wohooooo I'm first!!!! and 2nd!!!!

Wasn't he and Hillary recently caught on video conspiring to exclude the other, lesser known Democratic Presidential candidates from any future debates?

The hypocrisy of these devotees if Daily Kos is simply breathtaking to behold. They bask in the glow of being labeled the most liberal web site on the Internet yet at their yearly convention they voted Edwards and Obama as being their most favored among the candidates running for president while the most progressive candidate of them all, Dennis Kucinich, received almost no mention at all. These Kossacks have a long way to go before they can earn the title of belonging to the most progressive site among the grassroots on the Internet.

Edwards has enough money of his own and is popular enough now! Kucinich would be my choice because he's been courageous and right in his decisions on the war before and after, impeaching Cheney, and his health care ideas have been the best overall, although I doubt he can win the nomination. If Edwards isn't playing some game and lying to those he speaks to he would make a VERY GOOD nomination over Hillary in my opinion, - no more Bushes or Clintons as President!!!

The economy is on a downward trend (check the dollar vs. other benchmark currencies). Once it's hit bottom, we don't have the industrial basis we'll need to bring it back up. By that time, the treasury will also have been looted.

Edwards is smart, because he's appealing to a growing demgraphic - the poor, working poor, and over-indebted (it's actually easier to say he's not working for the largely untaxed rich). Hillary seems to think that the ststus quo (national indebtedness) will continue, unabated. Ask the homebuilding industry how the continuing status quo worked out for them.

At the same time, Edwards can afford to position himself as the outsider - he as no office to loose, so he isn't beholden to the ststus quo.

As soon as the economy passes the pain threshold, Edwards will emerge as the front-runner, overall (Dem or Repub).

Bottom line: Edwards/Obama in '08.

Mark my words.

Marcus Aurelius @ 10 - I was listening to NPR on friday, and they had this market analyst and he made a convincing argument that last week the economy entered a recession. Of course on the regular news seemed to overlook that wall street assessment...

Marcus Aurelius @ 10:

The economy is on a downward trend (check the dollar vs. other benchmark currencies). Once it's hit bottom, we don't have the industrial basis we'll need to bring it back up. By that time, the treasury will also have been looted.

Edwards is smart, because he's appealing to a growing demgraphic - the poor, working poor, and over-indebted (it's actually easier to say he's not working for the largely untaxed rich). Hillary seems to think that the ststus quo (national indebtedness) will continue, unabated. Ask the homebuilding industry how the continuing status quo worked out for them.

At the same time, Edwards can afford to position himself as the outsider - he as no office to loose, so he isn't beholden to the ststus quo.

Good argument. I'd prefer Wes Clark as the Vice but I can live with Obama for sure. Any D is better than any R likely to win the nomination. (Paul being a civil libertarian is one of my favorites but the GOP is not sane enough to nominate him and make the race about choices.)
As soon as the economy passes the pain threshold, Edwards will emerge as the front-runner, overall (Dem or Repub).

Bottom line: Edwards/Obama in '08.

Mark my words.

WTF is this bullshit about Edward's hair? What Romney dosn't spend $$$ on his hair and makeup? And why is there never any talk about Guliani's hair, now that he cut off his extreme comb-over?

Oh wait, democrats are judged by a stricter set of rules then republicans, my mistake.

I wish I could get behind Edwards. I can't after that tape of him and Clinton came out. I used to support him, gave money. Now...I am completely undecided about who I am voting for. Because I am not a fan of the candidates we have.

They are desperately trying to appeal to the left, but they are just politicians and i don't think they really care.

Gore/Edwards please?

AL!!!!! WHERE ARE YOU?!! =[

I am writing in Dennis Kucinich no mater what!

Edwards is running a smart campaign - and I'd like to like him. There have been a few moments however that have caused me to distrust him, the most notable being his comment (to the effect) that unlike Hillary and Obama he could win in the South; iow he's a white male. I don't care if he's correct about that; it's not the point. Too often I've settled for trying to get the best of the viable candidates elected. This time around I'm going for Kucinich.

