John Edwards

Democrats Got Lucky By Not Choosing John Edwards

Bob Fertik — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:06:07 -0400

Today John Edwards admitted he had an affair in 2006 with 44-year old Rielle Hunter.

Some will judge him harshly for it, some will not. All I can say is Democrats sure got lucky by not choosing him as our nominee this year - because if we had, the campaign would be over and John McCain would be choosing his Oval Office furniture.

And hopefully Barack Obama isn't lying when he says Michelle keeps him in line.

But while everyone obsesses over Edwards' past affair, what about John McCain's past affair - his affair with Cindy Lou Hensley, the pretty young heiress of one of the largest Budweiser distributors?

Of course McCain dumped his disfigured first wife for Cindy, and used her money to rise through the ranks of Republican politics - even as he showed his true feelings by calling her a c**t in front of 3 reporters.

Even Ronald and Nancy Reagan were shocked when McCain ran off with Cindy, yet the Corporate Media never mentions it. "Liberal media" my ass.

Of course there was one moment when the "liberal media" (a.k.a. the New York Times) suggested McCain was sleeping with a lobbyist - literally, not just figuratively. Republicans went ballistic, McCain denied the suggestion, and no one has ever raised the issue again. As Digby writes,

considering how everyone is excusing flogging this Edwards story on the basis of the fact that he lied to the press, I'm not sure it's in the country's best interest not to ask McCain about this again and talk to the women herself. What if it comes out that it was true after he's president? (That's one of the lines they keep trotting out about why it's so important to crucify Edwards.)

And while I'm on the topic of the media, let me bring up one of my pet peeves: what right does anyone in the media have to comment on some politician's affair without first disclosing whether or not they have ever had an affair?

All throughout Monicagate, it made me sick that at least half the pundits who were attacking Bill Clinton themselves had affairs, but they never had to disclose them.

Taking a cue from Bill Maher, I am announcing a new Rule: anyone in the media who criticizes a politician for having an affair must fully disclose how many affairs (s)he had.

Update 1: As always, Digby says it better:

Oh, and all the celebrity gasbags deserve to have all of their own private peccadilloes exposed to the world. They have helped create this absurd political test and they are the last people who could withstand the same scrutiny. These powerful people passing judgment on politicians for things they all do themselves is what makes the Village such phony provincial hellhole.

Oh Bama!

Bob Fertik — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 04:33:23 -0500

99% reporting:

	Votes	%	Delegates
Obama	295,091	55%	25
Clinton	141,128	27%	12
Edwards	93,552	18%	8

So what do you think? Will this give Obama a big enough boost to beat Clinton on Super Tuesday? Did Bill blow it for Hill? Did Edwards get enough votes to remain competitive?

Update 1: I like Jane Hamsher's take:

You would think that none of these people had ever been through an election before, with everyone reaching for the oxygen tanks over the "negative campaigning" in South Carolina. Hello, Lee Atwater? Anybody remember him? And Digby is right, all media concern trolls joining with right wing concern trolls about how Big Bad Bill is being mean to poor Barack only serves to infantalize Obama. Clinton has unfairly characterized many of Obama's positions but Obama has stood up to it well and fired back with gusto. Anyone who truly does care should be cheering him on for proving he is tough enough to take on the Republicans and get off the fainting couch, because most people over the age of 12 who aren't paid to punditize on teevee know that compared to what's coming this is pure little league.

Why can't John be heard?

Acebass — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:04:02 -0500

Of course we all know why he can't but I guess my real question is why are we putting up with it? Big money runs our elections now. Getting people elected has become a billion dollar business. No wonder John scares the media so. They'd have to go out and get honest jobs instead of making up stories about good honest people.

John is not only not taking the lobbiest money but he's also holding his own with the high rollers. This means he is working hard and getting the most votes for his money. That tells me that if this man can be heard people will agree with what he has to say.

Now the reason for my writing this is to encourage anyone who hasn't heard John Edwards and knows what he stands for I invite you to go here http://blog.johnedwards.com/

And if you support John Edwards please do as I'm doing and spread the word.

Edwards on Reagan

davidswanson — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:36:37 -0500

Racist Theory on Hillary's Victory in New Hampshire

theBlueHighwayman — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:15:53 -0500

Dispatch from New York City - 7:00P EST

2008 has just begun and the Media is already on a roll. They are all vying for the best why Hillary won New Hampshire theory. The prize here goes to the Chris Matthews Show and the Racist Theory to explain the lousy exit polls. Of course Chris Matthews has long been a critic of Senator Clinton and was writing her off after Iowa. On his Tuesday show Chris stated “This is the night the night that could be the end of a Presidential frontrunner’s candidacy”. Wishful thinking and as can be imagined Chris was not only stunned later that night but finally driven to madness. His show on Wednesday night was the most hilarious episode yet. Imagine grown educated men and one woman sitting around expounding the Racist Theory of Hillary’s win.

