The one positive thing about being an Edwards fan now

[ShaneGR]

No one (Except Dean and Kucinich people) can criticize us for John's IWR vote. After all, Kerry voted for it and Clark supported it at the time.

Yeah! We can talk domestic politics now!

[Toucano]

1. Clark did not support the war.

You're listening to the RNC again, aren't you?

There's plenty in John Edward's domestic votes for Democrats to puke over.

[DjTj]

4. ...and he dropped out.

...so you could probably just edit Clark out of the post. THAT's what makes it so much easier to argue about IWR now.

[ShaneGR]

14. Wesley Clark advised several congressional candidates to vote for it

And the very first question he was asked was would he have voted for it:

Yes

[Toucano]

38. Wrong.

http://www.factcheck.org

But Gillespie gives only selective excerpts of Clark ’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 26, 2002 . Actually, Clark repeatedly urged patience and diplomacy, criticized the Bush administration for undercutting "friends and allies" and said “I think it's not time yet to use force against Iraq .”

Don't take our word for it: Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, a strong supporter of going to war, testified with Clark at the same hearing and said, “I think Gen. Clark doesn’t want to see us use military force . . . . The bottom line is he just doesn’t want to take action. He wants to wait.”

Clark opposed the war. Sen. Edwards (and others) should have listened to him.

[DjTj]

44. TIME OUT! Why are Edwards supporters bashing Clark?

...he's dropping out tomorrow!

Even if you have something to say about Clark, there's no need to differentiate (or un-differentiate) Edwards' positions from Clark's because Clark is no longer running for President.

Leave his supporters in peace and show some respect for a man that has done nothing but lead an honorable life.

Our goal now is to get Edwards elected, and Clark-bashing does nothing to accomplish that goal.

[John_H]

73. They're afraid he might get the VP nomination their guy is running for

[Tweed]

2. The debate is not just about who should be the Democratic nominee,

but who should be the next American president. The discussion of foreign policy will continue to take place as schedule. Senator Edwards, come back in 2012 and then we will talk about you being president. Have a good eight years.

[DjTj]

6. He's not going to have a good eight years...

...if he's not President. They will be very bad if Bush wins this election and probably not quite to his liking if another Democrat wins.

[MoonRiver]

10. Yes, it's probably "not quite to his liking if another Democrat wins".

But it's to my and the majority of other Democrats' liking it seems.

[AP]

15. The majority of voters merely need to hear Kerry and Edwards compete on

ideas, but it looks like NBC wants to deny WI'ans that opportunity.

Hmmm.

[Toucano]

8. Actually Edwards needs a cabinet position.

He won't win his Senate seat if he runs, and we've got to keep him involved.

[AP]

18. Which cabinet position will allow him to keep the corporo-fascists at bay?

You know, like he would if he were president?

And it looks like, unless Kucinich is president, he's not going to be sharing his compassion for that goal with the president.

[GreenArrow]

25. Attorney General

I think that's where he's headed.

[AP]

26. Which president is going to let him go after the facistis the way he ...

... promises to?

And what's your evidence?

[GreenArrow]

66. President Kucinich

would...but we both know that's not going to happen.

Do you think Edwards would turn the position down if it were offered to him?

[AP]

72. You're asking the wrong person.

But I'll tell you, Kucinich and Edwards have way more in common than most DU'ers realize (or, perhaps, they do realize it).

[tishaLA]

29. Nah. That's Spitzer

[AP]

33. I heard Spitzer say that he wouldn't bring criminal charges against

one of those big banks because he didn't see what the purpose would be of putting even the most criminal banks out of business.

I can.

Having said that, I'll aslo say that Spitzer is the best AG in America today, probably.

Hey, what graduate program are you in?

[LiberalBushFan]

3. and if Edwards wins the nomination and goes against Bush

they both get to complement Bush's progress in Iraq. That'll win it for sure.

[AP]

5. Doesn't anyone besides me and those with Edwards avatars listen to Edwards

???

He criticizes Bush's actions in Iraq constantly.

[DjTj]

9. Doesn't it bug you that...

...every thread that begins with "Convince me!" includes a line that says, "I don't really know anything about Edwards but..."

How come nobody has bothered to look into the candidates' platforms?! I don't have enough time to be teaching everyone everything they need to know about JRE.

[Tweed]

11. I know enough to know that Edwards isn't ready

Edwards:

a half-term lawyer Senator with no foreign policy experience

had a map of the past 6 elections up on his website for the longest time showing people that he could win the nomination because he was from the South.