I find his argument convincing. With Edwards at the Helm, the contrast to a party of corrupt insiders is stark indeed. Stark enough that he might just win overwhelmingly, and have coat tails big enough for the 60 Senate seats we need. And with a reform mandate to boot.

We need to win big in 2008, now just 15 months away, and with a mandate for change. I don't just want a new set of people in Washington, I think we need the mandate for change. We need a "Teddy Rooseveltian" mandate for change, the same mandate that the Trust Busters had.

America once broke up the congealed power of the wealthy to protect it's democracy, it is one of the most exciting times in America's history. But Power is now even more in the hands of it's corporate insiders, and the stakes are higher, because they want not just control of the American Democracy but the world as well.

The war in Iraq, is a war to bring "Ohio style" democracy to the world.

I'm convinced that Edwards has the smarts, the heart and importantly the drive to change America: return it to principles not power, return it to democracy not Jim Crow/Diebold election theft, return to a government of the people not "K street". The radical part of Edwards drive, is that it is a drive home - Government of the people, for the people and by the people. I suspect that these would be the words, and the theme, of his Inaugural.

The only question now is who makes the best VP. I argue for one that does not "balance" for left right (ugh) but a similarly driven reformer, a partner to Edwards. And a secure feeling that no matter what, the change is happening, no matter what.

Here's one extra item I've been mulling. We were lied into the Iraq war. (This needs a new verb.) And it wasn't George. Well yes it was, but, the press did most of the lying, and produced all of the jingoism that drove America to war. In reality, if you re-run the tv avalanche of "war-drum" imagery and music and lies, it was our soldiers that were embedded in the main stream media's drive to Baghdad, not the other way around.

John's understanding of this may be his most important understanding. His leadership on this, his refusal to attend a Fox debate for example, make him one of the most progressive candidates in America.

[...] Contact the Webmaster Link to Article youtube Edwards Tries To Distinguish Himself From Clinton Over K Street » Posted at [...]

Edward is on point.

Lobbying should be illegal.

What do they have for breakfast on K street,

Special K?

Well isn't that special...

Hey all I want to do is play Second Life!

Is that so wrong!

Edwards has been pulling neck in neck and sometimes in front of Hillary in some areas. He's likeable and honest, so it would seem. However, his "yea" vote on the Iraq War will besmerch him and put "blood on his hands".

What we need are candidates without war profiteering blood money on their hands. Kucinich voted "no" on the Iraq War and Obama didn't vote at all because he was not there to vote. Both of these are not bloodied candidates.

However, I'd like to see someone rise from the outside this time around so there won't be even a hint of contamination on the candidate....like Al Gore....like Michael Bloomberg.

Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 33:

I don't want a president that I'd like to have a beer with. We've lived through that shitty criteria with the chimp!

I'd like a President to play X-Box with.

Nicholas @ 29:

Edwards is dead wrong. Lobbyists are an essential part of the lawmaking process. A competent lawmaker must interact with lobbyists. Big companies are required to make decisions that affect large numbers every day, and do so within a legal framework. Their voices need to be heard by lawmakers who are in a position to alter and improve that framework.

Lawmakers must also, however, consider the public interest. The problem today is that the views of large corporations are overrepresented in the public discourse. What we need is media law reform, not lobbying reform. If the 4th estate was doing its job, people (including lawmakers) would be better informed and we would have a better democracy. As things stand now, the electorate and lawmakers make their decisions based on a distorted view of the world. Lobbying is vital part of the process, not the problem. The problem is the news media.

But this is clearly as case of "lobbyist overkill" these days with three or four lobbyists per Congressman. Give me a break! They heckle these guys to death and continuously.

It used to be that lobbyists were "industry experts" and when called upon for their expertise (operative words: "when called upon") they could provide valuable information in their respective areas. However, this is far from what's occurring today.

