MyDD :: John Edwards

John Edwards - decision

by Michael Bersin, Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 03:19:42 PM EST

I received the following e-mail (along with everyone else on his e-mail list) from John Edwards:

From:      "John Edwards" <JohnEdwards@readytochangeamerica.com>
To:     XXXXXXXX
Subject:     The big decision
Date:     Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:45 -0500

Dear Friend,

For the past two years, we've worked together to build an America
that lives up to its promise -- one where we all share in prosperity
at home and one that shows real moral leadership around the world.

I'm proud of our successes fighting poverty, supporting working
families, and standing up for what we believe.

Now, we have a big decision to make -- and I do mean we.

I'm getting ready to take this effort to the next level - to bring
Americans together in all fifty states to tackle the big challenges
facing our country, from poverty and lack of health care, to energy
and global warming.

But this is our effort, and we can only succeed if we're all in it
together. So before I make a final decision, I need to hear from you:
Are you ready?

If you're ready to take this to the next level, and launch a renewed
national effort to change America, send me a note and let me know:
JohnEdwards@readytochangeamerica.com

If you have friends or family who share this vision, I want to hear
from them too. Please forward this on to anyone you know who might
want to join this big new effort.

I believe we can run a totally new kind of endeavor -- one that puts
our ideals into action, and puts the hopes and dreams of the American
people above the personal ambition and play-it-safe strategy of
traditional politics.

I can't promise you where this will ultimately lead. But I can
promise you this: if you're on board, we'll launch a renewed
commitment to change our country from the bottom up. We'll always
speak from the heart. And together, we'll reach out to millions of
people to let them know it's still okay to dream big dreams, and do
everything we can to make them real --because that's what America is
all about.

So the only question is: Are you ready?

If you want to take this effort to next level, send me an e-mail and
let me know:
JohnEdwards@readytochangeamerica.com

Stay tuned: I'll let you know what we decide early next week.

Happy holidays, and may it be a bright new year for all.

Your friend,

John

PAID FOR BY JOHN EDWARDS

If you would like to unsubscribe from email communications sent by
John Edwards, please visit this link:
http://www.readytochangeamerica.com/unsu bscribe.html

I'd like to see him run.

Tags: John Edwards, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: John Edwards - decision (3.00 / 1)

I am so ready!

For info on the upcoming tour:

John Edwards Events and Online Tickets: http://johnedwardsevents.com/

December 28: Des Moines, Iowa
December 29, 2006
Portsmouth, NH

December 29, 2006
Reno, NV

December 30, 2006
West Columbia, SC

December 30, 2006
Chapel Hill, NC

by NCDemAmy on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 03:51:25 PM EST

I'd like to see that too. (3.00 / 1)

To clarify - anyone who wants to, should run. The only Consitutional qualifications are that you were born on United States soil, and that you've reached 35 years of age. Nothing in there about being a rich white male that I could see...

Re: this e-mail exercise - I'm pretty sure his decision has already been made, one way or the other (and I'm pretty sure it's towards running), so I'm guessing this is possibly a way to revamp the e-mail roll?

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. ~ John F. Kennedy

by machka on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 03:55:52 PM EST

Right, it's the information age. (3.00 / 1)

So you get the most bang from your buck, including forwarded e-mails to friends and potential supporters.

I posted my take on his outlook in Iowa at One America Committee.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards=rich white male (3.00 / 1)

It's not a requirement--but it helps.

The emperor has been strolling around the blogosphere without any clothes. It will not be as easy--anywhere nearly as easy--for Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, or Bill Richardson to get elected as it would be if they were WASP males.

Please look at this list http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.h tml

Find me a name that isn't from the British Isles or the Netherlands.

Hint: Look Eisenhower, Kennedy, Agnew, Ferraro, Dukakis, Lieberman.

I don't think there are any others, and there are for damn sure no women or African-Americans.

This is advantage Edwards, dirty though the little secret may be.

True, like JFK, Hillary may find enough likers to balance out the haters, but she'd be in better shape if her name were something like, uh, Bill?

The world hasn't changed and won't change until someone other than a WASP claws his or her way to the top as Kennedy (and his dad) did in 1960. It ain't easy.

by stevehigh on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

electability of Blacks and women as Pres (3.00 / 2)

You are right, Blacks and women have not been as electable for the highest positions, but we are making progress. I highly doubt the majority of voters in this country would trust a woman or a Black man enough to vote them in as President in 08, particulalry with the Iraq war having gone to hell in a handbasket. A sad, but true state of affairs.

A female or person of color as VP may help push those who are stuck in their sexism and racism to a level of acceptance.

by NCDemAmy on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First female or African American President (none / 0)

I think it can be done. Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama are as likely to get it done as any candidates in history.

But we should not underestimate the pain. The problem is not with out-and-out sexism and racism--most of those voters are concentrated in the GOP and will stay there. The difficulty comes, as you suggest, when people think about the next commander-in-chief and apply a much more critical standard to candidates who don't "look" like a history book president.

The tough part is that we as a nation won't change before such a historic election but after it, so we don't know if 2008 is it until it's over.

Unfortunately, it seems like somebody has to take one for the team--Al Smith- or Geraldine Ferraro-style.

My favorite scenario: Cheney's defibrillator craps out and Bush gets impeached before he can name a VP--President Pelosi Time!

by stevehigh on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 06:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is not going to be just about sexism and racism (3.00 / 3)

There are some who will have issues with the postition of Hillary and or Obama.

It will not only be the sexism/racism, and the two should not be confused.

When I pointed out differences I had with Harold Ford Jr. as a TN--09 voter, someone who had had him as my Representative for 10 years, racism was constantly shoved down my throat along with the troll ratings at KOS. NO one wanted to hear anything disagreeable or any discussion of real issues. The Race card was played if you even suggested Ford wasn't the right person.

There are many simularities in Obama and Ford's position on issues, and bi-partisanship, that I do not like.

My point is that to disagree is not always because of either Race or Sexism. Neither Hillary or Obama are perfect people, and to disagree with them, no one should just jump up and start sling the Sexism/or Race card.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 08:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No one has here (none / 0)

The problem, I think, is that some people are more critical of non-WASPs in a presidential campaign than they might be of a man named, for example, John Edwards.

Hillary and Obama should not be treated with kid gloves, but they should be treated the same as if they were white and male.

This is not a topic that one is comfortable talking about, but pretending that prejudice doesn't exist is asinine.

by stevehigh on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 10:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not pretending that it doesn't exist (none / 0)

but pretending that it does in every example or dispute, or disagreement is just as asinine, maybe even more so.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 12:53:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards=rich white male (none / 0)

John C. Fremont, 1856.

Gearldine Ferrarro, Mondale's 1984 VP nominee was, in fact, a woman.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 03:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd like to see that too. (none / 0)

Re: this e-mail exercise - I'm pretty sure his decision has already been made, one way or the other (and I'm pretty sure it's towards running), so I'm guessing this is possibly a way to revamp the e-mail roll?

I think it's smarter than that - it's a matter of building the buzz.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd like to see that too. (none / 0)

Agreed... no other reason for a 4 stop tour except to build buzz and grab media attention. Kudos to whoever came up with that at the Edwards camp... I wonder which candidates will ste... I mean borrow that move.

by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd like to see that too. (none / 0)

Just a point of information and debate on this... Article II of the constitution states that the President has to be natural born. The Naturalization Act of 1790 states that ''the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens". Therefore, the argument can be made that one needs to either be born on US soil or to American parents to be elgible to run for President. Of course some disagree with this... however, my guess is that if it ever came up to a SCOTUS challenge (my guess would be a son or daughter of a military family or diplomat would be the most likely scenario), the SCOTUS finds in favor of those born abroad to American Parents (who have active citizenry), otherwise, this creates a seperate class of citizens within the country and undermines established law of over 200 years.

by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John Edwards all the way to the Whitehouse! (3.00 / 2)

2008 all the way!

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:07:48 PM EST

Re: John Edwards all the way to the Whitehouse! (3.00 / 1)

It's getting nearer...

by NCDemAmy on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes it is just around the corner! (none / 0)

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 04:24:24 PM EST

I didn't get one. (none / 0)

I'm on One America's email list and I didn't get any suck email. I feel so left out. :(

by craverguy on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 12:08:07 AM EST

Re: I didn't get one. (none / 0)

Here, have a copy.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 06:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards - decision (none / 0)

The mainstream media and its chattering class are trying to push the Democrats into nominating someone unelectable. They succeeded with John Kerry. They think we're stupid enough to accept the "conventional wisdom" that a war hero (or a white woman, or a Black man) is absolutely the right candidate. They're laughing inside.
The candidates we should have nominated in 2004, the ones they feared, are still out there for us:
Wesley Clark and John Edwards. Remember, the last woman to run for VP lost in a landslide. Do we really want to be the standard bearers for identity politics of two people who support free trade? Are we that easily manipulated/??

by lauren on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 10:13:57 AM EST

Re: John Edwards - decision (none / 0)

Who's the war hero your referring too? I thought you were angling toward Clark, but

And BTW, most of the polls coming out are starting to really disprove that Obama or HRC are unelectable based on sex and color. Granted, we won't know for sure until there is a non-white or non-male candidate in the general election... But to compare 2008 to 1984 is pretty far fetched.

by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is Edward's yesterday's news? (none / 0)

Interesting piece in Washingtop Post that Obama and Hillary are taking the oxygen out of other Democratic campaigns. I wonder if that is happening and is what prompted Edwards to announcee now? The Post article suggested that was the case.

Clinton and Obama Clear The 2008 Playing Field

Edwards's posted email was a vague "happy talk". Obama's pretty much staked out the "new hope" spot which was Edwards' previous position in 2004.

Edwards probably had to step up a notch in hard positions to stake out a new political spot for himself to get in the race.

by BrionLutz on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 12:31:38 PM EST

Re: Is Edward's yesterday's news? (none / 0)

There do seem to be a limited number of pre-packaged narratives to run on.

by justinh on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Edward's yesterday's news? (none / 0)

Given that Edwards has been campaigning unofficially for 18 to 24 months, I have a feeling he was planning to announce about this time for a while... even before the Obama speculation started gearing up in October. Edwards has always been strong enough in knowledge, donors, message and organization to be able to compete with HRC and Obama... he just might have a tougher road at the start as the media focuses on HRC, Obama and Gore (if he runs which I am doubting at this point).. this could also work to his advantage of course as long as he can get the donations, since the spoltlight will be off him.

by yitbos96bb on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 01:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Edward's yesterday's news? (none / 0)

"Edwards has always been strong enough in knowledge, donors, message and organization to be able to compete with HRC and Obama."

Obama has not been part of the presidential mix until recently so Edwards had the spot as the only viable alternative to Hillary to himself.

As the Post article points out, the recent rise of Obama, the huge crowds and interest, have changed the dynamic. It probably impacts Edwards the most since people see Obama as the only candidate with enough star power to compete with Hillary for the nomination which leaves Edwards as the odd man out.

by BrionLutz on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 03:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Edward's yesterday's news? (none / 0)

Yeah but Obama's hype is just that, "start power".

Edwards has actually staked out some tough positions and is gradually building support amongst the activist base (especially union workers). I don't think people are supporting Obama because they think his "star power" is enough to compete with Hillary. They like Obama because he gives them a positive narrative to latch onto.

I imagine at some point in the campaign Edwards might make a Mondale-like comparison between Obama and Gary Hart (i.e. "Where's the beef?").

Notice that the media will develop a narrative regardless of the evidence at hand. The post article relegated the last Iowa poll showing Edwards leading to a small paragraph at the bottom of the article. Edwards is much stronger, especially in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina than this article lets on.

They want this to be the Hillary-Obama show. At least until they decide to tear one or both of them down.

by adamterando on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 03:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Edward's yesterday's news? (none / 0)

The early schedule is very helpful to Edwards and should give him momentum going into Feb. If can raise enough money to compete seriously through Feb and March then he could well win.

I've been impressed with the groundwork he has put in so far. But 2007 will be a test of how much cash he can raise.

by kundalini on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 03:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is Edward's yesterday's news? (3.00 / 2)

I'll give to him, and I haven't given to a candidate since I gave $50.00 to Howard Dean in August 2003.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 04:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama faces several problems. (3.00 / 1)

It's most likely going to end up as an Edwards-Obama race. Hillary's media-generated frontrunner status is falling apart where it matters most.

Obama faces several problems: He is inexperienced at this level of political campaigns, a high percentage of his support is from younger people who tend to be less reliable voters, and he's facing an equally charismatic rival who will be viewed by many people as a much "safer" choice.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 04:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama can win it if he enters. (none / 0)

"He is inexperienced at this level of political campaigns."

A couple experienced hired guns...Donna Brazile(?)...and that is a nonevermind.

"a high percentage of his support is from younger people who tend to be less reliable voters."

Nope. His support is across the board. You may be confusing fact that Obama scores higher with younger voters than does Hillary or Edwards but that is something different...and a big plus.

"he's facing an equally charismatic "

Nope. No one has Obama's charisma which is why he's leading. Hillary has no charisma. Edwards has "boyish charm" but not really charismatic. With Obama they go nuts as we saw in New Hampshire. Edwards can't match that.

No one else, Democrat or Republican, has "it" the way Obama does.

by BrionLutz on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 05:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope. (none / 0)

Hired guns don't debate and answer reporters' loaded questions. Obama's inexperience at this level poses serious risks.

It will be interesting to see if the young people and others wowed by Obama's allegedly unmatched charisma (heh) actually show up at the caucuses and primaries.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 05:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope. (3.00 / 1)

There shouldn't be an Edwards-Obama rivalry, they'll be on the same ticket in 2008, in that order of course ;)

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 06:37:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope. (none / 0)

Exactly.

by SocialDem on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 12:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good Luck with Donna (none / 0)

She was with Gore 2000 - Lost
She was with Kerry 2004 - Lost

I think your dreaming, but thats ok.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 08:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards - decision (none / 0)

I'm still convinced that Hillary (and Rudy) will follow in the footsteps of another New York giant who made all indications he would run in 1992, and when the time came... backed out. Yep, Hillary and Rudy are the Mario Cuomos of the 2008 season.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 04:57:57 PM EST

Re: John Edwards - decision (none / 0)

Thanks for the Diary, I sent my response to the John Edwards e-mail as a cut n paste of my comment on Matt's Diary.
Yes, Ready, Hell Yes!

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." Dalai Lama

by Predictor on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 09:06:05 PM EST

I feel like John reads my comments quite a bit :) (none / 0)

big challenges facing our country, from poverty and lack of health care, to energy and global warming.

Write back 'Gore/Webb' to your friend, Kos (1+ / 0-)

Gore actually knows a thing of two about building a functioning economy, would have given a minimum wage in 2001, and more later, heading towards a 'living wage', will invest in new technologies that would fix global warming which at the same time will create millions of new jobs, and will work towards single-payer universal healthcare.

by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:53:58 AM PST

We need someone that has the principles, stature and experience to stand up against rather powerful forces of greed, avarice and military adventurism, and solve the BIG problems (global warming/energy, economy, healthcare, scitech, education etc) AND reform the political system. Possible only with help from everyone concerned, of course.

The next President has to clean up the mess AND set the vision for the ensuing generation of political ethos.

The logical destination of the progressive movement (upon success) is a reformed polity that centers around the good of all people (vis-a-vis money and power brokers) but more importantly, around truth.
by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 08:33:04 AM PST

Welcome to the global warming club, John. The water is warm now, literally, and politically. More people talking about it is good, provided, we give due credit to Al Gore's lifetime of hardwork and dedication to the cause and to his continuing work to raise the political will to the current point and beyond.

by NuevoLiberal on Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 04:50:09 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.