What I don't like about John Edwards:

[cali]

I don't like his investing in Hedge funds that foreclose on Katrina victims while he's talking about poverty.

I don't like his building a 28,000 sq. ft home while stressing the importance of environmentalism and global warming.

I like him despite those issues, but yeah they trouble me, as does his vote for the war. Even a apology doesn't completely negate a self-interest motivated vote. And yeah, that's what I think it was.

What I don't like about Hillary:

Triangulation.

The thought of eight years of Clinton soap operas. (I know that's not necessarily her fault)

Her vote on the war, and her seeming need to be "strong militarily"

What I don't like about Obama:

He's making rookie mistakes now, if he gets the nom, I worry he'll continue to do so.

And that's why I haven't decided on a primary candidate. I'll just support whoever it is in the general.

[saltpoint]

1. Pretty good chance that one of these three is our nominee.

I don't rule out the others. Biden could be poised for a real lift in the polls. Richardson's much improved from just a few months back.

I bet if you told us what you didn't like about Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney your list would be quite a bit longer than your dislikes for Sens. Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

[cali]

3. As I said, I'll vote for the nom

and of course, it goes without saying that what I don't like about repukes would manke a very long list.

I'm just saying all the candidates are flawed.

[saltpoint]

10. Seems like an odd starting point. Is there anyone in any field at all anyplace

without something someone else isn't going to like?

The general condition of the Republican Party is in visible deterioration.

I believe that is a truly historic thing. And an impetus for us to build up majorities in the chambers of Congress.

Also I think the next couple Supreme Court appointments are extremelly crucial.

[superkia]

36. You forgot Kucinich. The one speaking out about our rights!

My number one concern is the loss of rights that have taken place so far and I think without the constitution and our rights, no other issue matters. If we have no rights, we have no voice on any issue. Vote for someone that will stand for the people before its too late to do so! Our free speech is being assaulted, our justice system is tilted for the wealthy and against the poor, wiretapping, if they don't like you, you are a terrorist and they can imprison you? What else is there, I'm sure there is more.

I fear most Americans think that our rights will always just be there, didn't people die for us to get them in the first place. If we allow them to be taken and assaulted, they will never return!

If our rights aren't number one, let me know because then maybe I can vote for someone that stands up for whatever it is thats more important?

[saltpoint]

39. Dennis Kucinich is a good man.

[ruggerson]

2. I'm fine with any of them

but if you pressed me to put them in order:

Edwards
Clinton
Obama


I also think that same order holds true for electability. I would put Hillary on top if you asked me who will most likely run the best, toughest, gaffe-minimized campaign.

[JDPriestly]

4. So, are you perfect? Don't feel bad. None of us are.

I chose the most perfect of them -- Edwards.

Second choice: Kucinich -- great ideas, but ineffective

Third choice: Obama -- lots of charisma but short on specific ideas

Fourth choice: Biden -- experience in foreign policy

Fifth choice: Dodd -- unlikely to win but a qualified candidate

Sixth choice: Richardson -- great guy, experienced, knowledgeable but not an effective campaigner

Seventh choice: Hillary -- very qualified, but too controversial and too far to the right for me. Also, after reading the Mother Jones article about her religious affiliations in the Congress, I don't trust her. I worry that she may have a little Right-Wing Authoritarian in her as described in Bob Altemeyer's on-line book entitled The Authoritarians.

[Sadie4629]

5. I think the nomination is Hillary's

but the fundraising stuff bothers me. I just read this a.m. that ANOTHER Clinton donor has some shady stuff going on. Bad. Real bad.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Interesting, here's my take:

What I don't like about Edwards: I'm sick of the country being run by sunbelters, I'm concerned he's in a fight to win his own state.

What I don't like about Obama: He's now triangulating. He might be too inexperienced.

What I don't like about HRC: Too deliberate, controlling. All Democrats have the "need to be strong militarily." They're all portrayed as weak on defense. That's an issue they'll all confront.

[ruggerson]

9. She's got the military thing covered

she's spent virtually her entire senate career carving out a reputation as a "sensible hawk" (if there is such an animal). I've read that much of the top brass is quietly rooting for her. That, of course, makes her even more reviled at places like DU, but also buys her tons of moderate votes in the general. If she is the nominee, she will be one with the most foreign policy cred since JFK. (Only Biden surpasses her in this area.)

[karynnj]

17. I beg to differ

If she is the nominee, she will be one with the most foreign policy cred since JFK. (Only Biden surpasses her in this area.)

Since JFK, the following people have been nominees, going backwards, with greater foreign policy experience than Hillary:

1) Kerry has far more - in fact, Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State in a book a year ago included excepts of Kerry's 1966 Yale speech as an early example of the type of foreign policy we needed to move to. His foreign policy knowledge in 1971 stunned the media and the Senate. That was before 2 decades plus as a very serious member of the SFRC - who quickly won the respect of people like Lugar.

2) Gore has far more - before he was VP, he was a Congressman and a Senator.

3) Mondale had more - as a Senator and VP

4) LBJ was speaker of the house and a long time congressman

Those are just the nominees! As Clinton is not that yet - you can throw in Hart and others.

It sounds like you have been listening to an understandably biased husband of Clinton.

[ProudDad]

25. If a closet hawk is the best we can f*cking do...

So she's drunk the military industrial complex kool-aid...

TO hell with her and any one else who've bought into that bullshit!!!!

[Captain Hilts]

28. ProudDad, I hope you don't type like this in front of your kids. nt

[ProudDad]

30. Well, I did and do

And I taught them that words aren't "dirty" in themselves but their meanings can be...

war -- now there's a REALLY dirty word.

hawk -- one who drinks the military industrial complex Kool-Aid -- REAL dirty word.

f*cking hawk -- the only proper way to refer to someone who's drunk the military industrial complex Kool-Aid.

Entirely appropriate language for the situation...

[GreenArrow]

29. you can have a closet hawk --

Clinton, Edwards or Obama, or an overt hawk in any one of the Republicans. I suspect it's too much to expect that we could even get an owl.

[ProudDad]

31. I'm afraid you're right

and that's why I give mammalian life on this planet about an 80/20 chance of surviving the 22nd Century...

[jenmarie]

7. I can't get behind any of them, either

But will vote for the Dem in the GE, as they expect, and which is why they don't really give a shit what we think. I am not confident that any of them can win the GE, though.

[Lint Head]

8. I like the fact that he has sued the shit out of some corporations.

End coroporate rights now. :dem:

[ProudDad]

26. Ah, but Hillary can WIN

She was a CORPORATE LAWYER... :sarcasm:

[Demit]

11. I'd like to see the hedge fund thing explained, but just out of curiosity, what size

house do you think is the max size he should have built? This is a serious question. I don't keep track of square footage, so I don't know how big that actually is, like how many rooms, for example. Do you know? I mean, I get that on the face of it, a large house seems to contradict a concern for environmentalism. So—maybe in terms of rooms, say, unless you've thought about this and have a figure of max square footage in mind already—what would be the biggest house someone could have and still be considered credible on the subject of environmantalism? Again, this is a real question.

[tammywammy]

13. George Bush's ranch

Is 4000 sq feet and completely green. I would have preferred if Edwards have gone that route, instead of what he did.

[2rth2pwr]

14. clear cutting is a concern also.

[The River]

18. Thats Not Clear Cutting

It's barely "pasture" sized.
My (organic)garden was bigger than his back yard.
From the size and uniformity of the trees shown
I'd guess the whole parcel was harvested
about 20 years ago. Former pasture, former crop land,
returned to (young) forest. Thats "Green" in my book.

Haircuts?
house sizes?

it's all RW talking points
and sad to see them repeated on DU
by the "concern" patrol.

[NCarolinawoman]

22. Approximately 50 acres were clearcut.

Mature pines and hardwoods. This was done about a year ago last spring and into the summer. Obviously, during nesting season.

I also know he used his political influence to get around all the red tape concerning tree ordinances.

Remember, this is a man who once voted for mountain-top removal. That vote was characterized as "only symbolic" by the League of Conservation voters because the measure wasn't expected to pass. But what I am wondering is: Symbolic of what?

[2rth2pwr]

24. If your "garden" was bigger than his backyard

your perspective may be different. Is your "closet" bigger than his garage?

[madmunchie]

43. Not RW talking points, just more showing what a hypocrite JE really is

Its more like the decorations on a cake. Afterall, there is plenty of material for the cake and icing...

If you insist on calling "reasons" by other DU members "RW talking points" Well here are a few more for you:

JE was in the Senate for 6 short years and spent close to half of that time campaigning for POTUS, therefore not really serving his constituents and doing his homework on some of the disasterous bills he voted for.

John Edwards talked about poverty, but he co-sponsored a massive increase in H-1b Visas

JE co-sponsored the IWR and then voted for it, to stood by it a year later, and then finally said that he was sorry after the polls turned, three years and one failed election later. Slow on the uptake I'd say - way too slow for the demands of POTUS

Edwards DID NOT generate or champion any poverty legislation during his 6 years in the senate (while he co sponsored the IWR?????) real humanitarian and champion of the poor huh.

Edwards literally bed down in Iowa and New Hampshire for a couple of years while he nervously wavered because he didn't know if he was gonna run since his wife was sick!!!! He could have stayed in the Senate to help clean up a mess that he helped create. Somebody with a conscince would have done that. But wait a minute, JE probably wouldn't have been re -elected as a Senator in his own state......why is that?

John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." .....John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us that he didn't seem to learn from his disasterous Iraq vote, ya think?

JE voted YES to free trade with China

JE voted YES on the 2001 bankruptcy bill Yeah, a real bleeding heart for the poor.

JE voted against the 2002 amendment for voting rights to be reinstated to convicted criminals

How many more facts do you all need before your eyes can see, your ears can hear and your brains engage?

[Captain Hilts]

19. Wow. Is that the "Prairie Chapel?" It will take a ton of Secret Service to protect, even after...

he's no longer prez.

[Cameron27]

15. I would think it's a matter of the total amount

of fossil fuel used to run the house, rather than square feet. Edwards' has never made that information available, at least for the entirely completed house. Personally, I think if you're going to present yourself as being a pro-environment candidate, that info should be released up-front.

FWIW, I don't buy into the carbon-credit argument, so I wouldn't subtract that amount from the total.

[cali]

16. Smaller and more environmentally sound is what he should have

built. 28,000 is almost 30x the average. Max? under 10,000 sq ft. I know what a 10,000 sq ft house looks like: Let me describe one that I knew well. It had an archery range in the attic and a rollerskating rink in the basement, plus an enormous kitchen, breakfast room, dining room, library, 7 bedrooms, 3 staff bedrooms, playroom, den, greenhouse. Now imagine a house 3x that size.

[Demit]

27. Thanks. I wonder if he intends it to be a family compound, a la Hyannisport or

Kennebunkport, like he's planning on founding a dynasty. I really can't get inside the heads of ambitious, and extremely competitive, people. Do they think it's vital to display their wealth, like some kind of show of force? I otherwise don't care what people choose to spend their money on, but you're right, this is tone-deaf. The haircut thing was blown all out of proportion, but this is a real question that he should address foursquare.

[Crabby Appleton]

12. That pretty much describes my reservations about these 3. nt

[Milo_Bloom]

20. You hit on why I wouldn't vote for either Edwards / Clinton... EVER

The problems you address in re: Edwards and Clinton are character flaws that will follow them into a presidency and ultimately do great harm to the democratic party and the nation, as the GOP is sure to take over with an even more extreme wacko in 2012.

Edwards is and always has been a capitulator... he does what is good for Edwards and no one else. He has voted and acted against the interests of the poor many times in the past, but now claims it as his number 1 issue. (His tax plan pretty much proves this issue as a fraud) In 2004 after all the lies were revealed re: the war, he stated that he didn't regret his vote and would vote the same way again (polls still tilted slightly in favor of the war). No sooner did those polls turn and it become fairly clear that no dem who supported the war would win, he had his mea-culpa. He still can "bring himself" to support gay marriage. Wonder if he would have one of his pattented mea-culpa moments if the national polls changed on this issue?

With Edwards you get someone who will let the mob rule. The squeekiest wheel will get the grease and we will have 4 years of capitulation before he is run out on a rail for being an ineffective leader who flip flops on every issue.

With Clinton you get much of the same, only the right will re-double its efforts to bring her down. Clinton has shown some strength (unlike Edwards) as she is willing to go against the crowd (such as telling a liberal group that she will continue to take money from lobbyists), so she might not capitulate quite as much as Edwards; however, she isn't there when you REALLY need her, such as the war vote, the bankrupcy bill, etc. These are the marquee votes where you can really judge whether a candidate will follow their principles or politics and Clinton has shown that a little media pressure will push her to the wrong vote.

I fear with Clinton, just as with Edwards, you get a candidate who will have 4 years of ineffective rule, only to be soundly defeated in 2012 by a right wing wacko potentially more dangerous than bush.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I would make some of the same argument as you have, and

some different.

Obama's "rookie" mistakes don't even come close to Edwards and Hillary's life and death mistakes done with their votes. "Mistakes" are relative as some are bad and some are terrible....

Alos, haircuts and other campaign mistakes made by the "so-called" pros in my opinion are worse than "rookie" mistakes IMO, cause the pros should know better....

In reference to what bothers me about Edwards, it is more than the so called RW talking points, and even more than his "vote" for war. He not only voted for war, but actively and agressively pushed that Blank check bill while sitting on the Intelligence committee and having access to (yet not reading) the classified NIE which was raising more questions than it was answering. That's more than simply voting. The fact that he voted against the Levin amendment makes his apology ring false....as there were options apart from the Blank Check bill that he co-sponsored available......and he didn't even make the attempt at voting yeah on those. Also the 3 years gap between the mistake and the apology is suspicious to say the least. The polls had changed on the public's opinion on Iraq shortly before the apology came. Why not have apologized earlier.......like after WMD's had not been found and the intelligence had been found to be incorrect?

Also, I don't like some other past Edwards actions and votes.......as an example, on the Bankrupcy issue, the history of which Sen. Dodd details here:

The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors.

Dodd further questioned Edwards as a poverty fighter by saying that his opponent voted in favor of a similar version of the Bankruptcy Reform bill in 2001. Specifically, that bill required debtors to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over time under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan rather than letting them seek a discharge via Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Questioning his opponent’s political allegiances, Dodd noted how Edwards sided with Republicans in favoring the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Dodd said that Edwards even aligned with the Republican caucus in rejecting an amendment to the bill by Senator Paul Wellstone of MinnesotaThat amendment would have given an exemption to debtors who were forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Naturally, Dodd was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of this amendment.

Edwards’ voting record on bankruptcy issues gets worse, according to the Dodd camp. Dodd detailed how Edwards once again lined up with the Republicans in rejecting an amendment that would have included a more consumer-friendly means test than in the original Bankruptcy Overhaul bill of 2001. That amendment would have initiated a Chapter 7 means test that would have averaged the debtor’s last two months of income and taken into account sudden job losses or disabilities. The original bill mandated a means test averaging the debtor’s last six months of income.