It's one thing to provide expertise; it's entirely another to provide "payola" - dontcha love that old word? It covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it?

Bribing politicians to then vote favorably on the issues impacting their respective industries is not "lobbying" - it's illegal and it's called "blackmail".

Campaign finance reform IS the only answer to this illegal activity which is occurring within Congress.

isis11 @ 40:

Campaign finance reform IS the only answer to this illegal activity which is occurring within Congress.

Campaign finance reform is a start. But the larger issue is with the American people. I would say that education reform is the key. Once we get Americans to be members of the "reality-based community," a lot of these problems will go away.

For the present, I'm wondering why our system of checks and balances is so weak as to allow the kind of abuse that's going on here. Fact is, the foxes are guarding the hen house, and no good can come of that.

Paying Attention @ 42:

isis11 @ 40:

Campaign finance reform IS the only answer to this illegal activity which is occurring within Congress.

Campaign finance reform is a start. But the larger issue is with the American people. I would say that education reform is the key. Once we get Americans to be members of the "reality-based community," a lot of these problems will go away.

For the present, I'm wondering why our system of checks and balances is so weak as to allow the kind of abuse that's going on here. Fact is, the foxes are guarding the hen house, and no good can come of that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in a "reality-based community"; however, BushCo has contorted reality so dramatically and so Orwellian-ly that up is down, lies are truth, and fiction has become our reality. So how can you legitimately blame the people and place the onus of responsibility squarely on their shoulders when traditional definitions have been handily reversed to boggle their minds?

When up is the new down and lies become the new "truth", what's left of that "reality-based community" anyway? Absolutely nothing.

The progressives need to redefine the language of politics and bring back traditional definitions of words in order to begin speaking the language of truth once again. That's as I see it.

Political campaigns are about perception, not policy. American policy of governance, foreign and domestic, is imperial and is designed to serve the interests of capitalism. Those rare periods of somewhat progressive politics have been in the service of capitalism by checking its inherent and most destructive tendencies. That has not been the case for a generation, and there is no one nor group any longer in a position of power either willing or able to save capitalism from itself. Edwards cannot be trusted anymore than any other of its political servants.

sulphurdunn @ 46:

Political campaigns are about perception, not policy. American policy of governance, foreign and domestic, is imperial and is designed to serve the interests of capitalism. Those rare periods of somewhat progressive politics have been in the service of capitalism by checking its inherent and most destructive tendencies. That has not been the case for a generation, and there is no one nor group any longer in a position of power either willing or able to save capitalism from itself. Edwards cannot be trusted anymore than any other of its political servants.

As much as I would like to find Edwards compelling enough to vote for him, he does have a certain "ick factor" when it comes to my gut instinct. something about his rhetoric simply doesn't gel for me. I prefer Obama but he's a bit too wet behind the ears for the high level of chicanery and corruption which is cemented into DC these days, I fear.

sulphurdunn @ 46:

Political campaigns are about perception, not policy. American policy of governance, foreign and domestic, is imperial and is designed to serve the interests of capitalism. Those rare periods of somewhat progressive politics have been in the service of capitalism by checking its inherent and most destructive tendencies. That has not been the case for a generation, and there is no one nor group any longer in a position of power either willing or able to save capitalism from itself. Edwards cannot be trusted anymore than any other of its political servants.

Well, then, that makes this whole voting thing pretty pointless. Oligarchy for president, then!

Seriously though, I'm tired of this whole distrust of politicians rhetoric. It does us no good. The point of representative democracy is to vote for those that we think are MOST LIKELY to do a good job, and then to hold them accountable if they don't. It's the people, not the politicians, we need to worry about.

I am big Edwards and grassroots supporter and wanted to let others know about a free bumper sticker I just signed up for. Here is the link.

IMO, Edwards might be a tourniquet. I was going to say, like a couple of aspirin, but we're too far gone for that.

