One thing Edwards showed in the primaries last time round is that he is a past master of going negative while making a show of never going negative. That said, I don't think this time round he'll make the mistake of claiming to be Mr Positive. I think his determination never to be seen to be attacking his opponent was responsible for his much-derided performance against Cheney in the debate. It depends on being sly which is hard to do against a bald-faced liar who attacks and attacks based on those lies. I suspect that freed of the pretense of positivity, Edwards will prove a much more formidable debater than he sometimes is given credit for being. I am not a Dean supporter so I am not voting, but Edwards has my vote this time round.

I wasn't actually committed and I did a few candidate matchers for fun, and ended up matching with Dean. But, I voted for Edwards for strategic purposes (since Edwards and Kerry were the only contenders left by the time my primary came around).

But yeah, John Edwards looks to be putting a new sunny face on contrasting and comparing.

Sorta like "A Reformer with Results", only more realistic.

Every poll should have a "don't know."

Thanks for the poll Matt. I've been interested to see for a while where former Dean supporters such as myself stand on Edwards vs Obama.

I have this sense of fatalism that we're marching inexorably towards an Edwards/Obama ticket.

The southern primaries are going to be one helluva fight between the three titans. This should be VERY interesting.

I don't see how that's an attack. Can you explain how explain how saying what is patently true is an attack? I believe Obama can maybe grow into more, but at this point, everything he says is about hope, and his followers seem in general content with this, but then expect more from other candidates.

I will support any Democratic nominee this time.

One other question: What does this mean:

"But I do want to know whether a President Edwards will be as progressive as the man who was working that school cafeteria crowd, and working it well."

It seems like this is an attack without merit. What exactly makes him think Edwards does not mean what he says? Does he think Edwards in NC was faking it? Does he think the other choices he is making are faking it?  

ANY DEMOCRAT will be preferable to ANY REPUBLICAN.  I'd vote for a Ben Nelson before Olympia Snowe, for instance.  I realize that even you, Matt, will most likely support the nominee whoever it is, but do we have to start forming up the primary-season circular firing squad already?  "Progressive enough"?  Had MyDD and the internets been a force in 2000, would we have had all this BS about Gore, as Nader chuckled on his way to helping this country down the terrible road it's been on?  Probably so.

Edwards never had star power. If you saw it, you were alone. He was young and good looking with nice hair. But do you think he inspired anyone to vote. Doubtful.

And for most of the campaign he was MIA. The debate with Cheney, he was as ass kissing as Lieberman.

Now the netroots has fallen in love with him. Why? He is against the war and poverty. Wow. Way to take a stand.

The netroots love him because he buys ads on their sites. Half Kidding.

Now with Obama. Call it star power, I don't care. That is a bunch of media crap.

If Kennedy were alive today, they would say the same about him. And the netroots would say, see, he is just a poster boy. Three Quarters Kidding.

One day you, and I mean most, will actually watch Obama, and listen to what he says. And you will see a candidate that can actually get people excited about voting again. Even those that never did.

I'm sure most of you will continue the lies about him. But I was there, collecting signatures to get him on the ballot. When maybe 3% of those in Illinois knew his name.

And people, and yes, they knew him over the years of seeing him in action, but they couldn't wait to sign.

He won over voters talking about issues that people cared about.

The sooner the netroots gets that through their skulls, maybe they will actually back a winner. Instead of the Dean, Kucinich, Nader, Lamont losing streak they are on now.

And to the Edwards lovers. I think he is a great guy, and will be a good candidate. But he put America to sleep in 04. We have seen that play.

Gore, would love to see Gore run. I think he has grown up. And remember, Bill Clinton was an unknown, with so-called star power. Now I wish he did more, but compared to Bush. C'mon.

I did not back Dean because, as has been mentioned, by the time my state's primary was held, Dean was already out of the running. I am a strong Edwards backer because I believe, first, in his positions and, second, I believe he's sincere.

Ultimately, the only way to know if someone is sincere, is to see what he has done and is doing to prove he's more than just "words." Edwards has taken numerous steps to put his proverbial "money" (his priorities, organizations and efforts) where his "mouth" is. Go ahead. Look at what he's been doing since the last election and tell me he isn't head and shoulders above the actions (not the rhetoric) of his competition. Progressive bona fides? YES! Trustworthy? I have to believe in "something," or I believe in "nothing." I believe in John Edwards and will be voting for him, enthusiastically!

I gave money to Dean twice in 2003, wrote letters to voters in Iowa and attended Meetups.

In 2007/2008, I plan on doing everything I can to get John Edwards nominated.  I'm setting up my ActBlue page next week and will start raising what I can from my friends and family.  My tax refund won't come fast enough to send a decent donation.

I was a fervent Dean support, giving my money and time (letter writing, calls, local organizing, and a lengthy stint in Iowa) and so far Edwards has my support, and in a BIG way.

Edwards seemed to shadow us in Iowa, and I had plenty of time to watch him at rallys and events, and on multiple occasions had the opportunity to talk to him for a reasonable amount of time.

The memory that stands out in my mind is when I went to an Edwards rally just to hear him talk, and I was decked out in Dean gear along w/ other Dean supporters.  Right after Edwards finished talking, he walked right over to us (in our Dean gear and all), with CSPAN cameras rolling no less, and just talked to us for about 10 minutes about how excited he was to see young (college students) energized about, and active in politics, and how we were setting an example for the rest of the country, just not youth, to follow.  

In Iowa I saw the beginnings of the Edwards we're seeing now, and he has my full support.

