When did this site become so pro-Edwards?

[fiore280]

It is HUGE here now. Sorry, but there are other progressives who support other candidates. I will not tell you who I am supporting to save everyone the effort required to crap all over him or her. I just want all of the fervent Edwards supporters to remember this: Stop hating on my candidate, and all of the other candidates who don't happen to be John Edwards. We have a great and VERY talented pool of candidates. I believe that any of the 3 front runners will do a good job as president and will win the presidency if nominated by the Democratic Party. And the 'publicans ain't got shit.

And one more thing...John Edwards is a fine public servant, a great candidate, a terrific person, and so is his wife Elizabeth. Don't friggin' get me wrong.

[1620rock]

1. Pro Obama you mean.

[bluerum]

5. I believe the OP said pro Edwards. I see a lot of support for all the candidates.

[TwilightZone]

8. It's not as pro-Obama as you might think. They're just rather vocal at the moment.

In a recent DU poll, Edwards received more than half of the total vote.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Hit F5.

And then post something accurate.

jeez...

[jgraz]

2. About the same time Edwards become so pro-us.

Right now, there's no argument with the fact that Edwards has the most progressive, populist message of all the candidates. Those who don't support him are mostly worried about discontinuities with his Senate record (of which there are many).

[silverojo]

28. I'm glad you posted that

It saved me the time of doing so. :rofl:

[skipos]

3. When it was clear Kucinich wasn't even going to do as well (?) as he did in 2004.

That's my opinion.

[Tesha]

47. My order of candidate choices was: Gore, Kuch, Edwards, Richardson.

Gore chose not to run.

Kuch is clearly flaming out and casting my NH Primary
vote to block Hillary is clearly more important than
casting a symbolic vote for Dennis.

That puts me into Edwards' camp.

But I think Richardson ought to be his Veep for sure.

Tesha

[swag]

4. If one were to look at the last three months of videos and top stories

on the home page, I think one would find that the majority were pro-Edwards videos and stories.

I don't know who pins the videos and lead stories at http://www.democraticunderground.com, but they sure do seem to favor Edwards.

[swag]

11. Oh, look. Top video as of this moment:

John Edwards - Fighting powerful interests (N.H. Debate)

Top story on the front page:

Edwards vows to stay in race to convention



Very typical for this site the past few months. Put in a spreadsheet the amount of hours that a top video or top story has reigned on the front page, and I think you'd find a very strong bias toward Edwards.

I don't dislike Edwards intensely, mind you, but I think the DU establishment's bias has been for Edwards for quite some time now.

[scarletwoman]

16. Nobody "pins" videos or threads, they are voted on by everybody.

If a post is voted on by lots of DUers, it goes to the "greatest" page. If it gets LOTS of votes, it might end up on the front page.

If there are lots of Edwards threads and videos on DU, it's because lots of DUers are posting them, that's all.

[swag]

21. Your post is incorrect.

Some editor of some sort places the top video and the top story on the front page. I'm not talking about the "greatest" page. I'm talking about the front page: http://www.democraticunderground.com

Look at that top video on the upper left. Look at that top post in the upper center. Those aren't posts with the most votes. Those are items that someone in charge of such things puts in those positions.

[scarletwoman]

33. What shows up on the front page changes several times a day.

Neither the current video or the top post are the same ones that were there earlier today.

If you are really concerned, you could write to the Admins about it.

sw

[swag]

48. Sometimes stuff stays for a couple days.

My point about a high proportion of Edwards stuff occupying the top slots, which are placed by an editor of sorts (possibly one or all of the admins), remains valid. There seems to have been a pro-Edwards bias on the homepage in these top slots (top video, top post) for a few months.

If I were concerned, I would contact the admins. But I'm sure the admins already know what's going on.

[NastyRiffraff]

6. I support Edwards, but I don't hate any (Dem) candidate

It's just that I prefer John Edwards, for several reasons. I don't know who your candidate is, but unless it's a Republican, I have no problem with him or her.

[kansasblue]

7. It does seem stronger: I think because of 2nd place in Iowa and.....

because Biden and Dodd supporters might be moving to Edwards.