ChadFred @ 52:

I am big Edwards and grassroots supporter and wanted to let others know about a free bumper sticker I just signed up for. Here is the link.

Thanks for the link! It's still too early for me to make a bumper-sticker-commitment yet, but I actually liked the Edwards design. Hmmm....presidential aesthetics?

Arroyo @ 55:

What-the-f***-ever.

They all need millions of dollars to run for office and they all end up on K Street one way or another.

It's not as if we don't know this, so why this purity game?

I'm not into the idea of surrendering before the fight is over (no matter what repubs say). I want us to force the front-runners to say a lot about this issue so we can at least get them on record. As often as possible.

Nicholas @ 29:

Edwards is dead wrong. Lobbyists are an essential part of the lawmaking process. A competent lawmaker must interact with lobbyists. Big companies are required to make decisions that affect large numbers every day, and do so within a legal framework. Their voices need to be heard by lawmakers who are in a position to alter and improve that framework.

Lawmakers must also, however, consider the public interest. The problem today is that the views of large corporations are overrepresented in the public discourse. What we need is media law reform, not lobbying reform. If the 4th estate was doing its job, people (including lawmakers) would be better informed and we would have a better democracy. As things stand now, the electorate and lawmakers make their decisions based on a distorted view of the world. Lobbying is vital part of the process, not the problem. The problem is the news media.

You need desperately to move - to ANY part of the world of "democracy" where bakshish is an established, cultural payola/blackmail as usual for centuries (Middle East, Turkey, India, Far East, fmr CARs, etc - a lot of choices !).. If you are a troll: go and get your check for the day, don't take any more of C&L's server space.

donviti @ 1:

butttttt, can this guy really win? hillary has pushed herself to the center on so many issues.

Ben @ 20:

Gore/Edwards please?

AL!!!!! WHERE ARE YOU?!! =[

A dream ticket for me...however, the Dems could run a dead, decaying plant and I'd still vote for it!

Wouldn't it be funny if the election of 2008 came between Hillary and Ghoulianni? They'd be trying to out-glam each other.

Eric @ 4:

Wasn't he and Hillary recently caught on video conspiring to exclude the other, lesser known Democratic Presidential candidates from any future debates?

Yes, indeed. And here, he's doing a verbal end run right around Obama. I like Edwards's platform, but his jockeying for power is strangely unsubtle for a successful trial lawyer.

It isn't just lobbyist campaign contributions that bother me. I wish someone would ask Hillary if Bill will continue to make speeches at $200,000 to $400,000 a pop if she is elected president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR200702...

Last year, one of his most lucrative since he left the presidency, Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit.

Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns. The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given her $270,000 since 2000 -- putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton's top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004.

Foreign clients have included Saudi Arabia's Dabbagh investment firm, which paid $600,000 for two speeches, and China's JingJi Real Estate Development Group, run by a local Communist Party official, which paid $200,000 for a speech.

Citigroup is one of the biggest outsourcers of American jobs.

I also would like to hear Hillary tell us whether she favors changing media ownership laws. This past weekend, she stated that she didn't know anything about the 1996 Telecommunications Act, that it was all Al Gore's doing. I guess it was Al who signed it into law, too.

"Don’t forget Rupert Murdoch backs Hillary"

Hillary has changed her story 180 degrees SINCE LAST DEC.. Anyone recall? She spoke FOR Iraq occupation and told the guy in the audience to "vote for someone else if you don't like it".

Now she wears pink, is first at debates, AND COMPLETELY CHANGED HER POSITION ON THE WAR.

Hillary is SHIT packaged in cellophane. Watch out for her and don't even THINK of voting for her.

Any friend of Rupert's is no friend of ours.

