Why I'm wary of John Edwards

[cali]

In many ways he's a very appealing candidate. He talks about issues that are important to me, such as poverty dividing the nation. He talks about equal access to opportunity. He's good on the stump and seems to connect with people. And Elizabeth Edwards is an amazing asset. Yeah I know, she's not running; he is.

But he voted for the IWR, and I can't vote for someone in the primary- even someone who's apologized for his vote- who did that. It was clear that giving that kind of power to bush would lead us down the garden path to a swamp. And not only did he vote for it, he was a sponsor. In fact, the rest of his Senate record is not that appealing either. So when he did have power, his exercise of it, wasn't impressive. People can change, and I'm more than willing to accept that Edwards has changed, but that doesn't erase his record.

In addition, there's the experience thing. I actually see his experience as the least impressive of all the candidates. He served in the Senate for 6 years. That's it. No, I don't count his years as a trial lawyer as hugely important.

Lastly, and least importantly, and I know that this will not be popular among his supporters, Edwards' house does disturb me. If you preach environmentalism and live in a 24,000 square ft house, you are not living the change you hope be instrumental in seeing happen.

All that said, I think he's smart and capable, and his heart is in the right place about most issues. If he's the nominee, I'll gladly vote for him.

So flame away. Or agree.

[Donnachaidh]

1. And what's the square footage in Al Gore's house?

I'm really surprised that this non-issue is being dragged up again.

Has this much concern been voiced about other candidates - on both sides? I'll bet if we did a square footage compilation they all live in big houses - yet here we are, pointing fingers at Edwards *only* because of it.

And his years as a trial lawyer don't count to you? Again - I'm stunned. I look at this as a plus - because the Bush Regime has utilized lawyers to screw with practically everything. It will take a lawyer with years of experience to boil the bullshit down to brass tacks, in order to fix it. And I'd much prefer to have a president that actually could understand the lingo, rather than one who would be dependant on others for clarification. Haven't we had enough of president's who need entourages to explain things to them?

And 6 years in the Senate is too little experience? Then I guess Obama is a total non-starter with 2 years in the Congress, yes?

So when can we expect a post regarding his haircut? :sarcasm:

[cali]

3. OK, the house first.

His house is over twice as big as Gore's. And pictures showing the clear cutting around it, are pretty ugly. And as I'm a skeptic on carbon trading credits, that doesn't mean much to me.

And no, his years as a trial lawyer, don't for example, mean as much to me as Obama's years in the Illinois legislature and three years in Congress, or Bill Richardson's years as Congressman, diplomat and Governor. It won't take a lawyer with years of experience to boil the bullshit down. It will take someone who can build a good legal team at Justice.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

16. "...[S]omeone who can build a good legal team at Justice." Yes, that is a key requirement.

I believe we need a lot more attention to anti-trust matters.

But I do understand the uneasiness about the house. I take such pains to be a good environmentalist,
I'm sure that most DUers do. Of course we all realize that it's a small issue on the scale of things.

Edwards' S Corporation makes me more uneasy, since tax shelters like this help make the Medicare tax harder on wage-earners.

[flyarm]

34. self delete

[TalkingDog]

37. Clear cutting lots and enviromentalism.

The Spousal Unit is an architectural designer so I know enough about this to be stupid....

Depending on
-where you build
-what the local codes are
-what the state codes are
-what type of waste system you need
-if it's a non-city septic field, the land needs to "perk" so you need more open space. The soil down here is literally clay in some areas and it's sometimes hard to find enough space for your septic to perk.
-if it has a septic field, you don't want too many trees nearby
-the quality of the trees (down here scrub pines are literally considered weeds) I spend a lot of time, money and effort, pulling or having those little bastards pulled up EVERY summer.

you may have to end up taking out a LOT of trees.

I don't know how big his lot was, how much of it was cut away and etc. But saving good trees can be done, if they are "good" trees and worth saving. Down here you might find your entire lot is scub pine. So it all has to go.

