Edwards in Anamosa

This is Nate Willems.  I was a regional director for Howard Dean's Iowa campaign and recently finished law school at the University of Iowa.

I saw John Edwards speak to about 150 people in my hometown of Anamosa this afternoon at the park outside the Lawrence Community Center.  Senator Edwards spoke briefly about his new policy initiative on creating "Green Collar" jobs in America before moving to about 45 minutes of questions and answers.  

It is always risky to have an outdoor event during the summer in Iowa.  Though the weather has been reasonable recently, when you ask seniors to sit out in the sun for an hour and a half, you definitely need to make sure you have plenty of bottled water ready to give away (which the campaign did).  On the other hand, part of our job is to make the candidates sweat, which the folks in Jones County did today with both their questions and the sun.

Edwards was confronted with a questioner pressing him to pledge to include Hamas in Middle East peace talks.  Senator Edwards replied that he is willing to do so, but only after the Hamas leadership renounces violence and recognizes the right of Israel to exist.  Another questioner asked Edwards to commit to reducing the amount of money the United States spends on foreign aid.  Edwards replied that military spending aside, the United States actually spends very little on fighting AIDS in Africa or promoting Education and the Environment abroad.  He tried to use the question as a teaching moment to explain that we ought to differentiate between all of the money the United States has spent in Iraq and the relatively small amount we spend on foreign aid.

I thought the best moment came when Edwards was asked generally about how he would like to change America's foreign policy.  He referenced a previous questioner, the woman who asked about Hamas, and said (paraphrasing), "I understand and appreciate her position, and respect our difference of opinion.  America should have a foreign policy where we can have a similar respectful exchange of opinions with countries with which we disagree." Comparing the question and answer session with the shortcomings of America's foreign policy received as much applause as any other statement Edwards made.

This was an interesting mix in this crowd of Democrats, Independents, and a few Republicans.  Former Republican State Senator, and current County Supervisor, Andy McKean was in attendance with his wife.  My parents' next door neighbors, definite Republicans, were there too.  I highly doubt that the Republicans in attendance will go to a Democratic caucus, but there has to be some significance to their being willing to take time out of a beautiful Saturday afternoon to see John Edwards.  Whether it is due to the unpopularity of George W. Bush or to the individual candidacy of Edwards, I take it as a real positive sign that people who are known within the community as Republicans are willing to show up in public to hear what Senator Edwards has to say.

In talking to the Democrats in attendance, I think there are a lot of 2's (people leaning towards Edwards) with very few 1's (committed supporters).  There are also a lot of people who are seriously looking at Edwards and Richardson or Edwards and Obama.  There are, of course, six months until the caucuses and Iowans do not typically like to commit early.  Jones County is a place that John Edwards needs to win, and judging on the reaction from the crowd today, I think his campaign is where it needs to be right now in making that happen.

Tags: Caucuses, Edwards, Iowa (all tags)



thanks for the write-up

I am also finding a lot more Edwards leaners than committed Edwards supporters. But that's to be expected this early in the process. I didn't decide during the last cycle until the end of the summer 2003, and most of my friends decided later than that.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-14 01:46PM | 0 recs
interesting that Andy McKean was there

Maybe he makes a point of coming to all the political events in the county--would be a good way to meet politically active citizens.

Even though I disagreed with many of his positions, as state senator he had a great record on land-use issues. He listens to both sides and didn't vote in a knee-jerk way.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-14 02:03PM | 0 recs
2-state solution, I/P conflict, peace initiatives

and SR 224.

In  the context of the interesting pledge JRE was asked to make, here is one thing that I'd like to see some serious leadership towards: addressing the continuing and in many ways worsening conflict between Israel and Palestine.

I'd like to see detailed policy and opinion statements from all of the presidential candidates on how they intend to (assuming they do; if not, why not?), pursue peace initiatives to bring about sustainable peace to the region. Let's face it, the I/P conflict is the central cog in matters of war and peace around the world. Leadership on this should be on the forefront of the 2008 platform (let's say, one of the top 5 issues). In short, "Show us the Peace Plan."

Related to this, there is a senate bill, SR 224
(Cosponsors list) by Sens. Feinstein and Lugar. Please see the following links:

It would be great to see the following re. SR 224:

  • presidential candidates taking positions on S 224. We should expect Democratic candidates to come out in support of this; with clear reasons if they choose to oppose it, or not take a stand.
  • get as many senators to sign-on as co-sponsors
  • SR 224 getting passed, as a first step towards the US brokering a renewed peace process


ps: among the front runners, Obama has taken a first step towards talking about the I/P issue.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-07-14 02:08PM | 0 recs
That TPMCafe link re. Obama's

statement doesn't seem to work for some reason. Here is a google cached version: Obama's Latest on Israel and Palestine,  M.J. Rosenberg, TPM Cafe, Jun 26, 2007.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-07-14 02:13PM | 0 recs
Jones County results from 2004

http://desmoinesregister.com/extras/poli tics/caucus2004/countyresults.html

Attendance: 617 people in 17 precincts. Assigned 22 out of the 3,000 state delegates.

38.3 percent for Edwards, 28.7 percent for Kerry, 20.9 percent for Dean, 12.2 percent for Gephardt.

I agree with Nate, this is the kind of county where Edwards has to do very well if he is going to win Iowa.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-14 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

People keep talking about Edwards' speeches. I have to tell you, if I believed that John Edwards meant what he said, I'd be volunteering for his campaign right now. The problem isn't his rhetoric. It's his record. From the war, to the poor, to felons' rights, to Hamas and just about everything else, he's saying one thing now, but he has done practically the opposite when he had power in the Senate.

His entire campaign seems to be him saying, "Remember how I was 4 years ago? Well I'm gonna be the opposite now."

