As much as I may like Edwards, he seems far less substantive than candidates I prefer, especially Gore and Clark.

i just want to see how Edwards distances himself from Kerry, in person, should they both happen to make it into the primary debates.

I liked Edwards in 04 and I like what he says, but I need more convincing as I have that underlining sense of doom.
The one man who I think would clean house and win big is Gore, but I am losing hope of him entering and I dont they draft anymore at the conventions, do they.
Pity

As I did in 2004, I am supporting Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich for president in 2008. Kucinich is a genuine progressive, a pacifist, a vegan, who expresses spiritual courage and honesty. He spoke out and led the Congressional opposition to Bush's long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq in the fall of 2002, and denounced Bush's lies about a nonexistent "threat" from nonexistent "Iraqi WMD" when it mattered, while other Democrats like John Kerry and John Edwards were engaging in craven political calculation, pandering to war hysteria, and voting to give Bush a blank check to attack Iraq.

If Al Gore decides to enter the race I will support Gore as well. I believe that Al Gore was in 2000, and is even more so today, the one individual most qualified to be the President of the United States at this unique time in history. As everyone knows he has long been a leader on the issue of global warming which is an existential threat to the human species; he was a genuine visionary regarding the transformative potential of the Internet back in the 1980s when many people had hardly heard of it; and overall, Gore just "gets it" regarding the key challenges facing the human species at this time in history.

I like Edwards. I honestly think he's a better candidate than Kerry, vastly better than H. Clinton, and probably on a par with Obama, who is himself probably more of the "it" candidate because he has so little baggage. I do think it would be very cool (as one of my daughters says) to have an African American president, but I do wonder about his electability. So Obama or Edwards, but still leaning more towards Edwards here.

In 2004, I was a loud and proud member of the Kerry camp. I've changed my mind. John Edwards should be our next President. Case closed!

I literally shouted for joy when I heard Edwards announce his candidacy. What a great source of material for conservative talk radio. We should have some hilarious moments in the upcoming year.

John Edwards is a bright, charming man, who was very good in his profession of plaintiffs' attorney.

He's utterly unqualified to by President. He has no accomplishments in his brief tenure in Congress. He has no experience in administering large groups of people. He has no experience in leadership. Kerry also lacks military leadership experience and foreign policy experience, both of which would be useful for leading the war on radical Islam.

George Bush's experience to be President was fairly light -- managing two businesses and governor of a state where the governor has limited power. But Edwards's experience is non-existent.

If Gore decides against entering the race (he most recently has said in an AP interview that he has no plans to run but has not "ruled it out", and people close to him say that he is not taking any of the early steps towards seeking support or organizing a campaign), I hope that whichever Democratic candidate wins the presidency in 2008 will appoint Gore to a cabinet position -- perhaps head of the EPA or Secretary of State -- if Gore would be willing to serve in such a capacity. He is a great man, a patriot, with a long career of dedicated public service, and has an enormous amount of talent and wisdom to offer the country.

one of the most often-heard criticisms of GWB's war is that he refused to ask anything of the American people besides shopping. here, edwards is clearly trying to build and promote community activism. His announcement reads as much as a call to volunteerism as it is to a call to support a candidate. From a presidential politics perspective though, will it work? When compared with a dynamic candidate who sounds like he wants to fix our problems for us through government, will Americans choose the one who says it's up to us? and act now?

John Hansen wrote: "What a great source of material for conservative talk radio."

So-called "conservative" talk radio is a toxic sewer from which ignorant, weak-minded, gullible neo-brownshirt idiots gobble turds of hatred.

But Edwards's experience is non-existent.

I have to agree with you ex-liberal. It takes more than a pretty face to be a good President.

Aeolus: As much as I may like Edwards, he seems far less substantive than candidates I prefer, especially Gore and Clark.

I like Edwards but prefer Gore and Clark.

On a more serious comment, I don't understand intelligent liberals falling for the class envy rhetoric of John Edwards.

Occasionally ( okay more than occasionally but not quite enough to be called often ) the Christian right will get duped by a hypocrite who pretends to be the moral savior of the country fighting against the tide of unprincipled athiests. When some reporter finds the goods on him and proves him to be a hypocrite, he usually quickly fades as a political force.

John Edwards is a multi-millionaire who has made his money by using junk science to claim malpractice and actually contributed to making it hard to practice obstetrics in his home state. He is a leech on society who uses the misfortune of others to pad his own pocketbook.

This is the man who is going to rescue the poor out of the clutches of the rich people who take advantage of them. This is the man who is going to reverse the staggering crisis of the "two Americas". Give me a break.

Personally, I'd have been on Al Sharpton's team if he'd tangled with Glenn Beck. Maybe he saves his fighting skills for other democrats . . . or maybe he's getting laid.

Gore is the only one I much trust anymore and if Carter can't get him in the race we're pretty much left with a bunch of needy posers struggling to be the first to utilize the latest internet meme.

You can leave me out of it for another 12 months, but by all means "Let the 2007 candidate love fests begin !!" [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Mr. Edwards is going to have to appeal to my desires for running the country. Advocating universal healthcare is something I can support, but there is something about the man that bothers me. I think it is his megalomania that drives his ambition to become president, not a desire or knowledge of how to fix our national problems.

Edwards has apologized for voting to give Bush war powers, but has he apologized for working as an investment banker? He should have been building homes for the victims of Katrina instead of making rich people richer. His press conference this morning from New Orleans was supposed to bring attention to the plight of the citizens there, but it makes me wonder where has he been the last fifteen months.

What a great source of material for conservative talk radio.

..as opposed to the current source of material for conservative talk radio: making shit up.

Not terribly excited about Edwards. Not much experience, and given the current occupant of the WH, I'm a little shy of another "empty vessel".

I think Kerry or Gore would be better presidents (Kerry has "no military leadership experience", ex-lib? WTF?), but i'm open to the electability argument. But if you're going to pick someone despite lack of experience, why not go with Obama? Really smart, likable guy.

Regarding the people who wouldn't vote for him "cause he's black" - Dems aren't likely to get that vote in any case. Screw em.

Dittohead John Hansen regurgitates the right-wing talk radio script:

I don't understand intelligent liberals falling for the class envy rhetoric of John Edwards.