I, too, was a Dean supporter in 2004.  I like Obama, and will vote for him if he gets the nomination, but I think Edwards this time is the real thing.  He is proposing the right policies, he has the right message, and he is extremely effective at framing the issues.  Framing, while in my mind being the least important aspect of a candidate, is the tool that gets a candidate elected.  The majority of voters, unfortunately, make decisions on sound bites or the "beer" test.  

I believe that Edwards is both effective and sincere, and will do everything I can to elect him.
Joe

I am afraid that Edwards and Obama will split the anybody-but-Hillary vote ( count me as one of them ), and Hillary will waltz in through the split.

I think Obama will make it. He is the un_Bush.

While far from 'brilliant,' this is some framing you've got here. So, basically, if we were a 'Deaniac' we may have been vulnerable to the themes of Edwards campaign in 04 and currently as he launches his presidential campaign. You are attempting to frame us as simpletons who support(ed) a democratic candidate just because of his appearance. And, we can barely make it out of our houses to vote due to all the crap we've been sold by the HSN! Gimme a break.

Not playing into your frame.

...wife, mom and dad all caucused for Dean. My wife is tentatively for Obama this time (I'm carefully working on her though -- bought her Elizabeth Edwards' book for X-mas ;)) and my parents are both for Edwards.

If you followed Edwards closely last time, you might hear a subtle difference now. I've noticed what I would describe as a little bit more "steel" in his voice.

I will be following this Edwards character more closely. ;-)

I like it better when Edwards slashes at McCain :)

I've been a JRE supporter since '03 when he was THE risin'rock'n'rolling star of the Dems.  I don't see that kind of depth in Obama...and he has more political experience, counting his years in the state legislature.

I love when I see Joe Trippi come here and discuss transactional and transformational, I think Edwards has always been transformational, but was just mishandled by the Kerry campaign.

My favorite part about John?  His ability to say "I don't know".

I love Obama, but give me time to heal from the Harold Ford, Jr campaign...that is...he lost it over a "white girl winking".  Our country may not be ready, afterall. (BTW, I heard Casey's racist campaign manager has been hired by McCain?)  

Supported Clark in '03/'04, and lean towards Obama now.

Clark could be ahead in the poll if he is on it?

above.

Gore shoudln't have run a right-wing campaign.
What a crock.

----

Gore ran on a platform he believed in: modern progressive populism

Gore's Convention speech

For almost eight years now, I've been the partner of a leader who moved us out of the valley of recession and into the longest period of prosperity in American history. I say to you tonight, millions of Americans will live better lives for a long time to come because of the job that's been done by President Bill Clinton.

...

Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surpluses, the highest home ownership ever, the lowest inflation in a generation, and instead of losing jobs, we now have 22 million good new jobs, higher family incomes.

...

Tonight I ask for your support on the basis of the better, fairer, more prosperous America we can build together.

...

Together, let's make sure that our prosperity enriches not just the few, but all working families. Let's invest in health care, education, a secure retirement and middle-class tax cuts.

...

But my focus is on working families, people trying to make house payments and car payments, working overtime to save for college and do right by their kids.

...

To all the families in America who have to struggle to afford the right education and the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, I want you to know this: I've taken on the powerful forces, and as president, I'll stand up to them and I'll stand up for you.

...

When they come in from playing on a hot summer afternoon, every child in America, anywhere in America ought to be able to turn on the faucet and get a glass of safe, clean drinking water

On the issue of the environment, I've never given up. I've never backed down and I never will.

And I say it again tonight: We must reverse the silent rising tide of global warming, and we can.

...

Others talked about welfare reform. We actually reformed welfare and set time limits. Instead of handouts, we gave people training to go from welfare to work. And we have cut the welfare rolls in half and moved millions into good jobs.

...

And if I'm you're president, I'm going to keep on having open meetings all over this country. I'm going to go out to you, the people, because I want to stay in touch with your hopes, with the quiet everyday heroism of working families.

...

It's just wrong for seniors to have to choose between food and medicine while the big drug companies run up record profits.

...

Education -- education may be a local responsibility, but I believe it also has to be our number-one national priority. We can't stop until every school in America is a good place to get a good education.

...

If you entrust me with the presidency, I will put our democracy back in your hands and get all the special interest money, all of it, out of our democracy by enacting campaign finance reform.

...

we will save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, not only for this generation but for generations to come. At a time of almost unimaginable medical breakthroughs, we will fight for affordable health care for all, so patients end ordinary people are not left powerless and broke. We will move toward universal health coverage, step by step, starting with all children.

...

So we will double the federal investment in medical research. We will find new medicines and new cures not just for cancer but for everything from diabetes to HIV/AIDS.

...

And, let's give middle-class families help in paying for college with tax-free college savings, and by making most college tuition tax deductible.

...

I'll fight for tax cuts that go to the right people, to the working families who have the toughest time paying taxes and saving for the future.

...

We will balance the budget every year and dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security. In the next four years, we will pay off all the national debt this nation accumulated in our first 200 years.

...

Hands off Medicare and Social Security trust fund money. I'll veto anything that spends it for anything other than Social Security and Medicare.

...

I will crack down on the marketing of tobacco to our children, no matter how hard the tobacco companies lobby and no matter how much they spend.

...

A new prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all our seniors, that's a family value. And let me tell you, I'll fight for it and the other side will not. They give in to the big drug companies. Their plan tells seniors to beg the HMOs and insurance companies for prescription drug coverage.

And that's the difference in this election. They're for the powerful. We're for the people.

...