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe him. If he ends up winning I hope that he can prove me wrong, but I don't have much faith that he will based on his record.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa
And that's precisely the issue I have.  Edwards supports are always bragging about his detailed plans and  what he's saying now.  Since his failed run for the presidency in 2004, he's had time to research issues, pick a few and write out plans.  His 180 degree turn doesn't convince me.
I hope the other candidates begins to compare records and actions to back up what they're saying now.  
by Jalenth 2007-07-14 03:37PM | 0 recs
skim through "Four Trials"

JRE was first in his family to go to college. Raised in very small rural house, put $11 wedding band on Elizabeth's finger on their wedding day. Yes he worked hard and did very well as a lawyer, but his commitment is deep. He has given blood, sweat and tears in New Orleans post-Katrina. Well before that he and Elizabeth have done much to fight poverty. The Wade Edwards Foundation started after the death of their oldest child does meaningful work in the public schools. I greatly appreciate the Edwards' hands-on work with ACORN and travels (not tourism) in Africa to connect with people there and better understand that continent. Get beyond the right-wing haters and see the candidate most feared by the neocons because JRE is the real deal and he could draw votes from Evangelicals who might finally decide that a Democrat with integrity and leadership skills would better serve the country than some Abramoff cigar-smoking, thrice married asshole estranged from his own children.

by Stumptown Dave 2007-07-14 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Honestly, I don't think Edwards ever really had "power in the Senate."  For nearly all of the time he was in the Senate, the Republicans were in control.

I think I understand what you are saying: Edwards speaks in more concrete and more progressive terms now than he did four years ago.  As a former Dean person, I have always thought that Edwards took Howard Dean's talking points and boiled them down into a simpler message that became the "Two Americas."

One of the Jones County Dems, who was a former Dean supporter, told me today that he thought Edwards has matured as a candidate and as a Democrat.  I agree with that.

If somebody has problems with Edwards b/c they think he as too much of a centrist in the Senate and/or as a '04 candidate and do not buy into his progressive message today, I understand your skepticism.

However, imagine any one of the Democratic candidates as President.  By the way any one of them has defined themselves as a candidate for President, ask yourself who would be the most likely to fight for things like univeral health care, Card Check, repealing the Bush tax cuts?  I think that by the way Edwards has, admittedly, re-defined himself as a Progressive, he has thrown his lot in w/ Progressives.  

In my mind, John Edwards has become the leading Progressive voice in the Democratic Party.  Whether or not we realize that and support his campaign... it will be on us if does not win the nomination.

by Nate Willems 2007-07-14 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

You can't re-define yourself merely by saying that you have done so.

John Edwards did have power in the Senate. His vote counted the same as the 99 other Senators. He voted for the authorization for war in Iraq. Not only that but he co-sponsored it, and hit the talk shows to tell us all that we had to attack Saddam Hussein because he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Quada -- a bold faced lie that anyone who bothered to look at the intelligence at the time could see through. Now he critisies Obama for not leading enough on the war. Oh really? That's ridiculous.

He voted for "bankruptcy reform," a nice way of saying to the poor, we're putting you in a bind even harder than the one you've been in. Now he says he's the great protector of the poor. Oh really? I doubt it.

He voted against felons rights, even though just the other day he said he'd be for giving felons the right to vote. Which is it? Why is he so consistently against the positions he held just 4 years ago?

I don't care if he's the leading progressive voice. Voice doesn't count for much when it's time to make decisions and act on them. John Edwards has proven over time that when it's time to act, he acts in the wrong way.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 04:16PM | 0 recs
context, please

The felon's rights issue was an amendment that Republicans wanted to become a "poison pill" to wreck the extension of the Voting Rights Act, if memory serves. There are many cases in which senators vote against such amendments in the interest of preserving a chance to pass the bill overall. If you go back and check the roll call for that vote, I'll bet you'll find that lots of good Democrats voted against the amendment relating to felons' voting rights.

There were many different versons of the bankruptcy bill and many different votes on different aspects. Which bill and which specific part are you talking about? Edwards did not vote for Bush's bill, the one that eventually became law.

Pope Jeremy, in March 2004 Edwards cast a very tough vote against the Iraq supplemental spending bill (the infamous $87 billion). The vote in the Senate was 88-12. He got hammered over that vote, but he said Congress needed to send Bush a message that it was imperative to change course in Iraq/

Obama, who was not in the Senate, said at that time that he would have voted against the $87 billion. But after being elected to the Senate, Obama voted for every Iraq War spending bill except for the very latest one.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-14 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: context, please

I appreciate your responses. You're arguing honestly and respectfully, unlike most of the bozos on this site.

Anyway, I looked it up and you're right. The felon vote was a poison pill. Good call. Can't blame him for that one.

The bankruptcy bill I'm talking about was one of the first bills passed after GWB became president. The vote was on March 15th. Sen. Paul Wellstone was a vocal opponent of the bill. Here's one of many write ups about it http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0314 -03.htm

In that write up I learned that Hillary Clinton voted against it. I gotta say, I was surprised and  impressed.

As for Edwards' vote on the war in 2004, as Obama is fond of saying, there are no do overs in war. Edwards screwed up big time on the war, and I question his judgment and his very sanity in that he did so. That might sound extreme, but war is extreme, and that's the road he chose.

And you're right about Obama voting to fund the war. I'm not thrilled about that. In fact I disapprove of it. But out of the three main candidates, his record on the war impresses me the most.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:28PM | 0 recs
if Hillary would be better for the poor

why are so many corporate lobbyists donating to her campaign? Those people absolutely despise Edwards.

I thought the bankruptcy bill didn't get through until 2005. I haven't delved into the minutiae of that one.

While I applaud Hillary's vote if she was against it, I have to question anyone who would argue that based on her record, Hillary would do more for the poor (whether they be working poor or non-working poor) than John Edwards.

I just don't see Hillary leading the charge for progressive change on any of the issues I care deeply about. I think that Edwards was too cautious during the last campaign and learned the right lessons from that experience.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-14 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: if Hillary would be better for the poor

Well, what you explain with caution, I explain with indifference. It remains to be seen who is right. I'm just not willing to give any politician the benefit of the doubt unless he or she has shown me in a strong way that he or she deserves it.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: if Hillary would be better for the poor

Also, I'm not arguing that a Hillary Clinton presidency would benefit the poor. However, I'm not going to pretend like she didn't vote the right way on that bankruptcy bill. She did. She deserves credit for doing so.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 08:50PM | 0 recs
Edwards wasn't in office in 2001

But don't let that get in the way of your entirely reasoned dislike of him.

As for "no do overs," bullshit.  That's Obama's way of saying, "I don't make mistakes - or at least not big ones."  Well, tell that to the millions upon millions of gay Americans you relegate to second-class citizenship with your opposition to same-sex marriage, Barack.  Because that's a big fucking mistake.

One that every major candidate has made, Edwards included, to be sure, but unlike Obama, none of them are claiming to be infallible.

Fact is, every one of these candidates has made and will make mistakes.  They're all making big ones rights now.  I prefer the one who's demonstrated his willingness to admit them to the ones who've yet to do so.

by Drew 2007-07-15 12:02PM | 0 recs

Except he was in office in 2001.  My mistake - confused the 2004 election and the 2005 bankruptcy bill with the ones in 2000 and 2001.

by Drew 2007-07-17 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

You are full of crap. Edwards made some mistakes just like anyone in office. He has seen those mistakes and is now doing his best to atone for them. Hillary voted for the war too, and Barack voted for the horrible energy bill of 2005 to sweeten the deal for Ill. coal companies. Get over it!!

by RDemocrat 2007-07-15 07:12AM | 0 recs

Please go to the Thomas website and look up all the bills Edwards authored and co-sponsored. IMO, he cast a few bad votes, but guess what, so does nearly every Senator during their careers. Yes, one of those votes was a biggie, but that doesn't discount every other great bill he introduced. Like...the Patients Bill of Rights, the countless times he co-sponsored minimum wage increases, The Women In Trauma Act, the amendment to Tele-Health which would have helped hive rural folks access to needed health care services, his country of origin labeling bill, his bill enforcing big pharma to disclose side effects...there's a lot of great stuff he proposed, and I wish you would familiarize yourself with his entire record rather than just the few votes you cited.

by Sarah Lane 2007-07-15 07:52AM | 0 recs
Why should I believe Barack Obama?

Obama when he voted no on Kerry/Feingold withdrawal bill ONE YEAR ago.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-fl oor_statement_6/

"But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home."

Does this sound familiar?  Haven't we heard a lot of Republicans say this?  Backstabbing the peace movement is not new for Obama, is it?

"What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy."

He even gives an example:

"For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in fifty thousand troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional three or six months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy."

by littafi 2007-07-15 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why should I believe Barack Obama?

Why don't you try re-working your argument to reflect the whole story of the day, that he was for the Levin/Reed amendment not the Kerry/Feingold amendment.  Both failed, but Levin/Reed got more votes.  Neither were acceptable to Republicans at the time.  

by DD2 2007-07-15 09:10AM | 0 recs
Really, the only change has been

His position on the war.  Wealth vs. work?  Two Americas?  All from 2003, and all as relevant today as they were then.

In any case, I take your statement to mean exactly what I've suspected for a long time: Obama can't match Edwards' rhetoric, so his supporters have to attack Edwards' credibility.

You know, Obama supporters?  Maybe you should demand better of your candidate, rather than attack a candidate who delivers better.

by Drew 2007-07-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Really, the only change has been

Attacks on Edwards credibility has nothing to do with being an Obama or Clinton supporter.  It comes from problems many Democrats see in him as a candidate for our Party.  They come from things he has done, not from things another candidate has or has not done.  If all the Primaries were about was issues, Dennis Kucinich would probably be our candidate.  When I look at the following interview, I see a very weak candidate to be the one to take this Party into the next election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwjvAs9J -0

by DD2 2007-07-15 11:57AM | 0 recs
Says the Obama supporter.

Fact is, if Obama were better on the issues, you'd be attacking Edwards on the issues.  But he's not, so you can't; instead, you attack the man himself.

That's pretty sad.

by Drew 2007-07-15 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Says the Obama supporter.

No, I think Obama is better on the issues, but it is not my support of Obama which leads me to question whether or not I could vote for Edwards, and it is not Edwards stance on the issues which leads me to question whether or not I could vote for him.  It is the inconsistencies of the man and his weakness as a candidate, his vulnerability.  How is putting up an interview by George Stephanopolis an attack on Edwards as a man?  That interview to me is how the Republicans would run against him in a nutshell, and I think they would have a very effective ad.  

by DD2 2007-07-15 01:06PM | 0 recs
Compare & Contrast

Contrast Edwards' performance in the interview with Stephanopoulis with Obama's interview where George questions him aggressively about his funding votes on the War and searches for other inconsistencies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGpjFh5Iz kc&mode=related&search=

by DD2 2007-07-15 01:43PM | 0 recs
It's a telling contrast

How solicitous Stephanopoulos is with Obama, and how vicious he is with Edwards.  After Obama fails to offer an example of a crisis he'd handled, Steph drops it; after Obama fails to reconcile his opposition to funding the war with his repeated votes for it, Steph drops it - it's a joke.

Fact is, the contrast there isn't between Edwards and Obama, who both acquit themselves well - it's the contrast between the media's treatment of Edwards and Obama.  

Otherwise, I hadn't seen the part where Obama claims that he opposed the $87 billion because of the contracting issues - what a laugh.  If that's the case, I think even less of him now.  At least Edwards and Kerry had the guts to say that it was because Bush was fucking up the war, and needed to offer a plan before he got any money.

Barack couldn't even demand that then?  That's pathetic.

by Drew 2007-07-15 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I don't reject the possibility that someone can change. But I require better evidence of change than a few speeches if I'm going to believe that a man who parroted the Bush administrations lies about Iraq in 2002 is now a progressive hero.

The way I see it, either he was so easily bamboozled by the Bush administration on Iraq that he joined in the chorus of Kill Saddam, or worse, that he loved the idea of an American Empire and actually just wanted to attack. Either way, it doesn't sound very good for him. I don't need a warmonger for a president, nor do I need someone who would be so easily talked into war by the likes of Bush.

He was so wrong, either out of stupidity or malice 5 years ago. For me to believe that he either got smart or became saintly somehow, I'd need an awful lot of convincing.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Noting because the above poster posts in every diary with a postive view of Edwards with exactly the same arguments.  He's not interested in being persuaded through action. He's made up his mind, and nothing you will say or Edwards does or has done will change it. The faux "I am open" stand is exactly that- fake.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Nothing. He had his chance and he blew it. I can't elect someone who has proven to be someone who blows it when the going gets rough.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

exactly why you are troll in these diaries. you say it yourself. you aren't interested in debate or discussion - simply disruption.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

If disagreeing is "disruption" to you, then yes, I'm very interested in disruption.

If you can present an idea that is better than mine, go for it. But if you can't, I guess you just label me a "disruptor" and that makes you feel better. Good for you.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

You aren't simply disagreeing. You are coming into every diary on edwards making the exact same point. You essentially spamming these diaries.