Just a theory.

kb

[book_worm]

10. I think when it became clear that Gore wasn't going to run.

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. That was it for me. Gore was always my first choice and still is, if he were running.

[alittlelark]

12. When 70 or so percent of us saw HOPE in him.

He (and Richardson) are the only TRUE hope for 'We The People".

He takes no corporate lobbyist $$$, He built his fortune fighting big Corporations.

He appears to be the real deal.

[ellisonz]

31. "He built his fortune fighting big Corporations."

Well that, and hedge funds...

[Pastiche423]

60. But he only did it to learn about poverty!

Tues., May. 8, 2007

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty in the United States.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18557277/

And...


The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html

[Bluebear]

13. "I will not tell you who I am supporting/Stop hating on my candidate"

:silly:

[Ninga]

14. I happily will stand up for my fellow Edwardians. They do not drift into

other candidate threads to piss on them.

However, Edwardians will defend against any poster who attempts to start a war.


If you deem the support for John Edwards here at DU is HUGE....so be it.


We are many and we are proud to support John Edwards! :patriot:

:hi:

[cali]

43. oh yes they do.

Edwardians are every bit as nasty, as a group, as any other contingent of supporters.

[Ishoutandscream2]

56. Pot, meet kettle

Most Obama supporters are nice. You are the exception rather than the rule.

[Adelante]

46. Absolutely untrue

"They do not drift into other candidate threads to piss on them"

But to answer the OP, it's after two years of nonstop propaganda that buried Edwards' record and distorted his actions. And, as a very smart DUer said the other day, because Edwards decided to run on Kucinich's good progressive record rather than his own lousy one.

[onehandle]

15. Edwards has been winning polls here for a long time.

I cannot believe some people have not noticed.

[Lindsey]

23. For me, John Edwards has been my guy when it was evident that

Gore wasn't going to be running. He is almost everything I want in a candidate: Brilliant, solid health Care plan, addressing poverty issues, the courage to be completely honest about the corrupt corporations and that something must be done, I could go on and on. I'm going to be phone banking for him here in California for our primary on February 5! However, I like Obama too and could get very excited about him. All I can say is please God, not Hillary.

[wundermaus]

17. What the M$M reports to the general public is Propaganda...

And here in a democratic, public participation based forum, it may be surprising to discover the actual depth and extent of grassroots popular support for Edwards... Shocking isn't it? Citizen based, public generated, unregulated opinions, honest beliefs, and original ideas are vanishing attributes of our nation's reality. Edwards is being systematically ignored, marginalized, and drowned out by our corporate masters. I mean Edwards is in an epic battle to set our nation free from corporate domination... and they will do everything in there power to defeat him. What are we prepared to do?

"First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

[BeatleBoot]

18. Lots of Posters with less than 1,000 posts pushing Obama

That's for damn sure.

Some might even be Morans.



'Ya think?

[mb7588a]

19. since John Edwards became the REAL progressive in the race...

- Called for public funding of campaigns.
- Called for and passed a patients' bill of rights.
- Called for universal health care.
- Called for lobbying and ethics reform (2003)
- Called for an end to the war in Iraq only a few months after he takes office.
- Called for an end to corporate tyranny.

[Joe Fields]

54. Correction: the most progressive sounding candidate.

There is a huge difference. He has yet to distinguish himself. He talks real purty, says all the things we want to hear, but the fact of the matter, is that, when it counted, when he was in a position of authority he failed the American people on several fronts.

[hyphenate]

20. I haven't seen a whole lot

of Edwards outright support except since the Iowa caucus. Some of us have been too afraid to talk about our potential candidate before that because the anti-Hillary diatribes had been so prevalent. I have kept my own personal favorite pretty much to myself because of all the negativity that has been going on, and I think many other Edwards's supporters felt the same way.

Until Edwards drops out of the race completely, he is my candidate of choice, but I now won't hide my pleasure at seeing him take the #2 spot in Iowa. Some people have dismissed him, and I think Iowa opened the floodgates to allow his supporters to take a front row seat in these proceedings.

I have some nagging doubts about some of the candidates, but I am very much still an ABR (Anyone But a Republican) Democrat and will gladly support any of the Democrats who gets the nomination. On the other hand, there have been some things out of other candidates' mouths which give me doubt about their best intentions, and I have commented on a few things, but the depths to which some posters stoop in which to make nasty on other candidates is too much to ignore sometimes.

[Swamp Rat]

22. Dennis Kucinich #1

GEAUX KUCINICH!!!

:kick:

[red2blue]

24. I'M NOT PRO EDWARDS

I'm pro America! That why just sent another $250 to the EDWARDS campaign. I was going to send $200 but $50 bucks more won't break me :).

BTW my retired mom send another $100 today!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. Only if I never have to hear "hating on my candidate" ever again. (n/t)

[ClericJohnPreston]

26. EDWARDS MAKES THE CASE!!!!

against the devils that have stolen our Democracy and which fund the Bushco Klan, and, apparently, Obama as well: CORPORATIONS.

NEUTER CORPORATIONS NOW, or risk becoming a mere consumer unit.

They have no conscience. They have no sense of social purpose. They exist for profits. Currently, their political powers exceed REAL people.

These fictitious entities rule the political landscape, and have been since the Cold War and the beginning of the Military-Industrial-Complex.

It will take an epic battle and FDR-like correction to take away their death grip.
But, it can be done.

It requires a pugilist, a fighter, not a lets make nice Paliamentarian who accepts their cash.

John Edwards. The only choice of the informed liberal.

[Naturyl]

45. No, not the only choice. But a very good one. n/t

[Fading Captain]

27. When Edwards Identified the fight

which must be fought.

[tom_paine]

29. Because John Edawrds is the only one talking like a Roosevelt, either Franklin or Teddy.

Things are so far gone now, nothing less will do, IMO, if we wish to save something of Liberty and our democratic-republic for future generations.

Sens. Clinton and Obama seem unwilling to even think outside the box on this issue, and it is a box we desperately need to think outside of, before it becomes the coffin of the Old American Republic.

I also think Sens. Clinton and Obama are generally fine public servants who, in a strong and healthy Republic, would make fine Presidents.

But we DO NOT HAVE a strong and healthy Republic, not even close.

We cannot know whether Edwards will follow through on this, truly, unless and until he is elected. But considering he is the ONLY one speaking in Teddy or Frnaklin Rooseveltian terms, THAT is why he is so popular here at DU, where most people recognize our desperate need to just sort of smash through the side of the Bushicorporate False Reality Bubble, as it were.

As to others hating on your candidate, in any large group statistically during a heated primary season it is going to happen.

I would be lying if I said I was not occasionally a part of it. So much is at stake and to my mind, Sens. Clinton and Obama seem so unwilling to recognize it, that sometimes I get angry and do a little flame-spewing myself, though I try not to.

I hope this helps you with the answer you seek.

[ellisonz]

35. Teddy Roosevelt was also an imperialist.

War of 1898 is to the Iraq War: as TR is to John Edwards.

[tom_paine]

38. I am well aware. The analogy is not perfect. TR was a man of his times.

While that doesn't excuse him, it was not his Imperialist aspect I was likening Edawrds to, but his trust-busting and his reigning in of corporate excess.

You do make a good point, but then, FDR imprisoned the Japanese-Americans.

Hell, for that matter, Ben Franklin ran a whorehouse and Thomas Jefferson bedded his slaves.

No one is perfect.

I also believe that he will take aggressive steps to end the Iraq War, his flubbing of the "gotcha" 2013 question, notwithstanding.

I could be wrong, so could anybody be about any candidate they support. We won't know if/until they get into office.

But my point about TR was not referring to his imperialist side, and I feel pretty confident in saying that ALL our Democratic candidates are not Imperialists, except maybe Sen. Clinton and if she is, it is considerably milder that Bush Imperialism.

[ellisonz]

42. If that's what you think...

You'd have to concede that John Edwards is also very much a man of his times and not immune from further mistakes.

Honestly, I'm not sure he has the expierence and temperment to be truly effective as a foreign policy leader. He's become so used to using high amounts of rhetoric that the sticky situations of the 21st century might be problematic for him. There is often no clear solution, no black and white, no evil corporations and suppressed peoples.

I want a President who can not just rise to, but meet the world challenges that meet not just Americans, but the world as a whole.

I want a peacemaker.

[tom_paine]

50. Let me say at the outset that I do not wish a flame-war, but I must disagree.

Usually, a peacemaker is a good thing. But on rare occasions, a "peacemaker" is Neville Chaiberlain.

You don't make peace with Nazis, they will only laugh at Liberal Weakness. You FIGHT them.

And the Bushies ARE the modern version of the Nazis, albeit "kinder and gentler" for the moment. Bushies and Nazis go way back, to the original version, and Bushies tried to overthrow FDR and America in 1934, to further prove my point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

So, Obama wants to make nice with evil, domestically. Problem is, most of our foreign problems right now stem from the fact that America is led by deeply evil people, the Bushies and their followers, who for 20 or 30 years have used the science of lying, which is to say advertising, marketing, PR and psychology, to reprogram American to be more like the 1930s Germans. The Bushies have succeeded beyond our wildest nightmares and their wildest wet-dreams.

This is not hyperbole. My God, I wish it was. It is almost surreal, as we who were born in freedom have never faced this kind of a world. We were born in a world of nuance and shades of grey, so to speak.

The Bushies with their 1/0, yes/no way of looking at things, have made it a self-fufilling prophecy, as they project their evil onto others. As you well know, if you want to know what a Bushie is about, take note of what they accuse their victims of.

My point being that Obama has consistently shown that he wants to Neville Chaimberlain with the Bushies, and we KNOW they laugh and piss all over that, just like their spiritual forebears, the Nazis, did.

I have said before that Obama is a good man and would make a fine President, in a strong and healthy Republic. Whatever baggage Edwards brings to the table is almost irrelevant (and I disagree with your assertion that he meets problems with rhetoric almost) in the face of the fact that if we do not re-take America for the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, there's nothing left to negotiate but the Fall of Empire and how badly our victims will rend our flesh when we grow to weak to further tyrannize them.

One could have levied the same concerns about FDR in 1932 and they would have been just as valid. We need to take a chance here or lose everything, whether or not we get a brief respite of Bushie Vampriism before the final bloodsucking.

I don't want a peacemaker right now. I want a warrior.

[ellisonz]

57. Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

Besides, since we're doing WWII analogies, I'd rather Chamberlain them, than Stalin them!

Soviet propaganda and representatives went to great lengths to minimize the importance of the fact that they had opposed and fought against the Nazis in various ways for a decade prior to signing the Pact. However, the Party line never went as far as to take a pro-German stance; officially, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was worded as a non-aggression treaty, not a pact of alliance. Still, it is said that upon signing the pact, Molotov tried to reassure the Germans of his good intentions by commenting to journalists that "fascism is a matter of taste."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact#Deterioration_of_the_Pact

If only the U.S. had joined the League of Nations...

John Edwards will "fight the corporations" until it is no longer convenient to deploy the party line, and then it's back to imperialism and hedge funds. Your warrior is nothing but a fruitless exercise in political rhetoric that will produce no real result and only yield a 1 term presidency if we're lucky, given that he's easily lampooned as a rich liberal. Edwards Spanish Armada is easily fire-boated.

}(

[tom_paine]

69. Disingenuous comparison. Plus you're edging toward flamefest bullshit.

TWICE I have said that I believed Obama was a good man who would make a fine President.

We don't know what Edwards will do, we cannot know. That's the risk in electing any politician. Promises are easy to make, keeping them...not so much.

Second, I don't give a shit what the Bushies are going to lampoon him as, and if you think Sen. Obama won't be lampoooned and smeared by the Bushie Lie Machine, then you are quite naive.

"Harold...call me.

You don't wish to reciprocate my civility? Fine.