The Racist Theory of winning an election or losing one goes something like this:

An exit pollster asks a person who they voted for and the racist after casting a vote for Hillary would answer Obama thereby creating an exit poll showing Obama in the lead.

What’s wrong with this picture? Number one, racists generally don’t tend to be likely to vote for women. Number two, a good percentage of New Hampshire voters would had to have lied to the exit pollsters to skew the poll so favorably in Obama’s direction. Number three, if New Hampshire has so many racists why didn’t John Edwards do better in the primary? Number four, Liberal Democrats that tend to be the biggest factor in Democratic Primary Elections don’t usually fall into the racist category.

Leaving us with the problem of what really happened in New Hampshire. The most important piece of this puzzle is ‘Women’. Women voted by a far larger percentage for Hillary than anyone imagined. The moment in the Saturday night debate where Obama stumbled was on the question of being 'likable'. When he told Hillary she was 'likable enough' in a totally insincere manner, women noticed it. Although some would disagree for me it was a defining moment in New Hampshire followed by the supposed Hillary breakdown. The media played that scene over and over casting Hillary as weak woman breaking down under pressure being totally callous of her feelings. Nothing could have provided the fuel for the herricane that followed like these two moments. The second piece of the puzzle is the Independent vote. This group makes up more than forty percent of the voters in New Hampshire. Who did they vote for? Obama was counting on their support to put him over the top. However competing for these Independents was John McCain. I’d like to see a breakdown of this vote. Finally we have the youth vote (18-30) which unlike Iowa was split with only the youngest voters sticking with Obama the rest going to Hillary.

What is the reason for the bad exit polls? Simply ‘Garbage in Garbage Out’ nothing more nothing less! To say New Hampshire voters are lying racists is to say the Iowa voters are lying sexists. In fact from now on if Obama wins a state we know it’s because of rampant ‘Sexism’ if Hillary wins it’s rampant ‘Racism’. Such is the logic of the Media Pundits. It will be interesting to see what my home state, New York, turns out to be! The Gold medal for the most ludicrous pundit of the Racist Theory has to go to Michael Eric Dyson for his comment that the women who voted for Hillary in New Hampshire were Racists.

I have to decide if I am a racist or a sexist in the New York Primary next month. Maybe I’ll decide to be both a racist and a sexist by voting for John Edwards! HMMM

Clinton's Embarrassing Flop in Iowa Exposes Dem Leaders' Folly

dlindorff — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:53:54 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

The real message of the Iowa caucus yesterday was that the long-operative Clintonian/Democratic Leadership Council assumption that the independent or unaffiliated voter bloc is composed of conservative-leaning, dim-witted and easily manipulated people has got it all wrong.

In fact, in Iowa, where unaffiliated voters are free to participate in either a Democratic or Republican caucus, 41 percent of those people voted not for the conservative, tough-talking “centrist” Hillary Clinton. They voted instead for the black, nominally anti-war candidate, Barack Obama. Another significant percentage of independents went for another progressive-sounding candidate, John Edwards. Clinton only got an embarrassing 17 percent of the unaffiliated vote.

` The implications of this failure on her part are enormous when it comes to next November’s general election.

If Democratic voters in the upcoming primaries, especially in states like Pennsylvania, where independents are excluded from the voting, end up giving the nomination to Clinton, she will almost certainly end up forfeiting much of the independent vote, just as both Al Gore and John Kerry did in the last two presidential elections.

The reality is that many, if not a majority of unaffiliated voters are not at all conservative (or dim-witted). What they are is cynical about the current state of Tweedle-Dum/Tweedle Dee politics in America. They see both the Democratic and Republican parties as being of, by and for the rich and often they don’t even see the point in voting. (They are, in other words, in many ways more politically savvy than many registered Democratic voters, who refuse to acknowledge this reality!)

Because of the disastrous course of the last seven years under the Bush/Cheney administration, these independents are willing, as they showed in 2006, to give it a shot and vote for Democrats IF (and that word has to be capitalized and put in italics for emphasis) the Democrats will stand for something more than just Republicanism with frills. Exit polls in November 2006 showed that these voters (and a majority of Democratic voters) were looking for Democrats to stand up forcefully for the Constitution, and to put an end to the Iraq War.

They were double-crossed. The Democratic Congressional leadership, under the Clintonesque direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have done none of those things, choosing instead to simply pretend to be an opposition, while actually doing nothing on either front.