If you truly wanted to disagree- write your own diary, and talk about how you feel that he is the worse candidate since Bush (paraphrasing what you have said before). If people want to discuss your hatefest of Edwards there, then that's fine. But your coming into every diary on Edwards to do this is a) with any respect to what the diaries are about (ie, the environmental diary the other day in which you did this) and b) shows you have no interest in talking to other people. The later is the worse of the offenses because it's the definition of trollish behavior. No desire to communicate- simply to disrupt for the purpose of disruption.

You can spin your behavior however you like. I assume some of your defenders will be more than happy to play this game. It still doesn't change that you aren't interested in conversation.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

By the way Big Tent Democrat and several others have already had this exact conversation with you. You refuse to amid however their point is about your lack of respect for people with differing views. You don't think we know about Edwards vote? You don't think we have considered it in our decisonmaking? Of what value do you think it is to constantly repeat it? Do you think you are convincing others of anything- or is your point merely to enforce your idea of values on us simply because we disagree with you.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

The value of repeating it is simple. I repeat it because I have yet to hear a good reason why I should overlook it as so many Edwards supporters have. If you can give me that reason, then please present it. I welcome it.

However, I never hear a reason why I should overlook it. I'm just consistently told that I shouldn't be making trouble because I'm making waves, being a troll, and being disruptive.

I have some news for you. When you talk about politics, you're going to find a lot of people who disagree with you. If you dismiss those people as merely disruptive, you'll never change their minds. If you say why your ideas are better in a respectful way, maybe you will.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Again you are lying. You start off by saying you are waiting to hear something, then you say no matter what anyone says you have made up your mind- we get it. That's your view. It's your right to have it. It's not your right to spam diaries repeating it over and over again as an attempt to obviously disrupt diaries. If you don't get that, you have some real emotional problems that aren't bout this war.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I believe you just made my point for me. Yet again I've asked for a good reason to change my mind on Edwards. And yet again I'm told that I'm just being disruptive.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 08:47PM | 0 recs
So what would change your mind?

Let's hear it.

by citizen53 2007-07-14 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: So what would change your mind?

If he said, "When I co-sponsored the AUMF, I did it because it was extremely popular at the time and everybody was afraid that if they didn't do it they'd be called treasoners." That would be shitty but it would make sense.

Merely saying "I was wrong and I'm apologies" doesn't add up. Every person who took the time to read all available information about Iraq at the time knew the AUMF was full of shit. Why didn't he? Or did he and he just didn't care? If I'm going to consider him for the presidency, I need a better explanation for the biggest foreign policy fuck up in my lifetime than "Oopsie!"

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-15 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: So what would change your mind?

If he said, "When I co-sponsored the AUMF, I did it because it was extremely popular at the time and everybody was afraid that if they didn't do it they'd be called treasoners." That would be shitty but it would make sense.

Merely saying "I was wrong and I apologize" doesn't add up. Every person who took the time to read all available information about Iraq at the time knew the AUMF was full of shit. Why didn't he? Or did he and he just didn't care? If I'm going to consider him for the presidency, I need a better explanation for the biggest foreign policy fuck up in my lifetime than "Oopsie!"

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-15 07:36AM | 0 recs
You are trolling and a threadjacker.

Barack Obama would be ashamed of your support.  

by littafi 2007-07-15 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: So what would change your mind?

Pope is a liar. He will say anything to continue to spam. That's his goal. Period. Anything else he says is a lie.

by bruh21 2007-07-15 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Out of all the candidates Edwards, IMO will be the most careful and the most diplomatic when it comes dealing with foreign countries that are not our allies. Edwards has said that voting for the IWR it was the biggest mistake he's ever made, and that fact that he realizes this, leads me to believe that he will be the most difficult to ever lead into war again. After reading his policy ideas on terrorism, I am sure he is a changed and evolved man. No candidate is talking about terrorism in the terms Edwards is. Edwards realizes that we're fighting an ideology and not state sponsored terrorism, that's why he stresses regaining our moral authority by doing good around the world. Does he want to beef up our intel? Yes. Does he want to strengthen our ties with other Islamic nations? Yes. But, most importantly, Edwards believes that if the U.S. leads and helps fight global poverty, helps provide primary school education in countries like Africa and the ME, helps with sanitation in 3rd world countries, and reforms our harmful trade agreements it will quell some of the hatred towards us. IMO, Edwards has the best understanding of the ideology because he addresses it in multiple ways. I also think his stance on Iran is also a show of proof of how he has changed. He was the first candidate talking about making a deal with Iran where we would help supply them with nuclear energy if they halt their weapons program. He sees the importance of building a bridge with Iran rather then being the constant bully we have been. Phew...I'm done.

by Sarah Lane 2007-07-15 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

"Out of all the candidates Edwards, IMO will be the most careful and the most diplomatic when it comes dealing with foreign countries that are not our allies."

I hate to be a broken record here, but no one seems to be able to give me a good answer.

Why in the world would you expect John Edwards to be careful and diplomatic when dealing with foreign countries when his experience is the exact opposite of careful consideration?

Did he just now at age 54 realize that you should exercise care and caution when authorizing military force?

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-15 08:09AM | 0 recs
Keep in mind

whoever is elected, will have to govern. Compromises wil be made, progressive hearts will be broken. I don't care who is elected, they will fail you, sooner or later. Even Obama.

You are setting yourself up to be disappointed big time. It would be better for you, if your favored candidate did not win. Then you can always talk about what s/he would have done better, without ever facing the reality of governing.

by molly bloom 2007-07-15 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Keep in mind

this is the conversation I had with obama supporters. Its like they need him to walk on water in order to think he's a good candidate. Edwards isn't perfect. Neither is Obama. Neither is CLinton. We have to realize this going in or else we will spend a lot of time being disappointed because what we imagined them to be is not what they are.

by bruh21 2007-07-15 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa
Here's an example, back in May Edwards proposed his Sacred Contract with Veterans And Military Families.  They were good - even great goals.
Last week when the Republicans were blocking the Webb Readiness amendment, a proposal that would have done enormous good for our troops and their families (and also effectively ended Bush's surge) the Edwards campaign never urged action from their supporters.  It isn't like team Edwards is shy about  issuing press releases.
Asking his supporters to contact their Senators to vote for the it might not have done any good, but it would have been something.  I suppose I'm bothered by the fact he sent out a e-mail asking people to vote in a MoveOn poll but didn't think to ask them take take a simple step to help our troops.
by abburdlen 2007-07-14 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Wow. Interesting to compare the two. I think you're right.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I hope that some of them have changed, and I hope more that the majority of Americans who didn't vote at all, decide to get busy this time around.