Why? Because scrubs are incredibly sappy. And we don't get snow, we get ICE. Ice storms can knock out power for days and the last time it was 5 days without power. When those scub pines with all the sap they contain freeze and layers of heavy ice are built up on top, they snap like toothpicks. We've lost whole swaths of our woods in the last long, hard ice storm. Near a house? Not such a good idea.

So, until the particulars of the clear-cutting are known, I would not use that as "proof" that he has no concern for the environment.

My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[unc70]

40. House in protected watershed, large septic field, on over 100 acres

The Edwards house (with attached "barn") is the only building on over 100 acres. Formerly a farm, the fields are now overgrown with pines, as you suspected.

The property is in the watershed for Univesity Lake, a major source of drinking water here (see owasa.org). Properties in that area must use septic systems, good ones, and the soil is typically clay so a relatively large septic field would be required.

The size of the "house" is exagerated because it also includes the "barn" containing the basketball court, etc. and the covered walkway connecting the two buildings. The house is still large, but not unusual for an "executive" home in this area. Remove the walkway and replace the barn with stables; nothing that remarkable in this area, a couple of such properties currently for sale.

I am sure the Edwardses also considered things like the needs wrt their extended family or the requirements if he were elected (security, briefing area (basketball court anyone?).

I can't comment on their energy use, but I can on mine. Our house in Chapel Hill was built about five years ago, is relatively large (although small for my neighborhood) with 4/5BR and offices, and requires less energy than my previous, much smaller dwellings.



The house is just one part of an aggressive, ongoing attack on the Edwardses that began before the 2004 election cycle. A lot of these attacks are just below the surface, in emails, discussion groups, talk radio, etc. I suspect much of it flows from those same groups progressives have always faced in NC, typified by the campaigns of Jesse Helms. You could tell the attacks were getting bad when they tried to smear Elizabeth Edwards as being unfriendly, elitist, rude, an outsider, and a bad neighbor who wouldn't even speak to ordinary folks.

[surfermaw]

46. When you are a Tarhell grad, you build your own court

If you can afford it..heck I have one.

[TalkingDog]

50. Thanks for the clarification . I was pretty on target.

Hmmmmm....I guess I'll take up consulting, pays better than art lessons.


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[NCarolinawoman]

52. He had 50 acres cleared.

I have a friend in Chapel Hill who told me that he "pulled strings" in order to do this--cut through lots of red tape that the ordinary citizen would have had difficulty doing. Orange County can be pretty strict with their tree ordinances.

I honestly don't see how a true environmentalist can sit by and watch while 50 acres of trees are cleared during the height of nesting season.

Heck, I belong to an organization in the area where we are thrilled when we can save an acre and a half of trees.

[unc70]

53. Make your friend prove that, and not with Rush, FR, or such

Those kinds of claims were widespread about six months ago in certain circles.

I have not been to the house, so I am relying on the aerial photos that got all the RW fired up last spring. Maybe 10-15 acres total, including roads. Certainly no more than that. I live in Chapel Hill and have heard no rumors that the Edwardses were restoring the pastures that had been on their property or otherwise clearing half of it.

And what is this piling on about the height of nesting season?

[TalkingDog]

39. And this reminded me: Big Houses

The Spousal Unit and I live very modestly. Very. It's a conscious decision. We like to tread lightly. We could spend more, afford a bigger house, bigger cars yada, yada, yada....

But we have a small house, fuel efficient cars bought used, shop at thrift stores, buy in massive bulk quantities so we don't drive so much and all the other things do that we consider as reducing our impact.

It used to bug the bejeebus out of me when he would have a client that wanted some obscenely huge house or some remodel that added 5 feet. YES, 5 feet to the dining area because socialzing in the kitchen was "in".

He once had a client that inherited her grandmother's antique 4 poster bed.

