I admire Edwards' honesty and his refusal to pandering

[question everything]

On Sunday I watched him on CPSAN appearing on Dartmouth College.

As with Meet the Press, he was asked about his view on gay marriage and he said that he cannot support this. He admitted that it was his background as a Southern Baptist, his deep church ties that caused him to pause. No, he does not think it is a "sin" and is all for domestic partnership and for employers paying benefits to such partners. And, of course, all for serving in the military.

He said that his daughter chastises him about this, and he realized that it may be up to the next generation to will finally legalize it.

But he stands where he is. He did started by telling the students that they may not like what he had to say.

This reminds me of listening to Kathleen Brown when, in 1994 - I think - she ran for governor of California and stated her opposition to the death penalty, based on her Catholic upbringing. Now, don't flame me. I DO NOT compare the death penalty to gay marriages. But in both cases I admire the candidate taking a stand on what may not be a popular position and justifying it on his/her convictions that started from early age.

And, apparently, there are many DUers who do not like his stand on Iran - and I have not studied this yet (hey, there is more than a year for caucus night..)

But he does support national health care, does want our troops out of Iraq with no but or however. And, at Dartmouth, he first had a presentation before he took questions and he talked at length about Darfur.

When was the last time a national figure talked about Darfur?

So, yes, he is losing many votes, certainly on DU because of his stand on gay marriage, but at least admire his refusal to pander, to tell the voters what he thinks, or what his handlers think, he ought to say.

[saltpoint]

1. It would be great if all candidates held exactly the positions I want

them to hold.

In the OFF CHANCE that that never happens, I find virtue where I may, and there is a lot of it in our potential 2008 ticket combinations.

And that certainly includes John Edwards.

He's a good man.

[smoogatz]

2. He IS pandering, for God's sake.

National polls show that the majority of Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage. He's taking the safe, have-it-both-ways position: gay people are nice and all, but marriage is for straight folks. If that sounds familiar, it's because that position is pretty much indistinguishable from George W Bush's. He's refusing to acknowledge gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and that sucks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

On edit: sometimes I wish there was a way to give an OP a negative vote.

[Morgana LaFey]

33. That's not the only way he's pandering

But I'll add it to the list. Meanwhile, you can add this to your list:

Digby on the real danger of Hillary's and Edwards' hawkish Iran remarks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3093334&mesg_id=3093334

and:

Hillary and Edwards to "Square Off" at AIPAC dinner tonight in New York
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3090101

[Radical Activist]

3. There is a big generational divide.

Most people under 30 don't care, with the exception of a minority of conservative Christians.

[question everything]

39. Right. And he admitted as such when he mentioned how his daughter

who 18 or 19, I think, finds his stands ridiculous.

[tblue]

4. I like him. He doesn't have to be perfect to get my vote. If that's how he honestly feels, I give

him props for being honest, even though I disagree with him. The only way to get a candidate who agrees with me on every position, I'd have to run myself. And I just don't have the strength.

[sandnsea]

5. I thought he wasn't particularly religious

Had moved away from the Southern Baptists and wasn't religious in his adult life at all. After Wade died, he became a Methodist. I was a bit surprised to hear him talk about this Southern Baptist stuff, he never brought it up before. Maybe it has something to do with Carter and Clinton officially breaking ties with Southern Baptists, don't know.

[FrenchieCat]

6. You asked

When was the last time a national figure talked about Darfur.........?

Since 2004-Same ones, till new ones recently started bringing it up........
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/501055?extID=10026
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-11/2005-11-02-voa81.cfm?CFID=32407685&CFTOKEN=13103380
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353029
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/10/a_us_plan_for_darfur/
http://www.forward.com/articles/former-general-calls-for-darfur-force/
http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/02/darfur_300000_lives_ago_if_not.htm

[wyldwolf]

7. when is the last time a national figure actually DID something about Darfur?

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=13437

[smoogatz]

9. Here's a link to MSNBC/Newsweek

with essentially the same story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16566075/site/newsweek/

[question everything]

10. Thank you. Which is why I think that Richardson has a good chance

to be the nominee. As a governor, or as any other executive, he is used to "do" thing instead of just debating them, as senators and members of the House do.

Not that there is anything wrong with debating. This is why we have an executive branch and a legislative branch, each with its own role. And this is why the last senator elected president was JFK.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Agreed....and although the peace treaty didn't hold,

I give Richardson major Kudos.

But I don't believe that Richardson's actions can take away from those who consistenly made sure that Darfur didn't fall off the map of conscientiousness(sp?) back two/three years ago, before Darfur was a popular cause.

It took voices speaking out in this country to build a concensus that Darfur was a concern in the first place...which is why Richardson may have been compelled to attempt to do something about it a few weeks ago....

I also understand clearly that regardless of whether Richardson's action may have included a certain amount of calculation on his part as he knew that he'd be announcing his candidacy prior to dealing with this issue of Darfur (which he has very much touted to date), the fact remains that his attempts to do something should not be overlooked....I agree.

[wyldwolf]

15. Hey, I give all credit due to Wes Clark ... but also remember...

...the DLC began speaking on Darfur around the same time Clark did. They probably conferred with each other.

Richardson is a DLC member and as of now, the only national figure to actually do something in the region.

[FrenchieCat]

19. So why did Richardson wait till now......?

Considering how long this issue has been discussed among those he was a part of, as you say....which I know is true.

You don't believe there was any political incentive on his part, and that this was just a humanitarian goodwill move on his part? Personally, I'm sure that there was some of both.....

It doesn't take anything away from Richardson...certainly....

It just doesn't impress me quite as much, the fact that he tried to "do" as much as it does you.

[wyldwolf]

21. I don't know. Why hasn't Clark done anything as of yet?

Clark has all the credibility to do more and it would bolster his case for the presidency. No, I don't think Richardson's actions were politically motivated, mainly because the issue isn't that entrenched in the public's mind and because he has a history of such things.

on edit: Don't take this to mean I've lost faith in Clark. I haven't. Perhaps Richardson has more official channels open for him to do these things.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I'm sure that it is a part of it, i.e., that Richardson as more official

channels open to him.....as a former U.N. Ambassador.....

sometimes folks don't want to see a military officer of the U.S. in their country....even one that is retired.

I think that Clark being part of this group that did an awful lot to bring attention to Darfur when no one would listen was the best way he thought to deal with the issue.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1

[question everything]

8. How sad. I know that on DU I've often asked

why no one was talking about it.

How could we, the world, this country, just stand and do nothing?

Around November, I think, there was a a TV ad campaign about Darfur but not much - they may have run out of money.

Edwards, of course, visited Africa in the last years since he left the Senate and the failed campaign, and had chances to view not just Darfur, but other places, up close and personal.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I saw a lot of concern for Darfur by "some" here at DU.....

In fact, a year or so ago, Applegrove used to do a lot of posting on this, and I participated as well! It's just that not enough cared at the time to keep the posts kicked.....
She did daily posts like this, and I did a few as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3786376#

It took a long time for DUers to come round, let alone the masses to even know or care about Darfur.

It took George Clooney, a movie star to focus our attention. That's why I believe the United States has become an American Idol country; cause a star is sometimes what it takes for folks to wake the f*ck up! :(

[wyldwolf]

18. Me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2479350
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2471216&mesg_id=2471768

[FrenchieCat]

20. I remember that Wyldwolf......

DO you remember these back in 2005?
Took a long time for there to be "concern" larger than from just a "few"........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1786001
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3778944
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1826478
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3952496
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3724411
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1919941
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2025864

and in 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2599431
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3724411
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2838010#2838042
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3023945

[wyldwolf]

23. I don't remember them all, but it looks like most of them sunk like a stone

... sad.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Twas my point......

And if you notice, many on those threads are Clark supporters.....

Because the issue had been brought to THEIR attention. and you know how that happened, right?

[question everything]

30. That's because Clark, after seeing what was happening in Kosovo

was more attuned to genocides in other parts of the world, also to what the world, including this country, can do when the will is there.

