MSNBC Breaking: John Edwards To Announce Presidential Candidacy

[VolcanoJen]

No link yet, but MSNBC just announced that John Edwards will seek the Democratic nomination for President, and plans to make his official announcement sometime today on his PAC website, www.oneamericacommittee.com.

:bounce: :bounce:

Will update with link when it emerges...

Update - link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239360/">Officials: John Edwards To Announce '08 Run - AP

Unlike the MSNBC announcement, the AP says Edwards will make the formal announcement later this month from New Orleans:

WASHINGTON - Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to enter the 2008 race for the White House, two Democratic officials said Saturday.

The former North Carolina senator plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina last year and slow to recover from the storm.

This breaking news story will be updated.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Please keep us updated!

Thanks

[Tess49]

2. I saw that. I figured it would be posted here before I could type

out the news.

[Greeby]

3. Umm, shouldn't he said it when he was the Daily Show awhile back?

;)

[IndianaGreen]

4. Welcome to the fray, Senator Edwards!

Looking forward to see him on the campaign trail.

[jus_the_facts]

5. I liked him a lot before he hooked up with Kerry.....

....he was the only candidate who actually sent me anything in the mail...I sent emails to his headquarters about the voting machines deciding who the nominee would be before he decided to hook up with JK...never heard a word back..."...and history proves again and again...and always points out the folly of men."

I'll be supporting Dennis again as I did when we finally had our primaries..which were after the media had already decided JK was our nominee and before I'd ever cast a vote in the primaries...now we have Sequoia machines so it will matter even less this go 'round. :nopity:

[Pastiche423]

6. Big whoop

:eyes:

[Nutmegger]

7. I remember when he came out here for Lamont

I really admire him and his message. Wow, I actually have a choice now between him and Kucinich!

[seashorelady]

47. I was at the Yale rally too.

I agree Wow.

[democrank]

8. I have a lot of respect for Edwards

particularly for constantly raising the issues of poverty and "The Two Americas." He`ll breathe some fresh into the 24/7 Obama vs. Hillary circus. Good luck to him.

[chimpymustgo]

78. John and Elizabeth Edwards are the real deal. Ready to lead with hope and vision.

They could be so great for us - and the world.

[Infinite Hope]

9. Check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3018698

[Beausoir]

10. Good news! I like him. Like his wife alot too.

Dunno if I'll vote for him or not...time will tell.

[mikelgb]

11. So this makes the list 4 right?

Mike Gavel
Tom Vilsack
Dennis Kucinich
and John Edwards

offical candidates

[Catchawave]

12. Kos diary up...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/16/133513/84

[CrazyForKucinich]

13. The same Edwards who lost a debate to an oil junky?

Really, Edwards was totally owned by Dick Cheney in their one debate. An established politician/lawyer against an oil tycoon...and Edwards lost. Ridiculous.

Furthermore, his platform of two America's is good BUT it's a pile of hogwash when you look at it. He's for the death penalty, that's something that divides right there...especially when it is blacks that are being executed at a higher rate. He's not for marriage equality, so once again there's another division. He voted for the war and the patriot act. I hope everyone can see through his fog and mirrors trick show. He may come up with a slogan but when it comes to what matters...the real issues he doesn't even support his slogan but instead makes 2 America's within America. He couldn't beat an oil tycoon in a debate, how do we ever expect him to get passed the slick maneuverings of McCain, Giuliani or Romney? We can't. Edwards is not the answer. We have 2 choices: Obama or Kucinich. Take your pick.

[tkmorris]

15. Ugly........

Take your excessive negativity somewhere else. Please.

[CrazyForKucinich]

18. No thanks

I'll continue to speak the truth. Edwards lost a debate against a guy who can't debate. Watch it again here: http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/debates.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=PresVP_04&Rot_Cat_CD=PresVP_04

Edwards lost.

[tkmorris]

23. So don't vote for him

But there is no need for this level of vitriol against a fellow Democrat. It cheapens whatever argument you may be trying to make.

I'd say the same thing to anyone trying to smear your candidate too, believe it. We all need to act like adults here or it's going to get real ugly, real fast.

[VolcanoJen]

25. Hear, hear.

Thanks for saying it... and it is definitely going to get ugly real fast.