She wanted to use it in her bedroom, but in the space where it "belonged", between the windows on the outer wall of the bedroom, the headboard covered up about 2 inches of the windows.

So here's what she wanted: move the windows up. On a brick house. So the bed wouldn't cover the bottoms of the windows.

So, the only thing that would work was to take down the whole outer brick wall to the bottoms of the windows, have the windows reframed 2 inches higher and then rebrick the walls.

I was livid.

I said she should just chop the legs off the damned thing be done with it. Or live with the the covered window sills.

I said she should be donating that money to underpriviledged kids or feeding the homeless or helping SOMEBODY!!!

I was taken aback when the Spousal Unit said: "She is feeding somebody. She is feeding you. And me. And the brickmasons and the carpenters. And the lumber guys. And she is feeding their families."

"It may be 'wasteful' in our world," he continued, "but people are benefitting. She is paying a fair wage to all her workers. Maybe you should consider what she is doing right."

And so I did. She may not do what I would have done. But nobody was hurt and many people were helped.

A big house is not what I would do. But I can no longer see them as entirely wasteful.


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[hisownpetard]

45. Did anyone ever discuss the sq. footage of the Kennedy compound? Just sayin'...

[w4rma]

55. Which one? Don't the Kennedys own an island (or two?) also? (nt)

[hisownpetard]

56. I think you're thinking of Chappaquiddick, which is a tiny island off of Martha's Vineyard. It used

The Kennedys don't own it but do have a couple houses there. (That's where Mary Jo Kopechne was,
the night she died).

[ripple]

29. Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for eight years

before serving his current term in the US Senate. I agree with you about law experience- another reason I support Obama. He has quite an impressive history not just in law, but in constitutional law- something that will serve him well in reclaiming the values and rights the Bush administration has eroded.

I'm not concerned about the size of the Edwards' home- its not like any of the candidates exactly live in a shack.

My biggest concern (or annoyance, actually) is that the positions he espouses today simply don't jive with his experience. I haven't lost all of my idealism, but I'm certainly not so naive that I believe whatever a candidate says when said candidate is trying to become elected. Actions speak louder than words, in my book. Edwards' co-sponsorship and vocal support of the IWR give me great pause- I know his motivations were political then, just as I suspect that much of his current rhetoric is designed to create a political niche for himself (one that's to the left of the other top candidates). It's a decent strategy and I don't blame him for pursuing it, but I don't necessarily trust him, either.

[1932]

2. The house thing is so obviously spin meant to undermine an obvious concern for working people.

It would be idiotic to fall for it. Would you vote for a person who lives in a smaller house who cares less about working people? Or would you vote for a Democrat who lives in a bigger house and who cares less about working people just because the media doesn't bother to talk about his or her house? FAIR has done some great reports on this issue -- www.fair.org.

As for the IWR vote, I just read the Italian Letter. You know who had power over the decision to invade Iraq according to that book? Bush and Cheney. And Colin Powell -- whose presentation to the UN convinced a lot of Americans that there was a good reason to invade. The book is sort of dismissive of the power congress had to stop the Bush jugernaut to war. That doesn't absolve anybody for their vote on the IWR. However, I'm glad Kerry and Edwards were around to make it a close race in November 2004, because I don't think Kucinich would have had a chance -- and I think the reason they were was because of the way they talked about Iraq. I do not think they'd have been in that position had they voted no on the IWR. And I think it's obvious despite Edwards's vote that a President Edwards would not have been using an Iraq War or any other war to enrich US corporations, which is the only reason we're fighting wars these days.

As for experience, Lincoln didn't have very much federal elective experience before becoming president -- two years in the house about ten years earlier and a failed sentate bid -- and it didn't stop him from saving the country at a time it was in its greatest jeopardy of falling apart (up there with Washington's term and FDR's term). I also don't think inexperience would be a problem for Obama either.

