I *really* hope Edwards wins Iowa...

How telling is it that CNN will plant a question at a Democratic debate insinuating that Clinton is an elitist (not that she isn't, but it's a smear anyway) and allow a Republican operative to ask a loaded question wrongly accusing Democrats of raising taxes, but when a gay veteran asks a question about why Republicans think gays who serve their country deserve to be discriminated against, it's out of bounds? How's that for your Liberal Corporate Media?

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

It is actually funny to watch the Republicans try and field an unexpected question such as the one given by General Kerr. The Republican party has always been about controlling the message and leading their unthinking followers towards a predetermined conclusion on an issue. Watching the Republican candidates respond to General Kerr's question was like watching a robot blow a fuse. If one really looked carefully at the candidates on stage I bet you will see smoke coming from their ears or hear a mumbled "That does not compute." :lol:

Edwards is our best hope of a win in Nov '08. After that, he is our best hope of putting this country back together again. Please considering voting for John Edwards in your state primary.

Being an old time Republican I must admit that I like John Edwards and would certainly vote for him in the general election. Sure hope he get the nomination!

I have to say that I think Edwards could be a fine president!

Has anyone else noticed the lag between Olbermann's questions and Edward's replies? That seems to happen in almost every single interview he does. He asks a question, and it seems like the person he's asking is a good second or two behind. What's up with that?

The Economist noted during the 2000 campaign, before Kerry won the nomination, that Edwards was the strongest candidate to beat the GOP. The Economist endorsed Kerry "with a heavy heart," as they put it.

Now that we're watching Huckabee rise in the polls, how strange it would be if after all the hype and hooha over Clinton and Ghouliania, if we were faced in November 2008 with a choice between Edwards the populist and Huckabee the evangelist wannabe.

I still strongly support Christopher Dodd, and my appreciation for Edwards is lukewarm at best, but if Edwards can convince the Independents and if Repubs consider him a viable option, then let's get this show on the road.

I have to a agree with Johnny2Bad I am not sure John Edwards is all that he pretends to be. he has been telling anyone that will listen to him that he is pro-labor...

Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…

08/07/2007 — Statement from Larry Rasky on John Edwards’s right-to-work record:

Tonight, John Edwards said that he claimed to be a leader on union issues throughout his career. The public record does not square with Sen. Edwards’s memory.
The Facts:

Edwards Supported North Carolina Right to Work Law in 1998:
* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards last spring. Faircloth used that in a TV ad, saying Edwards promised to be a warrior for labor.

In fact, Edwards said he would be a warrior for labor unions only on those issues on which they agreed. One of those issues is right-to-work laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join a union. Unions oppose such laws.

Edwards opposes a national right-to-work law, but favors North Carolina’s right-to-work law. Faircloth has introduced a national right-to-work law. [Charlotte Observer, 10/18/98.

* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, As it turns out, Edwards doesn’t even agree with the labor group on their most critical issue - North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

That law, which the AFL-CIO opposes, means no one can be forced to join a union or pay dues. Edwards says he supports North Carolina’s law. But he opposes a national right-to-work law backed by Republican Faircloth. I don’t think the federal government needs to get involved with it, Edwards said.

That was good enough for James Andrews, the AFL-CIO’s executive director, who has virtually given up on finding a viable candidate who will fight North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

We understand that the Jim Hunts of the world and John Edwards of the world . . . are certainly

not going to oppose the current law, Andrews said. Politically, I don’t expect to have anyone leading the charge to change that. We understand and accept that.

Edwards is not going to be 100 percent with us on all our issues, but he certainly has expressed commitment and understanding of working families. Charlotte Observer, 10/7/98.

[refers to deleted post]

Mr. Edward's public acknowledgement that his wife may not live very long after his possible election was an act of courage. Distorting that into "hiding behind his wife's skirt" speaks volumes about you....Ugh. I want to shower...

It's so simple. All we have to do is all vote for Edwards in the primaries so he can BE the nominee ... then it'll be no more Hillary who would only be a 1 term president anyway IF all the bubbas and their wives would ever let her in the White House in the first place! That will not happen. They crucified her as First Lady without any reason, and there is no way they will EVER let her tell them what to do as POTUS.

We should really stop worrying and just get behind the man who is the best candidate... Edwards. Remember when he debated Cheney. hehe This guy's good! That's why he's being ignored by MSM.

Shade Tail @ 15:

Has anyone else noticed the lag between Olbermann's questions and Edward's replies? That seems to happen in almost every single interview he does. He asks a question, and it seems like the person he's asking is a good second or two behind. What's up with that?

Time Delay. Tom's brother.

