Words from Elizabeth Edwards...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 6:51 PM GMT
    Did you read/hear this:

    In a speech on Saturday in San Francisco, Elizabeth Edwards made note of the 4th of July holiday homophobic murder of Satendar Singh in Sacramento, slamming George W. Bush on his inaction on federal hate crim legislation.

    Said Edwards, "This president talks a lot about good and evil and the need to seek out evil doers. But he doesn't seem to recognize the evil in hate crimes. The right to live without the fear of being murdered for whom we love is not a special right. We were in fact reminded again while we share the lingering memory of a fence post in Laramie, the sorrow of that image is now joined by a park at Lake Natoma in Sacramento. And Matthew Shepard is joined by Satendar Singh as a martyr in that fight for justice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 7:08 PM GMT
    Our prez's head is up his lilly white ass. What a coward ! Everyone in the world knows it. Remember how Ronald Reagan never even mentioned AIDS durring the out break of the epedemic in the 80's ? Well from Ronny GWB was born. And now we have to deal with the governator and his BS here in Cali... These men are white male supremecists. They are narrow minded and greedy - They should and will eventually fall, because in the end truth and love will win.

    God bless Mathew Shepard and Satendar Singh. May they rest in peace.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 9:40 PM GMT
    I'm not sure how I feel about her husband, but I am already a fan of Elizabeth Edwards in a major way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 10:11 PM GMT
    I like her husband fine, but he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. He's simply too far to the left. That's not a bad thing, since I'm pretty left myself, but first past the post election systems will always lean to the center (the center is a shifting definition depending on the character of the electorate).

    As for Elizabeth Edwards, I adore the woman. She has an incredibly strong character, and she is a breath of fresh air among candidates' spouses who are often made to tow the line; that's especially true when it comes to issues of queer rights. The fact that she has been such an outspoken supporter of full equality for the queer community (including equal marriage rights) is wonderful. She has already become my favorite candidate spouse--I don't really count President Clinton among that group since he was President; he is, by virtue of his former office, sort of a different entity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 10:20 PM GMT
    Ineed, but we can't get away from the fact that Hillary is the only one who could step into the white house right now and know what phone to pick up. Plus + they get major points from me for coming up with their own ending to 'The Sopranos' ... sorry - taking things off subject here.

    NRG - I agree. Elezabeth is a wonderful and outspoken woman - the kinda woman I dig !

    Hillary is really having to walk the line right now, but she is the ONLY choice in my book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 10:34 PM GMT
    I agree Cal - Hillary would be my pick if I could snap my fingers and put someone into office right now. And I think that Elizabeth Edwards while she may not be our next First Lady - due to the exposure of her husband's campaign will continue to be a public figure w/ a good deal of clout.

    NICK

    If Hillary does win - how does one refer to Bill? First Man? Or President???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 10:45 PM GMT
    Every former President, no matter his current office, is always addressed as Mr. President/President whatever. How fabulous would it be to address the pair as Madame and Mr. President Clinton? Mmm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 10:56 PM GMT
    see that's what I thought - well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the future brings eh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 12:11 AM GMT
    Former president Bill Clinton actually joked about that when asked - he says that his Scottish friends think he should be referred to as the "First Laddie"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 12:15 AM GMT
    Also, I've always been for Edwards, even in the last election, but more so this one - looking at poll data and match-ups, the only thing lacking is Elizabeth Edwards has nowhere near the political clout as Bill Clinton, however Elizabeth does not have the negative associations either... It's really hard to say which would be better until after the election is over anyway. Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 12:30 AM GMT
    I would vote for Edwards in a heartbeat and it depresses me that he's behind Hillary and Barack. He's on an 8-state tour now talking about poverty, a moral issue nobody much likes to think about.

    I'm sure the media will find it impossible not to mention his $400 haircut and his palatial home, the way they similarly derided Gore for his appearance and intellect.

    I loved watching Ann Coulter get confronted by Elizabeth Edwards. Coulter has called her husband a "fag" and even accused him of exploiting the death of his son for political purposes.

    I'm honestly not crazy about Hillary and Barack's shiny luminescence is starting to go dull. I hope Gore enters the race.
  • iGator

    Posts: 150

    Jul 17, 2007 2:05 AM GMT
    To be honest, I really like what E. Edwards said...but I get the feeling that her husband does not feel the same way...also, unless some kind of magic happens in the first three primaries, I don't see Edwards goin' very far.

    That being said, (and this might not be popular opinion), but I have to back Barack Obama. It's not just because I'm from Illinois and he's from Illinois...while he too does not favor gay marriage, I get the vibe from him that he really wants to change things. I see him as a go-getter, rather than someone who is just working off the fame of her husband.

    You know...it's pretty funny that now that Bill is campaigning with Hilary, there is more attention paid to him than her...

    It should be an interesting election...but the one that REALLY matters will come in November 2008...we'll have to see what happens...

    Sorry for the rambling...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 3:12 AM GMT
    I like Elizabeth better than her husband, outspoken maybe, but a classy lady nonetheless who is an asset to this country. Too bad her cancer came back, and I wish her the best of luck with a disease that will probably ultimately take her life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 3:15 AM GMT
    Let's all manifest that it DOES NOT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 3:16 AM GMT
    Think healing thoughts.

    PEACE !

    x
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 11:23 AM GMT
    "I'm sure the media will find it impossible not to mention his $400 haircut and his palatial home............"

    Well of course they will. Trust me, I'm all for peoples abliltiy to make money.....and tons of it if they can. I'd liken the $400 haircut to some guy giving a speach to an AA group..while holding a martini. While I'm sure he's really concerned about poverty.........it's all about timing and perception.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 12:43 PM GMT
    It's certainly not inevitable. The media generally described George Bush as a good ole boy, when he in fact grew up with enormous privilege and was repeatedly bailed out of financial messes he created.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 1:05 PM GMT
    Salon is running an interview with Elizabeth Edwards today:

    http://tinyurl.com/2f9evj

    You have to sit through a brief ad, then click on "enter Salon" and you'll go to the story.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 4:48 PM GMT
    In a strange twist, I actually think Edwards would stand a better chance of winning an election than Clinton.

    Even though he is further left, so you might think that would alienate many of the middle of the road conservatives, the irrational hate such people have of the Clintons, regardless of their politics, is amazing.

    It still boggles my mind...again, independent on the political stances of the candidates.

    I've noticed it on Comment section under the YouTube Sopranos parody. Such vitriol and hate...at such a clever piece of humor. Curiously, as much as I disliked his policies, George Bush Sr. was always able to poke fun at himself, and seemed to have a sense of humor. It's a sign of humility and intelligence, which is why the writers of the nasty comments have none.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 5:16 PM GMT
    Clinton and Edwards would be the ideal candidate. Clinton is too great an administrator not to get the ticket - Edwards would be a great vice-president, but Hillary is the only one who could get in there and clean up this mess. Think about it. She knows this game better than any of them. She is a brilliant person. That is what we need now.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 5:58 PM GMT
    Clinton voted for the war. Edwards voted for the war.

    Seriously, there are many important issues facing this country right now but the war in Iraq has got to be one of the biggest ones. That people are buying this "well, I had faulty intelligence" b.s. continues to amaze me.

    None of these candidates are saying what needs to be said and truly, we do more harm by standing behind their facile equivocations than we do saying "They're all crooks and liars, so who cares." It's time we stopped playing this "Dem" and "Republican" game and stepped into the 21st century. We have 1,000 options for salad dressing, but only two parties which (structurally) can win? Sorry, but has anyone been to Europe? Say what you will about our Euro cousins but at least they have the wherewithall to know that just two groups (really one though as the dems and reps are in agreement on most things and paid for by big business) can never support a nation of millions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 7:07 PM GMT
    You don't seem to realize that the basic structure of our government begets a two party system. Almost all FPP (first past the post) systems have only two parties because the way voting works tends to push out the possibility of a third party. If we want to have more than two parties, then we would need to move to a different system than FPP, such as some form of Proportional Representation, which has plenty of its own problems.

    It has nothing to do with Europeans having "wherewithall," it has to do with how their voting systems are structured. You get an entirely different system of governance that may or may not really fit well in all places. I'd rather have our system, but that's because I subscribe to a Burkean view of governance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 7:27 PM GMT
    Our system of governance is a relic from the 18th century, you realize? Just because something has "always been" doesn't mean its the best way.

    Take our electoral system for the presidency: A (rich) candidate is "elected" (eh hem W. Bush) by a popular vote or by APPOINTED & ANONYMOUS members of the electoral college. Or the Supreme Court. And this is the best system because...it's what we've got?!? Come on man.

    Why shouldn't a socialist or (God help us if I say the word) anarchist have a chance to win the presidency if they're qualified? Why do we champion technological innovation and superiority yet cling to such an archaic system of governance which has many documented flaws? Just encouraging thinking outside of the box, that's all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 7:40 PM GMT
    "...Why shouldn't a socialist or (God help us if I say the word) anarchist have a chance to win the presidency if they're qualified?..."

    We're getting off topic here. But I can't let this one go. Find me such a person who isn't a one issue shouter, has a realistic view of how to solve the complex issues of society, not only the controversial ones, or the topical ones, or the one he/she is shouting about.

    Find me one who realizes that shouting "society must change; we need a new system of government..." is not the same thing as worrying about the nuts and bolts of how the non-controversial issues of society, but still fundamental to survival, are addressed.

    Here's a ridiculous example. A true anarchist wants no oversight. So, why do we have to drive on the right side of the road? Why do we need to stop at stop signs?

    I know, you'll say, that's obvious. But there is a huge grey area between getting us out of Iraq and driving on the right side of the road, that not only would have to be addressed carefully in advance, would have to be supported by nearly everyone.

    In short...be realistic. One issue candidates do nothing but cause us to step backwards, no matter how fervent their supporters are, and no matter how well intentioned they are. For example, Nader cost Gore the election, ballot finagling in Florida not withstanding. No matter what his posturing, I'll never forgive him for that, even though I agree with most of his corporate, consumer and environmental stands.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 9:05 PM GMT
    Um, didn't the Supreme Court call the election for W? Or was it the Electoral College? Either way, both were un-democratic.

    I'm not advocating anarchism on the road but rather opeing up the dialogue in these matters. There's no reason to assume a candidate would have "one view" when the issues of society are so thoroughly interdependent (the funding of the war affecting the lack of money for public infrastructure, for example). I understand that some Americans cling to the notion that our system is the best in the world but if it wishes to continue to exist, it WILL have to evolve.

    2 cents prettyboys. :P