Judge for yourself. Look at the agendas. Look at the facts.

...

I say to you tonight, if you entrust me with the presidency, I will fight for you. I mean that with all my heart.

...

To me, honor is not just a word, but an obligation. And you have my word: We will honor hard work by raising the minimum wage so that work always pays more than welfare.

We will honor families by expanding child care and after-school care, and family and medical leave

...

We will honor the ideal of equality by standing up for civil rights and defending affirmative action.

(APPLAUSE)

We will honor -- we will honor equal rights, and we will fight for an equal day's pay for an equal day's work.

(APPLAUSE)

And let there be no doubt. I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose. The last thing this country needs is a Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade.

...

And hear me well: We will pass the Employment Non- Discrimination act.

...

Crime has fallen in every major category for seven years in a row.

...

And I'll fight to make every school in this nation drug free and gun free. I believe in the right of sportsmen and hunters and law-abiding citizens to own firearms. But I want mandatory background checks to keep guns away from criminals and mandatory child-safety locks to protect our children.

...

Now I want to lead America because I love America. I will keep America's defenses strong. I will make sure our armed forces continue to be the best equipped, best trained and best led in the entire world.

...

But I say to you: It must be fair trade. We must get standards, we must set standards to end child labor to prevent the exploitation of workers, and the poisoning of the environment.

...

I say to you tonight, we've got to win this election because every hard-working American family deserves to open the door to their dream.

...

Sometimes you have to choose to do what's difficult or unpopular. Sometimes you have to be willing to spend your popularity in order to pick the hard right over the easy wrong.

...

If you entrust me with the presidency, I know I won't always be the most exciting politician. But I pledge to you tonight, I will work for you every day, and I will never let you down.

...

In this City of Angels, we can summon the better angels of our nature. Do not rest where we are or retreat, do all we can to make America all it can become.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless America.

Here is a Gore'2000 ad on golbal warming and the environment.

