digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at firedoglake.com

Senator Edwards, We Need You To Lead

firedoglake.com — "John Edwards should challenge his rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to go back to Washington, DC and fight against retroactive immunity for the telecoms.Glenn Greenwald:'It will be increasingly difficult to listen to Edwards, Obama and Clinton tout their supreme leadership attributes and their commitment to' changing the Washington[...]"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • katiedogg, on 01/23/2008, -23/+48He's the right one to do it, leading the fight against the corporate cons is his message.
    • Chompy, on 01/23/2008, -12/+11Yeah, it's just too bad the guy has no chance to win the nomination. Seriously, relative merits aside, he's done with this race. Stick a fork in him.
      • didiman, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4That's probably because he's a complete idiot on top of being a tool.
    • wphj, on 01/23/2008, -14/+10I've actually met him, and he's a really genuine guy. I just don't think most people see him as "Presidential" enough. I'd really love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -13/+6.......I've actually met him, and he's a really genuine guy.......
        Yes, a genuine DOUCHE. Did he channel any dead babies for you?
        • d03boy, on 01/23/2008, -6/+5I'm not even democrat, but seriously, back up your opinions with some form of reasoning
          • SillyDigger, on 01/23/2008, -3/+5I'm not ever human but that guy is a jerk!

            Xenu.
          • RGWX, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4If by "douche" mmmmmbiscuits means "scumbag ambulance chasing fake populist" then douche is entirely right.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1Um.... that's the other John Edwards. http://www.johnedward.net
    • raloeldorado, on 01/23/2008, -8/+2Kucinich/Edwards 2008
    • swordedge, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3Edwards is a personal injury lawyer. He has never seen an honest corporation. He doesn't believe any exist there for they MUST be very heavily regulated.
      Total nonsense of course, Big corporations are largely indifferent to the individual and small ones are as all over the map as people are.
    • IMustBeEmo, on 01/23/2008, -5/+4Lots of Edwards' campaign money is from private big corporations! He voted for the PATRIOT ACT and for the war in Iraq, and he supports military action in Iraq as well. We don't need any more corporate sell out candidates like Edwards, or Clinton, or Obama. Ron Paul got 2nd in the Nevada caucus! I caucused for Dennis Kucinich in Las Vegas, they wouldn't let me in for Ron.

      RON PAUL, DENNIS KUCINICH, MIKE GRAVEL 2008. HOPE FOR AMERICA WITH STRENGTH THROUGH PEACE, UNITY, BIPARTISANSHIP, AND FREEDOM
    • spankaccount, on 01/23/2008, -3/+6Edwards is nothing but a slick "slip and fall" lawyer. Hillary the "DNC machine" candidate and she will get nominated. Trust me.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Awwwwwwww! Thanks for ruining the ending. I was just beginning to believe the media telling everyone that Obama actually has a chance at the nomination.
    • fokov, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Edwards is the third man out. For one reason he took a temp job doing guess what? Hedge Fund management. So if you think he cares about the little guy your are a fool. The ticket will be Obama and Hillary because with that combination they get the stupid black vote and the stupid women vote. Which if you look at the numbers are more than enough to take out all people with minds and republicans. We will just end up with more fascism and less freedoms. Sad :(
    • principle, on 01/24/2008, -1/+1If Edwards wants to be President, he should adopt some of Ron Paul’s message. As would-be defender of the people he should take on the Fed, defend the Constitution, etc. In general, be more aggressive. Especially now, when Clinton, and Obama are not doing their duty “to protect and defend the Constitution”, it is his golden opportunity to show that he is a true leader.
  • bobschacht, on 01/23/2008, -28/+30Edwards is the leader we need! He knows how the senate works, and what it takes. But he also can show superior leadership in this matter.
    • hoovcluck, on 01/23/2008, -13/+6Edwards is a joke, he couldn't even carry his home state in the last election.
      • haydesigner, on 01/23/2008, -6/+1Don't think he was actually running for *president* the last election. Nice logic.
        • edwartica, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Actually, he did run for president last election. After Howard Dean's yelling stunt, he was Kerry's chief rival for the nomination.
          • haydesigner, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1That was the primary process, not the general election.
    • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -7/+4His leadership is so superior that he's trailing Clinton and Obama, and was made a fool in a debate against Cheney.

      I guess he did have superior leadership when it came to bogus lawsuits that bankrupted doctors and HMOs so that he could by his enormous mansion while worrying about the poor.
    • SuperVepr308, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2I'm sorry, but no one is following the Breck Girl anywhere (except a few groupies I guess). Just a note, no matter how much you stump for him/her he does not know you, you aren't getting invited to the mansion and you can't have any of his money.
  • LoneRanger85, on 01/23/2008, -44/+24Edwards doesn't lead, he follows -- ambulances.
    • EllieElliott, on 01/23/2008, -11/+16that's disgusting, your family must be lucky never to have been the victim of medical mistakes -- lucky indeed.
      • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -9/+9Cerebral Palsy is a medical mistake? Jon, the Baby Whisperer, did more harm to the medical profession than good.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3John Edwards and his scum sucking trial lawyer comrades made millions of dollars alleging that doctors were responsible for cerebral palsy. Time and again, he convinced ignorant jurors that if only the doctor had insisted on a Caeserean section, the palsy could have been avoided. Thanks to the trial lawyers, the rate of Caeserean sections tripled or quadrupled over the past thirty years. And the rate of cerebral palsy is unchanged. The doctors were blameless for this act of God, and John Edwards is a liar and a thief who should be counter-sued for every penny he swindled from the medical profession.
      • LoneRanger85, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2The truth is, you don't have the SLIGHTEST idea what Edwards' cases involve. You are speaking, not from facts, but from emotion. Liberals feel, conservatives think.
    • RGWX, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Outstanding. ;)
  • dakine01, on 01/23/2008, -25/+15Senator Edwards can lead the way and show what no candidate still in the race has shown - the leadership to stand up for the constitution.
    • ggfobster, on 01/23/2008, -12/+9Uhh.. even if you don't like him; Ron Paul?
      • capiCrimm, on 01/23/2008, -3/+4Ron Paul may have possibly supported the constitution and change in the past, but that's old news. He might flip flop on his 40 year consistent position. We know, however, that these candidates stand for the constitution and change today!!!
    • RansomHoldiay, on 01/23/2008, -5/+6obama was a constitutional lawyer, he turned down the job of a big trial lawyer to help people.
      • EditorResponse, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3"he turned down the job of a big trial lawyer to help people" hahaha...it was never offered to him. He is a loser.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/23/2008, -6/+5....Senator Edwards can lead the way and show what no candidate still in the race has shown - the leadership to stand up for the constitution......
      Don't you mean FORMER Senator Edwards? And only ONE TERM FORMER Senator Edwards, at that (and that's if you're generous enough to count all the time he spent campaigning rather than doing what the people of North Carolina elected him to do). Leadership my hairy white ass. That douchebag has more cumulative time with a blowdryer in his hand than he does actually serving as a productive Senator.
  • marymccurnin, on 01/23/2008, -10/+5Important read. Important action to take.
    • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -6/+4Another Hamsher shill. LOL, you morons are light years behind the Rontards. Get more organized like those idiots.
    • RansomHoldiay, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1See action run.
  • Nahanter, on 01/23/2008, -7/+8Thank you Jane for continuing the fight against those who would fritter away or constitutional rights. Never stop fighting back until the rule of law is respected and the constitution is restored to it's rightful place in our country!
    • p0s3r, on 01/23/2008, -2/+3You created your account just to shill for piece of ***** Hamsher? LOL.
  • eurekaspringsar, on 01/23/2008, -10/+17If Hillary and Barack don't wake up and fight this with everything they have in a very public manner.. they do not deserve to be president.
    • ksadya, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2whoa, not so fast... just continue slower.
  • eurekaspringsar, on 01/23/2008, -13/+2I am so sorry! I just clicked on the little thing to recommend two comments above before my eyes could tell me i was actually pressing thumbs down.. Again I apologize.
  • seldon452, on 01/23/2008, -12/+7If you look at all the polls Edwards is everyone's second choice. He is basically being screwed. If obama or clinton (or both) were not running he would take the nomination no problem. Just bad luck I guess.
    • winmywii, on 01/23/2008, -8/+11If he had no competition than he would most likely win? Awesome statement. I do think Edwards is the candidate that is closest to my views and Ron paul is the only somewhat sane republican.
      • Jamihabs, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3Awesome statement ;-) The only other candidate who is more insane and less credible than Edwards, is Ron Paul.
        • EditorResponse, on 01/23/2008, -6/+2You forgot Kucinich...another loser. I think Kucinich and Paul take the award for biggest assholes.
        • mega-volt, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Why don't you back that up with some reasons?
  • neocognitism, on 01/23/2008, -19/+10I, for one, do not particularly need him to lead.
  • ggfobster, on 01/23/2008, -17/+20Paul/Edwards 2008
    jkjk
    • RansomHoldiay, on 01/23/2008, -6/+3good comment!
      jkjk
    • wildbillhick, on 01/23/2008, -5/+3i wish such a world were logically possible.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3They're my two top candidates. I personally prefer Edwards/Paul, but either way...
    • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3Yes because Paul would want to work with someone that wants high taxes, lots of government involvement, and is at opposites with nearly every one of his beliefs.

      Why are so many Digg users politically retarded?
      • ksadya, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Opposites are sometimes compatible. I'm for a small government, but the current republican has increased the size of government substantially. I'm for some socialism because a certain number of sub-average children are abandoned by their drug-addicted parents. These philosophies are polar opposites, but they are things I am ideologically in favor of -- a socialist, minimalist government.

        I don't want to give hand-outs, but we need to think about the abandoned, helpless ones (less than 1% , which is still 3 million).
  • Grantismo, on 01/23/2008, -16/+8Sorry guys but all the "front runners" are cfr scum. Only Kucinich, Paul, and Gravel would be a safe vote.
    • ZenMojo, on 01/23/2008, -3/+6Unfounded, but keep up the *****. :)
    • RansomHoldiay, on 01/23/2008, -2/+8i don't think i would describe gravel as a 'safe vote.'
    • marmanukem, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2I see lots of people accusing Obama of being a CFR member, but no one has ever shown any proof. So I dare you to.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -5/+3Edwards has a lot more in common with those three men than I think you realize, good sir.
  • ShogunWarPig, on 01/23/2008, -12/+7Vote Ro......Eh we'll just start with vote, that would be change enough for this country.

    Decent read, but I just do not see much changing. They'll just find some other loop-hole.
  • JNudda, on 01/23/2008, -17/+5Senator Edwards, We need you to drop out and endorse Obama.
    • zwaldowski, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2Unfortunately, how it might work. I like Edwards for many reasons, but Obama is awesome.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -3/+4Senator Obama, we need you to drop out and endorse Edwards. Obama's great at speeches, but Edwards has the integrity and the fortitude for the job.
  • Cyrus042, on 01/23/2008, -14/+6Edwards is the biggest politician of the 3. He's more of a salesman than a leader.
  • facttech, on 01/23/2008, -5/+20Edwards isn't in government right now. He gave up his Senate seat when he ran in 2004. I'm not sure how he can easily influence this legislative process, but he can certainly start talking about it.
    • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2I live in Missouri, and Edwards traveled here often through 2005-2007 to help get a mininum wage increase (it passed). So he is still very influential and active.
  • bacchus101, on 01/23/2008, -8/+31When Edwards berated Obama and Clinton last night after they briefly paused their "liar liar pants on fire" sludge party, I had chills running down my spine....

    "This kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get education because of this? How many kids are going to get to go to college because of this?"

    That was the slam dunk of the debate.
    • Cyrus042, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2The reality is that John Edwards isn't above squabbling. He's not above being the bulldog in debates and engaging in "politics as usual". The fact of the matter is that he's not the frontrunner he wants to be, and if that means being holier than thou, then so be it.
    • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0That wasn't a slam dunk, it was him repeating Bill Clinton's response from 1996 when Bob Doyle called him out on his shady activities. Too bad Edwards interrupted the first signs of a real debate in years.

      Debates are not suppose to be kindergarden-style questions. It's suppose to be candidates facing each other, calling them out on their beliefs, and trying to show why their ideas are better than their opponents' ideas.
    • samssf, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Edwards is just disappointed no one is afraid of him... so his angle is just to let Obama and Clinton take each other out, and then try to finish both of them off... good luck Edwards, but my vote will probably go to Obama.
    • SuperVepr308, on 01/23/2008, -1/+0How many doctors can I sue? How many dead kids can I channel? How much hairspray is too much?
  • TemtNosce, on 01/23/2008, -7/+39Why isn't anyone realizing what is going on here in America??? We're being fed by the media that or ONLY CHOICES are OBAMA and CLINTON!?!?! ARE YOU ***** KIDDING ME!

    I deplore anyone that gives a damn about our country, please stop this! Let the media know. E-mail them, call them, write them. They should not be allowed to PICK OUR CANDIDATES!

    This is making me so disgusted. I just can't type anymore.
    • aaabatteries, on 01/23/2008, -5/+6it's not completely the media's fault--
      well, it is,
      but most Americans are to blame as well for being so easily blinded.
    • coderdevo, on 01/23/2008, -3/+4Interesting view. However, I never wanted to vote for Edwards. I voted for Kerry because of Kerry...and because Bush was about the worst non-leader that either party has ever presented.

      I was planning on voting for Clinton, but Obama is becoming quite a compelling choice. I voted for Wellstone, Clinton, Ventura and Gore. They all won. This year, I'll vote for the Democratic Party candidate, Obama or Clinton, confident that they will win too.
      • Dibou, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3I always find it amusing when someone has repeated a lie so often they actually believe it.
        "I voted....Gore. They all won".
        Stupid liberal.
      • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2Gore lost, regardless of how much you want the popular vote to be the kingmaker, it's not, the EC is. Bush won the EC, thus he won the election.

        Deal with it, like you would've had Kerry won Ohio as he'd have done the exact same thing to Bush.
      • sulthernao, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1More like the Supreme Court gave him Florida.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3I see your blood boiled too this morning when you checked the headlines that all said something along the lines of "Obama, Clinton debate in South Carolina." Infuriating.
    • akatherder, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2The big problem is that too many people are not ready for a minority or female president. The Democrats have had the election handed to them if they can field a decent candidate. Edwards, Gore, even ***** Kerry could win on the Democrat ticket.

      I'm not a big Hilary fan but I would like to see Obama running the show. There are too many people who won't vote for a black man as president though.
      • krnldmp, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3I think you should seriously reconsider whether Hillary and Obama's biggest political problems are gender and race. I think Americans are taking them very seriously. A better woman or black candidate would be much more popular.
        • coderdevo, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0I noticed you offered no examples of "A better woman or black candidate."

          I hear this argument often, but only hear crickets when I ask who exactly do they consider to be a viable woman or minority candidate.

          White males make up 37% of the population of the United States of America. Are you saying that there is not one suitable candidate among the 63% of US citizens that are not white males? This says more about you than it does of the candidates.
      • Xenufield, on 01/23/2008, -4/+1The problem is people like you who are trying to play the race and gender cards to get guilt and/or pity votes.

        If Obama and Clinton were white men they'd be John Edwards.

        You give me Colin Powell, or better yet, Clarence Thomas, and I'll vote for them because I agree with many of their beliefs. Obama is an extremely far left socialist, just like Clinton. The majority of the country doesn't want to turn into a Socialist state, and you're going to find that out come november if Romneyu is the republican running (if it's mccain or huckabee it won't matter who we vote for).
    • ascheinberg, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1"I deplore anyone that gives a damn about our country,"

      You might want to rephrase that a bit.

      deplore = hate
      implore = beg
      • TemtNosce, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Ah. Wrote the wrong word. Thanks for the correction.
  • buildbyflying, on 01/23/2008, -6/+5Sen. Dodd got a lot of credibility when he went back to doing his job instead of prancing around in the dog and pony show... I think it would not only be a smart political move to fight this legislation, but (gasp) it might actually benefit the people.
  • whatthefu, on 01/23/2008, -10/+25You can't be for Ron Paul and against corporate power. I'm not insulting Ron Paul, I'm just saying it is what it is.
    • ggfobster, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3Who said anything about Paul and corporate power?
    • cnot3, on 01/23/2008, -1/+8At least he wouldn't make laws to subsidize corporations, or anything, for that matter.
  • Slimem88, on 01/23/2008, -8/+21Edwards is the most liberal out of all the candidates. And, just so you know, that's NOT a bad thing! There is a reason Kerry chose him as a running mate. He is running on an actual message of, ya know, actual change; not just the fluff that the other candidates are touting. For a quick reference, check out Edwards when he was on Real Time with Bill Maher a few months ago - I assure you that you will walk away with a better understanding and greater appreciation of who John Edwards really is. He may be controversial, he may even be a candidate that America can't handle right now ... but, undeniably, he is a candidate that America NEEDS.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2And he's a liberal, a populist. Not a Socialist like Hillary. That's as important a distinction as between Romney and Paul. (Think about how big a difference *that* is.)
    • krnldmp, on 01/23/2008, -1/+9Kucinich is probably the most liberal of the candidates.
    • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0The reason Kerry chose him was in an effort to garner support in the South. Everything else was secondary.
    • coderdevo, on 01/23/2008, -1/+0Edwards is certainly liberal, but he's not objectively the most liberal.

      The non-partisan website OnTheIssues.org shows Edwards as equally (80%) liberal on economic issues as Clinton and Obama, but slightly less liberal on social issues (70%) vs. Obama (80%) and Clinton (90%).
  • RansomHoldiay, on 01/23/2008, -5/+44% in Nevada? Don't think it's going to happen, and that's not coming from someone who is anti-Edwards by any means. But it's just not his time.
    • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1That's because of the "viable candidate" thing in Nevada.
      Edwards will end up with a lot of delegates in the end.
      • eluusive, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0It was completely effing ridiculous. He would have had viability in my precinct if our chair had been able to do math correctly. They should do away with delegates, or actually let us vote FOR THE DELEGATES. It is dumb to have delegates/precincts and have them tied to the vote for a candidate. Either get rid of delegates and precincts, or let us vote for delegates.

        The current system causes some people's votes to have more power than others.

        Aside from that several people who weren't in our precinct were allowed to vote in our caucus because they went in the wrong room. Of course, all those people were Obama supporters, further causing trouble for Edwards viability in the precinct.

        *$&#@*()$&@##@$

        Election methods in the United States are highly ridiculous. We need to hire some mathematicians to come in and give us a decent and simple system.
  • Jo9100, on 01/23/2008, -9/+6He supports Iran military action and the Patriot Act... That's why I wouldn't need him...
    • Midoc, on 01/23/2008, -1/+7Originally Edwards supported the Patriot Act, but when the federal government began to abuse it he quickly apologized for having been involved with it.
      • fokov, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0"But I'm more than just a little curious
        How you're plannin' to go about makin' your amends
        To the dead" APC

        The problem is when you give people more power they always will abuse it. Period. End of story. One of the main reasons Washington was the best president is because he turned down complete control of this country. That man was a patriot. We don't need more "oops" from Presidents.
    • Gemfinder, on 01/23/2008, -1/+5"He supports Iran military action"

      Cite, please?
      • raloeldorado, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1I heard Randi Rhodes say that's what Hillary Clinton is guilty of, supporting the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the Iran military action. Obama on the other hand talks about change but doesn't give specifics. Edwards on the other hand, recognizes his mistakes and apologizes for them and he gives specifics when it comes to why he should have our votes
  • lopla, on 01/23/2008, -9/+4The fact is Edwards doesn't have what it takes. It was cringeworthy watching him in that debate with Cheney. Cheney raped him and cut him to pieces made him look like a weak fool NOT Presidential IMHO.
    • Midoc, on 01/23/2008, -2/+2It was also Cheney, who has always been brutal in debates, not to mention anytime you put him in front of the press.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4Cheney knows a lot more about rape and cutting than Edwards does, you're certainly right there.
  • Barbrady, on 01/23/2008, -10/+5Maybe he can lead classes at beauty school after he drops out of the race. :D
  • Dibou, on 01/23/2008, -9/+4Obama is the only Democrat I don't hate. I'll probably vote against Obama (depending upon the other candidates of course), but I'll actively fight Hillary or Edwards. And if it is Hillary I'm donating as much as I can to the other candidate.
  • faskippy, on 01/23/2008, -4/+7I would never vote for anyone who didn't vote against the Patriot Act. Not reading the damn thing is NOT an excuse.
  • bingobongony, on 01/23/2008, -6/+2firedoglake says so....Any journalist with so much integrity that htey have to write for a blog that spams other websites to make money is OK by me!
  • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -1/+10I admit I have a subjective opinion because I'm a rabid Edwards supporter, but I really think, besides the occasional "Hey, I'm here too!" remarks, Edwards walked out of that debate hands down the winner. Obama spoke extremely eloquently as usual, but I think it lacked a certain appeal and conviction that I hear from Edwards. Hillary is finally starting to show her good sense of humor, but I still don't trust her at all with a position of political power beyond Secretary of State or something similar.
  • origclubsoda, on 01/23/2008, -9/+1Don't forget their commitment to increasing taxes and taking away form those who work successful to give it to the failures.
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -0/+4Every rich person, even Paris Hilton, is awesome, and every poor person deserves their fate. In fact, not only do the poor deserve their fate, we the successful get to mock and belittle them at every opportunity. If only they'd see that a minimum wage job, if worked at hard enough, will lead to fame and fortune.

      Silly poor people.
      • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0"Deserves" is a subjective term. I would certainly say it isn't the government's place to take money from one group of people and give it to another.
        • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1And, after all is said and done, that one sentence there really boils down to one of the key differences between conservatives and liberals, economically speaking, that is. Conservatives don't believe the government should be allowed to take money from them, and liberals don't really have a problem with it. Yes, there's thousands of other differences, but that's one thing I keep coming back to in political discussions.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Actually, the limousine liberals are all hot for the government to take money from everybody else, but often arrange their affairs so as to pay next to nothing in taxes themselves. John Kerry and his unspeakably horrid wife pay less tax on their millions than the average fireman or teacher.
          • chicofaraby, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Agree. Right wingers are defined by money. The rest of us aren't.
          • tsotha, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0I guess what it comes down to is your idea of the purpose of government. I view it as a necessary evil that should be limited to what governemnt does best - provide for the common defense, build capitol-intensive infrastructure, and maintain the rule of law.

            I understand liberals think the government should do all sorts of other sociall beneficial things, and I understand why. After all, programs like AFDC are relatively inexpensive compared to the overall budget, and since it doesn't cost much, why shouldn't we provide a helping hand to poor families?

            There are two reasons why. The first is many of these sorts of programs have large, hidden, non-monetary costs. AFDC, for example, created a large population of so-called "hard core" poor people. It fostered dependency, in other words. Along with this dependency was a whole host of associated social problems.

            The second reason I don't wan't an activist government is it leads down the road to tyranny. I'll give an example - laws that govern hospitals. If you go to an emergency room the hospital has to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. Here in California the legislature passed a helmet law for motorcycle riders. Why? Because hospitals were losing too much money treating brain-damaged bike riders who couldn't pay. So my freedoms were eroded because of seemingly unrelated legislation regarding hospitals.

            If you want to see where that all leads look no further than Great Britain. The government there is actively trying to force people to give up smoking, fatty foods, excess alcohol consumption, etc, as a cost-savings measure. Because people receive health care through a state program, the state has an interest in how well they treat their bodies. Do you really think it's a good idea for the state to regulate all aspects of your life?
  • selphishnerd, on 01/23/2008, -4/+4He's always talking about how he'll take on big cooperations as president, here's my question...

    why does he need to be president to do that?
    • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Because corporations rule this country; they're more power than the President.
  • towtow, on 01/23/2008, -5/+0The Three Stodge's comes to mind.Unable to hide their conquest to take from the rich and give to the poor.Investing in the American people is our only resolve.Less taxes and more manufacturing.A Government big enough to give everyone what they need is strong enough to take everything you have. I believe--Thomas Jefferson
    • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0Actually, it was Gerald Ford.
    • spectecjr, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Government under Republicans has been historically much much bigger than under Democrats - look at Regan! Government size & spending increased massively under his rule. Similarly, Government spending has skyrocketed under Bush. I'm not sure you can scaremonger that the Democrats are going to do exactly what the Republicans keep claiming they don't, even though they do it much much more.
  • coderdevo, on 01/23/2008, -4/+0This is a disingenuous call to action. Edwards is not currently in the Senate.

    Yes, Edwards could challenge his competitors to do in the Senate what he cannot do, since he left the Senate in 2004 - allowing his seat to be taken by a Republican. This would of course reduce Clinton's and IBM's focus on the race for the presidential nomination.

    I'd be very happy to see this legislation die by any means. But I won't vote for any candidate that would fall for a ruse that reduces their focus on what is most important.
    • coderdevo, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1The Digg spell checker leaves much to be desired. Obama != IBM
    • tsotha, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0True, Edwards is no longer in the Senate. I wonder if Hamsher realizes that?

      lol I was wondering what IBM had to do with anything. Digg's software leaves much to be desired in general. Ever tried to post a long link?
  • DarkReign16, on 01/23/2008, -3/+3Edwards is against gay marriage.
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/23/2008, -5/+2it's hilarious seeing right wing extremists and bigots having to choose between a woman and a black man. who do they hate more, who to choose.
    • cnot3, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2Huckabee
    • Jamihabs, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2I'm a right wing extremist, and I think Edwards would make the worst president of all contenders. What does that make me in your view? (in my view this makes me normal)
    • Zol74n, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1haha, what's hilarious is that you have this exact post on another story today. You got dugg down for that, and you will for this one too...

      Have you figured out a way to explain Colin Powel and Condoleezza Rice yet? Maybe "right wing extremists" aren't as hateful and racist as you would like to think.
  • birdly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4All those diggers outraged by Bush pardoning his own war crimes, pay attention to this one.....he's trying to do it again.
  • spectecjr, on 01/23/2008, -2/+4Hmmm....

    Based on what was in the Nevada Caucus guides put out by Clinton... Haven't people figured out yet that the Clinton plan is to split the Obama support so that they vote Edwards even if they can't get them to vote Clinton? It's traditional, good old fashioned divide and conquer.
    • elshizzo, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1exactly, if only the Edwards supporters [and Edwards himself] had enough sense to realize this
      • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Edwards supporters are going 45/45 Obama/Clinton, with 10 not voting at all or choosing "uncomitted".
  • sonicularulus, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1"I was elected to lead, not to read."


  • elshizzo, on 01/23/2008, -4/+2Edwards, We need you to drop out of the race to stop you from spoiling Obama's chance at the nomination. Get real folks, Edwards is finished, support Obama to STOP HILLARY. [its your only choice, as hard as it might be to realize]
    • skewer324, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2The only people who believe Edwards is out of the race are the writers for the news columns. Don't believe their crap. He's every bit as viable and totally more capable than those other two.

      I apologize for linking both YouTube and a candidate's YouTube submission, but I think it accurately addresses your statement. http://youtube.com/watch?v=gWVN4DEwV3I
      • elshizzo, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1did you ever consider the possibility that the media was reporting mostly on Obama and Hillary BECAUSE they are in the lead and NOT THE OPPOSITE??
        • skewer324, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I don't think you understand what the term "objective reporting" means. If there's three people at the Democratic debates and they all get equal air time, why would you only report on two of them? I would be equally outraged if the headline had read "Edwards, Obama exchange words at SC Democratic debate." There's three people there; they're all viable candidates (even if Hillary makes me nauseous).
    • elshizzo, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1FYI, Futures market's [people who bet money on the outcome of the election] have Edwards' chances at the nomination at one percent. The market's dont lie. According to the market, his chances are about as good as Al Gore's are right now. When will you people ever learn to support a candidate that can actually win?
      • skewer324, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1People support Dr. Paul because they believe in what he says. Our representation is not a business; it's the whole country which is made of many things. I don't support Hillary not because she can or can't win but because she's corrupt and weird and she's going to push a lot of moderates to the right. She'll turn all conservatives against liberals because they'll blame us for putting her in office, just like we blame all of you for putting that fool "W" in the office.
    • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Too bad Obama is just another "moderate", corporate "democrat".
      • elshizzo, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1funny, since many on the right consider him a far-left socialist. It's just like how people were saying "he's too black" while some people were saying "he's not black enough".
  • Gemfinder, on 01/23/2008, -4/+3[rant]
    WHY THE ***** ARE WE WHINGING ABOUT THE BLOODY TELECOMS WHEN THE ECONOMY IS TANKING AND BUSH WANTS TO TAKE US INTO A ***** WAR WITH IRAN?!?!
    [/rant]
    Sorry but I've just had it up to here with people fiddling while Nero takes us further down the Black Spiral. Not to say it's not important but we can talk all we want about it once the patient's been stabilized: read, bring the troops home from Iraq, at least do damage control on the recession, and give BushCo a reality check.
    Priorities. It's about priorities, doofus.
  • fastman290, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1WE THE PEOPLE MUST LEAD. I did. When I found out my home phone and internet provider, Verizon, was on of the two companies being investigated here in California (ATT is the other) I dropped Verizon like a hot potato and signed up with Time/Warner and have had great service and product. No, I'm not here to plug TW. I'm here to say politicians need our help too and what is choice if it's not exercised.
  • mlvassallo, on 01/23/2008, -1/+4Isn't it strange how the white male is the one being marginalized in the democratic race this year?
    I'm still hoping for a Gore/Edwards ticket.
  • maiku00, on 01/23/2008, -3/+2Its too bad that Edward's record contradicts almost everything he is calling for today. He coauthored the ***** Iraq War bill for godsakes. He's a hypocrite. Nothing but talking a big game and playing to the liberal base.
  • netsql, on 01/23/2008, -4/+1Yes, I suggest you google Edwards, and find he is CFR (just like VP Dick, and he too lied about non intervention to other countries BEFORE getting elected).
  • raloeldorado, on 01/23/2008, -1/+6Obama and Clinton are overrated and overhyped by the mainstream corporate media
  • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+5At least Edwards publicly apologized for his Iraq war vote; Clinton never has. If Obama was in the Senate at the time, he probably wouldn't have shown up for the vote.
  • ShadowMerchant, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1Edwards is a ***** thief and scoundrel and liar. He swindled millions of dollars from innocent doctors. The cerebral palsy scam has just about destroyed the practice of obstetrics in this country. Millions of women now get dangerous and painful Caesarean sections, but the cerebral palsy rates are unchanged. This is the fault of lying piratical trial lawyer filth like John Edwards. Every dollar he got out of the hides of the blameless, dedicated, hard-working obstetricians of his state is stolen money. I wish I could meet him so I could spit in his thieving lying face. It will be a sad day indeed, if a ***** greedy filthy scum sucking plaintiff's lawyer becomes President.
    • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3Someone who used the word "piratical" MUST be telling the truth. Bet you voted for Bush Jr.
  • spankaccount, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1Edwards is nothing but a slick "slip and fall" lawyer.
    • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2Can anyone come with an argument against Edwards besides the tired and inaccurate "he's a lawyer therefore he's evil"?
    • spankaccount, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1Um, he's a nanny-state liberal. He's weak on illegal immigration, weak on foreign policy,... need more? And his "Two Americas" song and dance make me sick. Ya, you kids love him, but that's about all he has going for him.
      • chall85, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1actually most of his supporters are middle-aged.
  • mmd643, on 01/23/2008, -3/+1I like Edwards. I Supported him in 2004 and initially supported him in 2008. I donated money to his campaign, and I think he is genuine. He's made a great number of mistakes in the past, but he's admitted to all of them, which is commendable. He has also grown as a person and a leader.

    That being said, he would make a horrible president now economically. He wants to spend ridiculous amounts of money "ending poverty worldwide". Our country cannot afford these grandiose plans, and that money should be put back in the pockets of taxpayers.

    Edwards as president would be an economic disaster, as would Clinton. I have more faith in Obama, but not to the degree that I am excited about his candidacy.

    The Republican side of the ticket is rather horrifying save for Ron Paul (yeah I know) who is the only person who's not pimping this economic stimulus package nonsense which will only create further inflation and damage our currency moving forward.

    We're screwed.
    • sdonahoe, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Uhm have you read his plans? He doesn't intend to end poverty worldwide all by himself. His plan clearly says that he intends to eliminate poverty in the US by 2036. Not particularly rash, right?
      • mmd643, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0I'm a little late in replying, but here it goes. Edwards simply wanted to spend way too much money. We can't afford his his overseas plans of fighting poverty worldwide. He wanted to build schools and hospitals in third world nations on American taxpayers dime, while our very own schools and hospitals are fast becoming a joke.

        I supported Edwards in 2004. I supported him initially for his run in 2008 run but he's wrong on too many issues. He is opposed to nuclear energy which shows a stunning lack of research (that was my tipping point on him).

        I think the government taking more money out of my pocket to fight poverty is indeed rash. The government can't do 1/10th of what I could do with that money in regards to assisting the disadvantaged. Things like this need to be done on a private basis, not on a federal government level.
  • sdonahoe, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Obama has Mark Keam, Verizon's Democratic lobbyist, whispering sweet nothings in his ear. Obama won't fight retroactive immunity.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.