Edwards supporters: convince me.

[asthmaticeog]

It's one month until my state's primary, and I've pretty much landed on "undecided" between Kucinich and Clark. (I know, they're very different candidates; I like them for very different reasons.)

However, a discussion here I posted to this morning, calling upon us to handicap how well the various candidates would weather the inevitable GOP slander-storm that would greet a Democratic POTUS, underscored for me, for the first time, how little I know about John Edwards, other than that my mom really likes him. ;)

So I'd be grateful if the most well-informed Democrats in America - the D.U. forum habitues - would try to sell me on Edwards, on the basis of policy (his voting record, not the claims of his stump speech), tenacity, his probable effectiveness as a leader (again, objective criteria whenever possible please, not vague assertions about likability - if you're a supporter, I already know you like him!), ideology and consistency. It'd also be helpful if those who didn't support him chimed in on with their reasons, of course.

Thanks in advance to all who respond. I feel I really need this so I can spend the next month making up my mind with as much good info as possible.

[arewethereyet]

1. all that you seek is on his website

and not subjected to my prejudice.

Do yourself a favor and take the time to make up your own mind. I did and I've never needed to even think about other candidates. It's THAT convincing, THAT clear, THAT honest.

[spooky3]

2. In addition: does it matter to you who Bush appoints as judges?

Then you should look into Edwards' record on opposing unqualified wingnuts and how successful he was in keeping them off the bench, despite being overpowered and outnumbered by the Repugs.

[asthmaticeog]

3. Good point.

Got a link?

[spooky3]

5. not handy, but Beaconess is really the expert on this.

Maybe she'll chime in. AP is in SC helping Edwards now and is not online so he can't help. But you may be able to find links at Edwards' website, and then do a little Googling.

[spooky3]

6. here's one on Pickering--there surely are others on

Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, who was recently nominated.

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0226b-pr.html

as you know, Pickering was kept out until Bush deviously appointed him on an interim basis last month.

[spooky3]

8. Here's one from People for the American Way on Estrada

and how we should thank Edwards and others

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=8146

[spooky3]

9. Here's one re: Janice R. Brown

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/7296813.htm

[spooky3]

4. you may also want to see this article by DjTj

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

[jpgpenn]

16. it is?

far from it in my view. So far Edwards and his supporters have come up with nothing supporting the idea he has anything in way of leadership ability to govern the greatest nation on earth, be domestic of world affairs.

[TheDonkey]

7. Edwards linked 9-11 and Saddam in the SC debate :(

An attractive man who is really placing poverty and class into the race but he's too conservative/hawkish for me. I'm also concerned that he's only had around 2 years in politics.

I'd definetly vote for him in the GE, but try to look at all the canidates (or at least some) websites and check some debates out.

[spooky3]

12. no, he did not.

He was not asked about a link between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein (nor was Kerry, whose response he added onto), and he did NOT say anything of the like. He discussed only the threat of terrorism and how seriously he takes it given how many people lost their lives in New York. Please see the Washington Post transcripts, and see the article in the Post the next day, which mentioned Edwards' comments on a variety of topics several times but said nothing about his making such a statement nor even implying it. Don't you think this would be front page news if he in fact said it?

I think you may be confused because some supporters of other candidates here at DU put words in his mouth, then criticized him for those words. The unfairness of this smear was eloquently expressed by PurityofEssence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=233138#233815

This is his 6th year in the Senate, after 20 years of success suing big companies on behalf of injured children and workers. He has succeed against the Republican machine, in a Republican state.

[JNelson6563]

10. These threads crack me up

to watch the whole dynamics play out, so fascinating. Someone comes in here and announces they need convincing regarding a candidate. Which I think is kinda sad that a person cannot collect info on their own and make their own decision but the most sad of all is how folks will trip all over each other to answer the cattle call.

I think to answer such a thread is demeaning. It'll be interesting to see this one play out and compare it to the countless ones it follows.

Julie

[spooky3]

13. good point, I'm going to stop responding now!

[DjTj]

17. I respond depending on what mood I'm in...

...It's good practice for trying to convince people in the real world or when I'm phone banking, and sometimes I learn a little more about Johnny myself.

[TheDonkey]

14. It's not sad at all someone want's help

on thining out such a crowded and strong field.

Political discussion is never a bad thing. As long as the posters keep an open mind I'd like to have intellegent discource and perssuasion.

[jpgpenn]

21. I think the demeaning part is your classification of other DU members.

Why is it funny that someone might request info from supporters of another candidate. Perhaps that person is working well over 65hours a week ( cough, cough, like someone I know ) and really doesnt have the time to do time consuming searches or doesn't trust the major medias slant on our candidates.

I think this opens up a great avenue of those supporters to show their candidates strong points. Funny how others see opportunities as liabilities!

[asthmaticeog]

23. Well, Julie,

I can read a candidate's own website for hours and find out what the candidate thinks of the candidate. I think it's helpful to find out what active party members think of the candidate, too - party members who don't have television shows or newspaper columns, but who have strong viewpoints, and solid reasons for having them. Did I say in my original post that this query was the only info-mining I'd be doing, or that the results of this discussion would be the sole basis of my decision when I vote in the Ohio Primary next month? No. Other D.U.-ers are sure to know information sources that I may not find so quickly on my own, and I'd like to know those. That's why we have discussion groups.

And if discussing a candidate is "demeaning," may I ask why you're even reading the GD04 forum? That is, in fact, the whole point of this board, you know. You might consider the possibility that it's maybe "kinda sad" to answer such a thread, not to help the person asking for info, but to effectively insult everyone who asks or answers a question about the qualifications of a candidate for the U.S. Presidency.

[JNelson6563]

32. nice classification

"discussing candidates" ain't the problem.