It’s an approach that Hillary Clinton clearly would continue to follow if she were somehow to manage to get herself elected to the presidency: a fawning obeisance to the wishes of corporate America and Wall Street, continued foreign wars and occupations, continued “tough talk” on crime with little or no effort to attack its causes (poverty, drugs, racism and hopelessness).

It’s also an approach that almost certainly would assure us another four to eight years of Republican control of the White House.

The truth is that those independent voters who turned out for Obama and Edwards are simply not going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November ’08. If it were to become a choice between Clinton and McCain, Clinton and Giuliani or Clinton and Huckabee, they will sit the election out—or even vote Republican. And she’s not going to get the other independents either—the ones who really are conservative leaning. If they vote at all, they’ll go Republican, offered the choice between Republican or Republican lite with a few liberal bells and whistles.

Fortunately, Iowa’s Democratic and independent voters have made it clear to the rest of the country that voting for Hillary Clinton is to commit Democratic Party suicide. Her whole campaign has been based upon the notion that she is the most “electable” candidate in the Democratic field—a notion that now stands exposed as a pathetic farce.

If Democratic primary voters in the rest of the country are paying attention, they will quickly send her packing back to New York, where she can continue her role, with colleague Chuck Schumer, of Wall Street lickspittle.

The rest of the Democrats seeking office or seeking re-election next fall should take heed. There is a frustrated, angry and very large bloc of people out there—independent voters—who are looking for progressive candidates who will not just talk in buzzwords, but who will act to restore some semblance of Constitutional government in America, and who will end the damned war in Iraq. If they’re lucky, those voters might giver them one more chance despite the wretched betrayal of November 2006.
___________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006, and now in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Edwards Sets 2009 Iraq Withdrawal Deadline

Bob Fertik — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:04:26 -0500

Just yesterday I complained there was no substantive difference among the three Democratic frontrunners (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) on ending the U.S. occupation Iraq, since they all promised to keep significant forces in Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013.

But today John Edwards set a deadline of December 2009 for the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops.

Edwards Calls for Quick End to Iraq Training Effort
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.

Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.

“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.

Hallelujah!

Of course the devil is always in the details, and we need to make sure there's no "wriggle room" for significant numbers of "residual forces." According to the Times,

Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.

I don't have a big problem with protecting the Embassy, although I'd like to see our Embassy shrunk down to the size of our other embassies, rather than being larger than Vatican City.

Edwards' web site is more vague, referring only to "combat troops" without addressing other categories of troops.

Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months

Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.

I don't know when Edwards decided to set a 12/09 deadline, but he should have publicized it months ago when Chris Bowers was blogging about residual forces. On 9/30/07, Bowers and other bloggers concluded Edwards planned to keep "One brigade OR up to 90,000 support troops," citing the 9/26/07 Dartmouth/MSNBC Presidential Debate:

Edwards mentions leaving a single brigade of combat troops for an unknown period of time as well as removing combat troops, leaving possibly tens of thousands of troops behind.

Of course Edwards' position is less definitive than Kucinich or Richardson, but if the early primaries narrow the field to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, then I will support Edwards.

What about you?

Update 1: InsiderAdvantage predicts Edwards will win big in Iowa when the longer-shot candidates fail to reach the 15% threshhold and their supporters switch their votes to their second-favorite candidates:

Using the reallocation methodology InsiderAdvantage used in 2004 – which correctly indicated a fairly comfortable win for John Kerry – our new poll reveals that, if the caucuses were held today, the reallocated final outcome would be:

Edwards: 41%
Clinton: 34%
Obama: 25%

If that proves accurate, Edwards would definitely shock the political establishment - and the counterattack from the Corporate Media would be fast and fierce. Stay tuned...

Edwards Challenges Corporate Power

Bob Fertik — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:33:53 -0500

In 2004, John Edwards won the endorsement of the Des Moines Register. But this time they picked Hillary Clinton because they were terrified by Edwards' challenge to Corporate Power. Edwards told George Stephanopoulos,

What I’m saying is I’m going to be the president, like Teddy Roosevelt, and like others like him-Harry Truman, who understood that there is an important battle against those interests-well financed, well entrenched, that prevent the kind of change that the country needs, that’s for the greater good. That’s for the greater good of the people. That’s the battle I’m talking about and that’s the fight I’m going to take on and win. And those who think you can do it by making a deal with him or compromising and conciliation…what possible reason do they have to give their power away voluntarily? They will not do it until you effectively taken their power away from them.

Good for Edwards.

Of course the loss of the Des Moines Register endorsement is just the beginning of a wave of attacks on Edwards by the Corporate Media, which must - by definition - destroy any anti-corporate candidate. They even censored Kucinich entirely from the last debate.

All eyes are on Iowa. If Edwards wins, the Corporate Media will unleash an all-out assault. It will be the job of progressive bloggers to defend him against that assault.

And in the longer term, we will not get our Democracy back until we put the Corporate Media out of business.

Update 1: In his inimitable style, Atrios simplifies the campaigns of the three poll-leading Democrats:

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

Is that how you see the differences?

Update 2: Due to the shocking rise of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, Corporatist Ideologues are being forced to fight a two-front war against both Democrats and Republicans. Here's panicked rightwinger David Frum:

The currently front-running candidate in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, has built his campaign on a plan to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax.

Economists and tax experts virtually unanimously agree that the plan is beyond unworkable -- that it is downright absurd. (It does not help that it was originally drafted by the Church of Scientology.)...

Just a little lower down in the polls is a libertarian candidate named Ron Paul. Paul is best known for his vehemently isolationist foreign policy views. But his core supporters also thrill to his self-taught monetary views, which amount to a rejection of everything taught by modern economists from Alfred Marshall to Milton Friedman.

Conservatives may claim to worship Jesus, but Milton Friedman is the one and only true god of Corporatists. In their eyes, anyone who deviates from Friedmanism is a heretic who must be destroyed.

Who can beat all the Pugs

cloudancer — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:50:57 -0500

Most of you know I am not a big fan of polls but this one caught my eye. According to NYT/CBS only Edwards can beat any of the current GOP candidates.

According to the latest poll all three top Dems can beat Guliani but Edwards beats him by the widest margin. All three can beat Romney but again, Edwards has the widest margin. All three would beet Huckabee and again Edwards has the widest margin. When it comes to McCain, he would beat Clinton but loose to Obama and loose big to Edwards.

On a national scale it looks like Edwards might be our best bet to take back the White House.

Global Warming Debate: Edwards, Clinton & Kucinich Win

Bob Fertik — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:30:02 -0500

Today may be remembered as a pivotal day in dealing with the increasingly urgent problem of global warming.

In Valencia, Spain, the world's climate scientists are struggling to finalize a consensus report that the world's governments will sign.

"There is real urgency," said Bert Metz from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, who co-chaired the IPCC working group on options for mitigating climate change.

"We need to peak emissions within 10 years if we are to keep the global temperature rise to 2C. If we leave it for 25 years, we're already committed to 3C."

Handily, [this] IPCC summary also tells you what those temperature rises translate to in terms of impacts.

Two Celsius means about one third of species at risk of extinction, decreased cereal production in the tropics, most coral reefs bleached.

Three Celsius puts millions more people at risk of coastal flooding, decreased cereal production at all latitudes and widespread death of coral reefs.

Coincidentally, today was the League of Conservation Voters/Grist forum on global warming in Los Angeles. All Democratic and Republican candidates were invited - only Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich showed up.

Here is Devilstower's summary:

Dennis Kucinich is obviously enthusiastic about this topic, and his personal efforts are admirable. However, when pressed on specifics, he wandered off topic and rarely gave any details of how he would implement his broad ideas. A good performance, but I doubt it will pull in anyone who wasn't already a fan.

Hillary Clinton, as she has in many debates, comes off as polished, self-possessed, and competent. That may make her seem a little stiff and cold to some people, but after eight years of Bush, competent seems hugely attractive. Her plan seems solid, and her calls for US leadership in this area were very welcome. However, she often seemed more interested in inserting Al Gore or Barbara Boxer's name into an answer (each of which drew expected applause) than delivering a concise response.

John Edwards hit the ground running -- almost literally. He tore into the subject at a pace that made me breathless just listening to him, and he was more willing than the other candidates to make definitive statements. He hearkened back to Kennedy, and made a call to national sacrifice, but he didn't spend all his time stomping the big emotional notes, and was ready with more information when it came to costs, funding, etc. Edwards also seemed the best informed on the latest UN report.

Todd Beeton also gives the edge to Edwards:

Edwards was in his element at this forum. The audience loves him and he is coming off really well. This forum actually gave him the perfect opportunity to expand on his calls for an end to lobbyist influence and for unequivocal bold leadership -- "no half measures." This forum pretty much crystallized the primary difference between Clinton and Edwards. The choice couldn't be more clear. While Kucinich is in the clouds, Clinton has her feet planted firmly on the ground, Edwards is somewhere in between, in a good way.

Congratulations to Edwards, Clinton, and Kucinich - but where the hell were all the other candidates on the most important issue of the century???