The bolding in hooptycritter's post is mine - SOoooo TRUE ! Check out the added links below, esp.video!

hooptycritter @ 9:

Edwards is a much better choice than the very compromised Hillary Clinton and the "audacity of " pure ambition Obama. At least Edwards is taking stands instead of constantly triangulating and hedging. Clinton and Obama have offered very little substance to go with their "vote for me b/c I'm me" campaigns.
I will vote to someone with a spine, not someone who offers the same content free drivel.
I challenge all Clinton and Obama supporters to show the rest of us any policies that they have suggested that are substantively different from the Republican-lite policies of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton's policies were more conservative than Richard Nixon's. The Obama / Hillary horse race is a race to the same policies that have made the US resemble a banana republic - there are the very rich then there is everyone else who must deal every day with job and income insecurity.

Edwards is not perfect but at least he is taking some clear stands on issues that could help the majority of Americans.

I'd add that these lobyyists made Clintons rich, advancing them from have-nots trailer trash in Arkansas to now (Clintons' both Chapaqua, and DC, homes were purchased by the "friends and supporters". They had NO place/home to go back to in Arkansas, except of the 'double-trailer' used by them during his governator years).

Obama is following the same path, w/ 'friends' buying him extra 10 feet of his house backyard ! (as reported by Chicago media - a US future presidente using a mobster, haggling about his backyard fence, all ten feet of it!!??!! to be in charge of 300 MLN nation ???!!) . Obama is a totally confused demagogue (just as Booosh) is he a pastor, or whatever else, offering nothing but rhetoric on sporadic unrelated items, and never knows is he at the church pulpit or political rally.

Hillary is the most premeditated and controlling of ALL the candidates, on both sides.
She is another Booosh CLONE !!!
at YKOS Convention Hillary was BOOOOOOED by the netroot bloggers for defending her "For SALE' attitude w/ lobbyists !

Hillary "refused Saturday to forsake campaign donations from lobbyists, turning aside challenges from her two main rivals with a rare defense of the special interest industry.
She refused responsibility for her crappy 'medical insurance' schemes written by big pharma/insurance corpocrats, which have tanked BECAUSE of her ever-lasting affair with ANY money that she can suck up to, including the strong anti-universal care lobby. The other day she's stated her BS medical care plan was great, but marketing ("political side") lacked..!!!! She should be with Falafel Orally on his Falafel Fucter, w/ Pennis Miller as her only positive commentator.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

“A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do,” Clinton said, drawing boos and hisses from liberal bloggers at the second Yearly Kos convention."

.."Mr. Edwards said: “Now I think my party, the Democratic party, the party of the people, ought to say from this day forward we will never take a dime from these Washington insiders.”

Then it was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s turn: “Well, well, I think it’s a position that John certainly has taken. Well, I have to say that I don’t, I don’t think based on my 35 years in fighting for what I believe in anybody
seriously believes I am going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group.”

At that point, the audience booed loudly. And Senator Clinton actually seemed to chuckle a bit — and said, “I’ve been waiting for this” in acknowledgment that she wasn’t necessarily on the top of the blogosphere’s favorite
candidates — as people laughed. ""

She IS LAUGHING OFF real concerns of every decent American - her 'TRUST ME" bullshit is just like from Booosh, Gonzo, and all other criminals.

Why would C&L ever be promoting this arrogant and patronizing white trash beeeach with NO substance ? That is NOT electable in national election no matter what AIPAC dems/Rahm Emanuel & Co/ try to twist around and push down our throats.

Edwards is being villyfied bc he knows HOW to fight the corpocracy, or, at least to get them by their gonads..
Edwards wants for EVERY American "The right to succeed on your own MERITS' He even addresses the "$400 haircuts!" Good sense of humor is very important in high stress jobs more than anywhere else. See this informative, easy going 19:00 minutes recent clip.

John Edwards at Cooper Union (NYC)
http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1078637782&channel=29794487
Jul 3, 2007 Added
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards discusses his plan to attack poverty, and other issues in the 2008 election.