How about I get myself a sock-puppet and come in here and post "Persuade to vote for your candidate"? How many times do we see this? And then how does it play out?

Just like those weird ads for mortagages where a crowd of people are all vying for the homeowners attention. Throw in the flae-fests that often break out and what do you have? Hardly the high brow political dialogue you try to portray...

Sad.

[The Sausage of Death]

11. Well, at least Edwards is not so "mad" and "left"....

.... that it clouds his judgement too much.

The fact that your mother likes him underscores that point. Clack is a man with no convictions and Kucinich is so far to the left that even Castro would have problems with some of his positions.

Someone with support from the "Left" could never be elected in an optimistic society like the US. They view "The Left" as neither a political movement nor a coherent philosophy. They look at it as the catch-all refuge of all that is negative and vicious in the human psyche.

The Left generally organizes and justifies the poor, the weak, and the failed, in order to find, outside themselves, personally, ethnically, religiously, nationally, those "root causes" for what are nothing more than the most ordinary human inadequacies.

To sum up, the Left is the nihilistic politics of pessimism, resentment, malice, jealousy, envy and revenge. Most voters understand that the Left may be fought, even suppressed, but cannot be eradicated; it shall be ever with us, its endurance due to its very humanness. Inferiority and dissatisfaction are the universal, omnipresent characteristics of the human personality and the American voter will never support such traits in a President.

[spooky3]

19. welcome to DU, The Sausage of Death.

[HFishbine]

20. Perfect

A case for a candidate based on a rejection of the left. And some people wonder why progressives would contemplate not voting for some dem candidates.

[abburdlen]

22. What the hell are you talking about!

Sausage how can you say Clark is a man without convictions?!?

34 years of honorable service to his country?
Putting his career on the line to protect thousands in Kosovo?
Belief in open government - fully opening his records - unlike any of the other candidates?

[The Sausage of Death]

25. 34 years of honorable??? service??? to his country???

abburdlen, did you hear/read what his co-workers in the Pentagon did not say about him? Do you know why he was fired?

Putting peace on the line in Kosovo? Nearly starting WW III with the Soviets/Russians.

Sausage say that Clark is a man without convictions?!? especially after reading/following his statement on the war in Iraq, from London to CNN and the campaign trail.

He was introduced/installed in the race so that the mean green Dean machine would not take over the Democratic machine from the Clinton

[abburdlen]

29. tin-foil much?

installed in the race? Yes thousands wrote and 'drafted' him because they were not thrilled with thte other options.

Yes I have read what co-worker in the pentagon have said about him and his statements on Iraq, but I read them without the ellipses

[asthmaticeog]

30. You forgot

Clark almost starting WWIII with the then-nonexistent Soviets.

Obligatory Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, World War Three starts YOU!"

On edit: I'm a little ticked that that guy derailed my damn thread! Partly my own fault for feeding the troll, but boy, I'm glad there's another Edwards info discussion active right now.

[asthmaticeog]

26. Um, dude?

You basically just called me (and a lot of others around here - really thoughtful and compassionate people) nihilistic, resentful, malicious and vengeful, among other things that don't apply to me at all (OK, vengeful sometimes;)). I did mention that I'm a Kucinich supporter, right? Yeah, yeah, I just looked - I did mention that.

Nonetheless, welcome to DU.

[The Sausage of Death]

27. Hey, where is my car?

Um Dude, I was talking about delectability. Would America vote for an, ok, VENGEFUL candidate ?

[asthmaticeog]

28. Vengeful candidates

Would Americans vote for a vengeful person? About half of 'em voted for Bush.

[The Sausage of Death]

31. Vengeful candidates II and electability

About half of Americans voted for Bush say Asthmaticeog. Was it clear to you that Bush was vengeful before the election? Was he vengeful long before 9/11?

The party may nominate a vengeful candidate (Goldwater), but would the public elect him. Do we not want someone who gives us more hope than an opportunity for revenge?

[DjTj]

15. John Edwards has lived the American Dream...

...and his career has been all about helping other people do the same.

That's the fluff I wrote a while back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_edwards.html

But if you're interested in his voting record, you should visit his Senate web site:

http://www.edwards.senate.gov/

There's a pretty good breakdown of a bunch of votes here:

http://www.issues2000.org/John_Edwards.htm

I don't know what issues you care about the most, but I think the important thing to look at are the things that John Edwards cares the most about.

You know about his millworker background, and John Edwards cares a lot about protecting jobs for working Americans. He has spoken out against NAFTA, and he voted for PNTR with China with great reservations (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:23:./temp/~r1069fF0o4:e303978:)

He also spent much of his career fighting against the health insurance industry, and his greatest accomplishment in the Senate was getting the Patient's Bill of Rights passed, although it never came to a vote in the Republican House of Representatives. He's currently pushing another similar bill. He has also voted for drug reimportation, for the Democratic prescription drug proposals, and against the Republican prescription drug plans.

Another area where he has been very consistent is the issue of taxes. He voted no on almost all the Bush tax cuts, but vote din favor of a larger deduction for college tuition. His "work" and "wealth" rhetoric here definitely rings true.

He has been unequivocally successful at everything he has done, and his stump speech is ample proof that he could effectively use the bully pulpit. His career was spent working with regular working people and is unlike the other candidates, only 6 years removed from the "real world". I believe he is better positioned to help working Americans than any other candidate we've had in a long time.

...eh, that's probably already too long, but I hope that helps.

[spooky3]

18. great post, thanks DJTJ; I'm going to bookmark it.

[asthmaticeog]

24. Not too long at all

Very helpful, thanks, DjTj. NAFTA and healthcare are deal-makers/breakers for me. Those links are very handy, and I'm only just getting started on this little research project.