Edwards is one smart guy----he has nothing to hide and speaks the truth.I put him up there with Hillary and Obama----nice to have good choices.

I think Edwards is bothered that Obama's position appeared to the left of his on such an important issue.

He was bunched with Clinton in his foreign policy and is losing votes to Obama in NH fast.

Oops, didn't he sponsor the Iraq war authorization?

He isn't presenting anything new, he is simply exploiting this squabble for his gain. I think Obama has a legitimate point in calling out Clinton's old school political mind set.

But I sure would love the Obama/Edwards White House. Kick Clinton to the curb, she is dripping with left wing Bushism.

I think Edwards is right on this one. Hillary and Obama's in-fighting may look like the Dean-Gephart in-fighting. the latter candidates did not make it past Iowa.

I think I will keep repeating this until people actually start understanding it.  The majority of Congress (and not even a slim majority) voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.  The majority of Americans at that time supported the use of force in Iraq.  Ergo, the Senators and Representatives were doing what their constituents wanted them to do.  Isn't that what people are screaming at them to do now with the withdrawal from Iraq - to do what the people want?  Either they are supposed to listen to what the people want, or they are not.  You can't have it both ways.  

Let's also keep in mind the climate when the authorization was made.  It had only been a year (give or take a few weeks) since September 11.  People were still very concerned about terrorism and Bush and his Administration were doing their best to make sure it stayed that way.  

Personally, I never supported the invasion of Iraq, but I do understand why some may have at that time.  A lot of people trusted an administration that, as is patently obvious now, cannot be trusted and should not have been trusted.  I don't think it's helpful to the political dialogue to continually and constantly bring up the Iraq vote.  It happened, and nothing can undo it.  What's more important is what those who voted for it are doing now to try to fix it.  

Edwards must think being the POTUS is the same as being a lawyer. He has a lot to learn.

Does a victory for Edwards in Iowa mean a path to the nomination or does it mean Iowa is now not as important?

John Edwards is right.

Both Clinton and Obama are exaggerating each other's position on this issue.  Obama calls Clinton's position "Bush-Cheney lite" making it look like she doesn't want to start diplomatic ties at all.  Clinton calls Obama's position "naive" making it look like he is open to anything.

These mischaracterizations of each other's policies does the debate on foreign policy injustice.  I am glad John Edwards pointed out that the debate should be on policy, not on personality.

Carrie,  the Majority of the people and the majority of congress ( by the way was Republican...what did you expect them to do...the majority fo Democrats in the house did not) are not running for PRESIDENT.  If they were their judgement should be questioned too.  Bad agruement.  Get another.

Of course John Edwards is right, and I hope he keeps moving up in Iowa where the people would rather have POSITIONS than POSTURING.

All Obama and Clinton think they need to do is wave at the camera.  Clinton learned how to do that well as first lady.  

They think their celebrity is enough.  It has been until now.  Hopefully when voters start paying more attention, they'll realize that neither Clinton or Obama are saying much of anything of any significance.

i wouldn't buy a car from Edwards, let alone vote for him for President.
His wife is a different story, though. She should be the candidate, not him.

Oh please, Obama and Clinton are acting like little children.  They should be more worried about the State of the Union rather than each other.  They are running for president.  Why don't they act like it?  In my honest opinion neither one of them has the experience needed to run the country.  The person with the most experience is Thompson.
Tancredo looks good for the illegal immgration conflict that is going on.
Edwards looks great for our health care.  But we first need to get rid of the leeches called ILLEGAL ALIENS so that we don't continue to be paying for their FREE health care.

Carrie,

It was obvious to many people that Bush should not have been trusted. It was just unpopular to oppose him then.

I'm glad Obama and Dean represent the democratic wing of the democratic party.

As time goes on and the campaign gets away from non-germane stuff like haircuts, husbands, age appropirate sex education and shifts to the real issues affecting the American people, I have a feeling that John Boy becomes more attractive as we get closer to the hour. Just a feeling.

Both Edwards and Clinton well-understood the premise and parameters of the You Tube question, even as those details escaped Obama.

Unfortunately for Obama, there were other details that escaped him as well.

In his effort to promote himself as the new Reagan, Obama casts Reagan diplomacy in a factually inaccurate way.

Reagan did not meet with Gorbachev within the first year of his Presidency, individually, and without precondition.  It was not until his second term that he met with Gorbachev, prior to which was vigorous groundwork as well as predonditions.  Ditto for Nixon and Mao.

For Obama to suggest othewise is historically inaccurate and  contrary to the public record.

Further, to promote these factually innacurate statements while simulaneously pronouncing yourself to be the most experienced and knowledgeable in foreign policy of the entire Democratic and Republican Presidential field is just absurd.

Absurd bordering on nutty!

How does Thompson have the most experience?  He's old, but most of his experience is in lobbying and acting, not lawmaking.  If experience really was an important criterion, Biden, Dodd, and McCain would be the front-runners in all of the campaigns.  Experience doesn't win elections, though: remember, Bill Clinton was a one-term governor, while Bob Dole had as much experience as any candidate to ever run for office.    

John Edwards is taking positions on the issues and publishes and presents his ideas to the American people. He was a very, very effective trial lawyer that fought and won many times against corporations that were injuring and abusing ordinary Americans.
I think he would be very effective at fighting against the special interests that seek to control and dominate our society. He's a fighter.
I hope he is the Democratic nominee for President and I feel that if he is, he'll win in a landslide.

The more people complain about Edwards being a lawyer, the more I laugh.

Do they know that Rudy and Fred and many Presidents are lawyers or at the very least went to Law School?  

See, a President is supposed to care about the RULE OF LAW.  He/she should probably know how to argue a position and account for opposing points of view.  

It's so easy to forget that stuff under our current Dictator, whose MBA-infused "leadership" proves that government is not and should not be Big Business.

Edwards is smart, he's right, and it angers the hell out of Republicans-- if only Edwards had inherited his wealth, right?  If only.

Lyn - The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for it.  It was pretty close in the House as well, so don't pretend that only Republicans supported it.  This was a tough issue, a divisive issue, and a decision that I don't envy anyone who had to make it.

My point is not that we should forget that people screwed up in voting for it.  My point is, as always, is that it is silly to keep harping on it, over and over and over and over and over and over and over (get the point) again.

John boy was dead weight in '04, he will sink again in '08. How can anyone believe what he spews. "its rigged, it's broken", you are part and parcel of it you dolt. He leaves a trail like a slug he's so slimy. I'd rather pick a President by lottery. Hey now there's an idea.

Yiannis - It was also NOT obvious to many people that Bush should not have been trusted.  It's still not obvious to many members of my family, years later, who think he's basically a good guy.  But it wasn't about just Bush.  It was about seasoned members of his Administration who backed him up...like Powell, for one.  A respected general who knew the region well.  

It's very easy to say, 5 years later, that "everyone" knew it was lies.  Everyone didn't know.  

Edwards is right.

John Edwards is busy talking about the nation's business at hand and proposing solutions to our mounting problems. Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama spiral off with the same old, same old, kicking up dust that satisfies Beltway talking heads but bores the hell out of the rest of the country. Clinton and Obama are both so intoxicated by their celebrity that they're already pivoting for the general election - why else would Obama insist on talking so much about Reagan, and in such reverential terms? Gimme a break: you're running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination, pal. That means working for the good of the nation AND the party.

A vote for Edwards is a vote for real change. He's the only candidate thinking about the issues in an analytical, smart way and trying to figure out solutions for our country's problems, both at home and abroad.

No Carrie, not everyone knew.

But don't you think Hillary with all that experience in DC did know? What sort of leadership is she projecting if she is mislead?

Have a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Do away with all the supporting of Obama and tell me what you judge of her position. She is on both sides of this issue.

Just like she wants to be at both sides of the Iraq war.

Actually, I was going by what my mother was saying. I have looked (previously scanned) his biography and I will look into it more and compare it against other candidates he does not seem to have as much as I thought.  But I still think he has more experience in Washington due to his lobbying period.

do you think that Edwards, Obama or Clinton have the right experience?  I think Guiliani has the less experience than all of the others. Though he has had some experience in Washington, but the right kind?