Well don't forget also Gravel is more liberal than these guys as well. I don't think however Kos claims to be liberal but progressive I think. Just check out his YearlyKos speech I think he talks about that. Doesn't Edwards take corporate money as well? I would love to see a post on here comparing all candidates and their money and if any of them gets corporate money and put it for all of us to see.

Emily @ 77:

One thing that made me mad with the whole rally thing is when his introducer called him "the next president of the United States." WTF? The first primary isn't until next January! By than Edwards could be a nobody in the race since we don't know.

Oh, well...they always do that. It's the protocol now. Irritating and meaningless, but certainly not confined to the Edwards campaign.

My money is on the black guy.

I think it has been well documented by this time that the captured Edwards aside to Hillary had to do with narrowing and focusing the themes of the debates, not narrowing the field of participants. The questions are all over the place and in some cases, inane, and the resulting sound bites aren't good for much-certainly, they don't give us the insight needed to make informed decisions. All the debates really serve to do is reinforce already established opinion. It seems quite evident, citing just this comments thread as an example, that even informed, intelligent people line up allegiance according to the viewpoints foisted upon a captive audience by the media (are people still really talking about the haircut?).
Edwards will have my vote. Don't make the mistake of reading too little into anything he says--it's absurd for you to believe there's chicanery associated with his acknowledgment of his white maleness related to electability. It's called plain speaking in the face of indisputable circumstances and has nothing to do with bigotry, misogynism (I have two words for you: Elizabeth Edwards) or arrogance. Some things worth saying require a price for the saying.
I've been pulling for John since he announced and have watched him move steadily closer to the favorites. I have confidence in his ethos and his embrace of classic strategies. Slow and steady, after all, does win the race.
Edwards/Kucinich would rock. . .

[Deleted. Off topic]

donviti @ 1:

butttttt, can this guy really win? hillary has pushed herself to the center on so many issues.

I totally agree that THIS is THE ISSUE that Edwards and Obama need to run with. It is a huge issue in middle america and it isn't a right or left debate.

court this issue and you can get to that middle ground we need to bring the country back together.

Are you sh*tting me? This is the only guy who can win. Clinton or Obama have absolutely no f-ing chance in the general election.

Howard Beale Is My Muse @ 82:

.
..... Edwards will have my vote. Don't make the mistake of reading too little into anything he says--it's absurd for you to believe there's chicanery associated with his acknowledgment of his white maleness related to electability. It's called plain speaking in the face of indisputable circumstances and has nothing to do with bigotry, misogynism (I have two words for you: Elizabeth Edwards) or arrogance. Some things worth saying require a price for the saying.
I've been pulling for John since he announced and have watched him move steadily closer to the favorites. I have confidence in his ethos and his embrace of classic strategies. Slow and steady, after all, does win the race.

Edwards/Kucinich would rock. . .

I don't know enough about Kucinich yet, and, didn't think about how strategic his VP placement would be. Obama would be an undesired stone around Edwards'es neck, since his baggage/ immature, superficial attttitooode are so contrary to Edwards'es pretty detailed knowledge.

The REAL event of the YKOS convention was the blogger crowd 1,500 or so strong, boooing Hillary making her OWN usual statements, not Edwards 'trying' this or that. I hope against the hope C&L to be less obsessed with Hillary-the-great (hogging the field under "Category" C&L articles [ Clintons (69) + Hillary Clinton (26) + Bill Clinton (14); vs. Edwards (26); no Obama nor Kucinich "category" at all ]), with not a single fault nor her dangerous superficiality ever mentioned, and give us better and OBJECTIVE take on other dems candidates. Such a position seems very helpful for the next repig to get into the WH. And, us, the people, in the Halliburton Hospitality Centers, repig, or Hillary.
My response to another poster's post here re: importance of Edwards keeping fire under Clinton enabling the NAFTA disaster continued by Booosh, and its link to collapsed 35W bridge got deleted, again.. So much for 'objective' ..