Most people agree with progressive ideas. Most people also don't vote.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

You've said this twice now in this thread and both times it's wrong, so I feel like I need to correct the misinformation.  60.7% of eligible voters voted in 2004.  That's a majority not a minority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A10492-2005Jan14.html

Of course, your one mistake here means that I will never again be able to trust your posts.

It's a shame how that works, isn't it?

by cesar 2007-07-15 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I hope that some of them have changed, and I hope more that the majority of Americans who didn't vote at all, decide to get busy this time around.

Most people agree with progressive ideas. Most people also don't vote.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I remember getting an e-mail from the Obama campaign asking me to call my congressmen on that exact vote.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I don't reject the possibility, but it's going to take something pretty spectacular to convince me that someone who was so very wrong for all the wrong reasons is all right now. I've been impressed with spectacular evidence before on different topics when I felt for sure that I was right. So if you have some great evidence, please share it with me.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 06:04PM | 0 recs
Ok so

all the work Edwards has done highlighting poverty, working with unions, helping minimum wage get passed in several states means nothing to you I guess.

Not sure about the Webb amendment and why Edwards would not ask supporters to help. He did however use his first commercial buy to get the word out to people to help stop the Iraq war.

As far as Obama, his "record" on the war is what you complain is wrong about Edwards. He is all talk and no action.

He had his speech and then really did nothing until this last vote that came out against Bush. He voted for the Gregg amendment and against Kerry-Feingold.

Edwards co-sponsored the AUMF true, but then voted against the first supplemental and stated that Bush should not be given blank checks. Checks which until recently Obama has been more than willing to give Bush.

Before you cry the "Support the Troops" meme, Congress can stipulate how money is to be spent. Also, notice that our military is still underfunded and most of the money that Congress is allowing Bush to have goes to contractors anyway. So connecting money to timelines is not saying the troops get no money, it is stipulating where the money goes so there can be oversight on how OUR money is spent.

Obama has a crap record on the war a far as I am concerned and so does Edwards. The difference between the two is just a reverse timeline. Edwards spoke out for authorizing force and then voted against funding. Obama spoke out against authorizing force and voted for funding.

Try to come up with a more substantial issue to say Obama is better on because the war ain't it.

The only candidate who is perfect on the war is Kucinich.

by Chaoslillith 2007-07-14 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok so

Kucinich Is an anti-war candidate.  He will not support any kind of war.  Obama did not support the Iraq war in the first place, not just because the didn't feel Saddam was an imminent threat, but because he understood the different factions in the Middle East/Iraq and knew it would be a bad idea trying to bring Democracy to that region of the world.  

It's not just that he opposed the war in the first place but also his reasons, which showed wisdom.  

That being said, he also said that IF we go in, we would have to support the effort. Pretty much if you broke it you own it.  Now he supports a timetable for withdrawal and votes for supplemental IF a timetable for withdrawals is included.  The last bill after Bush vetoed left out the timetable which he disapprove of so he voted 'no".  He remains consistent on his position on the war.  Who knows what Edward would have been voting for the funding had he been still in the senate.

by Jalenth 2007-07-14 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok so

And who knows whether Obama would have voted for the AUMF had he been in the senate

by Valatan 2007-07-14 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok so

"Not sure about the Webb amendment and why Edwards would not ask supporters to help"

The cynical side of me would say since his two main rivals are currently in the Senate it behooves him as a candidate that nothing positive is accomplished there.  If it passed Obama & Clinton (Dodd & Biden as well) could point it as a real step to bring the fiasco in Iraq to an end.  Why should Edwards help them?

That is NOT what I believe.  I don't believe any of our candidates are cold hearted enough to put politics before the welfare of our troops, the republicans on the other hand I'm certain of it.  More likely the Edwards campaign has got plenty on their plate and it's an issue that just didn't make it to the top.

Edwards work on the growing economic divide in America does matter to me, I admire him and Elizabeth greatly for calling attention to the issue.  I'm just not sure he's the best choice for President.

by abburdlen 2007-07-14 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok so

Edwards job right now is to focus on his campaign.  where he determines that he can use his campaign to make a difference he should.  However he cannot turn his campaign into a push-the-congress group.   The Iraq supplemental was appropriate to really encourage congress to vote the right way.  It was a major bill that the Democrats were  folding on.  Remember Feingold came to Dkos to ask for help.  Edwards did put out a general statement on July 10th

As the Senate resumes debate on the war in Iraq and President Bush prepares to speak about the war, Senator John Edwards released the following statement.

"It is more important than ever for people all across the country to let Congress know that we expect them to act decisively to end the war in Iraq. Congress should no longer facilitate the President's stubborn allegiance to his failed strategy. It's not enough to talk a good game any more. It is time to act. The one way to support our troops and bring them home is for Congress to exercise its constitutionally mandated funding power, force an immediate drawdown of 40,000 to 50,000 troops and require withdrawal of all troops within about a year."

It isn't his role to monitor every move of the senate and house.  I think it would look unseemly.  He keeps his plan out there reminding people of what he would do.  Obama and Clinton can put out their own statements - although I don't think they showed up to vote.

Edwards has been setting the agenda for this presidential campaign.  He is the best candidate, in my opinion.

by pioneer111 2007-07-14 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Not that I'm aware of - but four of the other candidates were able to vote for it.
You asked what Edwards could do to back up his claim that he has evolved, if he had used his campaign mailing list or a moment during a speech in support of the Webb amendment I would have had an easier time believing he's genuinely changed.  As it is I'm still skeptical.

I freely admit I may be overly critical on this after spending much of Tuesday & Wednesday on the phone with Dole staff trying my damnedest to get her  at least not be an obstructionist on the amendment.    

by abburdlen 2007-07-14 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

It could be that Edwards was more focused on his poverty issues, and wasn't aware of this at the top level>?

by bruh21 2007-07-15 08:18AM | 0 recs
Edwards best choice for 2008 for me

While there are some who want to dwell on the "oh I don't think he is sincere" line, there are many who do believe Edwards.

