Good to know you actually didnt go to Edwards Speech. (James Martin - 2/11/2007 1:33:43 AM)
Tell that to the 1500 kids who showed up to see Edwards at the Webb rally and then volunteered for Webb because of the awesome speech.
I don't care if Edwards is a rich guy or not, he is not a leader. We need leadership right now especially after Bush. We deserve no less. I think and believe the Iraq War will become an issue for Edwards as the campaign proceeds, do you feel the same way?
All legitimate points. That's why I'm going back and forth between Obama and Clark myself. They were netroots candidates back when we were the Democratic Party's whipping post.
I think Edwards' reaction to the recent blogger controversy shows the same old pattern. He sat around and waited to see what the fallout would be before making any decision. His first reaction was to fire the two women, until he realized his carefully orchestrated support in the blogosphere would plummet if he did. When he made hawkish comments about Iran, again, fallout on the internet....then he changed his tune a few days later. He always says the right thing, and if he doesn't....he'll go back later and amend it.
[UPDATE by Lowell: I just wanted to clarify that Raising Kaine, as a group blog, has not taken a position on the Democratic primaries. Right now, I'd say that we probably have RK "front pagers" supporting every one of the major Democratic candidates. I would just urge everyone to focus as much as possible on explaining why YOUR candidate is the best candidate, as opposed to pointing out why Candidate X is "unelectable" or Candidate Y is a rabid weasel, etc. Thanks]
Neither of those candidates have put forward a plan to solve this countries Health Care nightmare.
Neither of those candidates has said that he will work to provide equal rights to ALL citizens, including full legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples.
Guess who has! Senator John Edwards.
He is the only candidate in this race who offers real hope and more importantly real ideas to move this country forward!
What about the Obamaniacs who volunteered?
The Webb office had a very diverse view on 2008 but I'd say that Virginia and the Webb office without Warner in the race during the campaign was more Clarkies than anything.
I can prove it, but I am not putting anyone out there.
My point is James M., honestly.. no one who came in to help Virginia and Jim Webb win is more responsible or more worthy or our support in 2008.
Like Lowell said, this community shares different views and different support of 2008 Candidates.
When Bill Clinton talked hope he also brought a voracious curiosity to the table. He was someone who had clearly spent decades studying issues that came into play when he was president. So when his number was called he was able to deliver on his promises in tangible ways.
Both Edwards and Obama have adopted the Clintonian rhetoric, but in Edwards case, if you parse the language it doesn't inspire much confidence--especially when he's talking about the current situation in Iraq. The sense that I have is that he's just had a crash course within the past year on some of the complexities. Unlike Jim Webb, I don't leave an Edwards speech having the sense that I've really learned anything new--or that I've heard anything close to a coherent and actionable strategic vision for the Middle East.
Obama's 2002 speech about the Iraq invasion laid out a vision that has been proven out by the experience of the past 5 years. His statements about energy independence vis a vis the Middle East were also right on the money. A number of candidates are now adopting this issue as well (in fairness Jimmy Carter was talking about this issue 27 years ago, so this isn't exactly Obama's baby. But I don't remember any of the other prospective nominees raising this issue in 2002).
Bush offered up "compassionate conservativism"--but those turned out to be just poll tested words. I don't trust any politician's words as a default position--unless there is concrete evidence that this person has backed up these words with concrete action.
I will say--of the front runners--I have reservations about all of them in reference to executive experience. Managing a Senate staff of 20+ is not managing a bureaucracy of several thousand.
Fine, if you want a Senator with a phenomenal 26 months of experience in the Senate who doesn't think you're smart enough to decide between candidates on the issues, Vote for Obama.
The fact is Obama pretty much nailed the likely outcome of the Iraq invasion in 2002--the fact that it would not be a tidy war; that it would undermine our standing in the region; that it would be a side show in the region--lends him credibility in my eyes. Who else was saying this in 2002? Just a handful of folks. Obama also makes some nice prescriptive recommendation as well. He wasn't just saying "wars or bad". He gave reasons and positive prescriptions for our diplomacy. Check out his speech.
In my view, a position in itself is irrelevent. Any candidate can say "I believe in this". Most candidates simply voice whatever position is popular at a given moment.
The questions that interests me are more are "How did this candidate arrive at this position?" "What are his reasons for justifying this position?"
Obama actually has a nice degree in political science as well as the JD from Harvard--and through the years he's done quite a bit of non-profit work (in addition to his time in the state legislature in Illinois).