I haven't heard anything regarding Edwards' wife and her cancer. This is what bothers me, a husband whose wife is going through cancer treatment, and he continues to run for the presidency. I have a friend who is going through this right now and I can't IMAGINE how they would do this if her husband were running a campaign to run for president. To me, it just strikes of extreme hubris on Edward's part. There are many implications regarding her cancer, not just the treatment, but if and when she dies, will he start dating and WHO will he date and marry in the future. Grieving for your wife and then say he falls in love again...these are two extreme states of mind that could greatly effect how he runs this country. Also, his whole 'hair thing' really bothered me. It might be a small concern to some, but sometimes small things can speak about greater issues. There are a lot of things I like about this guy, but these are some of the things that are on my mind concerning him. I don't know who I'm voting for yet, but anyone other than republican, for sure.
Will Ralph Nader run?

As regards lobbiests, Obamma's hands are the only ones that are clean (ammongst the top 3). I don't trust Edwards or Hillary.

Waiting for Gore to announce.

Edwards is interesting but he gave 1.5 million to a campany that funds one of the most preditory Health Care companies show cased on Sicko. So he is still suspect to me. I don't know why we keep voting for these silver spoon feed people as if they really care about us. In the end they will almost always look out for their own.

MarkT @ 85:

Edwards sounds like Eliot Spitzer. The holier than thou approach is a dangerous one because he won't get cut any slack if is is less than totally perfect on all ethics issues. I don't trust people who live in $20,000,000 mansions and then say they are the friend of the little guy.

Edwards lives in a nice house, sure. His ethics are certainly far far better than anyone else running save for Kuchinik. Edwards went out of his way to avoid corporate funding and many of us contributed to an appeal from his wife. I mean, he DOES need funding to compete right?
Just because he has money doesn't mean he shouldn't be trusted. I think he is a bone-deep decent man who happens to be attractive as well. In addition, WHY BE BRATTY WHEN BUSH IS IN THE WH? Let's not be so quick about such petty things while a monster sits in the WH!

I believe him completely when he says all boats should rise. Our soldiers would get every single benefit and dignity coming to them, we would get health care, we'll have jobs in the green industry, he'll encourage industries to stick around with tax breaks, he'll HEAL OUR COUNTRY!
He has suffered greatly in his life and is no stranger to the gut-wrenching prospect of losing a wife and friend he loves deeply. He is humble.

And like Orwell's Illigitimate Son, makes me purr like a kitten. With Edwards in the WH we could be good again, we could sleep at night unconcerned about cruelty, hatred,insantiy, man's inhumanity to man....now I'm tearing up a bit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR200702...

Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)....

His paid speeches included $150,000 appearances before landlord groups, biotechnology firms and food distributors, as well as speeches in England, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia that together netted him more than $1.6 million. On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.

The article doesn't mention the possiblity of a conflict of interest in a man speaking for pay in front of interest groups while his wife is in the Senate.

For even more fun, Bill Clinton appears in front of lobby groups with George Bush. You can't make this up: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2109950,00.asp. Who is the CTIA? A telelecom lobby group, of course.

We should not forget what happened in the last Presidential election with Edwards. Coming from the Carolinas, Edwards had a ready made issue that would have united right, left and center, and could have carried that ticket all the way to the White House. I am talking about how badly the mislabeled 'Free Trade' treaties like NAFTA had savaged the American worker. The Carolinas was truly ravaged by the vast increase in outsourcing after NAFTA passed. So had a number of battleground states like Ohio.

Edwards was making headway hitting on this issue. Then the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate meat puppets told him to cool it.

Edwards complied.
They lost.
This is somebody you think will fight for the American worker?

Now he's trumpeting his position which he says will downsize outsourcing and off shoring. He conveniently forgets his pandering, along with Hillary and the rest of these heroes of the American worker, to the Silicone Valley special interests where he has been arguing for an INCREASE in H1b visas.
Google the "Job Destruction newsletter"

Its a shell game folks.
These game show contestants are in the pockets of the mega corporations.