Don't know if anyone is still reading this one, but Edwards had a very solid performance on Hardball this past week. He has been down in New Orleans working with a group of college students on spring break to clean up homes and neighborhoods. He controlled the interview, managed to talk about the good things he's been doing, got in a good jab at Bush but still came across as positive and above the fray. A link to it is available from the One America Web site, which takes you to the Hardball site.

For now just go his website:

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/

He will not start campaigning till after the 2006 elections, but for now spread John Edwards gospel of hope, vision, strength, and prosperity by advocating him and his policies on blogs or editorials in newspapers. We just need to develop a base for John Edwards, and reach out.

You guys have me fired up
Where do I sign

I know that John does not have as long as a resume, as say two term Governor like George W. Bush. What has experience gotten America? I think in 2008, voters are so tired of politicians that being a career politician will have it's setback. And if John asks America "What has experience got us here in Washington? A record deficit, an unstable Iraq, a shaky economy, rising poverty levels, less education and healthcare, high inflation just to name a few. But overall I think he does not have to prove that he has experience, but the competence to lead this country. Edwards is such a gifted politician that he will be able to bash Republican attacks. Really talking about John on here has gotten me fired up and ready to go out there and work for our next President. John needs supporters, and volunteers to spread his gospel as much as America needs him. So I am ready to get started.

Love the energy from PopDem - that's the sort of spirit that gets me going with Edwards. Like I said above, there are a lot of questions, but I also think he has a lot of potential as a campaigner, and possibly a leader. I really like the "two Americas" thing, I think it reflects where we are and the problems that the Democrats need to address.

Edwards' biggest challege will be convincing people he has the experience to get the job done. Let's face it, his political career isn't lengthy, and his trial lawyer background is going to be fodder for a lot of opposition attacks.

To Jason, thanks man. I am excited about 2008 primaries and general elecition. I am going to champion for John Edwards as much as possible because I know that he is what America needs right now. He will bring hope, vision, honesty, promise, strength, and peace to America. Something that hasn't been seen since the days of JFK.

PopulistDemocrat,

I think you make a lot of sense and I can't find anything that I disagree with in your last post here. Perhaps you should be one of former Sen. John Edwards' advisors!

In my studies for my masters in Political Science I have worked mostly on American Politics. It is my full hearted opinion that Clinton will not be the nominee. The polls are misleading for the fact that name ID is the most important factor. When Democrats go to nominate a candidate in 2008, many of the voters that voted for Clinton in polls will change their vote to a differnt nominee once they know who is running and what they stand for. She will recieve almost 100% of the negative attacks from other Dems running, beating her numbers down. Russ F. will run at her left, and Mark Warner from the right. The candidate who will win in the nomination will be the candidate that can appeal to all groups. Far left liberals, liberals, moderates and moderate conservatives in the Democrat primaries. John Edwards as the most skilled politician will be this candidate. He will capture the nomination and win in the general election. He can win. I feel the Governor factor is overrated. If the candidate has a commanding knowledge of the issues and appears like an executive than they will win. The problem with Senators that most like Kerry do not know how to appear like an executive. I think Edwards is too smart, and too good of a politician to make the same mistake. He will bring a liberal populist message that appeals to all groups in the country. I am looking forward to 2008 and seeing John Edwards be our next President.

"Ditto" I believe that this Republican type of an American philosophy should end.

I am willing and able to do my part for the democrates and to shut down the reign of republicans this fall. I think there are more willing to this now than ever.
The sear arrogance of the republicans should call all people to arms. Invest in America now VOTE

I can appreciate the sentiment Bellringer but it is a little self-rightous, especially since you are new to the site, to lecture as to the level of personal involvement of posters in their political domains.

I am not sure the purpose of this particular blog is to spit out our political resumes and even if it were, of what use would it be?

I could tell you all that I have been involved in Democratic politics for sixteen years at every level- local, state and national - that I have helped elect Mayors, Congressmen and a President. That I work in government and deal with issues from homelessness and poverty to mega deal economic development. Do you believe me? Should you?

The content and quality of these anonymous individual posts speak for themselves. We have come together from around the country for the purpose of discussion of a variety of political topics.

You want to discuss ideas of how to change the world or your corner of it, be our guest. That is what this is for. Don't preach from the pulpit to a congregation you do not yet know.

The key will be can Edwards remake himself into a candidate with national appeal. Part of his problem in the primaries of 2004 was that he couldn't show any ballot strength beyond the South. Warner will cut into that base.

Bayh and Vilsack have midwestern bases, Kerry and Clinton in New England and Richardson with the Southwest.

I believe that Edwards can overcome Kerry, as many thought he overshadowed the 2004 Dem hopeful and that the ticket should have been flipped.

However, they build from the same national network and HRC still takes a lot of air out of their room.

Can Edwards deliver a red state? He didn't swing North Carolina in 2004.

Warner could flip Virginia, which gives him a leg up for a southern candidate.

A Midwest-Southwest combo provides the best chance, geographically speaking, to cut through some of the red states from 2004.

Indiana, Iowa, Missouri could change with Vilsack or Bayh and Richardson could deliver New Mexico and possibly Nevada, Arizona and impact Texas and Florida.

Wake up, folks. Spend a little less time making book on the odds of an Edwards nomination, much less victory, and take a real close look at the way elections are going to be conducted in your state this year. News flash: Bush was never actually elected in the way we understand that term. This voids all historical precedents in this nation. The concentration of media and its pervasive influence on our political process voids all historical precedents. Our fundamental civil rights have been taken from us both by statute and fiat. This voids all historical precedents. While you argue over who will run in 2008, the current regime is stacking the deck even higher. You want historical precendent? Study Germany in the 1930's.

Nothing you will do for the next 8 months will be more important for the safety, well-being, and survival of our wounded nation than to get out the door and campaign to take the House from the Republican Party. Only then can we hope for investigations of the goings-on of this administration and the beginning of a return to the most basic democratic principles of government. The entire executive apparatus is infested with incompetent and/or corrupt cronies, and it will take years to weed them out and stanch the flow of tax dollars that are currently whistling down the drain. The symbol of this administration should be the flag draped coffins of dead soldiers coupled with the thousands of mobile housing units rotting in the Arkansas sunshine while Katrina victims remain homeless. Every Republican member of the House, and not a few Democrats, should be tagged with this imagery.

Every person posting on this blog has far more in common with the poor, working or otherwise, than with the oligarchs running this country. While John Edwards crosses the country talking about Two Americas, most of his audience really believes there are three: the rich, the poor, and me. Ronald Reagan did a lot of terrible things during his reign, but the most devastating was to convince the middle class that they had more interests in common with the very rich than with the very poor. Remember the 80's? It was me, me, and come to think of it, ME! We laugh about it now, but it's not even remarkable for the most part. It is simply the accepted way of being in America.

Get off your computers and get out there. Make it a point to meet your congressional candidates. If your representative is running without opposition, and s/he is Republican, you must work with others in your district to find a credible candidate. If you can't do that, go to work for an opposition candidate in a neighboring district. Give time, give money, and raise money. Use your articulate voice to raise awareness and fight for a congressional seat. Only overwhelming victory will seat an opposition candidate, particularly in districts with electronic voting. It is essential to have watchers in every polling place. In fact, you could take election day off and volunteer to work in the poll. Republicans have dominated the local election processes for years. It's time to balance that out.

Please, write here about what you're actually doing to change the course of this country - and how you are using the energy and ideas of people like John Edwards - who has been willing to work hard - to sweep the Congress clean in November. I personally believe this is our last chance, folks. Let's not blow it.

Oh, and I've never read this blog before but I must say I find the author to be very biased. Just read the first paragraph. Kerry and Edwards were not defeated at the ballot box, because the ballots were never all counted and have not been to this day. Kerry did indeed concede the election, over Edwards' objections. Thus, Bush was seated for a second time under a cloud of suspicion. I suppose it is accurate to say he 'won' but that is not the same as saying he was elected.