Dodd concluded the press release by saying that Edwards ultimately supported a bankruptcy bill that not only punished the financially vulnerable but also aligned with big banks and credit card companies.
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john_edwards.htm

This (and a few other things) all adds up to my lack of confidence in what John Edwards says to get elected versus what John Edwards actually has done while an elected official, and that makes me a skeptical as to his authenticity, and to his possible motives behind some of his Johnny come lately passion for all of the right things according to the liberal base.

Hillary appears cold and calculating, but I don't doubt her words quite as much because she's not selling herself to be as concerned as Edwards about the little guy, and touting promises to all who will listen. Promises are great, but getting those promises enacted is far more complicated and for some of those promises, doubtful.

[ProudDad]

23. It sounds to me like you should vote Kucinich on the issues

Check it out!

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/

Voting your conscience doesn't cost anything in the Primaries -- and it makes you feel Sooooooooo Good!!!!

Novel concept, isn't it? No triangulation, no bullshit, no fluff, no talking points of the moment just vote for the solutions to the problems.

[bettync]

32. Re: John Edwards

John Edwards invested in a blind trust fund account, (which is a common kind of mutual fund that most investors have in their portfolio), and was not aware that his invested funds would go into real estate loans that would then be foreclosed. When Edwards learned that his trust fund money included this investment, he pulled out his money. Edwards has worked in New Orleans with his own hands, in addition to speaking out and working hard to help the people there.

The Edwards ranch style house is large, although the square footage you state includes out buildings. The house has the highest energy ratings, and has many "green" building techniques, including solar panels.

Edwards voted based on the information at hand, and many who criticize that vote now were urging their senators to vote for the war at the time. The mood of Edwards constituents was inclined to support the war effort with the false information the Bush administration was presenting on WMD in Iraq. Even General Powell was taken in by Bush. Edwards has apologized for his vote, even though advisors and polling told him not to apologize. (One of the candidates is following the advice of the polling. Edwards was honest enough to tell us he was wrong and he regrets the vote.)

I can understand how Republicans can despise Edwards, because he is going to shake up the status quo. But if you sincerely are looking for a Democrat who will bring about changes that will create true opportunity for all and also strengthen the security of our country.... take a closer look at Edwards. Read his speeches and his position statements in their entirety. Everything is posted over at his website: www.Johnedwards.com

[calteacherguy]

38. Speeches and position statements do not a leader make. nt

[Adelante]

42. Welcome to DU, bettync

:hi:

Since you raised the matter of a blind trust, can you provide a link where it is explained that Edwards had one as you claim? I am sure Edwards had his investments in a blind trust while he was a public official, but his personal finances have been rather extensively covered this year and I've seen no reference to a "blind trust" or "trust fund" as you cite. In fact, Edwards learned in May of the foreclosures and did not pull out his money. When foreclosures became big news a few weeks ago he said he would "divest." I'm not entirely sure of what that means in his case, whether liquidating or rolling into a different fund in Fortress. I guess the next quarter reports will show what happened with the controversial real estate investments.

Anyway, a link to the blind trust information would be appreciated.

[calteacherguy]

33. K&R.

Don't give up on Obama, he's our best hope.

[femrap]

34. I feel pretty much the same way you do....

I am still holding out hope that Gore will run. I'd work for him.

[sandnsea]

35. Obama has spoken his mind, which is what we say we want

That the Clinton people THOUGHT they were going to turn into "mistakes".

So maybe you have your candidate and you just don't know it.

[Hieronymus]

37. You probably wouldn't have voted for FDR or JFK either.

[cali]

40. As I clearly said in the OP

I'll vote for whoever gets the nom. Gladly. If you're going to snark, at least read the OP and snark accordingly. duh.

[Kermitt Gribble]

41. I think the 28,000 sq ft

includes all of the out buildings (garage, barn, etc.), which aren't normally included in the sq footage of an actual house. The GOP attack makes it sound like the house is 28,000 sq ft.

[Colobo]

44. Obama's honesty, intelligence and vision for the future

is what America needs right now. We need to support him.