Lies? You people seems to think they sat around a table and made up the intelligence reports. Dicisions were made upon the best intelligence from souces around the world, not pulled out of thin air. Our agencies were also working from handcuffs and the budget hole that 8 years of Clinton had left them in. Did they cherrypick information to more define the course of action? Sure did. But then how much intelligence did we have that showed Saddam wanted to kiss & make peace? Not much. Did Saddam really try to have Pres. Bush 1 killed? Probably. Do we need a better base of operation in the middle east to fight the war on Islamic Jihad? You bet. Don't want to fight them on our southern border. God, how bad have your memories become in 5 years. Do we need to get out. Hell yes. Do we abandon them to Iran and slaughter, not if we care. Any candidate who talks about leaving within 1 year, is lying or showing ignorance. We could not be out in under 18-24 months unless we dump billion of dollars of equipement in the Tigres River and flee for our lives.
Time for people and candidates to get off thier backsides discuss the future and quit obsessing over your conspirocy theories.

I think we have to look for a candidate who takes no PAC's from anyone or thing associated with overseas companies.  We have sent so many jobs abroad over the last 3-4 years that we are all suffering, losing jobs, health insurance, homes and that is plainly evident in the stock market today.  I need to see a candidate speak totally on this issue, and what they would do about Nafta, foreign trade, imports and exports.  Before we can have an election, we need to clean up our borders, put our armed forces into positions to keep the USA safe, and remove lobbyists from all political issues.  Donations should be the same for all candidates and they should use them wisely.  

Amen Diane. How about a donation cap, like a salery cap in sports. Or all donations into a central fund that is distributed evenly. As for using the funds wisely, well...

RH-Saddam was a meglomaniac with a big mouth who boasted of having WMD inorder to intimidate his own people and arch enemy Iran; Why do think that Rumsfeld in the 80's was seen shaking his hand;furthermore, once U.S. and true coalition of world allies removed him from Kuwait he was powerless. The no fly zone, inspectors and embargo had substancially contained him. Ask a majority of Iraquies and they would tell you they were better off with the dictatorship. As the Shrub once said....ruling a country as a dictatorship would be easier as long as I am the dictator....ahahahahahduhduh

I think the piece in the style section of the wapo about Edwards dissing the hairdresser who had cut his hair for free because he was a democrat in 2004 says it all.  If he really care about the little guy and hated the system so much he would have stepped in, admitted what happened, explained what happened, explained why it was no big deal and moved on. Instead he tried to make it seem like the guy had only done this once that he had no connection or relation with him.  In the interview the hairdresser says he was kind of surprised and disappointed when edwards treated him like a nobody.  this matters not because hair matters, who cares about hair, but because a way a candidate treats people has a lot to do with how they really feel about the issue.  using this obama clinton spat as an example of how he is somehow different is pure politics, which is fine, unless you use it to make the point that you were above the fray.  if he really cared about the issues he would speak about the issues instead of taking shots at his opponents.  sorry but edwards has a credibility problem

Yiannis - Well, here we go again.  Does her experience as a First Lady count or not?  People can't have it both ways; either she was "just" the wife of the president, or she was involved (albeit unofficially) in his administration.  

She is on both sides of what issue?  I cannot watch Youtube right now, so please...clarify which issue she is on both sides of.  And how do you figure she wants to be on both sides of the Iraq war?  

RH you are correct.  They didn't sit around a table and make up the intelligence.  They established a special office for the express purpose of whitewashing the most questionable sources to look credible if they backed up the case for war and to exclude, hide, or discredit anything and anyone that didn't.  Over the course of many months contrary facts were ignored and careers dashed on the rocks for expressing contradictory opinions which proved to be correct.  People who properly excersised their constitutional right to free speech were openly ridiculed and accused of treason.  To this day the architects of this slow motion disaster refuse to take any responsibility for their actions, misrepresent and oversimplify the facts on the ground, pretend there is progress when there isn't, impugn the patriotism of people who have every right to disagree with them.  I wish they had only sat around a table and made up some intelligence.

Carrie:
Hillary is touting her 'experience'.
She's trying to undermine Obama, saying he's 'inexperienced'.

But, her 'experience' led her to vote for the Iraq War. What is the value of her 'experience' ?

Obama was running as an unknown for the Illinois Senate seat. He took a courageous stand against the War.

According to Hillary's mouthpiece, Wolfson, Hillary voted for the Iraq War because 89% of the people were for it.

She was reading the polls, not the National Intelligence Estimate.
Doesn't that show her character ?
Doesn't Obama's stand show his character ?

Who would make a better leader ?