[mirrera]

4. Good post. I will probably support Edwards...

but your post perfectly discribes how I feel. I am a Kucinich person on Issues, I read Obama's book gift of my father and Edward's four trials. They are both wonderful people. Strategy wise we have to be smart. We are going to most likely split the primary vote between Obama, Kucinich, and Edwards, giving it to Hillary. Having fought at the 2004 caucus for Kucinich, this time I am going to fight for Edwards, because he can win the General Election. That said, any one of the Dem candidates are miles ahead of the GOP and I will support them. If Edwards teamed with Kucinich or Obama we would have a perfect storm.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. I have the same feeling about Senator Clinton

If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. The same applies to Obama. It's going to take a couple of clothespins on the nose to vote for anyone who just.isn't.sure whether they can get all the troops out of Iraq in FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS.

At the end of the day, I'll vote for the Democratic nominee because I absolutely refuse to be an enabler of a violent, bloodthirsty creep like Ghouliani or a religiously insane freak like Romney, a weary old con artist like Fraud Thompson or Manchurian McCain. I also refuse to wear the Judas Goat crown of voting for a third party candidate, a la the Naderites.

[mirrera]

31. Exactly! n/t

[zalinda]

6. I guess Edwards is the only person on the planet

not able to make a mistake. We already know that the intelligence that was given our reps was cooked, that they DID NOT get the same intell as the President, so I have gotten over the IWR vote. Also, if you remember the country was in a totally different state of mind than it is today. People trusted Bush, now they know he always lies. As a rep of a conservative state, you vote conservatively, that's your job. You could be progressive up the yin-yang, but your job is to rep your people.

As for his experience, he has been a VERY successful trial lawyer, which means that he is organized, thinks things out to the nth degree, deals well with people, asks the right questions, knows how to get his point across, and can be tough when he needs to be. Oh, and it also means he knows how to hire good support staff.

As to his 24,000 square house, maybe it was built to be the southern white house. Or maybe this is their dream house. Or maybe he intended it to be part of a bigger picture, like having extended family move in. What ever his intentions, he earned it, and I doubt very much that he built it on a whim, we just aren't privy to why he built it.

This year he has come into his own. He has passion, he's a damn hard worker, and he's on the correct side of issues. He has a well thought out platform, he's been thinking about the problems Bush has created and he has thought out solutions. The other candidates all seem less focused, like they want the job, but not quite as much. He just seems like he is ready to dig in and get the job done, and we really need some one in the white house who actually works hard, instead of telling us it's "hard work".

zalinda

[cali]

9. Nope. NO Representative or Senator who voted for the IWR

has a valid excuse in my book. Not one.

From Senator Leahy, Oct. 9, 2002:

"As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and read the Constitution.

<snip>

This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.

This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks.


<snip>

But while the resolution that we are considering today is an improvement from the version that the President first sent to Congress, it is fundamentally the same. It is still a blank check. I will vote against this resolution for all the reasons I have stated before and the reasons I will explain in detail now.

<snip>

Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news. We certainly know about past diplomatic failures. But history has shown over and over that diplomatic pressure cannot only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary.

The negotiations are at a sensitive stage. By authorizing the use of force today, the Congress will be saying that irrespective of what the Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way.

<snip>

We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war."

<snip>

Really, you should read the whole speech; the part where he compares the IWR to the Tonkin Gulf resolution, and accurately depicts in some detail what will happen. Here's a link:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200210/100902a.html

Did you get what Leahy said? It was a BLANK CHECK. And it was a blank check to murderous thugs. So no, your excuses for Edwards on this issure ring hollow. As do any excuses for anyone who voted for this. 5 years later it still makes my blood boil to hear excuses. And the excuse that he was voting conservatively because he represented NC is an awful excuse. Represent the people my ass. His job was to uphold the CONSTITUTION. READ Leahy's speech.

[glowing]

11. And Leahy's doing a great job now.. Frankly, I'm dissapointed in his

mock calls to justice...(not proud to be from VT at this moment)....

As for the IWR.... the man was from North Carolina. Do you know the immense pressure he would be under from that state and its people to go to war? Don't you remember fighting with your co-workers and you were the only one shouting, while the rest of them re-iterated the Faux mantra from the night before.

It was a different time. And Bush was not a great leader to get us thru the crisis. He handled that shit so badly and so devisively and used it as a war drum...

Also, if you know your wife is dying... you'd give her anything... maybe she wanted her dream house? I really don't care. Its none of my business. If he's carbon off-setting, what does it matter...

[cali]

13. too funny.

It doesn't matter a shit that he was from NC. And no, all of my colleagues at work were dead set against the war. In fact, as you should know, most Vermonters were AGAINST it.

A different time. Please.

And I think Leahy's doing a good job overall. Or have you chosen to forget that he gets a lot of credit for Gonzo, Rove and others having left the reins of power, and that he's still investigating all of them. Gonzo has now hired a high powered defense attny. Leahy authored and sponsored the Habeas Restoration Act and wrote and sponsored the War Profiteering Prevention Act- a really strong piece of legislation. But I suppose you hold him responsible for the Habeas Act getting only 57 votes, or for the WPPA not being brought to the floor yet.

Mock call to justice, my ass. And the vast majority of Vermonters btw disagree with you.

Just out of curiosity, are you a native Vermonter? If not, how long have you lived here?

And I suppose you have some cutting things to say about Bernie too.

[glowing]

14. I haven't lived there since I was 18... My family is from there. When I

was younger my mother was big time into politics.. Bernie personally sat at my kitchen table with my mother talking about small town issues (she was on school board and a huge asset to any campaign)... She also knew most of the govenors that we had during that time on a personal basis. And couldn't stand Dean.

I lived in South Carolina at the time of 9/11 and in Florida, still here unfortunately, when the war began.... If you lived in the southeast at that time, you would feel as if you had entered another world. It was a lot different than living in Vermont. On the morning of 9/11 Charleston was effectively on lock down at the bases (huge armory is there)... The national guard headquarters that were 1/4 mile from my apt had laid down several layers of that spirally fencing and guards were posted at the entrance with the big guns. This place normally looked like another building on the side of the road.

Native Vermonter, yes dear. My family has roots back to the founding days of our town... My grandmother, God rest her Soul, is the last of that old generation, and we have to sell the home. It has been in my family for 200 years. I'm keeping some of the land though...

And yes, depending on where you lived, it was a different time.

Leahy is so smart... I'm just surprised he's not pushing more. It feels as if he's holding back.

[bpeale]

28. frankly, i'm pissed over the contempt of congress thing

leahy should just shut up.

[bpeale]

27. if you have your mind made up, then why the arguments?

arguments for the sake of arguments? you should just take it elsewhere. i, for one, am tired of hearing the same arguments against over and over and over again. vote for whoever you want to. this is ridiculous. stop trying to appear reasonable.

[mirrera]

33. Hey watch it... you are cracking my defenses!

I know exactly what you mean. WE KNEW. I am so torn up over our country. Could it be that they just did not get who GWB was? Are they too busy for google????
I will still support him. I love Obama and Kucinich and if our country were smarter and we were hand counting paper ballots and we had Instant Runoff Voting what a wonderful world it would be.

[mirrera]

32. Thank You, well put.

Your post also speaks to me as that is what i tell myself in defense of what the OP said. He really HAS earned everything. His book is wonderful because you get to understand that he REALLY came up from nothing and is GREAT at what he does. He was definitely David to some Goliaths and won through doing his homework. I watched him parse a question from Tim Russert, and I was thrilled that he got the nuance immediately and did not bite. He is sharp. He will listen to the right people I think. I keep thinking that house is some kind of personal thing, but I know it REALLY bugs my mom who is a total anti-war Kucinich kind of Mom (Lucky Me!). She is at the age where she hates ALL consumerism and scolded my 20 year old for spending an entire $100 dollars for his week end visit (he entertained his girlfriend as well and i thought he was quite frugal). Edward's house FREAKS her out.