That's good enough for me to not vote for Edwards to run against Bush in 2004. Then add in the fact that he hasn't won a single Southern state that he wasn't born in and I begin to doubt Edwards' claim. Apparently the South is Edwards best argument and he hasn't come close to showing he is for real.

[AP]

13. Abe Lincoln. A ONE TERM CONGRESSMAN 11 years prior to run, who LOST

a senate race, who had a very compelling biography and mad political skills held America together at the moment it was under greatest threat, thanks to those political skills, which are very similar to Edwards's.

FDR, a law graduate, who cared deeply about the plight of the working person, who kept America together at the moment of its second greates threat: the threat of fascists taking over from within. FDR fought it off with many of the skills and policy aims that Edwards shares.

Edwards doing REMARKABLY well despite spending limits and low recognition, but coming in second to Kerry because of sentiments like this: "I was impressed by the compassion he has for people without jobs, for the needy and the poor," Hammond said. "But I'm still leaning toward Kerry because he's getting more votes."

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/02/12/news/00lead.txt

That is a LOSER's logic. If this is why Democrats are voting for Kerry, we'll definitely lose in November. And it's a GREAT reason to give Edwards another look.

[JohnKleeb]

19. I had no idea about Lincoln AP

BTW AP and others, I am not an Edwards supporter but I think he has the experience, both as a senator and attorney. He has as much senate experience as RFK in fact more than he did in 1968. He has the experience I think.

[Tweed]

20. Edwards is no Abe Lincoln

I think we have already been over this one AP. This is 2004, NOT 1860. We've already been over the whole past thing. I win every time. Loser's logic? Edwards is loser's reality having lost again and again.

[AP]

22. America was in more peril of continuing in 1860. America was in as much

peril of going fascist in 1932.

Edwards shares many of the qualities of the two presidents that saved America in both those circumstances.

[AP]

24. BTW, I don't know how you can claim to have won this argument when

I think it's clear that I'm not backing down from it and that you haven't dismissed it with anything powerful.

"This isn't 1860" doesn't cut it. 1860 was WORSE. The Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history, right?

Had it turned out differently, John Edwards might be running for Pres of the CSA today and not the USA.

[Tweed]

27. That's because we have already had these arguments in previous posts

Do you have a short term memory? We already talked about the history behind both of these years in previous posts.

1. Lincoln was not elected to go into a conflict and neither was FDR. Open war was not upon us and we did not have conflicts to settle. Of course, maybe you don't realize this. Based on your previous post saying that the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history, maybe you need a little refersher in the fact that the Civil war was started AFTER Lincoln was elected

2. The fact that your constant defense of Edwards is to turn back the clock and support him with people that he has no direct lineage too shows either a lack of understanding about your candidate, or a lack of anything good to say about your candidate on the topic.

3. Going back to my prior argument, I can understand why you always go back to the past. For months, John Edwards had a link to see how the electoral votes of the past four elections have gone. The reason he did this was to show that he could get elected because he was from the South. It had nothing to do with his lawyer experience, nothing to do with his senate seat, nothing to do with anything but geography.

[AP]

30. No, I have a pretty good memory.

1) Do you know how Lincoln made his name prior to running for president? He went around the country giving lectures about slavery -- the most pressing issue in America at the time, which was clearly taking America towards a civil war. He was elected into a conflict because he spoke compellingly about the issue that was the MOST pressing issue in America at the time.

Now, I know you think the most pressing issue today is terrorism. I think terrorism is a construct of the Bush administration in order to help get Republicans elected. I think you're playing into their hands. I think that the REAL issue today is the transfer of wealth straight to the top. I think that's what Bush is really doing. And just like Lincoln who presciently spoke about an issue soon to almost destroy America (he didn't go around talking senselessly about the threat of something going on on the other side of the world), Edwards is talking presciently about the issues that will definitely tear America apart if he doesn't win (and it isn't terrorism).

2) That makes no sense.

3) Who do you support, and why? Are you saying that you don't historicize you candidate? I've asked you this question before and you don't answer, which I find very telling. I can't believe that you are using that electoral map as a criticism of Edwards. That makes no sense. Did you read Real Solutions? That's also at his web site. So is an archive of all his press releases and speeches.

[AP]

34. Still waiting. You criticize my, um, 'methodology' for selecting ...

... a candidate, yet I have yet to hear you explain who you like and why.

It's easy to say history is bunk when you don't even engage in any kind of candidate advocascy at all.

[Tweed]

50. I aplogize for doing other things then the DU...

Debunking Edwards people is not excatly a top priority of mine considering he will lose anyway. Plus, I have other things to get done. Look at my most recent post. You already know I supported Clark before. You already saw my Dewey link I'm sure if you want to talk about historical candidates.

[AP]

68. I had no idea who you supported. I know who you don't though.

[Tweed]

42. Edwards hasn't made a name for himself lecturing about the economy

1. Most people would argue with you and say that terrorism is the most pressing issue of the day. Why? Because it is reported and talked about every day. It is in entrenched in the mindset of every American. It has to be after the attack on September 11th. The shift will not change from terrorism to the economy is eight months. At best, the two will get equal light and it will be economy vs. terrorism. Considering the fact that the economy is back on its way up, this is a horrible debate to get into.

2. No, it makes perfect sense. At best, you should explain why it makes no sense. Perhaps it makes no sense because it hurts your candidate? I suggest you read over it.

3. Now that Clark is gone, I support John Kerry. He is the toughest on terrorism vs. George W. Bush. Yes, I don't historicize my candidate because like I said in number two, John Kerry has no direct lineage to any other president. He is his own man and he will be running up against George W. Bush in 2004. This election will be unlike any other. I can totally believe that I am using the electoral map as a criticism of Edwards. It makes perfect sense. Again, I'm guessing it 'makes no sense' because you don't have an argument against it. Yeah, I read Real Solutions after hearing so much about it from the DU. Perhaps he should display Real Solutions on his website in a better fashion. He probably doesn't because there is a lot of hot air in it. I would like to see Real Results myself.

[AP]

52. The media talks about terror every day TO HELP REPUBLICANS!!!

That's how they drive America towards fascism.

Terror is a cover for the transfer of wealth. If this is what we disagree upon then I'm totally satisfied that we support different candidates.

I WANT to support a candidate different from the one supported by people who welcome the strategies of fascism. It confirms for me that I'm right about Edwards.

Kerry has a direct lineage to Gore and Dukakis, by the way.

That's my prediction.

[Tweed]

63. It is a corrupt, dirty system, but sometimes you have to use it against

them

I hate the media. There are too few owners. Believe me, I'm quite well aware of the media talking too much about terror. I also realize that the media does this to help Republicans.
Here's what you DON'T realize. You have to use the system to tear it down. John Edwards want to take down corporations and even out the wealth in our country? Oh the media will just love that. We are in a a sad state in this country where the media controls most of the public's thinking. If someone is anti-corporate the media will take them down. Once Kerry is in office, he will enforce anti-trust laws. Which is better then Edwards who will lose to Bush in the first place.

You have such a good way with words. I never realized that I supported fascism before!!!

Kerry doesn't and if he did Gore won in 2000 and Kerry is nothing like Dukakis.

My prediction and apparently most Democrats' based on the voting is that Kerry will be the nominee because Edwards would stand no chance.

[AP]

71. Your last paragraph is so wrong. Most people are voting for Kerry

based on the fact that he's in first place. If you press them, many of them like the ideas of other candidates.

This is what personal experience is showing me. This is what the exit polls show.

At the very least you should welcome a debate of ideas.

If we don't have one in the primaries (regardless of who wins it) we're going to lose in November.

[ochazuke]

56. President Dukakis agrees with you. <eom>

[DjTj]

17. Last time I checked, 5 years > "half-term"

...and 3 years on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence > "no foreign policy experience"

...and I don't want to start listing how many of our Presidents were lawyers.

I'm not sure why you have some deep hatred of the electoral map, but I can't really argue with that point.

So far, only 3 Southern states have voted, so I would wait for a final verdict on that. I believe the exit polls from those three states will reveal the fact that Edwards has a much better shot than Kerry at winning one of those states in the GE.

There are few Kerry voters in those states that would not vote for Edwards but many Edwards voters who would not vote for Kerry.

[ochazuke]

48. Superficial understanding of the results, I'd say

Look at the exit polls. Look at the results in OK where his effort was a lot less than Gen. Clark's. It all shows that Kerry is getting a lot of votes because they think he's the man who can beat Bush (why?)

Edwards has appeal outside of the mainstream of the Democratic party. That's why he can carry all of the states Kerry will get, plus states like Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and maybe a smattering of Southern states.

[AP]

12. And people would rather make shit up then get the facts.

Edwards said "Bush tax cuts were the engine of economic growth" is one of my most favorites.