This conversation is over.

[Pastiche423]

61. Talk, talk, talk, talk,.

but NO action.

[Elidor]

30. Whoever you choose is fine by me.

I'm not out to sell anyone on anyone. Make your best choice and make the best of it. It's far too late for proselytizing. Almost everyone here has made their choice. Good luck to you and yours. It's almost time to *corny football analogy alert* send a runner up the middle.

No matter who we send, we'll come out on top. We're halfway there already.

[tammywammy]

32. Just earlier today

Someone posted to me that this was Obama central. :shrug:

It's all in perception, there are a lot of supporters of the different candidate here.

[WillyT]

34. Thursday, November 15th, 2007... Around Tea-Time !

:hi:

[bobthedrummer]

36. This website has shown a lot of support for Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards

a 1,010 recorded vote poll that began January 3 shows Edwards @ 53% and Kucinich second @ 18% (an October 26, 2007 poll that recorded 1,076 votes had Kucinich first and Edwards second-it is also in the link below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3936522

[aein]

37. Generally...

This site has an older liberal demographic. Young liberals support Obama. Old ones support Edwards. As a general rule.

Edwards Forum on this site = 3000 posts
Kucinich = 1200 posts
Obama = 1000 posts

[BenDavid]

39. One of the reasons could be that edwards has said he will

continue in the race till the convention. What this means is obama will have an attack dog to go after hrc as they proved that Saturday night.....

What amazes me is that most everyone in here rejected edwards run for president in 04 and went with another candidate. Then he teamed with kerry and should have won the election but did not. So now edwards comes back with that same song and dance he trotted out in 04 and it amazes me how those same folks that rejected him now find him oh so amazing......

BD

[KillCapitalism]

40. This is why I am pro-Edwards...

so far it seems he is the ONLY candidate that is truly concerned about poverty in America. This Bush economy keeps getting worse, and thousands more fall into poverty in America each day. Edwards is also right about there being two Americas.

[Tatiana]

41. I don't see it so much as pro-Edwards as "anti-establishment."

Obama and Kucinich have a fair number of supporters here as well.

[Naturyl]

44. DU is progressive. Edwards is progressive.

I'm not saying progressives can't support other candidates. But aside from Kucinich, nobody is going to bat for progressive values as frequently or consistently as Edwards is. Since many DUers are progressive, doesn't it make sense that Edwards has a lot of support?

[Catchawave]

53. Well stated. n/t

[devilgrrl]

49. "Stop hating on my candidate"

oh man... :eyes:

[krabigirl]

52. I supported Edwards in 2004 and now.

[Stop Cornyn]

55. It's pro-progressive. You will see support for Kucinich and Edwards here at greater levels than in

the general population.

[Snotcicles]

58. Edwards supporters are the least of the haters. IMO, stick around and watch nt

[Lilith Velkor]

59. When Ralph Nader endorsed him?

:hide:

As for candidate hate, if you want to avoid that, I suggest going to a a non-political message board.

[Jacobin]

62. When we decided we'd like to win the WH for a change?

[LittleClarkie]

63. I haven't seen nearly the hate from the Edwards supporters as I have from Hillary's and Obama's

They are the one's who've annoyed me the most.

[leeroysphitz]

64. Day before yesterday. NT

[blondeatlast]

65. Another hit and run from another low-post counter. Be kind and get back to this

thread before November, wouldja?! :eyes:

[ileus]

66. Class action suits filed by the Prez will make us all rich???

I don't know....first thing I could come up with. Maybe everyone want's 49 more West Virginias to go along with the one we have already have.

[Dukkha]

67. when did the site become so pro "progressive"?

The word is LI-BER-AL! using "progressive" panders to the enemy who are trying to steal Liberal and make it a dirty word.

But back to the OP topic I've also noticed a very disproportional amount of Edwards topics on the front page every day now and always an Edwards video on top. I've got nothing against the guy but it makes you wonder why, out of nowhere, he completely monopolizes the site's front page now.

[undercutter2006]

68. i agree

all three are acceptable

edwards is the best though