I'm having a hard time getting behind any candidate. Not because i'm not pleased with the Democratic field. I mean, my god... check out the Republicans.

It's just that we don't seem to have an impact here in Oregon on the presidential primary process. In 2004, i was totally inspired by Howard Dean and "gave till it hurt." In 2000, i was all behind Bradley. And then came Oregon's primaries. Done deal. No bother to vote. "My" candidates had already dropped out.

I have a hard time getting behind any candidate that voted for the war let alone was inside on the intelligence committee where they knew the info was being fixed and yet still wrote and co-sponsored the IWR.

I'm so sick of hearing about who voted for the war resolution and using that as a litmus test. You act like you don't know or remember what really happened or what was actually said.

Just two examples

link For those that repeatedly claim Kerry voted for the war, how about checking your rhetoric at the door and look at the facts rather than the Republican talking points. Bush alone took the country to war and is responsible for the current mess. Did Kerry manipulate CIA intelligence? Did Kerry lie to the American people in a state of the union address? Did Kerry exaggerate WMD claims and invoke images of a nuclear holocaust to press the case for war. No. No. No. In fact if you read what Kerry said on the Senate floor during the vote he clearly warned the President against rushing to war when there were other options to try first. Yes you have to protect America, but clearly pursuing a war of choice with Iraq based on deliberate false claims is an impeachable offense rather than smart foreign policy. -IFK Editor MORE...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

CLINTON FLOOR SPEECH:

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. MORE

Please go back and read the entirety of the floor speeches.

I love Edwards, too. I am wondering about his organization, though. He is the only top tier Dem candidate who has not hit me up for dollars.

The war vote IS a litmus test for me. According to the constitution only the legislative branch can take us to war. The war is ultimately their resposibility. There was enough evidence available at the time to convince many of us that Bush and the neocons were lying us into a war. People in congress should have had better access to information than we did. Those who voted to give Bush the power to make war were irresponsible and incompetent. I won't vote for one of them to be our next president.

Edwards does possess the necessary leadership skills I am looking for in a President. If he did, he never would have voted for the IWR and the patriot act. I want someone with proven leadership skills, not a follower and that was what Edwards was in the Senate.

"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually standup when no one else is standing." Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power

To bad Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, isn't running.

As other people have stated, with Oregon at the ass end of the primaries, its kind of hard to get excited about any of the candidates.

Full discloser. I was an active Clark supporter last time and hope he throws his hat into the ring as he is the most qualified leader with the most experience. He was also against the Iraq invasion from the start and has been working with both houses on National security issues and helping get Dems elected (he was the most requested surrogate speaker for house candidates this last election).

He is also trying to stop this murderous bunch from starting a war with Iran.

"Its about changing minds before its about killing people." Wes Clark

Edit the above to read; Edwards does NOT possess the necessary leadership skills I am looking for in a President.

I like John Edwards, too, but if he wants his campaign to be successful, he'd better take some testosterone shots or learn to be more forceful in his public speaking. His performance in last week's debate was pathetic.

Yes, John Edwards is a nice guy, but you know what they say about 'nice guys' in contests.

Please tell me why I should support a candidate who had the personal judgement and foresight to vote for the war, vote for the Patriot Act, get $400 haircuts twice, go to beauty spas in Iowa for $200 a pop (multiple times), and owns a $10 million dollar home? hmmmm?

Interesting post, Kari. As an independent, R-leaning voter I actually think Edwards has the best chance of any of the Democrats for winning in the general election. I think an Edwards-Richardson ticket would be serious trouble for the Republicans.

I posted my analysis of the debate on my own blog. Phil Jones, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment that Edwards' performance was "pathetic". Granted, I viewed the debate not as a Democratic partisan but rather as an open-minded independent voter with no particular reason to support a Democratic candidate. However, I thought his low-key, moderate performance was quite appealing.

"People in congress should have had better access to information than we did."

Karl Smiley I have a question about this. Did the Congress have better access or did they receive the same snow job stuff the American people received? I'm pretty sure it has come out since the drum up to war that members of Congress were given more access to documents than the American people and they painted a much bleaker and frightening picture that Iraq may actually be hiding WMDs. I'm not saying the war was justified or that I was for it. I'm just playing devils advocate.

I know it is easy to look back and see how wrong this was now but come on. At the time I believe something around 70% of Americans were for this war. They believed a lot of the facts cooked up by the administration to get us into this war. I for one wasn't for the war but I surely didn't think Saddam had given up everything to the inspectors. I refuse to take someone's name off the plate simply because they authorized the use of force at a time when something like 70-80% of the American public wanted this resolution because the administration cooked up a bunch of facts about Al Qaida meeting with Iraqi officials. They gave the same stuff to the Congress. It was years after that the information came out that the info they were receiving was coming from sources that consistently gave us bad intel.

