Edwards announces winners of "One America Votes"

John Edwards announced today the winners in the contest that he ran over at One America Committee for campaign fundraisers that he will headline for House candidates this fall.

The winners are:
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Patty Wetterling (MN-06)









and
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Nick Lampson (TX-22), running in Tom Delay's old seat.




A copy of the e-mail he sent out announcing the winners:

I am constantly amazed - but never surprised - by the power of our  
online community.  More than 25,000 people participated in One  
America Votes to help decide which Congressional races should be my  
top priorities for fundraising help this fall.  I thank you.

With so many strong Democratic candidates, the competition was  
fierce.  I am pleased to announce the two top vote-getters:  Patty  
Wetterling (MN-06) and former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson (TX-22)
.

Already in this election cycle, I've raised $6.65 million for  
Democrats and I'm committed to helping as many candidates as possible  
before November.  I'm looking forward to heading to Minnesota and  
Texas to headline fundraisers for these two outstanding candidates  
this fall.

Following her son Jacob's abduction at age 11 in 1989, Patty  
Wetterling became one of the leading child safety advocates in the  
nation.  Her work helped states pass tough laws to track sex  
offenders and contributed to the enactment of the national Amber  
Alert system.  Now she's on the verge of picking up another seat to  
win a Democratic majority.

Down in Texas, Nick Lampson signed up to take on Tom DeLay last year  
and has continued to mount an aggressive challenge ever since.  
Republicans in the 22nd district are in disarray now that DeLay's  
name has to remain on the ballot, and Lampson is well-positioned to  
return to Congress, where he previously served four terms.

Both candidates will work hard to build One America when they go to  
Washington, D.C.  With each passing day, Democrats gain momentum for  
winning control of both houses of Congress.

Our online community is working hard to drive that momentum - keeping  
activists informed and bringing unprecedented numbers of new people  
into the democratic process.  It's nothing short of revolutionary,  
and I thank you for your work.

This November, the stakes could not be higher.  We have the chance to  
begin to build One America - One America where everyone who works  
hard has something to show for it, where workers get a fair day's pay  
for a fair day's work, and where college is within reach for young  
people from every background.  We have the chance to begin to restore  
America's reputation in the world and lead on the great challenges of  
our time - putting a stop to genocide and human rights violations  
around the globe and ending poverty inside and outside our borders.

Over the next 90 days, I'll be working hard to help Democrats  
committed to building One America that works for all of us.  I hope  
you will continue to do whatever you can to turn our momentum into a  
decisive victory.  Thank you, again, for participating in One America  
Votes.

Your friend,

John



Display:


Edwards also is appearing with Klobuchar... (3.00 / 2)

...the DFL candidate for Senate in Minnesota, on Thursday. He's helping make sure that the only thing purple about Minnesota is the Vikings.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:41:30 PM EST

Re: Edwards also is appearing with Klobuchar... (3.00 / 3)

Yeah, he's doing a lot of these. The 6.65 million number is second only to Hillary at about a million more. Only he goes out and headlines, he doesn't use his PAC to raise money and then cut a check.

A lot of DC types are in a real state because Edwards is just not raising money for OAC Leadership PAC, but he's still trying to do his bit for down ballot candidates.


by mbair on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His time and talent are worth more than a check... (3.00 / 4)

...and he'll have no problem raising money for 2008 after November, as it becomes clear that he is a far better alternative to Hillary Clinton and the one most capable of beating her.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (3.00 / 1)

"he is a far better alternative to Hillary Clinton"

Edwards IS Hillary Clinton in all but name. They have the same record and even belong to the same club.

"and the one most capable of beating her."

Tweeledee will never knock off Tweedledum. He only won one primary and couldn't even deliver his own state for Kerry in 04. Most voters obvioulsy don't think a whole lot of him.

Face it, Edwardians. Like Lieberman in 2000, Edwards had his shot and missed. It's time to move on to new leaders untainted by ties to the DLC, records of helping Bush, and losing at the national level.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (3.00 / 1)

Last comment I read by sitkah on Edwards is right here, readers: Even his tan looks contrived!