Bullshit. Edwards' discourse has nothing whatever to do with "class envy". His description of an America profoundly divided by class is absolutely accurate, as the facts about growing economic disparity prove beyond doubt. Edwards is talking about fundamental fairness, not "class envy".

You are spouting scripted bullshit. Whatever bullshit Rush Limbaugh feeds you about any of the Democratic candidates, you will slavishly regurgitate like the mindless brownshirt you are.

John Edwards is a multi-millionaire who has made his money by using junk science to claim malpractice and actually contributed to making it hard to practice obstetrics in his home state.

That's a lie. Once again you are regurgitating Rush Limbaugh's lies, like the mental slave of right-wing extremist propaganda that you are. You have not one single fact to back up your false accusation that Edwards has used "junk science" in his legal work or that it has become "hard to practice obstetrics" in his home state, let alone that any such thing was caused by Edwards.

You are just one more brain-dead dittohead regurgitating Rush Limbaugh's vomit. And your obvious childish petulance over the Republican Party's historic losses in the last election -- the overwhelming rejection by the American people of your right-wing extremism -- does not make your already contemptible lying and bullshitting any more attractive.

Regarding John Edwards' foreign policy experience, on July 9, 2004, Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler wrote in The Washington Post:

"In the summer of 2001, when much of the Republican and Democratic policy community was obsessed with missile defense, Edwards urged more attention to terrorism. The North Carolina senator had such limited luck pitching an OpEd article on terrorism to major newspapers that the piece, warning of poor cooperation among federal and local law enforcement, ended up in the weekly Littleton Observer, circulation 2,230 -- four weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. ...

"Over the past three years, Edwards has scrambled to organize crash tutorials, roundtable discussions with foreign policy analysts at his Georgetown home, trips to hot spots abroad and meetings with foreign leaders to prepare for his presidential campaign, aides and advisers said. Democrats note that Edwards's foreign policy experience matches or exceeds the credentials of Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter when they were nominees.

"'He understood in the post-9/11 world his national security credentials would be challenged from the get-go,' (Richard) Holbrooke (U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration) said, adding that Edwards tried to avoid being pulled too far left during the primaries. 'He was very thoughtful in trying to find a balance in national security priorities and how to present them effectively' as former Vermont governor Howard Dean appeared to be running away with the nomination.

"To gain first-hand foreign experience, Edwards toured Israel and Egypt in 2001. As part of a tour to South and Central Asia, Edwards traveled to Afghanistan in 2002 shortly after the U.S.-led war to oust the ruling Taliban and destroy Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda camps. He also visited Britain and twice visited NATO headquarters, in 2002 and 2004. He has met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, campaign aides said.

"Edwards surprised participants in 2002 meetings with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and European foreign policy experts, said William Drozdiak, executive director of the Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund who helped organize the Brussels sessions.

"'He was hungry for some foreign policy exposure and experience,' Drozdiak said. 'I was fairly skeptical. I expected a lightweight, but I came away with a favorable impression. He asked a lot of smart questions and actually listened, which is not a noteworthy quality of the Bush people.'

"On key national security issues, Edwards has increasingly staked out a centrist and occasionally hawkish policy, making terrorism his top focus well before Sept. 11, 2001, and pressing for a global push on democracy before Bush made it a cornerstone of his Middle East policy. ...

"On Capitol Hill, Edwards won particular attention for his role in the Sept. 11 joint inquiry when he used his experience as a trial lawyer to press law enforcement officials to admit that their failure to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prevented them from issuing a warrant that could have gained access to information about two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and the Hamburg cell of al Qaeda that planned the attacks. He came off as a tough questioner who was occasionally hostile when he did not receive clear answers, congressional intelligence staff members said.

"In dealing with intelligence matters generally, Edwards brought a 'healthy level of skepticism' to the job, a congressional staff member said. 'What happens to new members is that they're like kids in a candy store. It's 007 whiz-bang stuff,' he added. 'But Edwards struck me as a member who's been in a lot of courtrooms and knows when he's being snowed. A lot of the members are lawyers but haven't seen the inside of courtrooms in decades and it shows. He asked tough questions.'"

And more ...

And that was more than two years ago. He has traveled, talked to leaders and otherwise studied issues since. It's time to put an intelligent person who cares about real issues in the White House

help restore America's moral leadership in the world.

When exactly was that? Just asking. Really.

Could the Dems please have the goal of winning the election this time? For Edwards to win the Repubs would have to run someone truly awful who has a comparable lack of experience. There are worse choices out there, such as John Kerry and Biden and Kucinich (running a "pacifist" candidate doesn't seem like a terribly good idea if the goal is to win the election). Even Hillary seems like a better choice for winning, in spite of the "anybody but Hillary" boost she'd give to the opponent, the same "endless political triangulation" weakness on the Iraq issue that John Kerry had, etc. etc.

Gore seems like a stronger choice than all of those. That's assuming he'd pick a better veep candidate than Lieberman, and be a stronger campaigner than he was before.

Clark would get my vote. He's one of the few I'd contribute to and campaign for. Even better, Clark/Obama. And give Gore a cabinet position if he'd take it. Create an "environment" position for him.

I can't believe people still care so much about about Edwards' substance. If the BushJr. experience taught us anything, it should be that modern politics is all about packaging. It's getting the right front man out there and hammering home some meaningless catchphrase like "compassionate conservative".

We've been basing every campaign on merit and seniority, and what do have to show for that?

Edwards/Obama would have a lot to offer, marketing-wise.

His speech has a lot of the right topics. New Orleans, Darfur, global warming, Iraq withdrawal.

His domestic policies need a little more work.

Although I like some of what he says, I will never vote for John Edwards.

First, he was namby pamby in his debate with Dick Cheney. I don't want someone with even the perception of weakness.

Second, he is a personal injury attorney who has used tactics, including mimicking the voice of a fetus, to win awards. Why would we choose someone from the least-like profession to be our standard bearer?

I think John Hansen's idea that Edwards is a millionaire and therefore can't possibly be serious about correcting the problems of class division based on wealth in America is a fine illustration, not of the problem with Edwards, but of projection by people like Hansen, who believe that no one can ever do anything but serve people situated exactly like themselves.

My heart's with you on Kucinich, Secular Animist, though my true political love is Russ Feingold.

But you're dead-on about Gore. I think he truly does not want to run for office again. I also think that a year from now, when Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, Vilsak, Richardson, Biden, Larry, Moe and Curly are all lying wounded on the field, their weaknesses exposed for all to see, Gore will enter the race out of pure duty and love of country.

I think he knows his failure to defend his victory in 2000 caused enormous damage to this country, and he needs to make amends.

If that sounds too sappy to you, then know you have succumbed to the Usurper's ultra-cynical belief system, in which people of genuine integrity must be either liars or figments of your imagination.

FWIW, I like Edwards. But honestly, can we keep our hands out of our pants until at least Jan 2008? These 2-year election campaigns are just maddening.

Edwards/Obama would have a lot to offer, marketing-wise.

Perhaps. My preference would be for Bill Clinton to grow a beard, change his name, and be president again for 8 more years.

John Hansen: 'class envy' is a rightwing slogan, as I'm sure you know. I'm doing well, and not envious of anyone.

But the maldistribution of America's wealth is a real problem in and of itself, and creates other problems in turn. If all the productivity gains of America in the past five years have gotten gobbled up by the richest 1%, what does it matter to the rest of us whether America's productivity is growing or not?

The Reagan-era rhetoric was that a rising (economic) tide lifted all boats. What's good enough for Ronnie is good enough for me: if it doesn't lift all boats (or at least most of them), it's not a rising tide.

If that sounds too sappy to you, then know you have succumbed to the Usurper's ultra-cynical belief system, in which people of genuine integrity must be either liars or figments of your imagination.

Know that you come across as a pompous ass when you say things like "then know that you have succumbed to ...".

Gore ran a poor campaign, and chose a veep candidate who was too willing to turn traitor to his party and concede in Florida. He's doing the right thing to make amends if he feels he needs to, by pushing issues such as global warming.

He's a better candidate than Hillary or (shudder) John Kerry, but that's not saying much.

I don't think Edwards can get past being seen as a lightweight and, alas, perception is all. Gore, or, if he won't run, Clark.

think Kerry or Gore would be better presidents (Kerry has "no military leadership experience", ex-lib? WTF?), but i'm open to the electability argument. But if you're going to pick someone despite lack of experience, why not go with Obama? Really smart, likable guy.

Obama seems smart and likable, so does Edwards. Obama hasn't taken as many substantive issue positions, which is a minus on the blank-slate criteria you suggested as a negative. Obama has no national campaign experience, which is a minus. OTOH, Edwards lost a national primary campaign and was part of a losing national general ticket, so that's arguably a minus, too.

Frankly, I don't see a lot of reason to want Obama to be President, so I don't see a reason to want him to be the nominee. Edwards I see more reason to think he'd be a good President. On electability (which I think is something of a trap, anyway), I don't see any reason to favor Obama.

Frankly, I'd rather see Clark (or Gore, I suppose, but its unlikely he'll run) as the President, and as the Democratic nominee. But Edwards isn't a bad choice. Obama has a nice feel, but the least evident substance of all the frequently-discussed candidates, so far.

Gore/Obama in 2008! If both run, Hillary is a distant second or even a third place finisher in the primaries; Edwards would likely wind up fourth.

Gore is easily best qualified, with a mix of experience and judgment no one else can match. Edwards gives a good speech, and has generally the right positions on the issues, but there is no particular reason to think he'd be an effective president. Edwards does have a good chance of being the not-Hillary candidate if both Gore and Obama stay out.

Gore ran a poor campaign, and chose a veep candidate who was too willing to turn traitor to his party and concede in Florida.

That's true, although a certain amount of that was a reaction to the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. While it certainly shows some bad campaign judgement, and can't avoid being a cause of some concern, I'd be hesitant to generalize too much from it.

I agree with the choir here.

Kucinich would be nice.
So would Feingold.

Obama and Hillary are both unelectable. Let's face facts here.

Edwards still needs some seasoning.
(unseasoned Bush was an unmitigated disaster - but I doubt any amount of seasoning would make that grisly rotting chunk of maggot-ridden flesh edible - I hope this nation vomits it soon, before we succumb to fatal food poisoning).

But Gore/Clark are the realistic choice.
Especially if Gore publicly, strongly rejects Lieberman. Lieberman was a toxic mistake, and Gore has a chance to distance himself.

I like Edwards. At least he's talking about the issues I'm interested in, and he's spent the last two years working on those issues.

As for his being a millionaire trial lawyer -- he got rich by getting even more money for people who were injured, mainly by big corporations, and I don't have any problem with that.

Extradite Rumsfeld wrote: Edwards still needs some seasoning. (unseasoned Bush was an unmitigated disaster ...)

The problem with George W. Bush is not that he was "unseasoned."

The problem with George W. Bush is that he was a career white collar criminal, and a front-man for a gang of career white collar criminals and war profiteers led by Dick Cheney, who seized power by stealing an election and from there embarked on an epic crime spree to loot the US treasury and enrich themselves and their ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in America's corporate ruling class, culminating in the execution of their long-planned war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq to seize control of that nation's oil.

The problem with Bush is not the incompetence, it's the totalitarian criminality.

I like Edwards. People here forget a couple of key things here:

1. Edwards was the candidate Bush feared the most. (And yeah, I know he's not running again.)

2. He had the best message last time - restoration of the middle class; the Tale of Two Cities and all (note how Hillary has now expropriated this one). Also the best line to his fellow White Southerners, "You've been voting Republican for 40 years. What do you have to show for it?"

Gore is not running. He never really wanted it, which is one underlying reason he ran such a dismal campaign in 2000. Get over it.

Clark definitely deserves another audition.

Clinton and Obama are not electable, which the majority of the rank-and-file Democrats well understand, in stark contrast to the Beltway Gasbags.

So Edwards belongs in the very top tier. And I think he will raise the necessary $50 million or so required to stay there.

cmdicely: ...projection by people like Hansen, who believe that no one can ever do anything but serve people situated exactly like themselves

exactly.

The problem with Bush is not the incompetence, it's the totalitarian criminality.

Well, personally, I'd have to say both are significant problems, and either alone is sufficient to make him a horrible President.

