HT to BMGer wahoowa, who notes the following excerpt from Bob Shrum’s new book:
In his new memoir, “No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner,” Shrum recalls asking Edwards at the outset of that campaign, “What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?”
“I’m not comfortable around those people,” Edwards replied, according to Shrum. He writes that the candidate’s wife, Elizabeth, told him: “John, you know that’s wrong.”
Ugh. Now, there are two big caveats here. First, this is relayed by Bob Shrum, between whom and Edwards there is apparently no love lost these days. Second, this comment dates from 1998.
All of that said, the silence from the Edwards camp has been nearly deafening. Here’s the best they could do:
Edwards’s pollster, Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says Shrum “is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about [Edwards’s] lack of exposure to these issues and openly gay people. I don’t remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about gay people.”
Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz says Shrum “has a very casual relationship with the truth. Bob is obviously more interested in selling books than reporting honestly and accurately about what happened.”
Fine, fine. Shoot the messenger all you want. But there’s no denial that Edwards actually said what Shrum says he said, or that Elizabeth chastised him for it. Perhaps more importantly, there’s no acknowledgement that over nine years Edwards has learned a lot, and that Edwards now has a more grown-up view of the issue, or something to that effect.
On other issues, Edwards has had no trouble apologizing for past mistakes. He should apologize for this comment too. I want to like Edwards, but stories like this tend to reinforce my nervousness about him.
From Michael Crowley in The New Republic:
<
p>
No Excuses repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony. Nowhere is that clearer–and more startling–than in a passage recounting Kerry’s first meeting with Edwards during the summer 2004 running-mate selection process. Kerry had qualms about Edwards from the start, Shrum writes, but grew
<
p>
<
p>
It’s a stunning story–enough so to strain credulity. When I asked one person close to Edwards about it, he argued that Shrum’s account makes no sense because Edwards had publicly recounted similar versions of the funeral home story before–and thus wouldn’t possibly have claimed on either occasion that he was telling it for the first time.
<
p>
(end of excerpt)
<
p>
Again — whom to believe? Kerry isn’t running. If he doesn’t deny this, I’m inclined to take it as confirmation.
And that’s proper, and it’s not a confirmation. “Yes that happened” is a confirmation. Kerry and Edwards both have every reason to want to avoid getting dragged into the muddy details in this book. Talk about getting thrown off message!
<
p>
I really can’t make myself care about this. This is definitely colored by my sense of Shrum as a parasitic presence on the Democratic Party. I’m sure he knows all the big players, and I’m sure he can tell unflattering stories about any number of them.
<
p>
But this is important to remember: Shrum’s not just dumping out everything that ever happened to him; no one could do that, even if they were so inclined. He’s telling what he decides to tell, and only that.
<
p>
BTW — here’s from the Crowley article, just before what Dan quotes:
<
p>
<
p>
IF, if, if this is true, and I’m not sure I believe it at all, for me the most disturbing thing is that Edwards would want to hire Shrum. ‘Nuff said.
… then why isn’t that confirmation? Not court-of-law confirmation, not even journalistic-level confirmation. Just common sense. Kerry has already been dragged into “the muddy details of Shrum’s book.” One way to extricate himself is to set the record straight regarding this ugly story about Edwards. Unless, that is, the story is true.
<
p>
If someone told a terrible falsehood about me, and the only first-hand witness could clear my name, I’d be pretty devastated if he chose not to do it. Kerry and Edwards supposedly don’t have much good to say about each other these days, but surely Kerry — just as a decent human being — owes him this much. But only if Shrum is making it up, of course.
Why aren’t the moonbats who seem to be addicted to this space comment about Edwards’ $55,000. speech on “poverty.” If this guy is not a modern day flim-flam artist then I’d like to know how you can support such a phoney.
However…
<
p>
Edwards donated $350k out of $1.25 million to charity (more than 25$), groups like Habitat For Humanity.
<
p>
My beef with him is political stupidity: when this flap came up, he should have simply said “I donated the $55,000 fee, along with another 300k, to charity.”
<
p>
By the way, Bush donated about 10% of his $750k salary to charity.
from others misfortune.What does that make him? Certainly not someone I would want to associate with, but that being said perhaps people like him are a necessary evil.
<
p>
What has the nit wit in chiefs charitable donations got to do with Edwards? Edwards could buy and sell Bush five times.
<
p>
Kerry casting aspirtions on Edwards is like the pot calling the kettle black. Give me a break will ya.
…manufacture products that cause other peoples’ misfortune?
<
p>
The sad fact that you have is that most of those misfortunate people would have no recourse other than through a US tort system in which the “contingent fee” is the only way to get into court to get any kind of compensation for their misfortune.
Seperated at birth.
<
p>
You mean like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, General Electric, Phizer, Exxon, Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Goodyear, American Pharmaceutical, Squibb, Bristol/Meyers, Westinghouse, Boeing, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard Etc, Etc.
<
p>
I guess when the green party takes over the coprorate boards will be tried as war criminals.
<
p>
John Edwards, is a self serving, sanctimonious, unscrupulous, weasel masquerading as an ambulance chaser.
<
p>
Medical errors occur, and will always occur. Some are preventable, others may be an act of god. Does winning a malpractice suit warrant millions, upon millions in compensation? Do the best, most educated, most thoughtful, selfless surgeons and medical practioners DEMAND millions in compensation?
<
p>
Lawyers don’t take the Hippocratic Oath for a reason:
<
p>
They wouldn’t!
….don’t take an oath but operate under a well established and large cannon of ethical rules and regulations and are held to them strictly. Attorneys are sued for malpractice and carry expensive insurance, just like physicians.
<
p>
Medical errors are not acts of god. Errors are human. When a lawyer makes a mistake he has to pay for it, so too with doctors. And as far as corporate liability is concerned, too bad, if your product hurts people it is your responsibility, period.
<
p>
Are we a country in need of some tort reform? Most certainly I would say, but blaming lawyers is lazy and stupid. Lawyers do an incredible amount of good in our society and some bad apples do not define the profession.
Shrum obviously pedals gossip, not political commentary. He should not receive attention on this site.
is the fact that Edwards (a) hasn’t denied that Shrum’s report is accurate, and (b) hasn’t made any effort to explain “context” out of which this comment was supposedly taken.
<
p>
Dislike Shrum all you want. I see no reason not to report and discuss anecdotes related by him that, as far as we know right now, are accurate.
The moment Edwards himself acknowledges the statement that gives it validity and it becomes an even bigger story.
<
p>
Edwards’s strategy has been to move hard to the left — on Iraq, on the environment, on poverty, and so on. In doing so, he’s betting he can stir up the activist netroots/grassroots base enough to shift enough ground support his way to fill the vacuum while the Clinton and Obama machines tackle one another.
<
p>
So the narrative begins: Edwards is a hypocrite, Edwards doesn’t like gay people, Edwards is wealthy so he can’t understand issues of poverty–and so on. I’m betting that Shrum thinks if he can create a small wedge between Edwards and the Democratic base that’ll really take a lot of the power out of the Edwards campaign. I see this as pure insider politics meant to be seen by folks like us — high information, left wing voters who are extremely likely to be activists in the election be it through blogging or otherwise. It’s rumoring, not much more.
<
p>
FWIW – I’m totally undecided when it comes to the announced Presidential candidates on the Democratic side.
Who is Bob Shrum part of?
<
p>
What does Shrum’s set think of the netroots and grassroots?
<
p>
Shrum knows his time of influence is peaked and sliding downhill. He would have liked to have succeeded once in the eight Presidential campaigns he was involved in, but he’s happy could at least stay highly influential within the Democratic Party. On his way out the door, he’d love to discourage the activists who seem to be gaining power in the party, and he’d love to throw a little mud at a Presidential contender who is relying on those activists. Back in 2004, John Edwards needed Shrum’s counsel. Now in 2007, John Edwards has pretty much told Shrum to fuggedaboutit.
<
p>
“I see no reason not to report and discuss anecdotes related by him that, as far as we know right now, are accurate.”
<
p>
Seriously, David, is that the kind of politics you want? You think Bill Richardson, with his support for the DOMA, with his good-ole-boy ways, and his grab-the-ladies hands never ever, about ten years ago, made a slightly prejudiced comment about gay people?
If you have documentation of Richardson’s “grab-the-ladies hands” or prejudiced comments against gay people, let’s have it. The national media would love to have some to publish, because they’re getting tired of regurgitating the rumors spread by Republican operatives.
what’s this?
<
p>
or this?
<
p>
Trivia, really.
<
p>
But when David starts magnifying Bob Shrum’s anecdote–which might or might not be true, but is trivial in the scheme of what a Democratic candidate can do for America in 2008.
<
p>
I don’t think that’s the kind of politics David wants partly because the media could rapidly build up a baseless firestorm about his candidate. The cliche metaphor for it is double-edge sword, but a better metaphor would be poison gas. It might take out your enemy but the wind could change and blow it back on you.
Do you what documentation is? Someone saying that they heard something is not documentation. It is a written statement of a witness or a victim in this case. Nothing more. I don’t care if the rumors come by me, the lieutenant governor, or the pope.
<
p>
And your willingness to use my honesty about my candidate to play gotcha is hardly the politics we want either.
You called him out, and he responded – using your own words no less! Pretty solid ground in my book.
<
p>
First, as a child I played a game called “post office”. It was very interesting how a story that started at one side of the circle changed, as each player whispered it to the next….by the time the last player spoke out loud.
<
p>
I am not going to call anyone running for president a “phony” based on whispers, second hand repeated stuff without coming from someone I personally know and find credible.
<
p>
So far, all these “concerns” play to me like variations on the game of post office.
<
p>
Romney, though, was kind enough to video tape his flip flops for us – so none of his elastic morality comes to me second hand. Or third hand. Or 50th hand.
<
p>
Warning – anyone who slings insults like “Moonbat” at someone they disagree with has about as much credibility with ME as a two year old throwing sand in a sand box.
…the other issues brought up on this post, but one thing does occur to me. I’m not sure how much this applies to Edwards, but given that we must assume that there are homophoic candidates, I would think that among those candidates there might be a few who ‘don’t feel right’ around specific minorities, but who nonetheless understand that their feelings are not ‘right’ in a moral sense. If so, isn’t this exactly the kind of thing that we want from people like this. I mean, given that they admit certain leanings, it should be a good sign that they might admit that those leanings should not inform their decisions in public service.
<
p>
Someone who is admitedly devout in his or her catholicism can come to understand that however much it agrees with their personal feelings it is nonetheless wrong to open a city council meeting with the Lord’s prayer, for example.
he showed that his public policy isn’t affected by his personal icks. but he’s still against gay people being treated like equal citizens, so i don’t think he measures up to the honesty and integrity ideal you describe.
as i said in another thread recently, this comment was made 10 years ago. edwards has since completed the HRC questionnaire, and he answers in a very pro-LGBT way except that he a) give us no reason to believe that he would ever follow through with these issues, b) has no pro_LGBT legislative record to report to partially mitigate a), and c) he clearly doesn’t think gay people are as good as straight people, because he’s afraid to share the civil institution of marriage with us. that is much more powerful a body blow than this comment from 10 years ago.
Regardless of innuendo, we are still stuck with the fact that the only people who, public policy-wise, actually support GLBT equality are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.
that they are already unelectable?
<
p>
Did you forget that every* state that has had a marriage amendment on the ballot has passed it easily? (*except Arizona, and the only reason that one didn’t was because the ads suggested that seniors in hetero unmarried relationships would lose benefits? If it had been more narrowly tailored to just stop same-sex marriage it would have passed also.) Why would any candidate that is actually trying to win say they are for such an unpopular thing? Get used to more “those people” statements as the viable candidates seek to establish their “not me, I don’t even like em” credentials. Of course they won’t do it explicitly like that, they’ll do it in a way that makes people think they caught their true feelings in a slip-up.
…like below, all homophobia and no egg and sperm. Coincidence? I think not. I’m on to you. You could care less about genetic engineering, you are just an opportunistic bigot.
There is no homophobia here, I’m saying that the country is not going to go for same-sex marriage and so being for SSM is a sure-fire way to lose the election.
<
p>
And even when my posts are only about egg and sperm, you still call me a crazy bigot, so…
…who are for civil unions and opposed to marriage equality are homophobic, that means you too.
<
p>
Throw in all the “conception rights” crap you pile on to demonize gay people and that makes you a crazy bigot.
Heck, you can even be gay and opposed to same-sex marriage. There are lots of those people, who feel that marriage is a “straight” institution that they feel gays should reject. I hear what they are saying, though that isn’t the reason I oppose same-sex marriage. I oppose giving marriage rights to same-sex couples because marriage should always give the couple the right to conceive children using their own gametes, and same-sex couples should not be given that right because it is unsafe and unethical and unnecessary.
<
p>
Have you gone on record yet about same-sex conception rights? I don’t know why you would insist on them. Love truly makes a Family. You should really try to become more comfortable with being gay instead of jealously trying to adopt every straight thing you can think of, like being able to have children together. Having that option would really take some of the gayness out of being gay and make it just another version of straight, one that requires a huge government regulated commercial industry. Maybe it is you that is a homophobic bigot. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, anthony.
…regarding same sex conception rights because no such thing exists nor do marriage conception rights. And no, you cannot opposed marriage equality withough being a homophobe. The fact that some gay people might shun the institution is irrelevant, some straight people do to. And as far as gay people who fundamentally believe gay people should not have access to marriage, well, they are homophobes too, self hating homosexuals do not determine whether you are a bigot. Next time why don’t you not try to hide behind those you seek to hurt. It seems beneath even you.
<
p>
You’re using a definition of homophobia that I just can’t escape, seeing as I think people should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex, and all marriages should be allowed to conceive. I have a different definition of homophobia though, and by my definition, you’re the homophobe, because you think that gays should be more like straights and be able to marry and procreate. OK, you just feel that gays should have the option to do that, but you are imposing that option on all gays. You’re attacking the idea that gays don’t need or want those straight goals, and being judgemental toward people that reject the straight world’s life-path of getting married and having children. Your view suggests that until gays are able to have children together, both by technology and by law, they are lacking something compared to straight people, and that is precisely what used to be considered homophobic. People like Ginsburg and the Stonewall rioters would be appalled that gays are abandoning their fight against the oppression of the white-straight-corporate-marriage world.
<
p>
And you do have a position on same-sex conception. By not agreeing with me that it should be prohibited along with all non egg and sperm conception, that means you think it should not be prohibited and research should continue. If that’s not your position, feel free to explain what it is.
…nothing of the kind. You are crazy.
No substantive contructive debate from you at all, just insults and unsubstantiated blanket statements.
<
p>
If you aren’t in favor of same-sex conception being developed, you have to speak up. If you don’t speak out against it, then you are in favor of it, by not saying anything.
<
p>
Anthony is in favor of same-sex conception, he feels gay people are incomplete human beings because the are unable to conceive together, and so must be made complete by technology.
<
p>
Shut up already if you have nothing to add. You’ll note that I have no problem elaborating my point in response to each of your insults. I think you are annoying lots of adults here.
…sir who have nothing substantive to add. If you do not wish to be insulted I suggest you stop posting crazy, homophobic, bigotted nonsense.
<
p>
I’m sure the other adults will forgive me when you finally disappear.
than the practical idea about how we can and must stop genetic engineering, preserve basic civil rights of everyone to conceive, and extend federal protections to same-sex couples. Never before in the history of the world have any people faced the decisions we face RIGHT NOW. You want us to sleep through it and let this decision be made withut any thought. But no decision has ever been as significant to the future of life on earth as to whether to move from natural conception by two people that love each other to human manufacture by genetic engineers. No decision ever had such far-reaching irreversible implications, and you say bringing it up isn’t substantive! Maybe you can’t see big pictures very well.
…to genetic engineering of human life. It is just plum crazy that you think this is a gay issue. And I’ll accept nothing short of full marriage equality, thank you very much!
Whether you are opposed or not makes little difference, you aren’t Dr. Richard Scott. Do you think we should have a federal law that would prohibit non egg and sperm conception, including prohibiting Dr. Richard Scott from engineering a child for a same-sex couple?
<
p>
It’s a gay issue because an egg and sperm law, which is the smart, recommended way to stop genetic engineering, would only afect same-sex couples. It would take away the right to conceive with someone of the same-sex, people would only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex. Same-sex couples wouldn’t have the same rights that both sex couples have. The right that they would be missing is the essential right of marriage, and it’s very important that all marriages continue to guarantee a right to conceive together.
…straight up crap. You are wrong.
I’m saying we need to stop unethical experiments on creating people and stop genetic engineering, with a federal law that prohibits conceiving a child by any method other than joining a man’s sperm woth a woman’s egg.
<
p>
A asked if you would support that law, seeing as you say you are opposed to genetic engineering.
<
p>
Let’s just stick with that simple question first, I’ll rephrase it this way: are you in favor of allowing Dr. Richard Scott to try to create a child for a same-sex couple? Or do you support a law that would limit conception to a man and a woman’s unadulterated gametes?
<
p>
Leave aside what it has to do with marriage for now, let’s just deal with the right to attempt same-sex conception, married or not.
…a moron and I am not going to play into your sophomoric answer my stupid questions in my stupid order game. You are a homophobic bigot who I am not going to disingenuously “leave aside what it has to do with marriage for now” because that is your actual, crazy, bigotted agenda.
Sounds to me like you don’t want to prohibit same-sex conception, in spite of saying you don’t think it should be done. You wouldn’t do it, but you want to allow people to do it whenever they feel like trying. Well, I wouldn’t do it either, but that doesn’t help the kids that would be born with strange new problems or stop the commodification and manufacture of human life. We need a ban on non egg and sperm conceptions. Do you agree or do you think it should remain legal?
<
p>
If we allow same-sex conception, then same-sex marriage wouldn’t strip marriage of conception rights, and we should definitely have and encourage marriage for couples that want to try to have children together. But just because we wouldn’t be creating a situation that stripped marriage of conception rights, doesn’t mean we have protected marriage’s conception rights. You still seem to also want to be able to say that some marriages should not be allowed to cocceive together. You want both bad outcomes – legal genetic engineering of people, AND being able to stop some couples from being allowed to conceive together. Nice.
…to me that the only way you can make your point is to put words in people’s mouths. Classic technique of the bigot and not surprising coming from you.
whoops, i just hit refresh and firefox 2.0 seems to have posted my last reply again.
<
p>
Well, anthony, anyone can see what is going on here. You realize I am right. You realize that that you can’t have same-sex marriage but also not allow same-sex conception. But you don’t want to admit that you demand a right to do same-sex cnception, so you’ve decided to join the others in refusing to answer.
<
p>
Was I wrong anothony? Do you actually support banning genetic engineering and same-sex conception with an egg and sperm law?
<
p>
Because if you do, it makes no sense to keep quiet about it. We need to stand up and demand a law, it won’t just happen because it should, we need to make some noise to get it to happen. I’m telling you that we could do it as part of a deal to repeal DOMA so that civil unions could be recognized, which would give huge practical benefits and protections to real couples that really need them.
…the crazy bigot said he was right and I was wrong. Who knew he would have such highly developed debate skills at his disposal.
<
p>
You are wrong about everything except the need to repeal DOMA, and when that happens it won’t be for Civil Unions, I can promise you that.
You can’t even state your position on some really simple questions, because you know that if you did, it would prove me right. You are for same-sex conception being allowed. You also think that marriages shoudl not have a right to conceive.
<
p>
Wrong or right?
…such thing as same sex conception or marriage conception rights so I have no poisition on either.
<
p>
I am, however, a firm believer in the mentally ill seeking appropriate medical care. I can give you a referral if you need one.
So far it has only been done in mice, I know that (and even that is unethical). What is your position on doing it in humans? Allow or prohibit? It’s a real question that we need to think about as a country, as a society. Currently it’s legal, so if you don’t think we should allow Dr. Richard Scott to try it then we need to say so now, before he does it, which he thinks might be as soon as 2008. He exists, his reprotech company exists, and Many LGBT groups that insist nothing should be banned exist.
<
p>
I think that it should be prohibited, I think that people should only have a right to conceive by combining their gamete with someone’s of the other sex. That’s not crazy, it is the position of most people who have considered it with care. Even you seem to agree, personally. I think it is foolish to demand that people should have a right to something that we agree people shouldn’t do. It’s not enough just to Willy Wonka our way through this, saying “oh, don’t do that” while people go ahead and do it. We have to prohibit it, on behalf of the children, and for humanity in general. It is so unnecessary and wasteful and exploitive, and so outlandishly risky, we should jail people that attempt it. Allowing it is especially foolish considering the ground that could be gained for gay people by prohibiting it. We can do a federal compromise: equal protections via civil union including federal recognition, in exchange for giving up conception rights.
…you like to pretend exist to support your claim are a figment of your imagination. You are a fool and a bigot.
It’s not an abstract concept, either we say there is a right to attempt to conceive with someone of the same sex, or we say there isn’t. That is, either we allow Dr. Scott to try it, or we make a law against it. What’s your opinion on that?
<
p>
The rights of marriage definitely include the right to conceive together, there is no question of that, it’s explicit in many Supreme Court cases, and implicit in many others. It’s a basic civil right of man to marry and procreate. We shouldn’t lose that right by separating the marriage question from the conception question. What is your position on preserving marriage’s right to conceive?
I messed up the link to the article on Dr. Richard Scott
Sounds to me like you don’t want to prohibit same-sex conception, in spite of saying you don’t think it should be done. You wouldn’t do it, but you want to allow people to do it whenever they feel like trying. Well, I wouldn’t do it either, but that doesn’t help the kids that would be born with strange new problems or stop the commodification and manufacture of human life. We need a ban on non egg and sperm conceptions. Do you agree or do you think it should remain legal?
<
p>
If we allow same-sex conception, then same-sex marriage wouldn’t strip marriage of conception rights, and we should definitely have and encourage marriage for couples that want to try to have children together. But just because we wouldn’t be creating a situation that stripped marriage of conception rights, doesn’t mean we have protected marriage’s conception rights. You still seem to also want to be able to say that some marriages should not be allowed to cocceive together. You want both bad outcomes – legal genetic engineering of people, AND being able to stop some couples from being allowed to conceive together. Nice.
to Shrum? He has got to be the most successful loser in political history. Candidates keep hiring him, and he keeps losing them elections. Thankfully, no one has done that this time around. I am not an Edwards supporter, but Shrum is just pedaling garbage. I just read somewhere Edwards is the first candidate to return some sort of survey concerning gay rights. That’s what he should be doing. Answering concerns of the voters, not validating Shrum by getting in a he said-he said with him.
you can read them at PamsHouseBlend.com
You say there’s “apparently no love lost these days” between them; is that based on anything more than this? Because this strikes me as a plant to win votes from people who are worried he’s going to change his tune about civil unions as soon as he’s in office. If he has a few quotes like this in his resume, then maybe he really is being honest about being against gay marriage and can be trusted. If enough people like Laurel make enough noise that this guy is no friend of the gays, then maybe he might just win the election.
…its comments like this one that fully evidence your blatant homophobia. No egg and sperm here, just animus. Nice.
How is it homophobia? It’s just saying I think Edwards and Shrum are perhaps being calculating. See my post to Laurel above also on this subject.
<
p>
It is actually related to my egg and sperm thoughts, in that I have been saying the candidates are taking unprincipled positions for civil unions that can’t be trusted and seem to be based more on polls and ignorance. They’re just trying to send vague messages to all camps.
Romney held one series of beliefs when he was running for elected office in Massachusetts saying he was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-fiscal conservatism whereas as a national candidate he has suddenly become pro-life, anti-gay rights, and supports the tax cuts of President Bush. Not to mention adopting a neo-conservative foreign policy.
<
p>
Similarly when John Edwards ran for Senate in North Carolina and as President in 2004 he ran as a blue dog, socially conservative, economically populist, pro-business, hawkish, “moderate” and now he is running as the most left wing member of his party because the party has shifted leftward and liberals control Congress.
<
p>
Both men are very presidential looking, have nice hair, say nice things, but neither man has any conviction or principle left, Edwards and Hillary both have a very high burden to surpass to earn my vote.
It’s always been there in his speeches and his votes.
…things to be concerned with than Shrum. He was the whole point of the takeover of the DNC by Howard Dean (remember the professional loser class comment?). So now he gets his revenge by trashing the people who dared disagree with him and his 270 electoral vote strategy. Like a long line of people come before him, he is now trying to make more money off the backs of all of us trying to do something good for the country by electing a competent and compassionate leader in 2008, by peddling gossip. (Elizabeth Edwards wrote in her book that she was releaved that Shrum decided to go a different direction in 2004.)
<
p>
The goofiest complaint I have ever heard is the idea that John Edwards could not be an effective advocate for the poor because he is wealthy. The last successful public official I remember hearing that about was…Bobby Kennedy. it is because of his success that Edwards has the resources to fight the good fight for working and poor families. He and his wife cotribute an extraordinary amount to good causes both in time and money. He is the first major candidate for president we have had who has walked a picket line with striking workers.
<
p>
He admits, if you read the Pam’s Home Bland site and his statements announcing his candidacy, that he has a way to go on the issue of same sex marriage. I have confidence he will get there sometime soon, as will most of the other democratic candidates. As the race will most likely not involve Gravel or Kucinich at the end…his position is as progressive as any one else and more than some.
<
p>
John Edwards has several months to show the nation what he believes and what he is about before the voting starts. I think he offers us a rare hope to combine the right type of economic message with a foreign policy that will bring us toward peace.