Sorry, Carrie this issue is relevant

Which candidate is willing to do what their rhetoric claims - help America's poor and working class?  NONE.  Which two candidates were at a La Raza rally vowing to support amnesty for illegal aliens?  Obama and Clinton - Obama marched with them, Clinton broke out a mariachi band at her rally.  Hello, is this America or is this MEXICO?  They are ALL selling out Americans to big business just like ALL of the rest - big business and big money WANTS the illegals here, they want the cheap labor they get with them and they want to keep wages of Americans as low as possible. So -- right now Republican Tom Tancredo appears to be the only candidate America has - D or R - who loves this nation enough to fight the silent invasion of illegals and the silent invasion of mass approved legal immigration.  Americans are paying through the nose to subsidize big business as they employ the illegals for substandard wages and then we provide free medical for the illegals and their anchor babies.  WE - America's working CITIZENS are paying for school resources and extra teachers to teach ENGLISH in AMERICAN schools - childre of illegals and illegal children as well.  Clinton and Obama at La Raza rallies.  Google La Raza - "The Race" - And so, America we stood against the amnesty Ted Kennedy and George Bush tried to slam down our throats.  Now they are dead set to pass another agriculture amnesty -- HR2 gives farmers all the temp workers they need.  HR2 mandates salary requirements for temp workers.  But -- the growers and Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Feinstein, Clinton, Obama - want to make damn sure the growers can pay wages even BELOW the mandates for illegals.  They don't need another bill - they need to work on HR2- it is sufficient for any temp ag workers we need.  Call your reps and let them know you do not want another ag bill - USE the HR2.

If we are to take back America it looks like at this point Tom Tancredo is the only hope we have.  Edwards could make a good prez, perhaps.  I might vote for him - IF, and only IF he decided to be FOR America and her CITIZENS and not in bed with Mexico as is Bush, Clinton, Obama and every other Democrat who are trying so hard to get that Hispanic vote.  People, if you really don't want to live in a Spanish speaking, Hispanic governed, Hispanic cultured America - if you really do not want your children and grandchildren to inherit THAT kind of America - better start letting every candidate out there know that you won't vote for them if they continue to support amnesty for illegals and do not fight for border security NOW - REAL border security.  Such a shame that it has already gotten to the point that our leaders care more for illegal aliens than for America's own.  They have sold us out to big business big time.  Regardless of how they say it in their rhetoric - each of them who supports amnesty and LaRaza are treating America's poor and her working class CITIZENS like nothing - we are not nearly so important to them as the illegals and the big business they are making richer and more powerful.  I am very sad that our prez election has come to this - all for Mexico and none for America.  Except Tom Tancredo who is trying so hard to save the America as we have known it for our decendents in spite of George Bush, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Osama, etc. Wake up America - let these candidates know how you feel now.  If you want secure borders, no amnesty for illegal, no citizenship for anchor babies of illegals - let them know.  If you are fed up with your schools, hospitals, clinics, ER's being overtaxed trying to take care of the illegals and their anchor babies with OUR tax money - let your reps and the candidates know.  Am I the only one who noticed that CNN had not the FIRST question on illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals on the Dem debate? Could it be that the big business who owns CNN made sure they stayed away from that subject?  Could it be they didn't want the debate on each candidates stance to be laid out for all America to see and hear?  We must search for a candidate and put them in office who understands this is AMERICA and they are elected to serve AMERICANS - that means enforcing the LAWS of this land which means - illegals - out, employers of illegals to jail, borders that are secured from illegals wanting to come here and steal our jobs, refuse to assimilate into our culture, refuse to learn and speak the language of the land, and to keep out the next Muslim intent on blowing us away. Challenge these candidates to let America know exactly where they stand on this issue and let them know you won't vote for them if they support amnesty for illegals.

Why is it that wealthy folks just hate it when a regular person becomes wealthy and does not immediately start voting repugnant?  So funny, as long as they vote for the gop it does not matter how they got their money, inheritance, lotto winnings, stock market, or hard work.  However let just one of the rich folks balk the repugnants and you would think their money was dirt.  Same thing goes for that actor thing.  All hollywood is bad, all actors are stupid, except fred of course.  Lots of balogna out there - where is the bread and mustard?  The double standard just does not fly for me.  You can be wealthy and be a good person and I know a few who are - but not very many, they are too busy choosing the color of their next beemer to make sure that illegal immigrant can correctly read the instructions on the security pad of the mansion.

