Edwards: Democratic Party must not abandon core beliefs

[ryban]

WESTON, Fla. - John Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate and former North Carolina senator, told Broward County Democrats on Saturday night the party must not abandon its core beliefs in their effort to regain national power from Republicans.

"We believe in hope over despair, possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery to about 750 people at the party's annual Jefferson-Jackson fund-raising dinner. "And we believe in fighting desperately for people who don't have a voice."

Edwards, sounding many of the populist themes he used in the 2004 campaign, said he has not decided whether to run for president in 2008. But he is launching a new center devoted to fighting poverty at the University of North Carolina that will give him opportunities to remain in the national spotlight.

Before his speech, Edwards told reporters that he would make no decisions about his political future until his wife, Elizabeth, recovers from breast cancer.

<snip>

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/apnews/stories/022605/D88GGPRO1.shtml

[Politicub]

1. "he is launching a new center devoted to fighting poverty"

John Edwards rocks. :bounce:

[mermaid]

3. This Is One Of The Many Reasons

I remain a strong Edwards supporter. i'll vote for him AGAIN...and with pride, in 2008.

I voted for him in the primaries in 04...and for him as VP in 04.

Edwards rocks!

Edwards is the epitome of what I want to become. Born on the wrong side of the tracks as a poor millworker's son, he became the first in his family to go to college, became a damn good lawyer, and always fought for the little people.

that is precisely what I would want someone to say of me one day.

[Eloriel]

15. I would also hope you'd want them to add

That s/he didn't vote for an immoral war and try to defend and justify it for months on end afterwards. :-(

That's the only thing I don't like about Edwards, and it's a biggie for me.

[VegasWolf]

16. YES, not supporting the war is a big thing to me also Eloriel! n/t

[mermaid]

17. I Would Not Have Voted For War On Iraq

because I knew Bush was feeding us horseshit.

Basic rule...if it smells like horseshit, it's probably horseshit.

but, apparently, Edwards and the others who voted for war got duped by the false and misleading information...the horseshit...that Bush was using to justify the Iraq war.

I knew it was horseshit from the time Bush started ladeling it out.

Then again, I'm a world-champion bullshitter myself, and you can't bullshit a bullshitter.

Obviously, Edwards was blindsided, and actually chose to take the Pretzeldent at his word. Bad mistake. I don't hold that vote against him, because he has since seen the error of that vote. And would not vote that way again.

Everyone gets one chance to be made of a fool. But not twice. and Edwards hasn't fallen for it a second time.

[Pastiche423]

24. "...he has since seen the error of that vote.

And would not vote that way again."

I call bullshit.

Unless you have a link?

[AP]

19. RFK supported his brother's war on Vietnam and decided not to organize

his '68 campaign around being anti-war.

He almost certainly would have won and would not have continued the fascist war in Vietnam. Instead, the anti-war candidate was nominated, ran as an anti-war campaign, and lost the election, as did the anti-war democrat in '72, which prolonged the war until the mid-'70s.

I'd take JRE who could win and then engage in a foreign policy which did not feed the greed of the neoliberals over a losing anti-war Democrat any day.

[regnaD kciN]

28. A little bit of "revisionist history" there...

I was around in 1968, and RFK most certainly did run as an anti-Vietnam candidate!!! Conversely, Hubert Humphrey, far from being an "anti-war candidate" running an "anti-war campaign," said or did little to distance himself from his superior LBJ's Vietnam policy. In fact, he ran as someone so unwilling to break from the LBJ line (this includes marshalling his forces at the Democratic Convention to defeat a resolution calling for withdrawal), that it became possible for Nixon to position himself as the candidate who would bring an end to the war faster, while Humphrey was portrayed as merely ensuring a continuation of his predecessor's policy.

[TomClash]

30. But RFK didn't oppose US involvement in Vietnam 1964-5

When it became Johnson's War he changed his mind.

[AP]

35. That's not accurate.

...RFK could not attract the students to his campaign because his campaign wouldn't focus on being anti-war. RFK wanted to run on race and poverty. Before entering the race, he traveled to South Africa and then Appalachia in order to establish the ideas for which he stood. He ran on a peace plank, but his strategy was to run on something bigger than the war (and probably to make sure that moderates didn't just see the Democratic party as the anti-war party).

Humphrey beat out the anti-war candidate in the primary, but he got heckled and harassed so much that he consciously decided to break with LBJ and campaigned on the idea that he'd halt the bombing even without a goodwill gesture from NV. As a result, Humphrey gained momentum from the anti-war liberal Democrats. He definitely took up the mantle as the peace candidate. McCarthy even threw his support behind Humphrey once Humphrey showed that he met the anti-war litmus test McCarthy spent so much time making important, (Incidentally, both of these guys voted yes on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, so they wouldn't have satisfied a lot of DU'ers, had there been a DU back then.)

Humphrey lost.

http://hnn.us/articles/7729.html

RFK almost certainly would have won. RFK would not have made the war the focus of the campaign. In the same way that his brother didn't make the cold war the focus of his campaign, in the same way that FDR always made opportunity and work the focus of his campaigns, even during WW2, in the same way Clinton made the economy the focus of his campaign even on the heels of Gulf War 1, in the same way that Edwards ran his primary campaign on work and opportunity to incredibly good head to head numbers vs Bush (beating Bush by 11%, vs Kerry's statistical tie at 47% -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html), the Democrats would have won in '68 with RFK by running on their strengths and by articulating progressive values.

[etherealtruth]

2. Populism

It works for me!

[Us vs Them]

4. Could this be the entry battle in waging the war on poverty?

Let's hope it's more successful than the war on drugs or the war on terror.

With people like John Edwards paving the way, I'm sure it has a chance.

[Rooktoven]

5. Check this speech

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_flickering_light_of_america.php

commentary here: http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200506#1487

[Pastiche423]

6. I wonder if he still thinks

sending our men and women to kill for imperialism and oil is one of our core beliefs.

[Senator Lamb]

7. JRE was misled about Iraq

[Mountainman]

8. I'm not arguing with you but I doubt anyone with a grain of intelligence

was misled about Iraq. All of us knew what the truth was and Edwards was more in touch with the goings on than we were. My guess is that like most Dems, he was afraid to not support Bush's war for fear of losing his seat. Well guess what.

[Pastiche423]

9. Has he ever publically stated that?

The last I heard him say, was that he still believed in the Iraq invasion and was proud of his IWR vote.

[Senator Lamb]

10. wasnt he like Kerry?

He voted for the IWR to give the President the support to go the UN to get a resulution and to use a tool to put pressure on Saddam, yet the way Bush went about it was rushed, miscalculated, without a proper coalition. Also much of the intelligence suggesting an immenent threat was false which was used an execuse of why we couldnt afford to wait.

[Pastiche423]

11. Din't you listen to him during the campaign?

From his IWR vote on October 10, 2002 until this very day, he has been FOR the invasion.

Never once has he stated that he was "mislead".

[Senator Lamb]

12. maybe this why they lost

I cant keep track of their reasons.

[AP]

22. He said he never belived the Niger evidence...

...but that there was so much more which hasn't been made public which was compelling and that an investigation should determine what the hell happened.

[AP]

21. He said, as Clinton did, that you can't chose not to trust...

...intelligence.

If intelligence was bad, they need an investigation.

That's what he said.

[regnaD kciN]

29. That's true...

Even during the primary campaign, at a point when Kerry was claiming he was lied to by Bush, and only voted for the IWR in order to get inspectors in, Edwards was saying that he thought his vote was correct, and would cast it again, even knowing what he knew at that later date.

[AP]

36. He said that until he knows whether and how the intelligence was bad

that he can't regret his vote.

It was a smart answer to the question. It would have put the focus on things Bush was in control of rather than on whether he (or Kerry) was defective.

Kerry should have answered the question the same way.

[pokercat999]

31. They all WANTED to be misled into the "war".

They all knew re-election would be hard if not impossible if they voted against the war. They took the easy road laid out by their corporate sponsors (handlers) and the neo-cons. Don't vote for repug-lites like Kerry/Clinton. If you're going to vote for a repug at least you could vote for a real one.

[AP]

20. Show me where Edwards says that?

[mermaid]

27. See Post #21

He beat me to it. Edwards said you can't choose to not trust intelligence. So, he chose to trust intelligence that turned out to be bad...and voted for IWR as a result of trusting that intel. It sounds to me as if he wishes he'd had better intel.

[elshiva]

13. Edwards should really leave it open until like 2007.

[Senator Lamb]

14. Edwards/Clark

would have won big time in 04. too bad they were competitors and the whole thing with General Shelton happened. I wonder what would have happened if either JRE or Clark didnt run because they both took away from each other, they were after the same demographics. Could Edwards have beat Kerry? He nearly did in Wisconsin.

[mermaid]

18. If Only...

Sorry, Kerry fans, but I truly wish that Kerry hadn't wound up the nominee. I feel like we had a chance to get Bush out, but Kerry wasn't the right guy, at the right time.

Edwards was the guy we needed at the TOP of the ticket. And we needed someone else as Veep. Maybe even Dean. I wouldn't have even been opposed to Edwards/Clark, for that matter.

but we needed a guy who didn't look like a stuffed suit. And that is what Kerry looked like. A stuffed suit.

[Senator Lamb]

23. the charges of being

liberal and an internationlist (in the negative sense) would not have sicked to Edwards simply by how he presented himself. humble roots, southern dialect, typican American family, it would have been hard to pin him as a liberal elitist or a typical politican who would say anything. sadly Kerry gave that vibe though i dont feel its true. a lot of times Kerry didnt feel genuine, you had a feeling it was just for the photo op. Edwards was different.

[greatbubba]

25. This comming from a guy who abandoned the american public the day after

the election

[mermaid]

26. WTF??

Aboandoned the American public?? Edwards?? In case you hadn't heard, Elizabeth had fucking breast cancer, for Christ's sake!! What's he supposed to do, ignore his wife's needs?? christ, she had it, and they knew it, before the campaign was over, and it was a carefully guarded secret.

Now, he opens this center...and you say he's abandoned the American public?? How the fuck do you figure?

[jamesinca]

32. That one I think is easy

He ran in the V.P. position, then gave the concession speech the next day. It has nothing to do with his wife having breast cancer. If he was not able to take on the responsibility, he should have stepped down sooner or never given all that "Help is on the way" talk. He and Kerry should have never stood out there till some time late in the evening of 11/2/04 and said things with the theme of- we will not give up and every vote will be counted. If his wife is so sick that he had to give that concession speech then how does he have the time to open a new center at UNC? He did abandon us back in November.

There is a need to keep your name out there, stay in the spotlight if you plan on running in the future. I think by opening this center it creates an opportunity to do this for Mr.Edwards. I seriously believe he has intentions, or will get them soon, about running in '08 or '12 for President. There may be a Governor run in there, who knows. But one can almost bet it is somewhere in his mind even if only in the back of it.

[The Zanti Regent]

33. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

You won't get a second chance from me, Bilderberger John!

Take your pink tutu and leave the stage. Go back to your law practice. I will NEVER support someone who laid down and gave Bush everything he wanted in Iraq. You gave him the right to send my only child to die. All I got out of this fucking war was a dead son and a broken heart. Go away Bilderberger John, just go away!

[confludemocrat]

34. Edwards: Note to self...

Do not abandon core beliefs, announce in speech my original thoughts on this.
Whisper to self...: don't tell Kerry, I thought of it first.