I guess those who may be hard core "he isn't real" have never ever in their own lives changed their opinion on anything, anytime, anywhere and meant it.

To me someone who can't change is someone who has refused to grow, learn from new material, or continue to look for a better way.

Those who can't grow and change are stagnet - and to me that is the problem with many politicians today - they want to continue down the status quo, the way they have done or been for many years.

Hence, we have many in congress that can't get with it when the American people start to voice their opposition and start to vote them out.

I really, really feel sorry for those who can't visualize a candidate that has broken through that facade of "I am always right", "I don't need to change", "this is how I have always seen it", "this is how it has always been done" and "I walk on water - I don't need to change".

Edwards is the best choice to beat the republicans, he is the sincere candidate that has been on the poorer side of life, even if not poor today. One thing is forsure and that is that he has been there while Clinton, Obama, and Richardson, have not.

by dk2 2007-07-14 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards best choice for 2008 for me

You start out okay but then morph into the same tired hyperbole.  The question Edwards presents is do you reward a verbal change by making him the President?  People point to him marching on picket lines - well, when I think of picket lines I think of Jesse Jackson, not John Edwards.  It is Jesse Jackson who can be relied on to be at any struggle for worker rights.  I guess John has been there as well, at least in some instances.  But does anyone here want to cast their lot with Jesse for President because he stands up for the poor, the oppressed, and labor in the face of management?  There is nothing John has done between 2004 and now which makes him outstanding, which turns your head even the way Bill Gates has.  John is fucking rich.  He is worth in the area of 50 million and has somewhere between 10 and 20 million invested at Fortress.  That's a lot of money to do things with which go beyond bringing 700 students to New Orleans over Spring break financed by a non-proftit largely financed by an anonymous donor who gave in the area of 250,000 through Alexander Forger.  Or the scholarship fund in NC. It's fine, it's great, he even walks on water, but we are talking about President of the United States and the man is possibly the least qualified and has the least record of being an effective legislator than anyone running, except maybe Gravel.  

by DD2 2007-07-14 08:05PM | 0 recs
Verbal change? "Hyperbole"?

You are classic for big words that don't mean much. Talk about tired hyperbole! IF you think there isn't anything that makes John Edwards stand out since 2004 - why don't you ask those college students in NC that are getting to go to college with the help of the scholarships he started.  Why don't you ask all the people in states that he fought in for raised minimum wage on the state votes in NOV 2006 that did raise their minimum wages?

Your numbers on Edwards wealth are stretched also, but I guess you can jiggle them how you like if it makes you feel better. It is really too bad your post is more about false rhetoric than truth.

Oh and by the way how many millions is Jesse Jackson worth? How many millions are all the star athelets that make millions and leave the area they grew up in, that helped them get there through local college or even high school athletics programs that are now supper stars that never set foot back into their own hometown to help those they left behind? Yet John Edwards is going into those areas to bring attention to them - just like Memphis on Monday!

Why don't you do a little research instead of post a comment that doesn't relate to truth.

He is doing more then a verbal change.

He is out there constantly working with unions on issues, he is constantly bringing the most important issue to the front so that the others - who you may want to fool yourself into believing are doing something - have to deal with the issues.

He is taking a step back for 3 days and doing a poverty tour to talk to issues of the poor. In Memphis he will be at the MIFA store - local food bank. You better bet, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Dod and Kucinich will be out on the Campaign trail.

These things are not verbal - but keep fooling yourself if you want to.

http://tennesseeforedwards.blogspot.com/ 2007/07/updated-schedule-for-edwards-tou r.html#links

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7 /9/182116/7471

by dk2 2007-07-14 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Verbal change? "Hyperbole"?

Not sure what the big words were.  Hyperbole? Morph? Perhaps effective. I don't want to downplay the work John has down, but neither should you overplay it.  Where exactly has he lead the fight for increased minimum wage?  He might have pitched in, and good for him, but don't overplay his role.  Same with his charitable foundations.  Good for him, but don't try to make it into something way above what it is.  When you think of great philanthropists in America, John Edwards is not the first name to come to you lips.

And my numbers on Edwards is not stretched, in fact a number of articles estimate it higher than what I put, and all the articles about Fortress recently pegs him at 10-20 million in holdings.  Perhaps if he was more forthcoming in his financial statements there wouldn't be such enormous swings in the estimates.

And what difference does Jesse Jackson's wealth or Kevin Garnet's make?  I brought up Jesse because when you think of people standing side by side with labor on a picket line you immediately think Jesse.  John Edwards doesn't come to your mind, and why is that if he's made such a big impact through his work.  I think you are overblowing his impact.

And if you think he's not on the campaign trail this week, you're nuts.  It's all over his website.  And it leads me to believe that the timing is not accidental coming at the same time the official Q2 reports will be released.  We'll see how that plays out.

by DD2 2007-07-14 10:03PM | 0 recs
Well let's here it from the

people who Edwards work has affected shall we?

From the President of Acorn:

"One of the best ways to end poverty is to pay workers fair wages. In the summer of 2005, I traveled with Senator Edwards to cities and states across the country, launching ballot initiative campaigns to raise the minimum wage above the shamefully low $5.15 an hour.

While Senator Edwards could have chosen to do anything else with his time, he chose to spend it on the road with low-wage workers and their allies who were fighting to lift workers out of poverty. Edwards worked directly with grassroots community-faith-labor coalitions on the ground, leading rallies and press conferences to galvanize public support and working outside the spotlight to help organize support and raise funds to bring wage increase proposals to the ballot.

Last November, voters rewarded the efforts of Edwards, ACORN and our allies by resoundingly approving six state ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. As a result, more than 1.5 million of the country's lowest-paid workers will get a raise. The ballot measures were just the most high-profile victories in a year that saw an unprecedented 17 states raise their minimum wage - many for the first time - including Edwards' home state of North Carolina.

