John Edwards for President

My post last week got a big response, mostly positive. In emails and comments, hundreds of people said they agreed that bloggers should endorse a candidate in the presidential race. So today I'm endorsing Edwards and offering a forum for others to do the same.

First, a little about me. I post at MyDD and at Daily Kos, and I recently started my own blog, Insidious Beast. I'm a 38-year-old novelist. My father, a Holocaust survivor, died from kidney cancer in 1998, and my mother lives in Waterville, Maine, where I grew up. I'm married to Miri Navasky, a documentary filmmaker, and we have a nine-month old son, Milo. We live in Manhattan. I'm lucky, so damn lucky, a son of privilege, a white American man with money. I'm a Jewish agnostic, a pragmatic idealist, a believer in people, an often-sad-yet-hopeful non-dogmatic leftist Democrat who wants John Edwards to be the next president of the United States.

I'm under no illusion that my endorsement means anything in itself, but I have hope that my explicit support for Edwards combined with that of others in the netroots will mean something. My hope, then, is in collective action, in the power and beauty of a chorus, in democracy.

Why Edwards? Because he rejects neoliberalism. Because he preaches enlightened populism. Because he's running to the left. Because he would fight the amorality of the Market with the morality of progressivism. Because he opposes the Global War on Terror. Because he's getting better and bolder. Because he's capable of outrage. Because he's proud to be a progressive. Because he would win.

But one reason rises above all others: the stated and demonstrated rationale of his campaign is to fight inequality. The monstrous power held by the few at the expense of the many causes unnecessary hardship and agony. It hurts, it maims, it kills. It threatens what Thomas Frank calls the Middle Class Republic. It threatens our democracy and our freedom. And because power corrupts, because economic insecurity breeds fear and fear breeds militarism, because corporations have a vested interest in war and place profits above all else, the disproportionate power of the few threatens humankind.

Call it what you will--our class war, our bleeding wound, our dirty open secret--it's the problem of our time, and John Edwards has chosen to spend his political life addressing it.

And if everyone from Hillary Clinton to Mike Huckabee now talks about our class divisions, it's in part because Edwards began to do so at the national level in 2003, when it was a deeply unfashionable thing to do. It was on the advice of no consultant, at the suggestion of no poll that Edwards took it on himself in 2003 to speak out against inequality. His policy prescriptions have evolved in the last four years but the wound targeted by those prescriptions has stayed the same.

John Edwards is this century's most prominent progressive populist, the candidate most likely to give more power to more people. This alone makes him worthy of the presidency.


Fellow bloggers and/or netroots activists, if you support John Edwards, please say so in comments and provide links to your blogs, blog pages, and/or endorsement statements.

Here, to get the ball rolling, is the endorsement statement by an excellent Texas blogger and Democratic Party activist, Vince Liebowitz.

And a collection of powerful endorsement statements by Boston-based bloggers.

UPDATE: here are some endorsement statements and/or blogs of endorsers: Jordan Klein/ Asa Hopkins/RDean's blog/ Cathawave's Journal

Tags: class war, endorsement, Inequality, John Edwards, populism (all tags)



Re: John Edwards for President

Vince's link doesn't work quite yet but it will soon. He said it was going live at nine, but I guess that's Texas time.

by david mizner 2007-09-04 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

It is live now!


by vpltz 2007-09-04 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Great post post David.  Fighting for economic justice and real opportunity for everyone is the exact thing that brought me to Edwards.  He's only getting better, with his strong enviornmenttal stance he's bringing together the blue collars, green collars and pajama collars.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-09-04 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Great post. I really enjoy reading posts outlining reasons for supporting the various candidates. I'm a Hillary supporter for now, but Edwards has great positions and I am really torn.

If he turns out to be the nominee I will energetically support his bid for the presidency.

by Coral 2007-09-04 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I'm also an enthusiastic supporter of Edwards because of his economic populist platform. Given that this is a period of stagnant wages & declining health benefits for the bottom half of the population, the potency of these issues are as strong as they've been the past 50 years.

As important, Edwards has the best chance of winning of our major candidates. As someone outside the Northeast & west coast, more nonRepublicans in the rest of the country identify with Edwards than any other candidate. The high negatives for Hillary among the voting population make her the most likely Democratic candidate to lose in the general; when push comes to shove, a certain percentage of voters will not vote for Obama simply because he's black. Edwards, through his coattails, will also be able to produce more Democratic elections to Congress in swing districts than the other 2 major candidates.

by carter1 2007-09-04 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

In other words, there are racists out there who won't vote for Obama but might vote for Edwards.  Edwards himself, however, has made it clear he doesn't want their votes.

by Adam B 2007-09-04 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Adam: Unfortunately, this is the reality of present day America, particularly for blue collar males.  From my reading of past studies, Democrats should lose over 5% of the vote with a black presidential candidate. I personally like Obama but we can't overlook this consideration.

Also, Obama is not running as a progressive. His platform is basically one of good government, which numbers of Republicans have run on in the past.

by carter1 2007-09-04 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Look at Obama's poverty, economy, health care ... hell, any of his platforms other than the goo-goo page.  It's all progressive.

We can't let fear of racists determine our nominee.

by Adam B 2007-09-04 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President
Won't some of this 5% be offset by swing voters who find Obama's message appealing? And what about the fact that Obama could drive higher turnout amongst the African American community?

Just showing one side of the equation is misleading.
by anevarez 2007-09-04 11:05AM | 0 recs
I agree with carter1

It seems the Dems have been unable to elect anyone not a southern, white, male.  This includes Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.  I think he has the best chance to win.

I heard a pundit on the radio say that Hillary and Barak are essentially DLC candidates.  After thinking about it I agree.

by realtime 2007-09-04 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Very well said, David.

It's about inequality and what kind of world we want to live in, and to have our children grow up in.

We can do better than the cult of selfishness epitomized by Reagan and Bush.

You well articulate the core reasons I am for John Edwards.

by TomP 2007-09-04 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I was leaning strongly towards Edwards (and I live in Virginia, whose primary is the week after Super Tuesday).   But something he said last week has disturbed me, and I'm not as sure any more.  Perhaps you can clarify his comments.

He said that his health care plan, which is supposed to cover everyone, would require regular preventative care, including mandatory mammograms.  Now I certainly encourage every woman over a certain age to get annual mammograms, and I also get regular checkups.  But MANDATORY?   Doesn't this fly in the face of Roe v Wade (or even Griswold)?  Don't we all believe that the government should stay out of a woman's personal medical decisions?  Shouldn't "pro-choice" apply to all medical procedures (that don't directly affect anyone else, so vaccinations can certainly be required)?  I'm sure Edwards' heart is in the right place, but did he misspeak?

by feynman 2007-09-04 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President


I appreciate your comment about mandates & its a legitimate problem in many areas of life but this is not one of them. Health insurance companies & providers have many mandates on clients & patients, ones that are actually detrimental to the individual.

Required preventive care is a boom to everyone. Without it, a required $75 visit becomes a $50,000+ problem when acute care sets in. The general population ends up footing these bills & its one of the main reason our health care system is so expensive. This is akin to our traffic light & stop sign laws when driving - it causes less car accidents & lowers what we pay for car insurance.

PS. I haven't looked at the fine print of Edwards proposal. But I suspect it imposes higher financial costs on those that don't have regular checkups, which is only fair as the rest of us will be footing the bill for serious medical problems.

by carter1 2007-09-04 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I agree with everything you say about preventative care.   If the word "mandatory" just means that you pay more if you don't, that would (as you say) be fair and reasonable.  But that wasn't the impression I got from his comments.  I guess we need to see the fine print.

by feynman 2007-09-04 06:53AM | 0 recs
I would read "mandatory" as an

authorized procedure of the healthcare system he proposes to mandate.  I think his proposals are good although I prefer single-payer, Medicare-like coverage.  There are so many reasons to prefer John Edwards including the fact that he resonates with most Americans with no baggage from the past.

by lobo charlie 2007-09-04 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

This is from the John Edwards blog comment on this topic:
a) It's a misquote. Or at least, the context is lacking.
b) Edwards has no "authoritarian" tendencies. That's utter hogwash.
c) The policy is right here on this website in the detailed PDF file about the Edwards universal health care plan:

(2) Invest in Preventive Care and Health.  Study after study shows that primary and preventive care greatly reduces future health care costs, as well as increasing patients' health, but our health care system is focused on treating diseases, not preventing them.  Insurance companies have little incentive to bear these costs.  As a result, many people do not receive preventive care such as tests and immunizations.  Other Americans suffer from preventable, chronic conditions that can lead to complications and disability.  Edwards will help Health Care Markets lead the effort to realign incentives in the health care system that reward healthier outcomes and lower costs. [CDC, 2005]
* Promote Preventive Care:  Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at little or no cost.  Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs.  Edwards will also support community efforts to improve health, such as safe streets, walking and biking trails, safe and well-equipped parks, and physical education programs for children.
So the "mandatory" checkups are not really mandatory, they are a carrot-and-stick approach to promoting preventative care to keep costs down in the system. Edwards saying "you can't go 20 years without a checkup" should have been phrased, "you can't go 20 years without a checkup IF YOU WANT TO KEEP PAYING LOWER PREMIUMS THAN THOSE THAT NEGLECT REGULAR CHECKUPS."