The 26 months of Senate experience is fine--I don't see much difference between this a 4 term actually. I don't see Senate experience as being a necessary qualifier for higher office. It's fine, but it can be overstated.
Personally, I like Wes Clark's graduate economics degree from Oxford, the Rhodes Scholarship thing, and his decades of military experience most. In terms of training I think he's probably the most ready for high office.
Hilary Clinton has some unique experience in having witnessed the workings of a fairly successful White House first hand--plus the Senate experience.
Edwards has his experience as a trial lawyer, plus one term in the Senate. During that one term Edwards played a role in co-sponsoring one of the AUMF--which is a strike against him in my view. Obviously his message and style resonate with a number of people; unions are likely to line up behind him; and there's a pretty good chance he could get support from the Trial Lawyers association again (this year Biden will be the featured speaker at their convention, so this isn't a given; although Edwards will be making an appearance too).
In fact far from it.
I suspect there will be a number of Clark supporters who also are interested in Obama (I count myself among them). I worry that a Clark candidacy at this point will canibalize support for Obama resulting in a likely Hilary Clinton victory (someone who I could support with reservations). Right now I am heavily leaning towards Obama, although not fully committed to any candidate.
Edwards is someone who I will likely support if he wins the nomination. But Dave's concerns on the AUMF are ones that I share (there are other ones centering around executive experience, national security cred, and core loyalties--will Edwards remember the people who get him into office? His failure to win N.C. in the 2004 general election may be in part due to Kerry, but I have to wonder if a first-rate, beloved Senator would have been able to overcome these difficulties).
See here for the Hillary Clinton "Women for Webb" rally on October 3, 2006.
=)
But, I loved her book Living History I couldn't put it down! so I am open.
Team Hillary, arrange this meeting. Lol.
Senate experience is overrated. Damn few Senators get to the White House, but we're left with what we have. So far, I don't have a ton of passion for any of them, though I'll support whomever this cockeyed process spits out. Between the front-loaded primary system and the electoral college, sometimes it seems like I'm barely voting.
(Nick's been working too hard and his evil twin up and typing.)
I'm not saying this excuses Edwards co-sponsorship and yes vote at all. It disgusts me to be honest. But I also think it's a bit naive to assume all these people against the war would have been so doveish if they actually had to vote on it.
Why did Edwards chose, not just to support the AUMF, but to go all in with this measure? Unlike Hagel he didn't say before the invasion--wait a minute. This isn't what I signed onto. Where's the REAL coalition of the willing? Where is the 500,000 man force underwritten by friendly Arab states?
We weren't even able to get approval from Turkey--a NATO member--to send our troops over their territory. We had elements of the 3rd ID sitting in the Mediteranean during the first days of the invasion, because the diplomatic angle was so screwed up.
As far as Obama goes--Obama did make his statement in front of a crowd of about 1,500 people. He went on the record before the invasion. If things had gone rosily with the invasion, I think there's a pretty good chance that his words would have been used as a hammer to keep him in Illinois for the rest of his political life. So this wasn't just a case of him avoiding risk altogether. He went on the record.
Same with Jim Webb. He wasn't in the Senate in 2002. But I trust that he said what he meant, and meant what he said in his Washington Post op-ed column in September 4, 2002.
It's equally important in my view that these anti-war voices weren't just saying "this is a bad idea because all wars are bad," or "I'm just opposed to the war, because it's just blood for oil." Each laid out some fairly specific reasons for their opposition. Many of these ideas now seem prescient. These guys seem credible because what they have said has come to pass.
For instance, I happen to disagree with Dave's assessment that Iraq is "the most defining issue of our lifetime". I personally think that unregulated corporate power and its influence in government is the greatest threat to our society right now. I think that a lot of different issues (iraq war, global warming, outsourcing) are the END RESULT of corporate driven public policy. Edwards's strong positions on trade, poverty, and his support of organized labor really make him stand out from the rest of the 08' pack in terms of challenging corporate power. That is why I'm willing to "look past" his Iraq vote if you will. Though I certainly understand and respect why many people, veterans especially, might not.
I also want to add that Dave diminishes his own argument by repeating the unsubstantiated claim that Edwards hired Hugh Shelton to swiftboat Clark on 04'.
And calling Edwards's supporters "worshippers" and "kool-aid" drinkers isn't really the way to invite "sprited debate". You can criticize without being condescending.
The Iraq war is important - but no, it's not the defining issue. As you said, it's a consequence of corporate driven policy. As is global warming, the health care crisis in our country, and the wage inequality, which now, thanks to voices like Jim Webb's, is finally getting the attention it deserves.
Whatever else anybody says about John Edwards, he has never wavered from his populist message of there being two Americas and the harm that has caused.
It was because of a similar message, every bit as much as because of his anti-Iraq message, that I supported Jim Webb.
And I still need to hear more about the economic issues, global warming, universal health care, etc from every candidate.
Without condemning any of them, I currently support Edwards. But I don't think he walks on water or is without mistakes. None of them are. And I have no litmus tests.
Can't stand Republican spin.
I put in time in Webb's campaign and supported Kerry and Edwards in '04 during the general election.
Iraq has gotten much worse since '04, so that '02 vote weighs more heavily. At least in my view it is a vote that matters. I realize that others don't feel this way, and I'm curious to hear why.
Saying that this isn't a legitimate topic is a little bit like saying "debate about the Iraq war undermines support of the troops, it gives comfort to the enemy". These two comparisons are identical in my view.
If people feel comfortable voting for Edwards inspite of the AUMF, they are within their rights to say as much.
I may be in Nelson County, with a small amount of voters, but I traveled Nelson, Albremarle, Buckingham, Fluvana, and all the way to Danville to support Jim Webb and Al Weed. In 04, I drove 70 miles to Richmond to get a 4x8 and yard signs for Kerry/Edwards, because they were not available in the Nelson area. Yes, I was one of the February signers to endorse Jim Webb and encourage him to run.
I will listen all day long to anyone who wants to speak about all the good things about the candidate they support, But I have a hard time listening to some one bash a good candidate to support their own and then that person does not know if they will support the person they are bashing. That is Republican talk against the other party.
Yesterday on CSpan after Obama speech to run for President, the first caller on the Republican line bashed Obama and his so called little experience. The 3rd caller, a Republican, started out by saying disregard what the first caller said, and gave reasons not to listen to the first caller. Then gave his acceptance of Obama, not that he would vote for him.
Jim Webb started the program to get Democratic/Republicans back into the party and now all the candidates are pushing that agenda. Bashing any Democratic candidate is not constructive. Why give any opposition party, talking points or use their talking points to bash any candidate in the party, any one supports?
On Meet the Press, last week, he admitted twelve ways to Sunday that he was wrong. To me, being able to say those simple words makes a big difference.
Everybody is going to make a mistake, be wrong, or cast a bad vote on something over the course of a career. Being able to admit it and apologize, for me, is the sign of a good leader.
And, also for me, there are other issues besides Iraq. There were other issues when I supported Jim Webb. So, I'm looking at the overall candidate, not just one bad decision.
Having said that, I agree that we should debate but not bloody are candidates. But if they can't stand up to hard but fair scrutiny in the primaries, they'll crumble in the general election anyway because any dirt we can dig up, the Republicans can find and use anyway. So, nobody should get a pass, even the candidate that I support.
"Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met."
But while Iraq is an issue, a major issue, it is not the only issue we have to consider. Like Jim Webb, I am NOT a one issue citizen. I worry about health care, access to and affordability. I worry about global warming and our dependence on fossil fuels. I want a real and effective push to develop and utilize renewable energy sources, wind, solar, renewable biofuels and any other developments (cold fusion anyone?) that don't add to the environmental burden our planet is dealing with. And make no mistake, if we don't get our act together, Ma Nature will deal with our misbehavior with a harsh and ruthless hand. Think plague, flood, fire and famine. We can talk and pontificate all we want but it's actions that count and inaction counts as action in Ma Nature's eyes.
And then there's our deficit and our dismal balance of trade. When you owe insane amounts money, you are constrained in your policies by what your mortgage holder allows and we have mortgaged our freedom of action to outside interests. It's time to bring our budget back into balance and start to loosen the financial shackles we have put around our wrists and ankles with our own hands.
So, at the end of it all, I want a candidate in the fall of '08 who has offered me a compelling promise, backed up by a realistic plan, that he or she will start to work on all these problems. They are complex and interlocking and you have to work on them all. It won't be the work of a few years, but we have to at least start going in the right direction. I'll work and vote for the candidate who recognizes all the problems and offers realistic plans to deal with them and all I can tell you at this point is that it WON'T be a Republican.