JerryM @ 5:

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

I can tell you that THIS American believes John Edwards is the most real and honest candidate we have had in a very long time. When I see and hear his speeches I just feel that he actually means what he says. He would be a friend to the American people in the White House and actually stand up for us.

Rasputin @ 24:

mirth @ 14:

dasands @ 11:

Being an old time Republican I must admit that I like John Edwards and would certainly vote for him in the general election. Sure hope he get the nomination!

Thank you for loving your country enough to cross party lines to vote for a better candidate.

My former wingnut friends have all been talking about supporting Edwards... They finally figured out that they don't make over $300,000 a year and they are getting "left behind."

Most of them have family members who are really hurting... uninsured or can't afford to have their kids go to college or simply not making ends meet.

It was bad enough when 440,000 Americans began filing for bankruptcy last year because they couldn't pay their hospital bills, but now millions of Americans are about to lose their homes with the mortgage resets and millions more are teetering on the brink.

Edwards' message has the ring of truth and more people are realizing it. The Democrats are too.

As he said in the last debate... in 1993 there was a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and President Clinton was in the White House. There were two pieces of legislation that came up... Universal Health Care and NAFTA.

The American people desperately needed Universal Health Care and they didn't need NAFTA... an agreement that sent millions of jobs to Mexico and overseas. So what did we get... NAFTA!

Trading a bunch of corporatist Republicans in for a bunch of corporatist Democrats means that nothing will change!

Rasputin, it's good to say Hi to you. :-)

As justme says above you, we make make it happen. But I suspect that our primary votes will be so scattered that HRC will charge ahead.

OMG, don't let anyone who is not a Fan Boy of the Repugs ask a question of their candidates! They won't know how to respond to such a novel situation. How unfair...

Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…

08/07/2007 — Statement from Larry Rasky on John Edwards’s right-to-work record:

Tonight, John Edwards said that he claimed to be a leader on union issues throughout his career. The public record does not square with Sen. Edwards’s memory.
The Facts:

Edwards Supported North Carolina Right to Work Law in 1998:
* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards last spring. Faircloth used that in a TV ad, saying Edwards promised to be a warrior for labor.

In fact, Edwards said he would be a warrior for labor unions only on those issues on which they agreed. One of those issues is right-to-work laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join a union. Unions oppose such laws.

Edwards opposes a national right-to-work law, but favors North Carolina’s right-to-work law. Faircloth has introduced a national right-to-work law. [Charlotte Observer, 10/18/98.

* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, As it turns out, Edwards doesn’t even agree with the labor group on their most critical issue - North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

That law, which the AFL-CIO opposes, means no one can be forced to join a union or pay dues. Edwards says he supports North Carolina’s law. But he opposes a national right-to-work law backed by Republican Faircloth. I don’t think the federal government needs to get involved with it, Edwards said.

That was good enough for James Andrews, the AFL-CIO’s executive director, who has virtually given up on finding a viable candidate who will fight North Carolina’s right-to-work law.

We understand that the Jim Hunts of the world and John Edwards of the world . . . are certainly not going to oppose the current law, Andrews said. Politically, I don’t expect to have anyone leading the charge to change that. We understand and accept that.

Edwards is not going to be 100 percent with us on all our issues, but he certainly has expressed commitment and understanding of working families. Charlotte Observer, 10/7/98.

Al Hart @ 19:

I have to a agree with Johnny2Bad I am not sure John Edwards is all that he pretends to be. he has been telling anyone that will listen to him that he is pro-labor...

Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…

Why do you keep spamming that into this thread? Do you work for another political campaign?

To top it off it isn't really even that damning... Edwards did the best he could in a VERY conservative state. How is that bad?

BTW, I looked up this "Larry Rasky". He is a PR "fixer" for hire. Do you work for him or his company?

Regardless of how you feel about John Edwards it is striking comparing him speaking to Bush. When Bush speaks I feel as if I've gotten dumber by listening to him. Listening to someone like Edwards you come away with the feeling that he is intelligent, poised, and has weighed the pros and cons of a subject before making a decision. Frankly this is the type of person that the United States needs to be electing as its President and not someone you'd like to have a beer with.

What I'm trying to say is it's time America elects an intelligent President and not someone that meets the lowest common denominator. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't relate to the common American and that's what we need to be hammering home ramping up to the election in 2008.

Al Hart #33, why are you reposting old information? Isn't there a site monitor here?

President John Edwards.

Get used to it.

xoites defends Constitution @ 12:

Australia is leaving too.

Soon it will be: A Coalition of One.

with an 'Army of one!'

dickeatsbush @ 26:

JerryM @ 5:

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

Amen, he sounds kind of soft in talking about the issues, while trying to personify a 'real'
thorn in the side of our (US citizens) current dictator.

Salutes!

