Most Hillary supporters know little about the effects of U.S. free-trade agreements - and per their own admissions know little about the Clintons on free trade.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provide r/providerarticle.aspx?feed=FT&Date= 20070607&ID=7002688

As stated here and elsewhere many times - Edwards supporters are the most informed.

you're talking to someone who believes we all have Lobbyists working for us.

Why not chill out and ask your lobbyist to give you a neck rub and poor you a nice glass of pinot noir and rub your feet.

How so?  I see a certain amount of finesse and calm while taking these gloves off. There's no gasping for air.

all I's gots to say is that you got your username right.

research the picture lori and george, I dont want to spoil it for ya

Dumb ploy.  That does not seem desperate to you?  Wait, don't answer that.  

anti-union? sources please.

A vote for Edwards is a waste of energy.

So, is Edwards actually going to repeal NAFTA if elected?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

When was the last time that Clinton or Obama went to stand on a picket line.

Edwards in his breakout session at Yearly Kos said he had been on a picket line the day before, and I know that's just one time of many.

I'd be interested to see, in numbers, who's walked the picket line with workers, how many times, when, and where.

I'm certain that Edwards would be in the dozens, while I sincerely doubt that either Obama or Clinton could tell more than 3-4 times that they've visited a picket line (and I don't mean speaking to a union convention either.)

WHERE in the hell am I belittling workers?  That was a ridiculous comment to make.   Remarkably ridiculous.  

I was addressing Edwards' "drawing a crowd" capability in a humorous way.   Way to write nonsense, though.  I give you that.  

Incredible.  I have read several postings here and at dkos lately about how mean spirited Edwards supporters are.  I didn't think it was true when I first read about it and I still don't but I can understand why people think that.  There is a certain aura of smug superiority that comes from a few Edwards fans, visible in this very thread.

it takes time and effort to get the message out to Hillary's "low information" voters

I've read this same comment from annefrank several times, the implication being that "we Edwards supporters are so much smarter than you".

And then if anyone disagrees with what you're saying, you troll rate the comments.  Classy.

parents and brother have healthcare benefits from being in the Union.

whose walking with them and who isn't? And whose holding the Hillary for president sign?

You got one thing right - union members aren't dumb.

Have you ever spoken with someone in a union?  A union leader?  

I can't tell you how many union officials, leaders, and rank-and-filers that are gung-ho on Edwards because, as Jim Hoffa put it on Saturday at YKos, John has not been a Johnny-come-lately on labor and workers' issues.  He's been there all along - and taken on big interests and won before.

There aint nothing about walking picket lines that is the least bit elitist.  It's easy to use the same mechanics the right did in tarring liberals as elitists.  But the fact is that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the elites and powerful and John Edwards is the candidate of the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the working class, and those who'd like to join or stay in the middle class.

It's only August.  As I noted in the other thread, Kerry polled nationally behind Sharpton as late as December 2003, and was polling 30 pts or more behind Dean in Iowa & NH, at that time.  No candidate is currently a shoo-in, and certainly very few should be counted out.

That's funny.

Recent polling indicates that their both taking one for the team

...team Hillary

Funny, last week you were very tough on Obama re: his nukes comments.  I guess he is in your good graces again, eh?   :-)

hurt him at all with the people who vote in the Democratic rimary or for that matter in the 2008 General Election

Can we admit it now?

Ross Perot was right.

What is not true in what I said?  

What Democratic ideas became mainstream? Democratic ideas were mainstream with LBJ.  Welfare reform was a Democratic ideal?  NAFTA was a Democratic ideal?  COPS was a Democratic ideal?  I think having sufficient municipal services is a Democratic ideal, but COPS to fight crime instead of fighting root causes is more of a Republican frame.  Clinton did have the Republican congress to deal with, but he lost his bully pulpit with his personal weaknesses.  His achievements were not much to brag about.  The most that can be said is that his administration was competent and I do not dismiss that in any way, considering the great incompetence of this one.  However I don't recall any push of Democratic ideals becoming mainstream.

Clinton was a mediocre president with great personal and political skills for survival.  But he did little to build the Democratic party or its ideals.  There is a lot of the mythical surrounding his tenure.  I like him as an individual, but do not see him being a great president that achieved much.  

wITHOUT cLINTON'S SUPPORT nafta would not have passed. Remember it was a democratic congress and Bill brought  third of the democrats over to a large majority of Republicans to ensure it's passage.

I stand with organized labor too. Nowhere did I say anything bad about unions.

The point, since you miss the irony, is that a special interest is just someone who represents a group of people with the same interest. The environmental group who I also support is a special interest, the teachers union who I also support is a special interest,etc,etc.

