portia.vz @ 138

eCAHNomics @ 90
Hillary has sometimes been inconsistent in her speeches. I don’t really know what she stands for. At least Edwards has been entirely consistent during this campaign. We would know what to hold Edwards to. What could anyone hold slippery Hillary to?

No, I support Edwards because he offers the moon at a time when we need that kind of inspiration and because of his personal background. He grew up poor and worked for everything he’s got. He’s been consistent to his background as she has to hers, and that is fundamental to knowing who they are deep down in their soul and THAT would give you a better idea what they could do as president.

I don’t actually believe Edwards would be as progressive/liberal as he professes (for example). I think he has those ideas, but was raised to be a solid Southern conservative Democrat. The mixture of his intellectual ideas and how he was raised and his training and experience as a lawyer have produced someone with intelligence, experience, grit and determination and a lot of empathy for the little guy.

I support John Edwards.

I think your own words have confirmed everything I have suspected about Edwards and the nature of his supporters. You desperately want something to be true even though you know in your heart that your guy may not be what you want. But you accept it unquestioningly even though Edwards will have to rely on soft, unregulated 527 money during the dark days of his campaign next year. The contradictions are easily swept aside, uncomfortable truths never rise to the level of a critical thought.
Yes, Hillary wss prepared. She has a crack campaign and she is more prepared to win. And because she is prepared to win, she can focus more on her general voter message and less on the base voter. I, too, would like her to take the lead more. But it is probably better for her to hold back during the primaries until she has secured the nomination and then unleash the righteous indignation during the general. Politics *does* require calculation and strategy. Edwards is making all the wrong moves because he didn’t anticipate that Obama would siphon away his base of support. I call that unprepared.
You can call it what you like.

eCAHNomics @ 90

But is he the least worst?

Not in my opinion. I’d work for him tirelessly if he were the nominee because he is a much better alterntive to any Republican. But while I have a choice, I prefer someone better prepared who doesn’t have to pander slavishly to the base in order to be relevent. JMHO. You mileage may vary.

Hillary stands in the back of the room and waits to vote in the Senate. Is she NOT ‘prepared’?

Her constant attention to focus groups and polls doesn’t indicate she has her mind made up about anything. Is she really ‘prepared’?

She shows no leadership and that means she isn’t showing us what she really might do as president. Why wouldn’t she want us to know? Is it because she knows her triangulating would lead to many policies we wouldn’t like? Is she ‘prepared’ to triangulate away our Constitution?

Bill thought she was prepared to create the health care reform of the early ’90s. But, that went bust. Was she not ‘prepared’?

Preparedness is something Rudy Giuliani has been preaching. Is Hillary more prepared than Rudy? If they’re both prepared, but their vision for America and their degree of Leadership is lacking, then aren’t they more worse than Edwards?

Consider Edwards history as a lawyer and how he fought corporate power on behalf of the little guy. He knows a lot about how corporations work and he’s learned a lot about those laws relating to the cases he had. That’s preparation!

Yes, any candidate can say anything. They all do at times. Take Hillary for example, how does she get away with saying she’s a ‘modern progressive’ after submitting or co-sponsoring anti-flag-burning legislation? Do her words reflect actions? What kind of preparedness is that — prepared to lie?

Edwards IS free to say what he wants and everything we, here on the blog, have noticed is that he speaks for the little guy and for Law and for real Progressive ideas. If his earlier behavior as a senator didn’t mesh I prefer to say he was ill-advised by Bob Shrum. I don’t know it for a fact and I know that as a lawyer he is capable of giving speeches he might not believe. But, that’s true for all the other candidates. Notice how a candidate (say from a previous presidential campaign) will win the nomination of his party and then ‘move’ toward the other side. They literally change their positions in the middle of a campaign. I hate to see it, but that’s a practice we’ve all seen.

Is Edwards prepared? I say yes.

Is Hillary prepared? Probably.

Has Edwards behavior always synched-up with his recent speeches? Not always.

Has Hillary’s behavior always synched-up with her recent speeches? Not always.

So, what differentiates them?

Hillary has a LOT of money. Edwards has refused support from lobbyists and PACS. I’ll take the latter any day since there’s no payback required.

Hillary has sometimes been inconsistent in her speeches. I don’t really know what she stands for. At least Edwards has been entirely consistent during this campaign. We would know what to hold Edwards to. What could anyone hold slippery Hillary to?

Which is the least worst?

How can Hillary be less worst than Chris Dodd or Joe Biden? They have obviously a lot more Senatorial experience than Hillary and have consistent positions honed over many years. Hillary is much more inconsistent and politically motivated. She was raised in a Republican household and became a Goldwater Girl and has stayed true to that in everything she does except carrying the Democratic label.

No, I support Edwards because he offers the moon at a time when we need that kind of inspiration and because of his personal background. He grew up poor and worked for everything he’s got. He’s been consistent to his background as she has to hers, and that is fundamental to knowing who they are deep down in their soul and THAT would give you a better idea what they could do as president.

