There's something about Edwards....

that just doesn’t quite ring true and no i’m not talking about a certain youtube video.

The following excerpt was written by Bob Shrum who worked on Edwards’ 1998 senate victory but at the time was working for Bob Kerry. Now I haveno idea whether this is true or not but like the best propaganda it speaks to something that we already feel about a candidate.

Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling,

Check out the rest including how he decided to vote for military action in Iraq here

 
 


Display: Sort:

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#1)

I wouldn't hold that against Edwards, compared to what the other candidates are reported to have said and done. But the time for a black President has come.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#2)

I support Barack Obama, but it doesn't mean 'the time for a black president has come'. The time for a woman PM had come in 1979, but......

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#3)

Now if Condeleeza could only be persuaded to stand against Barak then... America needs a new generation of politicians and I really can't see any of the Republicans as suitable, or any of the Democrats other than Obama as 'clean'.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#4)

Condeleeza... she aint running. The republicians are in a real mess about who to pick as their candidate but 2008 isn't going to be there year so there are probably a few who are keeping their heads down

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#5)

What is it that we are already supposed to feel about John Edwards?

Personally, I don't think that there's anything wrong here, "I've never told this to anyone before" could simply be a way of saying "I don't tell many people this". Edwards could have forgotten he told Kerry in the past.

Besides, any criticism from Bob Shrum is an endorsement in my book.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#6)

Who would I vote for?

Dennis Kucinich

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#7)

Obama's health plans won't lead to universal health care, where as Clinton's will.


The time has come for a woman President (Obama can be VP!).

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#8)

I wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman. What she needs to stop saying is that she's the experience candidate, and at the same time saying that she's her 'own woman', while trying to associate herself with some of the better elements of her spouse's administration, while trying to disassociate herself with the darker elements of the Clinton administration.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#9)

It doesn't matter who's health plan will give universal coverage. They'll have to be negotiated with congress first. I'd argue for Obama's plan in that Hillary believes in compulsion (I don't) and you can't work out a health plan with the people who defeated it, and her, before.

The big job of US politics is to mitigate the influence of lobbyists. Few, if any, have ever attracted as many donations from such a wide range of people as Obama. Politics paid for by the people. Clinton is paid for by the same old crowd.

With Hillary as president, there'll be the new revelations in the press about stupid non-issues because half the country hates her so much. It's unfair - but there they are.

The best person for the job is Joe Biden. Civil rights, foreign relations, domestic issues, dealing with Republicans - he's unrivalled. But Obama is stunningly inspirational, long-term minded, fair and reconciliatory.

With Biden as Secretary of State and the brilliant and heroically competent Bill Richardson as veep - the USA would have a wonderful team to restore its reputation in the world and in itself. (In my humble opinion!)

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#10)

I suppose Kinnock could always get a job as Joe's speechwriter. The trouble with Hillary is that she's carrying too much baggage and I include Bill in that comment. Its gotta be Obaha. In a good year for the Democrats. They can't fail to win whoever the Republicans put up.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#13)

It's actually totally inaccurate to blame Biden for allegedly plagiarising Kinnock's speech; he had previously used it, giving credit to Kinnock; it was only on the second occasion that he forgot to credit Kinnock, and within 15 minutes he had released a press statement admitting the omission.  Without that press statement, it may have gone un-noticed.

I agree that Richardson as VP to either Clinton or Obama, with Biden as Secretary of State (or National Security Advisor) is an ideal scenario.

It is vital to keep Edwards away from the nomination though, as he would drive every moderate Republican and most Independents away from the Democrats, and almost certainly presage a Bloomberg candidacy, which would destroy Democratic hopes of securing the Presidency.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#14)

I think Edwards has a role to play in whoever forms the Administration at Defence or as Ambassador to the UN. He really does have leftish leanings. He could be brought into the Cabinet after, after, the Democrats win control of the White House.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#15)

I do like Edwards (I wanted him to win in 2004) but I don't want him on the ticket this time. He's coming across as more divisive this time around and also his loss as the Vice-President nomination in 2004 makes him a damaged good.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#19)

I disagree, quite emphatically. Republican policies are in fact far to the right of what most Americans believe, what has been lacking from the Democrats is a coherent story of who they are and what they stand for.

It's a mistake to imagine politics as a giant left right pendulum with the winner as the person who choses the correct position. Thats the mistake the democrats made in 2004 when they chose John Kerry a man who looked great on paper but failed as a candidate. It's also the mistake they made in 2000 when they advised Al Gore against campaigning on environmental issues.

The problem is not Edward's position on the political spectrum, it is the fact that Democrats have repeatedly failed to take the fight to the Republicans. They have failed to expose the issues where the Republicans are out of touch with the country and failed to make clear what it means to be a Democrat.

I've not made my mind up on who I like, but I'm certain that the choice should be a choice for a candidate that appeals to heart not a candidate who has made the best tactical choice on issues.

Re: Gutless Democrats (#23)

Whatever you think of the Republicans-they have got guts. The Democrats in the past couple of years have been gutless. Trying to neutralise a situation, instead of finding the flaws in every argument the Republicans make. Like trying to re-write science in schools. They'll win by crushing the findings of Hucakbee's fourth-grade scientific study, or Bush's socialogical publishings. (these were with regards to Evolution and Gay rights)

I'll give you an example: At the start of last year, Mr. Cheney said that the Murtha-Pelosi plan for withdrawl from Iraq, validated Al-Qaeda. Nancy Pelosi, the most senior Democrat in America, responded with: 'That's beneath the office of the Vice-President and I'm going to call the President'. She sounded like a kid running to the teacher in the playground for support. Now in playgrounds, I do not support bullying, or a 'fight back' attitude, but this is the political world, and she can crush these visceral arguements.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#11)

It does matter who's health policy they follow because Obama's health plan does not provide universal coverage - Clinton's and Edwards' does.

The fact that Clinton failed once means she can learn from those mistakes. Her health plan has widely been credited as the most professional and most feasible in the race. Also, if a Democrat wins the race to the White House, it's likely both the House and the Senate will stay Democratic too - so she should have no problem getting it through Congress.

Obama I'm afraid not only lacks experience but comes across as lacking in experience. I can't see his foreign policy going down too well if he gets the nomination.


Remember, to be President you only need half of America to support you (or in Bush's case, even less than that). Who cares if the wrong half of America hates Clinton? On most poll match-ups against Giuliani, McCain or Huckabee, she comes out on top. It doesn't matter whether she's popular, it's that she gets the job done which counts.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#12)

I don't think you're seeing the whole board.

By the same standard that Hillary's plan is universal - so is Mitt Romney's which is to make coverage as it stands compulsory for certain workers and employers.

That's not good enough when something like 46m are uninsured and vastly more "insured" Americans have expensive policies not worth the paper they're written on.

The cost of these usless premiums vary slightly of course but if you can get insured, proper coverage (not even equivalent to treatment we'd enjoy on the NHS) can cost $1,200 a month which is clearly disgraceful.

Obama's plan will cover every American without compelling them to the crap system that exists. His plan incorporates guaranteed eligibility (not turned away as uninsurable because your granny had cancer), reducing costs through simplified paperwork (insurers' first tactic is to make it almost impossible for a normal person to wade through the application forms) and portability to other jobs.

His plan also aims to tackle the glaring gap of prevention. He makes the economic argument for reducing the number of people with diabetes for example and demonstrates how prevention now will pay off several times over in the future.

I don't see that Clinton can credibly claim to be the experienced candidate. Dodd, Biden and even Richardson have her hands down on that. She's been in the Senate a term longer than Obama. She can't say she's an 'Agent of Change' when her experience claim comes as unelected First Lady. Remember aswell that few people had more experience for the White House than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

While one may only need 51% of America to become President - you need far more to govern. I couldn't disagree more that it is acceptable for one half of the electorate to hate the President. I care very much because the more entrenched that half becomes from the other - I shudder to think who or what the Republicans will throw up when it's their side's next turn.
 
It's hard to argue with someone's impression but I have the opposite opinion on their foreign policy positions. Clinton voted with Republicans for a resolution designating Iranian military as terrorists - the price of Oil immediately shot up and the liklihood of a confrontation increased.

She berated Obama for saying that he'd committ to talking to Cuba, Syria and Iran saying she wouldn't want to be used for propaganda. I think that was hawkish and reeked of US pigheadedness when those countries will say black is white anyway for propaganda.

He has pledged no more unilateralism. She hasn't. He has the courage to say that is an unashamed liberal. She hasn't. He came out immediately, openly and frankly about drug taking in his youth. She hasn't been open, courageous or honest about anything. To me - she is the embodiment of a typical, calculating politician in an age when typical, calculating politicians flourish. Although he too is a politician - as a person he is a great deal more.

I don't want to kick her as any Democrat would be far better than any Republican - but she appears to have to de-toxify her brand for Republicans and she seems a pretty wooden fake while she's doing it.

Obama - if you read his book, speeches or track how he legislated in the Illinois and US Senate - you'll see a long-term thinking, massively intelligent, fair dealmaking pragmatist who is above sniping. I think that's what's most needed in their entrenched, guttersnipe system.

I have never been as impressed with someone in politics as him in terms of extolling what leadership and intelligence actually are and I am certain he will make a wonderful President.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#16)

I agree that Obama is a very strong candidate and I would certainly support him if he became the Democratic nominee. However, I just think he's lacking in various areas compared to Clinton.

On health care, for me, it should be compulsory that all people are covered. I remember when Obama released his health care plans, the media criticised it as leaving open too many loop-holes as there wasn't a specific enforcement of universal health care. As far as I'm aware, Clinton's plan doesn't just involve getting coverage for the uninsured - she's also promised to radically change coverage for those who are insured but still cannot afford to have treatment comparable to our NHS.

Also, it's wrong to compare Clinton's ideal of universal health coverage to Romney's. Romney would only use pure free-market methods to achieve it and wouldn't increase taxpayer's contributions to pay for it. Effectively, Romney's plans would not be sufficient as the free market alone can never provide true universal health care. Clinton and Edwards would both use government spending to ensure full coverage is achieved.


Clinton may only have been First Lady but she did have a large impact on her husband's Presidency. If she were to do as well in office as her husband did then I'd be very happy. And as I said, Clinton generally gives the impression that she's more experienced than Obama and given the difficulties in the world at the moment, America needs a President who hits the ground running from Day 1.


America is generally a very divisive country anyway. It's fair to say that Obama hasn't really been scrutinised to the same extent that Clinton has, but if Obama were to win the nomination then that would change and I think he'd struggle. His openness about drug taking and his more left-wing views (compared to Clinton) would probably hurt him.


I think his stance on foreign policy would also be damaging. Americans expect their leaders to be reasonably tough on foreign policy and the President has to be very careful not to fall into the trap of potential propaganda for the leaders of Iran, Cuba etc. That's not to say that there should be no dialogue, but Obama just tends to give off an impression of naivety.


I'm sure Obama will win tonight in Iowa, but I think Clinton will win the nomination overall. Iowa is different from all the other races given it's the first to caucus. Giuliani will probably finish fifth or sixth tonight but you can be he'll be right up there come Super Tuesday.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#17)

I don't think it should be compulsory to be insured by an organisation that charges an obsene premium for a service they'll do their utmost to wriggle out of. But let's not to and fro on healthcare as we'll be here all day.

No doubt about it but if Obama wins the nomination there'll be the shots from the gutter about his drug taking, ethnicity and foreign parent.

I suppose the issue is that the fight against Hillary will be a God send (forgive the unfortunate choice of words) to mobilise a beleagured Republican Party. They (The Republicans) are dying for her to win it.

European diplomats very much welcome Obama's embrace of multilateralism (reminded in the Independent this morning) and while I think you're right that American's expect a strong President - after seven years of the worst President in modern History and America's worst reputation abroad ever, they are pretty sick of the tough guy act and the swagger we've seen from Bush. It's odd that the person most likely to bring back the great US reputation from the 90's is not the Hawkish Clinton but the multi-lateral Obama (or Biden - with whom Obama most agrees on foreign policy).

As I say - either would be much better than the Republican rabble.

Predictions - I'll go with an Obama win for the nomination with a strong showing from Richardson. Clinton will lose front-runner status once it's apparent that Edwards won't win before "Tsunami Tuesday" - that support will go for Obama. He'll also pick up Biden's but not Dodd's.

I'm terrified by the prospect of Guilani or Romney win on the other side and hope Huckabee gets it (although it's like hoping for as punch in the mouth because a kick between the legs was the other option). I can't imagine the US will give another Republican the job though. With all the young Republicans supporting the radical isolationist Ron Paul and evangelical voters dismayed that there's no Bush type candidate, I can't see them doing it - unless, of course, they're mobilised by Hillary...

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#18)

Americans are now prepared for a black President. They've seen it in action in the hit TV series '24 hrs'. They've had two successive and much respected black Secretaries of State. I have a feeling that the only criticism about Obama will in fact come from the black community, that he isn't 'black' enough and will do little to advance the black peoples of America. 

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#20)

Iowa showed that Obama is 'acceptable' to many white voters, which is a relief. They see the family man and the policies. And the great thing is that he attracted many women voters and young voters. Its a generational thing that Americans are looking for. Good to see that Huckerbee got the Republican nomination and they turned against the conservative Romney. Hopefully the results will be repeated in New Hampshire. 

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#21)

Whilst Obama has put himself in the front-runners position for the Democrats in New Hampshire, it would be a pretty big surprise if McCain did not go on and win the Republican race - Huckebee is nowhere in the NH polls, and there isn't enough time for him to close the gap between now and next Tuesday.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#22)

I'd be surprised if McCain won the nomination. He's the Ming Campbell of USA politics, from a competely different era. If they chose him, the Repubs would definitely be onto a loser.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#24)

Don't doubt America's infatuation with a war hero.

Re: There's something about Edwards.... (#25)

David Palmer was an almost out of this world president on 24, much less so of his brother. Colin Powell was supressed by the growling neo-con dogs that surrounded the Oval Office, and I don't doubt his opposition to Iraq, but it's a shame he couldn't have shown it then. Condi has been something of an anti-climax, but not bad. There has been rediculous criticism from the black community, particuarly because of the 'Jena 6' case. I don't like the sort of Al 'support me because I'm black' Sharpton candidate. Nor am I going to support someone just because they're a progressive minority. But I'm supporting Obama.