You guys slay me with your BS!

Here’s Robert Reich and Stephanopolis and Matthew Bai of The New York Times made up the round table. They were talking economic populism and John Edwards and how he has been driving the policy and issues debate in this election and forcing the other candidates to respond.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/02/george-will-doesnt-think-econom...

Economist Paul Krugman and NYT Columnist, unlike you… he has been following all of the candidates and doing a detailed analysis of their plans… or lack there of! Here are some of the highlights of the last several months.

On Edwards Health Care Plan:

Edwards Gets It Right

What a difference two years makes! At this point in 2005, the only question seemed to be how much of America’s social insurance system — the triumvirate of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the Bush administration would manage to dismantle. Now almost all prominent Democrats and quite a few Republicans pay at least lip service to calls for a major expansion of social insurance, in the form of universal health care.
But fine words, by themselves, mean nothing. Remember "compassionate conservatism?" I won’t trust presidential candidates on health care unless they provide enough specifics to show both that they understand the issues, and that they’re willing to face up to hard choices when necessary.

And former Senator John Edwards has just set a fine example.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=2&oref=sl...

2/26/07
Substance over Image

First, what do they propose doing about the health care crisis? All the leading Democratic candidates say they’re for universal care, but only John Edwards has come out with a specific proposal. The others have offered only vague generalities — wonderfully uplifting generalities, in Mr. Obama’s case — with no real substance.

Second, what do they propose doing about the budget deficit? There’s a serious debate within the Democratic Party between deficit hawks, who point out how well the economy did in the Clinton years, and those who, having watched Republicans squander Bill Clinton’s hard-won surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and a feckless war, would give other things — such as universal health care — higher priority than deficit reduction.

Mr. Edwards has come down on the anti-hawk side. But which side are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on? I have no idea.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...

6/11/2007
Authentic? Never Mind

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...

8/6/2007
The Substance Thing

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.
Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&oref=lo...

11/5/2007
Wobbled by Wealth?

O.K., some perspective. I sometimes hear people say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans; that’s foolish. Look at the fight over children’s health insurance, and you can see how different the parties’ philosophies and priorities really are. All of the leading Democratic candidates are offering strongly progressive policy proposals; the Republicans are, if anything, running to the right of the Bush administration.

Also, even history’s greatest progressives had to make compromises to win their victories. F.D.R.’s New Deal depended on the support of Southern segregationists. Compared with that, Senator Clinton’s acceptance of lots of corporate donations doesn’t look so bad — though I’d be reassured if she made her views on tax reform clearer, and matched John Edwards’s focus on corporate reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?pagewanted=print

11/23/2007
Banks Gone Wild?

The huge rewards executives receive if they can fake success are what led to the great corporate scandals of a few years back. There’s no indication that any laws were broken this time — but the public’s trust was nonetheless betrayed, once again.
The point is that the subprime crisis and the credit crunch are, in an important sense, the result of our failure to effectively reform corporate governance after the last set of scandals.

John Edwards recently came out with a corporate reform plan, but it didn’t receive a lot of attention. Corporate governance still isn’t regarded as a major political issue. But it should be.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/opin...

So please give us a break and cut the BS! Address the issues or give it a rest!

Shade Tail @ 15:

Has anyone else noticed the lag between Olbermann's questions and Edward's replies? That seems to happen in almost every single interview he does. He asks a question, and it seems like the person he's asking is a good second or two behind. What's up with that?

is it ok if edwards takes time to think about his answer?

my problem with edwards is his statement about attacking Iran (options open) at the AIPAC conference. barack Obewon did it too.

What?!? Michelle Malkin hasn't faded into absolute obscurity?! Who listens to that harridan anymore?

mirth @ 29:

Rasputin @ 24:

mirth @ 14:

dasands @ 11:

Thank you for loving your country enough to cross party lines to vote for a better candidate.

My former wingnut friends have all been talking about supporting Edwards... They finally figured out that they don't make over $300,000 a year and they are getting "left behind."

Most of them have family members who are really hurting... uninsured or can't afford to have their kids go to college or simply not making ends meet.

It was bad enough when 440,000 Americans began filing for bankruptcy last year because they couldn't pay their hospital bills, but now millions of Americans are about to lose their homes with the mortgage resets and millions more are teetering on the brink.

Edwards' message has the ring of truth and more people are realizing it. The Democrats are too.

As he said in the last debate... in 1993 there was a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and President Clinton was in the White House. There were two pieces of legislation that came up... Universal Health Care and NAFTA.

The American people desperately needed Universal Health Care and they didn't need NAFTA... an agreement that sent millions of jobs to Mexico and overseas. So what did we get... NAFTA!