That took a lot of effort guys, Sitkah had to download the picture from the diary and then rehost it to get the html to copy and paste into the comment. Sitkah goes to the poll everyday and can't achieve the golden hue that Edwards has. This is what he said on the same thread:

I live in AZ and go swimming every day -- and neither I nor the lifeguards at the pool have a tan that even and dark.
Sorry sitkah better luck next year in pursuit of your golden hue.


by mbair on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (none / 0)

By the way, he makes loads of comments, I just don't read them in Edwards threads anymore.


by mbair on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (none / 0)

The funny thing is, I read this diary and thought, "Great!"

Then I scrolled down and the saw tired old "Edwards for President" sloganeering and responded to it.

Edwardians need to take a lesson from Deaniacs and realize that non-stop proselytizing away from his blog turns people off and makes their guy look bad by association.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (3.00 / 2)

I tend to like Edwards, but the constant barrage of circle jerks in the recommended section with the exact same four or five people saying GOD I STILL LOVE EDWARDS TOO! HE'S MY ELVIS! really is obnoxious.  If you guys want to sit around talking about how great it is that you all think Edwards is so great, that's fine and of course you're allowed to do it, but fire up a yahoochat or something.  You're not convincing people and, quite frankly, every time you do this sort of thing, you make me like your boy less and less.  With friends like these...


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is someone holding a gun to your head... (none / 0)

...and forcing you to read an Edwards thread? This is a site for political analysis, and a comment that Edwards is a better alternative than Hillary clearly fits that description. You're adding nothing useful to the discussion.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is someone holding a gun to your head... (none / 0)

And how many times have the backslapping "He really is great, isn't he" comment been made in the past month? What are you adding to the conversation if you've already said it a dozen times?

If you don't like that the redundancy, the lack of substance, and the dismissal of criticism that pervades all of your comments reflects poorly on you and the candidate you're trying to promote, then go ahead and ignore me.  But don't tell me that it doesn't matter to me when I have to see the same shit over and over again on a site which I enjoy because of its diversity (how often have you posted outside of an Edwards thread, or a non-Edwards related comment?) of subject matter and perspectives.

Only a small mind would overlook my very clear concession that of course you're completely allowed to keep posting this stuff and fall back on "it's a free country, if you don't like it, leave."  You know who uses that? Republicans.  And as Sitkah said, the diary itself was plenty useful and interesting.  The comments thread, stocked full of the usual "oh shit, did you know that Edwards is the political messiah?" banality is pointless.  You've established that you're here to shill for him, we get it.  Yes, he's got some good things going for him.  You've pointed them out by now.  So, to borrow from Jed Bartlet, what are the next ten words?


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've posted on non-Edwards threads. (3.00 / 1)

And I have no problem reading posts by supporters of other candidates, somehow I don't feel compelled to tell them to STFU.

Read a different diary. Start your own. It's obnoxious to see the same couple of people act holier-than-thou everytime people discuss a candidate they don't happen to support.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've posted on non-Edwards threads. (none / 0)

My problem isn't with the diaries. As has been said a couple times now, the diary is good.  The comments are redundant and annoying.

Try coming up with a comment that furthers the discussion and isn't blind support and you might find yourself with less need to be so defensive.  And as to your whole "go read something else" argument, well...go read another comment if you don't like mine.  Funny how logic turned around is a pain in the ass huh?


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've posted on non-Edwards threads. (3.00 / 1)

I understand the comments are annoying. But I think a major reason the comments and diaries have been working out like that is because Edwards is not on top of many peoples' lists in the blogger community. Everybody is still talking about Feingold and Gore.

1. Gore ain't running.
2. Feingold's got a few too many negatives to win.

So the constantly talking up of Edwards is partly trying to get people to take notice of him and get some buzz generated for him in the netroots. A lot of us are big leftys in the traditional sense (i.e. concerned most about creating a better life for all people by reducing poverty and furthering the labor movement). And we're pretty ecstatic that someone (that is politically viable) is actually doing the things that we want a politician to do. So Yeah, we're f-ing excited about him! Weren't you excited about Dean in '04? I feel that Edwards has about 10 times the raw natural political talent that Dean had.

