Article at Salon.com about John Edwards

[mnhtnbb]

Edwards is getting some excellent press. This is an article at Salon.com
by Walter Shapiro


<April 6, 2007 | CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- Unlike the word-for-word repetition that gave a whiff of synthetic glibness to his son-of-a-millworker stump speeches four years ago, John Edwards' style this time around is more improvisational. But even though the language now varies, there is a riff at the core of nearly every Edwards pitch to voters.>

snip

< "We're past the time for small, cautious, incremental steps. And we're past the time for rhetoric. Rhetoric is great -- it makes us all feel good -- but it doesn't change anything. The question is how we're going to bring about the big, bold transformational change that's needed in America."

Unraveling Edwards' subtext does not require a Derrida-spouting graduate student. Hillary Clinton is the obvious apostle of these "cautious, incremental steps," while Barack Obama is the undeniable master of feel-good rhetoric. What is most intriguing about the Edwards 2.0 campaign is how a once carefully calibrated, pro-war, mainstream Democrat has fashioned himself into the candidate of "big, bold transformational change.">

snip


<In contrast to Clinton and Obama, Edwards has moved quickly to stake out the left flank on domestic issues. His healthcare plan -- which combines federal subsidies with mandates on companies and individuals to provide and buy health insurance -- promises universal coverage in his first term in the White House. His proposal to combat global warming (announced in Iowa on the day that he learned of Elizabeth's new cancer diagnosis) calls for capping the release of greenhouse gases by 2010 and gradually reducing the ceiling for them through the coming decade. To reduce poverty, he has reached back into the old liberal playbook to call for the creation of 1 million public service jobs for those on the economic margins.>

snip

<In a sense, Edwards has always been an unlikely establishment Democrat who cleaves to the orthodoxies of Washington politics. Unlike virtually any other recent Democratic presidential contender, Edwards is a completely self-made figure, who made it to the forefront of politics without the help of an Ivy League pedigree or its equivalent. Hillary Clinton (Wellesley and Yale Law School) and Barack Obama (Columbia University and Harvard Law) were ticketed for the educational success track at a point in their lives when Edwards was still majoring in textiles at North Carolina State. Asked about his atypical educational background at the Davenport town meeting, he explained, "Coming from Robbins, North Carolina, where I was from, getting a liberal arts degree didn't make sense. I wanted to make sure that I could get work.">

snip


<The Edwards campaign was always a high-risk venture, since there was no point in his playing it safe when he was running against a former first lady turned senator and the most charismatic newcomer to American politics in modern memory. But now, since Elizabeth's heartbreaking diagnosis, this is truly the nothing-left-to-lose campaign. Whatever his ultimate political fate, John Edwards is unlikely this time to end up with regrets about being too timorous a candidate in the race of his life.>

For the full article
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/06/edwards/index.html

[mnhtnbb]

1. Edwards is also leading in this recent Iowa poll

5. If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated)
John Edwards 27%
Barack Obama 20%
Hillary Clinton 19%
Joe Biden 4%
Bill Richardson 4%
Wesley Clark 1%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 23%


http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_040407.htm

[bigdarryl]

6. poll makes no sense on the rethug side they ask is it important for the candidate to be like Regan .

but yet Gulliani is leading in the polls. he's no Regan at all

[mnhtnbb]

46. Reagan was loved by all Repubs

[Cameron27]

2. Here's the transcript

A conversation with John Edwards

"Going back a little -- today, I reread your 2005 "I was wrong" about Iraq Op-Ed in the Washington Post. I also remember the speeches you were giving and what you were saying during the run-up to the war. Looking back on it, what mistakes did you make personally and how would you not make those mistakes as president?"

"In that specific case, there were two major mistakes that led to the vote. One was relying too heavily on information provided by others about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. That information didn't just come from the Intelligence Committee; it also came from a lot of Clinton people who said the same thing.

It was all totally consistent. But I should have been more questioning about it in hindsight. More skeptical. The second thing -- and this is actually the more difficult thing, looking back -- is that I felt great conflict at the end about giving George Bush this authority because I didn't trust him and I didn't trust his motives. I didn't know, in fairness, that they would be so incompetent in the administration of the war. But I had real doubts and reservations about that -- and I ended up erring on the side of giving him the authority, and I think that was a mistake. I should not have done that."

Snip> "Last question. Do you regret voting for the Patriot Act?"

"No, no. What I do regret -- put this in there if you're going to write it -- is that it was hurried, it was rushed, it wasn't challenged the way it should have been. There are provisions in there -- sneak-and-peek search provisions, provisions about libraries -- that never should have sailed through like they did. That I do take responsibility for voting for. I along with the other members of the Senate who voted for this. But there were things that needed to be done. We had huge problems with the sharing of information that needed to be fixed. But it should have been done the right way."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/06/edwards_transcript/index.html

Very lame responses IMHO. He's still blaming a lack of information and "a lot of Clinton people" for his co-sponsorship of Lieberman's Iraq War Resolution, he didn't trust Bush's motives, but didn't know he'd be incompetent, so he voted/co-sponsored it, and he regrets his vote for the Patriot Act because of provisions about libraries.

I don't see much accepting of personal responsiblity in those statements.

[The Count]

3. Funny, no revealing he WROTE Patriot Act, sponsored IWR! here's a visual aid

I don't see any statement that the war was a wrong idea - immoral, unnecessary - yet somehow, they all whitewash it "he apologised already - STFU about war - no one cares!

[Cameron27]

4. No he doesn't, and quite frankly

no one in the press ever asks him about his co-sponsorship. Unfortunately, I think the GOP will pick up the slack on that little factoid though.

[The Count]

5. You know they will - if only to take the war off the table as an issue in 2008

Not unlike they did in 2004. And then, you'll have these half assed excuses in defense - the ones that somehow everyone decided to overlook - taking center stage. And it will make the GOP-er look so much better by comparison!

[BayCityProgressive]

7. I am torn

I am pretty sure I am supporting him because he has set out a REAL progressive agenda for home and also to get out of Iraq. I have real problems with him being the co-sponsor of these bills in the past though. He is my favorite out of the top three, but you can bet the other Democrats will bring this up if they lose too much ground to him. The thing that really sold me on him is that his campaign staff is made up of David Bonior (former Progressive Caucus member) union officials, and Working Families Party members. Clinton and Obama are surrounding themselves with a lot of Wallstreet people and that makes me nervous. This should be an interesting race. In my view the flip flopper card won't be used in 08 because Hillary and Edwards have done it, but so have Romney and Guliani.

[karynnj]

8. Reality doesn't matter

There were many many more flip/flops on the part of Bush - and almost no REAL flip/flops on the part of Kerry.

[The Count]

9. "he may be dumb, but he has good advisers" - where did I hear THAT before?

And where did the inexperience argument go, BTW? Because if running for POTUS counts, bring me Lyndon LaRouche any day!

[BayCityProgressive]

13. LOL

you have a good point. Advisors aren't always enough. I like him but I can cirticize him and could still change my opnion. I think it is strange that some here are already dead set on a candidate so far form the primaries and go after anyone who questions them.

[The Count]

15. I agree with it being strange - MSM has hypnotized many into doing it.

I say, research the people running, according to what really matters to you. Don't let a moment of empathy influence such an important decision! My hope is more candidates will jump in. I couldn't believe reading here the Joementum arguments when I bring up IWR: "I am not a one issue voter". Well, as Lamont said, war is more than just "an issue" - as everything else is tied in it.

[Cameron27]

12. If we judge our candidates

on performance rather than their promises, I think Edwards falls short. I've been looking for any substance for his claim to be the anti-poverty candidate, and there's nothing there.

What did he do when he had some power as a Senator?

He was paid $40,000 a year for his directorship of the UNC Poverty Center, but only worked 2 or 3 days a week there. What substance came from that except speeches and papers? And why would a multi-millionaire accept any money at all for his work on poverty? Why not just a symbolic $1.00?

This is what he says about his poverty issue in the Salon conversation:

"In similar fashion, poverty wasn't a theme in your speeches at this point four years ago. But you played up your background . Is poverty the missing step connecting your autobiography with your policy proposals?"

"I don't know if I can be that analytical about it. I think the truth is that towards the end of the presidential campaign and the primaries, I began to talk about poverty because it fit perfectly into the "Two Americas" discussion. And I realized then -- I could feel it internally -- that I had a real passion about it. And then it became a real personal cause for me since then. I've done so much work on it. I've been in 25 states that I've been in poverty centers, community action centers, spent time with families. About half the country. Don't hold me to that number, but it's been a lot of different places, including a lot of places here in Iowa..."

He says he's done so much work on it, but what work? He's been to poverty centers in 25 states? Spent time with families? So what.

