the island" because as a species we are gluttonous and destructive. That house is an unambiguous symbol of that gluttony. The huge swaths of cleared forest around the house are unambiguous symbols of that destruction.

[mzmolly]

72. There are ways to offset ones impact on the environment.

There are also carbon neutral homes:

http://www.carbonneutral.com/shop/results.asp?cat1=Homes

[mnhtnbb]

77. The forest clearing is, dare I say this, because they haven't finished

construction. They are planning to build a separate house for their oldest daughter, Cate, and a separate house for visiting guests and family.

It will be a real compound. Flame on.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. John Edwards, during the 2004 election went to the Bilderberg meeting in Europe.

The Bilderbergs are the driving force behind the New World Order. I haven't trusted Edwards since.

[mnhtnbb]

13. Background and links please. Have no idea what you're talking about.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Oh, I see Vernon Jordan was there, too. Are we going to trash Hillary, also?

[mnhtnbb]

22. And Sen. Corzine (D-NJ) as well. C'mon. Get a grip.

[leftofthedial]

34. If she deserves trashing

she should get it

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. Here is a link from BBC - Please read the whole article and do not let the headline

stop you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3773019.stm

[mzmolly]

43. Thankfully, the headline didn't stop me from reading this Enquirer like article -

The part I found most interesting:

And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.

And did you see this tidbit?


Timothy McVeigh was among
those who believed
the conspiracy theory :eyes:

I hope DU-ers are not promoting the McVeigh viewpoint?

[leftofthedial]

47. leftist? rightist? There are profound differences, but . .

the REAL division is between the wealthy elite and the rest of us. These groups of global elites are destroying the rest of us. They invite powerful and potentially powerful politicians because they control them.

[mzmolly]

52. I'd need more than McVeigh like speculation, sorry.

Groups meet in private all the time, it's a right under the laws of our constitution.

[mnhtnbb]

76. Thanks for the link. The fact that they publish list of attendees seems

to cause less concern that they're conspiring to 'run the world'.

[Nikia]

30. Hasn't every recent president and presidential nominee gone there

That's what I read. Even Jimmy Carter went.
Yes, it may all be set in that one of "them" will get elected, but we can choose candidates that will do the most in the interests of the country.

[applegrove]

27. Like alot of people in congress..he is very rich. It is the policies he

wants to put into play that matter. Not where he comes from. Who exactly would replace him in the battle on poverty in the primaries? Who is going to fight for that during the election? I see nobody championing the poor. Character has nothing to do with ones pocketbook.

[leftofthedial]

35. Kucinich is a stronger economic populist than Edwards

Other than that, you are sadly right. The rest of the Democratic field represents the ruling elite more than the worker.

Character has everything to do with one's USE of their pocketbook.

[applegrove]

40. And what your actions actually are. So too your belief system. And if you

are in congress..what you push and how you vote.

[saltpoint]

36. Strongly disagree. I hope he remains in the race and

that he and Elizabeth continue to contribute to the national debate on all issues.

Regarding Iran, I would concentrate more on the Bush administration's refusal to take good counsel on the matter -- especially good counsel from the NIE and other government veteran pro-level experts -- rather than on anyone else who is not in the Oval Office right now. "All options remain under consideration" is not at all the same as "Let's blast Teheran off the face of the earth."

That distinction should be made.

And in my view the focus should be on the message the tens of thousands of men and women are bringing today to Washington, DC, a fulfillment of their noble duty as citizens, versus the deaf recalcitrance of the Bush administration in the face of that message.

For me that's the hinge.

[JohnLocke]

37. It's not "new-found opposition" to the Iraq War.

He did in several years ago.

[leftofthedial]

45. newer than when he helped foist IWR and the PATRIOT Act on us.

And still undercut by his agreement with the bushies on attacking Iran.

Some people never learn.

[mzmolly]

46. Because of people like Edwards we had a vote on the war and the Pat Act.

was limited.

Edwards is not my candidate BTW, but I am curious who yours is?

[leftofthedial]

48. I will vote for the Demcratic nominee in 2008, whoever it is

for now, Dennis Kucinich is the only one I can fully support.

I alos like Obama, but I wish he had a longer track record (not necessarily experience).

[mzmolly]

51. Do you know where Dennis lives?

;) And, did you see him shake Bush's filthy hand last Tuesday?

[mzmolly]

39. Who's your candidate?

Edwards has lived in both Americas and I think that makes him especially qualified to discuss this issue.

None the less, I'm a Gore hopeful - personally.

[philosophie_en_rose]

42. John Edwards should withdraw because you don't like his house?

:eyes:

[Puglover]

44. That's basically it.

:rofl:

[BuyingThyme]

49. You do not understand the concept of TWO AMERICAS.

It's not about trashing people who make it up the ladder, it's about whether or not they let others use the ladder.