So you're criticism is taken that our comments get a little redundant. But we're trying to get his name out there. And you may e sick of it because you keep reading these diaries, but for those people that haven't clicked on these yet, maybe they'll learn something new about what Edwards has been doing and take a look at him.


by adamterando on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've posted on non-Edwards threads. (none / 0)

Quite frankly, I haven't seen anyone talking about anyone with much frequency regarding '08 in the past few weeks.  I've seen Connecticut and I've seen November and very little talk about President.  Obviously that hasn't always been the case what with YearlyKos bringing out contenders and the straw polls and whatnot, but I suppose I'd rather see posts about how great the candidates are (which this diary mostly did) without having to lead off with "Isn't Edwards great because he's helping these candidates.

Edwards thinks the focus shouldn't be on him and, quite frankly, he's correct.  He gets big points from me because of that.  I just wish a few more of the folks around here would pick up his lead.  There's a few thousand elections to win in November and the cult of Edwards mania around here won't do it.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As I recall, you were the one... (none / 0)

...demanding we go to yahoochat, because our comments are ruining your MyDD experience. I was just trying to help you out by suggesting you read something else. You don't seem to appreciate it.

Anyway, we were discussing how Edwards has helped other candidates raise money, rather than just giving them money, and why he will be able to raise plenty of money for his own campaign after November. If you take issue with that, by all means make an argument that furthers the discussion.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I recall, you were the one... (none / 0)

I haven't demanded anything.  I've suggested that if your comments are going to devolve into idolatry, there are probably more efficient means by which to revel in the likeminded.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Next 10+ Words (3.00 / 2)

That's why it is time for a new social compact. When President Bush talks about an "ownership society," he means the more you own, the more you get. For most Americans, his approach is the more you work, the more you pay and the less you make.

Where I come from, what matters the most isn't how much you have, it's how much you give. Work gives pride, dignity, and hope to our lives and our communities. And so the President is wrong: America is not, and never wished to be, a Wealth Society.

To be true to our values, our country must build a Working Society -- an America where everyone who works hard finally has the rewards to show for it. In the Working Society, nobody who works full-time should have to raise children in poverty, or in fear that one health emergency or pink slip will drive them over the cliff.

In the Working Society, everyone who works full-time will at last have something to show for it -- a home of their own, an account where their savings and paycheck can grow.

In the Working Society, everyone willing to work will have the chance to get ahead. Anyone who wants to go to college and work will be able to go the first year for free.

In the Working Society, people who work have the right to live in communities where the streets are safe, the schools are good, and jobs can be reached.

In the Working Society, everyone will also be asked to hold up their end of the bargain -- to work, to hold off having kids until they're ready, and to do their part for their kids when the time comes.

-- John Edwards
19 September 2005
"Restoring the American Dream: Combating Poverty and Building One America" Speech
       


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He asked for it, you gave it to him. (none / 0)

That emphasis on work is critical. It undermines the GOP efforts to cast the Democrats as advocates for "welfare queens." It also connects with a central value that most Americans hold: Hard work should be rewarded. Under the Republicans, it's not being rewarded.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:51:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Next 10+ Words (none / 0)

So, aside from the first year of college being free (which is solid, though not my bag), what's he saying?

He's in favor of people working, owning a home, saving money.  He wants good schools, safe streets, more jobs.  He's opposed to poverty and unemployment. So he's...everyone of every party ever?

To make a broader point which is perhaps unfair to this post, the cut and paste strategery gets kinda old too.  If I wanted to read his website, I know where to find it.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asked and answered (none / 0)

and trust me, I've no intent to win you over.
Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (3.00 / 1)

I don't see how criticizing those who aren't in the Edwards' cult helps put forth a good image of, or rebuts widely held criticisms, of him. Actually, it only reinfornces his negatives.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tweedledee vs Tweedledum (none / 0)

Well, I live in NC, and there are lots of us with tans like that.  So, maybe it's just too damn hot in Arizona for y'all to get out.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 07:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dear Tweedleschmuck (none / 0)

Genius analysis, you know how DLC candiates go around fighting against poverty, calling for 1 million jobs in a job program, demand raising the minimum wage, rail against "free" trade agreements, oppose Alito, oppose Roberts, get 100% AFL-CIO ratings, oppose DOMA, support adding "sexual orientation" to hate crimes laws, oppose Hillary's flag burning amendment, and support for repealing most of the Bush taxcuts.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Tweedleschmuck (none / 0)

That's just Edwards' recent talk -- which is cheap.

Why don't his true-believers ever site his Senate record?