Also my comment was how its ironic that one influential lobbying group would call on eliminating the influence of all influential lobbying groups.

he didn't take PAC or lobbyist money in 1998...

and the "internets" weren't that popular then so I can't find much on this but I'm sure HillDogs oppo research is on the prowl

I'm sure this will surprise no one, but this post is complete bullshit.  Here's what the Charlotte Observer had to say about Edwards prior to the 1998 election:

John Edwards, a Democrat, offers a mixture of promise and uncertainty. He is young, energetic and articulate. He has run a campaign stressing his dedication to serving those he calls the "ordinary people" of North Carolina. If you want things done the old way, he says, don't vote for me. On health care, education and some other issues, he's saying a lot that we agree with.

The problem is that, politically, there is little more to Mr. Edwards than this campaign. He has never held elective office. No doubt he thinks it makes a difference who represents North Carolina in the U.S. Senate, but in the two previous Senate races - Jesse Helms vs. Harvey Gantt and Terry Sanford vs. Lauch Faircloth - Mr. Edwards, a multimillionaire lawyer, didn't give a dime to the Democratic candidate. Over the past five years, he skipped nearly half the elections he could have voted in. Though he is now a champion of public education, in 1994 he didn't vote in a Wake County referendum in which a big school bond proposal was defeated.

And while Mr. Edwards has refused to take money from political action committees and Washington lobbyists, he has been heavily financed by trial lawyers, one of the most powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party. How would he handle the pressures to reward groups such as labor, lawyers and educators that support him? He has no record in political office, so it's difficult to predict.

If Mr. Edwards were elected, we're confident we'd agree with him more often than not. But on at least two important issues we don't: He says he would have voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (as did Sen. Faircloth) and he wouldn't support fast-track authority for the president. Every president starting with Gerald Ford in 1974 has had that authority; we consider it a valuable tool in trade negotiations.

Still, we're impressed by John Edwards' spirit of progressivism. He speaks with conviction about how a U.S. senator can help public education, make life better for the elderly and reform the campaign finance mess. As a lawyer, he has demonstrated the ability to master complex material and be a persuasive advocate.

So there's the choice. Lauch Faircloth is senator with a pro-business agenda whose principles usually coincide with his interests. He is unusually well-placed to help meet some major needs of this state, particularly in the Charlotte area. John Edwards is an energetic young newcomer who would take more progressive positions, but might have less clout on some important matters.

That's how we see the candidates. As always, the decision is yours.

I'm pretty sure areyouready has no remaining credibility on this site anyway, but I still wanted to flag this.

anti-union twinge of ridicule that, even if was made in fun, was inappropriate.  Sometimes the quips are very revealing.

And some of your fellow Clinton supporters are downright nasty.

This issue of trade is NOT going away, but is just starting.

What sets georgep apart from virtually all the other Clinton supporters is that he actually has the ability to make her look better with his posts.  I wonder if some of the more idiotic Hillary fans make him wince as he reads their comments.

I think, however, this comment is off base with respect to the lobbying issue.  One of the Democrats' "First 100 Hours" agenda items was to cut the ties between lobbyists and legislation that became so strong during the Republican era.  This is, in fact, a major issue for progressives who want to reclaim government from the big-money interests in the name of the people.

Under Republican control, Congress was literally letting big-business lobbyists write the legislation for them.  It's one thing to advocate on an issue, it's quite another thing to write the bill yourself.

I bring this up not to debate the question of whether lobbyists are pure evil, but simply to point out that this is an issue that by far predates this week's discussions.  Which is probably why it was brought up at Yearly Kos in the first place, come to think of it.

according to uncommitteds, but you can keep disseminating the bullshit.

In fact, the poll where Cheney won, was heavily slanted with Republicans, so what are you telling yourself?

Among registered voters who watched the debate, 43 percent said Cheney won, 35 percent called Edwards the winner and 19 percent called it a tie. One factor is that more Republicans tuned in -- 38 percent of viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/polit ics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

CBS Poll, Who won the debate? Poll of undecided voters.