Then we have, "Edwards wrote the PA."

People are really amazing.

If you don't like a guy, base it on the facts at least.

[MoonRiver]

7. Yes, that's a real winning argument.

Certainly will outweigh the electability issue. :eyes:

[AP]

16. No, here's the winning argument:

"I was impressed by the compassion he has for people without jobs, for the needy and the poor," Hammond said. "But I'm still leaning toward Kerry because he's getting more votes."

NOT!

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/02/12/news/00lead.txt

[Tweed]

21. Just like we should elect Edwards because he is from the South...

Let's base our campaign on one voter's comment!

[AP]

23. She represents a sentiment I hear from lots of voters I've been calling

and meeting face-to-face.

It's a popular sentiment.

It's a loser's sentiment.

I presume you realize that, or else you wouldn't be denying that it's a popular sentiment.

Believe me. It's a popular sentiment. Believe me. It's a loser's sentiment.

[Tweed]

28. I never realized losers were so popular

Edwards must be really popular after losing 13 of 14 states.

The media has been saying over and over again that it's a two man race now. The only guy that can catch up to Kerry is Edwards. People won't take a chance on Edwards still. Dean gets more votes then Edwards in some places, Kucinich too! Apparently people like all of the other guys just about the same. Maybe the realize that Kerry is an excellent candidate and Edwards is a little too green. I'm glad that you would accuse the majority of American people of voting with Edwards if only they had the courage.

[AP]

32. It looks like they're going to be very popular in Nov if people don't get

their heads straight.

[Tweed]

45. If Edwards can't beat any Democrats in winter...

Why should we believe that he can beat a Republican in the fall? I fail to understand the logic of John Kerry will lose but Edwards has won when the record is Kerry 12 Edwards 2.

[AP]

54. Edwards has betters ideas and a better vision of America and he speaks

directly to the most pressing issue of the day -- creeping fascism and the wealth transfer to the rich.

Kerry is a reactionary candidate -- he reacts to a world republicans created so that they can win elections. Going with Kerry is simply walking into all the traps they've been setting for Democrats.

That's my prediction. I think there's a pretty good chance it will go ignored, but I think I'm right.

[Tweed]

65. Most Americans disagree with you

Look at the totals my friend.

Going with Edwards would be walking into the trap because he has no experience in 'their' world.

It doesn't even matter because Edwards doesn't stand a chance

Good Night

[AP]

69. As I said, most people I talk to, most people exit polled, say they're

voting for Kerry because he's highest in the polls.

Voters who care about ideas are voting for other candidates.

That's a losing strategy.

[ochazuke]

60. Most illogical

The dynamic of the general election bears little resemblance to the primaries.

It's apples and oranges here, people.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[WillyBrandt]

35. Clark did not support it--read the transcripts

Ugh

[AP]

36. Nagourney says he did:

So many of General Clark's supporters were startled, in the opening days of his campaign, to learn that he voted for Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan and that he "probably" would have supported the Iraq war resolution in Congress, notwithstanding his attempt to present himself as an antiwar candidate. They were taken back when a videotape surfaced showing General Clark speaking warmly of President Bush and the Pentagon during a Republican fund-raiser in Little Rock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/politics/campaign/12CLAR.html?pagewanted=1

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

39. I cut and pasted an Adam Nagourney article. I didn't misrepresent anything

I PRESENTED something.

Is Nagourney a media whore?

[Toucano]

40. Right.

Edwards supporters think the Clark supporters who are candidate shopping are going to support Edwards if they misrepresent Clark.

What a strategy!

[AP]

43. I presented. I didn't misrepresent. Nothing in that post except the subjec

is written by me.

And I certainly haven't pandered to any Clark supporters on DU.

It's amazing that I'm getting attacked personally for Nagourney's article.

[WillyBrandt]

46. Uh-huh -- just like option taxation rates.

I'm going to start ignoring certain messages

[AP]

55. Why didn't Clark tell voters that Edwards's "less progressive" tax code...

...would have taxed Clark 10% more on a huge chunk of Clark's income?

[Toucano]

57. You know the issue is bigger than one article.

You know Clark testified against the war before congress voted (when it mattered).

If I post Edwards' vote against closing loopholes to help veterans, you would consider it misrepresenting the issue, even though he was the only Democratic senator to vote against it.

If I posted Edwards' vote against the Wellstone amendment to exempt bankrupt Americans who filed because of medical bills from tougher laws, you'd say it was misrepresenting his record.