I'll never forget the way we DUers beat each other up during the '04 primaries. Looks like hunting season has started early this year.

[CrazyForKucinich]

26. You must not have been here for the 2004 Primary

As it was and will once again get nasty(just wait until Hillary jumps in)

I will take your advice and not vote for Edwards. Thank you.

[tkmorris]

31. Yes I was here

And I remember all too well what it was like then. I am hoping to avoid a repeat of that. Want to lend me a hand?

:toast:

[CrazyForKucinich]

42. I remember that

I watched all the debates.

I definitely think Kerry or Dean was closer to Kucinich's platform than Edwards was. Why Kucinich endorsed Edwards is one of those mysteries that will go down in his book of follies like hiring a Press Secretary who has no experience.

The guy ain't perfect and he makes mistakes. On the whole though, he believes in the right things based on principles. I don't get the same ideas based on principles from Edwards but rather more politicking. Is that a subjective view? Sure. Did Edwards really lose the debate? I was thoroughly unimpressed but maybe Kerry's ass kicking of Bush just had my expectations way too high. If anything Edwards' debate with Cheney was no better than a draw. And that is pretty pathetic.

[Joshua Brown]

100. The debate

if he lost the debate. Which I am not saying he did...it would be hard to win a debate defending the record of someone else such as Kerry. He didn't get to speak from his heart because his heart is not what Kerry's people wanted, they wanted Kerry's talking points. It just didn't work well.

The polls don't show he lost. The uncommitted thought Edwards won. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/opinion/polls/main647648.shtml

The poll that Showed Cheney as the winner, had a more republican base to the poll, while the ones that showed Edwards the winner were uncommitted voters.

http://www.quran.unv.net/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html

One all the online polls after the debate, the people declared Edwards the winner.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=160970&start=0

[machka]

106. welcome to the DU!

;) :hi:

[Inspired]

39. Kucinich and Edwards are good friends....

maybe that isn't relevant but I thought you might want to know. In the '04 Iowa caucus, Kucinich told his supporters to caucus for Edwards if he (Kucinich) wasn't viable...and he wasn't.

[last1standing]

28. Welcome to the primaries.

I'm sure you remember what this place became during the 2004 cycle. This guy (and a few others) just want to get started early with the slander and hate.

I'm not saying this about any particular person, but there are some very hateful people here who can only vent their frustrated lives by trashing their enemies (and they do see Democrats who support candidates they don't as enemies) with lies and distortion.

After the primaries we'll have a month of sniping but then everyone gets behind the nominee. Except, of course, for the hatemongers who mysteriously fade away till the next presidential election cycle.

[Counciltucky]

93. It was also a very controlled debate.

It wasn't a standard debate. If it were in a more standard fashion, like it used to be before the Bush Administration made ridiculous demands in the debates, Edwards would've owned Cheney.

I was a Dean supporter in '04. This time around, I'm most likely going for Edwards.

[stevenleser]

111. Every poll I saw said that people thought he won...

... and the articles I wrote at the time said as much. Nice try at revisionist history though.

[still_one]

21. I don't agree with your premise, but believe there is no excuse for voting for the IWR

NO ONE CAN SAY THEY WERE MISLED, because enough people WERE NOT

[america_in_08]

97. I don't know how you can say enough were not.

The whole nation was on the Bush bandwagon, if so many saw through the lies then how come the whole congress didn't vote no?

And beside that, many Americans do not see it as a problem of going to war they see the problem as the handling of the war once there. Many Americans wanted the war off of American shores and were glad to go. It is Bush Admin that is to blame for the fiasco, not those who thought it was the right thing to do.

It is the mess that Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell, Rumsfeld and Condi Rice made out of the war, the total mess they are responsible for.

Most Americans wanted this war, the slogan was fight it there not here.

[america_in_08]

98. John Edwards all the way to the Whitehouse.

2008 all the way! He is the best choice for the people.

His work across the nation for the hard working American stand out more so than any other candidate.

[1932]

37. One of my favorite Edwards quotes from '04: "I can't go negative on the Kooch"

A reporter who followed the primaries wrote a book about his experience. He gave a talk at a bookstore and shared some stories. One of them was that he overheard an Edwards advisor briefing him before a debate. When he was told a weak point about Kucinich, Edwards said "Aww, I can't go negative on the Kooch." And he never did. Which is why I think Kucinich said on The Daily Show that Edwards was a really good guy.

[Odin2005]

44. What a bunch of BS.

He's a hell of a lot more electable then Kucinich. :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

50. Of course, Edwards could put this to rest by adopting Kucinich's program

He'd be the strongest candidate in the primaries with the combination of his charisma and Dennis' ideas.

[BeccaGrim]

108. Does anyone really think that Kucinich is electable???

I mean objectively...come on!! Edwards is much more viable, much more qualified.

[sfdiva]

125. hell no n/t

[Roland99]

52. Not sure if he lost that debate but he came off like a used-car salesman.

I lost a lot of interest in Edwards after that debate.

[hamerfan]

54. And Kerry won all 3 debates

Kerry won all 3 debates with Dimson and look what that got him. The televised debates mean a lot, but perhaps not as much as some think.
dumpbush

[INdemo]

55. just how do you figure he lost the debate...Dont think so

[Renew Deal]

70. He also supported the bankruptcy bill in the 107th congress.

It came up for procedural vote and he voted for it.

[Renew Deal]

72. The same Edwards that vociferously and emphatically supported the war?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:1:./temp/~r107rEccrc::

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We

GPO's PDF
know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq .

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:1:./temp/~r107rEccrc::

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament

GPO's PDF
programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

[elocs]

75. Dennis Kucinich in 2008=George McGovern 1972. Massive electoral loss.

You can be happy and pleased with your vote for Kucinich and then rant for 4 years while the Republicans control the White House. Fortunately, although Kucinich will bring some good talking points to the table during the primary campaign, he will never be nominated. Welcome to reality. It's a bitch.

[BeccaGrim]

83. Yes he did support the war but

Yes, ge did support the war and he has said he was wrong about that. Do we want a leader (aka the jerk in the White House) who is so completely out of touch with reality that he is not able to admit when he made a mistake? They were misled by the White House. He did support the war and now he doesn't and I think a lot of Americans feel the same way. Also, when did we all decide he lost the debate? I watched the debate and I didn't think he lost it. Cheney had to resort to making stuff up about never meeting Edwards to win that debate.
I really respect both John and Elizabeth and I think this is an excellent person to add to the race. I would vote for him. I wish we lived in a world where Clinton could be elected, but I don't think we do. Edwards is a Democrat who can appeal to the masses and I think he's a man of values too. Lets not forget that John Kerry lost 2004, he was the main guy.

[InvisibleTouch]

76. Much as I hate to say it, he did lose that debate...

...and I remember first of all being very surprised, because he's such a good speaker and effective communicator normally - and I also remember feeling terrible for him at the time. Though he did get in some good zingers and score some major points. But overall he came off as an eager young secretary with all his notepads and writing paper spread out in front of him, while Cheney came off as a CEO - a "troll under the bridge" CEO, to be sure, but still an image that would have seemed stable, solid, and in control to a large segment of the population.

Having said that, I love John Edwards, and am happy to see him in the race. That one incident notwithstanding, he's excellent at conveying his message, one that he's obviously very passionate about. I'm equally happy that Kucinich is in the running, because he'll bring focus to the issues he's dedicated to, and we very much need that. At this point I can't think of anyone who's been mentioned whom I wouldn't welcome into the fray, because they're all worthy Dems, and whichever one ultimately wins, we win as well. My ultimate fantasy would be Al Gore, of course, but.... :/

[iamjoy]

79. Edwards Is Not A Bad Debator

He did quite well in the Primary debates.

But, he made a fatal flaw in his Cheney debate. He acted like he (John Edwards) was debating Cheney. The debate was really about John Kerry vs. George W. Bush with Edwards and Cheney proxies.

[Frank Cannon]

82. Cheney lied his a$$ off the entire debate

If that constitutes "winning", then I guess I'm just not sure what debating is.

[sfdiva]

124. Kucinich is not strong enough, sorry...

Kucinich will not make it past the primaries. He has good ideas but he seems weak and therefore he is not electable .... remember 2004?

[Whoa_Nelly]

14. Yes!

:bounce: :woohoo: :bounce:

So would love to see an Edwards-Obama ticket!!!

[rodeodance]

16. peachy face was my first choice last time around. Better luck this time

[VolcanoJen]

29. Ummm....

Peachy face?

;-)

[UrbScotty]

17. Great news!

Still way too early to tell if I'd support him yet, but he's one of my favorites!

[Zorra]

19. Kucinich, now Edwards...is big Al next?

We sure are going to have one fine Dem candidate field to choose from.

[ckramer]

57. John Kerry better announce his candidacy quick!

And Hillary too!

Then we'll have a show!

[still_one]

20. Frankly, anyone who voted for the IWR is flawed

We have enough potential candidates who didn't vote for that unconstitutional resolution:

Dennis Kucinich
Al Gore
Wes Clark

and others

How can those who voted for it defend that position, when there were enough people who knew better?

[CrazyForKucinich]

22. Some people just like to lose

*shrug*

[still_one]

24. just because he announced he is a candidate, doesn't mean he will win the nomination

Dennis is a man of principle and definitely deserving, but I do not think he will win the nomination. However, he will keep everyone honest

The midterm elections sent a very clear message, and it was to get out of Iraq. Kucinich, Feingold, and others have been very consistent, not only about the false reasoning for going into Iraq, but for also getting out

[CrazyForKucinich]

27. I disagree. I think Edwards is a very formidable candidate according to the population.

He is already big in one poll released a couple days ago. Everyone who voted in 2004 knows who he is. He has gotten support for his Two Americas proposal...although I believe he is just cherry picking some divisions while leaving others to continue as two Americas. When Dean left the race, about all of his support went to Edwards...which if you consider Dean a progressive, you can figure Edwards can appeal throughout the party.

He probably will win the nomination...and I don't think he particularly can handle himself. I'm relistening to the 2004 VP debate and it's amazing how Cheney is a master of tone of voice while everything Edwards says comes off in the same blah style. You think a lawyer/politician would have mastered tone but Edwards doesn't have it. He's not a showman, although he has showmanship ideas. Even then, I don't think those ideas are good enough but then I have high standards while America as a whole does not.

Edwards is a contender...not one I particularly care to see.

[Clarkie1]

34. I think Obama will be more popular than Edwards. nt

[Ladydawnelle]

126. Totally agree with you!

I wish WES had more money so he could run! He's more qualified than the whole lot of the others put together (imo) but I guess some are too scared of X Generals at the helm.

Although who better to run a ship of state than someone that's excelled at doing that job ALREADY on a lower level (just BARELY lower level) for over 20 yrs been vetted already and having a pretty CLEAN background, family and past work ethic.

Ok just call me confused at the media's total LACK of knowledge and forethought! doh!

[spooky3]

35. that is an entirely subjective opinion

You're welcome to it, of course, but it isn't a convincing argument to anyone else who saw the debate and formed a very different opinion, and post debate reviews showed that many people disagreed with you, so posting a link to the debate now is not likely to produce a different result. Since you've posted your opinion more than once on this thread, it's apparent you are interested in trying to persuade. Providing evidence to support your views would be a good first step.

Kucinich is a very admirable man, and I will gladly support him if he is the nominee, but polls consistently show he has no chance of getting the support of enough voters to win the Presidency. Of course, no one can predict what may happen between now and 2008.

[still_one]

45. A lot of things can happen in two years

[Joshua Brown]

103. Just over 1 year

before the caucus and primary season starts

[Clarkie1]

33. I agree. And I would add Obama to your list. nt

[still_one]

46. I agree

[Joshua Brown]

101. IWR

I think that people might actually be looking for someone who can admit when he/she makes a mistake. And that there will not be an automatic throwing out of candidates that supported the IWR as long as they can fully admit they were wrong and set forth some real ideas on what we need to do now that we are at war.

[liberal N proud]

30. EDWARDS '08

Edward's Obama would be my ideal ticket.

[usregimechange]

68. I agree. Clark as Sec of State, Richard Clarke Sec of defense

[bdamomma]

116. now that would be an interesting ticket and it would get

Obama ready for a Presidential run, he would have enough experience if he was Edwards running mate.

[mirandapriestly]

32. He would be very very good.eom

[citizen snips]

36. I can't wait to sign up for the campaign.

:bounce:

[Endangered Specie]

38. I'd say hes the best bet of the ones that have 'officially' entered so far

and I would go for him before Hillary or Obama.

[WindRavenX]

40. As would I

Although, to be fair, I think it's a bit too early to throw all one's personal support on any canidate at this point. But I do like Edwards quite a bit, as I feel he knows the pain of the suffering middle class.

[america_in_08]

41. I am so glad he will run.

I can't wait for the official announcement.

Looking forward to John Edwards in the Whitehouse 2008!

[barb162]

43. cool

He's a winner. He can definitely win

[lanlady]

48. I'm underwhelmed

A one-term senator who couldn't even carry his own state in 2004.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. That's the word for it.

He's way too slick for me (not to mention that annoying two thumbs-up). I kept waiting to be blown away by his big, bad "trial lawyer-ing" skills during the debates, but it never happened. My native NC, die-hard Bush-lovin' neighbor two doors down can't stand Edwards, but LOVES Elizabeth (as do many of the little 'ol Republican ladies in the 'hood). Run the Mrs.

[Vinca]

49. I love Edwards and he's my likely choice in the NH primaries.

However, I agree with a previous poster who said it's too early to lock in a vote for anyone. Where I live, we have a unique opportunity to meet everyone up close and personal and I intend to do that before I make my decision.

[Roland99]

51. He doesn't stand a chance against Barack Obama! Obama's the real deal!

[brentspeak]

64. Has Obama done anything yet as a senator other than campaign for President?

[Roland99]

87. I wasn't aware he's ever campaigned for President.

Why don't you do some research on him?

I found this in 3 seconds at Wikipedia:

Sponsored legislation

Education

In April 2005, Obama sponsored his first Senate bill, the "Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act", S. 697.<42> Entered in fulfillment of a campaign promise to help needy students pay their college tuitions, the bill proposed increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant awards to $5,100.<43> Provision for Pell Grant awards was later incorporated into the "Deficit Reduction Act", S. 1932, signed by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006.<44>

Immigration

Obama co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act", S. 1033, introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on May 12, 2005.<45> Obama also supported a later revision, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", S. 2611, passed by the Senate on May 25, 2006.<46> He offered three amendments that were included in the bill passed by the Senate: (1) to protect American workers against unfair job competition from guest workers; (2) require employer verification of their employees' legal immigration status through improved verification systems; and (3) fund improvements in FBI background checks of immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship.<47> In December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed a parallel bill, H.R. 4437, which provides for enhanced border security measures, but does not address the broader immigration reforms contained in the Senate's bill. As of November 2006, the House and Senate were unable to reconcile the two versions.<48>

Nonproliferation

In November 2005, Obama and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the "Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act" to expand the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.<49><50> The bill, also known as "Lugar-Obama", was passed out of committee and reported to the Senate in May 2006.<51>

Transparency

Obama joined with Senators Coburn (R-OK), Carper (D-DE), and McCain (R-AZ) in sponsoring the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act", S. 2590, to provide citizens with a website, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.<52> President George W. Bush signed the bill, also referred to as the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act", into law on September 26, 2006.<53>

[illinoisprogressive]

114. Why yes he has

he just got through a bill with lugar on blocking weapons to terrorists and one that brings tranparency to pork. Then there are all the small bills he has done for middle class people that are not big news stuff. meat and potatoes. Check his record. He's been very busy, like he was in the state, with legislation since he got to washington. Plus he wrote his own book. Not like most pols who have it ghost written.

[Maryland Liberal]

53. Thank God

Any Democrat - OTHER THAN HILLARY - is OK in my book.

[earthlover]

56. If Reps Nominate Hagel, an Irony...

If The Repukes nominate Hagel, who has opposed the war, and the Democrats nominate someone like Hillary or Edwards who voted for the Iraq War Resolution, it would present us with a huge problem: The Republican being nominee against Iraq, the Democratic nominee having voted for Iraq. Instantly, what seems today to be the number one issue facing the voters will present the Democratic Party with a huge problem. There goes our issue...to the Repukes! Dang, that would be ironic.

Maybe the Repukes will not nominate Hagel and spare us from such a fate we might not be able to spare for ourselves.....

Edwards is a good man. I would fight hard for him if he were to be nominated. I like Clark, but of those who are declared, Obama can take the Iraq War as an issue and Obama also has made good speeches about uniting America.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

60. Define "Hagel, who has opposed the war."

Did he vote for IWR, like Hillary and Edwards, then become vocal in his opposition?

[earthlover]

65. Hagel voted No on IWR

Hagel voted No, unlike Edwards, Hillary or Kerry. Sorry to say.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. Bullshit! The only pug who voted against the IWR was Chafee.

Peddle that nonsense somewhere else.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

127. You stand corrected.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

23 Senators voted NO: Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).

Sorry about anything else?

[machka]

107. welcome to the DU!

:hi:

Interesting proposition there... What do you see as Hagel's strengths, vs. a "big-gun" Republican candidate like McCain or "Mayor G"?

[ckramer]

58. Mr. John Kerry - what are you waiting for? Go for it!

Because you know you are the best!

[illinoisprogressive]

61. Good Luck to Edwards

Nice guy and kinda boring. I liked him in 04 but, he just doesn't really have much there to keep me interested now.
I am for Obama but, I do wish Mr. Edwards luck.

[namvet73]

62. Was and still is my favorite! n/t

[Mark E. Smith]

63. Edwards is my candidate right now

I have a weakness for candidates that can actually win the presidency.

[MGD]

66. I would like him better as a VP. He's out of his league like Shrub when it comes to the Presidency

Obamma's no better. America is pretty fucked right now, we need someone with the experience and political/diplomatic skills to unfuck us. Hillary, as much as I hate to say it, is infinitely more qualfied than Obamma or Edwards and, as such, I'd vote for her before either of them and, for that matter, I'd vote for Al Gore before Hillary. I could really care less about their politics, gender, or race, I just want the person most qualified to unfuck this country to win.

edit spelling

[mnhtnbb]

96. The person most qualified is Gore. But will he run?

Hillary is completely FUCKED UP on the Iraq War.

[MGD]

104. Fucked up or no, she is qualified, experienced, and packing ~ 20 more IQ points than her competition

Like I say though, Al Gore is the most qualified IMO and has been since 2000. I think he'll run but who knows? :shrug:

[mnhtnbb]

120. If IQ was a requirement for the job, we wouldn't have Bush. Americans don't respect

intelligence and will NEVER elect someone intelligent who lacks charisma(which is Hillary).
They'll go for charisma over intelligence every time, which is why Bill could get elected, but not Hillary.

[MGD]

128. I think Hillary has her own charisma actually. W/o being 2 crude, she has a sexiness about her

wthout a doubt.

Americans don't respect intelligence and will NEVER elect someone intelligent who lacks charisma"

Americans do respect competence, success, hard work, and proven reliability though which Hillary has and, as I said, she does have her own charisma. To be honest, I'm not sure if I do like Gore better than Hillary. If I had to choose between the two, it would be a tough choice. I could just as easily vote for her in the primaries and, frankly, I think I might just be happier with my vote for Hillary. I've always liked her.

"They'll go for charisma over intelligence every time, which is why Bill could get elected, but not Hillary"

Well, Bill had other things going for him too...like George "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush and Bob Dole, the antithesis of Charisma himself. I honestly believe that Hillary could get elected in the right gneral election. Her biggest challenge will be in the primary elction IMO and, of course, much of it will depend on who the Republicans run. I think they're hurting for a strong candidate personally however. What's more, much of it will depend on what we have ultimately accomplished in the next 2 years, if we interpretted America's Nov. 7th message(s) correctly.

[usregimechange]

67. Yes!

[Renew Deal]

69. What for?

He has nothing to add since 2004. He doesn't have anymore experience. He hasn't accomplished anything politically except botching up a PS3 purchase. He's old news and a waste of time for 2008. If someone disagrees, let me know why. I don't see what new he has to offer since 2004 and he was rejected then.

[usregimechange]

71. Kerry was rejected.

[Renew Deal]

73. I agree, he shouldn't run either.

Washed up on the presidential level.

[MGD]

105. He wouldn't be my first pick but I wouldn't say he was rejected. He was robbed if anything.

[Zambero]

74. We need good candidates, the more the better

Edwards will be an excellent candidatate, among others. The contrast between the Democratic and GOP fields will be stark and telling. Who's the "best" GOP candidate at the moment? Why it's none other than John "Send in more troops to Iraq" McCain. I'm not sure if the Republican party has a death wish or not, but it doesn't appear that the lessons of the past election have set in. With paperless elections going the way of the Edsel, their "stay the course" mentality could cost them dearly, again.

[Malidictus Maximus]

77. I still pine for John Dean

[mnhtnbb]

90. You mean Howard Dean?!

[Malidictus Maximus]

115. DOH! Yes..

Doo Much Damn cold medication today.....

[humbled_opinion]

112. The country is so bitterly divided

Remember my friend in the 06 elections every one was within few percentage points between the Democrat and the Pubbie. The problem being it only managed to tie the Senate. This does not translate to a landslide for Democrats in 08 on the contrary the public mood may shift i.e., what happens if we have another terrorist attack? Who will look strong and who will look weak? It is incumbent on the Democrats to push some strong legislative policies to protect America, if they don't their 06 gains may be short lived... IMHO.

[galadrium]

81. It would have been bigger news if he decided not to run

Did anyone think he wasn't going to run?

[4dsc]

84. He has my support..

This is indeed great news!! I cannot wait..

[boston bean]

85. Yippee, I supported him in '04 and will proudly do so again!! nt

[imlost]

86. Congrats to his supporters. Good luck. n/t

[longship]

88. I dunno what the urgency is here.

Edwards could easily postpone this announcement for months and might actually improve his chances. He'll have that many fewer GOP attacks, media attacks, Swift Boat attacks, etc.

I can understand Kucinich jumping in now since he has precisely zero chance of taking the nomination. And he clearly wants to use his candidacy to bring certain issues to the forefront. However, I do not think Edwards has any such need at this point.

There's one overwhelming set of facts staring *any* prospective 2008 candidate in the face right now.

1. It's over a year before most people will even begin deciding. Many won't decide until very close to the nominating conventions, in late summer, 2008. That's a long time to expose yourself to the inevitable crap of a campaign.

2. Events in the next year may--I would say, likely will--dramatically change the dynamics of the 2008 campaign. With ChimpCo still in charge, almost anything can happen, and probably will. One thing is for sure. The issues today, will not likely be the 2008 issues. I would not wish treading a campaign through the inevitable 2007 malstrom on anybody.

3. Certain people may be biding their time to jump in at the most opportune moment. Clearly that is *not* now for any serious candidate, for reasons which are all too apparent. If Gore jumps in January, 2008, he could easily jump into the presumptive lead, no matter what has transpired during 2007. What does the candidate who has been gobbling resources do then?

4. Entering this early hurts Democrats overall. It has people who could be otherwise valuable in getting Congress to again act like an opposition party wasting their time on a candidacy which won't even begin until 2008. It plays into the media trumpeting of year-in, year-out, 365 days a year campaign mode and distracts everybody from very important 2007 matters, which by any criteria should be front and center right now.

[mnhtnbb]

89. Deaniac here in '04--but if Gore doesn't get in--Edwards is my pick.

Hillary--will never win. She's not likeable. Clark is tainted by Clintons and lacks political savvy. Obama is too green, but may have a very good chance next time around. Kucinich has the platform closest to my heart--but he's so frank and honest and forthright, that I don't see him having a chance.

I mean, look at the resident. My God, how can the American people have been so duped that Bush could get close enough to steal it--and he did--twice? Too many Americans don't follow politics, make decisions based on "would you want to have a beer with this guy", are uncomfortable
with intelligence that hits you in the face. I think Edwards has the political savvy to pull off a campaign, pick up some southern states, and actually be a decent President.

I'd really rather have Gore, but I'd work my ass off for Edwards.

[mnhtnbb]

91. PS--Chapel Hill--where I live--will go nuts for Edwards--who owns property here.

They are supposed to be building a house here and want the young kids to go to public school here. But I don't know if they've sold their Raleigh house and are living here, yet.

[BlueInPhilly]

92. Oh please...

Edwards did NOT even win his homestate in '04!!! He didn't really bring anything to the ticket! NOTHING! I like Edwards, I like Kerry, but they had their chance. And they broke all our hearts. Time for somebody else!

[mnhtnbb]

94. Edwards was NOT at the top of the ticket. Orange County--which is where Chapel Hill is--

went for Kerry/Edwards by 66%. In the last days (I was following this closely) they had pulled within 5% of Bush in the polls in NC.
I do believe there were some voting shenanigans pulled here. We know there were machines that LOST votes in Carteret County.

Kerry was not a draw in NC. People were a little pissed at Edwards here for abandoning his Senate seat in favor of running after the Presidency.
But I think if Edwards was at the top of the ticket in 08, he'd take NC.
Things are changing here. More Yanks (and I'm one) are moving into the State. And, you have to remember that we have a Dem governor and a Dem state house.

The poverty theme is going to draw a LOT of votes from NC next time around. We've lost a lot of good jobs here. Edwards can talk faith to people of NC--and be believable. I think he has a lot going for him.

[machka]

109. Yep.

The house is finished, and they've already moved in - CBS "Sunday Morning" had a piece on John and Elizabeth at the beginning of the month, and the interview was done in their new home. Whether or not the Raleigh house has been sold, I'm not certain.

[Idioteque]

95. He's a bit too protectionist for me...

I'm still waiting for a socially liberal, fiscally moderate, libertarian leaning candidate to jump in the race.

[ozone_man]

99. I only know of one.

Howard Dean. But he can't run due to his commitment with the DNC. I think it takes a governor to be a fiscal moderate, not a quality easily found in a Senator.

[MeanBone]

102. Go Johnny Go!

[woodsgirl]

110. Edwards

will win in '08. If anybody knows him, please tell him to stop saying "I'm the son of a mill worker." We'll all feel better. I have this psychic thing going on about predicting presidential elections.I'd bet money on it. ..if I had any. Edwards is at the top of the polls in Iowa already. The climate in the country is much different now than when he ran with Kerry. He will be able to show his true progressive colors.I'm from N.C...was there when he ran for the senate. Believe me , he would never have won if he hadn't caught his opponent on tape talking about how stupid north carolinians were.He was a brilliant candidate but N.C. was so conservative...Jessee Helms was elected at least fifty times. I do think N.C. which has a strong history of being a dem. state..went with Gore and Kerry. The election machines are so messed up. they didn't have a sec. of education or agriculture for months after the 2000 election, I think it was. No mention the presidential votes were wrong too.But that period of history is over.

[illinoisprogressive]

113. Good Luck to you Edwards fans

I'm glad you have something to be excited about and good luck.
I like Edwards but, don't support him.
I like the Obama group thread. he's my guy. also my senator.
But, I'm glad you guys have someone to back and good luck!

[Carolina Voice]

117. Thanks.

That's very kind of you. Kind isn't something we see enough of these days. Happy Holidays.

[wanpete]

118. I like him and I'm glad he's running. He is just what we need!

[rollopollo]

119. Glad to hear it

I liked what he had to say in 2004; I'm not clear why his candidacy didn't take off, because he seemed to articulate the Democratic message better than just about anyone.

[Lance_Boyle]

121. Dammit.

I was hoping he would run for the Senate seat Dole will be vacating. He'd actually have a shot at winning that. He'll choke on his presidential aspirations again, though, all but guaranteeing that Dole's senate seat goes R. Goodhair WarVoter McPollSniff's ambitions are still too big for his experience level.

[Norquist Nemesis]

122. The difference between Democrats and Republicans shines again

Democrats officially announce their candidacy, and Republicans poke around for money through 'exploratory committees'.

Good for Edwards! :applause:

[NovaNardis]

123. Wow

A rather friendly treatment of Edwards in the Press, and the AP to boot! Nice to see they aren't just trodding out the tired 'Edwards is a moron' line. One America sounds like a slogan I could get behind. I forgot about this guy too much. Maybe I'll get off my Obama high sometime.

Although, there is nothing like populism

[McCamy Taylor]

129. Yipee!!!

At last! Hurray!

:toast: :bounce: :toast:

[Quantess]

130. Go Edwards! Hooray!!!

I will vote for him! :bounce:

[McCamy Taylor]

131. PS Beware of those "reminding" us that Edwards voted for the War.

I have been noticing other places that the same people who hype Hillary and never mention her ongoing support of the war will get all hysterical about Edwards voting for the war. Weird double standard. Makes me wonder why they are afraid of Edwards. Some of them may really have a beef with Edwards, but some of those people who "remind" us the most loudly and in the most detail may actually be working for the RNC making sure that Edwards is not the Democratic nominee.

Just keep it in mind. Maybe the GOP fears Edwards 2008.