I don’t actually believe Edwards would be as progressive/liberal as he professes (for example). I think he has those ideas, but was raised to be a solid Southern conservative Democrat. The mixture of his intellectual ideas and how he was raised and his training and experience as a lawyer have produced someone with intelligence, experience, grit and determination and a lot of empathy for the little guy.

I support John Edwards.

Sorry all — I got busy doing something with The Peanut when she got home from preschool and didn’t get a chance to pop back in with the Edwards FISA statement for everyone. Here you go, and sorry for the delay:

John Edwards on FISA and Retroactive Immunity:

“George Bush and the corporate lobbyists are once again teaming up to keep Americans from knowing the truth about what goes on in Washington. This time, they’re asking Congress to help them cover up their illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails by giving retroactive immunity to companies that have broken the law, so that the facts about these abuses can never come out in court. Congress should stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by rejecting any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies.”

Yeah John! I knew he would be on the right side of this important issue.

Speaking of BS I just read the Howie Kurtz column that dealt with the Project for Excellence in Journalism report. You would think that a guy whose column is supposed to be about the media would devote his entire column to this major report. But, nope, not Howie. Not only did he give the report little coverage he repeated the same mistakes that the report identified. He gave the majority of the coverage about the report to Hilliary.

I wanted to leave a comment for him but either my computer is messed up and won’t let me comment or his column is no longer taking comments???

Anyone else have trouble making comments?

John Edwards on FISA and Retroactive Immunity:

“George Bush and the corporate lobbyists are once again teaming up to keep Americans from knowing the truth about what goes on in Washington. This time, they’re asking Congress to help them cover up their illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails by giving retroactive immunity to companies that have broken the law, so that the facts about these abuses can never come out in court. Congress should stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by rejecting any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies.”

portia.vz @ 86

I’m sorry, guys, I don’t think Edwards is purer than the other candidates we have. He says all the right things but that’s because he can. He doesn’t have a public office or constituents he has to placate.
It’s unlikely that I’m going to persuade anyone to carefully examine Edwards. People will believe what they want to believe and hold some candidates to a much higher standard than others. Sometimes a politician’s sincerity is taken at face value and they immediately get respect while others have to earn it.
Talk is cheap.

Conversely, without current constituents Edwards can say exactly what he believes and intends to do as President. Without the constraints of current office, he can speak from the heart, telling Americans exactly what he’d do as President.

Unlike the “front-runner,” who’s convinced me she’ll do lots of studying of issues, but has taken a clear stand on few.

I don’t see it that way. The lack of office does give him a certain freedom but that is only because he will never be held accountable for any of his rhetoric. He can take any position he pleases on the War or FISA or healthcare or any of a number of things. So, while he has that freedom, why not tell his base exactly what it wants to hear? There’s absolutely no way to prove he really means any of it. An uncritical mind would accept everything he says as being sincere. A critical mind regards his positions with a certain degree of skepticism.

portia.vz @ 86

I’m sorry, guys, I don’t think Edwards is purer than the other candidates we have. He says all the right things but that’s because he can. He doesn’t have a public office or constituents he has to placate.
It’s unlikely that I’m going to persuade anyone to carefully examine Edwards. People will believe what they want to believe and hold some candidates to a much higher standard than others. Sometimes a politician’s sincerity is taken at face value and they immediately get respect while others have to earn it.
Talk is cheap.

But is he the least worst?

Not in my opinion. I’d work for him tirelessly if he were the nominee because he is a much better alterntive to any Republican. But while I have a choice, I prefer someone better prepared who doesn’t have to pander slavishly to the base in order to be relevent. JMHO. You mileage may vary.

DBaker — here you go:

“Congress is considering new wiretapping laws that go well beyond the authority the president needs to keep our country safe by allowing wiretapping of Americans’ phone calls and emails without court supervision. Once again, George Bush is intimidating his critics with political threats.

“It’s time for Congress to show some backbone and stand up for the principles that have always made America strong. To defeat terrorism, we must preserve our moral authority to lead the world. If we are to succeed in spreading democracy abroad, we must defend the fundamental principles of democracy at home.”

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releas es/20071017-military-commission-act/

Thanks Christy!

I had remembered seeing something like this. I realize the man is not in the Senate, and can’t do much about things directly, but the statement is really a bunch of mush. He was a Senator for 6 years – did he not make any friends? He has a bigger pulpit than, say, this blog. (No offense intended whatsoever – the blogosphere has a role to play in political action and coordinating action)

While Sen. Dodd was not all that good on MTP yesterday – Timmeh was in full gotcha attack dog mode – at least he did something.

The nation is yearning for leadership. Edwards gives lovely speeches, but I have not seen any real call to actions where he inspires people to actually *do* something. I’d like him to call on his supporters to also make phone calls. To call one or more Senators (or Congressmen) who support him for the Presidency to help him out in putting a hold on a bill or filibuster some of the very legislation that he is talking about in the speech. It’s a win-win situation for a relatively unknown back-bencher as that person could thrust him or herself into the limelight as well.

That said, he has avowed to not take any PAC money so that might count as some action. I’d just like to see some inspired leadership – that’s what the country is really yearning for from what I see.