Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards Reconsidered

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
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 02:32 AM
Original message
Edwards Reconsidered
There have been good reasons not to support John Edwards for president. For years, his foreign-policy outlook has been a hodgepodge of insights and dangerous conventional wisdom; his health-care prescriptions have not taken the leap to single payer; and all told, from a progressive standpoint, his positions have been inferior to those of Dennis Kucinich.

But Edwards was the most improved presidential candidate of 2007. He sharpened his attacks on corporate power and honed his calls for economic justice. He laid down a clear position against nuclear power. He explicitly challenged the power of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants.

And he improved his position on Iraq to the point that, in an interview with the New York Times a couple of days ago, he said: "The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader." Later in the interview, Edwards added: "I would plan to have all combat troops out of Iraq at the end of nine to ten months, certainly within the first year."

Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.

Full article: http://www.alternet.org/election08/72560/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Now that's what I'm talking about! He's your liberal. His life has been dedicated to fighting for
the little guy. Literally. He gets my juices flowing........... (Hey now, get your mind outta the gutter.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Only IF he walks the talk
If everyone believed he will do what he says he will do, then he'd be winning by a landslide!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. He's done a lot of that in his life already
I think he's the best potential candidate we have for real change. I think his showing in the caucus is evidence
he is finally being heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Unfortunately there are many jaded Americans who don't believe ..
Edwards.
FDR didn't run as the progressive that he became.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I think you win by voting for his MESSAGE that he's put himself on the hook for...
... and the others are all triangulating to avoid being pinned down on anything of substance and focusing on trying to win with style instead.

Folks, if you vote for his message, and in so doing make it clear that Americans want to vote for someone that will actually DO something they've committed to doing, it sends out a message for not only this campaign, but to other electoral races as well that America has had enough with all of the political consultant candidate "marketing" of candidates who have an agenda to not serve us but those who put money into their campaigns.

Even IF Edwards is posturing, and doesn't follow through with what he's promising now (which I don't think he is doing), you STILL have the mandate that we all voted him in on to hold him and other political candidates accountable for in measuring what they are doing later after the election is over. If you vote for those that don't commit to anything other than just combing their hair nice and smiling to you, then you deserve them not listening to you when they get elected and carrying on with the same crap we have now in Washington that is destroying our country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AshevilleGuy Donating Member (947 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. And - he would be the most electable Dem.
If we lose AGAIN, the differences among the Dem candidates won't matter at all on Jan 20th 2009. This seems so elementary, but we need to nominate someone who can win the general; even with the GWB debacle we are not guaranteed that win. Edwards is likely the Dem who has the best chance of defeating McCain or Rudy or Mitt or - God help us - Huckabee.

Think about it: some Dems can win the general, some can not. It really matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmosh42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes, plus it gives me a "non-corporate" guy to vote on...
with the others, it will just be "hold the course".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. I think I heard it described
as trying to thread the needle - Hillary and Obama are in that category, Edwards, the Southern White Male, is not. I just read from an Obama supporter that Obama will turn more states blue. I have lived in Virginia, Louisiana and now North Carolina. He definitely won't be turning those states blue. Edwards could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. He was outspent 6-to-1 in Iowa. He's the best we've got; he needs our
support more than ever.
Rage against The Machine, Brother Edwards! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. iraq occupation
right on JRE! A vote for change - real change! He did well in the caucus. I hope he gets more than 25% in NH, which will be 7 points higher than he polls right now, if he goes up there, and battles for #2 that keeps him in play and able to spread his message for the feb 5th states. 22 of em if I recall right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. Again ..EDWARDS WON the DEMOCRATIC VOTE
Obama won, because many republicans changed their registration for the night. Come November the same REpublicans will be voting against him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broke Dad Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Re: In my precinct . . .
Hillary had Republican ringers. We had a total of 98. In 2004 we had 53 people. In 2000 we had 8.

After realignment, Edwards had 37, Hillary 31 and Obama 30. Under the rules, we got 5 delegates. Edwards got 2, Hillary got 2 and Obama got 1.

At least four old Republican battle axes came to caucus for Hillary. At first they refused to register as Democrats. When I told them ONLY Democrats could caucus, one said, "Well just for tonight." Without these four old Republican women, Obama would have got 2 delegates and Hillary would have got 1. I felt bad for the Obama people.

So in my precinct at least, Republican ringers got Hillary more delegates than she would have gotten otherwise. And I pretty sure that they will not be voting Democratic in the fall.

BTW, John Edwards won in my precinct!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-04-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Interesting, because reports have been out that Obama had quite a few of these ringers.
It all boils down to who one wants to believe.
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 Sat Apr 19th 2014, 10:34 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