Video: Gore'2000 Ad

On the Environment
and Global Warming

~~~~~~~~~

Here is the brief synopsis on the 2000 election:

On the 2000 election
Clinton got impeached (he shouldn't have been, but he was reckless in the first place; and, Gore stood in support of Clinton on the day of impeachment. Let us remember, albeit painfully, that Clinton also got caught lying to the American public in broad daylight, wagging his finger furiously), made Gore pay the price with double-digit deficits, media screwed democracy over, Nader mischaracterized Gore relentlessly and allowed himself to be used as a GOP-pawn and forced Gore to write-off south in the final weeks.

Still Gore won the popular vote, and won Florida, fought for 35 days to get all the votes counted, withdrew in disagreement when no recourse was left following the supreme court verdict and the DNC chairman called on him to concede, and nearly 80% of Americans wanted Gore to concede should the Supreme Court rule against him.

At this point, I don't see the point of the vitriol between some of the Edwards and Obama fringe.  The poll (at least so far) is catching something important:  Edwards and Obama are our best candidates so far, early as it is.

Edwards is asking the "Where's The Beef" question of the 2008 race.  Yes, talking about hope is a good thing.  But committing to action is better.

Somewhere along the line, most people will ask what Obama can do besides make inspirational speeches.  My sense is that he can do a lot more.  But his current tactic is to let people assume they agree with him, even absent evidence that he's willing to stand for anything with an edge.

If Edward's point gets Obama to react, so much the better.  It will make Obama a better candidate, and will improve his chances both to win the nomination and to beat whoever the wingnuts allow the GOP to put up against him.

Also, Edward's point is oblique enough that it won't tarnish Edwards should he get the nomination.

It's worth remembering that those of us who supported Dean ending up working for somebody else in the general.  So keep the nutty vitriol on hold.  We may even end up with Hilary in the end, and we'll need (and ought) to do what's necesary to get her elected in the end.  But in truth, Obama and Edwards are both in competition now for the netroots pie.  By all means support one or the other, or somebody else.  But remember, you're not working for the future nominee... you're working for whoever becomes the future nominee.

I voted Other (run Al, run), but of the people who've declared, I'm supporting Edwards.

I think Obama has been a dreadful Senator whose ambition is outstripping his experience (I have serious buyer's remorse at this point.).  Senator Clinton would be, I think a competent and very capable president, but I'm not enthused about her run.

Binden, Dodd ... snore.

I doubt if I would have the same Deaniac fervor for the present candidates as 2004 maybe because......

The crisis has passed---like no urgency to take back our country from those evil doers destroying our Democracy and lying to us to get us into an expensive and useless war and the cowards who stay silent despite the crisis.

Thus if Dean ran now instead of 2004--I doubt it if the Deaniac fervor would have happened.

Gov Dean came at the right moment and was the right person then and still do now and I still think he would have been a great president more than those who are running for 2008.  But I dont think there would have been a Deanomania if he ran in 2008 instead of 2004.

""Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow."

Hmm...wasn't the Clinton's winning presidential campaign theme song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" ;).

If the above was, in fact, Edwards attacking Obama, it kind of backfires for a couple reasons.

1. Edwards is being forced to talk about the election on Obama's terms.

2. Edwards is elevating Obama to the No. 1 contender position.

My dream ticket is Gore/Obama. I voted for Obama because Gore wasn't an option. I know I'm not alone. Bump Biden and stick Gore in there.

Here's a write up from someone who attended the Edwards rally in Reno, NV:

http://bayneofblog.blogspot.com/

Matt --  It is a mistake for Edwards to attack Obama overtly, or covertly.  At this point Obama is the least of Edwards' problems -- Edwards needs Obama in the race.

The whole distinction he makes between hope and action is nonsense. Besides, ask anyone who the most helpful Democrat was in the last election cycle and they will answer it was Obama. He traveled the country for everyone and helped get democrats nominated. That sounds like action to me.

Of all the candidates, I am most underwhelmed by Edwards. The guy added nothing to Kerry's ticket (didn't carry or even make competitive his own state), looked like a child in his debate versus Cheney and is clearly changing who he is to pander to the left of the democratic party.  I have followed Edwards for a while- he is not the same person as the guy North Carolina elected in '98. In fact, he wouldn't have even held his senate seat in '04 if he ran for it.

I voted for Edwards. As per my recent diary, I won't be talking about supporting Gore anymore unless there's a real effort to actually draft him.

That being said, I'm open to change at this point. The only person I wouldn't support at any point for now is Hillary.

I didn't care for John Edwards in 2004. He didn't even win states like OH and PA which I felt should have been essential to what his base is. I found his rhetorical appeal puzzling in 2004. I thought he came off with a superficial slightly glassy eyed gaze at times and he seemed a little mushmouthed during debates.

But I have been impressed with the fact that he seems to have learned from his 2004 mistakes and is becoming less vague about more issues. He still has a tendency to speak lawyerese at some network interviews. And once again, I noticed ELIZABETH Edwards bail him out with an intelligent no nonsense non-shrill reply to the interviewer(this time, on Stepehenopolous's Sunday show). Every time I see her speak, she impresses me a lot more than HILLARY Clinton. I think she has a chance to be the best first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt and may serve as a check for any tendency of John Edwards to waffle the same way Eleanor worked to influence FDR on some progressive issues. THat is my gut feeling.

Citizen Stoller:

My first choice is Al Gore and I think that he is definitely runnin'...unless Edwards gets the kinda traction that coalesces all the anti-Clinton/DLC base.  Al Gore or Edwards would be DYnooooMITE!!  

Gore, in my opinion would be the strongest progressive candidate both on electability, politics and for the purposes of creating a national unity administration to crush the corporate oligarchy.  Experience in the Senate, 8 active years in the executive and he already has the commitment from a national base that has already voted for 'im.

Edwards may suffer from the Kate Hepburn syndrome, too beautiful to take seriously.  His lack of a record and limited national exposure (only 6 years in the Senate) make him easy to dismiss as just another pretty face.  I also worry about his bein' able to stand up to the DC beltway movers and shakers and I worry about whether he could attract the kind of cabinet and leadership team that Al Gore could. However, I think he is the smartest of ALL the Democrats runnin' and, with a solid legislative majority, could generate a "new" New Deal that we're gunna need after the last 26 years of transfers of wealth to the oligarchy.

P.S. To previous post

Senator Obama is destined to emerge as the "Black Joe Lieberman" when his financial sugar daddies, his personal history back on the block (ask Bobby Rush and the neighborhood activists on the South Side who aren't UofC grads) and his history of deal-makin' in the Illinois legislature gets some scrutiny.

Edwards is both strategically and tactically operating at peak performance. It's truly impressive to see what a political organization un-impaired by the DC conventional wisdom  can do.

Unfortunately, the caucuses are still more than 12 months away.