Edwards is smart and a pretty face, but doesn't have enough experience. What the heck has he been doing since November 2004?? The run in 04 was pure ego. One term in the Senate and you think you can be president? Obama is suffering from the same malady, writ larger. He's only got 2 years into one term. Sheesh. If Gore runs, he's da man. Been in the Senate plus Veep for 8 years. Hopefully has learned from the 2000 campaign, and since then has worked hard on an issue that is both important and about which he's passionate. I like and will support Hillary if she gets the nod, but I fear that too many people (virtually all republicans plus, even, many dems I know) absolutely HATE her -- for no reason I can understand. But they do, and dems should think hard about that.

Edwards would be a fine VP, but lacks the gravitas to be at the top of the ticket (I know, I know - look at Bush). I think Wes Clark and Al Gore are the best presidential candidates, but Gore seems to have lost the fire to run. God, would only Gore have run in 2004 and beaten Bush - talk about poetic justice.

I love Obama, but he needs some maturing. As VP, he would be fabulous and would set the stage for Democratic control of the White House for 16 years. Please , no Hillary. Although I like her and she is as smart and hard-workng as anyone, I cannot bear to hear one more word about Vince Foster, cattle futures, Rose law firm billing records and the multitude of other Clinton myths that the right-wing noise machine will trot out again.

Much as I have grown to admire Gore, I think his battle for ecological sanity is too important for him to take a demotion. As a Presidential candidate, he would be forced to take positions on every issue & respond to every day's news; either he would compromise his calling on the environment to "moderate" himself for the general election, or he'd be seen as a one-issue crusader with nothing else to contribute (a la Kucinich). In other words, he gives up either his integrity or his influence.

I really like the idea of Gore as a powerful leader outside of electoral politics who can serve as a conscience of the party on an issue that clearly terrifies most candidates. A Democratic administration would be wise to make him some sort of "czar" (why must we use that word???) on responding to the climate crisis.

As for Edwards and experience: the Executive branch has become so vast & complex that I don't think anyone can be considered expert enough to stay ahead of everyone on every issue. Edwards experience is in using smart questions to separate facts from bullshit; constructing a reasoned argument to support his own assertions; and framing his argument as a call to action that is clear to ordinary citizens as well as to interested elites. There's no better skills I can identify for being an effective President.

Put me down for 'voice for the future.'

But that doesn't necessarily mean 'president.'

If Obama needs seasoning - and I, too, think he still does - then VP is not appropriate either, since the VP really ought to be able to assume Presidential duties at any time. (Not to mention what does he really add in terms of strategic value - from a really Blue state; don't see him adding states, etc.)

The ironies about Al Gore are fascinating. Now that he's finally comfortable in his own skin (which he certainly was not until recently), he now sees in himself he doesn't really want to be President. (Not to mention he may be the one guy alive who, with minimum effort, could have the job if he wanted it.) I'm with Rah and think his statesmanship will serve him well for the next generation.

As for Edwards (again), anyone who (1) came from the working poor to become a rich man, a Senator and a VP nominee; (2) lost a teenage son, is by definition no lightweight. Incidentally, that was the rap on FDR in '32; "featherduster" was what he was called back then.

What the heck has he been doing since November 2004?

he's been working here and abroad, trying to find ways to ease poverty.

If Gore runs, he's da man.

think back to 2000: the media loves McCain and hates Gore. nothing has changed.

texas
california
Georgia
california
texas*
arkansas
texas

Anyone see a pattern here?
*or perhaps Tennessee

SecularAnimist,
Your rants are truly a unique form of political poetry. For a while, a few months or so back, you kind of got into a rut, with too much repetitiveness, but lately, you've been able to change-up your repertoire, and have delivered some truly inspiring psalms. I derive great pleasure from reading them. You should write a book.

On Hillary and unelectability:
No, it's probably not fair a lot of the things that have been said about her. But it's true that she is a lightning rod for hate - and it's possible that she even serves a very constructive purpose, by attracting that ire away from other prominent Democrats. Despite that - she persists on as an influential and inspiring Senator. If this is as far as she goes in politics, it's not a bad thing. Especially if some of the heat is taken off of other potential targets of the character-assassination squad of neo-mcarthyites out there.

I like Edwards as well. Mostly because he pushes a truly progressive line. He is smart, and his wife might be smarter yet. They could be a great team.

Presidents who were "lightweights" and still managed to do a good job? Kennedy, Truman, Lincoln - I am sure there are many more. Lincon was a lawyer, Truman a haberdasher and Democratic company man, while Kennedy was 12 years a Congressman and Senator and little else. I don't know if Edwards is a lightweight, but the things he has worked for the past 2 years are anything but lightweight.

His positions can be rightly described as antithetical to everything Grover Norquist stands for - and that alone is enough to recommend Edwards to the vast majority of this country. The concept of the "free market" as the be all and end all goal of this country must end. The free market is what has given us GWB, income inequality, a flagging middle class, a constantly decreasins (in real $'s) min wage, Donald Trump and Paris Hilton.

Just one thing alone tells the story - the min wage was $1.60 in 1968, when as a teenager I worked in a grocery store. In 2005 $'s, that is $9.12, vs $5.15 for the current min wage - a 43% decline purchasing power since Nixon became President. Does anyone here think that coincidence?

Edwards has the right policies, he has personal charisma, a talented and articulate spouse, and he is walking the walk by putting his time where his policies are.

Gore would be great - but he ain't runnin'.

Jake

You guys who are saying he's "unelectable" are way off, I think. Edwards has been working his ass off for the last four years, laying the groundwork for a very serious run at this thing. He's already got labor wrapped up, and, when you consider the building meme about corporate abuse of: government, the environment, etc., he's extraordinarily well-positioned.
Yeah, he's got a little bit of the loser-taint, but most of that is on Kerry.
Look how well he did in the last straw poll in Iowa. He thumped both Hillary and Obama. He even beat Vilsack, I believe. While I haven't made a decision yet, (although I would the millisecond Gore announced,) I like John Edwards a lot, and I'm telling y'all, from a pure horse-race point of view...Edwards is a-waitin' in the weeds. Misunderestimate him at your peril.

pdq I said Edwards lacked military leadership experience. I said nothing about Kerry.

FWIW my favorite Democratic candidate is Hillary. From what I've read, she was more-or-less a co-President with her husband, so she has excellent experience. She's very smart and disciplined. I disagree with many of her policy choices, but at least she's demonstrably competent.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Texans start wars, but don't finish them very well, if at all?

Democrats can only get Presidents elected if they are from the South?

Republicans can only get Presidents elected if they are from Texas or California?

The period between Texan Presidents is halving each cycle so that now the next President must be from Texas and, after that, more than one President must be elected from Texas for each President that actually takes office?

What pattern are you looking for?

Gore is the past, despite "An Inconvenient Truth"; get over it.

Edwards has a solid blend of progressive politics and southern appeal. An Edwards/Clark, Edwards/Richardson or even Edwards/Obama ticket would be tough to beat.

ex-liberal wrote:

He's utterly unqualified to by President. He has no accomplishments in his brief tenure in Congress. He has no experience in administering large groups of people. He has no experience in leadership. Kerry [sic] also lacks military leadership experience and foreign policy experience, both of which would be useful for leading the war on radical Islam.

I don't want to trigger a variant on Godwin's law, but Lincoln (a trial lawyer, who got rich both suing and defending railroads, and who spent only two years in the House and an equal amount of time in the State Legislature) did not have any such experience either.

By this standard, the last President who would have qualified would have been . . . Rutherford B. Hayes, who was a stiff. Unless you're willing to allow any satisfying any one of the five to be enough, in which case we get George Herbert Walker Bush, another stiff.

Edwards is not the perfect candidate. But he at least has a platform (unlike Clinton or Obama).

Where has John Edwards been since 2004?

He's helped set up and been the director of the Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html

I have a close friend in New Mexico, very politically astute and informed; a son of a former Assistant Attorney General. He absolutely despises Richardson, says he's totally corrupt, FWIW.

My favorite group are those who are now wanting Gore to run but who in 2000 voted for Nader. Especially those who were over 40 then (e.g., old enough to know better). What's with that?

Up thread, "ex-lib" left the letters m and i and s off the beginning of managing business's by Barbara's widdle boy. Arbusto, morphing into another morphing in Harkin were busts. The Ranger gig was a caretaking operation until the group could sell to a land developer and take the profits and run.

By no means, would we want a PLAINTIFF's, ugh dirty word, who represented the little person. Why a DEFENSE counsel, who only represented the corporations, and insurance companies is what we need - The corporations who caused the maiming, death, brain damage, diminished life expectancy and such, but represented by stellar DEFENSE wonders - By Golly, we need a Ken Starr to switch to our side - He'll care for the little guy - He'll care for the middle class.

Draft Ken Starr for 08.

And now, John Hansen, tell us more about the loss of three more GIs yesterday in Baghdad. Or doesn't that play well on conservative talk radio out in Salt Lake City?

Gore just "gets it" regarding the key challenges facing the human species at this time in history.

Posted by: SecularAnimist

I concur.

Did anyone happen to see 'Last Days on Earth' on the History Channel?

The final 30 minutes or so are an excellent treatment of catastrophic global climate change. Gore is featured and, boy, do they do a number on Faux News.

Extradite Rumsfeld wrote: "You should write a book."

Hmmm, would there be any money in that? I've thought about writing a screenplay for one of those crappy (but sometimes crappy in a good way) made-for-cable movies that the Sci-Fi Channel shows on Saturday nights.

Seriously, thanks for your kind words.

I'm looking for the candidate who will say, "It's the energy, stupid." Dem or Republican. So many things are tied to our oil appetite, and so many things could be done differently if we had some independence. That should be up there at the top of the platform for whoever takes the prize.

MsNThrope wrote: Did anyone happen to see 'Last Days on Earth' on the History Channel? The final 30 minutes or so are an excellent treatment of catastrophic global climate change. Gore is featured and, boy, do they do a number on Faux News.

I did see it and I agree that it was very good. I recommend it highly to anyone who hasn't seen it.

The thing about Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth is, unfortunately, it is already out of date. Things are much worse now than what he described when the film was produced. The actual observed changes in the Earth's climate system are without exception more extreme and rapid than predicted. It is increasingly hard to support the assertions of Gore and NASA scientist James Hansen that we have as long as a decade to substantially reduce CO2 emissions and avert a global catastrophe, and increasingly likely that James Lovelock's much more pessimistic view, that it is already too late, will prove correct.

And meanwhile, global CO2 emissions have not only increased over the last few years, but are accelerating. It is hard to imagine a realistic, non-catastrophic scenario in which that growth will be reversed and emissions will begin decreasing within ten years.

My favorite group are those who are now wanting Gore to run but who in 2000 voted for Nader. ... What's with that?
Posted by: MaxGowan on December 28, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I wasn't necessarily voting for Nader.

I was voting AGAINST Lieberman (ie. AIPAC influence, ie. the US being Israel's puppet regime).

Well, Extradite Rumsfeld, then what lever did you pull in 2000? And how old are you?

I'm a lawyer and wanted to like Edwards as a candidate, but I never could warm up to him as a vice presidential or a presidential candidate. He seemed too faked; his speech too canned; his substance too missing. I don't know how he won so many jury trials, but this is one jury member he hasn't convinced.

Where has John Edwards been since 2004?

From Business Week:

OCTOBER 13, 2005

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Emily Thornton

John Edwards Hits the Street
The 2004 Democratic candidate for Vice-President joins Fortress Investment Group, where he will serve as a part-time global dealmaker.

Wall Street has long provided a soft landing for out-of-work pols. But increasingly, the revolving door leads to private investment firms. The Street's latest recruit: John Edwards, the ex-North Carolina senator and Vice-Presidential standard bearer for the Democratic Party in the 2004 elections.

Well, Extradite Rumsfeld, then what lever did you pull in 2000? And how old are you?
Posted by: MaxGowan on December 28, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I was 33. I pulled Nader's lever.

Being that I'm a Californian, it didn't really make any difference. Now, had I been a Floridian. . .

BTW: I gave McCain $2000. (which was returned, because his campaign ended 3 days later).

I didn't want Lieberman in there - but I REALLY didn't want Bush in there either. I had followed his career since his campaign's sliming of Ann Richards. As we've all learned in the past 6 years, George W Bush is not a very nice person.