Edwards 41%
Cheney 29%
Tie 29%
MOE 7%

ONLINE POLLS

CBS: 76% Edwards, 21% Cheney

MSNBC: 70% Edwards, 30% Cheney

WSJ: 95% Edwards, 4% Cheney

LA Times: 97% Edwards, 2% Cheney

FOX News: 57% Edwards, 41% Cheney

CNN: 77% Edwards, 18% Cheney

Philly.com: Edwards 99%, Cheney 1%

Orlando Sentinel: Edwards 80.3%, Cheney 19.4%

Akron Beacon-Journal: Edwards 98%, Cheney 2%

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Edwards 64.23%, Cheney 29.77%

REVIEWS

Carl Cameron:

"CBS did what they call a flash poll of undecided voters and it suggests that the undecided voters thought that John Edwards won the debate. Certainly the North Carolina first term senator came out of the gate a lot faster and by most accounts Vice President Dick Cheney wasn't as warmed up as John Edwards was." [Fox News, 10/6/04, 12:01am]

Liz Marlantes, Christian Science Monitor:

"The one thing that I think does work for Kerry and Edwards, and that I think did work tonight, particularly with Edwards; Edwards is trying to sell the idea of a fresh start. And it may not be different in specifics, in terms of what they do in Iraq or they have some differences, but you can quibble about whether they would work or how different it would be but he's trying to sell the overall notion of a fresh start and in that sense I think he was effective. He sort of embodies that freshness, especially in contrast to Cheney." [MSNBC, 10/06/04 12:43am]

"Edwards is likely to have come off as more sincere, said John C. Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, who was inside the hall at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, where the debate took place. `Senator Edwards was very effective, very personable,' Green said. `I had a feeling he probably connected a little better with viewers than the vice president did, especially when he was talking about domestic policy matters.'" [Boston Globe, 10/6/04]

"I thought Edwards had a very strong night. I thought one of the things that he did was he brought domestic issues back into the whole sphere of discussion for this campaign which is where the Kerry campaign wants the focus to be going into Friday and I thought Edwards did that quite effectively... I think he came across as very sincere and, I would imagine, connected on an emotional level with a lot of viewers." [MSNBC, 10/5/04, 12:06am]

Carlos Watson:

"John Edwards both did their jobs but I think Edwards probably did a better job with persuadable voters." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:42pm]

"But Wolf, I think in the first half, when they talked about terrorism, when they talked about national security issues, I think Edwards landed some real blows. I think that if you're an undecided voter, or even frankly if you're a soft voter, I think you're going to take another look on Friday at what John Kerry has to say. I think that the vice president and John Edwards both did their jobs but I think Edwards probably did a better job with persuadable voters." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:42pm]

Andrew Sullivan:

"I thought that Edwards was able to articulate his message in terms of language that most people understand and relate to, anecdotes, human beings, stories about healthcare, vulnerability about job worth and every moment Cheney responded to those questions in terms of process, in terms of abstract nouns, in terms of things that have happened in the Congress or the legislature or according. And then Cheney also went directly and personally on the attack directly against both Kerry and Edwards in ways that Edwards was able to do without seeming to be as nasty and as churlish as Cheney was. And I think that's an art and Cheney doesnt have it and seemed extremely nasty." [CSPAN 2, 10/5/04, 11:25]

Candy Crowley:

"If the idea was for John Edwards to come in here and show the American people that in fact he can be a heartbeat away, insofar as this is seen as a draw or as both of them doing very well, one would have to believe that that means that John Edwards did pass that test." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:52pm]

"In terms of the baseline question tonight for voters out there was, can John Edwards step in the job of President? He showed himself to be an articulate man that had a grasp of the facts that he's been studying." [CNN, 10/5/04, 11:11pm]

"Probably for John Edwards the best moment was when he turned to Cheney and said, you know Mr. Cheney, I don't--Mr. Vice President, I don't think Americans can take another four years of this administration. Sort of a rendition of Ronald Reagan's famous line of are you better off. That clearly was one that he had been waiting to deliver. Obviously an effective line." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:51]

Jack Kemp:

"Well, it was a good debate. John Edwards did himself a lot of good. He was glib, he was charming in that southern Clintonesque way." [Fox News, 10/5/04 11:25pm]

"Edwards was equally aggressive, accusing President Bush and Cheney of misleading the country about Iraq, first by suggesting that Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and then by trying to suggest that conditions there are better than they are. He repeatedly accused Cheney of distorting the facts to mislead the public." [Kansas City Star, 10/5/04]

Ceci Connolly:

"I think the one area where Senator Edwards was effective when talking about Iraq was the situation on the ground today. And eventually er.. essentially suggesting that everybody can look for themselves at what's happening over there the number of deaths both US and Iraqi. The mess... um... he was able to point to recent comments by Paul Bremer about not having enough troops." [Fox News, 10/5/04 10:43pm]

"But some of [Edwards'] most effective moments last night concerned Iraq. He hit Cheney on several fronts, and Cheney's answers - when he chose to answer at all - were not particularly persuasive. For Cheney, the problem was that some of his own colleagues had given Edwards fresh ammunition. On Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had not worked together. Rumsfeld said, `I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.' That's virtually the same conclusion reached this summer by the 9/11 Commission." [Knight Ridder, 10/6/04]

"Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy." [Editorial, New York Times, 5/6/04]

"The Edwards victory was more lopsided when the debate turned to domestic policy. The Bush administration, Edwards noted, is the first since Herbert Hoover's to preside over a net loss of jobs. Beyond an irrelevant paean to education, the vice president had no response. He seemed similarly at a loss when Edwards proceeded, with Clintonian specificity, to eviscerate President Bush's record on other domestic fronts." [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/6/04]

"Edwards, on the other hand, appeared to have done his research..." [Editorial, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/6/04]

"Edwards scored a strong rhetorical victory when he mentioned the no-bid contract given in Iraq to Cheney's former company, Halliburton, and listed some of Halliburton's alleged misdeeds. Cheney's attempt to respond by saying that Halliburton was being brought up as a `smokescreen' to cover for Kerry's and Edwards's mediocre record in the Senate led to another direct hit from Edwards as he pointedly attacked Cheney's voting record in Congress, portraying him as an ogre who opposed Head Start, Martin Luther King Day, and a ban on plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors." [Cathy Young, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/6/04]

"What Edwards did best was act as a truth squad. One good moment came when he rebutted the Republican's `global test' line of attack, noting, accurately, that they were distorting Kerry's debate comment about the need for US military action to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the world. Meanwhile he reminded voters again and again that despite Cheney's frequent suggestions of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, no operational ties have been discovered. When Cheney justified the administration's aggressive use of military force by saying that the United States had been attacked and the president had responded, Edwards seized the moment: `Mr. Vice President, we were attacked, but we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein.'" [Scot Lehigh, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/6/04]

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0. html?forumID=8&threadID=160970&s tart=0

Thanks for not letting the facts get in the way of YOUR bias.

Is he for Cancelling it yet, or does he just think it needs a few tweeks?

Being avoided?

Actually, reading the same chart that you posted, wages started rising rapidly and steadily in about 1994.  In other words, the Clinton  presidency represented one of the only sustained periods in the last 30 years in which workers shared the economic gains of increased productivity.

Perhaps before you make these grand proclamations of a graph you might want to define the coordinates. That is typically the way to make an examination. What does the blue and what does the orange represent?

"the boom came about primarily because of massive productivity gains."

Yes, this is true. But the economic policies of the Clinton Administration stimulated this increase in production. It also stimulated the rise in wages so that as the economy grew so did the well being of the people. And the Clinton Administration paid down the National Debt and worked within the constraints of a balanced budget which stimulated the stock market. It was a comprehensive strategy that brought a great period of abundance to many Americans.

Enough of your bullshit explaining away of the good times we enjoyed during the Clinton years.

was the one who sold the bankers on subprime loans with the implicit promise that they would keep cheap credit available if they got themselves in trouble.  And now as evidenced by Cramer's breakdown on MSNBC, the consequences of that are coming home to roost.

Remember also that the deregulation of the 1990's allowed Enron and Worldcom to happen by loosening regulatory requirements as well.

U.S. textiles have been experiencing difficulty from long before NAFTA.  There is no way that we can save every job from international competition, especially those that involve low-tech manual labor.  And, if we try to, we'll destroy the economy.

We need programs like universal health care, improved education, retraining programs, lifelong learning programs, better day care, improved unemployment insurance etc., so that our workforce can succeed in a dynamic flexible economy, rather than reverting to protectionism.  That 1 job we save through protectionism will probably cost 10 jobs down the road.

What exactly did John Edwards propose when he was a Senator (and could have done something) to remedy the problems with NAFTA?

The more I listen to Edwards the more certain I am that he is not qualified to be President. Like Obama he has a certain appeal but other than charisma they are both light on experience and practical leadership. I agree, I would rather have the 90s than the hocus pocus nonsense being proposed by these lamers.

actually i think hillary would have gotten a much worse reception if bill was there, it makes her look like shes riding on his credentials (something she doesnt need to at all). Not that he would have been invited.

tha wasn't my point - I'll try to be clearer.  

If Bill Clinton the Arkansas gov and pres candidate in 1991 were transported thru time into the forum at YearlyKos, he would have been labeled a DLC centrist and dismissed entirely by the attendees.  My point was the progress that is being made in dragging the party to the left.

Bill Clinton was no progressive, and the party only reveres him b/c he was a success - nevermind the basis of his success was built solely on Republican ideas and a good treasury & fed reserve dept.

Really? Sounds like some good ole right wing talking points to me. Disgusting stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Interesting (but not surprising) to see what circles you frequent besides MyDD and Daily Kos!

read political wire and see what Mitch McConnel says the GOP entire strategy is for 2008... It's a one word strategy and starts with "H"...