Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I admire Edwards' honesty and his refusal to pandering

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:07 PM
Original message
I admire Edwards' honesty and his refusal to pandering
On Sunday I watched him on CPSAN appearing on Dartmouth College.

As with Meet the Press, he was asked about his view on gay marriage and he said that he cannot support this. He admitted that it was his background as a Southern Baptist, his deep church ties that caused him to pause. No, he does not think it is a "sin" and is all for domestic partnership and for employers paying benefits to such partners. And, of course, all for serving in the military.

He said that his daughter chastises him about this, and he realized that it may be up to the next generation to will finally legalize it.

But he stands where he is. He did started by telling the students that they may not like what he had to say.

This reminds me of listening to Kathleen Brown when, in 1994 - I think - she ran for governor of California and stated her opposition to the death penalty, based on her Catholic upbringing. Now, don't flame me. I DO NOT compare the death penalty to gay marriages. But in both cases I admire the candidate taking a stand on what may not be a popular position and justifying it on his/her convictions that started from early age.

And, apparently, there are many DUers who do not like his stand on Iran - and I have not studied this yet (hey, there is more than a year for caucus night..)

But he does support national health care, does want our troops out of Iraq with no but or however. And, at Dartmouth, he first had a presentation before he took questions and he talked at length about Darfur.

When was the last time a national figure talked about Darfur?

So, yes, he is losing many votes, certainly on DU because of his stand on gay marriage, but at least admire his refusal to pander, to tell the voters what he thinks, or what his handlers think, he ought to say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. It would be great if all candidates held exactly the positions I want
them to hold.

In the OFF CHANCE that that never happens, I find virtue where I may, and there is a lot of it in our potential 2008 ticket combinations.

And that certainly includes John Edwards.

He's a good man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. He IS pandering, for God's sake.
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 01:18 PM by smoogatz
National polls show that the majority of Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage. He's taking the safe, have-it-both-ways position: gay people are nice and all, but marriage is for straight folks. If that sounds familiar, it's because that position is pretty much indistinguishable from George W Bush's. He's refusing to acknowledge gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and that sucks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main...

On edit: sometimes I wish there was a way to give an OP a negative vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. That's not the only way he's pandering
But I'll add it to the list. Meanwhile, you can add this to your list:

Digby on the real danger of Hillary's and Edwards' hawkish Iran remarks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and:

Hillary and Edwards to "Square Off" at AIPAC dinner tonight in New York
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. There is a big generational divide.
Most people under 30 don't care, with the exception of a minority of conservative Christians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
39. Right. And he admitted as such when he mentioned how his daughter
who 18 or 19, I think, finds his stands ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. I like him. He doesn't have to be perfect to get my vote. If that's how he honestly feels, I give
him props for being honest, even though I disagree with him. The only way to get a candidate who agrees with me on every position, I'd have to run myself. And I just don't have the strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. I thought he wasn't particularly religious
Had moved away from the Southern Baptists and wasn't religious in his adult life at all. After Wade died, he became a Methodist. I was a bit surprised to hear him talk about this Southern Baptist stuff, he never brought it up before. Maybe it has something to do with Carter and Clinton officially breaking ties with Southern Baptists, don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. You asked
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 01:24 PM by FrenchieCat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. when is the last time a national figure actually DID something about Darfur?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Here's a link to MSNBC/Newsweek
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Thank you. Which is why I think that Richardson has a good chance
to be the nominee. As a governor, or as any other executive, he is used to "do" thing instead of just debating them, as senators and members of the House do.

Not that there is anything wrong with debating. This is why we have an executive branch and a legislative branch, each with its own role. And this is why the last senator elected president was JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Agreed....and although the peace treaty didn't hold,
I give Richardson major Kudos.

But I don't believe that Richardson's actions can take away from those who consistenly made sure that Darfur didn't fall off the map of conscientiousness(sp?) back two/three years ago, before Darfur was a popular cause.

It took voices speaking out in this country to build a concensus that Darfur was a concern in the first place...which is why Richardson may have been compelled to attempt to do something about it a few weeks ago....

I also understand clearly that regardless of whether Richardson's action may have included a certain amount of calculation on his part as he knew that he'd be announcing his candidacy prior to dealing with this issue of Darfur (which he has very much touted to date), the fact remains that his attempts to do something should not be overlooked....I agree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Hey, I give all credit due to Wes Clark ... but also remember...
...the DLC began speaking on Darfur around the same time Clark did. They probably conferred with each other.

Richardson is a DLC member and as of now, the only national figure to actually do something in the region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. So why did Richardson wait till now......?
Considering how long this issue has been discussed among those he was a part of, as you say....which I know is true.

You don't believe there was any political incentive on his part, and that this was just a humanitarian goodwill move on his part? Personally, I'm sure that there was some of both.....

It doesn't take anything away from Richardson...certainly....