I'll keep looking for substance behind the chatter, but right now I'm skeptical. I'm not being snarky, but please tell me what you're basing the feeling that Edwards is progressive, other than what he says. Seriously, it might change my opinion of him.

[BayCityProgressive]

16. what you say is true

he was a fairly liberal senator considering his home state but he didn't do anything spectacular. I think my problem is that in my view, none of them have...so maybe rhetoric is the only thing to hold on to. Which is of course sad. What has Hillary done? or Obama? Nothing really. I think the times are changing and even though all have been somewhat dissapointing...with the internet and other activist groups that Bush has reinvigorated on the Left...we will be able to force a lot of our issues onto the stage and they will have to take our side or lose the primary.

[Cameron27]

19. I do agree with you that none of them

has done much for poverty in America, but the fact is, that none of the others have fashioned themselves as the anti-poverty candidate in the way that Edwards has.

That bothers me.

[BayCityProgressive]

20. I think there was a trend

for the last 20 years of the Democrats not wanting to be controversial and only push incremental change..in some cases pushign right-wing policies. I think there were many reasons fo rthis but the biggest was Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis landslide defeats. there was a feeling that the Left was dead. I mean really what has Gore done on global warming in his various times in office?

I love his idealism like Edwards and would support him now because I think the Dems are starting to realize that the Left is NOT dead and is in a stronger position now than ever. I think the debate in the primary will be over whether we need to continue on the DLC path of small reforms, or whether the Left has regained enough strength to push a full scale large agenda like "Great Society" or "New Deal". Will we go the way of Biden, Clinton, Pryor, Feinstein ect (I am not saying these people are bad) or a more idealistic Kennedy, Feingold, Gore, Edwards ect. and push for big liberal change. I think it is the perfect time for our party to have this debate.

[The Count]

25. Hillary has really worked hard to get the 9.11 funds out of jr to NYC

That's pretty much all I got.
I do know that Edwards was quite proud of his writing the Patriot Act and sponsoring IWR at the time. It's a miracle (MSM enabled) that he's been going through 2 (two) POTUS campaigns with the secret still unrevealed. It's stuff like that that makes me think "PNAC"

[Cameron27]

26. The thing is,

Clinton has never tried to paint herself as an "anti-war candidate" and she's never pointed her finger at anyone else about the issue. So although I still fault her for her yes vote, I have to respect her for those things.

I don't give bonus points for apologies, and I don't consider blaming other people any part of taking responsiblity for ones actions.

[The Count]

36. I also don't think that helping start a war can be erased by an "oops"

Edwards also said he was better than Hillary because he said he was sorry.
Hillary's position is the same with edwards - but without the pretense. She also decries the intelligence/conduct ot the war - which is the exact extent of Edwards's criticism. Edwards never once said this war was morally wrong or at least unnecessary - yet he is trumpetted as "anti-war activist". Which makes my stomach queasy.
To be sure, I don't want to have to vote for Hillary. But if it'll come to that, I'll be less afraid that I am voting for PNAC's next stooge.

[mnhtnbb]

27. Edwards has started a college scholarship program in a rural NC county

handing out $300,000. in scholarships last May 2006.


http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/ap20060519/

[Cameron27]

34. Thanks, it's going to take me awhile to read this and

your other links before I respond.

[Cameron27]

35. Good,

Snip> “Edwards originally designed the "College For Everyone" program as a government initiative, but settled on establishing the Greene County project as a prototype for future efforts.

“It's already growing. With overwhelming support from private contributors who financed the program, Edwards extended his college scholarship plan Friday to a second class of students in Greene County.”

"This is a model of what we could and should be doing for the whole country," Edwards said. “

I don’t understand, is he proposing some sort of private-based scholarship policy?

I’ll keep looking for more information.

[mnhtnbb]

38. No. He'd like it to be a government program, but instead of waiting

for that he's put together private donations to get the program started.

