This Week: Edwards on "Demanding Change"
By Nicole Belle Saturday Dec 15, 2007 1:45pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
On This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asks Democratic presidential contender John Edwards to respond to Hillary Clinton's latest talking point that though Edwards says he'll demand changed (and Obama will "hope" for change), that she is the only one who is committed to working for change.
What I'm saying is I'm going to be the president, like Teddy Roosevelt, and like others like him-Harry Truman, who understood that there is an important battle against those interests-well financed, well entrenched, that prevent the kind of change that the country needs, that's for the greater good. That's for the greater good of the people. That's the battle I'm talking about and that's the fight I'm going to take on and win. And those who think you can do it by making a deal with him or compromising and conciliation...what possible reason do they have to give their power away voluntarily? They will not do it until you effectively taken their power away from them.
Login or Register to post comments.
Edwards just summarized the main problem with our political process - the power of special lobbying interests (like corporations) to dictate and even write our laws.
How anyone (like Hillary) can think that they can get anything done within this system which bucks these monetary interests is beyond me.
If you are going to use hyphens because you can't figure out how to insert M-dashes, at least use two of them, like this: ...like him--Harry Truman....
Sheesh.
Now that man is talking about the most important issue of all and for that he gets my vote. "Those interests, self financed, well entrenched that prevent the kind of change..". Thats right Mr. President Edwards dealing with that first we might just start to get our democracy back. Go John.
What changes specifically Johh? Will you restore the Constitution? The balance of power? Will you prosecute those who are continuing to break the laws now even though they will no longer be in office, or will you pretend they were never there and just go on as if nothing has happened. Without stiff and meaningful prosecution of their crimes, they will be back again just as they have returned from the Nixon administration. Gerald Ford did this country the biggest disservice in history when he pardoned the criminal Richard Nixon. If George Bush and Dick Cheney and all of the neocon criminals who now occupy the white house are not prosecuted and punished for their actions then there is no justice and there is no rule of law and there is no United States.
Interesting. The posting program automatically turns two hyphens into an M-dash.
Nicole Belle: Now you know why the transcript looks like that way. How about focusing on content instead of typing?
This man is speaking the truth.
The rest are unwilling or afraid to do so.
I know who I want on my side when it comes to a knife fight with the Reich and their corporatist backers.
It's this man. He's won more fights in his life than Obama/Hillary have ever gotten into.
Edwards/Dodd 08!
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Every polititian wants change. Every polititian wants to stamp out waste and fraud. Waste and fraud remain, election cycle after election cycle.
The only constant is change. Do nothing and change will occur anyway.
Lord Balto @ 2:
You should get a job with the beltway pundits, finding hairstyles and fashion no-nos which rile you up enough to write about.
Using Teddy Roosevelt as a reference point may not have been the wisest move for Edwards to make, considering that Roosevelt, like Bush, ordered the U.S. military to invade and occupy another country, i.e. the Philippines, which resulted in the deaths of many innocent Filipinos.
It's curious when a Presidential candidate talks about brining change: What are they talking about? Need something specific.
Here's an example: The next President -- whoever that is -- will need to consider, if the weather is favorable, what is to be done to ensure this abuse of power under this President doesn't continue.
Ideally, that "plan to change or reform" would be connected with fact finding, and some sort of reasonable solution. The problem with Edwards' statements about "change" is: By not visibly, vigorously calling for impeachment investigations -- the basis to gather facts used to understand the problem -- there's little reason to believe Edwards will understand the solutions needed going forward.
If these GOP-DNC Presidential candidate are serious about leadership, then they need to show that they are leading based on facts. Otherwise, without facts, the voters are asked -- on faith alone -- to trust the same Congress, which has not acted, to work with a President that has not asked nor been challenged.
I would like to see Edwards get challenged: If you are about change, when are going to support a public effort to gather facts to know what needs to be changed? If these candidates are serous about leading, they need to be serious about leading the fact finding. Otherwise, Edwards is repeating the DNC playbook for 2006: Talk about change, but have no plan linked with facts to carry that concept into a solution.
Real change means understanding what is getting in the way of the DNC and GOP to really lead, and find facts. Vague plans and no fact finding isn't change: It's more of what the voters rebuked in 2006.
Lord Balto @ 5:
The interesting thing is that you did not figure this out before.
Some have said that the republicans fear an Edwards candidacy. They know how to handle Hillary and they will use their southern stategy against Obama. Is John Edwards the next FDR?
foolme1ns @ 4:
I don't suppose we could be so lucky as to be able to avoid prosecuting these criminals ourselves? Wouldn't it be nice if they were renditioned to the Hague for War Crimes? The world could deal with them . . . and Edwards could get on with the business of dismantling the corporate stranglehold on the populace and hopefully restoring our Constitution.
I really don't think Edwards is in a position to talk about compromising one's power, after voting for the war. Really, he had his chance in '04, and he's just wasting time now.