Edwards nailed it in his comments on the two front runners. Each of them needs to realize it is not about attacking each other that counts. Everyone pays attention to the comments of the candidates at this stage, not just those of the party they are in. It would be interesting to see Edwards win the nomination. The in-fighting going on between Clinton and Obama will destroy each of them. Eventually, people will see through their haze of puzzling remarks and then choose someone who will speak and represent them. We need a Dem win in Nov. of 2008. We need changes to bring us back from the lies and deceipt and unsupported secrecy by the Bush Administration that has brought us to this point in time. Change is necessary. So are peace, high ethics and moral values. Let's focus on the end game... winning in 2008.

Edwards is right.

The political discourse should be about the problems the U.S. faces.  And we've got a ton of them. Besides Iraq and health care, they include the outsourcing of jobs, NAFTA, the WTO, the erosion of the middle class and the U.S. standard of living, humongous budget and trade deficits, the demise of the dollar and non-enforcement of immigration laws.

The candidates should present their solutions to these problems.

The media is guilty of fostering the dumbing-down of the political dialog, because it makes for snappier headlines and shorter sound bytes.

RH--8 years of Clinton left a sizable budget surplus, NOT a deficit.  Bush used up that surplus and jacked up the national debt to the stratosphere. We now owe about $180,000 for every man, woman and child in the nation.

Rose--Since when does experience as a lobbyist (Thompson) count as a qualification for president?  If anything, it ought to be a disqualification.

As for Giuliani, what Washington experience has he had? He's a former NYC mayor and a former federal prosecutor in NYC.

The Iraq intelligence was irrelevent as to whether it was wrong or right or cherry picked. There is irrefutable evidence that the decision to invade Iraq was made long before the intelligence reports were received and evaluated and possibly before the 9/11 attack occured.

Carie,

Your arguement is full of flaw. You don't go with the majority without clear understanding of their logic. Just like warren Buffet said, if majority of people are selling then do otherwise.

One cannot continue to lead by looking at the poll all the time - we need judgement and conviction.

I give credit to Edward for apologizing for his "Majoriy mistake"; however, i think he should have exercise a better judgement than he showed.

Weren't we all screaming and yelling a couple years ago at John Kerry for not fighting the swift boating hard enough? Weren't we all silently agreeing that he lacked a spine or the bite to beat Bush? And now you're all knocking Obama for standing up to HRC? Give me a break. If you would all drop the party line of "oh this is sooooo immature!" you would see that this is a really important look at how these two people differ in their approach to politics. And there may have been some personal attacks, but at least Obama's was funny.
Edwards is a great guy, but lets face it, he's just not going to be able to pull it off. He doesn't have the charisma, and for those of you who don't think that's important, see the 2004 election when our candidate had no backbone OR charisma. I think we should hope for an Obama/Edwards ticket.

I like Edwards. I would prefer an Obama-Edwards ticket, but if we get an Edwards-Obama ticket, I will be fine with that. He stays out of personal confrontations so whoever wins the nomination can easily pick him as VP.

Edwards already destroyed himself with a combination of things; from being a tax and spend liberal to letting his wife run the show to his $1200 haircuts.  If he ends up as the man, he won't be able to wither an attack from the GOP and that will take care of him once and for all!

Union Baby - not working today?  Whose cleaning the bedpans?

It matters not so much when or how the president decides to meet and negotiate with an adversary, what matters is that the net result is positive. It could be that the timing dictates meeting sooner than later, or it could be appropriate to go though diplomatic channels. All of the analysis on this is just more BS from overpaid pundits who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

I to think that the give and take between Hillary and Obama will ultimately hurt both more than they believe. It should hsve ended in the debate. To continue this nonsense is to hurt themselves and the dems chances in the long run. Makes John Edwards look better all the time. They've given him an opening and my hope is that he will use it well.

People who believe we should not be talking to our enemies should read "The Art of War".  History demonstrates what happens with time...remember when Russia was our enemy and we ignored China for fifty years.

In my opinion Edwards is right.

ok edwards is a good guy but has he said anything really productive about illegal immigration?!? my grades are kind of counting on that right now for my report. Come on he has got to have already spoken on the issue..

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):