It just doesn't impress me quite as much, the fact that he tried to "do" as much as it does you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I don't know. Why hasn't Clark done anything as of yet?
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 02:32 PM by wyldwolf
Clark has all the credibility to do more and it would bolster his case for the presidency. No, I don't think Richardson's actions were politically motivated, mainly because the issue isn't that entrenched in the public's mind and because he has a history of such things.

on edit: Don't take this to mean I've lost faith in Clark. I haven't. Perhaps Richardson has more official channels open for him to do these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I'm sure that it is a part of it, i.e., that Richardson as more official
channels open to him.....as a former U.N. Ambassador.....

sometimes folks don't want to see a military officer of the U.S. in their country....even one that is retired.

I think that Clark being part of this group that did an awful lot to bring attention to Darfur when no one would listen was the best way he thought to deal with the issue.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. How sad. I know that on DU I've often asked
why no one was talking about it.

How could we, the world, this country, just stand and do nothing?

Around November, I think, there was a a TV ad campaign about Darfur but not much - they may have run out of money.

Edwards, of course, visited Africa in the last years since he left the Senate and the failed campaign, and had chances to view not just Darfur, but other places, up close and personal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I saw a lot of concern for Darfur by "some" here at DU.....
In fact, a year or so ago, Applegrove used to do a lot of posting on this, and I participated as well! It's just that not enough cared at the time to keep the posts kicked.....
She did daily posts like this, and I did a few as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It took a long time for DUers to come round, let alone the masses to even know or care about Darfur.

It took George Clooney, a movie star to focus our attention. That's why I believe the United States has become an American Idol country; cause a star is sometimes what it takes for folks to wake the f*ck up! :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I remember that Wyldwolf......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I don't remember them all, but it looks like most of them sunk like a stone
... sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Twas my point......
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 02:40 PM by FrenchieCat
And if you notice, many on those threads are Clark supporters.....

Because the issue had been brought to THEIR attention. and you know how that happened, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. That's because Clark, after seeing what was happening in Kosovo
was more attuned to genocides in other parts of the world, also to what the world, including this country, can do when the will is there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. You mean because Clark, after seeing what happened in Rwanda....
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 04:09 PM by FrenchieCat
which he fought for the U.S. to get involved in (and which they didn't = 800,000 deaths), and also witnessing the death toll in Bosnia (200,000 deaths and which the U.S. got involved at the very tail end of)......then saw what was happening in Kosovo, and was one of those who pushed that it be stopped before it started.....

and yes, he always understood that it takes a country to get behind a cause before it can be moved to doing the right thing. One of the things I remember his saying is (paraphrasing), If its not worth fighting for, than it's not worth dying for.....and to send peacekeepers or otherwise into a place where people don't want them to go, may result in deaths that most won't appreciate the meaning of that sacrifice.

I've posted this before, and so I will again...because it is apropos to this conversation, IMO....
--------------------------
Timing is everything.....standing up when few are is most difficult, while jumping on popular bandwagons is much easier.


The United States, however, wouldn't invade Rwanda, although Clark pushed his mentor, General John Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to push for an intervention. Shalikashvili declined after Clark told him twenty thousand troops would be required, and as Clark says now, "I watched as we stood by as eight hundred thousand people were hacked to death by machete."
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mf...


http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

----------------
Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously thatcontrary to Clinton's decision the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.


and did help save 1.4 million Muslim Albanians....

Samantha Powers.....

Details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance.

Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html



and so he lost his job of 34 years....but I guess that can happen when you stand up to do the right thing, no matter the consequences....!

Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away.

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/index.html

more....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/kosovo_w...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Edwards visited Africa very recently......
Not measured in years.....but by months.....

In October of last year, according to Google.

And so the motivation for that is mixed.....some concern I certainly would hope, but also some actions to beef up a FP resume and add an international poverty cause to the repertoire.

Otherwise, he would have visited the continent of Africa prior to October of 2006. :eyes:

Yes, I'm cynical. My mother taught me that one can measure a deed as much by the timing of what is done....inasmuch as what is done....and that both should be taken into consideration when attempting to gauge motive. So that's what I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
40. Of course. But whatever it takes, I will accept it
Two years ago some said that when Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam - or, at least, did not try to get out of it - that a political career was on his mind and he knew that this would be a good resume building. This may be true of Clark, I don't know enough of him.

Well, I suspect that human nature is to do things where there is a reward. This is one benefit I do give organized religion (my spouse sees none) - that it got people to care for the poor and the sick, widows and orphans because this is what they believe god expects of them.

And, I suspect, even those of us that see our caring for others coming from our conscientious thinking, that at some point, early in life, we got it from our parents who got it from theirs who got it from their religions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Of course it is not true of Clark.....
what you'd said...."this would be a good resume building. This may be true of Clark, I don't know enough of him."

What I just posted for you to read shows that going back waaaaayyyyyyy Clark had any intent on running for any office (we're talking about the mid 1990s) his cause to fight genocide was present and a driving force.....

Looking at Clark's history, I don't see efforts to Resume build for the purpose of running for office.

Plus, I wanted to correct that quote that I attributed to Clark....It's more along the line of...

If it ain't worth dying for, then it ain't worth fighting for.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'll say the same about Edwards that I did about Webb
before I started working for his campaign. I may not agree with him on all the issues, but he has a chance to win. We need someone who has a chance to beat the Republican candidate in a few southern states, perhaps Virginia and Missouri. Look how great Webb turned out. I would imagine he might have the same response on gay marriage and for the same reason.

On the other hand, Edwards is for gay civil unions, and I don't think you would find many of the major candidates who would go further than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
42. Right. Which is why I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992
even when he suspended his NH campaign to go back to Arkansas to sign a death sentence for a mentally challenged prisoner.

Come to think of it - I suspect that all the people from whom I voted in the last 29 years, or so, supported the death penalty. But they were Democratic candidates with whose other ideas I agrees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. I respectfully disagree.
He's pandered on record when he spoke at the AIPAC dinner last week and said that he supported an attack on Iran since it was presupposed it already has nuclear weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. no matter how many times its said here
it still isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. HE NEVER SAID HE SUPPORTED AN ATTACK ON IRAN
PLEASE, OH PLEASE QUIT SAYING THAT. IT'S NOT TRUE. WHY AM I YELLING?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. Edwards never said he wanted to attack Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
36. He did not say that...
quit spreading misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. I have some concerns
I really like Edwards, and it was his candidacy that got me most excited about supporting the 2004 Democratic ticket. However, I can't help but feel that just because Edwards has bluntly said that he made a mistake in voting for the war, doesn't mean that he didn't see it as strategic and benefical to building support for another Presidential run, especially in gathering liberal support. I'm not saying it was pure political strategy, but I don't understand why someone who didn't have the judgement to vote against it the first time (and even co-sponsored it), now can champion the anti-war mantle. I understand people make mistakes, and evolve over time but his motivations seem very political since he smartly knew that there was a vaccum of power of who would be the liberal, anti-war Hillary Clinton candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
28. I think he is anti-war now precisely because he saw the tragedy of his vote
I believe that he voted the way he did because he thought (via Tenet) that he would be saving lives. Now that he sees that this is exactly opposite, he is strongly anti-war.

My guess is that given the tragedies in his own life he is very regretful, to greatly understate it, that his vote led to the loss of sons and daughters. He would never say this, and I'm speculating, but I do believe his anti-war sentiments come from a deep place, part of which is the vote he made, and the awful consequences of it.

Not unlike the transformation of Bob Kerrey when he served in Vietnam and came back anti-war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
35. Gee, and I thought he was anti-war because he put his finger to the wind.
Nah, couldn't be that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Grow up, Clarkie 1
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 07:24 AM by venable
Some peope are trying to have a mature serious conversation. some people post considered thoughts.

why be snide? why not do the same in return? didn't Clark teach you any manners? didn't anybody?

so tired of this assinine insulting adolescent group. life is too short than to play crap like this every friggin day. grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Edwards is a joke.
He was one-term senator who could not get re-elected. He will say and do anything to pander to the base.

I don't think he will even be a first-tier candidate by the time of the Iowa caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. He's not at all courageous
with this stance, as a matter of fact it sounds very much like he's giving what he thinks is just "enough" to court both sides of the issue.

In fact, he's folding on a very real human rights issue, blaming it on his religion, and trying to dump it on the next generation.

That's called something...but it's certainly not called courageous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jen4clark Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
32. I'm sorry
Edited on Tue Feb-06-07 04:31 PM by jen4clark
to come into an Edwards thread and not support Edwards, but I sincerely hope people realize that he is not the best choice at this point in time.

We would be best served with someone with strong foreign policy expertise, extensive knowledge of the history, cultures, pride, beliefs of people not only in the ME, but all over the world. Edwards weakness in this area causes poor judgement and dependence on advisors which wouldn't make me feel confident or comfortable with him as president.

As far as his statement the other day on MTP re: gay marriage, I don't think there's a win situation for Dems on that one. That along with their anti-choice position are the only issues left for the radical regressives to keep their divide and conquor tactic alive.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
34. He is pandering!
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 01:19 AM by Clarkie1
:eyes:

Cut the "it's my religion bullshit" and just be honest!

Nobody with half a brain believes you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. I've got more than half a brain, and I believe him
you need to get over your obsession with Edwards, it's polluting the site.

everywhere I go to post and read about Edwards, I see your snide, childish remarks, unburdened with any thought whatsoever, just playground sniping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #38
44. Anyone who believes him on this is very gullible. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
41. He admits he has no rationale for being against gay marriage
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 11:02 AM by Strawman
He's just uncomfortable with it. To me, that's pandering to your average soft reactionary bigot who, like him, doesn't want to reach for some wacko RW rationale, but just isn't comfortable with tolerating homosexuality.

So it is what it is. It's not admirable. Understandable behavior by an ambitious pol who feels the country is not quite ready to go there yet? Maybe. But it is plainly pandering. I think it is unreasonable to believe that John Edwards would advocate a position he can't rationalize were it not for his political ambition that makes him feel compelled to pander to bigots. I suspect he says different things in private conversation among those he believes are enlightened people than in public. That different public rhetoric, then, is pandering. He tries to tip us off to that by relating his conversation with his daughter. He wants to have it both ways...too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
46. Funny, I find his pandering not very honest at all.
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 08:20 PM by AtomicKitten
He's trying so hard to convince us he's not the guy that cosponsored the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 17th 2014, 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC