I don't want a presidential candidate who is friends with the likes of John McCain or any other Repressive. A man who was tortured himself, McCain COMPROMISED with Bush over TORTURE legislation, thus giving in to that legislation which still allows Bushco to torture his enemies. Any politician who condons torture this way or any other way should not be your friend, or anybody's friend. I want a candidate that would send McCain to prison for supporting Torture Legislation, not call him his friend! DON'T VOTE FOR EDWARDS. VOTE FOR KUCINICH!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hell, Bush told the country to go shopping while standing on the rubble of TWC. Loud and clear. Megaphone and all. This seems to be the only action Americans are willing to take. Shopping.

Yeah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but that's ok because Edwards would be no good anyway. Dennis (wouldn't that be weird to have a Brit as First Lady), Ron Paul, or someone else is better although those guys would NEVER get elected by the banking/corporate interest controlling the elections.
ps: look for the Repubs using this old Edwards video. A classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comes out swinging??
It is a very desperate time for left leaners when a blog like Alternet headlines these interviews with Edwards as aggressive. In the interview with Mathews I don't even think he expressed opposition to the War On Iraq. He is very measured and limited in his criticism of the current criminal government.
Yet, Edwards is the only hope the left of conservative right this country presently has.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.. of why you don't judge somebody based on short TV appearances and sound bites.

I stumbled across a post from Edwards on dailyKOS from last week that had a huge number of comments. Throughout the comments both John and his wife answered numerous questions and discussed issues I thought no high profile candidate would ever dare touch. I was impressed, and that is a rare thing for me when it comes to ANY politician.

I also took a look at his website and was further impressed. This guy is really not afraid to actualy speak his mind and interact with everyday people. Compared to Bush and his handpicked audiences this is very refreshing. Take a look at his blog section, he is providing an open forum for people to voice their opinions on a variety of topics, I've never see such a thing done on a candidates site.

He appears to be attempting to do something that American leaders haven't dared try in decades, inspire us to work together and sacrifice (where necessary) to bring prosperity to our country.

He has made it very clear what his agenda is. He wants to immediately start pulling out of Iraq, no question.

He's promoting universal healthcare, a real push for alternative energy, strengthening the middle class and reducing poverty, allowing the govt to negotiate pricing for medication (Watch big pharma and the insurance industry scream bloody murder if he gets the nomination) and many more populist, left leaning ideas.

Forget what TV pundits are saying, go read what Edwards is actually saying and draw your own conclusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He is the f/king enemy.

You know, I remember a time when Alternet was a place not full of cowards screaming for mainstream acceptance.

I remember when it was a place where you could actually tell the truth about something like this video.

I remember when something like this would have been blasted to hell and back instead of post after milquetoast-f/king post about how Edwards is 'the best thing I've seen'.

Maybe it's the folks from DailyKos and Buzzflash dropping in with there middle of the road disguised as progressive BS.

Maybe it's gov't shills trying to sway net political opinion.

Maybe it's the Edwards campaign (unlikely since this garbage crops up in like every single Alternet thread on just about anything).

I don't know what it is. But I'm sick of it.

Edwards is a mainstream capitalist shill. He's all talk. Just like all the Dems. He votes for the war. Then talks bad about Bush hoping all the honest folks will be intimidated into not calling him out by the overwhelming number of cheerleaders.

Screw that. Edwards is an imperialist. He isn't against the war. War crimes? Crimes against humanity? Edwards, as a voting member of the authorizing body would be implicated himself so don't wait for him to call for justice.

Only a change in tactics, as he says explicitly in the video. Wake up people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This criticism of Alternet makes no sense to me. It is not the alternative press opinions and reporting? We have a right to read any visible candidate and hear what they have to say. Edwards has set the tone for the debates that will go on for the next 2 years and I for one enjoy a new and realistic approach.So if you want a lock step media I know of one that is looking for some new blood. Turn right at the next corner. Alternet keep putting the diverse opinions out for us to read and we will decide what we like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards' biggest problem is his lack of experience in foreign affairs, unlike that classic idiot who's currently in the White House who had to take a crash course on who the world's leaders were. It's not as if there's a school one can attend to become a decent president and if there was, Bush would have graduated with honors I'm sure. Hey, he made it through Yale and Harvard didn't he? Those schools must be rueing the day they accepted that priviledged child. If I were the president of either of those elite schools I'd be doing my damndest to erase Bush's name from the rosters.

There is no supremely qualified individual for the presidency. There are only individuals who want the job and we have to figure out if their agenda is good for the nation.
Edwards is good deal smarter than IdiotBush and that alone qualifies him in my book. I think he's genuine and quite probably incorruptible, so, like Nader, he probably hasn't a chance in hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IMO, Edwards and Kucinich. Taking some Southeast states and all the middle west states is a necessity to win. Your thoughts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Realistically, the best chance we have is Edwards or Al Gore, with Obama for VP IMO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First,
Al Gore won the Presidency.

Remember that first and foremost. He WON. The popular vote: definitely; and the eletoral vote was manipulated and stolen - even the GOP-ers know that!

After giving up without a fight, he went into hiding for a year or so (let's face it, that is a huge thing to deal with. He understandably needed a break...), so that's where the 'no spine' thing came from. Hey, I didn't even vote for him myself (voted my conscience with Nader, & my state went to Gore anyway) but everything that I've seen abnd heard him do since has been spectacular! Many have been reprinted right here on AlterNet.

I invite you to investigate and check out everything that Gore has done in the last three years or so. Every speech, convention, university, voter group, and especially "An Inconvenient Truth" in which he really shines. More so than even I thought was possible. I truly believe he is no longer the 'Tin Man' as previously labeled. Even on his worst day right after a bender - he's STILL far more intelligent and articlate than the Shrub could ever hope to be. Not all the makeovers on Bravo could make W look like he knows what he's doing..........because HE DOESN'T!

I mean, all this talk about who would be good and who wouldn't - let's face it: they ALL would be better than the Smirking Monkey, so what's the problem?

Yes, we need someone who will WIN and that's important, but picking someone with a good plan and the balls to carry it out is important too, or look for another decade or two of GOP rule after the pendulem swing.

Al Gore is a good man. He lived in a big shadow under Slick Willy, and an even longer one during Lewinskygate. He had the Presidency flat out stolen from him in public view, and we all let it happen due to the 'distraction' of 9/11.

But just as slowly as America found out the true colors of their current 'leader', they'll also find out the true blue colors of Al gore, provided: A) he wishes to officially run, and B) we and/or the media pay any attention.

I don't blame you for being skittish about Gore. But keep in mind that everything said about or shown of him since the 2000 election has been filtered through the Bushco Media. THAT should give someone perspective right there.....

About Edwards, I really like everything he's saying. I guess I just have a teency problem (probably the same one America itself has) with his youth. This'll be the first Presidential candidate that's younger than I am, and I'm not that old! If we can get past that, maybe we'll hear some great ideas. But seriously, how could Edwards, Gore or ANYONE for that matter be worse than the guy in the job right now?



At least I didn't see anything above supporting Hilary. I believe that she is actually (and unknowingly) supported by the GOP. Trust me, they WANT us to pick her....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was bitterly disappointed and felt betrayed when most Democrats, including John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, supported the US invasion of Iraq. Very few had the courage to oppose George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Halliburton/Exxon/corporate oil interests who are continuing the British Empire's policy of "divide and conquer" in the Mideast oil areas. Yes, the British policy "worked" for many decades, after Sir T. E. Lawrence, the famous "Lawrence of Arabia," was sent as an intelligence operative to unite the Arab tribes against the Turkish rulers of the oil kingdoms. After the Turks left, Great Britain set up arbitrary national boundaries and puppet governments like the royal families of most mideast oil kingdoms.

But it was a selfish policy, conducted to get cheap oil prices and give British Petroleum and the rest of the oil corporations control over Mideast oilfields. The United States is simply continuing the oil policy of its mother country, and most of our foreign policy, both in the Mideast and Afghanistan, is in reality based on the need for control of the oil and natural gas resources in that region.

I personally asked John Edwards why he failed to oppose the invasion on Iraq at a public forum in Raleigh several years ago. I would also like to ask Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore the same question.

Yet, I do think John Edwards is a decent man with working class roots and true sympathy for the underdog, at least for American citizen (voters!) underdogs. Yes, he is a wealthy attorney, but his success came not from corporate law, but from suing negligent companies on behalf of injured people.

If John Edwards will remember, and stay true to, his roots, and remember that Iraqis are human beings, too, he deserves fair consideration for President by Democrats.

I wish the major US media would treat all candidates more fairly, especially Ralph Nader, who was not even allowed to participate in a single Presidential debate! I voted for Ralph Nader by absentee ballot from China, because I felt he was the only candidate who consistently and firmly opposed the ill-conceived US-British invasion of a sovereign nation which has never attacked the USA. I wish Nader would continue his honest and intelligent contribution to the political dialogue in the United States of America.

Gary J. Minter
http://aidsvillagechina.blog.sohu.com
www.healthchina.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]