This movement in the states helped create the public pressure for a long-overdue increase in the federal minimum wage, which was passed last month and will help another 12.5 million low-income workers make ends meet. In addition to his work to raise wages, Senator Edwards has made an ongoing commitment to work with ACORN and others in the struggle to rebuild the Gulf Coast and help Katrina Survivors return home. "

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=4174&a mp;tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=19141&tx_t tnews%5BbackPid%5D=8306&cHash=963e4c d12d

http://iddybud.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_a rchive.html

Archived articles from 2004 and 2005 about Edwards walking picket lines and meeting with low wage workers.

http://www.nbc6.net/news/8984144/detail. html

2006 Edwards marches with striking janitors:

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Teamsters President James Hoffa and civil rights leaders marched with striking service workers and about 200 supporters Tuesday at the University of Miami.

About a quarter of the 425 janitors and other contract workers employed by UNICCO Service Co. at the university have been on strike since early March over alleged unfair labor practices. They want to form a union, but the company has disputed their organizing tactics.

"No Americans should be working full-time and still living in poverty," Edwards told the crowd. "This struggle is about earning a wage, about having health care benefits, about everyone in America, not just a few, having a shot at the American dream."

The union and students also want UNICCO to agree to a process called card check, granting union recognition if a majority of workers sign cards in favor of joining. That process tends to be easier for workers to form unions compared to having a secret ballot.

"If a Republican can join the Republican party by signing their name to a card, then any worker in America should be able to join a union by signing their name a card," said Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina

Those statement sound familiar, because he is saying the exact same thing now! His efforts have made an impact and to say they have not is just silly. He is highly respected by many of the unions because he works on their behalf.

So check your damn facts. Also his wealth HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. HE EARNED EVERY DAMN CENT OF IT AND HAS GIVEN TIME AND MONEY BACK TO THE COUNTRY. That is a cheap card to play because it has been refuted on every level. He does not use his wealth as a reason to ignore his roots. He uses his wealth to help those who are worse off then he is.

and here is a story from someone who was able to use Edwards Collge for Everyone plan:

"Anna Harris is a student at the North Carolina State University.  She is also one of the students to take part in the College for Everyone program that John Edwards initiated in North Carolina.  This morning, after reading reports that disparaged Edwards' work on poverty, Anna sent us the following...

John Edwards showed his compassionate side when he developed the College for Everyone Program. He chose Greene Central High School in North Carolina as a pilot school for College for Everyone.  

The scholarship offers to pay Greene Central graduates' tuition, books and fees for their first year at one of North Carolina's public universities or community colleges.  This has greatly impacted the area that I am from.

Greene County, North Carolina is the 3rd poorest county in the state. Most graduates from Greene Central do not go on to further their education because they simply can't afford it. With college degrees, citizens can come back to Greene County and help bring development to the area so it can rise above the poverty line.  He saw potential in a small town that was headed nowhere and found a way for eager students like myself to pay for college.

He gave us the encouragement to push ourselves to our farthest potential without having to fear a financial burden. With the help from John Edwards' College for Everyone program I was able to focus on school this first year without worrying about money. The scholarship required 10 hours of volunteer or paid work per week each semester. I used this time to volunteer at the local Art Gallery on campus, which really helped me become involved in the art programs at N.C. State.

Volunteering opened many doors to leadership positions and scholarship opportunities for the next three years. I finished my first year very involved in my school community and also with all A's on my transcript. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the scholarship is how it was funded. Edwards saw a need and found a way to fund it without using tax dollars; the money was earned through private funding.  The scholarship definitely had an impact on my first year at N.C. State and I am very proud to be attending Edwards' alma mater!"

She is one of at least 200 students who have been able to achieve something because of John Edwards' programs, money and hardwork in the College for Everyone program.
If you want to see the website and alumni from this program go here:

http://www.college4everyone.com/Home_Pag e.html

So next time you say his work has not had an effect, think about those kids who got to go to school, those people in the states that passed minimum wage and those strikers he walked with. I think he affected their lives a whole hell of a lot.

by Chaoslillith 2007-07-15 01:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Well let's here it from the

the above poster doesn't care about the things you mention

by bruh21 2007-07-15 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Well let's here it from the

Instead of resorting to your typical ad hom approach, why don't you for once deal with what the above poster is saying, not what you presume the above poster to be as a person.  It so happens the above poster does care about those people and has done his share to help poor people get an education as well, but the above poster does not think that qualifies him as President nor does it qualify John Edwards to be  President.  The act of helping people, while admirable, does not automatically make him a leader.  It is very true while he was doing that he could have been doing something else.  Matter of fact he was, but that's something the Edwards worshippers (there is that the type of phraseology I should use), the worshippers who see him as walking on water and healing the sick, fail to acknowledge that in fact he was doing something else, working for a hedge fund which in many respects is working for the enemy.  While he was walking with Acorn, he was flying with Fortress, while walking the streets with other to increase minimum wage, he was walking the halls where others were calculating ways to make taxes an annuity for the rich.  

by DD2 2007-07-15 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Well let's here it from the

Exactly. Working with ACORN is a nice thing. It is. But it doesn't qualify someone for being president. Hell, I worked with ACORN. Who wants to vote for me?

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-15 10:09AM | 0 recs
First off I do NOT worship Edwards

Perhaps you should reread some Obama diaries if you want to talk worship. I posted FACTS about Edwards work to rebut the comment that Edwards has had no effect on people. I like Edwards because he has goals, plans and has worked his ASS off to help others.

Helping others is not leadership? WTF!! A leaders job is to help lead the way to achieve a goal. Edwards goal is to get rid of poverty, to help even the income disparity, fix the environment etc. etc. He LEADS BY EXAMPLE as well as by building coalitions to achieve those goals. WHAT THE HELL do you think MLK, RJF, FDR and such did. They had goals, the built coalitions together to achieve those goals.

"Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. "

That's Edwards to a T.

Any other petty attacks you would like to try?

People say Obama is a leader because he inspires, Hillary is a leader because she has experience. The idea of a leader is somewhat subjective but it is basically the ability to bring about change and to convince others to follow you.

Edwards in his work has brought about change, he has gotten people to agree with him and to follow him, so therefore is a leader.

As far as your insinuation that it is wrong for Edwards to have worked with Fortress etc.

Hmmm, how does one build consensus with different groups to achieve something? You work with them, get to know them and address their concerns. You know, what Obama is so lauded for, giving a place to EVERYONE at the table, lobbyists as well as the people.

So it is ok for Obama to WANT to work with Republicans and lobbyist to achieve something but it is not ok for Edwards to have CONSULTED (not worked as an employee but as an OUTSIDE CONSULTANT) with ONE hedge fund while working on his other goals? Isn't that a double standard?

Edwards convinced a lot of people to donate for the College for Everyone program. He has a lot of diverse support in his elections, he helped convinced several state legislature to pass minimum wage. His LEADERSHIP by example as well as by doing has convinced many people to help him is his fight for his goals. That is LEADERSHIP.

I DO NOT WORSHIP EDWARDS OR ANYONE OR ANYTHING ELSE. It is just that he actually WANTS TO FIX the deep problems in this country like poverty unlike anyone else.

by Chaoslillith 2007-07-15 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: First off I do NOT worship Edwards

Chao, the worship thing wasn't directed at you, it was to bruh who constantly refers to Obama supporters as worshippers in his ad hom attacks.  

The problem I have with Edwards is not the work he has done but the inconsistencies of his words and actions.  There is a big, big difference between working with people on the other side and working FOR them.  He was hired by Fortress and his explanation of his job by his words just stretches credulity to a breaking point. $479,000 for a part-time general consulting job.  He has over $10,000,000 invested in a company and he's not aware of what they are investing in or the tax advantage structures in place which he benefits from?  It's just hard to believe, and he does himself no good when he is interviewed about it he gives very general information, claims ignorance, and then refuses to divulge how much he was paid.  

by DD2 2007-07-15 11:32AM | 0 recs
Ok so he

invested money in a company, but he donated $300,000 at least to charity. To me I don't see a problem with it.

He has spent more time helping the poor and working for economic equality then he has investing in companies. He puts his money, time and effort where his mouth is and that is what matters. To me that means he is sincere.

by Chaoslillith 2007-07-15 11:56AM | 0 recs
I would chime in...

but your comment pretty much covered it. Oh, wait, I got one more, John and Elizabeth built two learning labs across from two major high schools in NC. Their intentions were to give kids access to free tutoring and computers. Elizabeth spent every day for two years tutoring kids for free. Great comment, and thanks for all the links!

by Sarah Lane 2007-07-15 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards best choice for 2008 for me

How many Democrats were effective in getting their legislation passed back in 1998- 2004? Do you know how many minimum wage increases Edwards and other DEms tried to push through? Tons! They barely were able to get their bills to the floor for a vote. I've researched Edwards legislative record, and all the bills he sponsored and co-sponsored, and he had a solid record. He authored great bills that unfortunately were not given a fair shake in Congress, just like most Democrats during that time period. I mean, geez, the Patients Bill of Rights was co-sponosred by McCain and they couldn't even get that great patient protection bill passed. My point is, even though many Dems like Edwards didn't get much passed, that doesn't mean that they didn't have their head and their heart in the right place. As for your insinuation that Edwards is wealthy and greedy, I should add  that Edwards gave 30% of his income to charity this year. And, that you should really check out his history before and after politics, I think you'd realize he has done lots of great things for many people.

by Sarah Lane 2007-07-15 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

I see. It's interesting that at the first sign of a possible discrepancy in rhetoric, you accuse me of being full of crap, but yet you accept all kinds of discrepancies from a possible president of your country.

You have a very high standard for me, a random stranger on the Internet, and a curiously low standard for someone who might be your president. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

For the record: Yup, you caught me in a discrepancy. Good for you. Instead of being polite about it, you were a jerk. That means our conversation is over.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Oh please now you are out right lying. This is the first time you have done this. You come into nearly every diary on Edwards and do the exact same routine. Then someone comes on here defending your behavior because they agree with you rather than admit your tactics are the problem. You can keep trying to convince yourself all you want you are right. All I see is a guy who wants to bull others into his perspective.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Indeed.  And might I add, calling him impolite is an understatement.  He deserves to be upbraided with stonger language than "jerk" - but I respect your restraint.  I must say, upthread you were a little less restrained - and good for you, sir! - when you referred to people on this site as "bozos".

Indeed they are!

What a shame - a damn shame - not everyone here is as bright and well-spoken as you.

by Rob in Vermont 2007-07-14 07:33PM | 0 recs
Why won't they commit?

Howard Dean says that it is a sign of respect to ask for your vote. Do Edwards volunteers make a point of asking for their vote everywhere they go in Iowa?

by mrobinsong 2007-07-14 07:21PM | 0 recs
No they tell people

to just ignore the election.

It is early and perhaps people are waiting to see how the race develops and if Gore announces before they make a final committment.

What a silly question...

by Chaoslillith 2007-07-15 01:59AM | 0 recs
yes, they always ask

They've got supporter cards ready for people to sign at every event the campaign is involved with. People can commit to supporting John Edwards, or they can fill out the cards and check a different box (asking for more info, for example).

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-15 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

exactly- in these people's minds we are all frozen. I think this is more a reflection quite honestly of their own inability to grow so they projected that on to others. but that's psycho babbling them.  The truth is if we don't allow for candidates to make mistakes, and say they can change- then essentially we are always going to limit ourselves to a very narrow band of people who are perfect, untile we find out they aren't. This is the conversation I had with an obama supporter in the last couple of days. I actually see Obama as a strong secong choice for me. My problem with some of his supporters however is that they act like the man walks on water. No candidate does this. They have all imperfected records. What we must deal with is the realities of who they are now, what they are saying they will do, is there something in theri past to indicate this is true- etc. Denying those elements merely to demonize a candidate isn't a sign of someone really looking to understand who they are now- only to demonize.

by bruh21 2007-07-14 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Where's is Edwards on the reduction of the millitary budget?

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-07-15 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards in Anamosa

Edwards has assembled an amazing group of advisors to share insights and ideas into ways to strengthen the military and increase support for veterans and military families, AND eliminate waste in spending. His group includes generals and admirals... very seasoned offficers from every branch of the service.

Edwards believes in a genuinely strong and modern military that takes care of those who serve. But he wants to trim the fat and stop the wasteful spending.

Some people hear his comments about waste and spending cuts and don't get it that in the end we will have a stronger and more efficient military than ever. It is important to keep in mind that a lot of our military spending today is foolish. (Like pouring money into Iraq.)

I admire Edwards military plans, and I am impressed that he seeks out a wide range of expert opinion before setting policy. Our country has the best minds in the world. A wise leader calls on those people to step up and contribute. (Sort of the opposite of the George Bush approach!!)

by bettync 2007-07-15 05:16AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads