Edwards fought tooth and nail against Kerry concession.

[BrklynLiberal]

This is what Mark Crispin Miller said on the Laura Flanders Show this evening.
On same show, editor of paper in Georgia said that if Kerry had not conceded, andkept up the fight, or had added his name and Democratic money to the fraud story, many more mainstream papers would be covering it.

[GetTheRightVote]

1. I believe it and glad to hear again about Edwards ....

He was running mate to Kerry, it you think we feel bad, image how he must have felt after doing all the work he did to only be ignored in the end of the race ........... report in Edwards, we know how you feel.

[Cha]

2. Wow! I hope there is a method in his

madness! I really like Mark Crispin Miller and have respected what he has to say. But I'm not going to condemn anyone just yet. I will get more facts in and down the road I will see more clearly.

[Prodemsouth]

14. No Kerry grew into a typical defeatist eliitist democrat sorry to say but

me and others tried to warn people here. Needed Clinton to hold on to his Senate seat in 96 in Dem Mass!! nuff said.

[JI7]

15. he ran against popular Governor Bill Weld

massachusettes may lean mostly democratic but they did vote for Reagan and they do elect republicans like mitt romney, bill weld, and that other guy before Romney.

and Kerry won re-election because he was a good candidate and proved himself with his campaigning and especially in the debates where he kicked weld's ass.

[Prodemsouth]

16. Sorry, not what I remember- I will give Kerry credit for improving his

debating skills- they were not there in the 96 debates I saw with Weld on CSPAN.
Most of the country voted for Reagan- not hard to imagine Mass going that way since Ted went after Jimmy with a primary challenge in 1980. Mass is still one of the most favored states for voting for Democrats despite the exceptions you mentioned. These Republicans are useful to voters/tax payers at putting the brakes on sort of a weird state Legis. Why did Clinton have to go to his state if he was so great? A state that Clinton was in no danger at all in losing in 96. His time could have been better spent if Kerry were not so weak.

[JI7]

17. Bill Weld is great also

and not sure what you were watching since the debates were what did help turn things around. it's probably one of the biggest moments of that campaign.

[Prodemsouth]

21. Weld started looking sick.. I mean physically.. He fell down at one

campaign event just like Dole did. And Weld's tumble was shown all over the news like Doles. Pundits commented on Weld's physical state as well towards the end of the election.

[AngryAmish]

93. Weld had the greatest speech line ever in a campaign

Something like "When my ancestors came to Boston from Ireland, they had nothing but the clothes on their back and fivr hundred pounds of gold!"

[TayTay]

135. Ahm, he might have been tight

Bill Weld got drunk at his own second inaugural. (Saw it on TV.) Concern about him falling down might have been concern about him getting into the Jim Beam again. (Weld loved having a good time and being a drinker was part of his public appeal. Go figure.)

[LittleClarkie]

218. Weld himself doesn't credit Clinton

He credits Kerry for beating him. He thought it was going to be easy too. But suddenly, like in this election, Kerry got the big MO going and beat Weld. It wasn't even close.

Up until this election, Kerry was "the closer." He always comes on strong at the end. He didn't get that rep for being "weak."

How we can talk about Kerry being a weak loser who lost this election out of one side of our mouths, and then be mad at him for conceding out of the other side is beyond me.

Which is it: he's either the winner and it was fraud, or he's a loser and we don't need to be talking about how mad Edwards was at the concession.

You don't get re-elected for 20 some years by being weak. To say otherwise seems revisionist to me.

[Nikepallas]

3. If that is true I have lost all respect for Kerry and will gladly throw my

support to Edwards any time he tries for office again.

[liam97]

4. How about writing to Edwards

pledge support and ask him to speak out

[ailsagirl]

7. I heard Edwards say that "the fight is not over" (referring to

the election?? Or perhaps his hopes for America) but he also said, when questioned about whether he'd run for public office again, that right now his focus was on Elizabeth and getting her healthy. And that he couldn't comment about the future at this time.

[AP]

He knew his wife was sick the day he would have been fighting concession.

By the way.

[zann725]

58. Yeah, I'm sorry...but I don't "buy" the story that Edwards fought

that hard. In two interviews recently I've seen, he stressed that he knew about Elizabeth's potential breast cancer from about a week prior to the Election. And they took her immediately after the concession to the hospital. He insists his focus is entirely on her right now, and I cannot believe he was not equally distracted the last week of the campaign.

This is all supposition though. And Edwards certainly hasn't come out in support of the recount SINCE the concession. If he felt that strongly about it, certainly he could've gone to at least one of the Ohio hearings, or protest marches with Jesse J.

But we shouldn't "divide" our loyalties right now. The Repugs would like that too much. "Divide and conquer" is their specialty.

[Leilani]

65. I don't buy it either.

He's been all over TV.

Why isn't he talking about it?

He probably wants to have it both ways.

If he's truly a fighter, then he should speak out.

Seems to me, it's wrong to dump on Kerry for staying silent, but excusing Edwards.

[AP]

66. See post 62

Looks like there are two sources for this story.

[Leilani]

76. Why isn't he speaking out?

EOM

[AP]

89. I don't know.

But it's apparently not because the event described didn't happen.

[ohioan]

159. Or perhaps he's trying not to publicly stab his running mate in the back

[LittleClarkie]

127. People like Edwards more than Kerry, I think

They could do the same thing at the same time, and Kerry would get the flak first, I think.

Kerry says something about pro-life. Dean says the same thing. Kerry is an ass; Dean was misquoted. For my part, I think Dean and Kerry are on the same page.

The benefit of the doubt abounds.

Edwards had nothing but mucho praise for Kerry, more than needed to be said, when he said goodbye on the Senate floor. He sounded very, very sincere. If he's not holding this against Kerry, I don't know why we should.

Edwards may have been more eager before the concession to fight, but then he didn't have a job to go back to.

Kerry has been somewhat involved in the recounts and the fraud issue, even making some reference to it in his video; Edwards not at all in word and deed except through the actions of the campaign that still bares his name.

Edwards has been making some comments about not being an elitist and needing to get away from that image as a party, which tells me he's already campaigning. Everything Kerry does is labeled campaigning, even though half of what he does is so quiet, the people who would vote for him based on his actions wouldn't sway a mayor's race, let alone a national election.

And I dispute what the Georgia newspaper man said about Kerry's actions and their effect on the media. The MSM was most unkind to him during the campaign. So now they'd see him in a good light? He'd have gotten press alright. All bad.

[Leilani]

143. Well, it seems like a double standard to me.

I've certainly made criticisms of Kerry's campaign, but I don't know why he gets dumped on, but Edwards is heroic.

Every group that Edwards was supposed to help with: women, rurals, minorities, voted in higher percentages for Bush in 2004 than they did in 2000.

Yet he is spared & Kerry is blamed.

[PopSixSquish]

154. If You Haven't Seen Edwards Blame on DU...

then you haven't been paying attention.

[iamjoy]

241. Edwards At Least Had A Reason

(for not fighting)
His wife is sick!
I know, he could be using it as an excuse.
(please don't flame me for that comment, my husband worked full time while I was going through chemo & I still think he was very supportive & always there when I needed him - but every job is different, every family is different)

Edwards doesn't strike me as the sort to do anything in half measures, and perhaps feels if he couldn't launch a good fight, he was better off not getting involved at all. And the DLC may have told him not to fight it, and he may have been respecting party leadership.

But I'm not sure I understand why Kerry didn't stand and fight. I'm not angry at him, I'm just bewildered.

[DemDogs]

237. Story was out early = Edwards fought not to concede

This story came out right after the election, and no one on the Kerry side disputed it. The night of the election, Edwards fought not to concede. He came out that night to the crowd (not Kerry, which was odd that Kerry didn't or wouldn't come) and said they were going to wait it out. Next day, same fight between Edwards peoplea and Kerry people. And think about it, Edwards never used "lost" or "concede" in his speech at Fanuial Hall.

The word was also that Edwards was the one who got Kerry to get into Ohio fight, and that it took some doing.

I absolutely cannot believe you are saying that Edwards should have gone to a hearing in Ohio. I for one don't fault him at all. He would fought, even with his wife's health problems, that is clear. Kerry has had all the power in this. He didn't want to fight. I will never understand why, except that maybe he wanted to save face for 2008. I like that Edwards wanted to win.

[GetTheRightVote]

239. I am glad you kicked this thread back into view,

Edwards wanted to fight all the way until every vote counted, I guess Kerry did pick himself a good running mate but even more so for the American People. I know he would be a great VP for us and the country.

[Nikepallas]

8. I would be more than willing to. Somebody give me his addy and

Remember my lone voice will not get his attention alone.

[ailsagirl]

5. That's what I heard about Edwards, as well

I can't help thinking, though, that the msm would have pounded Kerry the way they pounded Gore when he demanded a recount in the 2000 election fiasco...

[liam97]

6. yes

and if you are running for Pres in the US, you must be able to stand up to the media

[KenCarson]

9. that's because he's from NC and he rocks!!!

not that i like my purple state or anything <G>

[BrklynLiberal]

11. There was some voter fraud in NC too!!!!!

Any state that has a city like Asheville can't be all bad!!!!!!!!!!!

[KenCarson]

12. asheville is beautiful. i love it!

the whole state is pretty awesome. i like SC too

[Ms_Mary]

82. I love going into Asheville.

[oddtext]

214. i live in Asheville!!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

y'all don't know what you're missing! it's like america, the way it should be preserved in amber for europeans (and other sophisticated ferriners) to come see and think, "gee, this is america?"

[Walt Starr]

10. Fucking Kerry

Sounds like he was being a rat bastard.

[politicasista]

13. That's cold!

Pathetic campaign advisors! Kerry has nothing to lose.

[elehhhhna]

80. skulled and boned us. mission accomplished. tin-foil time:

we wer diebolded in the primaries.

[hippiechick]

85. Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner !

You, sir or madam, are 100% correct. This entire election cycle was a set-up to keep the status quo in power.


:hippie:

[ALago1]

94. How can a caucus be dieboled? Robots?

n/t

[zulchzulu]

109. Shhh...facts are stupid things

Just let people think that caucus voting uses voting machines...no need to rectify stupidity.

[elehhhhna]

117. thanks. nice attitude. appreciate the info.

[Zhade]

123. How? Easy: the computers tabulating the caucus results.

Not that I necessarily believe the primaries were blackboxed (I have no evidence to even begin to contemplate it), but it COULD be done.

That's one of the problems with the damn machines - we never know WHAT'S going on for sure!

[ally_sc]

242. more on skullduggery...

i don't believe in conspiracy theories, however the skull and bones deal is really compelling if you know any of the history of the "frat" as far as alliances go and what not.
i think that kerry conceded to fast,uncomfortably quick. i was dissappointed then and also discouraged when Kerry won the nomination.
personally i believe the whole thing was a facade. looking at it now. i hope edwards runs again.

[Chicago Democrat]

18. Damn! Edwards 2008!

No to Hillary

[blackangrydem]

23. Hmmm. I heard when he was on Larry King

that his own county in NC went repug. Not to mention his old Senate seat and his home state.

Does this guy really have the support needed to win in a general election?

[Chicago Democrat]

30. youre right, we can do better

[AP]

31. Then you also heard that his home county ALWAYS goes Repub and that in

a working class always-Repub voting NC county (unlike the one he lives in) actually went Democratic this year.

As for the reast, well it would have been nice to have Edwards on the top of the ticket, camaigning in NC, trying to appeal to more working class voters as part of a southern strategy. If you're not doing that on the top of the ticket, you can't really complain about not winning NC.

[Tinoire]

32. What a curious thing to say/think about a man

who won his Senate seat in that same area.

Besides, the support you get is based on your appeal and your stance on the issues. Appeal to enough people and you'll get their votes.

Now if you're talking about corporate support, that is an entirely different ball of wax.

I've always wondered. Just what are you so angry about as a Black person that you would put it so prominently in your screen name?

[blackangrydem]

39. a quick search will get you your answer

what does your screen name represent?

[FrenchieCat]

72. I like your name....

I am Black and angry too.....goddamnit!!

[blackangrydem]

73. Black Democrats have plenty to be upset about.

We support a party that has taken its most loyal constituency for granted time and time again.

[IndianaGreen]

107. And whose fault is that?

We support a party that has taken its most loyal constituency for granted time and time again.

And whose fault is that? As long as people based their vote on the letter that follows the name of the candidate, they will get the same old shit over and over again.

GLBT community have been among the most faithful to the Democratic Party, and many of them are minorities, yet who signed DOMA?

Pro-choice women have been among the most faithful to the Democratic Party, and many of them are minorities, yet who voted for abortion restrictions?

Liberals and Progressives are the base of the Democratic Party, and many of them are minorities, yet who let us down on PATRIOT and Iraq War Resolution?

People better learn that party loyalty is a 2-way street, not a one-sided loyalty oath in which the party's establishment can sacrifice the pleas of their constituents on the altar of political expediency.

[blackangrydem]

158. Sounds like you're saying the constituents are at least partly to blame.

Are you saying they should not vote for democrats en masse?

[IndianaGreen]

180. If someone knows that they got your vote because you have nowhere to go

they will take your vote for granted, and do little or nothing for you.

Vote for those that fight for you, not for those that talk sweet talk while doing nothing. Voting should never be an automatic thing!

[Pepper32]

185. I agree.

Many black dem voters will wake up and realize this now. However, who or what is left? The greens or Libertarians party? Hmm, might as well vote in a black box. There is power in numbers and those parties don't have the 'numbers' yet.

[Tinoire]

78. French patois

for little Black- an affectionate term.

[blackangrydem]

79. Is that a term used to describe a black person?

If so, is it ever construed as a patronizing?

[Tinoire]

103. No & No

No. As I clearly said it's an affectionate term & no it's not considered patronizing unless used by an outsider. It all depends on the context.

[blackangrydem]

157. But it does refer to a person who is black?

[Tinoire]

162. It can refer to anything you want it to refer to

It's a nickname. Nothing more. It's not a noun or an appellation that's commonly used. All it means literally is "little black".

In my case it specifically refers to my little Black cat but it could even refer to a little kettle or a pot if you want.

People can use Tiblanc for little white things - to include kids; Tizhon for little yellow things- to include kids and so on.

One day take a little trip to your kindred Black countries and see how patois works. You'd enjoy it.

[FrenchieCat]

168. Which patois?

Patois is spoken in most Carrabean islands that were once colonized by the French. It's a french based native mix.

When you say, take a little trip to your kindred black countries, you forgot to add...the ones the French colonized.

There are quite a few....Martinique and Guatalupe Patois is different from Haitian Patois, etc...

[FrenchieCat]

169. Yep....

Little black = Petit Noire = Tinoire

[vanboggie]

57. Um - election fraud?

Who says Edwards' own county actually went Pug? Can it be proven?
Personally, I like Edwards and he would have the support needed IF we ever have a real election again.

[blackangrydem]

164. Edwards himself and his wife acknowledged it on CNN

during the interview.

[PopSixSquish]

95. Erksine Bowles was the Candidate for Senate this Time, Not Edwards

who declined to run again. Bowles did not want any help from the Kerry/Edwards campaign and did not even attend the Democratic National Convention.

His opponent was Richard Burr, a Republican congressman from the NC 5th district and generally thought to be a rather uninspiring fellow (sound familiar?). Yet Burr repeatedly bashed Bowles by association with Bill Clinton (Bowles was Clinton's COS from 96-98)and Bill Clinton is extremely unpopular in NC.

[Ms_Mary]

100. Shallow, but I wish Bowles would rid himself of those 80's eyeglass frames

They make him look cheesy. Voted for him anyway, and though I acknowledge it's totally superficial, the glasses annoyed me.

[blackangrydem]

165. Edwards would have lost a re-election bid in NC according to

most strategists.

[AP]

175. That was according to Republican strategists.

Edwards was polling better against burr with every poll as the primary season progressed and until he dropped out of that race.

[blackangrydem]

176. Strategists all see the same data regardless of party affiliation

and everything that I saw shows he was likely to lose. At any rate, I think he would have been better off running for re-election and holding on to his seat. He is young enough to wait for the opportune moment.

As it is now he seems to have hit a political dead-end.

[AP]

186. Edwards was stretching his lead in every poll against Burr...

and at the same time, NC'ians were approving more and more of his presidential run.

He was a a fine arc to win his seat again. Of course he would have had coattail problems if the presidential nominee didn't have a southern strategy, but Edwards was setting himself up just fine.


January 10, 2004   Democrats in North Carolina are far more accepting of Sen. John Edwards' presidential bid, but he has made no progress convincing home-state Republicans that he should replace President Bush, according to a new poll commissioned by The News & Observer. The poll, taken less than two weeks before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, found that a majority of North Carolinians -- 55 percent -- approve of Edwards' White House bid, compared with 39 percent when he launched his candidacy a year ago.

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/polls /

DemPopulist (311 posts)
Thu Jan-22-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #3

9. That's a myth

There were never any polls showing that Edwards would've lost his re-election race. It would've been a tough, tight race based on the GOP's strength in the state and the money they would've poured in to defeat him, but he consistently led Burr (the prospective Republican nominee) in all the polls at even the bleakest points of his presidential campaign. Hell, even Bowles has been ahead of Burr. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/RaceDetail.html?&RaceID=3809

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=166823

[blackangrydem]

227. Then he was ill-advised to give up his seat after only one term

[AP]

233. He thought he could make a bigger difference as VP, and didn't think it

would look right to do what Lieberman did (ie, run for both/plan on losing).

It's very possible that he'll be able to still make a bigger difference to society as a voice outside the Senate than within, although it might not be as easy. But it seems like he's the kind of guy who makes lemonade out of lemons.

[Kilkenny5]

42. Here! Here!

n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

19. Did he say how he knew about Edward's opposition?

Seems odd to me that this isn't more widely known. Did he have some special knowledge? I have seen his name before but don't have a sense of how much private access to Edwards' inner circle he would have had. Is this definitely more solid than gossip?

[tjdee]

29. It's been bandied about--but he was the "losing" VP...no news there...

It's not widely known or talked about that much because Edwards didn't have the ultimate say so on their actions. Kerry did. So his opinion was overshadowed.

Plus, to the MSM they lost. From their perspective, who cares about the personal feelings of the VP on the "losing" ticket?

[AP]

33. Don't expect big media to report a story about Edwards that might make

the far left like him or that isn't about what a nice personality he has. (Ie, you're not likely to hear much from the media about what he believes in.)

[Zhade]

126. "Far left". Wow. That's the first time I've heard you use that rw phrase.

Like your support of Blair, it's disappointing to hear from such a usually-reasonable poster.

[AP]

150. What term do you want me to use to describe Democrats who aren't

in the middle of the spectrum?

More accurately, I guess they're just anti-war democrats, because I actually consider myself far left on the key issues -- social and economic justice -- which I don't think many anti-war democrats seemed that interested in this year.

And, by the way, that post was suggesting that the far left should like him. If I were a right-winger, as I think you're suggesting, why would I make the statement I made in that post?

[Zhade]

194. How about using a term not concocted by the rightwing to smear liberals?

Because the truth is, people like me - who the rw will paint as "far left" - are in actuality moderates, and always have been. It's just the lying and misframing by the rightwing that made sensible, honest positions like mine and most Dems' "far left". Using that term is falling into the rw framing trap, IMIO.

If I were a right-winger, as I think you're suggesting, why would I make the statement I made in that post?

Nah, I've never thought of you as a rightwinger. You make too much sense most of the time! I just think you're using a pejorative favored a bit too heavily by rightwingers, and perhaps you don't realize it. That's all.

Peace.

[AP]

196. I'm sorry. Not only has nobody ever complained about me using that term

before, I've never seen ANYBODY complain about that term before.

If you can support your argument that that's a RW term with a few more facts, I'll consider your argument.

[robbedvoter]

203. I am complaining right now. Is Pat Buchanan, Novak "far left"?

A majority in this country is against war nowadays. Are we all far left because your guy sponsored IWR and said he would have started the war himself had he been POTUS? You are the "center" and the majority in this country are far left? Geez!

[AP]

216. I'm not going to change my vocabulary just because you can't accept...

...that Dems come in a lot of flavors.

A majority of Americans are against war? OK, say they are. Then why'd Kerry and Edwards do the best in the primaries? Why'd a record number of voters come out to vote for either them or the guy who was trying to scare the pants off America with a fascist war?

Apparently, a lot of people care about left wing ideas like rewarding work rather than wealth more than they care about an IWR litmus test (which doesn't even correlate well to the real issue: how they feel about imperialism).

And apparently a lot of Americans are still so easy to scare that they'll vote for hair-trigger fascists with the mere provocation of being told OBL is on the loose and there are missing explosives.

[AP]

153. IN GD alone, 3 pages of results in search of "AP"-author, and "far left"

in the message, BTW.

As for Blair: I see him as the thing preventing the Tories from taking back power. How that's not liberal, I don't know.

[Zhade]

193. Yeah, and his support for an illegal war sure is "liberal".

:eyes:

Just because the Tories are bad doesn't mean Blair is worth defending. But I'm sure you've had many arguments about that, so I'll leave it be.

As far as seeing the rwtp in your other posts, I can honestly say I've missed it.

[Lorien]

62. A member of the "inner circle" works with a good friend

she said the same thing right after Kerry's concession speech (I posted about it the next day); Edward's fought him tooth and nail, and they had a real falling out because of it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

75. What a great picture of utter feline disgust (n/t)

[zulchzulu]

163. Define "tooth and nail"

I wonder why this is coming out...I would think it's untrue. Did Edwards want to walk right into Rove's trap? Or did he even see the trap....

[XemaSab]

220. What's the trap?

n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

174. Crispin Miller said he heard from someone on the inside of the campaign

[robbedvoter]

204. And EVERYONE inside the campaign is 100% credible, non?

I mean, I always lead my life according to what campaign insiders tell me....

[KittyWampus]

114. Sounds Like Gossip. How The Hell Would Miller Know.

The only way to really know is to hear from Edwards' own mouth.

The rest is pure conjecture coming with various people with different motives/agendas.

[LittleClarkie]

129. The only thing I've heard directly from Edwards made me cry

And that was some incredibly lovely praise for Kerry during his concession speech. If there was a falling out, or if Edwards had less than a glowing opinion of Kerry at that point, it was NOT in evidence. As a Kerry supporter, I was quite touched.

There was no reason for him to speak as he did of Kerry unless he meant it.

[Tinoire]

20. Edwards has always had more spine than most of them

He didn't care what the DLC said and stood against NAFTA; they've always hated his position on foreign trade but he never cared . He also never waffled about his war vote.

I paid close attention to the DLC events before and during the Primaries. The DLC-supported candidates were Kerry, Lieberman, Clark and Gephardt. During their annual meeting, even Dean who had, according to his supporters, broken with the DLC sent a video-taped greeting.

Edwards was not only conspicuously absent but not even invited.

Here's Edwards being a man and not waffling over his war vote (with thanks to HFishbine):

I was slow to see your request for Edwards saying he wasn't mislead by the Iraq "intelligence." Here it is, Edwards on Hardball:
---------

MATTHEWS: (snip) Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

(snip)

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[hopein08]

22. Thank you Tinoire!

I've had arguments about Edwards position on the war as opposed to Kerry. I knew they were different but I never knew how. That Hardball link gave me the information I need! Thanks!

On the general topic of this thread, I am so happy to hear someone talking about Edwards fighting against the concession so hard! I think he meant it more when he promised to do everything in his power to fight for every vote. My theory on his silence, in addition to Elizabeth, is that he has to much respect for the office of the presidency and the candidates who seek it to publicly criticize Kerry or his staff. One, he'd look like a bit of an idiot himself for being on the ticket. Two, the fight is virtually as important as the result and he obviously will keep fighting.

Just my thoughts!

Edwards in 2008

[Tinoire]

27. My pleasure - Just trying to be fair

The man gets big points for taking the party on over NAFTA and not nuancing us to death about his war vote- real big points!

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[Zhade]

128. Geez, Tinoire, you too?

Okay, I know you're making a point, but - big points for supporting an illegal war and occupation? No, I know you're saying the points are for him taking a position and sticking with it, but it was the wrong position.

He thinks we were right to go. He says he WASN'T misled, even though all the rationales have been shown to be lies. So if he wasn't misled, then he's a fucking idiot, because you and I knew at the time of the IWR that the whole thing was bullshit, there was no threat, and there was NO reason to attack Iraq (or even THREATEN to).

So help me out here. Edwards thinks the illegal war was the right thing to do based on his totally unfounded belief that Hussein would threaten us with nukes. He doesn't regret that support for the war, even though his reasons for wanting it done turned out (and were known by many at the time!) to be lies.

So, he gets a lot of points for consistency, but he's still supporting war crimes.

[Tinoire]

134. No... Big points just for being against NAFTA and for not

nuancing us to death about his war vote.

His stance on NAFTA I respect, his war vote- certainly NOT!

I know you're saying the points are for him taking a position and sticking with it, but it was the wrong position.


Not saying that either. Sorry to not have been clear enough. It was indeed the wrong position and to my dying breath, I will hold them all responsible for it. What I was trying to say is that I give him points for admitting that that's what he did, that he did vote for the war and that he wasn't misled into voting for it.

Edwards stance is in stark contrast to the wimpy position Kerry & his supporters took that he had been "misled" and hadn't voted "for" the war.

There were so many lies and liars here during the primaries that Edwards' admission was a breath of fresh air. He at least wasn't insulting our intelligence.

IOW, I agree with you. Just appreciative of him not insulting our intelligence pretending he was "misled".

[Zhade]

140. Whew! Didn't really think you'd gone to the dark side...!

Just read weird, but I get ya now. And I agree - at least he didn't lie to me about his support for an illegal war. Of course, he still voted for the cursed thing.

As far as his NAFTA position, I agree that he deserves props for being against it (though I know little about Edwards' domestic policies, since his support for the war ruled him out for me). And as the DLC's main reason for existing is to push neoliberal schemes like NAFTA, it makes sense they didn't have him around much.

Curious, though: how was Clark a DLC candidate? I don't care for his past much, but I admit to not seeing how he's DLC.

[Tinoire]

152. Clark & the DLC (some stuff)

If you google you'll find a ton of stuff (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&q=%22wesley+Clark%22+DLC) but here is a cut and paste of something I had during the Primaries. What's missing are all the pictures I had of the DLC events because those have been pulled. I have more but I think this is enough for your question (please it was easily found and already formatted).

Clark was totally the DLC candidate and they ran his entire campaign. Clinton pulled him in when it was clear that Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt were sinking faster than the Titanic. They had DLC political consultants dreaming up the perfect candidate to appeal to swing voters and moderates and they came up with Clark who was very interested in a run. The whole thing was designed to stop Dean dead in his tracks and further fracture/dilute the antiwar vote.



Clark, btw, was the guest of honor at the NDN's annual meeting in June: http://www.newdem.org/annualmeeting/clark.php (Speech also available) (link no longer active)

Here is how he was drafted by the DLC

July 22, 2003
Draft-Clark enthusiasts grow hopeful. This article from the Financial Times has been reprinted at Draft Clark 2004.

Chris Kofinis, a Democratic political consultant, suggests Mr Clark's entry would electrify the presidential race. "Democrats want someone who can win," he says, and that may mean the party's liberal wing may have to contemplate someone whose name begins with "General"

http://wesleyclarkweblog.com/archives/000122.html (link no longer active)


<snip>

But members of the DLC, meeting in Philadelphia over the weekend and today for the group's annual "conversation," say they're holding their centrist ground. Their "Third Way" or "New Democrat" ideas will reclaim the White House for the Democrats in 2004, they say, as they did for Bill Clinton in his two victories.

<snip>

Despite the political focus, however, the declared Democratic presidential candidates were asked to stay away.

<snip>

The absence of candidates has hardly back-burnered the presidential race. It was still the dominant discussion in the hallways and ballrooms where the group gathered over the weekend. Center-of-the-road names like Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards were bandied about. As was a name that many participants said they were surprised to hear often: that of Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander. Clark has not declared his candidacy but has said he is considering a run. Supporters say he could go toe-to-toe with Bush on military issues.

<snip>
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6400042.htm (link active 12/19/04)

Another article about this same meeting in Philly:
Centrist Dems weigh Dean dilemma: At Philly meeting, praise and scorn for presidential contender

By Tom Curry
MSNBC

PHILADELPHIA, July 28 - Meeting in Philadelphia to plan strategy for the 2004 elections, members of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council grappled Monday with what one Democratic political consultant here called "their worst nightmare," the possibility that Howard Dean might win their party's presidential nomination. DLC activists said that despite Dean's recent fund-raising successes, his winning the nomination is far from a sure thing.

<snip>
DLC'S ROLE AS COUNTERWEIGHT

The DLC is the business-friendly group that helped write Bill Clinton's platform in 1992. It serves as a counterweight in Democratic politics to labor unions and interest groups such as the NAACP and the National Organization for Women (NOW).

<snip>

“The main theme of the next election is going to be national security,” said Chris Kofinis, a political consultant who attended the DLC gathering and is advising the campaign to draft retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate.

MSNBC article but now archived. You can find it here:
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2004/1/4/144349/2024 (link active 12/19/04)

And just to clarify that the NDN is DLC:

DLC AND NDN
Two acronyms that junkies know and that Democratic candidates hear in their sleep. The Democratic Leadership Council, chaired these days by Sen. Evan Bayh and run for 17 years by its founding director, Al From, is the spawning ground of moderate “Third Way” thinking in the party. Bill Clinton was chairman when he launched his own presidential bid in 1991. The New Democratic Network is the DLC’s overtly political cousin, run by an operative named Simon Rosenberg. It doles out cash to candidates and, increasingly, supports independent spending efforts.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834591.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1 (link active 12/19/04)

More about the NDN:

Centrist Democrats launch new agenda
By Hans Nichols

The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) unveiled a new six-point agenda yesterday that it says can serve as a blueprint for making the Democratic Party the governing force in American politics for the next generation.

<snip>

Several announced and potential Democratic presidential candidates addressed the gathering at a Capitol Hill hotel, including Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), as well as retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) addressed the convention by phone, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean sent a video greeting.

<snip>

Rosenberg explained in the interview that the network’s revamped agenda and new strategy are the beginning steps of “a 10- to 45-year” plan to elect centrist Democrats to local, state and federal offices.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/061803/centrist.aspx (link active 12/19/04)

----
About the NDN


The New Democrat Network (NDN) is one of the nation’s most influential political organizations.
NDN promotes a new generation of leaders who advocate economic growth and fiscal responsibility, strong American leadership in world affairs and world markets, a smaller, smarter government, and a progressive approach to social issues that respects family, faith, and community.

<snip>

NDN is led by NDN President Simon Rosenberg, with advice from NDN's Advisory Board, a group of leading New Democratic thinkers and strategists. NDN’s Advisory Board includes former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew, pollster and Latino electorate expert Sergio Bendixen, former Army Secretary Louis Caldera, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Vic Fazio, former Member of Congress and Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Dave McCurdy, former White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, former White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former Federal Trade Commissioner and White House Cabinet Secretary Christine A. Varney.
------------------------------

Want to know who founded the NDN?

The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the DLC. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund," a special type of political action committee among political action committees. NDN raises PAC money from many sectors, which they then distribute to their top federal candidates -- Lucas received $10,000 from them. NDN also provides a mechanism for fat-cats to donate directly to candidates without worrying about all those pesky Election Commission limits. Clinton campaign aide, Simon Rosenberg, is now NDN's President. Joe Lieberman is chairman.

The DLC does the same thing, actually. But, by forming the NDN, the DLC contribute more than twice as much to favored candidates. The favored candidate is Clark.

Wesley Clark: The DLC Focus Group Candidate

<snip>

Still many believe Clark’s late entry will cause him problems in both raising money and establishing a cohesive campaign. If Clark catches fire quickly, the DLC will make sure neither will be a problem. But the fourth and biggest question, his stance on issues, is a bit tougher. But don't worry, the DLC focus groups will tell feed him talking points soon enough.
<snip>

Clark is very unsure on many of his positions, and they can change at any time. There is a clear reason for this. The first wave of the Democratic Leadership Council focus group data is barely in, and needs to be reviewed. Once the data is analyzed, the DLC machine will steer the General towards his newly formed positions.

<snip>

The DLC had nothing going for it until Clark was shoved into the race with zero political experience. Joe Lieberman mirrored their stance on many issues, but lacked charisma. John Kerry looked wimpish and went from frontrunner to bottom feeder in only a few weeks. It was becoming clear that Dick Gephardt stirred no emotions among the primary voters. John Edwards was irrelevant and even joked that no one knew he was running for the Presidency.

<snip>
The only candidate making noise and catching fire for the Democrats on the campaign trail was Howard Dean, who proudly proclaimed that was he was from “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Clearly Dean couldn’t be controlled by the DLC and his successful campaign could set them back years in but one election cycle. And that led the DLC to shove the four-star General into the race. He is the perfect focus group candidate. Smart, looks good, speaks clearly and confidently and he fits the suit. Now the DLC just has to tell him what to say. And that’s where the DLC may run into trouble. Many published reports speak of Clark’s arrogance, and his stubbornness. Many say the General wants things done his way, and only his way. And this may also make Clark difficult to control for the DLC.

<snip>
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6667.shtml
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/24/6667 (link active 12/19/04)

You can see what gets them so excited about Clark here:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252098 (link active 12/19/04)


Here are some excerpts from Clark's speech to the DLC:

<snip>

And, the challenges come from the fact that the United States today doesn’t have a real national security strategy. We lost our strategy. We lost our vision of how to deal with the world around us. We had it, we created it, we paid for it in blood during World War II. We came out of that conflict resolved that America would be engaged in the world. We were engaged. We built the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, we formed NATO, we stayed involved. We recognized that what we had to do was head off conflict, we had to contain Soviet expansionism, we had to block the spread of Communism, we had to deter the use of nuclear weapons to intimidate our allies or, God forbid, wage nuclear war.

<snip>

Wesley Clark: Well, in the first place, I think it’s always dangerous to draw too tight an analogy between one situation and another. And there are many, many differences between the situation in Vietnam and Iraq. Secondly, I want to say that I wasn’t one of those who was anxious to get into Iraq. I always was skeptical of it. I always doubted that there was an imminent danger that required us to do it. Nevertheless, we’re there now and that’s all ancient history. So, what we have to do is I think, number one: establish legitimacy. For some reason, we fought the UN full endorsement of this mission and the full engagement of the United Nations. For the life of me, I don’t know why. The same people who fought the UN were telling me five years ago – all they could talk about was “burden-sharing, burden-sharing, burden-sharing,” “mission creep, mission creep, mission creep,” “exit strategy, exit strategy.” And somehow, all that disappeared and I don’t understand it. So, I’d go first to the United Nations. I’d say, “Look, we know you don’t have a security force. We’ll finish the job, we’ll work for security. We want you to come in and we want you to really help us work the reconstruction and the redevelopment of Iraq.” There’s political redevelopment to be done, there is economic reconstruction to be done. And, there’s a whole new climate in the Middle East to be created. Legitimacy is job number one. The second is the creation of public order over there. As soon as you can turn those responsibilities over to elements that speak Arabic and preferably Iraqis the better you are. The third thing is, stay engaged in the region and work for peace as an effective intermediary between the contending parties in the Middle East so we don’t attract more anger and more hostility in the region. But you know, my fourth point is, we’re there. This is a difficult situation. It’s going on on three levels: the resistance you see today, the ordinary life of the people in Baghdad and down below that something we’re not quite sure of, which is a sort of level three, subterranean forming up of Iranian dissidents coming in and organizations from Syria. We just don’t know where that’s going to go. We can influence it if we’ll work for legitimacy through international institutions, move the problem over to the Arabic-speaking and the Iraqis, and stay engaged as a constructive force in the region.
<snip>
http://www.women4clark.com/transcripts/ndnspeech.htm (inactive link)
Now only available via google cache (inactive link)

On June 17, 2003, when speaking at the New Democratic Network’s annual meeting in Washington, Clark was asked about the “Vietnamization” of Iraq. He responded by saying that what he thinks we need to do is "number one: establish legitimacy." Legitimize what? Our pre-emptive, unilateral strike that started the war, our complete disregard of the U.N., or perhaps he thinks we should legitimize our ongoing occupation in Iraq. Clark unfortunately did not convey any clear insight into his idea about establishing legitimacy. He did however continue to address the NDN on the subject, explaining that he would first go to the United Nations and say, "Look, we know you don’t have a security force. We’ll finish the job, we’ll work for security. We want you to come in and we want you to really help us work the reconstruction and the redevelopment of Iraq." So the General’s proposal to deal with the situation in Iraq and bring peace is to first legitimize. Then we should ask the U.N. to come in and help us clean up our legitimate mess. “Help us” clearly indicates a continued U.S. presence. And, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I didn’t hear anything about ceding authority. Do you think this plan will have a better chance if Clark were to present it to the U.N.? I ask because Bush isn’t having much luck with this particular agenda. Maybe new dog, old trick would work. quote from Rustie Woods for the LEFT-WING Dissident Voice.


Hope this is of some help to you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

156. Hi Tinoire. I hesitate to reply because I am short on time

Are you trying to make the point that at a certain moment in recent political history, when it seemed like all of their favored candidates (Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry etc.) were losing the race for the 2004 nomination to Howard Dean, that important elements of the DLC talked about, encouraged, and to an extent later threw some actual support behind Wesley Clark? I can more or less accept that. Or are you trying to say that Wesley Clark was a DLC creation and Trojan horse? I do not accept that. It is an important distinction.

The first thing that comes clear from your presentation is that the DLC would have been very pleased having Joe Lieberman become the nominee had his campaign actually taken off. The second is that they were upset over the possibility of Howard Dean getting the nomination. What you don't explicitly note is the fact that, with the possible important exception of Bill Clinton who had a personal debt of gratitude to Wesley Clark for his performance in the Balkans while serving under Clinton, DLC enthusiasm for Clark was confined to a belief that he, unlike Dean in their opinion, was electable and could appeal to moderate Democrats and some Republicans.

In reading through your post it seems to make the case that Wesley Clark became the last viable Anybody But Dean candidate to key elements of the DLC. OK, what of it? There is an old expression; politics makes for strange bedfellows. I still remember the Iowa caucus where Kucinich and Edwards supporters cut a deal to cooperate despite the fact that Kucinich long fought hard against Bush's Iraq policy while Edwards was in agreement with large portions of it. Edwards and Kucinich cooperated in Iowa not out of some deep ideological basis of unity, but for pragmatic political reasons.

One of the DLC flavored pieces you quote from acknowledged that Clark was not under anyone's thumb at the DLC: "And that led the DLC to shove the four-star General into the race. He is the perfect focus group candidate. Smart, looks good, speaks clearly and confidently and he fits the suit. Now the DLC just has to tell him what to say. And that’s where the DLC may run into trouble. Many published reports speak of Clark’s arrogance, and his stubbornness. Many say the General wants things done his way, and only his way. And this may also make Clark difficult to control for the DLC." Now I strongly disagree with some of that statement, but I find it telling that a source that can not be considered overly Clark friendly acknowledged that the DLC might have trouble controlling Clark. Damn right. The more they actually got to know about Wesley Clark, the less comfortable they became with him. As it turned out the most vicious opponent Clark had in New Hampshire was in fact none other than Joe Lieberman. And the DLC was very relieved that it was ultimately John Kerry not Wesley Clark who got the nomination.

While you chose to emphasize the initial backing Clark got from some DLC types, you virtually give no acknowledgment to the very real support Clark got from grass roots activists in the Draft Clark movement, before and after Clark declared for President. Look, of course I may be wrong, but I am among many who loved Howard Dean (still do) but believed he would be a losing candidate if nominated. In that very narrow but important regard I guess you can say that I agreed with the DLC. In virtually every other regard however I am very far removed from their mind set. I wanted Clark because I thought he would have beaten Bush, I still do think that. And I thought he could make a great President. And I still do think that. I am out of time and will be gone now for most of the night. There is much more that I would have said time permitting.

[Tinoire]

160. Staccato response, my apologies

Moreso that "important elements of the DLC talked about, encouraged, and to an extent later threw some actual support behind Wesley Clark" but very actively so.

2nd paragraph - Yes, I agree

3rd paragraph - Edwards & Kucinich are actually close friends. Happened during their crusade against NAFTA which is a priority issue for both of them. The swap was more than pragmatic.

4th paragraph - Very interesting. Do you have any links for the assertion re Clark/Lieberman in NH and the DLC being very relieved when Clark didn't get the nomination?


I am very aware that Clark had a passionate grass-roots movement behind him {trust me, it made its existence known ;)} and I have much respect for many progressive Clark supporters but there is a group of very hawkish people behind Clark that was well-known for their support of the war, of the DLC, and their defense of PNAC by pooh-pooing it as the stuff of "conspiracy theorists" before Clark's name was even entered in the race. Those are the people that tipped us off that there was something not quite on the up & up with the Clark phenomenon.

I've always respected your posts, your style and your thoughts Tom even though my memory indicates that you are not quite as Left as I am on the political spectrum. If you would like to go into more depth about this, I would be delighted to because with you, I know it won't degenerate into a non-sensical discussion or shouting match.

You know I have great problems with Clark's association with some right-wing think tanks. I also had great problems with many supporters he had here who tried to spin things anyway they could to paint him as a dove of pacifism thinking they could capture part of the antiwar vote that way. I'm not an Edwards fan but I appreciate the fact that neither he nor his supporters tried to paint him as something he wasn't. I appreciate the fact that I don't recall you ever doing that with Clark either. When people are honest about who their guy really is, we can talk and find common ground with each side ceding a little and realizing that they don't know it all and that maybe it's time to reassess.

I'm tired Tom. Tired of the DLC, the PPI, the PNAC, the wars, the corporate stranglehold on both parties. If Clark is the man you think he is, it's time for him to show it with real action to back up the words. I just want for my country to go in a totally different direction because our age of imperialism is over. In this last election, both Kerry and Clark were trying to wrestle the reins from Bush to save imperialism by telling us they could do a better job of the same thing. It's what the DLC wants too. That's what I don't want.

Sorry for the staccato tone. I tried to rush this post so that you could see it before you log off. Thanks

[Tom Rinaldo]

178. Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful post Tinoire

I just got back from a holiday social with friends and it is getting late so this post might be shorter than it otherwise would have been also. We can split the perceived difference about the degree of actual DLC support Clark got after he entered the race. It was certainly real, especially at the outset when Clark was trying to get his campaign up and running. That was in my opinion because of two dove tailing reasons. Clark needed to get up to speed very quickly, the next candidates debate followed his entry into the race by two or three weeks, and Clark did not have a personal cadre of long time political aids to lean on. Clark had to build a campaign, and a platform, quickly. He had strongly felt and deeply thought out opinions on foreign affairs and national security, in those areas Clark was his own expert. Clark also had core generally progressive bedrock views on the the major domestic issues: public education, tolerance, equal opportunity, health care, the environment, the role of unions, etc. Those general views, however were somewhat lacking in specific program initiatives, not surprising since Clark had only relatively recently retired from a long military career focused on threats to our national security, and as I noted above, he did not have a paid full time staff of policy experts generating ideas, as is usually the case for politicians holding (or who had recently held) elective office. So Clark needed quick help in those areas, and most of the political contacts that he did have were through the Clinton Administration.

Meanwhile those DLC forces you speak of, who saw Clark as an electable alternative to Dean, probably did have hopes they could mold Clark into becoming more their own man rather than simply being a last gasp Dean alternative, and thought the most effective way to attempt that was to become indispensable to Clark's campaign. So there were reasons for both sides to try working together. My point about Clark not having been on anyone in the DLC's initial "A" list of Presidential candidates is relevant for more than one reason. Clark was never a safe bet to them, he wasn't the DLC's darling and he hadn't been groomed for the job. Fear of Dean and the seeming collapse of all their favored horses made them gamble on Clark. Given their preference, he was a little too independent for their taste. Clark had no history of owing anyone real political favors (closer to the opposite with Clinton owing him actually). Clark had never run for office so he never made deals with any industry to fund his campaigns. He wasn't Big Oil's guy. He wasn't the Teachers Union guy, or the Drug companies guy, or the Trial Lawyers guy. But he, for Christ's sake, was a General who had spent his whole adult life in the Army and he voted for Reagan, so how radical did they figure could Clark be?

Some in the DLC may have hoped Clark could become their Eisenhower, their blank slate and ride to power, and what choice did they have anyway? Who else could they turn to with Dean already mopping up the field? Well I think Clark almost became their Teddy Roosevelt. Back when the Republican Party leaders stuck Teddy, war hero that he was, on their ticket as VP I doubt they foresaw he would become the biggest trust buster in American history. Some of us know Clark pretty well by now. He has always been his own man, and he has always had the courage of his own convictions. OF course Clark isn't a pacifist. Of course he thinks the military has a vital role to play, but he thinks way outside the box for a traditional military leader. The closest relatively recent historical equivalent to Clark was General George Marshall of Marshall Plan fame.

Of all of the Democratic Party candidates for President Wesley Clark was clearest and most direct about PNAC and the neo-cons and the danger their flawed ideology poses to our nation. Clark knows these guys and he had the courage to speak out against them. There are circles where Wesley Clark is considered to be the equivalent of a Class Traitor for lining up with progressive Democrats against the unchecked war machine.

Tinoire, I am running out of gas tonight, lol. Yes I think Wesley Clark believes the United States has a leading role to play in the world, but it isn't the same role George Bush or even John Kerry, in my opinion, sees us playing. I see an idealism in Wesley Clark closer to that found in Jimmy Carter, who was also a military man. Clark thinks America benefits by global cooperation, and that the good will we can engender by acting more consistent with our stated values in our dealings with the rest of the world would actually strengthen our National Security. Clark was deeply troubled that the United States did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda, though Rwanda held no strategic interest to the United States whatsoever. He broke with most of his colleagues in the Pentagon on that one.

Someone like Lieberman is old line Democratic hawk. Lieberman was the biggest Democratic apologist for the war in Iraq, and Wesley Clark was the most effective Democratic critic of it. Lieberman was behind most of the attack ads on Clark in New Hampshire, where Lieberman was fighting for his political life so to speak. There is a lot of talk in Clarkie circles about how strongly the DLC and Party leadership closed ranks around Kerry and moved to push Clark out of the race once Kerry regained his footing. Some of that talk is fairly will documented, though often second hand, accounts of conversations being held at the time. Do you remember how no one in the Party lifted a finger to aid Clark when Fox News ambushed him at the last New Hampshire debate and tried to hang Michael Moore around Clark's neck? This was all about how Clark "should have" repudiated Moore for, at a Clark rally, calling Bush a deserter during the Viet Nam war. Terry McAuliffe was brutal about cutting Clark loose when he did not disavow Moore. Yet after Kerry got the nomination McAuliffe jumped all over the issue of Bush's war record on Kerry's behalf.

I think the DLC came to understand that they would never be Clark's master, and they ultimately believed they could nab the Presidency with one of their own.

Gotta stop for now. I would be glad to compare our political philosophies further with you and get into some of this stuff further. Not tonight though lol.

[Tinoire]

182. Very very good post Tom

Nothing in there that I would dispute though I might color a few things differently. In all sincerity, I don't think I would color them that differently. There are a few things you've also given me to think about, positive things that I would enjoy discussing and researching.

I'll be watching Clark like a hawk for the next 3 years because IF he's the real thing, who truly turned his back on those neocons (note that for me that includes neolibs because they're all from the same sack of flour) I would seriously consider him to support because he has some very attractive ideas and I've always known he had a great mind- very important to me. What I don't know is how far and how thoroughly he has distanced himself from those who would seek to rebuild our empire on the backs of unfortunate people.

I don't hold against him that he was in the military. I was in 20 years and I know the mindset, I know how differently most people see things especially if they're patriotic- something I never really was coming from a very multinational background. I don't even hold against him the fact that he was the General in charge of a war that was just as illegal as the war against Iraq. Clark is a bright man. He's also a well versed economist. He knew what was coming economically and why and he thought he could avoid it by waging our economic war against Europe differently and the resource/geo-political wars differently. He probably would have. My problem is that I don't want my country involved that way.

Anyway, you've given me a few things to think about. I'd like to see Clark out more, expressing his thoughts and DOING things to help us believe his words during other than a political run for office. I'd also like to see real denunciations of some of the people and organizations he used to associate with. I know that's asking an awful lot but it's very important to me.

Thanks for that answer. It was very thought-provoking and I was aware of the extent of the shabby treatment the DLC gave him after Kerry rebounded.

Clark needs to be careful of who he associates with.

Also, the DLC isn't stupid. They knew to try to hide their involvement as much as possible in Clark's campaign because people have caught on to them. It didn't help when many Clark supporters, especially the very vocal earlier ones who were clearly campaign operatives (or gave excellent imitations thereof) swore up and down a wall that neither the DLC nor the AEI had anything to do with the campaign. Those kind of lies do more harm than people think these days.

I'll be curious to see what he does and very happy if he turns out to be what so many of his supporters believe. Thanks Tom. Good-night...

On edit: No need to thank me for a respectful post. The thanks go to you for the tone you set and the absence of spin in your post. You're very clever Tom. I'm sure you bite your tongue sometimes just to keep the waters calm and draw people in like flies to the honey pot ;) Anyway, I wouldn't dream of posting any differently to you- would have no need to. Your forthrightness and adroitness in dealing with differences of opinion sets a good tone.

[Tom Rinaldo]

189. Thanks Tinoire, and back at you.

I think it created a huge opportunity for Clark that his grass roots movement came together so strongly and stood firmly behind him. In particular his grass roots fund raising was critical. It enabled Clark to run a legitimate campaign without being overly beholden to professional money men and their interests (yes he had some of them too, all the major campaigns did). At the risk of seeming too sentimental for a political discussion board, I will make this observation in closing. Some DLC types saw in Clark a spiffy mainstream friendly resume and marketable image. They saw his lack of a long political record as an opportunity to program Clark with positions to their liking. They were, in my opinion, blinded by their own opportunism and desperation. Worse, they were hobbled by their arrogance in thinking they could make almost anyone they saw fit to anoint, then dance to their tunes.

The progressive grass roots activists who rallied behind Clark had a different slant on him. We too saw how Clark could appeal to mainstream America, which was important to us because winning the election was important to us, but we looked below Clark's image at his mind, heart and soul. You will find that time and time again as a common denominator uniting many of Clark's brightest, most progressive, and most committed activist supporters. We studied the man. Our backing Clark became much more than pragmatic politics. Most of us fell "in love" with Clark despite his credentials, not because of them. We too saw that his lack of a long political track record left room for his positions on issues to evolve, but understood Clark could not be programmed. Rather we thought Clark's underlying personal values and beliefs were sound, and relatively uncompromised by past political wars and back room dealing. We rallied to help Clark be Clark.

Since the main topic of this thread has nothing directly to do with what we have been discussing, I think I'll cap it here, but I will try to PM you later today to follow up just a bit, and I look forward to meeting up with you soon on other threads.

[Zhade]

192. Interesting stuff.

I'm particularly dismayed that the general pushed that "Iranian dissidents in Iraq" bullshit.

[blackangrydem]

166. In 2008 Edwards will still be answering questions about

the notorious $87 billion.

[FrenchieCat]

34. I don't like and have never liked

Edwards' stance on the war. It was just like George Bush's. He wasn't misled, as he said....he wanted the war to occur.

In fact, looking at it closely, it appears that Edwards' war stance is exactly the same as Kerry....who also said that if he had the chance he would do it again just the same and didn't feel misled. What is the difference? I don't get it.

Along with not even being able to pull in his own county on November 2nd, or the rural vote or any make any inroads in the south....

It's easy to point the finger at the guy on top of the ticket.....convenient when one doesn't want to take any responsibility.

Pointing the finger.....and saying "it was his fault", aint setting right with me at all.

It puts in my mind images of the guy who really doesn't want to fight....but he says, "hold my coat....hesitates....somebody, hold my coat. Could anybody hold my coat, please?".....when the coat could have been thrown down on the floor.

Why am I not impressed?

[AP]

38. Edwards has said repeatedly that they saw way more evidence than the

Yellow Cake story (which he said was not believeable -- that it didn't fool him), and that the evidence couldn't be ignored (which only makes sense -- do you think the PNAC'ers have been building a case for the last ten years based on only the Yellow Cake story?). Edwards said that you just can't wake up and decide that you're not going to believe your intelligence without good reason.

Edwards said that events have subsequently revealed that we definitely need to look at the intelligence and figure out what the truth is. He says it's still not possible to tell what was true and what wasn't.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Yes....

and Bob Graham voted "NO" against the IWR. Did he know something that John Edwards still doesn't know?

It is revealing that Edwards is still saying that it's not possible, even today, to know what was the truth and what wasn't...but that's not much of a position to me.

Maybe if Edwards still can't tell that he was misled, then he still doesn't know it? Not too comforting in my book.

I knew the truth when I was marching in the streets of San Francisco back in January and February.....

So I'm now even less impressed.

[AP]

47. Graham voted no because he wanted a BROADER war. He didn't think

the IWR went far enough.

I have no doubt that there was plenty of apparently very good evidence that the media doesn't tell us about and which would have been used against a no voter on the ticket, and probably would have even have been proved correct if needed prior to the election.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Responding to comment #48....

(edited to respond to a post I had not yet read).

Graham said And that reality is that war abroad will, without assertive security action, increase the prospects of terrorist attacks here at home. In fact, war on Iraq alone leaves Americans more vulnerable to the threat that is facing us today -- those international terrorist organizations that have the capability to inflict upon us a repeat of the tragedy of Sept. 11.

Graham Sounds right to me here.

In reference to your statement: I have no doubt that there was plenty of apparently very good evidence that the media doesn't tell us about ....

If I understand you correctly then, you are saying that the media had evidence that War with Iraq was warranted, but they sat on it.

You having no "doubts" about "apparently very good" evidence sounds creepy to me. I personally don't believe that the media "withheld good evidence" that would have made us want to go to war anymore than I believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

Can I get some back up for your "apparent no doubts"? Some speculative opinion from somewhere other than yourself?

[AP]

50. Post 48 below.

The media was trying to encourage an anti-war candidate by hanging out all the bait and the red flegs (the yellow cake story, for example).

Why else would the same media that talked up yellow cake then talk up how great the economy was and how Bush wasn't to blame for the problems in Iraq and help Bush in every other respect.

I'm so sure that if no-voters had been on the ticket, not only would we have heard the convincing evidence, but Bush wouldn't have given up searching for it in Iraq and they would have found it.

[FrenchieCat]

54. AP, Are you kidding?

you say....The media was trying to encourage an anti-war candidate by hanging out all the bait and the red flegs (the yellow cake story, for example).

The media during the IRW fiasco was trying to encourage War....

Also they were trying to cow Democrats into voting for the IWR. Only the "principled" Democrats didn't. The ones that are political and have their fingers in the wind.....did.

Those who voted "NO" knew that this would be a distraction in fighting terrorism and finishing up Afghanistan. They knew that PNAC and Bush had been wanting to go into Iraq for a long, long time. Those who voted "NO", unlike Kerry and Edwards....understood that there were NO LINK between Saddam and Al-Queada.

Did Edwards think that was a link? Cause I read that he likes to meld the two together.....

[AP]

55. Last summer, after the invasion, yellow cake and Wilson/Plame dominated

the news at the same time the media was trying to push Dean on Democrats. I think it's absurd to believe that Bush thought the yellow cake story wasn't going to become popular knowledge. I also think it's crazy to think that the media -- which has done ZERO investigative journalism in the last 12 years -- 'discovered' that story. They were fed that story by the white house for one reason: to create an atmosphere that would result in a Dean nomination, and then they were going to blame yellow cake on the UK (which is what the CIA agent who quit over the yellow cake line in the SOTU was told by the WH).

It was so obvious to me that we were getting the "bad evidence" stories so that the Dems would be more likely to nominate an anti-war candidate.

The media was so on board with this project that I highly doubt there wasn't a phase two plan for when the Democrats nominated their anti-war candidate.

I'm just a dumb anonymous internet poster, and that's exactly what I would have done if I were Rove. It's too obvious.

Show me the quote where Edwards connects those two things, 'cause the one that get's posted at DU frequently is so lame, it certainly can't be the one someone as bright as you is relying upon.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Well first of all...

Edwards' Iraq war vote explanation sounds JUST LIKE BUSH AND LATER JUST LIKE KERRY'S.....so, I don't know why some are saying that Edwards had more "Balls" than other Dems in this area. He just sounds like the rest of them to me.

Here Edwards sounds like Bush.....
TMP - Transcript - Nov 9th, 2003
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3404615/
MR. RUSSERT: But if we cannot find the biological or chemical weapons, or evidence of an advanced nuclear program, what was the threat and why did we have to go to war when we did?

SEN. EDWARDS: The threat was that this was a man who we knew was going to do everything in his power to acquire nuclear capability. And he was a different and distinct, unique kind of threat, because of his history, because of having started a war. We know that over a long period of time we made the effort, whether he, in fact, has them, had them at the time the war began or not, we know that over a long period of time he had been trying to acquire that capability. It is an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world. And Saddam Hussein, Tim, with nuclear capability, completely changes things.

MR. RUSSERT: The French were saying at the time of the vote in the United Nations “Let’s give inspections a few more months, and if you, Mr. President Bush, do that, we will then go along with you, ultimately, in fact, if Saddam does not cooperate.” In hindsight should the president have gone along with the French and allowed inspections to continue?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, we don’t—those of us who have responsibility for making these enormously important decisions, we don’t have the benefit of hindsight. I mean, that’s a great luxury, looking back now. I did what I thought was right at the time. I still believe it was right. We’ve had almost 400 young Americans lose their lives in a cause that I think is important. Saddam Hussein is gone. That region of the world, if we pursue the right policy, can be much more stable than it was before he came there. And I will not say to the mothers and fathers of those young men and women who lost their lives that it wasn’t important because I think it was enormously important, and I think they deserve to know that.

MR. RUSSERT: So President Bush was right in invading Iraq in March?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, you know, I didn’t make the decision about the timing. The president of the United States made the decision about the timing. What I voted on...

MR. RUSSERT: But his policy’s right?

SEN. EDWARDS: His policy about going to war at that time?

MR. RUSSERT: Going to war at that time.

SEN. EDWARDS: I believe, based upon—I voted for the resolution. I stand by that decision. You know, whether, if I had been president of the United States, I would have done this exactly like him, probably not, you know? Because if I had been in a decision-making position, I would have made more of an effort to build a coalition over a much longer period of time because, as I’ve said from the beginning, I think having this be an international effort was enormously important. But, having said that, I still stand by what I did.

Here is his answer on TMP, October 10th, 2004 on his War Vote, Edwards sounds like Kerry...

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today--and you do know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein. We did not authorize this president to make the mess that he has now made in Iraq. We did not authorize him to go into this effort without doing the hard work to build a coalition. We did not authorize him to go to war without a plan to win the peace, and that was the responsibility of the president of the United States.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6200928/

[AP]

61. Too bad he just didn't say we should attack everyone at once like Graham

did, or you might like him more.

See the last paragraph of the post below. ("As the President begins to exercise his judgment, I want him to have the authority to wage war on two fronts -- on all terrorist organizations and their sponsors, as well as the regime that now controls Iraq.")

Now which part of your post above do you think connects Al Q and SH? And if you think Edwards is connecting the two but Graham isn't...well that's just a wee bit hypocritical.

[FrenchieCat]

67. No instead , Edwards said this....

AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ
(Senate - October 10, 2002)
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html

I'm 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. Mr. President, 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.

and this...

Finally, Mr. President, 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.

[AP]

68. The only difference between that and Graham is that Edwards didn't say

that the IWR didn't give Bush enough juice to fight everyone at once.

[FrenchieCat]

71. NO, the difference is

that Edwards Co-sponsored the IWR bill, and Bob Graham didn't!

You can try to make Bob Graham look like a warmonger if it will help Edwards look better if you want to.

You can even state that there was a media conspiracy to get senators to vote "NO" on the IWR if that will help your case.

I just see what I see.....Edwards voted for it, and Graham voted against it.

Edwards also states that it was justified and he stands by his vote, and that we don't know if the intelligence was hyped up.

Again, I maintain that I am not impressed.

As an Edwards fan, you can be impressed if you want to. It's your right.

[AP]

90. Criticiize me for what I said, not for what you wish I said.

The media reporting on Wilson/Plame and the Yellow Cake was in the spring and summer of 2004, during the run up to the primaries, 18 months after the IWR vote. If you're going to criticize me, you might as well try to criticize me for things I actually said.

Why do you think the media had their own tandem war going on: promote the anti-war candidate, and play up the bad evidence used to justify the war? Notice how they're not talking about the bad evidence at all now?

I'm not trying to make Graham look like anything. I am quoting his own words. What does it matter if he sponsored the bill or not if he says the things he says about wanting to authorize total, tandem war and when he explicitly says that he's not criticizing the legislation but that it wasn't broad enough? It makes the Democrats who co-sponsored it sound like they at least wanted to create some limitations, doesn't it? Oh, but I guess that's really bad too, becuase Graham was right. Hey, making legislation is an ugly process I guess. Bush really put the Democrats between a rock and a hard place by creating a war and forcing them to vote on it like this. Wonder if he did that on purpose?


Is the music of grove skin rock
Soaked in the diesel of war boys, war?
Blood, black gold and the face of a judge
Is the music calling for a river of blood?

Beat the drums tonight, Alphonso
Spread the news all over the grove
The big meeting has decided
That total was must burn on the grove

Does it mean I should take my machete
To chop my way through the path of life?
Does it mean I should run with the dog pack
Is that the way to be the one to survive?

Never need a gun says Tai Chi
Move on up to dragon snaps his tail
Fall back on still waters
Hammer with his eye on the nail

Spread the word tonight please, Sammy
They're searching everyhouse on the grove
Don't go alone now, Sammy!
The wind has blown away the corner soul

Tell the news for me, Sammy
They're searching every place on the grove
But don't go down alone new, Sammy!
The wind has blown away the croner soul

Is the music calling for a river of blood?

[Zhade]

133. So Edwards was wrong and Graham even more so.

I've been reading these transcripts, and I have to say, Edwards wanted war. It's clear.

And it's too bad, too. He had promise.

[AP]

145. Some people here think Grahama was a hero who understands this issue

inside and out.

I think the thing that you can conclude is that there was, in fact, a great deal of convincing evidence -- more than the yellow cake -- and it would have been unwise to ignore it.

I also think the buck stops with Bush.

I don't think any Democrat wants war. But they don't want Americans to die.

[scbluevoter]

232. Let's remember. . .

all of these statements were made during the mid-term elections campaign. The media had brow-beaten, and forced every Democrat politician to sound like he had a big d***. While I totally disagreed with their positions, I wasn't running for office. Morevover, I wasn't running for President against a media-made popular incumbent. Everyday, I respect Cynthia McKinney more and more.

[AP]

51. "The IWR is too timid, too limited, too weak" -- what did Graham know?

Graham trusted the evidence.

Before you thougth Graham was the last word on this issue.

And now you don't?

And some days you think thet media was in a big conspiracy to keep Clark off the ticket and put Edwards on it, but now you think they wouldn't report on the war in a way that was meant to hurt the Democrats?

[FrenchieCat]

70. you are not making that much sense....IMO

What are you smoking? :smoke:
I want some of that.

I don't believe that there was a media conspiracy to have Democrats vote "NO" against the war. I think that the Bush Admin set up the Democrats to vote "YES" for something that the Bush Admin had been wanting for a long time....a war in Iraq. Those who voted "NO" are not the type that would be manipulated....those who voted "YES" are definitely politicians who understood that they were being manipulated but thought they had no real other option in order to remain politically "Safe".

List of those who voted "NO". Let me know if these are the types easily manipulated by the media and Karl Roves....
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)- on Foreign Relations Committee
Byrd (D-WV) - On Armed Force Committee
Chafee (R-RI)-on Foreign Relations Committee
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)- on Foreign Relations Committee
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)- On Intelligence Committee
Feingold (D-WI)- on Foreign Relations Committee
Graham (D-FL)- Chairman of On Intelligence Committee
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)- On Armed Force Committee
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)- On Armed Force Committee/Intelligence Committee
Mikulski (D-MD)- On Intelligence Committee
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)- on Foreign Relations Committee
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)- on Foreign Relations Committee
Wyden (D-OR - On Intelligence Committee

[AP]

88. Everyone has their own reason for voting no. And Grahams reason was not

because he didn't believe the intelligence reports.

You were the one who tried to argue that Graham didn't believe the intelligence reports.

Edwards's reason for voting yes was because he said the intelligence they saw was very convincing.

If you want to try to find statements by any of those senators which contradict that statement, go ahead.

[Leilani]

170. I heard one Senator who made complete sense

but I don't have a link.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican voted no. When asked why, he said he didn't feel comfortable with the amount & quality of the info he had been given. So he went to the CIA & had a special briefing, which is available to ALL Senators.

After the briefing, he said there wasn't enough intelligence to vote aye on the IWR.

Before we go to war, these representatives owe it to us to leave no stone unturned in making their decision.

Too many people on both sides of the aisle voted for war because it was the politically expedient thing to do. If they were deceived it was because they didn't do their homework. If they weren't deceived, then either they were insane or were worrying about the effects of the vote on their political future.

And that's a disgrace.

[roguevalley]

184. what kills me is that they said they would STILL vote yes on

invasion even IF they understood that the evidence was cooked. I read somewhere that Rove's head nearly exploded over that remark. He considered it a gift from heaven.

[AP]

195. A refelction of the fact that we still don't know the truth.

Edwards said that we need to investigate all the evidence.

Republicans stonewalled the 9/11 commission, and we have no idea whether the evidence that was good on its face was in fact good or bad.

Edwards can't say he would have voted no on the IWR until he knows for sure that the intelligence upon which he based his vote was good or bad.

[Leilani]

198. It was up to the Senators to get the truth

unfiltered.

Linc Chafee managed to do it, why not the Dems?

EVERY Senator is entitled to a PRIVATE CIA briefing.

[AP]

200. I couldn't find anything to support your statement about Chaffee.

I still don't know why he voted no.

If you read Graham's statements and the way he was inititally presented as someone who "saw through the BS" you'll understand why I'd like to see Chaffee's own words about why he voted no.

[Leilani]

206. self delete

[Leilani]

208. Here's the story:

Senators stisfied with their 'no' vote on Iraq

http://www.hillnews.com/news/072704/iraq.aspx


You can read about Chafee's trip to Langley.

A simple google search turned it up.

[AP]

215. Here's how I read this:

Dayton believed all the evidence presented, but treated nuclear capability as the threshold, and wanted to narrow Bush's authority.

Chafee believed that motivations for the war mattered and didn't believe anything in one of his breefing (perhaps the CIA thought a Republican didn't need much prodding and were wrong).

Conrad felt the US would be upsetting a balance by going to war and that it wouldn't work.

Durbin said he didn't believe half of one report he asked for which he thought he should have received much earlier.

--

It seems everyone has a different reason. Personally, I suspect that half the evidence was good and half was bad, and that was intentional. So, Durbin thought that if any of the evidence was bad, something was up. Good for him. Others probably felt that they were going to be hanged by the bad evidence if they voted yes, or by the good evidence if they voted no. Dayton and Graham stayed out of the evidence debate and said they believed it all, but voted no for other reasons (Graham because the resolution was to narrow, and Dayton because it was too broad).

What couldn't be more obvious is that this vote was used by a president who gets blamed for nothing to put blame on people who don't deserve it. No matter how they voted, responsibility for the execution of the invasion lies with Bush. I'll blame every Republican in the White House for this war before I blame any Democrat, and when I start blaming Republicans, I'm starting with Lieberman and Biden who love this war because it makes money for their donors, and then I'm moving down to Gore who wanted to start a war when he was VP but acts like it's bad now when he's trying to score points with Dems.

I'm not going to blame Dems who voted Yes on the IWR (which seriously wasn't going to change the fact that Bush was going to get his war) but would obviously never use FP to achieve imperialist ends.

[Leilani]

224. Chafee is what we're discussing

Chafee said he was "skeptical" of the evidence.

He went to Langley for a briefing.

He saw the evidence, & remained "unconvinced."

This is exactly what I posted earlier.

Your spin does not change the fact that Senators need to be pretty sure when they are making a decision to go to war, that it's the right one.

Everybody had a different reasons for their vote, but the fact remains, that Chafee's reasoning was the most clear, & this article backs up EXACTLY what I said.

[AP]

226. I don't get the impression that Dayton, or Graham or anyone who said

the evidence was sufficient weren't pretty convinced.

I don't think this article backs up the claim that Chafee's reasoning was the most clear.

What's clear from this article was that no two senators quoted had the exact same reason for voting no, and there were a variety of reasons for voting no.

[Leilani]

228. AP, you're not listening to me

Chafee went to Langley to get briefed.

In my post #170, I said he made the most sense to ME.

He didn't rely on White House Spin.

He fulfilled his obligation as a Senator to go & investigate the evidence.

Perhaps if more Senators had exercized that sense of responsibility, there would have been more no votes.

I don't think there's anything left to be discussed on this issue.

I made a post on what I thought was a Senator using good judgement, & I provided you with the article to read his thinking, as you said you'd like to do.

[AP]

229. I think the presumption that he got more than anyone else got isn't

supported by the evidence you're presenting. Perhaps Chaffee didn't sit on any committees that got that evidence as part of committee work. Perhaps Senators who didn't get that briefing talked to trusted colleagues who did.

Graham, presumably, is the expert on national security (I'll take Frenchie's word for it) and he apparently didn't have a problem with the evidence.

The article you presented shows that Senators had a lot of different reasons for voting no.

[Leilani]

197. Very true

One of the dumber moments of the campaign.

[fujiyama]

74. I think

you are mischaracterizing Bob Graham's view of the war.

You are right that he called the resolution limited and he did believe some action should be taken toward Hezbollah, but atlreast his stance was clear in that he believed that terrorist groups should be the main target and he made it clear that the war in Afganistan was the major priority. Edwards and Kerry probably also said this as well (I recall Kerry saying it), but he didn't back it up by voting against the damn resolution.

The fact is Graham made his decision off whatever evidence Edwards saw.

[AP]

91. Read post 59, which is much less ambiguous than the other statement.

He wanted a total war.

He says that he's not criticizing the resolution. He says that he thinks the evidence justifies it.

[AP]

48. You tell me what Bob Graham knew that Edwards didn't:

Here is his speech to Congress explaining his no vote:

In my service in the Senate, I have not shied away from authorizing the use of force, when I believed it was in our nation's interest. I voted to use force in the Persian Gulf in 1991. I voted to use force in Bosnia in 1992. I voted to use force in Kosovo in 1999. I have given the president of the United States a presumption of correctness in his assessment of our national security interest. But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.


And that reality is that war abroad will, without assertive security action, increase the prospects of terrorist attacks here at home. In fact, war on Iraq alone leaves Americans more vulnerable to the threat that is facing us today -- those international terrorist organizations that have the capability to inflict upon us a repeat of the tragedy of Sept. 11.

... Some said I was incorrect in my contention that our Commander in Chief lacks the power to expand the war on terrorism beyond al-Qaida. I disagree, but I will not repeat the legal arguments I made. But even accepting the fact that I might disagree, how is it in the interest of our nation's security to leave the question in doubt as to whether the president has the authority to attack these international terrorist organizations that represent such a lethal threat to the people of the United States. There have been some past administrations which have allowed leaders of rogue states to be uncertain as to how America would respond if they used weapons of mass destruction. This administration should not repeat that fundamental error.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/20/Perspective/Graham_s_opposition_t.shtml

[FrenchieCat]

52. Graham was very clear on this....

He was saying that if there is going to be any war....it shouldn't be against Iraq....but against "terrorism"....and that first we should finish Afghanistan....then concentrate on Al-qeada cells wherever they may be and also shore up our homeland security.

Graham was making a distinction between fighting a state, and fighting the Terrorists....which in my opinion was the correct stance to take, considering 9/11.

Graham, in the same speech you quote, also said....

...the president should direct military forces to prepare to execute a full-fledged war on terrorism. We must complete our mission in Afghanistan and then move to the next targets in al-Qaida cells outside Afghanistan.

Tonight, many Americans are anxious and frightened. They have cause to be. One year ago, letters carrying anthrax killed five Americans, including one in my home state, and created great concern. That case has not yet been solved. One year later, here in the capital region, a sniper is taking lives of innocent people going about their daily activities.

... In these frightening times, it is irresponsible to add to the anxiety of the American people by going to war with Iraq without taking the additional steps required to curtail the possibility of more horrors being inflicted upon our homeland. This resolution fails to take those steps. Different people have different opinions of what our national security priorities should be. Clearly some, including the president, believe the first priority should be regime change in Baghdad. Others believe our first priority should be to disarm Iraq by removing its weapons of mass destruction.

...in my judgment, the No. 1 priority should be the war on terrorism and the protection of the people in the United States, our homeland. Our top targets should be those groups that have the greatest potential to repeat what happened on Sept. 11, killing thousands of Americans.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/20/Perspective/Graham_s_opposition_t.shtml

[AP]

53. He called Iraq Musoloni's "Italy" and said we need to attack Hitler too.

He wanted a broad resolution -- attack everyone. He thought just attacking Iraq would be more dangerous.

He thought there were bigger threats, but it's not like he's making an argument here that the intelligence was bad. (Interestingly, however, he cites intelligence which has turned out not to have predicted what came to pass.)

Once again:

I have given the president of the United States a presumption of correctness in his assessment of our national security interest. But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism.

[FrenchieCat]

56. That's just preposperous the way that you are twisting

Bob Graham's words to justify Edwards' incorrect Iraq war position and his vote on the IWR.....

To maligne a great American Senator who HAD THE BALLS TO VOTE AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION so that you can "protect" Edwards' wrong vote is really taking this conversation to a place you may not want to go.

In reference to Italy and Germany....Graham was making an analogy....because the BUSH admin was using WWII and Hitler as a comparison to Saddam Hussein.
Graham's view.....Germany/Hitler = Terrorist cells/Osama
and Italy/Mussolini = Iraq/Saddam

While
Bush admin's view.....Germany/Hitler = Iraq/Saddam with no mention to the 800 gorilla....Osama Bin "forgotten" (as Graham aptly put it).

Here's Graham on that analogy:

A historical example, which has been used in this debate, is the example of the 1930s -- that England, France and other nations would eventually join in the world's greatest alliance slept, while Hitler's power grew.

They say that passing this resolution is the equivalent of if the Alllies had declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy. That is not what we should be doing. We should not just be declaring war on Mussolini's Italy. We should be declaring war on Hitler's Germany.

Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But b]the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy,[]b/ and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/20/Perspective/Graham_s_opposition_t.shtml

[AP]

59. Here are some more Graham statements to contemplate:

I rise today, not to oppose the resolution before us, but to ask my colleagues to carefully consider our national priorities as we debate our course of action against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.


Congress is preparing to vote on a resolution authorizing the President to initiate a range of options against Iraq, including the potential use of force.


We all agree that Saddam Hussein is an evil man in a region of evil men.


He is a tyrant who has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people.


He has flouted U.N. resolutions calling for inspections of his arms capabilities and other restrictions.


His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots who are enforcing the so-called ''no fly'' zones in the North and South of his country.


And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons -- a potential that we need to monitor closely.


The resolution before us means that we -- as members of Congress, acting on behalf of the American people -- are investing our collective trust in the President's judgment. That is just what we did after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when we authorized him to launch a war against al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The latest White House draft of this resolution attempts to link two challenges to our nation's security -- terrorism and Saddam Hussein. I am not sure that it does so in a coherent or effective way.

And frankly, I fear that elevating Saddam Hussein to our nation's No. 1 enemy poses risks that we have not fully considered.

II. Terrorism Should Remain First Priority

In the constellation of threats to our homeland and to our interests abroad, in my judgment, terrorism represents the greatest and most urgent security threat to the American people. And so, our first priority must be the successful completion of the War on Terrorism.

When he spoke before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, just nine days after the attacks, President Bush declared: ``Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.''

At his State of the Union speech on Jan. 29, 2002, President Bush again stood in the House chamber and set this agenda: ``Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.''

I concur with his ranking of our priority targets: First, shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. Second, go after regimes that seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Clearly, terrorists pose the more immediate threat to Americans, because they have as their avowed goal killing Americans. And they have the capability to strike within our homeland -- as demonstrated again by today's arrests of six alleged terrorist cell members, including four in Oregon, one in Michigan and one overseas.

III. Shift in National Security Paradigm

There is no question that our national security paradigm changed with the events of September 11th. We used to think about national security in terms like the balance between superpowers, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union.

Our concerns centered on big-picture questions such as whether an adversary had the capability to launch nuclear missiles, or how a dispute in a far-off region such as South Asia or the Persian Gulf might affect our interests.

We didn't have to worry much about whether an adversary had the ability to execute an attack within the United States.

But that changed on September 11th.

Our most dangerous adversaries are no longer nation-states, but shadowy organizations with operations scattered around the globe. They aren't interested in the traditional prizes of power, such as geography and wealth. Their ambition is to win a trip to Paradise by killing infidels -- killing Americans.

On September 11th, we learned how little these new adversaries need to launch a terrorist strike within our homeland. A terrorist organization requires only the ability to recruit people motivated by zealotry, usually religious fervor; someone trained in the particular skills of the specific method of attack, such as detonating a truck bomb or hijacking an airplane; a relatively modest amount of financial support from internal or external sources; the ability to place operatives within the United States; and a command and control system capable of developing the plot and then initiating it.

IV. Future of the War on Terrorism

Our effort against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was exemplary, but the United States faces more deadly battles in the future as we move into the next phase of the War on Terrorism.

For the past month, we have been debating -- and I hope that we will shortly pass -- legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But the creation of that new Department will not guarantee the security of the American people.

The most effective defense against terrorism is an aggressive offense against terrorist organizations abroad -- taking the fight to them where they live. We must chop the head off the snake before it has a chance to strike.

And as we move beyond al Qaeda and the Taliban, the terrorist organizations that we must target are more mature, better organized and thus, more competent. The most prominent example is Hezbollah, or Party of God.

Hezbollah has been described as the A-team of international terrorism, far more dangerous than even al Qaeda.

Prior to September 11th, Hezbollah, through its terrorist wing the Islamic Jihad Organization, had killed more Americans -- by far -- than any other terrorist organization.

The bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, numerous other brutal kidnappings and murders of Americans -- all were the work of Hezbollah's Islamic Jihad Organization, as were other acts of terrorism where the link to Hezbollah remains classified.

On the 4th of July, while visiting Beirut, and other members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence laid a wreath at a memorial at our Embassy. That memorial contains the names of hundreds of Americans who have died in Lebanon at the hands of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is vehemently opposed to U.S. policy in the Middle East, and it is allied with the most extreme anti-American elements in Iran and Syria. Iran and Syria provide support, training, and weapons to Hezbollah, and both of these countries have weapons of mass destruction which they can provide to the terrorists.

Hezbollah also operates terrorist training camps in Iran, Syria and Syrian-controlled parts of Lebanon that are preparing the next generation of terrorists. One lesson we learned from Afghanistan was that it was a grave mistake to allow Osama bin Laden's terrorist training camps to operate for years preparing thousands of terrorists, many of whom have carried out attacks against Americans, including the attacks of September 11th.

What is it going to take to achieve victory in our War on Terrorism?

It is going to require a united and sustained effort that is based on a realistic understanding of the scale and capabilities of our terrorist adversaries such as Hezbollah.

It is going to require the active support -- or at least the avoidance of active hostility -- in those countries where war will be waged. Just as we needed Pakistan's cooperation to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, we will need the assistance of other nations -- many of them predominantly Muslim -- as we move against additional targets.

It is also going to take action by Congress -- action to authorize the President to use all necessary force against international terrorists.

That is because, in the joint resolution that was passed last Sept. 18, we gave the President authority -- quote -- ``to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.''

We are now considering extending similar authority to use force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Now is the time to extend the authority to go after all international terrorist groups.

The Department of State has 34 groups on its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and there are seven countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism. In addition to Iraq, they are Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

V. Concerns with an Iraq-First Policy

What the President is proposing might be called an Iraq-first policy.

I am concerned that a war with Saddam Hussein would be waged to the exclusion of -- and possible detriment to -- the War on Terrorism. There are indications that a shift in focus is already occurring.

There have been reports of a reduction in the intensity of our efforts in Afghanistan as intelligence and military resources, particularly the leadership of the Intelligence Community and the Defense Department, have turned their attention to Iraq.

A Washington Post story in late August quoted Chief Warrant Officer Mike Smith complaining of inactivity in Afghanistan: ``It's so boring. We're trying to figure out what we're still doing here.''

A second concern is that, as a consequence of the threat to take unilateral action against Iraq, we have seen a hardening of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, which puts U.S. persons and interests in that region in greater jeopardy.

And finally, with the significant capability that groups like Hezbollah have within our country, war with Iraq increases the chances that they will strike out in our homeland. Briefings that I have recently received suggest that the likelihood of such strikes within the United States is not remote or even probable -- it is highly likely.

Like al Qaeda, Hezbollah has active cells within our borders. I cannot discuss numbers or locations, but their capabilities are significant.

Therefore, we need to prepare not just for war with Iraq, but for a broader war with international terrorists.

Let me be clear: This is not a reduction of the President's authority. To the contrary. It is an expansion to authorize all necessary action against those international terrorist organizations which represent the greatest threat to kill Americans in our homeland.


It will be the judgment of the President to determine which authorities to utilize -- and he will be accountable for that judgment. At a minimum, we need the President to initiate actions that prepare us to respond to those who would use a war with Iraq as justification to escalate their attacks on Americans and American interests, both abroad and here at home.

VI. Conclusion

This tandem authorization is necessary because today, we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein.

As the President begins to exercise his judgment, I want him to have the authority to wage war on two fronts -- on all terrorist organizations and their sponsors, as well as the regime that now controls Iraq.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4214934.htm?1c

{BTW, I won't tell a friend of yours you were here if you don't. One of my favorite quotes from the last few days: "By the way, I NEVER go into an Edwards thread to offer the kind of "advice" and "constructive criticism" that you are so eager to offer on Clark threads. Even though there is a HELL of alot of "constructive criticism" that I could offer in that area. I just happen to believe that sort of behavior is classless, tasteless and tactless."}

[FrenchieCat]

69. Thanks for allowing me to make one comment.....

that you then turned into a challenge. Someone earlier in thread was talking about how Edwards was not like the others. Well I begged to differ on that point of view.

Since, I have been responding to your challenges prior to my initial and only intended post.

Understand that Edwards is not my enemy....but I don't agree with the stance he took in reference to this war. I posted about that, and only that.

You should like that I am assisting in keeping an "Edwards" thread nice and long.:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

130. With all that was known about the OSP at the time...

...it should have been clear to Edwards the whole thing was a setup. It was clear to ME, and I'm not a Senator or probably even as smart as Edwards.

It's irritating, because I like a lot of what Edwards has to say. His stance on the war, though, is terrible.

[AP]

136. Exactly. You're not a Senator, and you don't know what they saw.

You know what the media told you and the media told you about yellow cake and Wilson/Plame, and nothing else because they wanted Dems to be in an anti-war mood prior to the primaries. They wanted the pulbic to think that anyone who voted for the war was voting for it even though they knew the evidence was absurd.

However, Clinton and Edwards tell the public that there was a great deal of good evidence (that they couldn't ignore), and you only hear about it on CSPAN -- the major media doesn't report this or even try to find out what the good evidence was, or make this a question of "what about the good-sounding evidence? Was that bad too?" They just want to talk about Yellow Cake.

And when Edwards separates the two -- when he says he wasn't fooled by good-sounding evidence (which we don't hear anything about), and that he didn't believe the yellow cake evidence on its face -- even DU'ers want to ignore the obvious implications and would rather say, "even I could tell the yellow cake evidence was absurd, so Edwards and Clinton are fools and liars."

[Zhade]

144. This makes little sense to me...

You know what the media told you and the media told you about yellow cake and Wilson/Plame, and nothing else because they wanted Dems to be in an anti-war mood prior to the primaries. They wanted the pulbic to think that anyone who voted for the war was voting for it even though they knew the evidence was absurd.

First off, this is all supposition. You don't *know* that was the media's plan or intent. It's opinion - informed, but still an opinion.

And it's not a very logical one. The b*sh-friendly media wanted the public to think that (e.g.) Edwards was voting for a war supported with absurd evidence, and this wouldn't have harmed the White House, which used the same absurd evidence?

Help me out here.

[AP]

146. I watched the news talk about yellow cake...

...and I watched Clinton and Edwards saying on CSPAN that there was plenty of good evidence -- classified, which can't be discussed -- that nobody talks about.

And once again, this was the focus in summer 2004: bad evidence supported the invasion. Why? The tandem focus was getting an anti-war dem nominated, and these stories helped build the case for Dean, and hurt the case for any Dem who voted for the IWR (because it looked like they had been fooled).

I'd trust what comes out of Clinton's and Edwards's mouth long before I'd trust the spin the major media puts on this issue.

As for Bush, check out mediatenor.org: Bush gets blamed for NOTHING. The evidence for the war being bad was never going to hurt Bush, because it was somebody else's fault. That's what happened from August to November. Mediatenor's analysis of the news showed that the vast majority of stories about Iraq blamed the military, and that's who the public blamed too. Nothing is Bush's fault. That's how it was in 2000 too. The buck never stops on Bush's desk. Ever.

That's whye the media could do so many yellow cake stories -- flaming the fires on the left, keeping the focus on the war, using that as the frame, trying to get Dean elected, hurting Edwards and Kerry, and keeping people's eyes off of the economic fascism for which war is the cover.

[LittleClarkie]

132. Kerry has said he did feel misled

That he expected the inspections and other things to be done first and for war to be a last resort.

I've heard one report that he didn't here the "Knowing what you know now" part of the question because of the wind out there by the Grand Canyon.

If so, I wish they could have said that's what happened, except I think people would have made fun of even that. "Sure, Kerry, sure. It didn't play well, so now you want to change it."

But I believe there is a William Pitt story around somewhere that makes it clear he felt misled.

Just making things clear and avoiding a misquote.

[AP]

149. I believe he said that he believed Bush would do more...

...before resorting to an attack. They felt Bush didn't keep his word.

I presume that he doesn't say that he was fooled by the evidence.

Honestly, I don't know what Kerry has said about the evidence. But I've heard Clinton and Edwards say that there was plenty of good evidence, and I heard Edwards say that he wasn't fooled by the yellow cake evidence because it was bad on its face, but that he doesn't feel fooled about the evidence that wasn't bad on its face, and that he thinks it's very important to investigate whether that evidence was accurate.

[JohnLocke]

106. Thanks, Tinoire.

:hi:

[Tinoire]

141. No prob! You still haven't told me what the orange ribbon is for!

and I'm getting very curious! Was even thinking about it on my way to work Friday morning lol.

What is it for? I lost track of all the colors after a while and talking such a long break from politics/events didn't help much. So have pity lol, what's it for?

:hi:

On edit: Thanks so much for having Rabbi Lerner in your sig line. It does my heart good every time I see one of your posts!

[JohnLocke]

172. Here's the meaning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_ribbon

[Tinoire]

183. Awesome! Thank you John!

I am still not sure what to think about that entire situation but I want it all to work out peacefully in the best interest of the Ukrainian people. I think I am for Yushchenko but Bush & Putin are playing such a deadly (no pun intended) game over there that it's so hard to tell what's really going on - especially since I took such a long break from following things.

The Ukrainian people are near and dear to my heart from waaay back and I wish them independent control of their resources & future without all this exterior meddling.

Thanks for telling me.

[JohnLocke]

235. No problem (nt).

[PopSixSquish]

24. This Has Been Reported Before

but probably lost in all the shouting after the concession.

But yes, Edwards and the campaign's lawyers wanted fight on. (damn, those "hated" lawyers) You'll remember that it was John Edwards who was sent out to talk to the crowd in Boston. He was pissed.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Edwards is a lawyer, and he knows one never concedes a case

before all the facts are in.

Edwards has better political instincts than Kerry, perhaps because Kerry has been in the Senate for far too long, while Edwards had his feet planted in the real world.

[AP]

35. I like Kerry, but I have to say, with a guy like Kerry, if you don't win

the presidency this year, you still have a lot of power. You have a lot of money, you have your senate seat (for life), and life is going to be AOK.

For a guy like Edwards, he's not so far removed from a world where you either have no power, or you get lucky and you get a president like FDR who is looking after your interests.

Now, Kerry did put Edwards on the ticket, so he's got a lot of courage, and he I presume he understands these issues. So, I know my criticism is of appearances and not of what is truly in Kerry's heart.

[Leilani]

63. Huh?

Kerry's a billionaire.

Edward's is a multi-millionaire.

This "he's just folks" routine don't fly.

They both go back to a cushy, comfy lifestyle, & the rest of us try to hang on for 4 more years.