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:40:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Tweedleschmuck (3.00 / 2)

You asked for it:

Major Accomplishments
1. Closing Argument for Not-Guilty in Impeachment.  
McCain talked about how it was a big part of why he voted against impeachment.  Thus, Edwards played a huge role in stopping The Hyde Putsch.
2.  Patient Bill of Rights
Co-Sponsor with McCain and Kennedy.  Passed the Senate.  Stalled in the House.  But, how is that JRE's fault.
3.  Campaign Finance Reform
Co-Floor Leader.  Praised by Feingold and McCain.

  1.  Sponsor of Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada.
  2.  Sponsor of Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination.

More?

Free-Trade
Voted Against Fast Track  in 2002
Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between US & Singapore.
Voted NO on establishing a free trade agreement between the US and Chile.
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.
Voted NO on expanding trade to the third world.
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.

Ratings
His 100% NARAL rating while in Senate.
His 100% AFL-CIO rating while in Senate

Keep tossing up those soft-balls!


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear Tweedleschmuck (3.00 / 1)

You want more?

Taxes
Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted NO on cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999)
Rated 22% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sitkah reminds me of the Nader voters in 2000. (none / 0)

For them, Gore was just unacceptable and there was supposedly no difference between him and Bush. These people, especially the ones in Florida, share a chunk of the blame for the George W. Bush administration.

Sadly, some people never learn their lesson. They think that if they just scream loudly enough, eventually the country will see how right they are and vote for their non-starter candidates.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwardians = Deaniacs (none / 0)

Like I said above, Mean, some of you Edwardians remind me of over-the-top Deaniacs back in 2004. Take a hint and don't make the same mistakes they did with regard to public relations for their guy. Keep the idolatry on his blog.

And as for non-starter candidates, Edwards doesn't have much political success to hold up in that regard. Oner term in the Senate -- one primary win in his home state -- and then failure to deliver it for Kerry in November.

Face it, other people just don't think as well of Edwards as you do and having tent revivals for him here isn't winning any more over.

BTW, I voted for Gore and Kerry and all the Democrats on my ballots since 1976. But that doesn't mean Nader is wrong about what's been wrong with the Democratic party for a long time -- and many more Democrats than me have reached and are reaching the same conclusion, as Tester's and Lamont's wins are demonstrating.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:39:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nader in 2000, when asked if he... (none / 0)

...wasn't worried that he was helping to put Bush in the White House: "The man isn't Genghis Khan."

Please, share with us some more of Nader's wisdom. And you seem awfully defensive of the Greenies in your diaries, but if you say you've voted for Democrats, fine.

Face it, Edwards has the highest overall favorability among all voters of any Democrat, and the highest acceptability among Democrats for the 2008 nomination. So, you'd be wrong about that, too.

And I'll continue to point out why Edwards is the best choice Democrats can make for 2008. If you don't like it, I guess that's just too bad. After all, I know you'll vote for him anyway in November 2008, because as you say, you're such a loyal Democrat.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 05:05:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nader in 2000, when asked if he... (none / 0)

Like it or not, Nader started the current revolution against the corrupt and incompetent leadership of the Democratic party that has just overthrown JoMo. So send him a thank you note when you get the chance.

As for Edwards favorability, I'll remind you that Lieberman enjoyed that same status in 2002.

And I'll continue to point out why I think Edwards ISN'T the best choice for 2008 -- and "If you don't like it, I guess that's just too bad."

I doubt if I'll vote for him in November 2008 because I doubt that he'll be on the ballot.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, thanks Ralph. (3.00 / 1)

No difference between Al Gore and George Bush? What a worthless piece of garbage Nader is. If he wanted to change the Democratic Party, why not run in a Democratic primary like Lamont? Why not make his case to Democratic voters? Because he doesn't the guts. Because it was always about him.

Joe Lieberman: You mustn't criticize George Bush.
John Edwards: George Bush is the worst president of my lifetime.

You'll continue to make your weak arguments, who cares?

I know you'll do the right thing in November 2008.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 04:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, thanks Ralph. (none / 0)

You can attack Nader for running against Gore, but not for starting the populist revolution which just unseated Lieberman (unless you're one of JoMo's fellow DLCers).

John Edwards: George Bush is the worst president of my lifetime.

Anybody can repeat what Helen Thomas said first.