"People attacked Dean when he was the No. 1 contender."

But Obama is not even running and is No. 2 in the polls.

That Edwards is attacking him elevates Obama to No. 1 and it makes Edwards look like he's running scared.

In addition, many speculate that Edwards was forced to make his early announcement in New Orleans due to pressure from Obama's poll numbers.

Then Edwards punts his New Orleans announcement, raising questions about his vision and strategic sense.

So everything Edwards has done has elevated Obama.

Some attack.

There's something about slashing and attacking other Democratic candidates this early in the presidential campaign season that turns me off.

John Edwards is not winning friends this way.

As a deaniac I have to say edwards was the consumate showman in 2004, and again in 08 and he's got about as much chance of winning as a snowball in hell.

I think it's way too early to count anybody out of this race and it's crazy to start slinging any kind of mud.  The ones with no balls (Hillary excepted) will fold their tents early as did Sen. Bayh.  Several of the un-announced wannabees fall into this category.  We know that Edwards has the stamina for a tough campaign and I personally would like to see an Edwards/Obama ticket.  And remember Al Gore didn't carry his home state either.

I was very active as a Dean supporter in 2003/2004 and I expect to be at least as active as an Edwards supporter in 2007/2008.  I was at the event up in New Hampshire that Mike and Dean wrote about.  I remember hearing Sen. Edwards talk about hope and action, and I didn't see it as a swipe at Sen. Obama at all.

My mother worships Sen. Obama.  Many of my friends are on board with the Draft Obama movement, and if Sen. Obama wins the primary I will very gladly work for him.

When I heard Sen. Edwards make his comments about action, I heard them in the context of what he's been saying all along.  Back during his Opportunity Rocks college tour, he was saying the same thing, and it was these sort of comments in October 2005 that really changed my mind about Sen. Edwards.

(Take a look at my blog post from then.)

When I heard Sen. Edwards speak about hope and action, I heard it in the context of other words he was saying in New Hampshire, and that he's been saying on his announcement tour.  2008 is still a long way away.  

Just working to get a strong Democrat elected, whether it be Edwards, Obama, or even Hillary isn't enough.  There are still too many people who have not had help getting their lives put back together on the gulf coast after Katrina and Rita.  We cannot ask them to wait another two years for help to get there.

Nor, can we afford to wait for two years to do something about global warming.  We need to start making changes now.

No, I do not believe that Sen. Edwards comments were an attack on Sen. Obama.  Instead, they were a call to action for all of us.  If Sen. Obama is going to be successful, I sure hope he, and his supporters make a similar call to action.  We will all be better off that way.

I will support the Democratic nominee, but I'm not going to support a candidate in the primaries that can't support a progressive agenda on gay marriage.  And Edwards "isn't there yet," to paraphrase the charismatic candidate.

He will be better than any Republican, and if he's the nominee . . . I'll vote for him.  But if I have a choice in the spring and summer, I'm not going to vote against myself.

John Edward voted for the war.  Barak Obama said before we went it was a huge mistake.  The netroots will be taken for a ride again.

Hey Johnny Boy, Can you read.  Try this, said long before you got in the race.  By, guess who.

Our economic dominance has always depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market, it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity.

So part of the fight is political - and part of the solution is to strengthen the right to organize across all industries and professions.

But it's not enough just to say "no" to Bush. They may not have helped, and they may have made things worse, but they did not cause globalization. And no matter what comes out of this convention, the labor movement must squarely confront the fact that the economy is changing. The old ways of doing business are not working, and we must have a strategy that meets these new challenges.

I won't stand up here and say that coming up with this strategy will be easy, or pretend to know all the answers.

But part of the answer is recognizing that while unions and government can no longer provide this opportunity in the form of lifetime employment; they can ensure that every American worker has lifetime employability in this new economy.

That means fixing our schools to make sure every child in America has the education and the skills they need to compete - and that college is affordable for every American who wants to go. And it means that unions can play a real role in finally creating a real system of lifelong learning so that workers who lose a job really can retrain for other high-wage jobs.

It means spurring job creation and innovation by investing our resources into research and development projects -- not cutting them. It means investing in broadband and in medical technology; working with local communities to create centers of innovation. It's time to fuel the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future.

Right now, all across America, there are amazing discoveries being made. At Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University, researchers have developed a virtual algebra tutor that has helped inner-city kids in under-served schools raise their scores an entire letter grade. In rural Virginia, telemedicine recently allowed a cardiologist 75 miles from the hospital to view an ultrasound and diagnose a congenital heart defect that required immediate medication, saving a young child's life. And in the very cornfields of Illinois, farmers are literally growing the biofuels that could ultimately run our cars on 500 miles per gallon. Breakthroughs like these won't just improve our lives, they'll create thousands of jobs that could be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education.

In this new economy, we should be able to tell workers that no matter where you work or how many times you switch jobs, you will have health care and a pension you can take with you always. We'll never rise together if we allow medical bills to swallow family budgets or let people retire penniless after a lifetime of hard work, and so today we must demand that when it comes to commitments made to working men and women on health care and pensions, a promise made is a promise kept.

Our vision of America is not one where a big government runs our lives; it's one that gives every American the opportunity to make the most of their lives. It's not one that tells us we're on our own, it's one that realizes that we rise or fall together as one people.

And yet, we also know that, in the end, neither policy nor politics can replace heart and courage in the struggle you now face. Because in the brief history of the American experiment, it has been the ability of ordinary Americans to act on both that has allowed our nation to achieve extraordinary things.

It's why farmers put down their ploughs and picked up arms to overthrow an Empire for the sake of an idea. It's why young men and women would take Freedom Rides down South to work for the Civil Rights movement. And it's why workers would stand cold, hungry, and penniless on picket lines until their labor was treated with the dignity it deserved.

Almost a century earlier, during the struggle for the soul of Chicago's stockyards, Hank Johnson, a leading African-American union organizer, told a crowd of laborers that in the end, speeches don't make unions. He said that "The real job of organizing has to be done everyday by the men and women who work right in the plant."

That's as true today as it was then - the real job of organizing working America - politics and policy, vision and mission, heart and soul - belongs to each of you. And if you have the courage to succeed, labor will rise again. America will rise again. And hope will rise again. Thank you and God Bless you.

Oops, poor little Johnny Boy caught in a lie. Here is Obama talking about global warming. See action, I do.   Guess Edwards is a liar, or stupid.  I guess stupid.

But today, we're seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It's about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world - the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.

In Washington, issues come and go with the political winds. And they are generally covered through that prism: Who's up and who's down? Which party benefits? Which party loses?

But in these superficial exchanges, we often lose sight of the real and lasting meaning of the decisions we make and those we defer.

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.

Just think about some of the trends we've seen.

Since 1980, we've experienced nineteen of the twenty hottest years on record - with 2005 being the hottest ever.

These high temperatures are drying up already dry land, causing unprecedented drought that's ruining crops, devastating farmers and spreading famine to already poor parts of the world. Over the last four decades, the percentage of the Earth's surface suffering drought has more than doubled. In the United States, the drought we experienced in 2002 was the worst in forty years. And in Africa, more rivers are beginning to dry up, threatening the water supply across the continent.

As more land becomes parched, more forests are starting to burn. Across Indonesia, throughout Alaska, and in the Western United States, wildfires have raged in recent years like never before. A new record was set in 2002, as more than 7 million acres burned from Oregon down to Arizona.

And while the situation on the land may look ugly, what's going on in the oceans is even worse. Hurricanes and typhoons thrive in warm water, and as the temperature has risen, so has the intensity of these storms. In the last thirty-five years, the percentage of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has doubled, and the wind speed and duration of these storms has jumped 50%. A hurricane showed up in the South Atlantic recently when scientists said it could never happen. Last year, Japan set a new record when it suffered its tenth typhoon and the United States set a record for the most tornadoes we've ever had. And at one point, Hurricane Wilma was the most powerful storm ever measured.

These are all frightening situations, but perhaps none more so than what is beginning to occur at the North and South Poles. There, a satellite image from space or a trip to the region shows indisputable evidence that the polar ice caps are melting. But it's not just a slow, steady thaw that's been occurring over centuries, it's a rapidly accelerating meltdown that may eventually dump enough water into the ocean to annihilate coastal regions across the globe.

In 1996, a melting Greenland dumped about 22 cubic miles of water into the sea. Today, just ten years later, it's melting twice as fast. In real terms, this means that every single month, Greenland is dumping into the ocean an amount of water 54 times greater than the city of Los Angeles uses in an entire year. All in all, Greenland has enough ice to raise the global sea level 23 feet, making a New Orleans out of nearly every coastal city imaginable.

Indeed, the Alaskan village of Shishmaref could be just the beginning.

And yet, despite all the ominous harbingers of things to come, we do not have to stand by helplessly and accept this future. In fact, we can't afford to. Climate change may be unleashing the forces of nature, but we can't forget that this has been accelerated by man and can be slowed by man too.

By now, the culprit of this climate change is a familiar one, as is the solution. Last September, when I gave my first speech on energy, I talked about how our dependence on oil is hurting our economy, decimating our auto industry, and costing us millions of jobs. A few months ago, I discussed how the oil we import is jeopardizing our national security by keeping us tied to the world's most dangerous and unstable regimes. And when it comes to climate change, it's the fossil fuels we insist on burning - particularly oil - that are the single greatest cause of global warming and the damaging weather patterns that have been its result.

You'd think by now we'd get the point on energy dependence. Never has the failure to take on a single challenge so detrimentally affected nearly every aspect of our well-being as a nation. And never have the possible solutions had the potential to do so much good for so many generations to come.

Of course, many Americans have gotten this point, and it's true that the call for energy independence is now coming from an amazingly diverse coalition of interests. From farmers and businesses, military leaders and CIA officials, scientists and Evangelical Christians, auto executives and unions, and politicians of almost every political persuasion, people are realizing that an oil future is not a secure future for this country.

And yet, when it comes to finding a way to end our dependence on fossil fuels, the greatest vacuum in leadership, the biggest failure of imagination, and the most stubborn refusal to admit the need for change is coming from the very people who are running the country.

By now, the Bush Administration's record on climate change is almost legendary. This is the administration that commissioned government experts and scientists to do a study on global warming, only to omit the part from the final report that said it was caused by humans. This is the administration that didn't try to improve the Kyoto Treaty by trying to include oil guzzlers like China and India, but walked away from the entire global effort to stem climate change. And just recently, this is the administration that tried to silence a NASA scientist for letting the rest of us know that yes, climate change is a pretty big deal.

Meanwhile, it's pretty tough to make any real progress on this issue in Congress when the Chairman of the committee in charge of the environment thinks that, in the face of literally thousands of scientists and studies that say otherwise, global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." And you know it's bad when the star witness at his global warming hearing is a science fiction writer.

Now, after the President's last State of the Union, when he told us that America was addicted to oil, there was a brief moment of hope that he'd finally do something on energy.

I was among the hopeful. But then I saw the plan.

His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And his latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.

This is not a serious effort. Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program. It's not enough to identify the challenge - we have to meet it.

See, there's a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment.

During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to pull ahead of the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers.

America now finds itself at a similar crossroads. As gas prices keep rising, the Middle East grows ever more unstable, and the ice caps continue to melt, we face a now-or-never, once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this country on a different course.

Such a course is not only possible, it's already being pursued in other places around the world. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80% of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a few years thanks to its investment in biofuels.

So why can't we do this? Why can't we make energy security one of the great American projects of the 21st century?

The answer is, with the right leadership, we can. We can do it by partnering with business, not fighting it. We can do it with technology we already have on the shelf. And we can do it by investing in the clean, cheap, renewable fuels that American farmers grow right here at home.