Lowell, it would be nice if this would continue during the general. I am a peon on the R side but I will keep it will you?
P.S. for all you Ds concerned about ripping down your candidates we have oppo on everyone nothing new is being said here. Same is true in reverse :)
P.P.S. Personally, I think primaries are healthy and one of the best parts of a democracy. This should be an exciting time to discuss a potential president and be passionate just keep it clean and stick to the issues.
I guess I am just not as partisan if I see someone with a D next to their name I don't automatically assume those things. I may disagree with them but its not my style. Guess thats why I'm just a peon :-p
I have always said that I like a 50/50 Congress, that way the intelligence on both sides are heard and the best for the country comes forth in the legislation. With that balance it does not matter what party is in the White House.
This last election I wanted every incumbant to lose, no matter what party. I wanted a total change and absence of a total change we are still seeing the same old rhetoric. The party in power is pushing their agenda and the Lobyists are still running the show.
What the D's are doing is need to offset all the damage done the last 6 years and I hope some day to get back to normal, if there is such a thing.
I will not vote for an R and it is NOT because I believe them evil, worthless or stupid, I just do not believe in their agenda and absence of a balance, the past 6 years prove my case. Heck till the Koran issue I thought Goode was okay, but still wanted to beat him. Now that he has gone out of his way to show his true being, I am not sure I can be corgial to him any more.
As for what I believe in it can be boiled down to two basic things
In general a smaller more efficient government
equal opportunity and treatment for all
I don't know what that makes me I generally support Rs due to the fact that I live in a blue region and they are generally more moderate.
If I lived in a red region I would give the D a hard look and would possibly vote for them.
Seriously, Lowell has a point that politics is rough and tumble and not for the faint hearted. But I keep harboring a hope that we will have good and talented candidates on both sides, whose character is so sterling that it just won't be an issue for either party, and we will be able to have an intelligent debate on where our country is going.
But, back in the real world, the odds of that happening just aren't very good. But when Republicans stop Swifboating Silver Star recipients, we'll stop Macaccing wannabe cowboys.
Don't mean to be nasty, but it has cut two ways.
All of the democratic candidates in this race have a lot of good qualities. But when you ask yourself who will be the most faithful to the issues of progressive taxation, investment in people and standing up to corporate greed, John Edwards is the person who you can bet on having these issues 1st on his mind. Not 2nd or 3rd or 4th.
Sure all the other candidates have good ideas or are great speakers or inspire people for good reasons. Edwards will be the most unbending in his support for the working poor.
Jim Webb received a lot of attention for his opposition to the war. That is why a lot of you guys who contribute regularly to blogs supported him. That is only one small element of Sen. Webb that makes him such a great Senator. His unflinching willingness to challenge the vast income disparities is his greatest strength and quality.
So for those of you who support Jim Webb for things other than opposition to the war. Please take a closer look at Sen. Edwards.
As for me. I will give 1000% support to whoever the Democratic nominee is. But until that time comes, I will do what I can for Sen. Edwards. I believe in him. Plus, don't you just love Elizabeth Edwards.
Yes, they have similar views on economic fairness but I believe Sen. Webb is much more genuine in that regard that Sen. Edwards. Why.
Look at the difference in their residences.
Sen. Webb does not a have a multi-million dollar home.
Edwards does. Two of them.
Sen. Webb's deepest issue he has cared about since his Sept. 2002 op-ed piece warning against the war.
Sen Webb's statements during the campaign against the war.
Sen Webb's private conversations we have had.
Private conversations I have had with other 2008 Contenders.
Trust me, I don't speak for Sen. Webb or read his mind on who he will or will not endorse.
But I'd be willing to stake my life on it and say Webb will not endorse Edwards.
So, get over it.
If Edwards is the nominee, I will support him.
Like in my Kos diary, people are upset about the Iraq War.
I think that hurts Edwards. But, this is an open and free debate this is just my view. Everyone has their own.
Millworker families were just a step above sharecroppers in status. If you ever saw the film "Norma Rae," you would have an idea of John Edwards' background.
But unlike some people who have achieved the American Dream and then forgotten their roots or those who helped them along the way, Edwards remembers and honors the working people from whom he came, much like Webb.
And Webb doesn't have to support him. I will still respect Jim Webb, regardless of whether he supports Edwards. But I suspect Webb will remain neutral since all of the current candidates helped him. But whatever Webb does, it will not change my respect for him. Nor will it change my mind about who to support. That is, unless Webb comes up with such a compelling argument that he persuades me.
But whoever Webb supports, I will respect him. Likewise, although we disagree passionately on this, I still respect you.
People can make their minds up on who to support with or without an endorsement. That was not the point of my post. I never suggested that Webb would endorse Edwards.
Also, what relevance does the size or cost of ones home have to the qualifications of running for President.
President Franklin Roosevelt had extravagant homes. He was part of a very wealthy family. However there has not been a president since who has done more for economic fairness.
Before the primary, Warner holds a fundraiser for Webb.
Obama Rally For Webb (2nd Largest Rally behind Clinton Rally)
GOTV Rally For Webb with Tim Kaine & Mark Warner
Obama shows up again for Webb, with Kaine, Warner, & Wilder
One of the final events for Webb, Clark introduces Webb.
Final Rally with President Clinton, Reid, Schumer, Kaine, & Warner.
No ONE has a lock on Webb's possible endorsement. All of the 2008 Candidates helped Webb during the campaign. In my view The Clintons (who also held a fundraiser for him), Obama (who came out twice for Webb), & Clark(who endorsed Webb very early on, in fact may be Webb's first big endorsement and also came out twice for webb)
So. Don't think that anyone has a lock on Webb's endorsement. Especially Edwards, trust me.
Besides, Webb shares closer views on Iraq with Obama & Clark anyway. And, correct me if I am wrong isn't that the most important issue to him right now?
Your statement that "I am just tired of seeing my political hero, Jim Webb in the same sentence with John Edwards" is quite telling. Perhaps it's you that needs to "get over" something.
Because I respect everyone here on RK. Not directed to any one person. But, I think everyone who came to help Webb in 2006 deserves our fair view and support.
I posted those pics and comments because there was a lot of Edwards pics. I think it's only fair to show that not just Edwards helped Webb in 2006.
Also it is sickening to see people knock Edwards for where he lives. It is aiding and abetting the GOP attack machine to further the story about his house and conference center.
I looked into this situation. Turns out he has something like a conference center there at his house as well as an indoor gymnasium that is being counted in the squarefootage of his house.
It is no secret that Edwards was very successful in his practice as a trial lawyer defending those who were injured by corporate greed and negligence. Made a ton of money from this. And we should all be glad he made a ton of money punishing corporations for their wrongdoings.
To suggest that because their houses are not similar that Webb and Edwards do not share a deep kinship on economic issues is not a valid argument.
As far as determining who Webb will endorse. Who the hell knows. It has nothing to do with the fact that Edwards is the most closely aligned candidate with Webb on issues relating to economic justice and fairness.
Sorry, if you talked to anyone who worked on the campaign they would tell you different.
Furthermore, in my personal conversations with the Senator I can assure you without saying too much than in 2008 Iraq still will be the issue closest to his heart.
With his son in Iraq, it should be.
He warned against the war in September 2002, and this is an issue that has defined his political career thus far.
Finally, this isn't about Jim Webb. This is about John Edwards and how I disagree with his Iraq War support 2002-2005.
your constant referral to "personal conversations" that are somehow secret to everyone but you and Webb reveal an effort to be an "insider" with "inside information" about what Webb cares about more than anything else.
Also, Edwards admits he was wrong about the vote. OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. I guess Edwarsd must bare himself for a public flogging before people will believe his contrition. His admission of error shows that he is indeed a real leader, unlike Bush, who can admit when he is wrong. This obsession with absolute purity on the issue of Iraq is detrimental to the debate over who to support for the Democratic nomination.
There are other issues in this upcoming election than the War. Issues of - gasp - Equal importance. And those issues all relate to economic fairness.
I just want to make it clear, that I believe from both my personal and political observations of Jim Webb that he would not likely endorse Edwards.
It's just an observation.
I think we all need to relax here, put emotions aside. I have respect for all of you and everyone who worked in 2006.
The purpose of my input in this thread was to clarify that EVERY Presidential Contender helped Jim Webb in 2006. Even Kerry and Mark Warner who did not run. So we are all not obligated to support any particular candidate.
As for all this brouhaha over Edwards, the election's far away and I'm waiting to see who's actually running. Perhaps everyone else should, too. If Clark runs I'd like to think Webb would endorse him, but let's leave that up to Webb.