And that's just common sense. How can the plan be described as universal if people can get kicked out of the system? I hope this comment clears up all the fretting and confusion.
by dzog (blu|century)
on 9/04/2007 at 9:12 AM PDT

by mrobinsong 2007-09-04 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Mandatory procedures.

I am not at all aware that any procedures are intended to be mandatory and I looked in the plan.  What I believe was intended is that periodic checkups are needed to allow a person to make informed choices and to identify possible problems. Even now there are different recommendations for different circumstances for mammagrams.  Many preventative procedures are not covered unless there is a strong reason indicated.  

Right now people are discouraged by their insurance carrier to have regular checkups.  If they are mandatory in the coverage then the insurer has to pay for them.  Ultimately one's health is the responsibility of the individual but there are best practices to follow for a long and healthy life.  

by pioneer111 2007-09-04 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

This Ezra Klein post should put your mind at rest regarding "mandatory" care.

by david mizner 2007-09-04 10:23AM | 0 recs
by david mizner 2007-09-04 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

If you are also endorsing John Edwards on your blog today, could you please drop me a line w/ a link at

I'd appreciate it, I'm trying to round them all up!


by vpltz 2007-09-04 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I endorsed Edwards in July.

by PA progressive 2007-09-04 06:55AM | 0 recs
Nice to "meet" you David !

I'm the granddaughter, daughter, niece and wife of U.S. Marines and my dependent's i.d. card has never expired!  

I support John Edwards because he inspires me to be a better person...since 2004, after reading his book Four Trials.

I don't have a blog, but enjoy reading and commenting on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground where I maintain a journal: m/Catchawave

by catchawave 2007-09-04 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice to "meet" you David !

Thanks. To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that only people with their own blogs should declare their support. The sphere isn't about, or shouldn't be about, creating tiers between a-listers and b-listers, between posters and commenters, between people with blogs and people without--It's just the netroots, period.

by david mizner 2007-09-04 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Here's my endorsement of Edwards, along with a few more links to others.

by PDiddie 2007-09-04 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I've said what I'm about to say before on this site, because basically I'm not giving up hope yet, although I probably will soon.

I love Edwards' rhetoric. He's saying everything right. My problem is that what he's saying now doesn't seem to match up with his record when he was a Senator. How cold someone who was so middle of the road, so enthusiastically and earnestly-seeming neo-liberal now be the second coming of Emma Goldstein? It just doesn't wash with me. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

Honestly, if you're that into the way Edwards is talking right now, why not go with Kucinich? Kucinich is saying the same things Edwards is now. The difference is he's been saying them for 20 years and his voting record matches his rhetoric consistently over his career.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-09-04 06:46AM | 0 recs
It's simply

not true that Edwards was a neoliberal in the Senate. I wrote a long diary that I believe puts the lie to this lie pretty nicely. blog/2

For one thing during his campaign for the Senate he came out against NAFTA, violating one of the central tenets of neoliberalism. In fact, it's surprising, given that he was being groomed at the next Clinton, that he never swallowed the neoliberal agenda. Was he less progressive than he is now? Yes, but he was representing North Carolina. He's the probably the most progressive Senator in a southern red state in the last thirty years. And in any case, isn't a leftward move a good thing?

Listen to John Nichols of the Nation sum up his Senate career.

[...I]n the Senate, Edwards was willing to stand up on a number of anti-corporate issues more so than most Democrats. It's the reason that not just Ralph Nader has kind words for him but also people like Ted Kennedy and remember, internally within the Kerry campaign, Ted Kennedy was advocating for Edwards. Because he saw Edwards as a gutsy guy who is willing to take on some bigger issues and to do some rough stuff with it. I think that's where the appeal is, to a lot of the older Democrats and even non-Democrats who see Edwards as a relatively young guy with a little bit of spark.

Now, ask yourself, would Ralph Nader and Ted Kennedy dig a neoliberal?

by david mizner 2007-09-04 07:28AM | 0 recs
well ...

... you look at the VoteView records for the 107th Senate, and Edwards came in 38th in terms of "most reliable Democratic vote," behind Hollings, both WV Senators and both FL Senators.  Of course, it's the details where this gets sorted out, and there are places where Edwards has always been progressive and others where he hasn't.

by Adam B 2007-09-04 07:39AM | 0 recs

I said Southern red state, of which Florida certainly isn't one.

As for Hollings, I should have said Edwards is probably the most progressive senator elected in a southern red state in the last thirty years. I'd say his main competition is Max Cleland, and we all know what happened to him.

And if you think you can you judge someone's progressivism simply by looking at voting records, then I've got a poll to show you.

by david mizner 2007-09-04 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hunh?

We've lost it the last two presidential elections (and only once since 1976), and the last three gubernatorials.  That's at least pink.

Are you saying "elected for the first time within the last 30 years", and not "elected"?  Am trying to parse.

Please, no polls.

by Adam B 2007-09-04 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hunh?

Florida is purple, I'd say: there was a Democrat governor there in the nineties.

And I think you know what I'm saying.

by david mizner 2007-09-04 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hunh?
California has had Republican governors 19 of the past 24 years. I suppose California is purple as well?
by anevarez 2007-09-04 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply

"And in any case, isn't a leftward move a good thing?"

Yes. I just wonder if this leftward shift is genuine, or all talk. It's hard to tell if his latest rhetoric is the result of deliberation and judgment, or just the ability to see which way the political winds are blowing.

When the winds were blowing for war, he was a leading voice for war. Now the winds are blowing for peace and he's a leading voice for peace. Is Edwards just a political weather vane?

by Pope Jeremy 2007-09-04 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply

At the time he came out against the war the data seems to suggest that country was mostly evenly divided. Since many of you claim that he's simply following the political winds- here's a simple test. Look up when polling data turned seriously against the war, and match that against when he turned against in 2003. Right now only he and dodd are calling for the quickest strategy to change things now.\ tent/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623. html 38/358

by bruh21 2007-09-04 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply

OK. I appreciate you finding that info for me. It does make it look less like Edwards isn't just doing whatever looks popular at the time.

As for "only" Edwards and Dodd taking a hard line against the war, that's just untrue. Kucinich has been against the war since before it started. He's never voted to fund it. So it's just untrue to make it sound like Edwards and Dodd are leading the anti-war efforts and that they're the only candidates who are for pulling out now. Kucinich is also for pulling out now. He's much more of an anti-war leader than Edwards and Dodd.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-09-04 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply

somehow - and I have NO idea (haha) what would give me this idea - i KNEW you'd reply to this diary.  

Just HAD to say that.  When I read "Mixner", I knew you'd have something substantive to say.  And I read, as I indeed read all of the stuff you out on here.  Interesting insight.

I would like to see you as - even infrequent - a front page blogger here from time to time.  No one can say that you don't instigate debate, lol.

by jgarcia 2007-09-04 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: It's simply

Can you do a diary on this doing a comparision? The Clintonistas were trying to argue that CLinton is more liberal than Edwards this weekend. I think a diary contrasting candidates was be of a lot of value. why edwards over otehr canidates?

by bruh21 2007-09-04 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I sent the following with a link to your diary to a few people I have been in discussions with regarding John vs. Hillary.  I am a 64 years old female who got very active in the Dean campaign, and have remained active in a small NH town.  

"I think he said it all for me, why I am supporting John.  Primaries are the only place where we get to make the arguments that matter to us about the values we cherish, and what we want for the Democratic Party.  This is where many of us supported Howard Dean, because of what he said, and rejected the "electable" candidate, who didn't win by enough to keep the presidency out of the hands of the cheats.
If I have to go with the one who is "going to win anyway," then I will give up on this process.  I just don't have the energy at my advancing age to support someone I can't trust.  Someone else who cares less about values can do it in my place."

by bloomingpol 2007-09-04 06:52AM | 0 recs
My sentiments exactly. I support

Carol and hope that she will support Edwards in the primary.  After all the undemocratic support her opponent received in the last primary from the DLC, this site and DailyKos called attention to the unfairness so that she received netroots support to even the playing field.  Her support of Edwards would be one in the eye of those who sought to bury her last year.  Carol for Congress!

by lobo charlie 2007-09-04 07:44AM | 0 recs
what is your sense

of where the Dean supporters in NH are landing?

Most of the Dean supporters I know in Iowa are either for Edwards or Obama--only a handful for Clinton. Many are still undecided, of course.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-04 10:24AM | 0 recs
On the threat from economic inequality

I am writing something on rich and poor.  While doing so I can across the following from John Adams, who said when

economic power be came concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny

About 4 months ago Charles Krauthammer said something that made me stop:  he said John Edwards was the first candidate for President to make poverty a central issue since Robert Kennedy.

I am not completely sold on Edwards yet - but we should not lightly consider how unique it is to have Edwards focusing on poverty the way he is.

by fladem 2007-09-04 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: On the threat from economic inequality

And that he has a shot at winning not only the nomination, but the general election as well!

by adamterando 2007-09-06 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Thanx, David, for you unabashed endorsement.  I second your nomination!  I'd like to offer my view of Edward's and our progresssive frame (vision), with a contrast to the Republicans and conservatism.

Conservatism means, basically, "privitization".  Cons believe that private (corporations) entities should control the economy.  They call this the "free market", which theoretically means no government intereference,  except to ensure THEIR free market.

Conservatism has been an utter failure: 47 million with no health insurance and tens of millions more unable to afford their choice of coverage; a Middle East War to privide dwindling natural resources; unsustainable lifestyle choices; the utter failure with Katrina; corruption with cronyism; and most imporantly, an economy based solely on the dollar, with no recognition of any human needs.

So, what's the alternative?

Many progressives counter the privitization ideology with the "common good", or the "public good" (in contrast to "private greed").  We see the value in good government, which serves the common good, such as police, fire and first responder protection; public schools and universities; libraries; health clinics; and parks and museums. All of the above are funded, primarily or totally, by tax monies wisely spent.  We argue that our health care and a national energy policy ought to also come under this "public ownership", and this system would provide the necessary job creation to meet our human and national needs.

Edwards comes the closest (of the major Dem candidates) in understanding this analysis. Of course, Kucinich is A-#1 with his call for a non-profit third payer for our health care, like the system which worked for the WW II generation and into the 1980s.  They both call for a national energy policy (like the Apollo Project).

Lakoff writes that the progressive community would do ourselves well to adopt a frame (vision), and contimue to advance this agenda, day-after-day after-day.  I wholeheartedly agree.  We need a clean and crips analysis, with simple solutions.  I offer the above as a start.  

I'd appreciate any feedback, especially how it relates to Edwards. Thanks for reading.

by dogenman 2007-09-04 06:55AM | 0 recs
Edwards connects at the values level

I have read some of the literature on framing. Progressives have often failed because they tried to convince people on the issues without connecting on the values level first.

If you listen to Edwards' speeches, both the "two Americas" from 2004 and the current one, he talks a lot about values.

Cribbing from the front-page post I wrote last Tuesday:

I encourage you to look at this post by Mark Blumenthal at from April. Blumenthal describes Janet Harris's work in creating "tag clouds" following the Democratic candidates' debate on MSNBC. Click the link and view the clouds to get a sense of the kind of language used by our presidential candidates.

Here's the most important part:

A few quick observations, with an assist from Janet (who is the president of the media analysis firm, Upstream Analysis):

   * Notice the more frequent use of wonkier language by Chris Dodd, particularly the use of "administration," "multinational," "stateless," etc.
    * Now contrast that to John Edwards, whose answers tend to use everyday language and deliver a message loud and clear message: "America," "believe," "united."

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-04 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Who could not agree with the two Americas theme- but how do you explain the many inconsistencies in John Edwards "do as I say not as I do life"?  He made  his money by suing doctors-taking huge sums out of the settlements-from his then friends-the insurance companies-to the detriment of the system.  Recently he built a 28,000 sq foot house (including an indoor squash court that needs intense lighting-don't know about you but those energy efficient bulbs just don't cut it for squash)  He charged public universities last year over $50,000 to make a speech- How can you reconcile those things?  He's a trial lawyer- they say whatever- My dad was a blue collar worker as well- I'm a very fortunate person right now-quite well off- I drive an energy efficient car - and have a 2,500 sq ft house- More than big enough for my family of 4 and this fragile earth.  Other candidates have worked their entire lives for the poor-Edwards has had a "political awakening"  He hasn't had a real job in two years- merely running for President- Of course he has time to stand in picket lines-duh- With all that extra time he's barely in 3rd place?  The Republicans don't see him as a threat- because of the above hypocrisy and also because they've beat him once- We need a win here- losing is not an option-They will destroy him- just watching the old "I feel pretty" video on You Tube is enough to turn many people off- He has taken plenty of money from trial lawyers and many, many who employ lobbyists.  Also Edwards was enthusiastic about his war vote-he gave a passionate speech supporting it-In 2004 election he was adamant about not backing down on the war vote for political reasons. From Boston Globe:  Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.
" es/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tun e_on_the_iraq_vote/

Methinks he has done his talk before the jury and done it very well- Will we give him the huge settlement this time?

by Menemshasunset 2007-09-04 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

Thanks, Clinton supporter, for your Edwards-bash on a post for Edwards endorsers. Very smooth.

by mrobinsong 2007-09-04 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Thoughtful comment

What I like best about your comment is the obvious care and thought you put into it.  Well researched, fact-based analysis, rather than a poor regurgitation of tired, lame Republican talking points that can't stand up to scrutiny.  Maybe you should start your own blog!

by filby 2007-09-04 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President
I've been on Edwards bandwagon for quite a while. I liked what he had to say as the Vice-Presidential candidate in 2004. When it comes down to it I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, but at the top of my picks is always John Edwards and has been for some time. Just use the search command at the top of my Blog(if interested) for my posts on John Edwards.
Out of the Mountains
by RDean 2007-09-04 08:45AM | 0 recs
my endorsement

I posted my endorsement on the John Edwards for President blog in February:
Why I support John Edwards: Vision and Hope.

If I were writing it now, I'd put the focus on somewhat different things, but I stand by this endorsement.

by asahopkins 2007-09-04 09:00AM | 0 recs
by jordan 2007-09-04 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: my endoresement

D'oh! Endorsement, not endoresment!

by jordan 2007-09-04 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President
I like Edwards, for too many reasons to fit in one post.  Here's a link to what I wrote today: o?diaryId=440
by Mooncat 2007-09-04 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

I have finally yielded to the argument that Edwards is by far the best hope for a General Election win, and I now endorse his campaign over Obama's.
by ramfar 2007-09-04 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

To my shame I really didn't know who John Edwards was before he was selected as Kerry's running mate, but ever since then I've been a big fan.  I disagree with him on some important issues, but I think that he's got the vision that this country needs.  

I like a lot of the Democratic candidates this time, I think it's a credit to the party that so many well qualified people are competing for the nomination.  That said, for all the strengths of the rest of the field, I think that Edwards is the right person for the job.

Thank you all for getting the ball rolling on this.  With many of the states jockeying for position it's hard not to feel like the race will be over before those of us up here in Washington State will get a chance to make our voices heard.  A roundup of Edwards endorsements was a fantastic idea.

I haven't put together an official endorsement post on my blog yet, because I don't think I could really do it justice.  

by Dave 98225 2007-09-04 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

John Edwards is our best choice for President.  No question about it.  He's fighting all the right battles.  And you can't win any battles that you don't fight.

by RT 2007-09-04 12:04PM | 0 recs
I Agree.

Usually I like to say something more provocative. But all I can say is that I agree and for the same reason as yours.

by demwords 2007-09-04 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President
John Edwards has my endorsement for the caring heart that he has towards Americans. I am a mother of 4 children in California. I became politically involved 4 years ago on the issue of genetic engineering in foods.I have spent half my life overseas in Muslim countries,Europe and elsewhere. I believe Edwards has the character traits of diplomacy to deal with foreign affairs.
I also am supporting Edwards because he doesn't take lobbyists $$ and is the number one electable candidate to deal with global warming.
Endorsement from CALIFORNIA! My blogs on Mydd and DailyKos- tag name yann123
by yann123 2007-09-04 04:15PM | 0 recs
Thank you, David...
... for endorsing Edwards. I'm the Boston blogger who wrote "from the heart" on our site -- a site built by AJ here in the bluest of the blue states. I'm excited about the Steel Workers, the Mine Workers, your endorsement... and all the others who are beginning to see what we do. This election can be won by words, not money -- and people like you and AJ will be the ones to do it. Blue state liberal humanists. By all odds useless to the Dems but... the pen is mightier, isn't it?! Again, thank you.
by Julia02110 2007-09-04 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards for President

His words were clear and so were yours:  Required preventive care is a boom to everyone.

by Lola 2007-09-16 06:36PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads