Like Edwards

John Edwards was working the stumps in Minnesota for Amy Klobuchar before it became fashionable to do so. He worked District 8 in his shirtsleeves long before the Clintons decided Amy might be a good bet for Senator. When Bill came to town, it was all pomp and circumstance. Same for Obama.

Hillary would be a good president..so would Edwards. The question to ask yourself is whom would you feel comfortable having a cup of coffee with in the morning? Who would really listen to your concerns?

by Georgianne Nienaber (145 articles, 46 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 337 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 10:09:57 AM
 

I like the 5% for Someone Else

Just what kind of Democratic candidate are they looking for if neither Kucinich, Edwards, Obama, Clinton, or Gravel strike them as people worth voting for?

This someone else wouldn't happen to be composed of the loyalist Biden, Dodd, and Richardson supporters still out there, would it?

by Kevin Gosztola (212 articles, 114 quicklinks, 70 diaries, 812 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM
 

One View From The Trail

I'm on the campaign trail, started in Iowa, just left South Carolina yesterday feeling Obama has it rapped up, then Clinton will come in, followed by Edwards. Slowly, I have warmed to Edwards. I do think he is sincere and good, he is certainly a hard worker. No one in Iowa and New Hampshire worked as hard on the campaign trail as Edwards. Maybe what I like the most about him is he's the only candidate who is not afraid to say he will battle the entrenched powers! Whereas Obama has too much confidence in talking, and Clinton too much faith in her establishment contacts, Edwards is ready to go to war. And I think that is what it will take to move this country forward.

Now I'm heading to California for Super Tuesday. I would love to see Edwards inch past Clinton in South Carolina, which would make him a viable candidate on Super Tuesday. If he comes in a far third, I'm afraid he will be finished. That would be a shame.

by Stewart Nusbaumer (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM
 

Your headline

is confusing and distracts from the story..........

40% of what?

by Laudyms (0 articles, 808 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 403 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 1:12:02 PM
 

...of 15%

21%, Edwards current polling, is exactly 40% greater than 15%, his polling 4 days ago.

by csnet (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 82 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 1:50:50 PM
 

Increase in 4 days: here's the math

( 21% - 15% ) / 15% - 1 = 40%

by Digitboy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 1:53:13 PM
 

I'm such a smartass...

I got it wrong.  Should be:

( 21% - 15% ) / 15% = 40%

by Digitboy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 1:54:56 PM
 

The Republicans love Obama and Hillary

Yeah, I can see Rove gloating at the media making it an Obama v. Hillary race when Edwards consistently polls better than both of them against all the different Republicans.

If it's Obama, then it will be a cake walk when all the blacks and poor people who are supporting him in the primaries get to the polls in November and find that they are somehow not on the roster to vote.  Handed Provisional Ballots that are never counted, it will be a Rethuglican Slaughter.

Or, if it's Hillary, then they will bring out "the base" (that is, that 20% of the population that is just totally brain-dead and ditto-head) and make the race quite close enough to steal, while doing massive damage to the other Democrats down-ballot and probably losing the Senate and shrinking their margin in the House.

Yeah, if I was rigging the Dem primaries, I would be siphoning votes from the other candidates (especially Edwards) and plowing them into the "can't lose" candidates of Obama and Clinton.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 677 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 1:44:02 PM
 

Edwards for president

John Edwards is the person to vote for in the democratic primaries. Clinton is just like George Bush because she will serve only corporate interests and put a spin on it to sell it as something to help the middle or working class, NAFTA is a good example of this bait and switch technique. Obama is another corporate man ready to make change to help the downtrodden but I don't think he has it in his heart to fight.

Edwards will fight the greedy ruthless multinationals who are destroying the American way of life and the future of this great nation. I would like to see support for Edwards dramatically increase because it would push Clinton, Obama and the Democratic party into the right direction. That direction is pointing their cannons at the greedy business interests who are Americas enemies and fighting for the working and middle class.

Edwards is what America so desperately needs. A vote for anyone else is a vote for big business and politics as usual.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 221 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 5:25:47 PM
 

Where is he on Impeachment?

Where is he on Impeachment? He's another silent movie with no script. Turn the channel please.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 5:45:04 PM
 

Forget Impeachment -- It's Too Late For That Now

Impeachment now? Fuggadabowdit! It's not going to happen. With only a year left in BushCo's term, it's too late now to initiate impeachment proceedings against them.

It took 18 months for the impeachment process to go into high gear against Nixon and a year for it to go into motion against Bill Clinton.

You've got to be awfully naive to believe impeachment is going to take place during an election year.

by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 1:26:24 AM
 

Wow!

If you kill one person there is no statute of limitations. If you kill a million people and can hold out for a year, you're golden. As a bonus, you get a great number of other high crimes, misdemeanors and treason forgiven for just hiding behind the bogus perquisites you made up for your office.

No wonder there are so many criminals vying for the office.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1177 comments) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 8:33:44 AM
 

Way to go, John!

I have never been confortable with Obama - just something about him that I don't totally trust. Hillary is too cozy with big business interests. Edwards, especially after the past debate, has proven over and over again that he is not going to be beholding to anyone when he gets to the White House. If either Clinton or Obama makes it to Washington, when re-election time rolls around, they'll be looking for money from the same people who are contributing now. And, if they don't make it worth their while in the first four years, they know the money won't be there. Think that's reason enough to grant special favor to those corporate elitists who got them elected? Put your money on Edwards, and let him rid us of this plague!!!!!

by Lynn Beckman (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 6:16:53 PM
 

Both Clinton and Obama voted for the New Berlin Wall

My comment has to do with the Republican abomination that is being built along our border with Mexico.  It seems that Congress has forgotten about the universally hated symbol of hatred, fear, and failure, known as the Berlin Wall, that the communist dictators of the USSR and DDR (East Germany) built  in 1961.  It was almost 100 miles of parallel concrete walls, 12 feet high, separated by a killing field between them, that encircled the U.S., British, and French Sectors of West Berlin, in order to stop the East German people from escaping to freedom.  It stood until 1989, when a President of the United States said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"  Remember?  Our Congress doesn't, because in September 2006 they voted to emulate the communist dictators by building almost a replica along our southern border.

Former President Vincente Fox of Mexico called it the "New Berlin Wall".  Mikhail Gorbachev, former Chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for, in part, allowing the German people to tear down the Berlin Wall, said it is "almost like a new Wall of China".  The only current atrocity rivaling the Berlin Wall and our New Berlin Wall in beaconing hatred, bigotry, fear, and government failure to the world is the "Abominable Wall" the Israelis are building (and largely have built) fencing the Palestinian people out of their own property.

Maybe most Americans have forgotten about the Berlin Wall.  That must be so, because I haven't heard a word about it during this campaign season (other than Duncan Hunter cavorting around the country bragging that he wrote the bill authorizing it).  But I'll bet that no veteran or family member of a veteran who served in West Berlin during the Cold War will ever forget.  I won't.  That is why I was so saddened that several Democrats voted for HR 6061.  Only one Republican senator, Chaffee, voted against building the wall.  Sadly, 24 Democratic senators voted for it; among them were Senators Clinton and Obama. 

One more thing that I think is valid to consider when deciding which of the three remaining (viable) candidates has the wisdom and judgment to be President of the United States is the vote to allow George W. Bush to invade Iraq.  I recall very well President Bush telling Congress that a vote for his resolution was not a vote for war, but rather a vote for peace, because he would use it to convince the United Nations to pass a resolution (making it legal for him to invade).  Of course we know now that it was a big lie, and he had no intention of depending on the vote in the United Nations.  It is certainly possible that he believed Iraq had WMD, but we know for a fact that he totally ignored all the opposing intelligence, and ignored the advice of all but the neocons and chickenhawks.  John Edwards has apologized for his mistaken vote.  Senator Clinton has neither apologized nor admitted error.  I recommend that you look on her website www.clinton.senate.gov.  You will find there, under "remarks about Iraq" the text of the speech she made to the Senate on 10 October 2002, the day before the fateful vote.  You will find it does not exactly match up with what we hear her say today.

 I expect that, as usual, the nominee will already have been decided before Texas votes on March 4th.  Regardless, my vote will go to John Edwards. 

by circuitrider (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 10:31:08 PM
 

Thumbs Down on Continuing Bush-Clinton "Dynasty"

While most of us -- and the mainstream media -- are focusing on the "horecerace" in the primaries, I'm looking ahead to the fall general election campaign -- and I've got one question:

Does anyone here seriously wants a continuation of the Bush-Clinton "dynasty" in the White House after nearly 20 years? 

Think about it. It will be 20 years this November since George H.W. Bush was elected president. He was followed by Bill Clinton, who in turn was followed by George W. Bush. If Hillary wins, this country will have gone 24 or perhaps 28 years with a president with the surname Bush or Clinton. 

Excuse me, but America is NOT a monarchy. And after nearly two decades, I'm SICK of both the Bushes AND the Clintons.

I really don't give a damn what the primary polls are saying; I don't give a damn that The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton. I, for one, have HAD IT with the Bush-Clinton "dynasty" and absolutely, positively will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton under ANY circumstances. 

Enough is enough! I say the time has come for new leadership to take this country in a new direction.

At this point, I'm still undecided between John Edwards, Barack Obama and even John McCain as to who to give my "thumbs up." But I'm turning a firm "thumbs down" on Hillary Clinton.

It's time to end the Bush-Clinton "dynasty."

by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 10:43:25 PM
 

Hear, hear!

I agree. I've had a belly full of both of these would be dynasties and the filthy tactics that they employ in service of their ambition. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will write in the name of a legitimate candidate instead.

I would prefer to suffer four more years of a Republican stooge, rather than suffer four more years of a Republican stooge with dynastic ambitions. The end result by 2012 would be both Hillary and her corporatist soulmates thoroughly repudiated, and the field open for the restoration of constitutional government.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1177 comments) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 8:53:46 AM
 

To hell with gender and race -- Edwards talks about ISSUES.

Edwards is our man. Obama is corporate, like Hillary. One is running on his race and the other is running on her genders. Both mean NOTHING. God is heaven, can't human beings ever think about ISSUES!!! How much longer will we keep electing "politicians" who poisen what's little is left of the American soul.

Go, go, go EDWARDS!!!

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (232 articles, 45 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 541 comments) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM