I Cogitate

My Case Against John Edwards
by pinche tejano
Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 09:51:02 PM PDT

As you know, I don't like John Edwards. See, I have a bless/curse of a photographic memory. I remember John Edwards, from when he entered the national stage taking the deposition in the Lewinsky fiasco during the Clinton Administration, to his cheerleading for the war in 2002. I also remember his platforms from 2004, which is why I am shocked he has reinvented himself once again.

But when he decided he wanted to be a populist this election cycle, I took that shit personally. The Farmer's Alliance started in Lampasas, Texas in 1876, which later evolved in the Populist Party. So yeah, you could say I have little emotional attachment to the name. That is why I refuse to allow this pretender advance towards the throne.

Nothing sums up better some of the issues I have with John Edwards, than this interview on Meet the Press. When called to the mat for his constant reinventions as a candidate, he stands by his record, even though that does not reflect his rhetoric today. I have no idea why anyone would believe a word he says after this:

John Edwards Has Progressed - A Response
by jsamuel
Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:59:26 AM PDT
Last week, DailyKos had a diary that intentionally attempted to impugn John Edwards character.

Unfortunately, the diarist used the perception of change in John Edwards to make a conclusion that I view as grossly incorrect.  The theory was prefaced as such:

He says he regrets the war vote, yet there is solid evidence of his cheerleading leading into the war.

It is not contradictory, let alone dishonest, to have supported a vote in the past and to regret that vote.  In this case, it is called progression.  The conclusion of the diarist is if John Edwards is different, he must be a panderer, an opportunist, and a fraud.

That is obviously incorrect as people change on a daily basis and it isn't for some sinister purpose.  Also, the obvious contrast with Bush's absolute stubbornness is actually quite complimentary to John Edwards.

The progressive policies and plans that John Edwards is putting forth, speak for themselves.  This has lead to the acceptance by many that John Edwards is the most likely to succeed in implementing progressive ideas.  Therefore, the question that is being asked is not so much how he is different, but why is John Edwards different?

Beyond the criticism of John Edwards 2002 vote, the unsupported statements at the end of the diary have been debunked repeatedly and often in previous discussions of these issues.  The bias of the diarist comes out in more than one place in the diary and is typified by another obviously incorrect statement:

"Why does everything John Edwards say not match his record?"

1. So first, let me answer where John Edwards is not different:

 RSS feed