Trading a bunch of corporatist Republicans in for a bunch of corporatist Democrats means that nothing will change!

Rasputin, it's good to say Hi to you. :-)

As justme says above you, we make make it happen. But I suspect that our primary votes will be so scattered that HRC will charge ahead.

Hi Mirthy...

Yeah it has been a while. My dad died a few months back and I've just sort of thrown myself into my work. I come up for air once in a while just to see what the minions from hell in the White House have done lately to promote hell on earth and come here to vent! ;-)

How's your corner of the universe been treating you and yours?

Cheers

CoIntelPro @ 48:

Rasputin @ 43:

you inspire awe.

I just stand on the shoulders of others... Krugman is the guy who takes the time to do the research and the number crunching. His new book is amazing!

The Conscience of a Liberal

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Economist and New York Times columnist Krugman's stimulating manifesto aims to galvanize today's progressives the way Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative did right-wingers in 1964.

Krugman's great theme is economic equality and the liberal politics that support it. America's post-war middle-class society was not the automatic product of a free-market economy, he writes, but was created... by the policies of the Roosevelt Administration. By strengthening labor unions and taxing the rich to fund redistributive programs like Social Security and Medicare, the New Deal consensus narrowed the income gap, lifted the working class out of poverty and made the economy boom.

Things went awry, Krugman contends, with the Republican Party's takeover by movement conservatism, practicing a politics of deception [and] distraction to advance the interests of the wealthy. Conservative initiatives to cut taxes for the rich, dismantle social programs and demolish unions, he argues, have led to sharply rising inequality, with the incomes of the wealthiest soaring while those of most workers stagnate.

Krugman's accessible, stylishly presented argument deftly combines economic data with social and political analysis; his account of the racial politics driving conservative successes is especially sharp. The result is a compelling historical defense of liberalism and a clarion call for Americans to retake control of their economic destiny. (Oct.)

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Liberal-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393060691

I'm giving this to all the remaining wingnuts in my family for Christmas... screw'em!

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 54:

Al Hart @ 52:

The war in Iraq is by far the biggest question on the minds of most U.S. workers. Edwards has presented himself as an "anti-war" candidate, even apologizing for his Senate vote to authorize the war, claiming to have been "misled" by the Bush administration. But let's not forget the facts: in the march to war, the donkeys marched right alongside the elephants.

So you're just going to keep regurgitating weird little sound-bites rather than engaging with people...

You know you're not making any sense to the actual humans here, don't you?

Luv your moniker Swarm!

(don't you hate when silly names stick... ;) )

If you want something to complain about: I think it's funny that Hillary, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich are ALL still in the Senate. Right now!

If they were serious about Universal Health care, why not introduce it NOW? What the hell are they going to do as president about it? They are ALREADY legislators, they can already introduce and pass legislation...

Or why won't they get on board with oregon Senator Ron Wyden's plan? Or try to amend it if they want to change the details? You sure don't hear much about that in the debates.

This, "Oh, wait till I'm president" sounds pretty fishy to me. At least Edwards is not currently in the Senate, so he has an excuse... but what about the rest? Am I just missing something?

I haven't checked out the details completely, but superficially it is similar to Edwards' and Clinton's (and Nixon's!) plans.

mirth @ 56:

Rasputin @ #51

I haven't been here in a long while. I'm just lucky to catch you tonight. So sorry to read about your father; I've been through that and it's very difficult. Besides not having enuf time for all I want to do, everything is good with me.

This thread and its supporters for Edwards is very encouraging. I'm not a bit surprised that you think of him as the cream of the crop.

Cheers to you, Friend.

Same Back at ya!

This guys question was good.
But I liked the guy with the Rebel flag question.
They all jumped like a grasshopper who landed on sarin.

There's a good issue for Democrats.
The natural Democrat base in the South is over the Confederate flag.
The GOP base, not so much.
We know they like to wrap themselves in the flag.
Make them wrap themselves in the Confederate flag.

Good god guys... I thought this was a blog not a club. Sorry to have stepped on someones toes.

Please by all means take as many shots at me as you would like this is the 1st time I tried to get involved with a blog and some people here don't like what I have to say.

How sad is that this not a Republican thread is it. As I had stated #40 the goal in the fall of 2008 is turning this great country around and becoming the Nation that all others look up too.

I'm from Canada and I'd like to give you an outsiders perspective. I believe voting for ANY of the Repulican nominee's for President will end life on this Earth as we know it. Hyperbole, sure, but I wouldn't trust ANY of them, even Ron Paul despite his very logical dalogue on middle east politics and the Unted States foreign policy but his track record on Domestic issues does not bode well.

Up untill now Dennis Kucinich was the most promising candidate but his idea of having Ron Paul as his VP would be a disasterous proposition. One bullet to Dennis' head and hello Martial Law. If you think I'm paranoid, that's fine, but I wouldn't put ANYTHING past these people.

But seeing John Edwards speaking with Keith made me really appreciate just how much class the man has and has cemented my belief that Edwards is the best choice for President. I wouldn't elect Hilary or Obama, not because of sex or race, but because Hillary is Bush Lite and has voted along side Republicans on almost EVERY issue which means she can't be trusted while Obama doesn't seem to be making an impression on the issues and has little or no track record.

I think an Edwards/Kucinich ticktet would be fantastic but my dream is Gore/Edwards2008.

mirth @ 14:

dasands @ 11:

Being an old time Republican I must admit that I like John Edwards and would certainly vote for him in the general election. Sure hope he get the nomination!

Thank you for loving your country enough to cross party lines to vote for a better candidate.

If Hillary gets the nomination, a lot of old time Democrats will vote Republican, myself included.

edwards/obama '08! (and '12!)

Hey, Edwards/Obama would get my vote.
It will probably be Clinton/Clark who I'll also vote for with relish.

The debate here is about which religious or political fascist are the GOP bound to commit their further destruction of America over?

I like Ed.

I've been for Edwards from the beginning, he's done things I really dislike, such as saying he's against gay marriage. But overall he is the best and I believe he can win over Huckabee, who I think will be the Repubs pick.
But give him $25 or more, something like 80% of his donations have been $200 and less. No corporate money.

Swarm...

the best source of information on Health Care is PNHP.org. They are Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, an organization of over 14,000 physicians who have simply had enough and are trying to do something about it... especially getting the real facts out there.

From their site:

Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance

The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 47 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

http://www.pnhp.org/

Lots of politicians have plans, but there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going onbecause the big money players are paying for it!

That's also why I rely on Krugman because I have followed what he has said for years and I know him to be a man of integrity who will speak out on an issue, no matter how unpopular his findings may be, but I know he has done his homework and really researched it before he writes anything. As an economics professor from Harvard, he is no intellectual slouch.

Thanks, Rasputin, I'll check that out...

the hilarious thing about malkin's so-called investigation into the questioners is that all the people she found to be democratic "plants" were the ones asking legitimate, complex, interesting questions, but she couldn't paint the patina of blue on the real nutcases...the guy who loved the confederate flag or the guy who wanted to know if the candidates believed that every word of the bible is true.

.

QUESTION:

If Edwards feels so duped by this Administration regarding the initiation of this Iraq occupation, it's continuation, the threats against our founding principles and American values concerning Americans and how other Nations see the U.S.A. as a neighbor, then would it be a conflict of interest for Edwards, unlike "other" current Senators, to say something to the effect of, "If I were in the Senate, and impeachment were to come to us for a Trial, I would vote..." ?

You know, to get this discussion going. Or, is it a conflict of interest?

I mean, Kucinich uses his stumps to get his message out there regarding the criminality of this Administration, like John "seems" to do, but unlike John's lackluster performance and believability factor concerning his claims of corruptness due to his lack of conviction TO a solution, Kucinich went and drew a line and presented his articles of impeachment.

How would John vote? Is it a legitimate question to ask?

Al Hart @ 34:

Edwards has gone out of his way to gain the political and economic support of the trade unions, and was the first candidate to be endorsed by a major union. He has done this by speaking in favor of many pro-union legislative questions. But if he is so pro-labor, why has he not called for the repeal of the many pernicious anti-labor laws that are on the books, such as Taft-Hartley? The reason is clear. For all his rhetoric, Edwards and the labor bureaucracy that endorses him are more interested in maintaining the "partnership with the bosses" approach to trade unionism, than actually defending workers' rights and interests.

you must be a rethug, little troll. go away!!

JerryM @ 5:

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

I believe that John Edwards IS real and honest. So much so that I contributed to his campaign; something I had never done before. Not as much as I would have liked to but I am on a somewhat limited income. If I had more, I would certainly give more to his campaign.

He is real and honest and would be a great president.

Before anyone points out any of his minor faults, let me remind you that nobody is perfect. Mr. Edwards comes closer than any other candidate.

Keith blew it. Edwards stated vote Republican if you want the war to continue for another 10 years, but vote for me if you want the war to end. Edwards stated at an earlier debate that he could not promise to have our troops home by 2013, the end of what would be his first administration. Keith should have nailed him on that question.
If you listened closely to Edwards, he said that he would bring home "combat troops", and if Hillary wanted to leave the "combat troops" in Iraq, that was the big difference between the two. Edwards needs to be asked point blank if he would have ALL the troops home. Otherwise, he has already bought the Bush plan to stay in that country for a decade or more.
KUCINICH `08, I say

Edwards/Kucinich is the HOT TICKET!!!
They both speak from the heart and care about people more than fat cat corporations.
Kucinich's voting record is rock solid. He's is the quintessential ANTI-CHENEY. The repubs could never defeat this ticket in a million years. It would shred them in debates and their conviction and sincerety shines through. However, this ticket would probably spur Bushco to allow a terrorist attack' to happen and declare martial law. If Kucinich got in in Bush and Cheney are headed to Hague. Fat chance the Oligharcy will let that happen.

If you aren't calling Pelosi, Conyers every couple days or your own rep in support of Impeachment you had better start now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama has sold out to his big contrutirs on a local level several times. He's a shady manipulator that really has not done squat since elected. Skipping controversial votes is the hallmark of a politico not a man of integrity and courage. He sounds good but his voting actions are no where near as solid and consistantly populist as Kucinich or Edwards.

The Republican position on a myriad of topics and policies can not be held up to any serious scrutiny without them looking like bumbling fools. For the past 7 years softball questions from the press have become the norm, if the press doesn't play along they're are sent to the back of the room and ignored.

This current group of Republican jokers can't even handle a lobbed softball to defend the direction Bush has taken the Country, they expect T-ball questions.

So it's quite a shock to their system when the script gets discarded.
I watched Huckabee complaining about having to face questions that weren't part of his script, pretty alarming, it's truly the stuff that dictators expect of their subjects. If you as an American aren't reading from their scripted fantasy world view, your voice is not allowed to be heard. In fact how dare you interupt their dream.

John Edwards is the best were are going to get that can actually win. I'm finally on board with him a 100%. He reminds me a litlle of Jimmy Carter and that is a very very good thing.

hayduke @ 95:

John Edwards is the best were are going to get that can actually win. I'm finally on board with him a 100%. He reminds me a litlle of Jimmy Carter and that is a very very good thing.

Edwards is a populist. So was carter. I wouldn't want to associate the two too closely however. I agree that Edwards is the best we can do if we're interested in progressive values and getting government back to the business of serving the people instead of serving the republican party. I think Edwards is a good man. I have to wonder why he isn't doing better than what he is. His positions are very different than Clinton's. I personally can't find that much difference between Clinton and Obama and that is because Clinton has taken pains to box Obama in exactly as he is.

Hype-Jersey @ 97:

hayduke @ 95:

John Edwards is the best were are going to get that can actually win. I'm finally on board with him a 100%. He reminds me a litlle of Jimmy Carter and that is a very very good thing.

Edwards is a populist. So was carter. I wouldn't want to associate the two too closely however. I agree that Edwards is the best we can do if we're interested in progressive values and getting government back to the business of serving the people instead of serving the republican party. I think Edwards is a good man. I have to wonder why he isn't doing better than what he is. His positions are very different than Clinton's. I personally can't find that much difference between Clinton and Obama and that is because Clinton has taken pains to box Obama in exactly as he is.

His positions are very different from Clinton's? Then why are their voting records so incredibly similar?

Also, I like Edwards too, but don't fool yourself - this 'man of the people' populism is a gimmick and a strategy. He's a politician, like everyone else running.

Hype-Jersey @ 97:

hayduke @ 95:

John Edwards is the best were are going to get that can actually win. I'm finally on board with him a 100%. He reminds me a litlle of Jimmy Carter and that is a very very good thing.

Edwards is a populist. So was carter. I wouldn't want to associate the two too closely however. I agree that Edwards is the best we can do if we're interested in progressive values and getting government back to the business of serving the people instead of serving the republican party. I think Edwards is a good man. I have to wonder why he isn't doing better than what he is. His positions are very different than Clinton's. I personally can't find that much difference between Clinton and Obama and that is because Clinton has taken pains to box Obama in exactly as he is.

Corporate media (CM) is republican...we keep saying that here and it doesn't sink in.

Soon-to-be President Edwards is one of the biggest threats to corporate control of our government (as is Kucinich).

He is the poison pill to corporations. That alone should bring glee to hundreds of millions of voters. He's not bought and paid for, for crying out loud.

CM wants a fight between a republican and a republican-lite woman, or a republican and a black man, but not a republican and good ol' white southern boy who is appealing to both sides. CM wants polarization.

That is why Edwards is invisible in corporate media.

Only we can make him visible and force CM to swallow the pill.

Lollimom @ 101:
Corporate media (CM) is republican...we keep saying that here and it doesn't sink in.

Soon-to-be President Edwards is one of the biggest threats to corporate control of our government (as is Kucinich).

He is the poison pill to corporations. That alone should bring glee to hundreds of millions of voters. He's not bought and paid for, for crying out loud.

CM wants a fight between a republican and a republican-lite woman, or a republican and a black man, but not a republican and good ol' white southern boy who is appealing to both sides. CM wants polarization.

That is why Edwards is invisible in corporate media.

Only we can make him visible and force CM to swallow the pill.

I think most posters at C&L are aware of the who controls the media. C&Lers are not your target audience if you're trying to convince people to wake up and see who is controlling the media. You are merely preaching to the choir. If you're looking for heads nodding in agreement, add mine to your roster.

I'm not so sure I agree with your analysis of what is keeping Edwards down. I don't think it's so much that he lacks the polarization factor that the MSM likes. That could be a factor, yes. But I think it is rather that he is Old Hat, having run as Kerry's running mate during the last cycle. And I'm not entirely sure that a lot of dems don't feel the same way. In other words, I think that a lot of dems don't see him as worth a second look after the debacle of the Kerry-Edwards ticket. His being viewed as damaged goods is not entirely a media-manufactured perception.

At any rate, there is no knowing why Edwards isn't doing better for sure. It is surely not as simple as single cause.

Hey it's not like the dems ever refused to go on Fox news or anything...oh wait, nevermind.

The reason nobody likes Edwards is because he a Socialist and a phony, oh, now all the sudden he cares about the poor.

Universal Health Care is one of the most contentious issues of the campaign because the “big money” interests are pumping out the dollars in massive quantities just as they did in 1993 when they killed it the first time with a Democratically controlled Congress and White House!

A quick check of the facts show the largest recipients of cash from the HMOs are the two Deomocratic front runners in the campaign:

Health Services/HMOs:
Money to Congress 2008

#1. Clinton, Hillary (D) $246,480
#2. Obama, Barack (D) $175,093

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=H03&recipdetail=M&...

Once again, Paul Krugman weighs in fact checking everyone as the debate heats up and the big dollars behind the scenes begin to spin the issue. This time its O’bama attacking Hillary and John Edwards:

Excerpts:

Mandates and Mudslinging
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 30, 2007

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.

Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.

SNIP!

But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.

First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.

Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?

Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.

Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.”

Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.

Snip!

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is why the reichwing trolls come here and attack Edwards as a socialist and the Corporate media seeks to marginalize his campaign... because he leads on issues and is truly on the side of the American people... not the corporations or their shills!

JerryM @ 5:

Hmmmmm how real/honest do the American people believe this guys is though ? ........

He's the only honest one out there, with Kucicnich a close second.

I want Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Kucinich.

Hillary is a lightning rod for trouble, I like her health care reform ideas but she will
be more of the same old trouble. I want an election free of swiftboatable candidates.

Reality_Check @ 105:

Hey it's not like the dems ever refused to go on Fox news or anything...oh wait, nevermind.

They just decided to have Rational discussions elsewhere where their mic's don't get cut off
or are told to SHUT UP. Repug please......

Rasputin, you've got it exactly right, too.

It is so obvious that when Edwards' name is mentioned here, the "reichwing trolls" come out in droves, spinning and attacking.

To all of you who do this: You may think this is all just a game, but your country--and the country you leave your children--is quickly disintegrating under republicans and the "reichwing" (which is a fitting description of them). The United States as we know it is dying.

It's not a game.

diver99 @ 112:

chris @ 107:

The reason nobody likes Edwards is because he a Socialist and a phony, oh, now all the sudden he cares about the poor.

He's done nothing but work for issues for the poor since the last election.
What have you done? Yeah thats what I thought. I give money and food to feed the homeless in Denver, why don't you repugs try it once in a while.

We're going to hear the "Socialist" label thrown at Edwards and Hillary a lot in this election cycle by the Reichwingers because of the Universal Health Care plans which require everyone to have a plan.

As Edwards calls it "shared responsibility" to bring down the costs of health care to all.

So what is the truth? In all of the insurance plans available today given to employees of corporations... they get a reduced rate because the pool of subscribers is so large that costs are distributed across a big subscriber base.

Does that mean that all of the Insurance companies are "socialists"? Hardly... what it means is that it is just the basic economics of health care.

As to the "phony" charge that the riechwingers keep throwing... FDR was filthy stinking rich but he was the best friend the American people ever had and he was labeled "a traitor to his class" by the big time corporatist of the time. So Edwards is in good company.

Its good to do a bit of fact checking on the economic history of the United States too to put this into perspective. We have the largest disparity of wealth right now since the 1920s and the era of "unregulated Robber Baron capitalism", what historians call "The gilded Age."

Was this good for business? Was this good for the American people? A definitive NO on both counts!

The Golden Age of Capitalism were the Post WWII years from 1945 to 1973!

President John F. Kennedy passed the largest tax cut in history upon entering office in 1961. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period - labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) dreamed of creating a "Great Society", and began many new social programs to that end, such as Medicaid and Medicare. The government financed some of private industry's research and development throughout these decades, most notably ARPANET (which would become the Internet) in the late 1960s. In 1968 and 1969, productivity growth climbed near the levels it had reached earlier in the decade, but this would not last.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States

Again... Paul Krugman writes authoritatively on why it didn't last and where we are as a nation now!

The Long Gilded Age: Historians generally say that the Gilded Age gave way to the Progressive Era around 1900. In many important ways, though, the Gilded Age continued right through to the New Deal. As far as we can tell, income remained about as unequally distributed as it had been the late 19th century – or as it is today. Public policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly because the political dominance of the elite remained intact; the politics of the era, in which working Americans were divided by racial, religious, and cultural issues, have recognizable parallels with modern politics.

The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history.

Middle class America: That’s the country I grew up in. It was a society without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which political bipartisanship meant something: in spite of all the turmoil of Vietnam and the civil rights movement, in spite of the sinister machinations of Nixon and his henchmen, it was an era in which Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.

The great divergence: Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

Used to be candidates of different parties could question each other in a debate.

Now it's considered dirty pool.

And maybe the pool wouldn't be so dirty if the republicant's didn't fart in them to see how many bubbles they could create.

Rasputin @ 117:

diver99 @ 112:

chris @ 107:

The reason nobody likes Edwards is because he a Socialist and a phony, oh, now all the sudden he cares about the poor.

He's done nothing but work for issues for the poor since the last election.
What have you done? Yeah thats what I thought. I give money and food to feed the homeless in Denver, why don't you repugs try it once in a while.

We're going to hear the "Socialist" label thrown at Edwards and Hillary a lot in this election cycle by the Reichwingers because of the Universal Health Care plans which require everyone to have a plan.

As Edwards calls it "shared responsibility" to bring down the costs of health care to all.

So what is the truth? In all of the insurance plans available today given to employees of corporations... they get a reduced rate because the pool of subscribers is so large that costs are distributed across a big subscriber base.

Does that mean that all of the Insurance companies are "socialists"? Hardly... what it means is that it is just the basic economics of health care.

As to the "phony" charge that the riechwingers keep throwing... FDR was filthy stinking rich but he was the best friend the American people ever had and he was labeled "a traitor to his class" by the big time corporatist of the time. So Edwards is in good company.

In keeping with the spirit of shortness and to the pointness... I've edited and reposted this.

Lollimom @ 106:

At any rate, there is no knowing why Edwards isn’t doing better for sure. It is surely not as simple as single cause.

Not true. It's very clear what is going on with Edwards, and the propaganda coming from corporate media.

The two leading candidates have the most money and woo money from corporations. Hillary loves the health insurance companies, remember? She has powerful corporate backing. Obama has corporate backing and Oprah, too.

Corporate media adores corporate backed candidates who have lots of corporate funding. That funding will go right back into corporate media. It's just more of the same old financial incest that republicans practice.

Couple all of this with the polarization that CM is tasked to do, and you understand why Edwards and all the other Dem candidates disappear.

Look at the Dodd meter. It's self-explanatory.

Sorry but your analysis is just too simplistic. Sure, it's true, but it doesn't describe the whole story. The media are one factor, but there are many other factors which you are neglecting. I mean, even I can see gaping holes in it. For one, it neglects the very real fact that Edwards is less than a fresh face. Hang on to whatever simplistic explanation you like if it makes you feel better. But that doesn't make it so.

JFKsnutsack @ 110:

u mean this John Edwards?

A real tough guy. Uh huh.

Nice f*ckin' handle bro.

John Edwards was on Charlie Rose this week, and, unfortunately, I was so tired I kept dozing off. But, when I was awake and alert, what struck me was how Edwards just looked at Rose when Charlie asked one of his dumb questions, set him straight, and gave a good, firm answer. Somehow he managed to keep Charlie's motor mouth in neutral.

Just a look and a smile, then in for the facts and a clean, sharp answer.

I was very impressed.

And the guy says he will work to improve labor rights, which he sees as one of the foundations of middle class attainment in this country, and will work like hell for universal health care.

I believe him on that more than any other candidate--except Dennis K, who, alas, won't win.

Dodd has been brilliant recently in bringing to the fore Consitutional and civil liberties issues, now taking on bankruptcy reform, and I've been sending him some money. But, still, I really like John Edwards.

Of course, the MCM* has done all it can to belittle and destroy him as a viable candidate (hair, house, hedge funds) and to avoid discussing his issues and plans--that may be the factor which takes him out. Damn.

*Mainstream Corporate Media