Edwards Reconsidered

[Nutmegger]

There have been good reasons not to support John Edwards for president. For years, his foreign-policy outlook has been a hodgepodge of insights and dangerous conventional wisdom; his health-care prescriptions have not taken the leap to single payer; and all told, from a progressive standpoint, his positions have been inferior to those of Dennis Kucinich.

But Edwards was the most improved presidential candidate of 2007. He sharpened his attacks on corporate power and honed his calls for economic justice. He laid down a clear position against nuclear power. He explicitly challenged the power of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants.

And he improved his position on Iraq to the point that, in an interview with the New York Times a couple of days ago, he said: "The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader." Later in the interview, Edwards added: "I would plan to have all combat troops out of Iraq at the end of nine to ten months, certainly within the first year."

Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.

Full article: http://www.alternet.org/election08/72560/

[tblue]

1. Now that's what I'm talking about! He's your liberal. His life has been dedicated to fighting for

the little guy. Literally. He gets my juices flowing........... (Hey now, get your mind outta the gutter.)

[thoughtcrime1984]

2. Only IF he walks the talk

If everyone believed he will do what he says he will do, then he'd be winning by a landslide!

[melody]

4. He's done a lot of that in his life already

I think he's the best potential candidate we have for real change. I think his showing in the caucus is evidence
he is finally being heard.

[Hieronymus]

5. Unfortunately there are many jaded Americans who don't believe ..

Edwards.
FDR didn't run as the progressive that he became.

[cascadiance]

9. I think you win by voting for his MESSAGE that he's put himself on the hook for...

... and the others are all triangulating to avoid being pinned down on anything of substance and focusing on trying to win with style instead.

Folks, if you vote for his message, and in so doing make it clear that Americans want to vote for someone that will actually DO something they've committed to doing, it sends out a message for not only this campaign, but to other electoral races as well that America has had enough with all of the political consultant candidate "marketing" of candidates who have an agenda to not serve us but those who put money into their campaigns.

Even IF Edwards is posturing, and doesn't follow through with what he's promising now (which I don't think he is doing), you STILL have the mandate that we all voted him in on to hold him and other political candidates accountable for in measuring what they are doing later after the election is over. If you vote for those that don't commit to anything other than just combing their hair nice and smiling to you, then you deserve them not listening to you when they get elected and carrying on with the same crap we have now in Washington that is destroying our country!

[AshevilleGuy]

3. And - he would be the most electable Dem.

If we lose AGAIN, the differences among the Dem candidates won't matter at all on Jan 20th 2009. This seems so elementary, but we need to nominate someone who can win the general; even with the GWB debacle we are not guaranteed that win. Edwards is likely the Dem who has the best chance of defeating McCain or Rudy or Mitt or - God help us - Huckabee.

Think about it: some Dems can win the general, some can not. It really matters.

[dmosh42]

6. Yes, plus it gives me a "non-corporate" guy to vote on...

with the others, it will just be "hold the course".

[waiting for hope]

12. I think I heard it described

as trying to thread the needle - Hillary and Obama are in that category, Edwards, the Southern White Male, is not. I just read from an Obama supporter that Obama will turn more states blue. I have lived in Virginia, Louisiana and now North Carolina. He definitely won't be turning those states blue. Edwards could.

[AzDar]

7. He was outspent 6-to-1 in Iowa. He's the best we've got; he needs our

support more than ever.
Rage against The Machine, Brother Edwards!:applause:

[Divine Discontent]

8. iraq occupation

right on JRE! A vote for change - real change! He did well in the caucus. I hope he gets more than 25% in NH, which will be 7 points higher than he polls right now, if he goes up there, and battles for #2 that keeps him in play and able to spread his message for the feb 5th states. 22 of em if I recall right.

[surfermaw]

10. Again ..EDWARDS WON the DEMOCRATIC VOTE

Obama won, because many republicans changed their registration for the night. Come November the same REpublicans will be voting against him.

[Broke Dad]

11. Re: In my precinct . . .

Hillary had Republican ringers. We had a total of 98. In 2004 we had 53 people. In 2000 we had 8.

After realignment, Edwards had 37, Hillary 31 and Obama 30. Under the rules, we got 5 delegates. Edwards got 2, Hillary got 2 and Obama got 1.

At least four old Republican battle axes came to caucus for Hillary. At first they refused to register as Democrats. When I told them ONLY Democrats could caucus, one said, "Well just for tonight." Without these four old Republican women, Obama would have got 2 delegates and Hillary would have got 1. I felt bad for the Obama people.

So in my precinct at least, Republican ringers got Hillary more delegates than she would have gotten otherwise. And I pretty sure that they will not be voting Democratic in the fall.

BTW, John Edwards won in my precinct!

[goldcanyonaz]

13. Interesting, because reports have been out that Obama had quite a few of these ringers.

It all boils down to who one wants to believe.