And I'm sure you'll keep attacking me and Nader instead of pointing out what you think is good about Edwards.

I also know you'll do the right thing in 2008 too --  even though it most likely will be voting for someone other than Edwards.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 04:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! We agree. (none / 0)

By all means, let's talk about the good things about Edwards. Good idea!

Edwards is focused not only on alleviating but actually ENDING poverty, and he can speak about the issue in terms of right and wrong, morals and values. This works on a couple of important levels: There are lower-income voters who, in the past, have voted for Republicans because they believed it was the right, moral thing to do. Because of Republican policies, many of them are facing the stark reality of poverty. A candidate who speaks to them, who scores high on "cares about people like me," using the language of morals and values that connects with them, can win them over to voting for a Democrat in 2008.

What do you think, is this the right approach? Or should we follow the bold DLC strategy of "Hey, we're still for the middle class! Really!"?


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 05:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Focus on 2006, Please (3.00 / 1)

Would you two stop your silly little squabble? In case you guys haven't checked the calendar lately it's 2006. Promoting/attacking dem presidential candidates for 2008 is misguided at best when there is work to be done to replace the rubber-stamp Congress that has enabled Bush to lead our country into disaster after disaster.

We are celebrating a big victory today with the defeat of Bush's no.1 Democratic party enabler. Let's focus on 2006, please, so we can take back the Congress this fall.


by sb on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on 2006, Please (none / 0)

I'd love to see less Edwardian idolatry around here too.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on 2006, Please (3.00 / 1)

The #1 reason Lieberman had to go was his ongoing attacks on Democrats. With friends like Lieberman, we don't need enemies. We should learn a lesson here. Don't be a Lieberman.

The Edwards effort to get Dems elected in 06 is positive politics.  If he is successful he will have something to build on. His supporters need to show that he is more than a nice guy who wants to be president by getting Dems elected this fall.

I want to see Edwards right here in NC out campaigning with Larry Kissell and Heath Schuler.  He needs to have a solid base in his home state.  NC has a blue heart. If NC and VA can be turned purple, the Republican southern strategy will break. Edwards needs work harder in his own back yard.


by sb on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 05:14:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on 2006, Please (none / 0)

I'm all for Edwards helping Democrats. But when his disciples turn this into a sub-blog of the Edwards For President Club i'm going to refute them when necessary.

If this place becomes a battleground for everyone's favorite pprez wannabe it will degenerate in civil war around here. Let people praise their own candidates on their own blogs.

The people who run this place should ask people to refrain from using for their own proselytizing if they don't want in-fighting.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 05:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

...says the one who launched the first attack. (none / 0)

"Let people praise their candidates on their own blogs."

Oh, thank you, please tell us what else we're not allowed to discuss in your presence.

By the way, I take your signature as praise for Ralph Nader, and I insist that you stop turning this place into a battleground that will degenerate into a civil war.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ...says the one who launched the first attack. (none / 0)

Sounds like you're the one twelling me what to say. Edwardians sure don't handle criticism of their guy very well. That just shows his weakness.

But if they're going to use blogs like this to sell him like soap, then they'd better expect him to be criticized for his faults.

And if they don't realize how many people they turn off with their constant drumming, that's Edwards' problem.

As for Nader, I do praise his call for reform of the Democratic party. Without it, Democrats may win, but it won't do ordinary people much good if they do.

And as for your insistance, I can just as well insist that Edwardians stop turning this place into a battleground that will degenerate into civil war by making it into the "Edwards In 2008" blog.

The rest of us are getting REALLY tired of having your guy crammed down our throats almost nonstop.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there a mouse in your pocket? (none / 0)

"The rest of us are getting REALLY tired of having your guy crammed down our throats almost nonstop."

When were you nominated the spokesman and when was the survey taken?

A few comments about a candidate you happen to not like on a handful of diaries over a couple of weeks is "cramming down throats almost nonstop"? Nonsensical.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a mouse in your pocket? (none / 0)

There have been more than a few posts glorifying St. John and more than a few people expressing their fatigue of him. I'll keep calling him like I see him in response.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 02:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

100% agree (none / 0)

A glance at Edwards' schedule indicates that he's helping other Democrats as fast as he can. Kissell and Shuler are both great candidates who can WIN.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards announces winners (3.00 / 3)

Two worthy candidates, for sure.

I'd like to recommend this diary just to annoy Sitkah, but the recommend button isn't displaying.  Probably retaliation from Liebermanista hackerz with mad skilz.  I'll try again later.


by DaveMB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:34:21 PM EST

Re: Edwards announces winners (none / 0)

You do think big, my friend!


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards announces winners (3.00 / 6)

Wetterling and Lampson. Not bad choices.
I had some reservations about Wetterling, but once the Dark Side had opted for Michele Bachman as their candidate, I found it hard to remember what had given me any pause about Wetterling.

Lampson is the anchor in Texas. There can be no momentum in Texas this year or in 2008 unless Lampson wins that seat back.  

They're talking about finding a write-in candidate now, for the GOP side of the ballot. Yet another  fall-back plan. The Texas GOP's campaign to keep TX-22 is starting to remind me of the performance of the French army in the Franco-Prussian War, which ended with Napoleon III handing his sword to some unspeakable Hohenzollern at Sedan, and surrendering an infuriated army of 120,000 after a series of humbling retreats and failures.


by Christopher Walker on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:44:39 PM EST

More on Winners of OAC Votes (3.00 / 3)

More about the candidates:

Patty Wetterling (MN-06)
http://www.pattywetterling.com/

From OAC: Following her son Jacob's abduction at age 11 in 1989, Patty Wetterling became one of the leading child safety advocates in the nation. Her work has helped states pass tough laws to track sex offenders and has contributed to the enactment of the national Amber Alert system. Her tireless efforts on behalf of children resonate with this suburban district much more closely than the extreme right-wing record of her opponent. Wetterling is on the verge of picking off this seat and taking us one step closer to a Democratic majority.
From DCCC: Patty Wetterling has been fighting for safer American families since the abduction of her son Jacob sixteen years ago. Since then, Patty has become one of the nation's most respected and effective child advocates.
As a private citizen, she worked across party lines, passing more legislation than many members of Congress. Patty was instrumental in the passage of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Sex Offender Registration Act on both the state and federal level. Additionally, Patty helped initiate and pass Community Notification (Megan's Law) and the launch of the Amber Alert system in Minnesota.
Patty has used her expertise in the issues of child exploitation and abduction to educate and raise awareness among law enforcement officials, parents, and community leaders. Patty has given presentations to FBI Agents at the FBI Academy in Quantico and police officers around the country on preventing and responding to child abduction and abuse cases.
In her career as a child advocate, Patty has received numerous awards from local, state, and nonprofit organizations including: the Minneapolis Star Tribune's "100 Most Influential Minnesotans of the Century" award; the President's Award from the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association; the Governor's Award in Minnesota for Unique Individuals for providing Community Leadership; and the "First Alert Award" by Larry King of CNN.
Patty is a secondary school math teacher by training. She and her husband Jerry live in St. Joseph, Minnesota, where they built his local chiropractic practice. They have four children: Amy, Jacob, Trevor and Carmen. Their first grandchild, Lili, was born in September 2004.

Former U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson (TX-22)
http://www.lampson.com/

From OAC: Down in Texas, Nick Lampson signed up to take on Tom DeLay last year and has continued to mount an aggressive challenge ever since. Republicans in the 22nd district are in disarray now that DeLay's name has to remain on the ballot, and Lampson is well-positioned to return to Congress, where he previously served four terms.
From DCCC: The DCCC's original 2005 Red to Blue candidate, Nick Lampson signed up to take on Tom DeLay last year and won that battle before Election Day. Running against the House Majority Leader, Lampson outraised DeLay and surpassed his cash on hand this year. Lampson continually put the pressure on DeLay forcing him to withdraw from the race. Republicans in the 22nd district are in disarray as questions remain over whether or not DeLay can legally remove his name from the ballot. Their best replacement candidates bowed out of the race, and Republicans are going to bench warmers with little name id and negative issues of their own to take on the well-funded Lampson campaign. With almost $2,000,000 cash on hand, Lampson has the resources and the momentum to win this open seat in November.
Former Rep. Nick Lampson was first elected to Congress in 1996 after beating incumbent Congressman Steve Stockman. A fierce proponent of manned space exploration and civilian service, Lampson served on the House Transportation Committee, where he pushed for increased air traffic and shipping safety. During his 8 years in Congress, Lampson made his mark as an advocate of children's safety. He founded the first-ever Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, worked to create the Amber Alert program, and led national and international efforts to raise awareness of child-safety issues. He and his wife, Susan, have two grown daughters and three grandchildren. Even though he filed and started fundraising at the beginning of May, Nick Lampson raised an impressive $502K and had $485K on hand at the end of the 2nd quarter. Nick Lampson lost his seat last cycle due to Texas redistricting that was planned by Republicans to help take seats away from Democrats