[leftofthedial]

56. *I* don't understand?

How does the planet look when each of 300 million of us lives in her or his own 30,000 square foot Taj Mahal?

Bah.

[BuyingThyme]

67. If you don't want to know, why post?

[stray cat]

50. I hope Edwards stays in - I like that he supports work and not wealth

[bleedingheart]

55. Edwards actually represents what most people like

a rich guy who also isn't trying to keep them under water to benefit himself.

So he builds a big house, he can afford it, he earned it and that is the American Dream of prosperity

But...the difference is that he also cares about the average American and wants to see them live a better life too...

Now if Edwards was found to be a tax cheat that would bother me more, if he was invested and incorporated in the Caymans to avoid paying his fair share of taxes...then that would prove to me that he is clueless.

[WindRavenX]

57. LOL

:rofl:

[RetroLounge]

58. John Edwards should withdraw because you are jealous

of his house?

:eyes:

RL

[FrenchieCat]

65. No......But many are tired of politicians stirring the IRAN pot

And Edwards appears to have gotten himself a "starring" Role.

Homage to Herzliya
The Lobby wants war with Iran

"US presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, John Edwards and John McCain, along with Newt Gingrich, were in Israel, seemingly competing to see who can be most strident in defense of the Jewish state during personal or video appearances at the conference here, just north of Tel Aviv.

"The four politicians called for ways to prevent Iran's government from acquiring nuclear weapons. While stressing the strong US-Israel ties, the presidential hopefuls all agreed that the US has to ratchet up sanctions on Iran and leave the possibility of a military attack ‘on the table'."

Romney may have won the hyperbole contest, but the big surprise was Edwards, who came in second with his declaration that preventing Iran from getting nukes is "is the greatest challenge of our generation." On the same day he ran an ad in Roll Call calling on Congress to oppose the "surge" in Iraq, he was telling the Herzliya conference that "All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

"At a time when most Democrats in the United States are calling for less military involvement abroad," notes the Jersusalem Post, "Edwards, of South Carolina, told the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference on Monday that his country must do everything that it can to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons."

When John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us something about how the power of the Lobby has distorted our foreign policy and deformed the American political process. In paying homage to Herzliya, Edwards and his fellow candidates are betraying and subverting American interests.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

[leftofthedial]

68. I'm not jealous

I would never own a monstrosity like that.

[RetroLounge]

70. Nor could you...

:eyes:

RL

[Jim Sagle]

60. This thread ain't nuthin' but shit.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

74. Greatest.Post.Ever.

:yourock:

[smoogatz]

62. It's tough being a Democrat.

The wingnuts will hate you no matter what you do--fine, to be expected. The tough part is when members of your own party claim that you're a hypocrite for having done well financially, and having the gall to buy yourself a big house somewhere instead of, I don't know, living in a yurt and giving all of your money to PETA. It's the same dumbass "issue" as Clinton's alleged $600 haircut. If you get a $600 haircut or buy a McMansion, does that make you a narcissist? Probably. But I challenge you to name one national politician that is not, to some degree, a narcissist. In fact the house thing is an utter non-issue: Edwards is completely entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labors, in whatever legal way he chooses. It's really nobody's freaking business but his how he spends his money, and the fact that some of us have pursed our lips and made whiny little noises of concern about it is, frankly, part of the reason I sometimes hate DU.

That said, the Iran business is of much greater concern, and Demonstrates, I think, that Edwards has no fucking clue about the middle east, foreign policy in general, the mechanics of nuclear proliferation, or how the Bush administration played him like a rented accordion in 2002. He's learned nothing, despite his mea culpa to the contrary--and that makes him kind of an idiot, IMO.

[natrat]

66. clinton and obama should withdrawl because they are unelctable

[kentuck]

69. I don't think so...

When the truth be known, it was not Edwards that cleared that land for his house - it was a developer. There will be other houses built - his was the first. His "big back yard" may have another house on it? I think maybe some Edwards detractors are raising a lot of stink about nothing. Actually, it's hypocritical. If we had his money, we would all be living in a bigger house, I guarantee it.

[liberalhistorian]

73. Thank you! After his speech in Israel this week,

which I heard about with total disbelief, he can go fuck himself. He's a hypocrite and a warmonger and is unworthy of even being a candidate.

[Raydawg1234]

75. Shut the hell up. The person who started these threads got their info from a link on Drudge Report

[Bucky]

78. Raydawg speaks for me.

This is about the dumbest damned non-story I've ever heard. Anyone getting worked up about the size of this one millionaire's house is working for the Republicans. I will be charitable and assume they are working for the Republicans unknowingly, but they're doing the Pubs' work for them either way.

[retread]

79. My candidate should be elected because he lives here:

He is against the two seater America and is for a one seater America!!

[earth mom]

80. Where and when did Edwards endorse attacking Iran? Link please. nt