You can imagine how horrified I was to learn of Bush's VP pick! And then the fucker had the balls to appoint Poindexter of all people, to a Pentagon post. I can't imagine why anyone would vote for these bastards, but I guess it goes back to Ford pardoning Nixon. The Cabal did a good job of keeping things nice and tidy. They came close to losing it all - and Ford put it back in the bag for them.

Extradite Rumsfeld: Being from somewhere other than a swing Year 2000 state (which not only includes Florida but also New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio and others) is no excuse, although in your case, being under 40 is exculpatory; you weren't old enough to see what the left did to Humphrey in '68, giving us Nixon. I don't want to harp on this one, but claiming to be in a "safe" state is part of the whole Nader narcissism trip. "I'm ABOVE politics" drivel. But you're obviously not part of the left anyway. But if you didn't want Bush, there was only one choice. Incidentally, Gore's comments on the the Middle East during his '88 run are enough to curl your hair.

OK.
I prefer Edwards, Clark and Gore, in no particular order. Gore isn't going to run, and Edwards is in early and taking the positions I Prefer. We'll see how he handles the "money primary" before the voter's primaries. That's going to be critical, and I have no doubt that he is quite aware of that. Clark hasn't yet come out of the gate, so we'll see.

Obama hasn't been on the national scene long enough, and I don't think he actually has any obvious core convictions that I could vote for. I think he is flashing early but will fade in the stretch. But Presidential candidates need to be around a national campaign before they take one on themselves.

Hillary has too many negatives against her. In many ways she reminds me of post-Chapaquidic Ted Kennedy. Attractive as a Presidential candidate, but with a heavy ball chained to her leg. She also hasn't offered me much in the way of postitions that I support. Right now, I'd work against her in the Democratic Primaries, but if she got the nomination I would certainly support her 100%. However, she has been on the national scene a long time. She may decide to take the long-term Senator position as Ted Kennedy has, or she may have a set of real surprises sitting in her most secret location waiting for the correct time to unleash them, both for the Primaries and for the election.

Obama and Hillary seem to me to be our least electable candidates, but I don't see anyone on the Republican side who can match up to them individually.

I think there is a good chance that the Republicans are going to be torn apart by the Social Republicans because of their magical thinking (ignore the polls - God wants our man elected) and the financial conservatives who are going to be trying to distance themselves from Bush and cringing at any mention of Schiavo, Iraq and Katrina. But their big money guys like Scaife, Coors, and Bob Perry will be throwing money at every possible candidate and every possible scheme like the robo-calls when it comes to the general election.

I think John Hansen's idea that Edwards is a millionaire and therefore can't possibly be serious about correcting the problems of class division based on wealth in America is a fine illustration, not of the problem with Edwards, but of projection by people like Hansen, who believe that no one can ever do anything but serve people situated exactly like themselves.

Christopher,

I hardly believe that "...no one can ever do anything but serve people situated exactly like themselves..." or I would be in the liberal camp that seems to support ideas like - only a black man can speak for blacks - only a woman can speak for women etc. This type of rhetoric seems to mostly emanate from the left side of the spectrum.

Its just that I thought the class envy message had died. Aren't most people smart enough to see through this divide America strategy. You can argue about tax rates, how to fund health care, how to best finance Social Security, but the best way to do it is to not have a war of us against thems.

What I do not like about Edwards' two Americas message is he seems to simplistically posit rich=evil and poor=good but downtrodden. He himself is on the rich side, by his logic why is he not part of the evil class.

I would much prefer intelligent talk about how to generate wealth and find a self-sustaining way of making the distribution of that wealth fair. ( Not equal, fair ). But to place the blame for America's woes on the hard working ones who sometimes are responsible for generating that wealth in the first place is a misguided message that only seeks to use covetousness to gain political advantage. Let's put that kind of message in the dumpster where it belongs and discuss the breakdown between private/public investment in a sane and rational manner.

Max -
You're not the first to scold me about my 2000 vote, and you won't be the last.

My particular lifelong bailywick has been the kneejerk US support for Israel (and KSA) in the Middle East, and our brain-dead pursuit of sustaining this unsustainable petroleum-based economy.

I don't hate Jews, and I don't want to see Israel destroyed. I just feel that if the US weren't such a pushover for the zionists, Israel would be forced to be a better neighbor over there, and this self-sustaining conflict would resolve itself.

I think that almost all of America's problems stem from this poisonous relationship with petroleum, and energy-market manipulation, and getting us out of our pathological middle-east involvement would fix a lot of broken things here. People like Lieberman, Bush, and even Gore, at times, are part of the problem. Gore has convinced me in recent years that he "gets it" now.

"George Bush's experience to be President was fairly light -- managing two businesses and governor of a state where the governor has limited power. But Edwards's experience is non-existent."
Posted by: ex-liberal on December 28, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Bush was a disaster in everything he'd ever done and he's continuing that pattern as Pres.

Gore, Edwards, Obama and several other Dems have been very successful throughout life -- sounds like they're winners we can happily choose from.

Edwards has personal qualities like intelligence and character and morality which Bush lacks. Same for Gore, Obama and some others.

Pres. Candidates:
Gore
Edwards
Obama
Feingold
Clark
Kucinich
H. Clinton

Gore/Edwards sounds great.
Gore/Feingold is great.
Gore/Obama sounds good.
Edwards/Obama sounds good, very young 'n energetic
Obama/Feingold seems too upper-Midwesty-liberal
Feingold/Obama ditto
Feingold/Clark is okay, but not inspiring.
Kucinich isn't telegenic and creeps me out.
H. Clinton is creepy and too conservative.

>>you weren't old enough to see what the left did to Humphrey in '68, giving us Nixon.

Whereas I campaigned for HHH in '68, although I could not yet vote.

More Tom Lehrer:

'Once a fiery liberal spirit
Now when he speaks he must clear it.'

Ditto Head says that he would prefer intelligent talk -

Then, why did you type such a stupid comment about his work as a trial lawyer. "Junk science" - Oh yeah, plaintiff's are not supposed to win in Deseret land. Only the "right" prevail.

Anyone who'd vote for Edwards would probably vote for Obama instead.

Obama/Clark would probably be the Democrats' best bet

I liked Edwards in the 2004 primaries and could not really understand what happened to all his skills after he became Kerry's running mate. I guess they told him to tone down the two Americas rhetoric. I do not think he is a lightweight and I do not think he is a phony-- it is not as if his success as a trial lawyer was against unrepresented defendants. If you don't like lawyers thats fine, but the folks who make millions at it are very smart, very hardworking and tough as nails. That does not mean they do not care for their clients or perhaps just have the better case. I think Edwards has the right case as opposed to the rest of the expected field who either do not have the right case--Kerry, Hillary- or who don't seem to have a case at all--Obama.The bottom line is I am almost certain to vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination and while I, like others, would like to get another chance to vote for Gore, as matters stand, Edwards is my preferred candidate.

Edwards certainly is trying to take advantage of bloggers this time around. His campaign has invited Nevada bloggers to a private Q and A before his Reno , Nevada town hall tomorrow night. He is not meeting with the regular media until after the event. Of course our new stature as a caucus state helps secure these kinds of invitations too.

John Hansen

ts just that I thought the class envy message had died. Aren't most people smart enough to see through this divide America strategy. You can argue about tax rates, how to fund health care, how to best finance Social Security, but the best way to do it is to not have a war of us against thems.

What I do not like about Edwards' two Americas message is he seems to simplistically posit rich=evil and poor=good but downtrodden. He himself is on the rich side, by his logic why is he not part of the evil class.John, your "class envy" line is designed to attribute those negative and useless feelings to your opponents so that you do not have to discuss the serious issues about Bush's tax cuts.

Bush claims that the tax cuts going to the most wealthy (and half went to the top 20%, while a sizeable portion of that half went to the top 1% who now own close to 50% of the wealth of the economy) has kept the economy from tanking and has kept employment up. But that isn't true. What has kept the employment us is the very heavy military spending which is financed by loans from China.

Meanwhile, most of the extra tax money rebated to the wealthy has gone into investments and job creation where the highest return can be make -- overseas. A lot of those tax cuts have wound up in China and India, along with the high-paying jobs that were outsourced.

In the meantime the employment market has gotten a lot more uncertain. What that means is that a middle class worker can no longer borrow money for a house, car or business based on his current income and be sure he can pay it back because periods of unemployment for the middle class are a lot more frequent and last longer than they used to. Oh, and education is being financed by student loans. I paid for my college as I went along, because I went to state colleges. That is no longer possible, so when you get out of college your first payment is for the ten or more years of college loans. My physician mentioned that he graduated with 30 years of student loans to pay back. For this we are failing to tax the most wealthy in hopes they will invest and improve our economy -- yet we have no way of forcing them to invest in the U.S.?

It's not class envy. "Class envy" is just a "shut-up I don't want to talk about it." line used by conservatives to avoid discussing the facts that the tax policy in this nation is designed to create an aristocracy instead of maintaining the wealth, productive middle class nation we have had for two humdred years.

I might add that if you want to see how well those tax policies work, look at latin America. 10% very wealthy and the rest in poverty. No middle class, and no way to grow one because the 10% aristocracy really likes it that way and won't change.

If you want a powerful, wealthy America you will support the return of a graduated income tax with investment income carrying as much tax as income from work.

Its just that I thought the class envy message had died.

If it was just about the supposed "class envy" message, your pointing to John Edwards' personal traits, and your "this is the man who will...?" would have been excluded.

Aren't most people smart enough to see through this divide America strategy.

Edwards' message isn't about dividing America, its about addressing a division which actually and manifestly exists already in America.

You can argue about tax rates, how to fund health care, how to best finance Social Security, but the best way to do it is to not have a war of us against thems.

So? Edwards does not propose a "war of us against thems".

What I do not like about Edwards' two Americas message is he seems to simplistically posit rich=evil and poor=good but downtrodden.

Please show any statement or combination of statements of Edwards from which this is a justifiable inference.

He himself is on the rich side, by his logic why is he not part of the evil class.

In the absence of the evidence I have requested above, I will suggest that the error is that you have misattributed "logic" to him that comes from boogeymen constructed by the right-wing, not from Edwards at all.

I would much prefer intelligent talk about how to generate wealth and find a self-sustaining way of making the distribution of that wealth fair.

America has no problem generating wealth. How exactly is Edwards talk not "intelligent" talk about making the distribution more fair?

But to place the blame for America's woes on the hard working ones who sometimes are responsible for generating that wealth in the first place is a misguided message that only seeks to use covetousness to gain political advantage.

You seem to equate the wealthy with the "hardworking ones", an equation just as false as the one you (falsely, AFAICT) impute to Edwards of the wealthy with evil.

Let's put that kind of message in the dumpster where it belongs and discuss the breakdown between private/public investment in a sane and rational manner.

When you want to make sane and rational points about that issue, either rebutting Edwards arguments or initiating your own, we're here.

Strangely, I don't see much of that, though, though I do see you making the same kind of false broadbrush generalities you berate Edwards for supposedly making.

The second paragraph in the message right above should also have been part of the italicized quote. Sorry.

i like that he opposed the "mcCain escalation" in his announcement.

John Hansen wrote: Its just that I thought the class envy message had died. Aren't most people smart enough to see through this divide America strategy.

John Edwards is not offering any "class envy message". That's a lie.

Nor is he offering a "divide America strategy". That's another lie.

What do you have to offer, other than regurgitated Rush Limbaugh lies?

The fact is, that when John Edwards speaks of "two Americas" he is absolutely correct. America is, in fact, afflicted with a significant class divide, between the ultra-rich and everyone else.

The people who are dividing America and waging class warfare are the ultra-rich -- a.k.a. "the top one percent", a.k.a. "Bush's base" -- and they have been very successful at it. Since the Reagan era, continuing to a lesser extent through the eight years of the Clinton administration, and accelerating during the present Bush administration, America's ultra-rich ruling class has succeeded in consolidating ever more wealth and power in their already wealthy and powerful hands.

And all the while they pay their lying shills like Rush Limbaugh to brainwash weak-minded, ignorant dupes into believing that people like John Edwards, who are genuinely concerned about the well-being of America's middle class, working class, and poor, are the ones waging "class warfare."

I think Edwards is a strong candidate, and I would have no problem supporting him if that's what I end up deciding to do when it's time to become the Decider come election time.

Edwards looks good. He's a self-made man who did not have everything handed to him. He has excelled in his profession.

Quite a contrast GWB.

MarkH: Bush was a disaster in everything he'd ever done

Not so. As Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers, he made a fortune for himself and for his partners.

As a graduate student, he earned a prestigeous Harvard MBA, as compared to Al Gore who failed to finish graduate degrees in journalism and in theology.

In the military, he was approved to pilot a difficult jet fighter plane.

As a candidate for Texas Governor, he beat Ann Richards, a strong incumbant.

He was a good Governor of Texas according to most reports.

Henry: By this standard, the last President who would have qualified would have been . . . Rutherford B. Hayes, who was a stiff.

Eisenhower met the standards I laid out. Reagan met most of them, since the job of California Governor involves managing so many people. Richard Nixon (ugh) was well-qualified (except for being moral imbecile) from having served in the military and been VP, as was Al Gore. Papa Bush had the experience of heading the CIA as well as 8 years of VP.

thethirdpaul: By no means, would we want a PLAINTIFF's, ugh dirty word, who represented the little person.

Sorry, but my view is that Edwards was highly skilled at persuading a jury to give enormous awards, regardless of the merit of the case. In particular, Edwards was a master at "bad baby" cases. These cases involved a child with birth defects due to unknown causes. Edwards was skilled at getting big awards from obstetricians and hospitals, even without true scientific evidence that they caused the birth defect.

That's a valuable skill to have. It made Edwards very rich. But, I don't see that it carries over to being a great President.

"strengthen our middle class and end poverty," _ Edwards

Haven't the Democrats been trying to do this for over fifty years? So far so good.

"guarantee universal health care for every American," - Edwards

Hey, with control of both Houses, I want, and expect full coverage next year.

and "get America and other countries off our addiction to oil." - Edwards

Yea, tell those other countries to stay away from our addiction.

ex-liberal licks Bush's boots:

As Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers, he made a fortune for himself and for his partners.

Bush did no such thing. He used other people's money to buy into the Texas Rangers, then reaped a huge profit when the Texas government seized other people's private property through eminent domain and gave it to the Texas Rangers to build a stadium. The Rangers owners' then sold off a big chunk of that land to developers. That's how Bush became a millionaire: using the power of the state to seize other people's property and give it to him.

As a graduate student, he earned a prestigeous Harvard MBA

By all accounts of his teachers and fellow students, Bush was at best a mediocre student who got through school based on his family influence.

In the military, he was approved to pilot a difficult jet fighter plane.

Bush used his family connections to get out of going to Vietnam and get a position in the Texas Air National Guard which he was not qualified for. He was grounded because he refused to take his required medical exam as soon as it required a drug test. He then went AWOL, deserted his position and failed to even report for duty for months, and lied about this in his autobiography. He got away with it, again, because of his family connections.

As a candidate for Texas Governor, he beat Ann Richards, a strong incumbant.

By lying.

He was a good Governor of Texas according to most reports.

He was a miserable failure as Governor of Texas, which is not much more than a ceremonial position anyway. He claimed credit for the work that Ann Richards did to improve education in Texas. Bush's own tenure was mainly marked by his corruption and cronyism.

You have done nothing more than provide a litany of Bush's corruption, failures, reliance on his family connections, and his abuse of state power to steal from other people to enrich himself.

Bush is, and has always been, a criminal. And you are a bootlicker of criminals.

"....that people like John Edwards, who are genuinely concerned about the well-being of America's middle class, working class, and poor, are the ones waging "class warfare." - Secular

You do know that Edwards is a trial lawyer, right?

T-R-I-A-L L-A-W-Y-E-R

Rob Peter, Pay Paul
Cares about Paul, Screw Peter.

Peter being those middle class Americans who pay their insurance bills.

In the absence of regulation, the only remedy in a free society is private suit. Trial lawyers are the defenders of classical liberalism (i.e. libertarianism). If you harm someone, you pay.

"He was a miserable failure as Governor of Texas, which is not much more than a ceremonial position anyway." - Secular

I didn't realize being the Governor of the second largest state in the union was a "ceremonial" position. Who would've thunk it?

Jay, you are pathetic. You just got your ass handed to you on the thread about Ford's comments on Iraq, because you didn't have a clue what you were talking about.

Now you are here and the best you can do is "Trial lawyer! Trial lawyer! Nyah Nyah Nyah!"

There are dittoheads, and then there are people who are such dumbasses that they can't even rise to the level of dittoheads. That's you.

Maybe there's a special "Rush Limbaugh for Dummies" edition for you.

Who would've thunk it?

Pretty much everyone with any political savvy. The Lt. Governor in Texas is the powerful position. Governor is a ceremonial figurehead.

"In the absence of regulation,...." - Jimm

Where on earth is their absence of regulation? I can't even drive my car without big brother mandating that I wear my seat belt.

In the absence of regulation, give me a break.

I can't even drive my car without big brother mandating that I wear my seat belt.

You know there is a point in there - if we kept an eye on corporations like Merck and Vulcan Chemical and the like - as closeley as we watch individuals, there would be a lot less call for those T-R-I-A-L L-A-W-Y-E-Rs you so despise.

"You just got your ass handed to you on the thread about Ford's comments...." - Secular

You were the one trying to tell me that the Shah was a puppet regime put into power in Iran by America in the 1950's, right? Despite the obvious facts to the contrary, and you're calling that a victory?

"The Lt. Governor in Texas is the powerful position. Governor is a ceremonial figurehead." - GC

Ann Richards might disagree with you.

You guys just pull shit out of your ass don't you.

Ann Richards joled about it on a regular basis. Care to try again?

Jay wrote: I didn't realize being the Governor of the second largest state in the union was a "ceremonial" position. Who would've thunk it?

Anyone who paid attention during the 2000 presidential campaign to anything other than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

The governorship of Texas is probably the least powerful governorship of any state in the country. That happens to be the way the Texas constitution has set things up.

As governor, Bush used what little power he had to steer lucrative state contracts to his cronies and financial backers -- exactly what he has done on a much larger scale during his entire presidency. He is a career corporate criminal, masquerading as a "conservative" politician to dupe the gullible.

Wh