I don't know why anyone would take someone like John Edwards off the table. He's a good man and would make a fine President if he is our nominee regardless of the fact that he suffered from the same eye glaze that 70-80% of Americans also suffered in the run up to the Iraq war.

Garrett,

Congress had the sole responsibility to take us into war or not. They all have staffs which can search for information for them. They ignored the UN inspecters and guys like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.... and they ignored common sense. Why would Saddam "cook something up" with AlQaida? They were one of the biggest theats to his secular rule... and, if Saddam really had WMDs do you seriously believe that the Bush administration would have attacked them?

He's a good guy...a good guy, affable and decent.

You describe someone who would make a great fishing or drinking buddy.

Unfortunately those traits aren’t what make a good president. Edward’s showed his lack of stones and poor decision-making when he eagerly followed the Congressional lemmings as they took us over the cliff into Iraq. I also remember his poor performance against Cheney in the vice-presidental debates where he looked like a decided political lightweight.

He now whines about being misled by that cunning, diabolical mastermind George Bush. If that’s an example of his streetsmarts and ability to interpret data then I hate to think how Putin, Ahmedinajad, or some other cutthroat world leader would use Edwards if he were in the Oval Office.

Garrett's comment about the context of the Iraq War Resolution is spot on!

That vote is a story about how well did lawmakers stand up to the political pressure to go to war.

Like Karl says, there were a lot of good reasons for anyone with a tiny knowledge of Middle East dynamics and thimble full of skepticism to know that the Bush administration's case for why the United States should invade and occupy Iraq was a whole lot of hooey.

But more than 70% of distracted Americans wanted revenge for 9/11, and Cheney, uh, I mean Bush, exploited that by making up a fake case against the neocon's favorite "democracy" labratory, Iraq.

Remember this one: "You're either with us or aganist us"? People were buying that crap.

I had a "letter" published in the local paper questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq, and I got a call at 6 a.m. from a guy who just wanted to let me know that I was an idiot and "he knew where I lived."

That context is important. Because that's the environment G.W. and crew created before getting Congress' "permission" to go to war. Edwards failed to stand up to that pressure, as did Hillary and the others who actually had to face that pressure. (Obama wasn't even in the room at the time so we'll never know for sure how he would have voted in the same circumstances).

I believe Edwards is sincerely sorry that he did not stand up to the political pressure to go to war. And one can hope he's learned the lesson that sometimes leadership requires NOT giving the people what they want.

But Hillary's "if I'd known then what I know now" is dishonest and inexcusable. Why didn't she know then what she knows now? And her recent comments about terrorist attacks requiring "swift" and "immediate retaliations" show she's learned little about measured and intelligent use of force against extremist losers. It's the difference between lashing out wildly for revenge, exploiting tragedy for your own nefarious or naive purposes, or doing what's necessary to protect the country.

We've all learned lessons the hard way. Unlike our current Commander-in-Chief, John Edwards seems to be an intelligent, thoughtful man who has learned some hard lessons from life. Surprise, he's a human being. But he's a pretty darn good one and he's getting better all the time.

Dismissing him for his War Resolution vote seems short-sighted and vengeful.

Karl, You bring up good points but I still don't think that the Bush administration gave Congress factual data. I think that in the rush to make a case for war they used bad intel and didn't do much checking as to whether it was factual or not as long as it justified thier reasons for war. As for Saddam "cooking something up with Al Qaida." The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't think Saddam gave any thought to teaming up with Al Qaida but I remind you that we teamed up with the Soviet Union to fight Hitler and continued to team up with wretched dictatorships to fight Communism after WWII. There is plenty of precedent to justify the case of Saddam teaming up with Al Qaida. Especially with a bunch of informants telling us there was, the administration not really checking their sources and may I remind you a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress not checking their sources either. Saddam didn't exactly cheer on what happened on Sept. 11th but he did say we deserved it. I know there was no connection but I could see how it would be easy to assume there was.

Your points are interesting but still don't justify why you wouldn't vote for a guy who was lied to just as much as we were. A congressional staff just isn't that big. Also staffers usually can't get clearance to check into classified data unless their Congressman is on a defense or intel committee. The information they were getting pointed to a possibility of links with al Qaida and evidence that Saddam hadn't destroyed all the chemical weapons. All you are doing is looking back with hindsight and saying it was a bad idea. Edwards has done exactly the same thing and said it was a mistake and he is sorry.

I don't even need to scan the comments to know that some person who knows very little chose to make a snide comment about $400 hair cuts. Am I right? Of course I am.

The truth is, JOHN EDWARDS DOES NOT GET $400 HAIR CUTS!

John Edwards' campaign arranged for him to receive two quck hair cuts last quarter in his hotel room while he was on the road, and the stylist sent the campaign 2 bills for $400 each.

John Edwards wasn't walking around looking for an expensive hair cut, like some people IMPLY with their foolishness.

And the hair cuts did not cost $400 each. That cost most likely included the fact that the stylist had to take his supplies and go to Edwards for the hair cut.

How many hair cuts does Edwards get in a 3 month period? Definitely more than 2, so the fact that only 2 hair cuts were charged to the campaign should let any INTELLIGENT PERSON know that something unusual happened there.

They were specially arranged hair cuts.

John Edwards did not find out how much they cost until after the campaign had paid the bills. He, John Edwards, a guy who still wears a cheap watch and eats at Wendy's and does his own shopping, was shocked by the cost of the hair cuts, and disappointed this his campaign paid the bill, so he paid the campaign back.

As for his house (I won't do a scan for comments on that one), how many Presidential Candidates don't live in big house on large estates? It's called room and security. If John Edwards becomes President, he's going to need a house big enough for Secret Service, for visiting Heads of State, for staff, and so on.

Do people ever think before they take the latest Edwards smear and run with it?

people who making claims about 70-80% public support for the iraq war resolution (iwr) are mixing up numbers. in fact, the iwr was voted on and passed in oct 2002 as a pre-election political stunt which many dems, including edwards, fell for. at the time going to war with iraq had minimal support amongst the public. from oct 2002, through the beginning of the war, support fluctuated, only reaching 70% in april 2003, the 2nd month of the war.

i have seriously mixed feelings about edwards. on the one hand, he is saying all the right things, and i have no doubt that he is sincere. however, his new persona is so at odds with his congressional persona.

kari asks "aren't you tired of slick politicians saying exactly what they think you want to hear?"; well, imho, that's exactly what edwards is doing. telling the base what they want to hear. i like what i hear, i believe he is mostly sincere, but i feel he is just reflecting our desires, rather than taking his own stances. that's not necissarily "bad", but it is worrisome--what does he do when he actually has to stand up and lead on his own? (fwiw, i have the opposite problem with obama, i don't think he pays enough attention to the base.) what's the real difference between edwards recent conversion on the war, and romney's recent conversion on abortion? when romney tells the republican base what they want to hear, many bloggers mock them for their stupidity, when edwards tells what we want to hear, we praise him for his leadership, and forget his past errors.

in contrast, howard dean, the last grassroots hero, was actually a bit at odds with the base with a lot of his policy prescriptions.

the dem primary is starting to remind me of the 2006 california governor's race where edwards = angelides, obama = westly, and hillary = the governator. that's what really worries me.

Great post, Kari -- I've been looking forward to it since you mentioned it last week.

I'm still on the fence on who to support -- Edwards, Obama, and Gore (yeah, I know) are all appealling to me. I admit I fell for Obama early on but I've been re-thinking Edwards as my first choice.

It's nice to hear what others think about the choices and why they support who they do. Thanks.

"There is plenty of precedent to justify the case of Saddam teaming up with Al Qaida."

garrett, are you seriously bringing up right-wing propaganda to justify edwards iwr vote?!? come on!

the declassified intelligence documents were undeniably misleading, leaving out the countervailing evidence that kept the classified version balanced, and bolstering the dubious claims that bush was using to push the war. so yes, they were lied to, however, to anyone who was paying real attention at the time, it was obvious they were being lied to. senators graham and durbin were on the intelligence committee, had access to the classified intelligence docs, and were very vocal in warning their senate colleagues that the declassified docs contradicted the the facts.

voting against the iwr was an exercise in political courage, voting for it was a political calculation that it would better to have been on the supporting side, after the fact, when all is said and done. i understand that not everyone had the courage or foresight to vote against it. edwards had his reasons i'm sure. i won't use this as a "litmus test" for my vote, but neither will i excuse him taking the politically easy way out because he was being lied to. if you know you're being lied to, and you let yourself get mislead by those lies, well how is that any better than actually believing what the lies stood for.

Why do so many people say that the iraq war resolution is the deal-breaker for them? I mean, don't get me wrong, I thought it was a horrible mistake back then, too. Unfortunately, our options if this is a necessity are gonna be Kucinich or Gravel.

They're both good guys, and I absolutely loved Gravel's performance at the debate, but they're not gonna win in a general election. You can try to rationalize your support however you like, but the fact remains that in modern times, we need someone who can look and act the part of President enough to convince people who first associate the word 'Vote' with American Idol, not the President.

People say that they'll vote Obama because he was against the Iraq War Resolution when he was still in Illinois, I contend that this argument is worthless. I like Obama, am excited at the people he brings into the process, and distinctly remember saying "He's going to be President one day" But that day should not start in January 2009.

Obama's votes and statements since he's held national office don't seem to me to be terribly in line with the ultra-progressive image that he's often portrayed with. I can only hope that 2 terms in the VP's office would help to prove that his actions can match his words.

It is interesting that not one lefty, progressive, green, or feminist activist that I know is supporting Hillary. The only supporters of her seem to be women in their 50s and 60s. And so many Democrats, especially the Gen X men, seem to just loathe her.

Don't Back Down

"People say that they'll vote Obama because he was against the Iraq War Resolution when he was still in Illinois, I contend that this argument is worthless."

i am not currently supporting obama, but how do you contend that being right about the iraq war in 2002 is worthless? of all the problems i have with obama (and i have a lot), his prescience about iraq is a big, big plus in his favor. in 2002 howard dean was in the exact same position, and in 2004 that was largely what brought together his grassroots following.

I don't believe in absolutes so I won't be adamant about opposing anyone who voted for the war and refuse to make an exception, but the senators and representatives who did sign Bush's blank check helped grease the skids to go to war. What is worse and according to Dick Durbin's recent confession, people on the intelligence committees knew the public was being lied to and they used the excuse about being sworn to secrecy to justify their craven yea votes and/or silence. Too bad, they didn't follow Daniel Ellsberg's example when this nation needed a profile in courage or two and before our military racked up 30,000 or so casualties and the Iraqis millions when you include the refugees.

There is also the matter of Senator Byrd's speech warning his fellow senators "This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."

My favored candidates are Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson. Of the three I believe Richardson would be the more skilled in the foreign policy arena. But my forecast is that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee because she already looks like the oligarchs' / DLC choice and their attack dogs will go after Obama and Edwards just as they did against Howard Dean.

Pedro said, "garrett, are you seriously bringing up right-wing propaganda to justify edwards iwr vote?!? come on!"

Right wing propoganda to you or an easy inferance for the average joe in America who didn't read up on middle east history before this war and knew that Iraq was a secular country that bin Laden would rather bring down that work with? I understood it would have been improbable for bin Laden to work with Saddam. Maybe even impossible but I had also had recently taken a course in college about Middle Eastern history and that point had been emphasized.

Also Pedro that isn't right wing propoganda dribble I was stating. Precedent is defined as, "prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance." I pointed out the fact that the US and Soviet Union teamed up to take down Hitler when they were unlikely allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It may have been unlikely that Saddam and al Qaida would work together but it was definitely possible (of course we know now that they did not).

I'd suggest reading beyond my first paragraph.

I read your eloquent endorsement of Edwards in its entirety.

Curiously you omitted any reference or defense of his vote on the Iraq war.

"Right wing propoganda to you or an easy inferance for the average joe in America who didn't read up on middle east history before this war"

garrett,

it was an easy inference for the average joe because it was plastered allover cable news after bush's sotu speech. it is right wing propaganda because of it's origin (bush admin operatives in the cia) and that it was known to be factually incorrect, but used to forward the interests of the administration anyway. that it may have been believable does not make it any less propaganda--in fact, that is why it worked as propaganda, because it was believable.

i will excuse any average joe who believed it to be true, but not any senators... they should have known better. mostly they probably did know better, but were politically weak.

Pat Ryan said:

So far, Obama has been way more effective as this rapid response stuff.

Buckman Res said:

Edward’s showed his lack of stones and poor decision-making when he eagerly followed the Congressional lemmings as they took us over the cliff into Iraq.

Edwards showed his enormous stones and quality decision making skills when he was the first to say no to the faux news debate. There wasn't a rapid response from Obama and Shillary sure didn't take the lead. Edwards is the guy. He has the election experience, the enthusiasm that was lacking in '04, and the personal story to become president.

I'm on the fence right now. I've signed up for info from a couple of campaigns and got emails from Barak & John. Barak was sent to "Friend", John was sent to "Sean".

John wanted me to send a post card to my rep with a great photo of Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier four years ago....when I clicked send...it asked me to chip in $5 to cover printing, postage and...wait for it...

Carbon offsets.

Wow.

Is he really running that green? If so, more power to him for doing the right thing with the millions pouring in.