[AP]

64. Yeah. I know. It's just that this is an impression I got after reading...

...Four Trials -- reading about Edwards having to transfer from Clemson to NCState 'cause of money, and not being able to accept at Duke Law School because of money, and reading about the Edwardses digging in their car seats trying to find cash to pay for the motel room on their honeymoon and having to wait for Elizabeth Edwards's parents to meet them for dinner so they could borrow money (and having to wait, on their honeymoon, in the lobby of the motel for them to show up).

I'll say it again: I believe Kerry sympathizes with these sorts of things, but I also know that Edwards empathizes with them. And I'm also saying the impresions created (about who really deeply feels what's at stake) are powerful, even if Kerry's sympathies with people for whom much is at stake are deeply felt.

[zulchzulu]

37. Did you get the memo that a concession speech is NOT legally binding?

Edwards certainly knows that. I'll believe what Edwards says about it when it comes out of his mouth and not some blogboy trying to get into Laura's knickers.

[Leilani]

77. I think it's interesting that Kerry gets blasted for remaining silent

but Edwards is really a fighter & hero.

Even though he hasn't said one word either.

Selective outrage, I think.

[spooky3]

92. Do you understand the difference between being atop the ticket

and being second?

It is Kerry's decision. Edwards gets to offer input, but ultimately it is Kerry's call. And if Edwards is a "good team (Democrat) player" which he showed throughout the primaries he was, then he knows that there is a very fine line between speaking out in order to accomplish good, and speaking out in a way that makes his good friend and running mate, with whom he shares most values, has been through incredible months of hard work, look stupid and spineless.

[FrenchieCat]

105. What I understand....

is "talking" the talk vs. walking the walk.

All of these "claimed" calulative moves to go under radar and undetected is a bunch of hog wash.

Edwards has been on numerous television programs.....and hasn't brought up the Ohio and Florida fraud....nor the need for election reform as a priority.

Guess he'll come out fighting in 2007? Won't it be too late to affect any changes to our election procedures by then?

[AP]

147. I don't think anyone is denying that the source of this info is very much

under the radar -- see post 62: a longtime Dean supporter (IIRC) who had a friend on the team who has no reason to lie, and MCM -- and NYU professor who probably heard from someone.

Nobody is denying that Edwards's feelings are not hitting the mainstream media, and are not coming from Edwards's mouth, or any other major source. But we knew that before we heard these stories.

There's nothing new to criticize on that front. But we do have this new piece of info: that Edwards wanted to fight tooth and nail.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why this would be incriminating evidence.

[Leilani]

137. Yes, I know the difference between being atop the ticket

DUH!

John Edwards has been all over TV. He has had a chance to speak out in a way as to address voting concerns, while not undermining Kerry.

Also, we were told during the race that Kerry & Edwards had become incredibly close, & Edwards's input was highly valued...they were a team.

If this is so, & Edwards strongly disagreed, why was his opinion not given more weight?

Hard to have it both ways.

[IndianaGreen]

112. Kerry's concession marginalized all discussions on voting irregularities

and gave the MSM the green light to ignore any claims that questioned Bush's "victory" in Ohio. This was a bigger blunder than his vote for IWR.

[lynintenn]

26. Kerry turned out to be a wimp

[tjdee]

28. I love John Edwards.

And I watched him on concession day and knew he was as right pissed as I was about the concession.

Immeasurably more, I'd imagine.

I hope he isn't done with politics. It would be a loss.

[zulchzulu]

36. Kerry knows that concession speeches aren't legally binding. Does Edwards?

Besides, the Kerry and Edwards legal teams are STILL doing work to find out what happened. Counting air (otherwise known as untraceable votes from BBVs) is not what they are doing...

Yeah, the mainstream papers would have covered the story. They would have covered the story by calling Kerry a "sore loser" and not respecting the soldiers fighting in Fallujah...blah...fucking blah...

Miller has his head up his ass. They have given money to the cause and they have been doing work on the process. Perhaps he hasn't seen the nearly two dozen press releases and other information from the Kerry team?

Is he out of the loop? Sounds like Blogboy should make some calls before sticks his finger in the wind...

[hippiechick]

86. Oh yes, that would be THE flip flop of all time.

Imagine what derision and contempt Kerry would have to deal with if he came out of his shell AFTER all the recounts and lawsuits and said 'Oh yeah, that concession thing ? I didn't mean it'.

He would be a total joke, not only in DC but also in public perception. The one thing Shrub had going for him all along with the Mouthbreathers is his 'certainty' and 'conviction'.

Kerry's retraction of the concession would prove all the GOP toady talking points right - he is one Giantic, Opportunistic Waffler.


:hippie:

[CarbonDate]

118. That's fine

Because he'd still be President.

I'd take derision directed toward President Kerry over President Bush's "mandate" any day.

[tjdee]

97. You'd think he'd let HIS VP in on the joke, no?

If Kerry was doing some clever manuevering, wouldn't he have informed John Edwards?

What the "Kerry conceded just for kicks" crowd is saying doesn't jibe with all these stories we're hearing about Edwards.

So, either ALL these stories are wrong (and Edwards appeared displeased just to fool the cameras), or Kerry thought he was conceding (at the time).

Which do you think makes more sense??

[zulchzulu]

98. Enough of the "stories" about Edwards. Anyone have a quote from HIM?

Before you know it, some "story" will come out that Edwards thought that Kerry actually is from Planet Zicknork.

Yeah...he said it...that's what I read from some blog on the net...so it must be true.

Any quotes from Edwards himself on this issue?

[tjdee]

101. You could see it on his face.

Obviously, Edwards has too much class to slag off his own running mate.

But it was clear by his body language and his speech on "concession day" that he was not pleased about the concession.

The stories merely support what was plainly visible. One could say they were just stories, but interestingly there have been NONE that say the same about Kerry. Except the DU stories.

[zulchzulu]

102. Maybe he wasn't pleased about the election results...ya think?

I'd like a quote from Edwards himself. Or do we just make shit up like Hannity and hope it sticks?

How can Miller say that Edwards was pissed about the concession speech...source? Or is it just conjecture based on an assumption...

[tjdee]

104. We're just going to disagree about this.

What you're saying, basically, is that all these stories about Edwards pressuring Kerry not to concede (the AP story on Nov. 3, Miller, etc. etc. etc.) are in fact false. And made up just for fun.

Okay.

I just hope that you can similarly discount the stories that Kerry conceded so that the MSM wouldn't "call him Sore Loserman" or whatever, but was *really* doing all kinds of acrobatics behind the scenes, of which there are NO stories.

If not, that's cool, and we can disagree.

[zulchzulu]

113. I assume you know a concession speech is NOT legally binding

It's a formality. It means "shit".

There are plenty of reasons why Kerry made his concession speech on November 3rd. And there is plenty of evidence that Kerry and his legal team have been doing work in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere to investigate the events. It's been said ad nauseum here over and over.

People like to latch on to lies about Kerry like the sheep that believe schmucks like Hannity. It's the same type of personality in my opinion.

[IndianaGreen]

116. No amount of spin from the Kerry apologists can spin this one out!

As I said in my post #112, Kerry's concession marginalized all discussions on voting irregularities, and gave the MSM the green light to ignore any claims that questioned Bush's "victory" in Ohio.

I cannot imagine a Howard Dean, or a Wes Clark, or a Dennis Kucinich, or a John Edwards, or even Al Sharpton throwing the towel while there were votes to be counted in a critical state having voting irregularities.

Kerry conceded early for the sake of the Establishment. Kerry put the Establishment's interests ahead of the country's interests. Protecting the status quo is more important than protecting voting rights!

SHAME!

[zulchzulu]

119. Answer this question: Is a concession speech legally binding?

Yes or no.

Additionally, answer this question:

Has there been a Kerry legal team in Ohio, Florida or elsewhere (WA, NM, AZ...) since the election investigating the results and looking for legally binding evidence of voter fraud?

Yes or no.

So, you just need to answer these questions with simple yes/no answers. Do it.

[IndianaGreen]

202. Kerry's concession marginalized all discussions on voting irregularities

Kerry's concession marginalized all discussions on voting irregularities and gave the MSM the green light to ignore any claims that questioned Bush's "victory" in Ohio. This was a bigger blunder than his vote for IWR.

What can we expect from a man that said that, knowing what he knows now about WMDs in Iraq, he would have still voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

[zulchzulu]

222. I knew you wouldn't answer the two questions...

Thanks for playing.

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

115. STORIES About Edwards... That's All They Are. STORIES.

find something from Edwards on the record.

[BrklynLiberal]

177. It was the editor of the Georgia paper, not Miller who said the voter

fraud would have gotten more coverage if Kerry were still involved.

[marc_the_dem]

190. You're right...

I could't agree with you more.

[DemDogs]

240. Edwards knows you don't concede if you think you haven't lost

Listen, Gore looked like a loser from the moment it was clear he was on his way to make a concession speech. Who didn't learn that lesson? Sure you can still win the election if the some votes and counted and others thrown out, but you have Loser stamped on you in every hearing, in every newspaper article.
Edwards knew that looking like and acting like a winner is part of the fight. I bet he never went into a courtroom acting like he had already lost. Sure they could still side with his client, but who would? He acted like a winner and he won. He wanted to do the same thing on election night and the next day.

[Paulie]

40. He can say he fought...

...but where is he TODAY, RIGHT NOW?

Nowhere'sville....

Bueller? Bueller?? Bueller???

[AP]

41. Bet you won't be saying that in four years.

[Paulie]

45. Four years is a long time

especially from an internment camp for "Liberal Re-Education" (sigh)

He needs to do something in the next FOUR WEEKS, better yet the NEXT FOUR DAYS!

[cire4]

43. A couple days after the election there was a similar story

that I remember reading on DU. About how Edwards was pressuring Kerry not to concede. I am wondering if this is what Miller was referring to.

[AP]

44. Edwards's career is, in some ways, built on responding to disenfranchise-

ment.

A rumor I heard from a NC'inian was that Edwards's son (even though he was very young) was very disturbed by the disenfranchisement of voters in the first Gant election.

Edwards ran in order to give a voice to black voters who stood for hours in lines in '92 even after they were told the election was called.

[robbedvoter]

81. He'll get his moment in the limelight: Jan 6, 2005.

He does join Conyers, I am a convert.
otherwise, it's all BS.

[tjdee]

96. I don't think he can.

The new Congress does the whole dirty business, and thanks to Kerry (yes, snarky and largely untrue) Edwards won't be there.

[bush_is_wacko]

83. And we would have far more idiot rethugs

bemoaning the Democrats as sore losers! I really don't think that would help the situation. The media was used to portry Kerry as a traitoruos liberal, remember. The truth is that Kerry isn't even in the politacal realm of liberal. He's just a few graph lines away from * in his political beleifs. No where near Gandhi or even Mother Theresa!

[lojasmo]

84. He wanted it more then Kerry. No suprise there. N/T

[AzDar]

87. While watching the Kerry "concession speech", in utter disbelief, I

remember saying to my husband..."Look at John Edwards, he doesn't think this is a good idea." You could tell from his manner when he spoke, as well as his body language, that he was boiling inside while Kerry surrendered.

[zulchzulu]

99. Where did you see Edwards in the concession speech?

He wasn't on the stage. He had left the stage after he gave his speech. Perhaps you saw it on some magic channel we don't know about.

Watch it again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3980533.stm

Where did you see Edwards having the "body language" you referred to? Hmmmm...

[AP]

108. "His manner when he spoke" -- WHEN he spoke.

Jeez.

[zulchzulu]

110. Oooooh! Nice save!

OK, now it's when HE spoke and not the body language some people "saw" when Kerry spoke.

Oh...I get it now.

:crazy:

[AP]

138. "Now"? Read the post. That's what is says. Go ahead and try to squeeze

the square peg evidence into your round hole theory. However, I think the meaning is clear on its face to even the casual reader.

[blackangrydem]

171. Were their no shots of Edwards in the front row while

Kerry was speaking? I seem to remember a shot of his daughters crying and consoling each other.

[hopein08]

111. I agree with AzDar and zulchzulu both

Yes, Edwards went and sat with Teresa and Elizabeth while Kerry spoke but I think AzDar might be talking about when they first went on stage and Edwards kind of stepped back and made it seem like the whole deal was all about Kerry. Remember how he kind of held out his arms pointing toward Kerry? And after Edwards' speech the hug between Kerry and Edwards was also a bit tense granted, of course, that it could have been because of the concession itself and Elizabeth. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong about what you meant AzDar. Just my thoughts.

[AzDar]

122. That is EXACTLY what I meant and thank you. n/t

[DemDogs]

238. Don't think Edwards wanted to be in the picture

When Kerry conceded. He had fought with them the previous night and all morning not to concede. Why would he want to be in the picture?

[AzDar]

121. Actually, friend.... Edwards introduced Kerry, and spoke a bit before

Kerry took the stage. Jeeeebus.

[zulchzulu]

131. I just watched the entire concession speech again...

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Vote_2004&ShowVidNum=9&Rot_Cat_CD=Vote_2004&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=15&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=720

I understand your feelings about the election outcome so far. I put in many hours, much money and tried all I could to get Kerry elected.

But as I watch the video where Edwards speaks, I don't see the body language problem or issues you may see.

It was a sad moment in American history. Not because Kerry conceded too early, but because Kerry and Edwards knew they had to go to Plan B: Getting the Election Stolen From Them.

Again, a concession speech is a formality and is not legally binding. Additionally, like I knew Kerry was giving it his all in the Election up against the partisan Media Machine, I know and have been following the progress with investigating the election fraud.

It's too bad that people lost faith in Kerry so quickly and for fairly uninformed reasons.

[AP]

139. I think you've already made your bias against Edwards clear in the post

above.

You read meaning into Az's post that wasn't there so that you could criticize it and now you want people to agree with the meaning you claim you see in the video?

[zulchzulu]

148. Aw...c'mon...

I've never said anything bad about Edwards.

However, I would like to hear a direct quote about how he "fought tooth and nail" against Kerry's decision to concede. Some blogger's insinuation is not enough "proof" for me. Where's the beef?

And if you watch the video of the concession speech again, I think you need one heck of an imagination to see that Edwards looks pissed at Kerry for conceeding that morning with his body language or other "hints" that some here have disposed...

[AP]

151. Try post 62.

Jen6 was a big Dean supporter, IIRC, and therefore probably doesn't have much motivation to misrepresent what her friend told her.

[MontanaMaven]

120. Edwards is a Class Act

Edwards would have NEVER come out and said "That every vote will be counted and every vote will count", if he didn't mean it and if he didn't think Kerry meant it. It was always interesting to me that while Edwards came out with a fighting statement, John Kerry had already given up and was weepy and all about him. Didn't everyone find it curious that the VP said it and not the Pres candidate. I feel vindicated. I absolutely trust John Edwards and his incredible wife. They do not have a dishonest bone in their bodies. And he is more of a fighter than most Americans know. He fights relentlessly and with great cunning and smarts in the courtroom. His wife often used that word i.e."relentless".
He is in our corner. Wish he had been at the top of the ticket. He will be in 2008. He's too talented and principled to let get away from us. AND, I totally trust Mark Crispin Miller. Both of his books are awesome and original.