[Cameron27]

42. Ok, fair enough.

[mnhtnbb]

28. Some information about the UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity

founded by Edwards at UNC Chapel Hill

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/532901.html

[mnhtnbb]

29. An interview from 2005 with Edwards talking about the activities

of the UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/581/five-minutes-with-john-edwards

[mnhtnbb]

30. An NPR interview with Edwards about the spring break

program he organized using college students in March 06 to help clean up New Orleans. There was a reason he made his announcement from New Orleans, and it wasn't just a photo-op.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5285938

And an MSNBC story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11713087/

[Cameron27]

33. That’s it?

“So what I’m gonna do is go to ten college campuses to get young people engaged in fighting against poverty: to get ‘em to come to the event that we have on campus, and to commit to at least up to twenty hours of community service, and to advocate for policy ideas, projects, that can do something about poverty in America. Actually in some campuses we’re focused on community service and others we’re focused on advocacy for policy ideas. We have ten campuses, on every campus we have a core group of students who are doing the organizing, getting people to the event and helping determine what it is in the community we’re gonna ask young people to do. So bottom line is, we’re gonna get more students, more young people involved in their communities, and find that they can make a change in poverty.”

“I saw it in the 1960s when I was a teenager—when students led the fight for civil rights and they spoke out against the war in Vietnam. They had a huge impact on their own country, not just for that time, but forever. And I think we have that kind of opportunity available to us now.”

Edwards is being very simplistic. First, the civil rights movement relied on the leadership of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and other great black activists, groups such as The Freedom Riders, and the later entry of RFK and other politicians.

Students may have helped, but without the active participation of magnificent leaders, I don’t think the civil rights movement would have had the results that it had and without political intervention, it wouldn’t have made it into law.

The same with Vietnam. I was one of those protesters and while we may have brought attention to the war, again, it took the active participation of people like Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Kent State and finally politicians like McGovern, McCarthy and RFK to bring the war to an end.

Edwards organized students to clean up debris in NO, excellent, but where is his policy that would direct the federal government to intervene, clean up the disaster and put a stop to the poverty in NO? This isn’t a community service problem, it’s a national disgrace.

Edwards was the director of the UNC-Chapel Hill Poverty Center, and he’s organizing students to focus on policy ideas? Hardly worth the $40,000 a year part-time position.

Here’s a write up of the New Orleans Recovery Initiative, and there’s not one mention of a federal policy.

http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3

Maybe I’ve overlooked his specific policy statements regarding poverty, so I’d appreciate your posting them.

[mnhtnbb]

39. I am not a paid operative of the Edwards campaign. I'm not even an

official volunteer. If you're interested in finding out more, I suggest you contact the campaign.

These were things I knew I could find with a quick search on the internet.

[Cameron27]

41. I didn't mean to imply that you were

a paid operative, or an official volunteer. I thought you were supporting him and would know more about his policies than I do.

I've done more than a quick search and couldn't find anything more than I posted above, that's the only reason I asked you. Sorry if I offended you in anyway.

[mnhtnbb]

44. I think if you're really interested you should contact the UNC Center

for Poverty, Work, and Opportunity and/or the campaign to get more info.

http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3

http://blog.johnedwards.com/

[Cameron27]

45. Not a bad idea, thanks

[The Count]

18. The media will attack ANYONE (dem that is). What bugs me in having a warmonger

on the ticket is that the war itself as an issue will be taken off the table if the IWR sponsor runs for the dems. Kinda like...in 2004.

[The Count]

11. On writing the Patriot Act - from 2004 campaign brochure:

Patriot Act is being abused by the Attorney General
Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John
Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those
who wrote the legislation take responsibility?
EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good
things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much
discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney
general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused
his discretion. We know that now.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27,
2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

[w4rma]

31. Gonzolez wrote the Patriot Act. Republicans wouldn't let any Democrat near it.

Gonzalez was the Attorney General then and that is who the question refers to.

[The Count]

37. Nope. Edwards was involved in writing it - here's his press release

SENATE PASSES STRONG ANTITERRORISM LAW

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2001/oct26-pr.html
October 26, 2001


WASHINGTON–The Senate on Thursday passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill
that expanded the wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority of
the FBI and imposed stronger penalties for harboring or bankrolling
terrorists.

"This will strengthen our nation's ability to prevent future terrorist
attacks," said Senator John Edwards, who worked on the legislation as a
member of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on
Intelligence.

The Uniting and Strengthening America Act, signed into law on Friday by
President Bush, makes the criminal law tougher on terrorists by making
it a crime to possess a biological agent or toxin in an amount with no
reasonable, peaceful purpose. It also outlaws harboring a terrorist,
and makes it a crime to provide financial support for terrorism.

The legislation brings wiretap laws into the wireless world of 21st
century communications technology. Under old law, the FBI could use a
basic search warrant to access answering machine messages, but agents
needed a different kind of warrant to get voice mail. The new law says
the FBI can use a traditional warrant for both.