To deal directly with climate change, something we failed to do in the last energy bill, we should use a market-based strategy that gradually reduces harmful emissions in the most economical way. John McCain and Joe Lieberman are continuing to build support for legislation based on this approach, and Senators Bingaman and Domenici are also pursuing proposals that will cut carbon emissions. Right here in Chicago, the Chicago Climate Exchange is already running a legally binding greenhouse gas trading system.

The idea here is simple: if you're a business that can't yet meet the lower cap we'll put on harmful carbon emissions, you can either purchase credits from other companies that have achieved more than their emissions goal, or you can temporarily purchase a permit from the government, the money from which will go towards investments in clean energy technology. As Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense has said, "Once you put a value on carbon reductions, you make winners out of innovators."

Any strategy for reducing carbon emissions must also deal with coal, which is actually the most abundant source of energy in this country. To keep using this fossil fuel, I believe we need to invest in the kind of advanced coal technology that will keep our air cleaner while still keeping our coal mines in business. Over the next two decades, power companies are expected to build dozens of new coal-fired power plants, and countries like India and China will build hundreds. If they use obsolete technology, these plants will emit over 60 billion tons of heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere. We need to act now and make the United States a leader in puting in place the standards and incentives that will ensure that these plants use available technology to capture carbon dioxide and dispose of it safely underground.
But of course, one of the biggest contributors to our climate troubles and our energy dependence is oil, and so any plan for the future must drastically reduce our addiction to this dirty, dangerous, and ultimately finite source of energy.

We can do this by focusing on two things: the cars we drive and the fuels we use.

The President's energy proposal would reduce our oil imports by 4.5 million barrels per day by 2025. Not only can we do better than that, we must do better than that if we hope to make a real dent in our oil dependency. With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by over 7.5. million barrels per day - an amount greater than all the oil we are expected to import from the entire Middle East.

For years, we've hesitated to raise fuel economy standards as a nation in part because of a very legitimate concern - the impact it would have on Detroit. The auto industry is right when they argue that transitioning to more hybrid and fuel-efficient cars would require massive investment at a time when they're struggling under the weight of rising health care costs, sagging profits, and stiff competition.

But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year.

There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future - if they hope to survive - they must start building more of these cars. This isn't just about energy - this is about the ability to create millions of new jobs and save an entire American industry.

But that's not to say we should leave the industry to face the transition costs on its own. Yes, we should raise fuel economy standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in 2008. With the technology they already have, this should be an achievable goal for automakers. But we can help them get there.

Right now, one of the biggest costs facing auto manufacturers isn't the cars they make, it's the health care they provide. Health care costs make up $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made - more than the cost of steel. Retiree health care alone cost the Big 3 automakers nearly $6.7 billion just last year.

I believe we should make the auto companies a deal that could solve this problem. It's a piece of legislation I introduced called "Health Care for Hybrids," and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies' retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient cars. It's a win-win proposal for the industry - their retirees will be taken care of, they'll save money on health care, and they'll be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their competitive future.

But building cars that use less oil is only one side of the equation. The other involves replacing the oil we use with the home-grown biofuels that will finally slow the warming of the planet. In fact, one study shows that using cellulosic ethanol fuel instead of oil can reduce harmful emissions by up to 75%.

Already, there are hundreds of fueling stations that use a blend of ethanol and gasoline known as E85, and there are millions of cars on the road with the flexible-fuel tanks necessary to use this fuel - including my own right here in Illinois.

But the challenge we face with these biofuels is getting them out of the labs, out of the farms, and onto the wider commercial market.

The federal government can help in a few ways here, and recently, I introduced the American Fuels Act with Senator Dick Lugar to get us started.

First, this legislation would reduce the risk of investing in renewable fuels by providing loan guarantees and venture capital to those entrepreneurs with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market.

Second, it would let the private sector know that there will always be a market for renewable fuels by creating an alternative diesel standard in this country that would blend millions of more gallons of renewable fuels into the petroleum supply each year.

Third, it would help make sure that every single new car in America is a flexible-fuel vehicle within a decade. Currently it costs manufacturers just $100 to add these tanks to each car. But we can do them one better. If they install flexible-fuel tanks in their cars before the decade's up, we will provide them a $100 tax credit to do it - so there's no excuse for delay. And we'd also give consumers a bargain by offering a 35 cents tax credit for every gallon of E85 they use.

Fourth, this legislation calls for a Director of Energy Security to oversee all of our efforts. Like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence Director, this person would be an advisor to the National Security Council and have the full authority to coordinate America's energy policy across all levels of government. He or she would approve all major budget decisions and provide a full report to Congress and the country every year detailing the progress we're making toward energy independence.

Finally, while it's not in the bill, we should also make sure that every single automobile the government purchases is a flexible-fuel vehicle - starting today. When it becomes possible in the coming years, we should also make sure that every government car is the type of hybrid that you can plug-in to an outlet and recharge.

As the last few residents of Shishmaref pack up their homes and leave their tiny seaside village behind, I can't help but think that right now, history is testing our generation.

Will we let this happen all over the world? Will we stand by while drought and famine, storms and floods overtake our planet? Or will we look back at today and say that this was the moment when we took a stand? That this was the moment when we began to turn things around?

The climate changes we are experiencing are already causing us harm. But in the end, it will not be us who deal with its most devastating effects. It will be our children, and our grandchildren.

I have two daughters, aged three and seven. And I can't help but think that they are the reason I wanted to make a difference in this country in the first place - to give them a better, more hopeful world to raise their children.

This is our generation's chance to give them that world. It's a chance that will not last much longer, but if we work together and seize this moment, we can change the course of this nation forever. I hope we can start today. Thank you.

"He [Edwards] punted [New Orleans announcement]? "

Eyup...not just my opinion. Read the two Huffington Post columns for how Edwards missed it.

Michelle Pilecki

Harry Shearer  

"Nor has he really attacked Obama."