The problem for Edwards is that you can say almost all the same things about Obama. The big difference is that Obama was against the war from the start, while Edwards co-sponsored it. Also, I can't help but think that Edwards already had his shot and failed. Time for someone new.

john edwards co-sponsored the iwr???

lordy, there he is right next to jesse helms!

Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. [LA] - 10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John [NC] - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse [NC] - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim [AR] - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom [SC] - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John [VA] - 10/2/2002

what a list that is.

The reason I care so much about the votes that gave Bush the war power is that those votes hurt our country infinitely more than Al Qaeda did on 911....and they are still hurting us. I don't feel vindictive. That's just too big of a screw up to just say "oh well, he made a mistake". Too many people are dead and maimed physically and mentally. Too many people in the world now hate America.

In many ways I like Biden the best, but he seems to continue to be ignored. I think Edwards is the most electable and the candidiate most concerned about bread and butter issues. As a union organizer, I admire his support of labor issues. Hillary continues to defend Wal Mart!!

from oct 2002, through the beginning of the war, support fluctuated, only reaching 70% in april 2003, the 2nd month of the war.

The invasion began at the very end of March, so the April numbers you cite were mere days away from the invasion's start. You can pretend that there wasn't overwhelming public support for the war and the Iraq War Resolution, but that would be a fantasy.

In many ways I like Biden the best,...

Biden must be one of th dumbest people in the senate. He was for the war and is just now getting around to facing reality. When Iraq was in a mess and looked like it had reached the point of no return, Biden was on a Sunday talk show saying the president (Bush) needed to talk to the American people and explain what was going on - after Bush and his henchmen had consistently told nothing but lies.

The last vote that I remember Edwards casting with respect to the war was "AGAINST THE $87 BILLION." People keep talking about what Obama was against "from the beginning," but that hasn't stopped Obama from constantly supporting every funding bill since he's been in the Senate.

As for Edwards co-sponsoring the bill, Edwards has learned his lesson. To trust his OWN JUDGMENT instead of listening to political consultants like Bob Shrum. You all have heard about Shrum's book where he talks about how Edwards was torn over whether or not TO EVEN SUPPORT THE BILL, but he brought in his advisors, some of whom worked for the Clinton administration, and they all told him that he didn't have the credibility on national security issues to vote against the bill. So, he went along with what they said. They probably told him to co-sponsor it as well, to increase his national security creds.

Since the start of this campaign, he's been railing on CONSULTANTS saying that he doesn't listen to them any more. He's been saying that since 2005. I remember after the election in 2004, when he said up in New Hampshire that the one thing he had learned from the 2004 election was "never to listen to Mary Beth Cahill."

So, yes, Edwards supported the Iraq War Resolution. He is even listed as having co-sponsored it, but it's pretty clear why he did it. Political calculations from consultants. At least he's learned his lesson, and it's actually encouraging to me that he was personally against signing on to it.

He should have trusted his own judgment, but Bush still screwed up the war, and Bush still didn't have to go to Iraq. The IWR passing did not mean that we had to go to war.

The problem with Edwards and the vote is how wishy-washy he's been on it. First he sponsors it. Then in 2004 he refuses to move off his actual support for the war, making a difficult situation for Kerry who had already said he'd never had gone to war. Then, when Kerry tries to draw attention to the DSM and war lies in 2005 - Edwards said nobody lied to him and he knew exactly what he was voting for. Now he says he listened to other people.

I believe he's sincere in his desire to help people - but when it comes to matters of foreign policy and security and intelligence; he's in over his head.

EXCLUSIVE: At a Hollywood fundraiser Friday night, John Edwards told donors that he and wife Elizabeth heard personally from every candidate and their spouse after their press conference — except the Clintons. “He said Hillary and Bill didn’t call but all the others did with messages of support. He repeated the story to each table,” an attendee told me. I’m told that a member of Hillary Clinton’s team sent an email afterwards to at least one politico “claiming her staff had been repeatedly trying to make calls to the Edwards but hadn’t gotten through.” So the politico emailed back the Edwards’ home phone number. “Can you imagine making that excuse?” a Hollywood Democrat told me today. The fundraiser was held at the palatial Santa Monica home of entertainment super-lawyer Skip Brittenham and his wife, The Fall Guy TV actress Heather Thomas. It was one of the first big events attended by Edwards and his wife Elizabeth just a day after their public announcement that her cancer had come back. About 100 Hollywood bigwigs who attended the cocktail reception and dinner were shocked by the news disseminated by Edwards that night. UPDATE: Here’s what the Edwards campaign has told me tonight on the record: “Senator Clinton called Senator Edwards on Friday, but they didn’t connect. That evening, someone asked him if he had spoken to her, and he said they hadn’t talked yet since they hadn’t, but he certainly did not suggest that she hadn’t reached out. They spoke today and had a very nice conversation, and Sen. and Mrs. Edwards both appreciated her call.”

[Editor's note: The above was submitted without comment and unblockquoted, and thus appeared to be by "Hawthorne." It's actually from DeadlineHollywood.com.]

"The invasion began at the very end of March, so the April numbers you cite were mere days away from the invasion's start. You can pretend that there wasn't overwhelming public support for the war and the Iraq War Resolution, but that would be a fantasy."

pat,

no need for fantasy, jsut follow the link i provided, and you will see documentations that there was no widespread support for the war until after it started, as evidenced in the poll i mentioned from april 2002--the 2nd month of the war, 8 months after the iwr vote.

I'm glad to see a candidate who looks like a traditional New Deal Democrat. He's for putting carbon emission caps into our trade agreements, he's been walking picket lines with striking workers, promoting universal health care, declaring a global war on poverty, etc.- this guy is from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

I really doubt Edwards will be in the running after the primary. He seems to be doing surprisingly OK in the south at the moment, but I think he is a huge target for ridicule both now and in the future.

For example, the haircut thing seems really interesting when he speaks negatively of the wealthy. Regardless of what he said happened; he paid $800 for a couple haircuts. I don't know about you, but that lacks some real judgment--not only for his campaign but just in general. I guess it doesn't really compare to Hillary's $2500 on a couple hair sessions, but still the same, I am not too sure about a seemingly Populist Edwards getting a $200 haircut—it doesn’t really work.

What also bothers me, and apparently other liberals I talk to, is Edwards’ act of the humble "I-am-just-like-you-son-of-a-poor-mill-worker”. The fact is, he is the “wealthy" he so tries so hard to distance himself from. He should be who he is and stop faking the funk. People see right through it. The fact that he hawks the income disparity notion and goes out and purchases a $200.00 haircut among other indulgences shows he can't even live his own campaign message.

His façade gets even more suspicious when he talks of raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. This tax raising talk, even for working class Democrats, seems to cause some real hesitation. Independents also seem to be a bit bugged when Democratic candidates push the class warfare theme. Edwards went a bit far in his speech to California Democrats speaking of “excess-profits, excess-income tax". It is clear that people don't like that line--it turned people off and he should find a new gimmick. Though, he probably would make a little more headway if he quit getting $200 haircuts.

Finally, his "tough" talk on Universal Healthcare, though a good idea in concept, will not benefit his campaign as we get closer to the primary. In the end, any candidate that pushes for universal healthcare is going to see a barrage of negative ads depicting people waiting on long waiting lists to be seen by doctors. For rich trial lawyer John Edwards, the ad will show people dying due to lack of treatment while his “rich self” gets all the health care he needs. It won’t be pretty.

I think it is going to be really tough for John Edwards to pull enough votes to get the nomination. I don’t think people are willing to sacrifice as much as he wants them to. Hell, even John Edwards himself doesn’t want to sacrifice that much which kills any possibility of him using a lead-by-example image. Good luck.

Regardless, do enjoy his event on Wednesday afternoon!

Ah, it's funny how we eat our young. Just remember while we can all find ways to pick apart each other's candidates (and the more intelligent among us can even pick apart our own candidate), we are going to have to live with whoever the nominee is. For the Edwards supporters this means recognizing that Obama, like Edwards, has progressive substance and not using a one line sound bite to convince the American people that the potential Democratic nominee lacks substance. For the Obama supporters, this means recognizing that Edwards, like Obama, is a phenomenal progressive. Yes he did sponsor the Iraq War Resolution, but he has changed and he currently opposes the war. He currently offers a progressive platform, just like Obama.

As for Kucinich and Gravel supporters, while the Obama and Edwards camps should recognize that your candidates are in many ways the most progressive candidates in the race, you should recognize that this does not discount Obama or Edwards as progressive candidates.

There is very little support in the blogosphere for Clinton, but I would like to point out that she is a Democrat and that she led the way on health care when Bill was president. You may dislike some of her politics, but do not buy into the sexist right wing image of Hillary Clinton the frigid bitch. Fight this image whenever possible. She faces enormous sexism in the primary and will face even greater sexism if she makes it to the general. Remember that whether or not she is our brand of Democrat, she is a Democrat who agrees with us in general on most issues and would make a good president, as would all the Democrats in the field.

So just remember, as the blogosphere rips through each candidate, that the candidates themselves are keeping it clean. We do not want this to turn into a mudslinging contest. The press was looking for mud in the first debate. They dug for it a little bit when by pointing out that Clinton addressed Barack and and John by their names (the press didn't get that it was about first names and that as long as they are going to call her Hillary, Clinton should address all the other candidates by their first names as well in order to level the playing field). As we debate candidates' public images lets all recognize that we are debating images. And lets all support the Democratic nominee! I'm glad to see in this thread that at least one 2000 and 2004 Nader supporter has given up on insanity ( I have no qualms about mudslinging directed at non-Democrats).

Full disclosure: I support Obama

According to Eric, no rich people, even a self-made man who raised HIMSELF up out of the middle class by defending the little guys against negligent corporations, is no longer eligible for the presidency.

No rich people. Let's see that eliminates, Gore, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson and pretty much everyone else.

Opposing someone because of their haircut choices is pretty shallow and plays right into the hands of the GOP talkers. Congrats for being their stooge.

By the way T.A.. If you liked watching what the Republicans did to a decorated war hero in the last election, just imagine what they would have done to Dean. They would have ripped him limb from limb. Dean couldn't even win the Democratic nomination, but you think he would have won the general?

Defies logic.

Counterpunch has an interesting article on the senate intelligence committee in 2002 which leaves Edwards (and others) with a lot of explaining to do when it comes to signing the blank check for Bush to go to war on Iraq.

Related is Robert Scheer's article on George Tenet, "After thousands have died, Tenet comes clean"

Senator Edwards gets a lot of credit in my book for his eight minute dvd on Health Care. It has as many specifics as Obama, and his plan. Let me tell you I watched the Edwards dvd it was sent to me in the mail and you want to talk about generalities. For a guy getting all this credit for this creative and detailed health care plan, there was nothing but fluff in it.
So lets not attack each other accusing them of having fluff. Lets make sure we support and help one another so we can beat the Republicans.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/edwards.hair.ap/index.html

Not twice but a lot.

About the few comments regarding my observations of John Edwards.

As for Erik's comment... Buddy, I love ya, but "the Republicans are going to hit him hard" isn't a reason to oppose him. There isn't a candidate that they won't come after.

Oh Kari, were you under the impression that I was referring to Republicans. At the moment, I hear more Democrats than Republicans talking about his inability to get the nomination. Remember, the Democratic Primary hasn't happened yet and all the camps are jabbing who they can.

According to Eric, no rich people, even a self-made man who raised HIMSELF up out of the middle class by defending the little guys...

Evidently even Mr. Edwards doesn't think "rich people" can get elected either. If he did, why does he continue to separate himself from what he is. I really don't care if he has $1 or $1 Million to his name--he just needs to be honest.

No rich people. Let's see that eliminates, Gore, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson and pretty much everyone else.

Is this your idea, because I think rich people, poor people, any people that can do the job should run for office. Again, all I am looking for is honesty about who he is. And when he refers to the rich having too much money, I am a little suspicious when I see his populist platform coupled with this from the article Shawn posted:

"Edwards, 53, who has made alleviating poverty the central theme of his candidacy, has been criticized for building a 28,000-square-foot house for $5.3 million near Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The complex of several buildings on 102 acres includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor pool and a handball court."

Opposing someone because of their haircut choices is pretty shallow and plays right into the hands of the GOP talkers. Congrats for being their stooge.

I am not “opposing” him at all, I just don’t believe he has a chance and I highlighted some, just some, mind you, of the reasons why. But really, maybe for you worrying about $200 haircuts is shallow. For others, maybe not so. Especially when the whole notion of populism comes into play.

But really Pat Malach--a little disclosure please--are you getting $200 haircuts, too? Please do post some pictures.

As for GOP talkers, if John Edwards is really that weak of a candidate that he can't handle criticism from the "GOP talkers" and still garner the support of Democrats, then he is in more trouble than I originally thought.

Thanks for the response.

Erik

Btw: I must say, what a treat that Edwards showed up to the Moveon Rally in downtown Portland this afternoon. He will definately get points from many for that. Most of the news outfits (TV & Radio) are reporting on it.

About the few comments regarding my observations of John Edwards.

As for Erik's comment... Buddy, I love ya, but "the Republicans are going to hit him hard" isn't a reason to oppose him. There isn't a candidate that they won't come after.

Oh Kari, were you under the impression that I was referring to Republicans. At the moment, I hear more Democrats than Republicans talking about his inability to get the nomination. Remember, the Democratic Primary hasn't happened yet and all the camps are jabbing who they can.

According to Eric, no rich people, even a self-made man who raised HIMSELF up out of the middle class by defending the little guys...

Evidently even Mr. Edwards doesn't think "rich people" can get elected either. If he did, why does he continue to separate himself from what he is. I really don't care if he has $1 or $1 Million to his name--he just needs to be honest.

No rich people. Let's see that eliminates, Gore, Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson and pretty much everyone else.

Is this your idea, because I think rich people, poor people, any people that can do the job should run for office. Again, all I am looking for is honesty about who he is. And when he refers to the rich having too much money, I am a little suspicious when I see his populist platform coupled with this from the article Shawn posted:

"Edwards, 53, who has made alleviating poverty the central theme of his candidacy, has been criticized for building a 28,000-square-foot house for $5.3 million near Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The complex of several buildings on 102 acres includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor pool and a handball court."

Opposing someone because of their haircut choices is pretty shallow and plays right into the hands of the GOP talkers. Congrats for being their stooge.

I am not “opposing” him at all, I just don’t believe he has a chance and I highlighted some, just some, mind you, of the reasons why. But really, maybe for you worrying about $200 haircuts is shallow. For others, maybe not so. Especially when the whole notion of populism comes into play.

But really Pat Malach--a little disclosure please--are you getting $200 haircuts, too? Please do post some pictures.

As for GOP talkers, if John Edwards is really that weak of a candidate that he can't handle criticism from the "GOP talkers" and still garner the support of Democrats, then he is in more trouble than I originally thought.

Thanks for the response.

Erik

Btw: I must say, what a treat that Edwards showed up to the Moveon Rally in downtown Portland this afternoon. He will definately get points from many for that. Most of the news outfits (TV & Radio) are reporting on it.

To Erik, and all who hate $400 haircuts, I must say this:

There is actually nothing incongruous with preaching that we must stop poverty and spending $400 on a haircut. The person who cut his hair for $400 would agree. I must say that I myself have had my hair done for more than $150 before (and I am not rich). I also must say that it was worth the $150 and if I could afford to I would do it more often.

If you are one who likes to go to Great Clips and spend $8 on a haircut, you are not contributing to a greater society. You are just encouraging people to accept as little as possible to practice their profession - unless you are giving a really good tip, in which case rock on with your awsome hair.

I'm not arguing that all hairdressers deserve $100 or $400 to make us look good, but if more hairdressers got $50 even, and fewer got $10 for the job they do, our neighborhoods would be a better place to live. After all, who is it that decided that a person who went to school to become a hairdresser deserves less money than any other professional?

We really have to put things in to perspective. If you want to raise people up out of poverty, you don't do so by having millions of dollars and never spending any of it. Maybe that hairdresser doesn't get $400 from every client, but I'm sure Edwards' hairdresser appreciates having him as a customer - wouldn't you?

Some people are beginning to go down the path that hurt us all in 2004. The Deaniacs who whine about being mistreated by the press -- this is what the press does, get over it. I donated to the Dean campaign. But I have spoken with friends people who were on the ground in Iowa. The Dean people got their asses kicked because they could not get their supporters to the caucases and Kerry's people did. The Iowa caucases convinced me that Dean's campaign did not have the nuts-and-bolts know-how to run a campaign. He would have been Mondaled in the general. Joe Trippi was part of the problem, and is not qualified to advise us on the solution. Trippi needs to invest in a mirror.

As for 2008, I am currently probably 51-49 Obama over Edwards. I really love both candidates, and will resist any attempts to knock either one. Both candidates are far, far better than any Democratic contender for many years. I also would enthusiastically support Clinton, a fine citizen and a great Senator.

Thank you Kari for thoughtful comments on the most personable and deepest thinker in the Dem field to date. His announcement speech in New Orleans- a town depopulated intentionally by Rove & Bush- was top drawer.

He is an wonderful stalking horse for the real candidate- the yet to announce- Al Gore. Al can not be charged with flip flopping on Iraq- he was against invasion going back to Desert Storm, reinterated against the Neo-cons in 1994 and vociforously just prior to the 2003 invasion. He led while others, sadly including Sen. Edwards, followed Bush into the greatest foriegn policy debacle in our nations history. To his credit, the Senator has recanted the vote. But is that leadership?

Al is a leader without question.

He prophesized global warming for 30 years in public life.

He will win the next Nobel Peace Prize and be in a position to restore our nations respect, parternship in UN endeavors and leadership in human rights.

Al Gore came out for single-payer, Euro-style National Health Care in 2002- before Kucinish. And Edwards and Obama are yet to be heard from. And Hillary (and Wyden locally) are still supporting insurance company monopoly protection acts...

<h2>Get ready for Al. Come to the Run Al, Run! book releases at the local bookstores later in May. More later.</h2>