[liberal N proud]

8. Candidates should be looked at as a whole

Look at all their views, you are not going to agree with all of any candidates stands on the issues. The perfect candidate is not out there.
One must look at the candidates overall and align their support for the one that meets most of the issues important to you.
Anyone voting for or not voting for a candidate because of a single issue is a misguided voter. Single issue voters is a republican dream. All they have to do is nail that issue for their candidates they will nail that one issue in a positive spin for those supporting it, for Democratic candidates they will nail it with negative spin.
It happened in 2000 and 2004 with single issues for different voters, abortion, gun control, something the spouse said, something said about the other candidates family. I remember canvassing and phone banking in 2004 listening to misguided voters tell me they wouldn't vote for Kerry because of any one of those issues alone.

One of the biggest things Democrats could do is teach voters to look with an overall view of the issues and realize they are not going to agree with every issue.

For me, I have decided to this point, that Edwards meets most of my viewpoints on the issues. However, if he does not get the nomination, I will support whoever the Democratic nominee is.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. I think the GOP will tear him up.

And he seems, oddly, unable to defend himself.

[cali]

12. Actually, I think he'd make an appealing general election

candidate. And the repukes will tear at any dem who gets the nom. Not sure what you're referring to when you say that he's "oddly, unable to defend himself".

[denem]

54. "oddly, unable to defend himself"

In interviews and debates, Edwards is usually impassive when hearing criticism. Most politicians signal disagreement - slight shaking of the head, a bemused frown, a dismissive smile, smug nodding. I believe it comes from his trial lawyer days, when any of the above would be an inappropriate response to opposing argument. He does not react that way in a less formal, more personal setting - there it's more like emphasizing with a witness.

[Ninga]

15. what do you mean "oddly" ? What is so odd with being able to run 3rd? Many a champion

have sprinted across the finish line after running most of the race in the pack.

Do not under estimate his ability, or his strategy. If he were running 3rd with less formidable competition I would perhaps agree, but another way to look at it is that Hillary and Obama have not been able to shake him off the stage and no other candidate has overtaken him.

He is perfectly positioned.

[Romulox]

17. I'm also concerned with Edward's vote for MFN for China

and his continuing support for "free trade"...

[redqueen]

19. Which candidates didn't support MFN for China?

Which don't support 'free trade'?

I'm curious about your narrowed list of favored candidates... :hi:

[Romulox]

22. Of all the candidates, only one has made poverty his "signature campaign issue"...

Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Rightwingers, Hillary Clinton, et al. don't make a big deal about caring about the poor while simultaneously making scads of money in hedge funds and supporting corporatist "free trade" deals.

[redqueen]

23. Would that be Obama?

:shrug:

[GreenArrow]

25. it would be Edwards

Along with Joe Biden, he is at the very bottom of the barrel in terms of candidates I'd support. I don't find him particularly reliable or sincere. I do find him very opportunistic and self-serving. I don't trust him. The type of charm he exudes is one I tend to be extremely immune to.

[Romulox]

26. Agree, but I would add that his type of charm is the type that *puts me on my guard*

Some people love to be "sold". I hate it.

[slipslidingaway]

24. Only Kucinich voted No...

Note...Clinton and Obama were not yet in the Senate.


Do we really need money from China?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxpnAhPXp04


Posted about it here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3511387&mesg_id=3511387


and here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1777600


See also this post by antigop.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3560648&mesg_id=3560648

Pelosi admits China PNTR hurt workers, but goes silent on new NAFTAs
http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/09/pelosi_admits_china_pntr_hurt.html
>>
Notice how she acknowledges that China PNTR was terrible for workers, terrible for our safety and a "big success for K Street" but that she then refuses to answer the question about how - if she believes that - she could be supporting the package of new NAFTAs being pushed by the Bush administration.
>>


:hi:

edit--fixed/added links

[redqueen]

18. So... if any IWR voters are out... who are you supporting?

:shrug:

[cali]

20. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I'm referring

to the primaries. In the general I'll vote for the nominee. I'll probably vote for Kucinich in my primary as a way to raise the profile of ideas he's bringing into the mix. I actually know quite a few folks here who plan to do the same.

[redqueen]

21. Thanks!

Just curious... :hi:

Doesn't leave one with a whole lot of options in the primaries, does it?

[cuke]

30. I disagree with you

but I appreciate your ability to discuss the matter in a non-inflammatory manner.

Good post

[Gregorian]

35. I agree on the war resolution vote.

We had Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and all kinds of evidence that made it abundantly clear that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Even Nancy Pelosi said just that on her latest interview with Arianna Huffington.

As for the house, I have an issue as well. But I think we have to separate that a bit, from his presidential race. And I do not want to make a comparison, specifically, with Al Gore. But there is an aspect of Gore's life that is at critical odds with environmentalism. I'll leave it at that.

A vote for that war is more than a mistake. I think we're going to find that people who see things the way we do are in the minority. And swimming against the stream of a society that requires military activity.

Let's hope we can move this country away from war. We know who those candidates are.

[surfermaw]

42. Why should Edwards be penalized for his hard work

My goodness he and his wife went to school for about 20 years combined, shouldn't they be able to buy anything they want. He is offering to help others do the same thing...he probably has a Gym, for his children, a place for guest to stay, reporters and others , my goodness, I think you are trying to hack him, and going with a simplistic thing like the size of a house. My granddaughter and her boyfriend are getting married in June, and they have a house that he has built almost as large as Edward's. These kids, He graduated a year ago, and my granddaughter in May or June from a state supported school.

[Gregorian]

49. I understand.

But it's my limited understanding that his house is like a compound. I ran an electronics company out of the back room for years. I cannot imagine him needing something so huge. I have to agree with you. But the issue I have is that I can't really take any discussion on the environment too seriously when someone has a lifestyle that is at odds with those ideals.

But to be real about it, you are right. And I'm being open about the candidates. The only thing I have REAL issues with is an Iraq war vote. But I still think most of our candidates are pretty damn good. The ones I like the most probably stand little chance of being elected.

I think we're on the same page. :)

[alittlelark]

36. You are always attacking this guy..... why???

I have seen your posts (both overt and shadowed).... WHY are you so afraid of him?

[cali]

48. You're kidding right?

i've made but a handful of posts about Edwards. Do a search.

[Kermitt Gribble]

38. From the arial pictures I've seen

the 24,000 sq foot measurement is applied to the house plus the garages, so I don't think its fair to say his "house" alone is 24,000 sq feet.
I'm leaning Edwards so far, but I think the OP is a very fair post overall. It is stating some personal grievances with a candidate, not outright bashing them like most election posts on DU lately.

[cooolandrew]

41. Kucinich's resume is very impressive in comparison.

[surfermaw]

43. K...can do and say any thing,

He knows he doesn't stand a chance to win, and no one is giving him any attention. It might be better for him to get out and let the cookies fall where they may. I like him but know he is just taking up space.

[surfermaw]

44. houses in N.C. aren't that high in cost,

Why do you think all the yankees are selling their modest houses in the north , coming south and thinking they are wealthy because they are living in a larger house.

[Mike03]

47. Points Well Taken

I'm actually very fond of Edwards, but I can't disagree with your line of reasoning. Also, I did not realize he has less experience than Obama; that comes as a surprise.

Maybe his appeal (to me) is what I perceive to be his humanity. Granted, it maybe false, but I believe it. But even though I like him very much, he's not my absolute favorite candidate. But I probably prefer him to Clinton and Obama.

[Telly Savalas]

51. So are we gonna see a "why I'm wary of Chris Dodd" thread?

[rAVES]

57. I have an aversion to Smarm.