Under the law in force before September 11, when highjacked planes
crashed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, federal courts could
authorize many electronic surveillance warrants only in the place where
the court had jurisdiction. If the target of an investigation lived in
Charlotte, for example, but the subject of the warrant was technically
an Internet Service Provider located in Raleigh, the warrant wouldn't
let agents track the electronic trail of email records or web surfing
activities. The new law lets the court overseeing an investigation
issue valid warrants nationwide.

Another common-sense change gives law enforcement officers and the
intelligence community the ability to share intelligence information
with each other. "We simply cannot prevail in the battle against
terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left
hand is doing," Senator Edwards said.

The measure also strengthens the powers of law enforcement authorities
that are governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "When I
met with FBI agents in Charlotte shortly after September 11, they told
me their number-one priority was to streamline the process for
conducting investigations of foreign agents operating in the United
States. We've done that," Senator Edwards said. "We have made sure the
FBI can focus on investigations, not filling out unnecessary paperwork."

[mnhtnbb]

53. No. Both wrong. Patriot Act was written by staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft

See my post on another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3201790&mesg_id=3203810

[w4rma]

32. Gonzolez wrote the Patriot Act. Republicans wouldn't let any Democrat near it.

Gonzalez was the Attorney General then and that is who the question refers to.

At least that explains your misdirected antagonism. It's based on a lie.

[mnhtnbb]

54. No, Edwards did NOT write the Patriot Act

See my response in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3201790&mesg_id=3203810

[FrenchieCat]

10. It is my opinion that John Edwards has always gotten favorable press

for the most part.....which is why he did so well in the 2004 primaries and was selected as VP candidate.

OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:

Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

Currently, John Edwards is in perfect position; in the upper middle of the pack (far down enough not to garnet attacks from the other camps, yet high up enough to substain himself for the months to come.) Unlike Hillary and Obama, he has elsewhere to go but down.

Edwards is certainly a charismatic guy with a couple of heartbreaking compelling personal stories, and an understanding for what Democratic Primary voters want to hear, and he just happens to be the only Southern White Guy in the contest (and since that is all that we have elected in our history thus far, the odds are in his favor).

Although he is not my candidate, the odds of him winning the nomination are quite good.

[The Count]

14. And in my opinion, the PNAC point man in the Dem party - so, be careful

whom you pick. It's still time to inform yourselves.
Someone who supported the war in Iraq intensely enough to be quoted on W's campaign site and after the "apology' (inteligence, conduct of ear were not so good) he threatens Iran - and you don't see????? Hillary is the lightning rod for the warmongering wing of the dem party and the rest (even Biden!) sail quite unscathed!

[Cameron27]

17. ~

Deleted because this source has incorrect information about DLC membership.

[The Count]

21. I know Al Gore publicly dissed them in 2004 (2003?)

But other than that, I think it's accurate

[madfloridian]

22. One is only a member while in office.

That source has it wrong.

[Cameron27]

23. Thank you.

I'll try to delete the post.

[BayCityProgressive]

24. I am not

a big DLC fan, but has anyone seen their new American Dream proposal? I don't know if it is just for show, but it sounded really good to me! I was shocked to read something formt hem I agreed with!

[Clark2008]

48. And scares me to death.

[benny05]

40. And Edwards Ain't Taking Crap from Faux News Either

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3202480&mesg_id=3202480

[dk2]

43. I agree, he ain't Taking Crap.

He is ahead of the pack in ideas and is putting them out on the Table.

Go Edwards. He's the right person for the Whitehouse.

[Clark2008]

49. Wimp.

Sorry - I think avoiding the largest news organization in the South and mid-West is cowardly. Even if it is fake news.

I also think it's more of the pandering he does. I don't hold him in very high esteem. His entire "record" is that of pandering.

[benny05]

50. I was waiting for you

:hug:

Thanks for stopping by.

[JNelson6563]

51. Nice to know you can count on some things in life

even if one of them is nastiness. There's something about familiarity, isn't there?

;-)

[benny05]

55. Yep

:hi:

[mnhtnbb]

52. Actually, standing up to the largest propaganda arm of the Republican party

is something I admire. But, since your guy is whoring for them, I'm not surprised to see you calling Edwards a coward for refusing to be complicit
in the pretense that FOX is a 'news' organization.

[mnhtnbb]

47. Kickin'