The person who started this thread viewed it that  way and likely there was some buzz to that effect.  

It is interesting that this is the second time in the last week that Edwards has resorted to imitating Obama's phrases in an Edwards speech.

We may as well vote for the original ;)

I selected Edwards, but that support is soft.  I hope Gore will step in.

I was the leader for my metro's Dean campaign for quite a while. Although Edwards isn't quite the barn-burner, I like his stance and I like his brand of cojones. He's getting my vote until I learn more from Richardson or Gore steps in.

oooh ya,edwards likes action,like the kind of action that makes you fuck-up and vote for a unessasary war becouse you know your going to run for pres and you want to look tuff on national defence.for me its either gore or obbama,nobody else has shown the kind of smart forward looking,Ive got the balls to make unpopular ,moral,smart decisions that help the country move foreward.

1) obama is another great communicator who doesn't seem to actually propose much at all
2) his electability is highly suspect
  a) he will not run against alan keyes this time
  b) moreover, the sad reality is that racism is still too strong in this country to elect a  black (man) president
  c) his name is `foreign`
  c) his midlle name ???

for get about him

frankly, there is no progressive currently running other than edwards

"b) moreover, the sad reality is that racism is still too strong in this country to elect a black (man) president."

That sounds like a reason to support his candidacy not oppose it.

One of the ironies of the current generation's color blindness --- is the failure to understand how much racisim is out there and why Obama's candidacy could be an important and historic step forward for the nation -- win or lose.

In 2003 there were those who said America would not elect an anti-war candidate President in the wake of 9-11.   Maybe those people were right -- Howard Dean's campaign was still worth waging -- supporting that campaign was still the right thing to do -- and the campaign and the support it garnered MAY have impacted the pace with which Americans began to oppose the war.

I do not have a candidate yet -- but don't use racism as a reason to walk away from Obama.

This whole exchange started with someone saying that Obama can't win because America will not elect a black guy president.   I agree with you -- but in a nation where only 1 African American sits in the US Senate and none has ever gotten even close to winning the White House I am not inclined to discourage any urge people may have for supporting an African American candidate for President.

I don't support Obama because of his race.  I don't think many of his Illinois supporters who know him best and voted for him do so because of his race.  People who have attended his appearances feel a deep connection to him and his message of improving living conditions of regular Americans and reestablishing America's reputation in the world.  Those who gather around him and would follow him anywhere are all ages, all races and from all walks of life.  I am constantly amazed by all the misconceptions about Obama.  Alot of people are completely clueless.  It is true that he was against the war from the beginning.  You can read his Oct.'02 speech on his website.  I have a strong feeling that by primary season the public will not care what the heck his name is or whatever the tint of his skin.  They will vote for him because of his character, decency, common sense and pursuit of the greater good.  He will raise the level of political discourse and will raise spirits and the people will like him---really like him.      

What Edwards is doing, positioning himself as the liberal against the moderates Obama and Hillary, is really smart and a breath of fresh air.

But if you look at qualifications, you'll remember that Edwards was the Obama of 2004.  The guy who gave a good speech, but only had one term in the Senate and a lawyer's career before that, with no real foreign policy interest or experience.

I suspect that Edwards may be the really formidable opponent against my guy, Wesley Clark.  I just hope people will realize that a man who has spent his life in diplomatic and leadership roles is a better choice.

But people really don't "realize" things --- they respond to publicity.  I just hope that Clark's years of studying the situation now will bring out the campaign to put him on top, where we need him.

A candidate who is right on most of the issues and probably means it, and a candidate who is wrong on most of the issues and definitely means it, which do you choose?

I'd choose the former.  Probably good is better than definitely evil.

I think Edwards probably means it.  But in the event that he doesn't govern as progressively as he runs, what does it mean?  A victory for Edwards is not simply a victory for Edwards, but a victory for his rhetoric as well.  If a candidate who speaks like Edwards becomes the next president of the United States, it sends and unequivocally positive message.

Matt, I agree with the dozens of comments that do NOT find this comment to be an attack on Obama at all.  Edwards is simply drawing a distinction between hoping for something, and DOING something.  Assume you personally were asked this question. What answer would you give?   I think Edwards gave the "correct answer."  It is time for action.

Also, as dozens of comments have rightly stated, "hope" has been a recurring campaign motif for just about every Democratic presidential candidate over the last 20 years.  In my recollection, the Jackson campaigns repeated a "hope mantra" again and again each time he ran.  (eg "Keep Hope Alive!").  And Bill Clinton's 92 campaign could not have hit the "hope note" harder:  here was "The Man FROM Hope!"  (And, remember how "Don't stop THINKING about tomorrow" played at the convention?)

So...if you want to artificially inflate the significance of a single isolated comment, maybe the lesson is that Democrats may close the book on 20 years worth of Democratic "hope motifing."  To me, this has very little to do with Obama, who has yet to even start his campaign for goodness sakes!!!  In fact, as I see it, your thesis hangs on the slender thread that Obama's campaign will be identical to...uh..well... the title of his book!!  What?

But really, set the thesis aside for the moment.  The insidious thing about your post is the use of the term "slashes at."  Why is it insidious?  Because it is literally NOT true!!!!!!  No one "slashed at" anyone.  

In your defense, will will likely say that you are using "slashed at" metaphorically.  But really, this metaphor is intellectual junk food.  It will rot your mind.  

Truly, our politics have become so debased by the casual (and yes, irresponsible) use of violent, snarky metaphors that bear only the slightest relationship to reality.  The sad thing is that people like O'Reilly and Matthews make a living by serving up this kind of intellectual junk food on a daily basis.  :(

And the people who consume this junk food end up with the most warped view of reality known to humanity.  How can you possibly ingest all that junk food and hope to purge all that out of your mind??  Thank goodness for all the people who do NOT watch these programs!  

Alternatively, you can say that such metaphors, no matter how distant from reality, just...well...sell.  I guess the New York Post sells papers this way.  Very sad.  

Bottom line:  Edwards and Obama are BOTH excellent candidates.  Don't sacrifice THAT REALITY by casually emulating O'Reilly and Matthews.

What amuses me is that the people who deride Obama for his "Law Professor" schtick are the same people falling for Edwards' "Courtroom Litigator" schtick.

I suppose it all depends on your personality which one you prefer, but, please, at least have the self-awareness to know what it is that you are reacting to.

Your poll sucks. It doesn't include announced candidate, Kucinich. Remember, the guy who actually voted against the AUMF upon which Bush relies for all things GWOT and for which Edwards voted. I supported and worked for Dean in 03-04 and I am supporting Kucinich.