[zulchzulu]

124. Thanks for keeping the circular firing squad alive

I assume by your message that Kerry "is not in your corner".

Sheesh.

[FrenchieCat]

125. Whatever....

Guess will just have to wait in anticipation until 2007 to find out what Edwards really meant by that statement and his take on 2004 voter fraud.

Wouldn't want to upset and tar his "image" by having him speak out now, would we? Wouldn't want him to ruffle any feathers....whether Kerry's or whomever else for the sake of Democracy. That would be too "risky" to speak out like a real leader might now. Must wait till the "time is right" and "the coast is clear".

Will the "classy" "principled" "relentless" "honest" "fighting" Edwards let us know when he is ready to stand when everyone else is sitting? Will we be able to tell when he is walking the walk, or will we miss it by blinking?

Guess that's where the saying came from: Good things come to those who wait.

While y'all are waiting, I hope some "real" kick ass Democrats line up for the 2008 run. Personally, I have had it with the calculated strategizing that is based on people's body language and tensed up hugs. Give Americans a break, please.

I'm looking for the real deal here....screw the enuendos and rumors.

[AP]

142. Right on.

Democrats are finally getting a few heroes. Edwards is one of a couple that showed up this year. We're all going to better off because we have them fighting for us.

[blue neen]

167. I agree with what you say about Edwards and his wife.

I always felt that they were in our corner, and that "corner" does not necessarily exclude other candidates. It is just a strong feeling that you got from Edwards. I went to one of his rallies here in PA and was very impressed by him.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[vanboggie]

173. I totally agree - genuine hero/heroine

John Edwards connects with people. He's straightforward and passionate about the issues. Elizabeth Edwards is equally amazing.
I have the utmost respect for them and would be delighted to have
a class couple like this in the White House again.

[KT2000]

155. You could tell from his speech

Edwards used strong language - fighting terms when he spoke before Kerry conceded.
At the time I was hoping that Kerry was using Edwards as the "bad cop" while he pursued the voting fraud. Guess not and good for Edwards.

[hopein08]

161. Same here

I was briefly returned to good spirits (sort of) when Edwards came out fighting with his "the battle rages on..." I honestly believed and hoped that, even though the Democrats lost, there was still a reason to fight. And then Kerry came on...I have to admit that it made me sad again to hear about "healing" and getting along with the other side. I wanted to be mad, not sad.

Actually, when they said on the news that Kerry had talked to Bush about healing I considered not even watching because I didn't like that sound. But I watched and was briefly uplifted by Edwards and then I realized I should have turned it off.

The "bad cop" theory would have been a good one though.

Good for Edwards.

[Desert Liberal]

179. We aren't hearing about the recount

and the myriad problems with the election because our media have become mouthpieces for the chimp. No matter who was calling for a recount or expounding upon the problems with the election, the media would be performing the same as they are now. Unless the chimp himself saw some problems....
But then, he got what he wanted; why should he do any complaining? We as Americans have become complacent. We have stopped demanding that our media actually do their jobs. We just trusted them to do it. That is a mistake which we have to correct.
The sheeple will never open their eyes until they are forced to do so. So long as Faux News is reporting right-wing opinions as 'news', the blind have no reason to see.
Kerry conceded. We have to accept that. We may not like it. In fact, we may have railed at the TV with tears in our eyes as we listened to the concession speech. But I think he remembered quite vividly how Al Gore was crucified by the press and Repukes when he started calling for recounts and justice. Perhaps Senator Kerry simply decided to play behind the scenes.
With the way our media has been lately, who can blame him?

[Sugarbleus]

181. It's strange but, along the way I felt like Edwards "had more to say"

I got an inkling of a hunch that Edwards would have done things differently but couldn't say what he felt as much as he'd like.

I got the feeling they didn't see eye to eye on a LOT of things...

Curious indeed.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

187. Anyone who couldn't see that Edwards was royally pissed at the concession

...never studied body language and facial expressions. He acted admirably for a person in his position, and kept his focus on thanking the people who contributed time, money and effort to the campaign, but this man was PISSED OFF.

Like many other people watching.

Criticizing Kerry in any form can quickly turn into flamebait on DU, regardless of the intention, so I won't. But my reaction to the speech was pretty close to that of John Edwards.

[robbedvoter]

188. he was pissed it wasn't in prime time. I have a hard time accepting

this story from someone who dropped out in the primaries WHILE PEOPLE WERE STILL VOTING - on both coasts - just so as not to miss primetime TV.:shrug:

[AP]

191. Seee post 62.

Jen6 was Dean supporter in the primary and has no reason to lie about what her friend told her.

This is the second source for this story.

As for dropping out in prime time -- Edwards was leading all day long in GA. When he fell behind, it was over for him. Dropping out before voting finished in CA wasn't going to change the fact that he wasn't winning there.

He also gave Kerry a chance to give a victory speech in prime time, which was a nice gesture, which I'm sure all Edwards's CA supporters would have consented to had they had the choice (because Edwards supporters just want Demcorats to win and are willing to put their self-interests aside so the team can do better). {HINT}

[LittleClarkie]

209. If he was pissed off at Kerry he was over it by Nov. 19th

"I also want to say a word about my friend Senator Kerry . I embarked a few months ago on a journey with Senator Kerry, a fight, as we traveled across the country and fought for the things in which we believe. We shared our hopes for this country together. We worked hard to make America stronger. I developed a very strong, close, personal friendship with John Kerry during that time. John Kerry is a good man and he is a good American. I got the chance to see him when others didn't, when there were no cameras around, when there were no crowds. This is a man of strength and conviction and courage. He loves his children. He has a beautiful family, by the way. He and his wife Teresa and their kids became very close with my family and our children.

We feel an enormous affection for them and enormous connection with them because we were engaged in what we thought was a very important cause. It still is a very important cause.

But the reality is that John Kerry is somebody who has loved this country his entire life. He stood up and fought for this country his entire life. I am proud to have been able to spend the last few months fighting alongside him as he traveled throughout the country and the work that he did not just in this campaign but for all the years he served in this Senate before this campaign, and the years he will serve from here on are important. Every day he walks onto the floor of this Senate, the American people will be better for it.

He is my friend. He is my colleague. I trust him.

I believe, of course, that he would have made a great President, and I believe he has great work to do for this country in the days and years to come. It is an honor for me to be able to serve with him in this term."

And my reading of his body language and voice on the Senate floor says that John Edwards meant what he was saying.

He may have been angry at the concession, and I assume you mean he was angry at John Kerry during the concession. But that doesn't mean that he thinks less of Kerry, I believe. He really didn't have to say all these nice things just 16 days later.

I'm just saying I don't want to see this become "Edwards good, Kerry bad" since I don't even think Edwards feels this way. I don't think he'd want people using him to bludgeon the man. That's what I see, anyway.

[Uzybone]

199. Rubbish

why doesnt he talk about voter fraud and all that jazz today? How does he undercut Kerry by saying Bush cheated if he believes thats what happened? Why has he never gave a inkiling in public or private to reputable sources about this? "An editor in georgia" and Mark Crispin Miller dont cut it.

[AP]

201. What about MCM + post 62.

Seems like this story might be double-sourced.

As for not talking about it in public, that's obviously why we're hearing about it this way.

I think it's legitimate to wonder why he isn't talking about it in public, but I'm not sure whether the fact that he isn't is any kind of proof that the events described didn't happen.

(Obviously, one possible explanation is that Edwards isn't going to go out and fight a battle Kerry doesn't want to fight, and it's not like he's going to go out an embarass Kerry and the party by contradicting Kerry's wishes.)

[zulchzulu]

210. What is it about Post #62?

I know plenty of people who make shit up.

Drudge uses unnamed (and it turns out unaminated sources) for his stories. Hannity and Rush make shit up out of their ass and then keep repeating it. It's the same thing with this parlor talk...

If Edwards was so adamant about keeping the nation hanging on a decision that would (in the nearly impossible of circumstances) somehow be seen as a fair protest in the light of Bush winning by over 3 million votes^, why did he take the stage, smile and wave, shake hands and appear to be agreeable to Kerry's non-legally-binding concession speech? Is Edwards scared to let people know that he was fighting "tooth and nail" to fall right into Rove's trap? if you don't think it was a trap, then you have a lot to learn.

This whole thread seems to be a joy for Dean and other supporters who love picking old scabs or people who have not kept the eye on the ball with Kerry's legal efforts at the recounts, voter fraud and other issues of the election.

Kerry bash all you want. Let adults like Kerry work through the problems with his background as a prosecutor and his team of legal minds that have been working hard on the issues of the election immediately after the initial results were in.

[AP]

213. That poster has been here a long time...

I can't think of good reason to think she's lying. What's her motivation? Why do you need Edwards's actions to bash Kerry? If that were all you cared about, it's enough to say that Kerry didn't fight. The only thing this information adds is that it makes Edwards seem like a decent guy. So, if you're not a big Edwards fan, why bring it up?

Incidentally, you can't presume this information is incorrect just because you don't want to see Kerry bashing. I think you're hurting the credibility of your own interpretation of events by revealing that that is your anxiety in this thread.

[zulchzulu]

221. I guess I'd like real evidence vs. hearsay/parlor talk

If Edwards is such a great guy, then he'd come out and say what he thought...otherwise, all this thread is about bullshit.

[zulchzulu]

212. Bingo

This trend that some DUers (who also appear to be bruised Dean supporters) want to believe that Kerry has been doing nothing since the Election as well as believe very weak sources to persuade the easily defeated that Edwards disagreed with a concession specch that he must have known is NOT legally binding...is sickening.

[janx]

223. Bruised Dean supporters?

Do you mean from the primaries? I don't see any of those people in this thread--if there are any, they are few and far between, zulch.

:shrug:

[zulchzulu]

225. I've said all I can say about this thread...

I know the drill. I've seen the predictable Kerry bashers...here, in this thread, it's based on utter hearsay and without ANY real evidence that Edwards was against the non-legally binding concession speech.

Ferchrissakes, Edwards is a lawyer like Kerry. They know concession speeches are merely a formaility and in this case, not doing so was walking right into a trap.

I'm done...

[Guaranteed]

234. It's all about Dean, for zulch.

Get Dean! He's EVERYWHERE!!

[zulchzulu]

236. Oh...yeah...me and Dean..me and Dean...

I like Dean. But he isn't God. Not even close.

Sorry to let you down.

Neither is Kerry.

Frankly, I mean Howardly, it seems the same people want to discredit Kerry for the Election. Oh, I've posted articles, MP3s and links to articles showing that Kerry has been continuing the efforts on the Election and even doing other cool stuff, but it falls on deaf and apparently dumb ears.

The same people that refuse to see the proof that Kerry is on our side are usually people who still can't believe Dean got his ass handed to him in the primaries for running a bad campaign. If it wasn't a badly executed campaign that squandered the amazing grassroots contributions that came in (and I salute those that did that), then he would not have dropped out before April.

Yes, Trippi is certainly a factor with running a shitty campaign that carelessly spent nearly $32+ Million in Iowa and wasn't even returning Howard's phone calls in Iowa (that's pretty fucked upif you ask me), but you have to point at Howard's inability to stop the fall from polling grace where he was way ahead in December only to be a fallen candidate three months later.

On a side note, Dean would be great as DNC chair and I support him in his efforts as well as DFA. I go to the DFA meetups in my town...OK?

I digress. Back to Edwards...unless there is a direct quote from him, this whole thread is bullshit.

We need to all get over two things. Let the bad blood from the primary/caucus season finally heal and let us look honestly at the stolen Election with the fairly reasonable understanding that Bush will be sworn in again in January.

We need to focus on 2006 and 2008 and use the same energy we had up to Election Day to expand even more...or else have threads like this that just become a circular firing squad formation and thrill the Repugs to see such a ting happening.

[Andromeda]

205. That's what I thought all along.

I will always wonder why Kerry conceded so quickly. It was a big disappointment to me because he said he would fight for us. I don't believe it was part of a conspiracy or anything like that and maybe he had good reasons for handling it like he did but it's very frustrating.

John Kerry came in like a lion and went out like a lamb.

This whole election fiasco has me upset and depressed and now I'm wondering why we didn't nominate John Edwards instead of the other way around.

[zulchzulu]

211. Did you know Kerry and his leagla team are STILL investigating?

..."went out like a lamb"...

Once AGAIN, you appear to believe the LIE that Kerry and his legal team have and are doing nothing about the election results...

This trend sickens me. Are people too busy watching shit TV to keep up with the news? Are people so easily outwitted and asleep at the wheel?

Frankly, I thought people here at DU were a little smarter than that. I guess I was wrong.

[LittleClarkie]

217. What about the "Why doesn't he pay for the recount in Washington" comment

a couple of days ago. To which someone answered "HE IS!"

Geez louise, keep up with the news is right. Accusing the man of not doing thing we KNOW he IS doing is beyond annoying. What a reality disconnect.

[robbedvoter]

207. Looks like help is being asked from the Edwards group to pump this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=257x175


If someone wants to show respect for my voting rights, there are plenty of way of SHOWING it - every single day - since Nov 3 to jan 6. I will give credit to any action (as opposed to gossip about intentions)
I am still waiting to see that "tooth and nail thingy - if it's real, and it's about democracy, I shall give it any help I can.

[AP]

219. Are you scared?

(Psst. It's an index. I don't think I asked any of the 4 people who read that group to come over and help. I believe, the PM is probably the tool used to do that sort of thing.)

[DjTj]

230. Thanks for posting it there, AP

...I've been studying for finals and haven't visited DU in a couple days, and this was the first thread I came to...

Now everyone can cower in fear as the legions of DU Edwards supporters descend upon this thread ...all 10 of us...

[AP]

231. Heh heh.

We're so devious. Our plan for world domination starts at the Edwards Group, will spread out to this thread, we'll take Manhattan next, and then Berlin.


They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
For trying to change the system from within
I'm coming now, I'm coming to reward them
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I'm guided by a signal in the heavens
I'm guided by this birthmark on my skin
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I'd really like to live beside you, baby
I love your body and your spirit and your clothes
But you see that line there moving through the station?
I told you, I told you, told you, I was one of those

Ah you loved me as a loser, but now you're worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me, but you don't have the discipline
How many nights I prayed for this, to let my work begin
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I don't like your fashion business mister
And I don't like these drugs that keep you thin
I don't like what happened to my sister
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I'd really like to live beside you, baby ...

And I thank you for those items that you sent me
The monkey and the plywood violin
I practiced every night, now I'm ready
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

I am guided

Ah remember me, I used to live for music
Remember me, I brought your groceries in
Well it's Father's Day and everybody's wounded
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

[robbedvoter]

243. Scared? of what? It's against DU rules. Irrelevant too.

If Edwards has any ounce of fight in him for voting rights - put them up!
I'll gladly welcome some actual action.
As for the group - it proves the lack of actual grassroots behind your guy.
2 DU-ers and a PR agency.

[unblock]

244. locking due to length

please continue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1451983