You know I work and I get paid a salary. It's still getting harder and harder to pay my bills. At 54 life is not getting easier and money is getting even tighter. I know Katrina was the worst blow for America and the Southern Coast. But I'm a Ivan surviver and I now have two mortgages
and have not even had a cost of living raise in over three years. I can't afford any more taxes and the government did not run to our aid as they have for Katrina.
I am interest in Edwards and were he goes with all this. We need an Edwards in the White House. I hope he contiunes to travel and learns what all people of America need not just the poor but also the ones in between. The ones that foot the cost of helping the poor and are the backbone of the work force. Edwards keep diggin and I will follow you. With hopes all the way to the White House. America needs a leader for the people ALL the people

So good to see Edwards receive some coverage here on the Fix (from a long-time lurker). I was a big fan of Edwards during 2004, in large part for the reasons that Jad points out right above me. The combination of a vision that offers Americans from all races, economic brackets and lifestyles some hope, with some pragmatic programs to address our country's problems and move us forward on our most pressing needs. It's very encouraging for a Dem who is a bit frustrated with the party right now and isn't seeing anything to get me fired up and passionate in some of the other candidates.

That said, the knock on Edwards remains the same. His political credibility is low. He has 6 years experience, during a major chunk of which he was running around the country. I have no doubt he's a darn smart guy, but he doesn't carry the credibility of years of leadership in government. He'll have to find a way to position himself in his campaign, should he decide to run, as the "somewhat inside outsider," someone who knows how things work and knows the people and processes to move things forward, but who has been away from "the game" enough to relate to everyday Americans.

He's compelling, but there are a lot of questions.

PD,
Warner is nothing like Teddy. No way. Teddy was a reformer, Warner and Bayh are both second comings of Bill Clinton, centrists who favor small fixes in government but no big reforms or visions.

That is one of the many things I find impressive about Edwards: he is interested in small policy modifications, but he also knows what bigger goals and ideals need to be achieved. He talks about legislative proposals, while at the same time talking about broader ideals such as inequality, justice, opportunity. He, I think, is the most gifted orator/rhetorician that we've seen in politics in a long time... and I say this because Edwards writes a lot of his speeches himself (according to the reports I've read)... he dictated the Two Americas speech to his typist. So, I think he is a guy who actually thinks for himself.

Secondly, he thinks big. He gets the wholistic view of things. And, this interview showed some of it. Warner and Bayh, though competent, are not guys who see the overarching problems the same way: they see it in a pragmatic way, one problem at a time. While Edwards is a pragmatist at many levels, he is also an idealist (like JFK, as you mentioned) and he has a vision (with concrete policies) to move America forward.

Right now, I'm most impressed by Edwards out of all democrats, but for those who are undecided, I think the announcement speeches by each candidate and the subsequent stump speeches will give us a better idea of what Warner & Bayh's potential is and how far Edwards has come.

btw. I don't find anything likable in Bayh, yes he seems like a nice guy, but he is too timid to be a leader in these times. You rarely ever hear of him in the Senate. Edwards had been in the Senate for only 2 months before he was handling major issues (he brought republicans and democrats together on the Patients Bill of Rights and got it passed in the senate) and actually leading.

Hmmmm, see John Edwards would be the next JFK. Mark Warner would be a cross between Teddy R, and Bill Clinton. Evan Bayh would be another Bill Clinton without the charisma and hate by GOP. I am glad that you are debating between those three instead of Hillary because she is the wrong candidate for the wrong time. We need someone that can unite the liberals and moderates in our party, while capturing the independent vote, and picking up conservatives. Edwards, Warner, or Bayh would win in 2008. I feel Edwards has the most potential, and I need a candidate that can bring the youth, the charisma, the hope, vision and strength of JFK. Only John Edwards is like that, but don't get me wrongt those other two candidates are good solid candidates and can win. John R. Edwards has the most potential and most talent.

I'm really torn on this one-- I'm having a lot of trouble choosing between Edwards (who i think is fantastic and has the charisma to really inspire people), Mark Warner (who has been an effective governor in a Red state) and Evan Bayh (who has been both a popular senator and governor of a very red state, but doesnt have the charisma that Edwards has). This is the choice that I'll be working on for the next few years. Any thoughts?

Edwards is right to focus on poverty, or if not poverty, then inequality. This country has done remarkable well in terms of national GNP growth since the recession. Yet, under the policies of the Bush Administration, most of that extra productivity has been channeled into fabulous personal income increase for the rich (literally, 5 to 10-fold increases) even as personal income for the rest is left to stagnate.

At first the middle and lower middle class were distracted from this damage, partly because they benefited from some tax cuts, but mostly due to the low interest rates maintained by the Fed and the effect this had on housing. At first low interest rates made making housing ever more affordable, offfering greater opportunities to those entering the market or upgrading. Then, as prices climbed, the benefits shifted to those who already owned a home. Through the use of home equities loans these households used the appreciation of their real estate to generate the dollars they needed to satisfy their whims (and their children's education) in spite of their stagnant incomes. It was all jolly! But now that interest rates are returning to normal levels, that the housing "bubble" is subsiding, and all of those home equity loans are coming due, the fun is over and it is time to pay the piper. So concern over family economic security will increase, and Edwards' message about poverty, about the high cost health care, fuel prices, education, etc. and lack of basic services, will begin to sink in. It is all about timing.

Couldn't agree with you more scoot.....Feingold has more principle and guts than 99% of the Senate. He is going to force republicans to stand by the 'Rule of Law' they are always talking about or show their true colors and stand by 'Law of the Ruler'.

And Lieberman as always is hee-hawing and humming and in the end won't do shit and will vote no on the censure b/c he is an undercover republican and Bush lap-dog. I hope and pray every day that Ned Lamont will take Lieberman out in the primary. We deserve a REAL democrat, not that poser.

Senator Feingold is once again being painted as an extremist Democrat for daring to speak out for the trashing of individual civil liberties.

I think I speak for many in the Democratic base in saying that any Democrat who continues to be silent and allow the GOP to bully the Dems into submission will find themselves in surprisingly strong primary challenges.

To me the Dem tweedle-dee is just a more spineless version of the GOP tweedle-dum.

Someone please tell Hillary not to run. She can't win. But she can unite the opposition against a common cause – a divisive liberal with the last name Clinton! I can see the bumper stickers and SwiftBoat ads now.

As a populist Democrat, I am looking forward to Edwards running in 2008. Someone is going to run to the left of Hillary. Well someone that is going to run to the principled left. Russ F, a good man, will run to the far left, but the far left candidate does not win. Edwards will come up and offer a type of liberalism of JFK, and FDR with the powerful power to the people message. Edwards can and will win if he is the nominee. Somone has to give America a sense of hope, and finally bring America back on the right track that has been derailed sense the assination of JFK. I have much hope for 2008 and this country. Please support John Edwards.

Edwards needs to address the elephants in the room. How do we get out of Iraq? The answer is now and will be the winning answer in 2008. The civil rights of all Americans is being abused under Bush. Go on record now as to what Mr. Edwards will do. By the by, civil rights is more than the government spying on its citizens, it also means equal rights for all, if anybody cares to catch my drift.

RMill I am forever in your debt for backing me up with the VP data. It would have taken me a week just to find all those folks on wikipedia.

Using a "war on poverty" campaign schtick is an iffy proposition for Edwards.

On the one hand, the average person likes to think of themselves as charitable. On the other hand, only a small percentage of these "charitable" souls would willingly choose the common good over their personal good.

A two-fold marketing strategy is needed: First, fighting poverty must be portrayed as an investment to stave off greater costs in the future (whether that be welfare, health care, crime). After all, social workers and the poor don't win elections - comfortable surbanites who have benefited from the status quo do. Second, hyperbole must give way to measured goals (minimum wage, workers' rights, health care/ss reform); Better to portray the effort as a means of providing individuals with better tools to fight their own, personal wars on poverty than to encourage the idea that government can fight this war for us.

I can't believe I missed FDR's 1920 losing bid with James Cox against Harding and Coolidge. My mistake. Good catch.

Admiral Stockdale was at the helm with Perot and William Miller was Goldwaters running mate in 1964. John Anderson, a former Republican, ran with former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey in 1980.

Despite this embarrasing gaffe, modern history still holds that losing bids for the US presidency and vice presidency are not the optimal or likely launch pads for ascending to the White House.

I am from NC and voted for Edwards in 98. He came to our campus and gave a campaign speech in front of a couple hundred students. At that time and in that setting it wasn't so much what he said but how he said it. Agree with him or not, but he truly has that genuine magnetism that makes you believe.

I wasn't alive when JFK was around but I've heard enough of his speeches to be inspired by his words. I have met my fair share of politicians. Most at high levels have perfected the art of "seeming" interested in what you feel are real issues. You can ask them a question and they'll give you a prepared answer. That satisfies some people. Regardless of his politics, John Edwards is NOT that type of politician.

I know firsthand that he is a deeply thoughtful person. He really does care about this country and the people who work and live here. He is real. That is why I was discouraged to see him run for president. I didn't want those qualities to be ruined and squashed by beltway politics and the neocons.

But those concerns were just my own. Edwards did not change. That is part of the reason he inspires others. He honestly does not ask what his country can do for him but what he can do for his country. He strives to be a better person first...because that is the only way you can get others to do the same.

The very interesting discussion of various VPs and VP candidates omits the most interesting and least interesting candidates of all: General Curtis LeMay, founder of Strategic Air Command, incinerator of 25% of Tokyo and running mate of George Wallace in 1968 (most interesting, even more than Tom Eagleson) and William Miller (so un-interesting I will leave it to your readers to identify which disastrous campaign he played second-fiddle on).

Bonus point questions: name Perot's running mate in 1992 and Anderson's in 1980

Picture it - 1950 - radical Hollywood makes a film called "Born Yesterday" staring William HOlden and Judy Holliday -Holden is hired by a ganster to make Judy Holliday a bit more educated as to the ins and outs of Washington.

HOlden to Holliday : What's a Democrat?

Holliday to Holden: Not a Republican

Funny how some 56 years later nothing has changed.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

just though I would post something fun - oh thanks to those who posted the history on VP's becoming Pres. I will check it out and use it in my government course.

Thanks

RMill,
You forgot to do your homework thoroughly ;) FDR lost as a vice presidential candidate and then came back and became one of our greatest Presidents. To date, FDR is the only losing vice presidential candidate to pull this off...however, he took a couple of national election cycles off to govern New York.

If Edwards does become our President come 2009, he will be the first guy to lose as a vice presidential candidate and then win as a presidential candidate in a consecutive election.

I think the key here is "consecutive" elections... Nixon took a break (Veep); FDR took a break (Veep Candidate)... I think Edwards is a very strong candidate. He is the only guy that the demcorats can send into the general election with a near-guarantee that they are going to win. He has the highest independent, democratic, republican favorable ratings among democrats (including both the Clintons). He is the only democrat who comes within the margin of error of beating McCain in a poll right now. He was the democrat who got the highest crossover republican and independent votes in the primaries.

It is going to be interesting to see what Edwards' stump speech is for the next election (for which he clearly is running)... if he can talk about the issues people are concerned about in a language of morals and values, while at the same time providing practical solutions (as he did in this interview, I believe), I think he is going to surprise the pundits (as he has done repeatedly in his short political career). Let's see.

Is there anyone out there who can shed some light on the following: Mr. Bush lied about why we went into Iraq and over 1,000 of our men and women have given their lives.

Mr. Bush tells the NSA to spy on Americans on American soil and impeachment proceedings have not yet begun.

If any of us would break the law, how fast would we GO TO JAIL?

How much damage can Mr. Bush inflict on the American people before he leaves office?

New to the space, so I wouldn't want to presume, but perhaps we could move back towards the issue and away from vitriol from anonymous posters with none-too-clever names.

I find Edwards personally likeable, but to me he lacks that ever elusive (imaginary?) quality of electability. Perhaps it is his relatively recent arrival on the national political stage, or his youth and affability (who can forget fearing for poor Edwards' life as he debated he who shall not be named...or hunted with for that matter), but for whatever reason he has never struck me as a serious presidential candidate.

However, it is refreshing to see a Democrat finally focusing on moral issues that matter (like poverty). I think the way out of the wilderness for Democrats is a return to populism focused on the issues that really divide Americans today (wealth, health care, access to social services). Edwards seems to be attacking these issues with energy and vision. Hopefully, Democrats on the national stage will follow (with the EXCEPTION of Russ who is already there).

Here is a little trip through history.

Early on, the ballot did not distinguish between candidates for President and Vice President so several early Presidents had been elected after losing presidential campaigns:

Jefferson had 4 Electoral Votes in 1792 only to become Vice President in 1796 and then President in 1800. Aaron Burr had 1 in 1792 and 30 in 1796 to become VP in 1800. Monroe got 3 votes for Vice President in 1808 (the ticket was split for President and VP at that time) and became President in 1816. John Quincy Adams got 1 vote in 1820 and was elected President by the House of Reps. in 1824. Andrew Jackson got 99 in 1824, lost to JQ Adams in the House of Reps. and went on to become President in 1828. William Harrison got 73 EV's in 1836 and became President in 1840. John Tyler got 47 for VP in 1836, became Harrison's VP in 1840 and became President when Harrison died in office in 1841. Martin Van Buren, former VP and President got 0 EV in a third party bid in 1848, former VP who became President after Taylor died in office, Millard Fillmore got 8 in 1856 in a failed thrid party bid.

These days do not resmeble the more modern era of Presidential primaries however.

Memorable candidates:

Republican Wendall Willkie was the Republican nominee in 1940 and got trounced by FDR. He would lose a subsequent bid in 1944 to Thomas Dewey, who he beat for 1940 nomination.

Dewey would go on to lose both to FDR and Truman.

After Truman dropped out in 1952, his VP Alben Barkley lost the nomination to Democrat Adlai Stevenson, who went on to lose to Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. He also beat Hubert Humphrey in that nomination fight, who became Vice President to Lyndon Johnson, would get the 1968 nomination but lose to Nixon and then lose the 1972 nomination to George McGovern. He also lost in the Democratic primaries to JFK.

Lyndon Johnson lost that nomination as well but was chosen as JFK's VP and would become President in the wake of the assassination. He and Kennedy beat VP Nixon and VP candidate Henry Cabot Lodge III. Johnson then beat Goldwater in 1964, who beat Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge for the GOP nomination. Rockefeller would lose again in 1968 to Nixon, as would Ronald Reagan.

Humphrey's VP candidate Ed Muskie was favored in 1972 (as mentioned above) and McGovern won out for the Democratic nomination.

Nixon and Agnew would win again in 1972 and of course McGoverns pick, Thomas Eagleton was never heard from again.

1976 had Gerald Ford dropping Nelson Rockefeller from the VP ticket and adding Bob Dole and they would beat Ronald Reagan for the GOP nomination. Former VP candidate Sargent Shriver would lose in the Democratic primaries to Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Former candidate George Wallace lost for the final time for a chance at nomination.

Reagan beat George Bush, Bob Dole for the 1980 nomination and become President, with Bush as VP. President Carter and Mondale lose badly.

Former VP Mondale beats the seven dwarves for the 1984 nomination but again gets trounced by Reagan and Bush.

1988 Dem candidate Lloyd Bentsen loses nomination but becomes Mike Dukakis' VP candidate and they lose to Bush - Quayle. Bentsen is not heard from again. Bush -Quayle beat Bob Dole and Jack Kemp among others for the GOP nomination.

1992 brings Bill Clinton and Al Gore to victory and they beat Bush. Bob Dole tries his luck again, this time winning the GOP nomination and picks Kemp as his VP. They lose to Clinton - Gore.

Gore tries in 2000, beating Bill Bradley in the primaries and picks Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate. GW Bush beats former VP Quayle, John McCain and others and picks Cheney as VP. They take the White House.

And of couse, last election 2004, John Kerry beats John Edwards but picks him for VP candidate but lose to GW Bush and Cheney.

Of all the sitting Vice Presidents who lost a candidacy, losing presidential candidates and losing VP candidates in the modern political era, Nixon and Reagan became presidents, Dole became a presidential nominee and Kemp became a VP nominee (all Republicans).

The chances for these kind of political rebirths from losing presidential bids are extremely slim.

Those who say that Nixon is the only person to lose a presidential election and returned to win later seem to have forgotten Grover Cleveland.

excerpt from http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com -

"..National Socialism with a human face is what the public craves and the political party or candidate that can wrap it in the right package will emerge victorious."

This is what you think the public wants? Are you f'ing serious? Wow, you are soooo progressive, you've got it all figured out. Too bad everyone else on the planet is just too stupid to see the truth as you do. Why don't you run for president genius?

..as an Intrepid Liberal.

More clearly all the time, we do have just the one little planet here. I sure hope you guys pick the right person to be the most powerful in '08.

To follow up on what RMill just wrote, I quote Harry Truman: "If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote Democrat."

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my kids when they asked why I am a Democrat.

It is vastly oversimplified but illustrative:

When Republicans make mistakes, the rich get money.

When Democrats make mistakes, the poor get money.

When Independants make mistakes, Republicans get re-elected.

Edwards would now be VP if not for Bush cheating to win Ohio

Edwards has the most talent and best political skill that embodies hope, vision, and strength since JFK. Kerry lost the 2004 Presidential election. When voters vote they voted for Kerry not Edwards. I do not blame Edwards at all for the 2004 loss. Most Americans said they voted for Kerry, but liked Edwards a lot more. If Edwards is nominated in 2008 he will win. No doubt in my mind wether it is against John McCain or whomever. He will win. America needs a President who can give the hope, vision, of strength that President Kennedy emodied over 40 years ago. Edwards is the right man to fit this certain need. I pray the Democrats leave Hillay and nominate John Edwards because he will show us an America that we thought we could only dream of.

Riiiight. People in poverty have more leisure time than people with money, so they should just stop complaining. Oh you think you've got it bad because you're unemployed and can't support your family? But look how much more free time you have!

Jesus, Angel, it makes me sick that anyone can actually believe something so stupid.

In a country where rent and utilities are skyrocketing, healthcare is not considered a right, the minimum wage is too low to sustain a family, I feel like whatever down-time people living in poverty might have is anything but leisurely.

I thought Edwards acquited himself well enough in the '04 campaign. The failings were Kerry's. Of course Muskie acquited himself very well as Humphrey's running mate in 1968 and became the candidate Nixon most feared for '72. We all know what happened to him.

As for Angel, I think I'll borrow a word from Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman and simply describe him as "angry."

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

I should have said Nixon is the only VP to lose a presidential and come back.

The difference between Edwards and Nixon is that Nixon was an elected Vice President when he lost and not an also-ran VP candidate. And since Nixon is the only one to lose a Presidential race and come back to win later, this is not necessarily a telling historical precedent to hang ones presidential aspirations on.

What a neat and tidy world it would be, Angel, if it were as simple as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Unemployment, underemployment, living and minimum wage issues and health care are not in the direct control of workers or would be workers.

And while there are certainly abuses they are not limited to the impoverished. Ken Lay put in overtime bilking investors of billions of dollars.

The difference is that I am more likely to have sympathy for the poor than corrupt CEO's. You can call this "bleeding heart liberalism" but corporate welfare and abuse costs us much more annually.

one shot at white house? Nixon lost in 1960 and was elected in 1968. Learn and read more Andy!

I repeat what Bill said because he is right - but he did not the ask the question no one wants to ask - how?

"It's no longer a matter of being left or right. The terms have no meaning, nor do the terms liberal and conservative."

I voted for Edwards in the Primaries - in 2008 I will vote for anyone who has a solution to how we are going to pay our bills if we do not have more taxes -

Edwards is not telling me anything I do not already know - fine - how do we fix it - how do we pay for it - if the wealthy class in India redirects their money to investing in India away from buying US Treasury Bills - who will then pay for US debt?

No More words - I just want solutions

As a people we are taxed out - we now finance our world on the back of the third-world which sees investment dollars which should be going to their own countries coming to the US to pay for our debts.

We are the largest welfare nation in the world - we demand everything - but when asked to pay for it we say "No taxes."

There is only one other option to taxes - the government refuses all new leases on federal lands for oil and gas, and start to market the oil and gas itself - why are we giving all of our money to Exxon-Mobile (remember the record profits)

even if we cannot make a profit in any major way- the cost of fuel for our military will go down if we take out the inflated prices - this saves money.

I am the first to say = a government run business is frightening - I just spend a year fighting the VA over a simple signature on a D. of Educ form - a year later- lawyers, numerous investigations - someone at the VA decided that it was time to follow regulations - I just spent 3 months fighting the VA in San Antonio over providing me a form for dental care - I refused to drive 10 hours roundtrip to pick up the form and they refused to mail it to me. I know government business is always bad -

I am looking for solutions - maybe we could fix the problem of incompetence by government employees with the simple solution of "YOUR FIRED"

This next campaign slogan needs to be "It's solutions stupid" and not liberal vs conservative.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

I wish just one time this shyster and ALL WARPED MINDS who are so freaking concerned with poverty would print the discrepency in hours worked if one works at all, sacrifices made, delaying instant gratification for more rewards later; the list goes, on instead of just gaps in earnings. How about who has more leisure time?????????.
THE BLEDING HEARTS HAVE THE LITTLE RED HEN MENTALITY!!!!

It's no longer a matter of being left or right. The terms have no meaning, nor do the terms liberal and conservative. The media should stop pertuating those labels, and get down to the business of in-depth reporting on issues -- federal deficit, trade deficit, energy crisis, jobs out-sourcing, environmental decline, demise of constitutional rights and duties, and international relations.

It is a shame that John Edwards and and John Kerry missed their chance to do the right thing with respect to the War in Iraq. Edwards (and Kerry) now realizes how wrong he was not to have taken a moral position against the war; yet, in calling for partial withdrawals, Mr. Edwards continues to find a a political remedy. If Mr. Edwards lets his moral compass guide him to where he knows he should be with respect to Iraq, he is still the Democrats best hope.

If Edwards is trying to out flack HRC (or Warner and Bayh for that matter) on the left he will have to throw his weight behind the Feingold Censure.
Feingold is pretty much locking up the progressive vote with this move (i would have preferred the I-word myself).
The thing that worries me about Edwards is that you really only get one shot at the Oval office these days, and I think he blew it.
The same could be said about McCain who I think this straw poll showed doesn't have the support in the party I thought he had.
PS Did everyone else notice all the newby's on the last thread. Gave me the feeling that folks in Memphis for Romney were flooding the airwaves to hype him up.

Edwards speaks the right language about rewarding work over wealth and standing up for people against all the corporate special interest forces aligned against the those struggling to get by. He also performed a rare feat for politicians: admitting error. I can understand how Democrats made a mistake about Iraq in 2002. It wasn't such an easy call after 9/11 and the President lying to the country. I had liberal friends who said to me, "Bush must have intelligence. He can't be lying about this." But he did. Edwards at least admitted to making a mistake. Grown ups do that.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

I, like so many /americans, are so confusedand what will be right for this country and our people.

Only one thing seems to be certain and that is the sooner we get rid of the Gang of theives and murderers in the White House, including your stupid, dangerous president (he is not my pres., and never was) by impeachment as first choice or in a straight jacket in an institution, maybe the America we pray for will start to return. Just show us someone who cares about us more than he cares about his big money pals. At this point in my life, 79 years young, I would love to see some recovery before my time is up.