[FrenchieCat]

31. You mean because Clark, after seeing what happened in Rwanda....

which he fought for the U.S. to get involved in (and which they didn't = 800,000 deaths), and also witnessing the death toll in Bosnia (200,000 deaths and which the U.S. got involved at the very tail end of)......then saw what was happening in Kosovo, and was one of those who pushed that it be stopped before it started.....

and yes, he always understood that it takes a country to get behind a cause before it can be moved to doing the right thing. One of the things I remember his saying is (paraphrasing), If its not worth fighting for, than it's not worth dying for.....and to send peacekeepers or otherwise into a place where people don't want them to go, may result in deaths that most won't appreciate the meaning of that sacrifice.

I've posted this before, and so I will again...because it is apropos to this conversation, IMO....
--------------------------
Timing is everything.....standing up when few are is most difficult, while jumping on popular bandwagons is much easier.

The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_4.html

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

----------------
Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

and did help save 1.4 million Muslim Albanians....

Samantha Powers.....

Details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance.

Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html

and so he lost his job of 34 years....but I guess that can happen when you stand up to do the right thing, no matter the consequences....!

Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away.
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

more....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/kosovo_was_about_genocide_not.html

[FrenchieCat]

22. Edwards visited Africa very recently......

Not measured in years.....but by months.....

In October of last year, according to Google.

And so the motivation for that is mixed.....some concern I certainly would hope, but also some actions to beef up a FP resume and add an international poverty cause to the repertoire.

Otherwise, he would have visited the continent of Africa prior to October of 2006. :eyes:

Yes, I'm cynical. My mother taught me that one can measure a deed as much by the timing of what is done....inasmuch as what is done....and that both should be taken into consideration when attempting to gauge motive. So that's what I do.

[question everything]

40. Of course. But whatever it takes, I will accept it

Two years ago some said that when Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam - or, at least, did not try to get out of it - that a political career was on his mind and he knew that this would be a good resume building. This may be true of Clark, I don't know enough of him.

Well, I suspect that human nature is to do things where there is a reward. This is one benefit I do give organized religion (my spouse sees none) - that it got people to care for the poor and the sick, widows and orphans because this is what they believe god expects of them.

And, I suspect, even those of us that see our caring for others coming from our conscientious thinking, that at some point, early in life, we got it from our parents who got it from theirs who got it from their religions.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Of course it is not true of Clark.....

what you'd said...."this would be a good resume building. This may be true of Clark, I don't know enough of him."

What I just posted for you to read shows that going back waaaaayyyyyyy Clark had any intent on running for any office (we're talking about the mid 1990s) his cause to fight genocide was present and a driving force.....

Looking at Clark's history, I don't see efforts to Resume build for the purpose of running for office.

Plus, I wanted to correct that quote that I attributed to Clark....It's more along the line of...

If it ain't worth dying for, then it ain't worth fighting for.

[demnan]

11. I'll say the same about Edwards that I did about Webb

before I started working for his campaign. I may not agree with him on all the issues, but he has a chance to win. We need someone who has a chance to beat the Republican candidate in a few southern states, perhaps Virginia and Missouri. Look how great Webb turned out. I would imagine he might have the same response on gay marriage and for the same reason.

On the other hand, Edwards is for gay civil unions, and I don't think you would find many of the major candidates who would go further than that.

[question everything]

42. Right. Which is why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992

even when he suspended his NH campaign to go back to Arkansas to sign a death sentence for a mentally challenged prisoner.

Come to think of it - I suspect that all the people from whom I voted in the last 29 years, or so, supported the death penalty. But they were Democratic candidates with whose other ideas I agrees.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. I respectfully disagree.

He's pandered on record when he spoke at the AIPAC dinner last week and said that he supported an attack on Iran since it was presupposed it already has nuclear weapons.

[DaveinMD]

16. no matter how many times its said here

it still isn't true.

[venable]

26. HE NEVER SAID HE SUPPORTED AN ATTACK ON IRAN

PLEASE, OH PLEASE QUIT SAYING THAT. IT'S NOT TRUE. WHY AM I YELLING?

[citizen snips]

27. Edwards never said he wanted to attack Iran.

[Andromeda]

36. He did not say that...

quit spreading misinformation.

[Superman Returns]

17. I have some concerns

I really like Edwards, and it was his candidacy that got me most excited about supporting the 2004 Democratic ticket. However, I can't help but feel that just because Edwards has bluntly said that he made a mistake in voting for the war, doesn't mean that he didn't see it as strategic and benefical to building support for another Presidential run, especially in gathering liberal support. I'm not saying it was pure political strategy, but I don't understand why someone who didn't have the judgement to vote against it the first time (and even co-sponsored it), now can champion the anti-war mantle. I understand people make mistakes, and evolve over time but his motivations seem very political since he smartly knew that there was a vaccum of power of who would be the liberal, anti-war Hillary Clinton candidate.

[venable]

28. I think he is anti-war now precisely because he saw the tragedy of his vote

I believe that he voted the way he did because he thought (via Tenet) that he would be saving lives. Now that he sees that this is exactly opposite, he is strongly anti-war.

My guess is that given the tragedies in his own life he is very regretful, to greatly understate it, that his vote led to the loss of sons and daughters. He would never say this, and I'm speculating, but I do believe his anti-war sentiments come from a deep place, part of which is the vote he made, and the awful consequences of it.

Not unlike the transformation of Bob Kerrey when he served in Vietnam and came back anti-war.

[Clarkie1]

35. Gee, and I thought he was anti-war because he put his finger to the wind.

Nah, couldn't be that....

[venable]

37. Grow up, Clarkie 1

Some peope are trying to have a mature serious conversation. some people post considered thoughts.

why be snide? why not do the same in return? didn't Clark teach you any manners? didn't anybody?

so tired of this assinine insulting adolescent group. life is too short than to play crap like this every friggin day. grow up.

[Clarkie1]

45. Edwards is a joke.

He was one-term senator who could not get re-elected. He will say and do anything to pander to the base.

I don't think he will even be a first-tier candidate by the time of the Iowa caucus.

[Cameron27]

29. He's not at all courageous

with this stance, as a matter of fact it sounds very much like he's giving what he thinks is just "enough" to court both sides of the issue.

In fact, he's folding on a very real human rights issue, blaming it on his religion, and trying to dump it on the next generation.

That's called something...but it's certainly not called courageous.

[jen4clark]

32. I'm sorry

to come into an Edwards thread and not support Edwards, but I sincerely hope people realize that he is not the best choice at this point in time.

We would be best served with someone with strong foreign policy expertise, extensive knowledge of the history, cultures, pride, beliefs of people not only in the ME, but all over the world. Edwards weakness in this area causes poor judgement and dependence on advisors which wouldn't make me feel confident or comfortable with him as president.

As far as his statement the other day on MTP re: gay marriage, I don't think there's a win situation for Dems on that one. That along with their anti-choice position are the only issues left for the radical regressives to keep their divide and conquor tactic alive.

[Clarkie1]

34. He is pandering!

:eyes:

Cut the "it's my religion bullshit" and just be honest!

Nobody with half a brain believes you!

[venable]

38. I've got more than half a brain, and I believe him

you need to get over your obsession with Edwards, it's polluting the site.

everywhere I go to post and read about Edwards, I see your snide, childish remarks, unburdened with any thought whatsoever, just playground sniping.

[Clarkie1]

44. Anyone who believes him on this is very gullible. nt

[Strawman]

41. He admits he has no rationale for being against gay marriage

He's just uncomfortable with it. To me, that's pandering to your average soft reactionary bigot who, like him, doesn't want to reach for some wacko RW rationale, but just isn't comfortable with tolerating homosexuality.

So it is what it is. It's not admirable. Understandable behavior by an ambitious pol who feels the country is not quite ready to go there yet? Maybe. But it is plainly pandering. I think it is unreasonable to believe that John Edwards would advocate a position he can't rationalize were it not for his political ambition that makes him feel compelled to pander to bigots. I suspect he says different things in private conversation among those he believes are enlightened people than in public. That different public rhetoric, then, is pandering. He tries to tip us off to that by relating his conversation with his daughter. He wants to have it both ways...too much.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Funny, I find his pandering not very honest at all.

He's trying so hard to convince us he's not the guy that cosponsored the IWR.