Tequila @ 14:
He made a mistake, but at the least he admits it. Some other candidates don't see themselves as having done anything wrong. And then there are those who see lobbyist buy-offs of politicians as perfectly legit.
foolme1ns @ 4:
Hear, hear! All that stuff sounds so good.
But wait - are there any SPECIFICS in there? Ooops.
File with: "more of the same." Sorry, John.
Edwards should come out with specifics. In fact, all candidates should, but they rarely do.
It would be nice if the candidates had to provide specifics, and could then be held accountable if they did not follow through as president.
Why is the corporate media so determined to knock Edwards down into the second tier and make it a Clinton vs Obama contest? If the worst thing they can throw at him is $400 haircuts, I'm voting for him.
Edwards may not be perfect but, he did do one thing that was not very Political,
he admitted he was WRONG. This is what we need more of in our Elected leaders,
maybe we would not be knee-deep in Iraq with no plan to get out of our endless
Occupation there.
Otay: He still admitted his mistake too late. I don't like Hillary for not admitting her mistake, but at least she's not only growing a spine now, because the public turned on Bush. I remember one user made a similar comment on Gore running again, and while I don't agree as much, since he actually *won*, and he didn't seem as much of a doormat as the '04 candidates, the point is still valid.
I really don’t think Edwards is in a position to talk about compromising one’s power, after voting for the war. Really, he had his chance in ‘04, and he’s just wasting time now.
Don't agree with you at all! Edwards voted for it BASED ON FAULTY INTEL, just like everyone else did! BUT, unlike everyone else, he admitted he was wrong, apologized and is moving on by telling Americans that he is indeed the best Dem candidate out there!
JOHN EDWARDS/WES CLARK IN 2008!!!
Edwards is continuing to solidify his standing as the best choice for me. Nothing gets fixed until we can start getting the money out of the system, and he's the only one making an issue of it.
How can anyone running for President argue, "They're about change" when we see no leadership to investigate the President, and gather facts to support "that change"?
Kucinich is one person. Real change means linking Presidential plans with facts.
Who is arguing Edwards is "about change" when the DNC leadership in the House and Senate are not supporting fact finding in re impeachment; and are not behind a plan to find the facts the "next President" will have to wrestle with?
Or is everyone apparently pretending this "next President" does not have to deal with these facts which have permitted, not stopped, and given a green light to this President's abuse?
It's all well and good to talk about Edwards ideas about "change" in the speculative. However, where is there any credibility of any Presidential candidate to talk about "change" when there's no understanding of where we're starting from; or what problems need to be changed? There is none.
The Presidential candidates need to be confronted: If they are changing, what are they changing from; and how can anyone expect them to "lead the change" but they are not behind the effort to "find the facts about what is wrong"?
If there is no answer, we can only conclude: The "next" President plans to make the same mistakes as this President: Lead without facts, make assertions and promises, but not link his actions and plans with reality. Apparently, the lessons of the missing Iraq WMD (and lack of fact finding or accountability) wasn't enough to awaken the voters or candidates to the problem: Real solutions require facts, not accusations and vague plans.
I would like to see the candidates challenged: If they are about change, why aren't they about finding out what the problems are -- through an impeachment investigation -- so they'll be ready to lead the needed changes to solve those problems? If they're not challenged now, they -- as President, and without answers nor any time spent on fact finding -- will not have any reason to respond, much less lead based on facts.
If we want Edwards to lead, then he needs to lead the fact finding -- now, before the 2008 election -- and mobilize the DNC leadership to support the needed fact finding. otherwise, he will be like all the other candidates: Talking about how things will improve, but not credible plan nor a set of facts to support his assertions of what needs to change and why. If he cannot demonstrate this as a candidate, there is no reason to believe he'll do this as President. Now is easy. Later will get more difficult. Just like running a private company: The problems with running a private company do not get solved by going public with an IPO: The problem only get worse, more complicated, and there is less time.
Fact finding is needed now. The next President needs these facts so he can lead the needed reforms. This abuse of power does not have to happen again. It will happen again if the facts are not understood, and the next President is not confronted to work with Congress to ensure these problems are not exploited again.
What's most disgusting is this "free pass" the public is giving to the candidates: Its as if the Cnadidates are not really talkinga bout "this America" or "this US government". Time to hold them accountable, now: The Congress -- where many of them work -- refuses to conduct fact finding in re impeachment. Where is their leadership to work with Congress and lead? There is none. They're making excuses.
Time to confront the candidates: What American government are they talking about; and why don't they -- as leadership in society, now -- provide that leadership to find the facts to understand what is behind this President's abuse of power? Silence and "no investigation" means something simple; They're interested in talking about "leadership" in the abstract; but are not specific with what they plan to do, what they hope to change, or wheter they hope to take us.
Vaugeness is not leadership, but mroe of what the voters rebuked in 2006. Enough!
Joe: Yes, but the faulty intelligence was proven to be faulty from the beginning. Everyone knew it, even the people who voted for Bush; but the Dems chose to ignore it, anyway, instead of holding Bush accountable, even if only in debate form.
I throw out this challenge to the Hillary and Barack supporters.
Get on the phone and demand that they support Chris Dodd's Filibuster of the despicable FISA legislation. The bill provides retroactive immunity to phones companies that illegally spied on us for years (and before 9/11) without a warrant. It also allows warrants to be issued in "baskets", meaning you could get caught up in that basket even though you're not the intended target.
The vote starts TOMORROW. The time has passed for making statements against the legislation. And a simple NO vote won't do. The bill must be stopped.
Hillary and Barack supporters I challenge you to demand REAL LEADERSHIP from your candidates. DEMAND they support Chris Dodd in his filibuster. Nothing less is acceptable.
I don't support either of these candidates presently. And neither do millions of us here on the left. Convince us that they are true leaders. Call your candidate and demand they join the filibuster.
The candidate who shows real leadership may just win the support of millions of us who see no reason to vote for either. It could be the differencemaker in who wins the nomination.
The 4th amendment may die tomorrow. I won't vote for any candidate who doesn't filibuster the FISA bill. I know many of us feel the same way.
There are faults in every candidate, and I am not saying that one should vote Edwards or Dodd because of this (one should look at the whole package), but what I like about Edwards and Dodd are that they are standing up against the special-corporate-interest system that people like Harry Reid pay homage to (such as forwarding the retroactive immunity version of the FISA bill instead of the judiciary committee bill, to appease the Telco special interests).
I love seeing pols buck the corruption.
Teddy or Franklin?
I still don't know why anybody would want to inherit the white house after Chimpy but like I always say; "I'm voting for the black guy". (Humbled and or inspired by 400 dollar haircut on an anti-poverty platform I am not)
Edwards gets it.
Go Edwards.
I'll vote for the democrat that can beat Hillary and I hope it's you.
*
I'm impressed. And he makes an excellent point about Hillary. She was unable to get her health bill through the obstacle course when she was First Lady. That's her working for change "within the system." Edwards is right. We need to strip these bastards of their power. They will never compromise willingly.
I know this sounds dull, but what about just CHANGING instead of all the little political hedges? "Demanding" is vastly superior to both "hoping for" and "working for"... we have been hoping for and working for change since I was a kid. Demanding it, AND BACKING IT UP, cuts it. I just don't know if I trust Edwards to get it done or even to demand the right things....
Bottom line: I'm sick of their mouths. Nothing -- but perfidious shit -- is getting DONE.
don't hate me @ 26:
So there's not a single Hillary or Barack supporter here who believes their candidate is willing to show true leadership? Why would you vote for a candidate who wouldn't filibuster a bill to save the 4th amendment? I'm sure we've all had friends and family who've gone off to war and DIED to fight for the Bill of Rights. Yet none of you Hillary or Barack supporters have even the lowly expectation that either will find the energy, courage or leadership to filibuster a f*kin bill? And you're going to vote for them to be President? Boy have you got low standards. Cowards both of them. And shame on you for not calling them and demanding they earn your vote!
Erroll @ 9:
Wrong, William McKinley did. It resulted in a guerilla campaign and mass torture. Sound familiar?
As a Green Party member from California as well as a Kucinich supporter, I will await the vote from the early primaries before giving in to the well-heeled closed primary system of government that we are so lucky to enjoy, and decide on Democrat or Green candidate. I've voted for Nader whenever given the opportunity, but will seriously consider Edwards. In a slightly parallel universe, both Hillary and her husband would have been two of the best Republicans presidents since Eisenhower (consider the competition). Can Edwards's rhetoric be trusted? Who knows? Other than Kucinich and Gravel, the options are typically sad.
Now is not the time for outright idealism. We (progressives) need to be realistic. Just like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich is very appealing, but we know he is not electable; it is a wasted vote. Clinton carries with her a hatred within the right wing base that borders on clinical and Obama is a black man with the middle name Osama; they will both bring out the right wing vote.
People on this site are typically much more informed that the vast majority of the people who will ultimately decide who is the next President. Keep in mind that one of the most progressive states in the nation elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor.
John Edwards will make a good nominee and is electable.
I would have voted to authorize the use of force
Even a Rethug president would have needed that authorization to force the inspectors back in. It was presented as a bargaining chip - not a declaration of war. It worked - then the madman in the White House attacked anyway.
I was wrong - or rather Bush was. I have admitted it as Edwards has. Hillary never has and the "antiwar" Obama voted to authorize funding.
This war was Bush's sole responsibility until the Democrats cravenly voted to authorize funding!
Edwards also admitted another mistake. He "played along" as a freshman Senator with the Democratic power structure. He has admitted that also - and has stopped. To his great disadvantage, he has refused corporate donations and accepted the limits imposed by public financing. He learned from his mistakes and is risking everything with a specific populist agenda. He has returned to his working class roots and is practicing what he preaches.
His healthcare plan forced it onto the agenda and Hillary and Obama were forced to come up with plans of their own.
This is the guy who got rich taking on the corporations in the public interest. This is the candidate who won't play ball with the corporations - even to get elected. He needs our support.
Edwards is my favorite "top tier" candidate. He's great on trade and health care
.
Just what kind of man makes promises for tomorrow?
This is where Edwards falters. His track record belies his promises he makes about delivering us his version of "tomorrow". If he truly recognizes the needed change for today, why is he not pushing for that change from those he's running against. Clinton, Dodd, Obama, Biden, Kucinich, are all currently serving us TODAY! Why Edwards doesn't run with the concept of making those he's up against defend their non-action. With the exception of Kucinich, none of them could defend themselves. Edwards would figuratively be handing them the bayonet for them to fall on. But he doesn't, WHY? Might it be that by doing so it provides an opportunity for Kucinich to shine?
I'd rather vote for a person who's been right all the time than a person who's been right to suit the moment.
.
PumpGuy @ 37:
Um, try again? You can't even get your phobia straight!
PumpGuy @ 37:
Have you no shame?
Electable? How is he anymore electable than Gore of Kerry if the voting machines are still messed up, or if people are still disenfranchised?
Unless you are willing to protect votes/and prevent voting fraud. See about OH lately? my only negative on Edwards is that the people in Columbus asked/begged Kerry/Edwards (insert a few other dems) to come to the city in 2004, but they did not. Now one of them has the audacity to say 2004 Ohio was a stolen election! http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=258524
How dare she, but most of all How DARE all of you. Do not talk about electablity unless you plan to make sure everyone who can legally vote is allowed to and that their votes talk.
Lord Balto @ 5:
Lord Balto. colons and semi-colons are the classiest way to go, but few know how anymore. Hyphens and dashes are a "cop out". I'm learning slowly.
Otay @ 8:
But who would care about such dreck? Wait a minute... Nevermind.
I always like Edwards when I hear him. He seems direct and comfortable, and answers the questions.
bilhelm-X @ 41:
That vote is always foaming at the mouth, no matter what. You could have a resurrected Ronald Reagan on a Democratic ticket, and they'd still be rabid cause he's a Dem.
did you see him on face the nation? He was awesome. Straight up said corporate greed and power have destroyed our nation and will refuse to negotiate with them.
Edwin @ 46:
PS And, PumpGuy try to see past your bigotry. (I forgot to say.)
Edwards should have been elected in 2004, and not just as VP. He's smart, experienced, rational, and just a really good person.
Elect him while you have the chance, he's the real deal.
.
A MUST WATCH:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy9-xNwu4jY
If you want to skip all the investigative journalism, finger pointing and obfuscating revealed, and wish to see the punch line, watch the last 30 seconds.
.
The msm continues with the Hillary vs. Obama scenerio which they have created to distract the knuckleheads. Neither is electable. Hillary can not be elected after 15 years of demonization by the Repugs. Even many Dems, including those wishing to break the Bush/Clinton death-grip won't vote for her. And although I believe that an African-American could NOW be elected, Obama is not that man. He is too green and needs to serve as V.P. on an '08 ticket. Colin Powell could have been elected this cycle had come out as a Dem after his retirement from the military, and as we all know, he self-destructed at the UN. As recent polls show, only one man beats the entire Repug field head-to-head. He is a concensus candidate for BOTH political parties and a southerner to boot. Guess who!? hint: not the Huckster.
myiq2xu @ 18:
Answer: Despite what Edwin at 46 says (about Repugs hating any Dem), there are many in the US - left or right - who would not vote for either a black or female President. Repug or Dem. So the best thing the media has done for the Repugs is to turn the Dem leadership into a Clinton-Obama vote.
The Republicans will win in 08. Your country has to get worse before it gets better. I am sorry for the outrage many of you will feel in the coming years.
Avenger @ 52:
I fear you to be correct. I had the same realization the other day. This needed "CHANGE FOR AMERICA" is being passed off for any Dem. as a breakthrough for women's rights or black/minorities rights, but is THAT the the real needed change for America? If it's O.K. for ANY president to warrantlessly gather information on Americans, or withhold your Habeas Corpus Rights, or TORTURE you, or rendition you to far away places, etc. then who can guarantee that a black man or a woman WILL be any different?
Pelosi has sold America out.
Conyers's legacy is one where he fought for the civil Rights of minorities and failed to fight for the Rigts of Americans.
And the MSM goes along with the charade because... IT MAKES $$$$$$$$$$$
.
Avenger @ 52:
1. You obviously do not have any idea who the MSM/corporations want to win (hint follow the money)
2. Why are you so sure there will even be an election (see Larry Flynt's blog)
3. The whole things must get worse before they get better is antidotal? Who says things are not worse now (the recession/depression).
4. I agree most with the poster who said that change happens either way, that is true we are headed for change in a big way.
General_Rennenkampf @ 35:
You are right. McKinley was the president who gave the order for the U.S. to invade the Philippines. But it was Roosevelt who congratulated the American general in 1906 who had ordered the massacre of hundreds of men, women, children on a Philippine island. But it was Theodore Roosevelt, as Chalmers Johnson points out in The Sorrows of Empire-Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, who, in 1903, "... fomented a revolution in the isthmus of panama in order to separate it from Colombia and acquire the territory needed for the Panama Canal, a strategic centerpiece of imperial planning." It was Theodore Roosevelt who used the Roosevelt Corollary as a way to supplement the Monroe Doctrine which, as Chalmers Johnson notes, brought about "intervention throughout the Americas to suppress political movements that might interfere with the payment of Latin American debts." Roosevelt believed that this gave the U.S. the right to become "an international police power" in order to halt what he perceived to be "chronic wrongdoing" from those who reside south of the United States. As a result of Roosevelt's policy, the United States, up to 1934, sent armed forces into Cuba four times, Honduras seven times, the Dominican Republic four times, Haiti twice, Mexico three times, etc.
It was Roosevelt and his former secretary of war, Elihu Root, who kept urging Woodrow Wilson to send American troops to fight Europe's battles during World War I. It was Roosevelt and also Root who, as Chalmers Johnson observed, "... represented a European-derived, militaristic vision of imperialism backed by nothing more substantial than the notion that the manifest destiny of the United States was to govern racially inferior Latin Americans and East Asians."
The point of all this is to demonstrate that Theodore Roosevelt was one of this country's most militaristic politicians whose legacy has been carried on by such imperialistic and divinely inspired leaders such as Woodrow Wilson down to George W. Bush and whom John Edwards wishes to invoke in order to achieve his own political ends.
I hope he's sincere. If he is, he has my vote.
It's all semantics. Neither one of them will do anything to change power politics in this country.
John Edwards should have demanded change when the fraudulent 2004 election results were "in". He should have demanded more back when we started the war. Nobody's perfect, but I'm voting for Kucinich. I don't need to settle for a "2nd tier" candidate that was right the 4th time, I'll vote for one that was right the first time.
Tequila @ 14:
I can accept people who admit they made a mistake, and I think Edwards was hampered by Kerry when he ran for the vice presidency. I can forgive one mistake, but after that you've lost me as Hillary Clinton has by repeating the same mistake. And I don't believe she ever really apologized for the first time.
that @ 58:
IIRC, Edwards WANTED to fight it, but Kerry did not. I do not believe that Kerry and Edwards have much of a friendship now, stemming from Edwards' issue with Kerry's weak response.
nasch:
If he had any real conviction, he'd be the Presidential candidate back then, and not Kerry.
As for Hillary, I loathe her backpedaling, too. But she's gotten this far by at least being smart enough to pick her fights, while Edwards didn't even put up any fight until now. People may not buy Hillary's corporate double-speak, but they're more likely to pick her over John, because she doesn't beg for votes.
Otay @ 17:
I believe all the top tier candidates have quite a bit of specifics. How much more do you need? Besides, a U.S. President doesn't rule by decree. A President can propose laws or programs - but they have to pass through the meat grinder of congress. It's anyone's guess what the make up of congress will be in 2008.
What really matters is the tone set by the Presidential candidate. There's nothing wrong with the tone that Edward's is setting now, but the question is does Edwards truly believe it, because it may be hard to govern that way unless you really have the gumption to follow through with it. My own sense is that Edwards is still a trial lawyer at heart. He's really good at playing to his jury (audience). His audience now is different than 1998, 2002 or 2004 and he's pitch perfect again. The 2008 case comes to a finish soon, and then its on to the next trial, or the next set of beliefs. On the other hand, the tone set by either Hillary or Obama better follows a lifetime pattern. With Hillary, you know the tone will be 100% insider and business as usual. In Obama's case, we know the tone will be less combative and more compromising, to the ire of all those on the left.
Nicole Belle @ 60:
I believe this is where the report came from - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?pagewanted=...
Hilarious the whole help/hope spat in 2004 between Edwards and Kerry, and relevant now since Edwards is belittling Obama for "hope". Seems that Edwards fought very hard to project "hope" back in 2004. But then again, that was a different Edwards.
Edwards was just as, if not more, specific as any of the candidates on the Sunday news shows this morning. These shows aren't designed to give the candidate the time to go into details. I thought his interview on Face The Nation was much better even though the same questions were asked because it was a little longer and allowed him to expand on his ideas a bit more.
unfrozencaveman @ 62:
Specifics on how they would root out corruption, and how their strategy would work and not be derailed by the special interests.