I don't think anyone is attacking you personally. I've always respected you, and don't expect you to pander to anyone. Still, anyone who says Clark was in favor of the war in Iraq is misrepresenting his position.

[AP]

61. It's not something I said. Nagourney says it. I didn't even take a ...

...position on it.

This is weird behavior by you all.

As for the veterans bill:

Friday, February 6, 2004
Fact Sheet: Edwards Has Consistently Supported America's Veterans
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=631

And that bankruptcy bill isn't law, thanks to things Dems like Edwards loaded it with. How'd they do that? Bush loves MBNA, yet they don't have the bill they want, and the Republicans control three branches of gov't.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

mbali's post 17:

mbali  (598 posts)

Sun Jan-11-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #8

17. This was far more complicated - and less damning - than made to appear ...

Edited on Sun Jan-11-04 10:41 AM by mbali





Edwards voted for the Senate version of the bill, but there's more to the story.

Edwards joined most Democrats, including Kerry, Schumer, Wellstone, etc. in attaching an amendment, authored by Wellstone himself, that made the Senate version much harsher on the banking industry and easier on individual debtors. At that point, it became a judgment call whether to vote for the bill or against it since voting for it, with the amendment, would force the bill to conference and increase the likelihood that it would die in conference or that conference would produce a version more favorable to individuals than it otherwise would have been. The odds of this were excellent since Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin were among the Democratic conferees. The banking industry and corporate interests hated this version, by the way.

And, yes, Kerry, Wellstone and 14 other Democrats voted against final passage. But all of the other Democrats, including Clinton, Cleland and Edwards, voted for final passage, largely because they knew that the version the Dems had forced would probably eventually scuttle the bill. And it has. The bill died at the end of the 107th Congress.

It's important to know all of the facts before condemning anyone for one particular vote. Senate procedure and strategy is extremely complicated and just looking at a yea or nay does not always tell the story. That's why it is sometimes misleading to try to characterize anyone's motives or views just by looking at one vote.

[MoonRiver]

51. Guess Edwards isn't so anxious to pick up we Clark supporters.

Or were you off message?

[AP]

59. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT: I'm not asking any Clark DU'ers to

support Edwards.

But I'll keep telling the truth as I see it.

I think DU's CW is atrocious, and I'd be worried if lots of DU'ers started talking up Edwards.

I also think there's a concerted effort to pretend that Clark supporters are outraged by Edwards's supporters pandering to them, which I think is interesting, since I've not seen it happen at all. There's been a ton of outrage about this (fantasy) of pandering, yet I haven't seen the pandering.

Interesting.

And this thread is an excellent example. I quote Nagourney. Now we have Clark supporters jumping all over it pretending I said things I didn't, bringing up the tax thing, and claiming Edwards supporters have pandered to them. It's weird behavior.

[Toucano]

62. I saw Edwards pandering to Clark supporters.

On CNN today. He thinks Clark dropping out will help him close the gap with Kerry.

I hope he's right. The latest WI polls suggest it won't matter. The coronation is all but official.

[AP]

64. DUers are a very different breed from the general population.

I discuss things with Clark supporters whom I call. They're actually a really decent group of people, mostly motivated by a desire to support someone with good character and they're a little scared of the world, but we talk about the 30s and about what's going on in America today, and about fear.

I'm not going to bother here at DU. DU'ers tend to support the eventual losers. So, I'd prefer it if Edwards weren't the favorite among DU'ers.

[Toucano]

70. You've taken a wise position. n/t

[GumboYaYa]

41. Speaking of domestic policies,

can you imagine the number of roads and schools that could be built, the thousands of children who could have been immunized, the investments in alternative energy that could have been made...if we just had not wasted $150 billion and counting in the Iraq boondoggle?

Go Dean!

[AP]

47. Dean said he would have voted for $87 billion Iraq allocation.

Kerry and Edwards and Kucinich were against it.

[GumboYaYa]

53. We wouldn't need to spend any money in Iraq if we never invaded!

[DjTj]

49. ...It probably would have been used to balance the budget.

You can't expect Bush to build roads and schools.

[Edge]

58. I like John Edwards for numerous reasons...

especially his issues related to college and college students and the middle class and the poor.

[mmonk]

67. People are free to criticize

And Clark sure has been getting his share and also, loads of mischaracterizations. No hands off on Edwards if Edwards supporters want to open it up. Debate is an American tradition.