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:45:06 PM EST

Re: Edwards workin' it! (3.00 / 3)

I love it that Edwards will be campaigning with Lampson in Delay's backyard!

This guy has really been workin' it all over the country.  What a champ!


by nannyboz on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:49:19 PM EST

Re: Edwards workin' it! (3.00 / 3)

You are so right!  This is wonderful news for Texas Dems - all Texas Dems and candidates.  If anyone deserves the opportunity to rub DeLay's nose in his own dirt, it is Lampson.

John Edwards has already amassed large sums of money for candidates around the country and his presence and personal powers of persuasion guarantees much needed additional aid.  

Go John!


by MLD4JRE on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Patty Has It All (3.00 / 3)

Patty is a great choice for John Edwards.  I will be looking forward to the work he does with the fundraising machines up there in Minneapolis.  Rove was up there a few weeks ago trying to fundraise and  it will be great to see Edwards just work those folks up there.  


by clundquist on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:41:40 PM EST

Re: Edwards announces winners (3.00 / 5)

Clearly Sitkah hasn't been paying attention to Edwards' activity these past few months. He is working hard not only fund-raising for democratic candidates but doing great work promoting his plan to eliminate poverty. A few weeks ago, Newsweek reported that he was number one in a poll of Democratic Iowa Caucus goers. I don't think people have written him off yet. Anti-Hillary sentiment seems to be growing.  


People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people - V is For Vendetta
by BlueCheese on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:03:21 PM EST

Re: Edwards announces winners (none / 0)

I've been paying a lot of attention Edwards' present as well as his past.

I see his current activities as serving himself as much if not more than anyone else -- and come to think of it, that's how I see his past activities too.

I'll also remind you that at this time in 2002, Gopheart was leading in Iowa polls and Lieberman in national ones. No need to remind anyone how that turned out.

And you're right that anti-hillary sentiment seems to be growing, but you're probably wrong in thinking that Democrats will want a clone of her instead.


With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.
by Sitkah on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:46:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0)

and I suppose that we should believe Schwarzenegger's newfound moderation as well since, you know, he doesn't have a record to examine that might suggest otherwise.


by Lucas O'Connor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Patty Wetterling (3.00 / 4)

Wetterling Is in a open seat race against a real right-winger.  Michele Bachmann the republican, publicly praises Ann Coulter, wants to nuke Iran and is homophobe to the core. Read about here here http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/  I call her a Fred Phelps, Dobson republican.

Go to Patty's website and watch her little web video at the left of her homepage. She is a great candidate! Pitch in any way you can... she has a very slight lead in fundraising and W. Bush himself is coming to Minnesota later this month for Bachmann.

I don't say this just because she is in my district.

http://pattywetterling.com/


by Demrock6 on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:07:45 PM EST

Re: Edwards drowned in pissing contest (none / 0)

I had wanted to say that Nick Lamson
already has more money and support
than he will need to win a race against
a write-in sticker (R) candidate.

Here's hoping that when John Edwards goes
to Texas he can help out in some other
districts where the races are tightening,
like Henley vs. Culberson, and down
the road aways, in newly redrawn TX-23,
a Democrat-soon-to-emerge against Bonilla.

But to get here, I've had to wade through
a TRULY boring pissing contest. It's a real
discredit to the participants and to the
candidates they claim to support, but do
support so much that they can restrain
their own egos on those candidates' behalf.
Please grow up and shut up if you want
anyone ever to visit this site again.

I'll log off this thread now and go elsewhere.
Ugh.


by Woody on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:18:26 PM EST

Yeah, really. (none / 0)

Quite an unnecessary pissing contest that the usual suspects came in and started on a perfectly good diary. You're alienating people.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 04:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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.