Otay @ 65:
That would be nice, but we're not there yet as a democracy. Ultimately corruption will persist as long as the majority of people select their elected officials based on 30 second TV ads and as long as elected officials are rewarded for pork rather than punished for it. You can come up with the most elegant and detailed plan to root out corruption, but it's a game of wack-a-mo if the voters are still at the same level. One man or woman will not change this. It will take a very long time and only if the general public really starts to pay attention over a sustained period of time.
Max-1 @ 40:
God, I hope you get a truss for that strained "logic". You really think anyone is still taking Mr. K seriously as a candidate? Ugh.
unfrozencaveman @ 62:
Well, well. It didn't take long. "...still a trial lawyer at heart..." Straight out of the Roger Ailes/Karl Rove playbook. Waiting for the $600 haircut rant. Jeez.
unfrozencaveman @ 66:
Well, then, let the presidential candidate plan to do nothing but whine about the situation. Kind of like the Pussy-crats in Congress have been doing...
...or, he can promise to use his bully pulpit:
"In presidential speeches I will tell you which congressmen (by name) have derailed legislation that the majority wants, in the interests of favoring the corporate few."
And/Or:
"I will veto legislation which grants special privileges to corporate interests"
And/Or:
"As president I will make a case to the American people how corporations are derailing the interests of the citizenry"
These are just starters. I'm sure pols can think of much better ideas than these.
Demanding health care, free housing, higher taxes, more regulation
in short DEMANDING MORE SOCIALISM
Workers of the world unite!!
John @ 70:
I use to wonder if the average wingnut was disconnected from the real world. I don't wonder anymore.
I think John Edwards would(/will?) make an excellent President.
Stanley Rosenthal @ 72:
I agree.
Go get em Edwards!!
Let's get the corporate fascists out of health care. Clinton and Obama are corporate lackies and will do nothing.
But how is Edwards going to achieve this goal? The problem with individuals like him, Obama, Kucinich, et al., is that they're making gigantic promises that they more than likely will not be able to keep. They are operating on certain assumptions that say that Hillary could simply run roughshod over those in government/the White House who oppose her, but she simply chooses not to.
Erroll @ 9:
I was thinking Truman might not have been a good reference point either.
BUT the POINT is that Edwards admits and SEES that corporate America is running this country. Hillary is playing with THEM and Edwards says he won't. This was like a breath of fresh air for me to hear. There are a few things about Edwards that make me uncomfortable but he's moved up on my list for sure!
Of course we know they can't keep all their promises, but we can listen to their vision for America and what they HOPE to accomplish. That matters a lot. (We can also hope they aren't crooks & liars!)
Otay @ 1:
You are so right!
We are going to have to take a sledge-hammer to the entrenched corporate-fascist system that has been running and ruining our way of life.
And after we are finished with the repukes, we are going to have to purge the democratic leadership, and replace the DLC (republican-lite) that are within our own party. Thanks for nothin' Harry and Nancy!
It is really going to be an uphill fight, because these rich fascist bastards are going to have all the weaponry ($$$$$$$) at their disposal. Good grief this is depressing!
its all the big bag corporations fault, not the fault of the idiot parents who had kids they could not afford or the dumb adults who did not take care of themselves. Sorry nitwits, can't blame the CEO because your weak ass does not have any skills
foolme1ns @ 4:
There is a great documentary on the 2004 election (I came in on the middle so I don't know the title unfortunately).The point it made was
that Bush did as well as he did on a simple premise "I am strong, he is weak" "You know where I stand, he is a flip-flopper". Total BS but it worked because in general the public wants to know who you are and what you stand for not the details of what you will do. The details can change with circumstances. You have to have details when asked but it is not the basis of a successful campaign. Perceived character and a sense of connection to the voters is what people decide on.
foolme1ns @ 12:
Reading Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal, I believe Edwards is the only person who can make the needed changes to reinstitute economic equality in the country.
John @ 78:
Yes, that is correct. The primary economic decisions that effect all our lives are made increasingly by corporate interests through the government. Of course people should take personal responsibility for their lives but laws made by and for corporate interests make it much harder for the average guy who has to pick up an increasing percentage of the tax burden while getting increasingly less of value in return. At the same time a vastly greater portion of the nation's wealth is diverted directly to those very same corporate owners who got the laws passed. (That was the point after all.) It has always been so but it has become much worse recently.
Shawnmeat @ 75:
"Individuals like him" ?? Oh. You mean like candidates. Hey, Edwards is openly challenging the corporate power structure. While Hillary takes their cash by the truckload and Obama has positioned himself as the great compromiser, Edwards is taking a tough stand. That alone is huge. Look, all politicians make promises. Few are able to keep but a few of those. I like the ones Edwards is making. If he delivers on 10% and fights the good fight on the losing 90%...That's enough for me.
Two possibilities:
1- his words have no connection to his beliefs, intentions, plans, schedule, thought processes, instructions from Thoth Amon...
2- he intends to betray all his corporate donors and restructure the entire financial system of the USA, but will be assasinated (martyred?) before he can carry out his life's grand passion.
Sorry for the cynicism.
Edwards makes very great cases. He will obviously have a tremendous selection effect on Supreme Court nominees.
He is right on the stance if President up against lobbyists grips on many legislators vs the rest of us now peon class. We need a Roosevelt/Truman type and he is fully aware of it.
He is ambitious and that is a good thing.
Can he really help in voters electing Dems to the House and Senate. Possibly?
Edwards has been one of those that the main media doesn't give much ado to unless it is a hair cut.
That should tell many people that he can stand the Republican/FOX scrutiny over his republican challenger.
Remember, he is vetted from his VP run with Kerry. John also wanted to fight and Kerry didn't.
I sense John Edwards is definately a man that can make such a difference.
Hey, thats me. All the Dems are acceptable candidates to me right now. Just Edwards more than the others.
Robt @ 84:
He's the best candidate the Democratic Party has, hands down.
He's been the leading environmental candidate (according to GristMill, same org that had the Presidential Forum on Climate Change, all candidates were invited from both parties....3 showed up, Edwards, Kucinich, & Clinton)
He's the only Democratic candidate that blows all of the GOP challengers out of the water in the POTUS race...
I truly believe he'll pick either Obama or Richardson or even Kucinich as a running mate
He'll be getting our family's vote in the primary
i'm really tired of obama and chelsy mama being rammed down our throats by the media,which makes me vote edwards in 08
Sorry Edwards but Truman was another mass killer. I should know.This president is another serial killer. God help us if another Wilson, Trumann or Bush get elected again. And Edwards likes the guy that got America into WWII by conning/ allowing Japan to kill 5000 navy men- Lack Luster Pearl Harbour
Why demand change when your dollar is worth so little?
I'm sure Sen. David Vitters demand changes too.
Anyone who has ever been in a courtroom knows how much corporations hate plaintiff's attorneys and how they throw a multitude of attorneys against them. John Edwards knows how to fight and I believe that he will fight for us. We are going to have to trust in someone to lead us from this hell that Bush has and is still creating. Hope, Obama style, is an empty drum with an echo and no substance. Hillary wants it too bad and probably for all of the wrong, mostly egocentric reasons. Go Edwards.
RE: PumpGuy @ 37: (and subsequent comments)
Every time somebody brings up the question of America voting for a black guy people either say nothing or pile on with calls of racism. Any of those posts may or may not be put forth by somebody who is prejudiced in some way, but that doesn't detract from the reality of that issue.
Hillary? Not only will she bring out the Republican vote she most certainly will keep alot of the Dems away from the polls. If you go back and look at the threads you'll see C&L-ers saying WAY more horrible things about Hillary than some of the Republican candidates.
I think Kucinich is great, but i've been around the block and i understand that there are a ton of people out there who just do not "get" him and never will. We can bitch all we want about the MSM not giving his ideas/ideals coverage (instead choosing to cover 'stories' about their haircuts; their knowledge of the current price of milk; what kind of cars they all drive) but you'd really have to be uninformed to *not know* that the swing voters are _extremely_ uncomfortable with various aspects of a Kucinich presidency (Ron Paul has much the same problem).
I don't agree with everything Edwards has done or says now. I've been involved in the process long enough to completely understand that much of what he is saying right now isn't meant for me anyway; he's speaking to others re: primaries.
But imo Edwards has a WAY better chance than Clinton or Obama of beating any of the 3 GOP front-runners .
Why? Because Barack Obama is black and because Hillary Clinton is... Hillary Clinton.
Johnny2Bad @ 82:
No. He. Isn't.
Don't get me wrong - I really, truly respect Edwards as a candidate. But I do believe that he has fallen into that trap of making huge promises to voters about what he will be able to do. He might as well claim that he has a magic wand. If Edwards were to claim that he is going to lower taxes (the oldest trick in the book), will you say 'Finally!' without questioning his actual gameplan?
You are repeating a common talking-point about Hillary though I won't deny that she does admit to working within the system than without. Individuals like Edwards and Obama are playing the populist card, but you better believe that they're no more 'real' than Clinton is. If Edwards assumes that he won't be met every step of the way by those who long to smear and destroy his career and thus accomplishes only 10% of what he's promised, will you still think he was the better choice than, say, Hillary, who is incredibly familiar with Republican smear campaigns (she's been surviving them for about fifteen years and has yet to fold) and tactics? If Hillary is able to accomplish much more because of her experience in the White House, will you still think that someone who can only achieve ten percent of what he promises was the right choice on principle?
Neo-liberals and neo-conservatives paint Clinton as the Devil because she's too conservative/socialist, respectively. She is, in fact, a moderate though she leans heavily left (if you look at her voting record, which I think is incredibly important - and I think it consists of a lot more than her supposed authorization of Bush's invasion, which isn't so clear-cut in and of itself if you look at the actual bill), and I think that's more of what your country needs right now. Another divisive, polarizing idealist would only further the terrible rift.
Being a lawyer, Edwards is a member of the criminal class. He "stole" over a billion dollars from the Health Care system.
I am sick and tired of campaign promises. I want a politician who has the maturity, the brains, the ability to look at the factors involved in any situation, and make the proper decision. Don’t tell me you will never bomb Toronto, because if Canada ever invades the US, I want you to bomb Toronto!
What if you tell me, “I am going to do a high-dive into that swimming pool,” but when you get to the pool you find it has no water, so you don’t dive. Now, do I call you a liar for saying you would dive, but didn’t, or do I think you are very smart for looking at the situation, and making a proper decision for the circumstances that existed at that exact time?
Same thing for campaign promises. Just convince me that you are an intelligent person who will make the right decisions at the proper time, and don’t try to persuade me that you know what you will do in a situation that may or may not exist a year from now. Convince me you are quick-witted enough to make a proper decision most of the time, whatever happens.
HTom @ 91:
As an Ottawa native, allow me to add: Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
You may or may not be a Clinton supporter in the same way I am, but one thing that bothers me as it relates to this topic is how apoplectic individuals get when she doesn't promise to (a) bomb Iran or (b) never bomb Iran. In that case, sitting on the fence is actually a good thing because it shows honesty (whereas other politicians will simply have to go back on their word should new circumstances arise), as well as a respect for what is obviously a nuanced situation.
I'd love to have Kucinich. I'd be happy with Dodd. I would settle for Edwards.
Hillary and Obama are watered down Republicans. They think the answer to the US health care problem is to give more tax money to the insurance companies so some group of kids will have coverage in case they get sick. What the kids, and we all, need is health care if they are sick, not new ways to make the insurance companies richer. Dennis Kucinich gets it. Edwards isn't quite there, but he is miles ahead of Hillary and Obama.
Dennis Kucinich is the true candidate of the people, and I agree with his stance on practically every issue, so in good conscious I have to vote for the candidate that best fits my beliefs. But John Edwards is a very good choice and would make a great president.
If it's a 3 horse race between Hillary, Obama and Edwards, Edwards is the clear choice.
Shawnmeat @ 90:
What "divisive polarizing idealist" is that? Bush??? Look. Fact: She has taken more defense contyactor $$ than A-N-Y B-O-D-Y. Dem or Republican. WTF are we supposed to think about that?
HTom @ 91:
You've convinced me your rowing with one oar in your swimming pool. Nutbag alert. "Criminal Class"?? I'm calling troll.
Johnny2Bad @ 95:
George W. Bush has been a polarizing force in the United States, with disastrous results. This is precisely why America needs someone who will work towards meeting the needs of both liberal and conservative citizens. Hillary Clinton leans left of center but she is still something of a moderate above all else, a fact that makes her a breath of fresh air when one considers the last eight years of sheer radicalism.
Insofar as her defense contracts are concerned, it's not nearly as much of an issue as some would like to think. I am not thrilled that she took as much money as she did but working with defense contractors is something that both parties ritually engage in as a part of the process. If you think that it means she is going to be a gung-ho, warmongering President then I can only tell you that the political process is far more nuanced and complex than that. Her dealings with the defense industry will not have catastrophic impact upon the average American or America at large, and to suggest otherwise is outright hyperbole. There's no need to be surprised when a politician acts like a politician, and I hope you won't be surprised when you come to appreciate that Obama and Edwards are both playing the same game (albeit, they are playing different characters).
Perfect.
Absolutely pitch-perfect response to my ears. That is exactly why Edwards should be president. He's not dumbing down or over-simplifying his message, he is just telling the truth.
Appeasement does not work (right Senator Reid?).
Compromise does not work (right Speaker Pelosi?). Get a goddamn clue, both of you.
It hasn't worked, it isn't working, what the hell is wrong with these people -- including Hillary and Obama -- that won't admit that?! I know neither of them are that stupid to still not notice this, so it is just insulting to all of us now for them to keep pretending.
For those complaining about detail, you can go here http://johnedwards.com/issues/ or more specifically for government reform (as asked above) here http://johnedwards.com/issues/govt-reform/ He has all the specifics you could want, the most of any candidate Dem or Rep. And yes, he speaks often of restoring Habeous Corpus. He seems to thing it is very obviously a necessary freedom. Go figure.
Edwards also came out with his detailed positions most often (though not always) in advance of the others too. Seems the real deal, with a great behind the scenes staff to me. Dare we hope Kucinich people, and Obama "progressives" see the light in time?
Login or Register to post comments.