0
   

Noises will recede while Edwards voice will reverberate

 
 
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 12:44 pm
n the wake of Barack Obama's non-win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, the punditti have been making various wailing noises over how awful it is that they were so wrong and all that. But for all the hubbub over the New Hampshire pre-primary polls and how accurate or inaccurate they were, it's rather interesting that some polls that may have more import have got comparatively minimal coverage.

I speak of the CNN and Rasmussen polls that provide national head-to-head match-ups of presidential candidates. And for months now -- at least, until CNN left off a couple of candidates this time around --both of these polls have been saying similar things about the strengths and weaknesses of the major candidates, things that aren't being told to us in the evening TV news or on the cable gabfests.

Here are the current Rasmussen head-to-head match-ups for the various Republican candidates against the Democrats:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 983 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 02:30 pm
My first choice is Edward followed by Obama and Hillary.
I made some deep research and i come to that conclussion.
Of course my thoughts are quite different from that of others.

My cut and paste to substantiate my views.


"The discussion needs to begin with the uncontroversial assumption that neither of the two Dem front-runners has any credibility among serious progressives. Both are hopelessly compromised, one supported by Rupert Murdoch, the other by George Will. The one a recipient of lavish contributions from hedge fund billionaires, the other stuffed to the brim by investment banking firms. One in the pocket of energy consortia the other bought and paid for telecommunications conglomerates.

For a brief period, the Edwards candidacy provided a flicker of encouragement for the much vaunted Democratic wing of the Democratic party but by this point it seems certain that (yet again) the strategy of working within the Democratic Party promoted by, among others, Norman Solomon, David Sirota and the Progressive Democrats of America has been a failure. Rather than throwing more good money after bad, the left needs to (yet again) recognize the traditional role of the Democrats as the graveyard of progressive movements, the Edwards campaign joining on the scrap heap the failed candidacies of Kucinich, Dean, Jackson, McCarthy among others. While this is all water under the bridge for the moment, it will be something to keep in mind in 2012 and before when a similar cast of characters will try to sell the same rancid meat in different packages."
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/who-the-left-should-support-in-08-and-why/

The following one is most relevant which I just found.

"Some truth about Edwards' Senate record"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4082013
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 03:08 pm
I always find some materials to substantiate my critical views.
Here is one more cut and paste.

"These are some of the words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

"The nonviolent strategy has been to dramatize the evils of our society in such a way that pressure is brought to bear against those evils by the forces of good will in the community and change is produced. The student sit-ins of 1960 are a classic illustration of this method....

"So far we have had the Constitution backing most of the demands for change, and this has made our work easier, since we could be sure that the federal courts would usually back up our demonstrations legally. Now we are approaching areas where the voice of the Constitution is not clear. We have left the realm of constitutional rights and we are entering the area of human rights.

"The Constitution assured the right to vote, but there is no such assurance of the right to adequate housing, or the right to an adequate income....

"The past three years have demonstrated the power of a committed, morally sound minority to lead the nation.... Even the presence of a vital peace movement and the campus protest against the war in Vietnam can be traced back to the nonviolent action movement led by the Negro."

King was decidedly pro-change. But these are some more of his words:

"The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man's contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man's representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him."

Yes, this is right-wing corporate-media color-blind hero, Martin Luther King Jr. speaking about the white man and the Negro people. He was speaking about what was, and what largely still is, not about what he dreamed might someday be.

He was for change, but not for electing just anyone who said the word, and not for letting pass the uncomfortable but necessary warning.

"A time comes," King said, "when silence is betrayal."

"As I have walked," King told the crowd assembled in Riverside Church a year before his assassination, "among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."

King could be imagined today asking a Senator who would claim to oppose the occupation of a distant land while funding that violence with enough wealth to remake the globe: "Why, Senator, will you not filibuster future bills to fund this occupation? Ordinary citizens are sacrificing far more than the embarrassment of attempting a legislative maneuver that might not succeed?. Why will you not use the power you now possess for the good you claim to endorse, prior to asking us to bestow still greater powers on you?"

"There is nothing wrong with power," King actually said in his final address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "if power is used correctly. You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites, polar opposites, so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love.

"It was this misinterpretation that caused Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was this same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject the Nietzschean philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian idea of love. Now, we've got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love."

The strongest politicians do not support the waging of war against weaker peoples. The strongest voices in the United States today oppose the occupation of Iraq, and do so out of love for the people of Iraq and the world, and do so with more than words.
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/1054
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 03:49 pm
Tread slowly Edward.
Make your point very clear and take care of your family.
Most of the people who are not eligible to vote for you , long to see you in WH and wish to realize the never-ending and ever pronounced AMERICAN DREAM

"Edwards Declared the Winner by a Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters. On Fox News, Frank Luntz' focus group from Las Vegas of thirty undecided Nevada Democrats declared Edwards the winner. Luntz:

"How many of you thought John Edwards won?" [1/2 crowd raises hand]

"How many of you came in supporting Senator Edwards?" [About 3 people raise hand]

"On issue after issue, we're going to show this to you tomorrow night, his language actually scored better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama." [Fox News, 1/15/08]

NBC's Chuck Todd: On Edwards, "I thought he did a really good job tonight…He was the heart and gut campaign tonight. He was very good." After the debate, Chuck Todd said, "And by the way, Edwards, I thought he personalized...I thought he did a really good job tonight. I thought he, we talked about the fierce urgency of facts, right, that Clinton brought out. He was heart. He was the heart and gut campaign tonight. He was very good." [MSNBC, 1/15/08]

NBC's Chuck Todd: "I Thought Edwards Gave the Best Presentation." "On the perception front, I thought Edwards gave the best presentation; he may have been a little light on speaking time, but in this intimate forum, his skill of making every one of his answers personal to the viewer shined through very well." [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/581417.aspx]

NBC's Chuck Todd: "Head vs. gut on first economic answer…Edwards made the answer personal and talked about people; Clinton talked about the problem in more technical terms." 9:45: "Watching both Edwards and Clinton handle this first economic question really shows the difference in their personalities. Edwards made the answer personal and talked about people; Clinton talked about the problem in more technical terms. A head vs gut answer; both campaigns are probably pleased with the contrast." ["Head vs. gut on first economic answer," http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/581257.aspx]

ABC's Rick Klein: "Edwards finds his voice when he talks about money in politics -- it's effective stuff." "10:29 pm: Edwards finds his voice when he talks about money in politics -- it's effective stuff, to a point." [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-o.html]

ABC's Rick Klein: "Edwards Again Kept Things Most to His Message." "11 pm: Final thoughts -- first, on the debate. Edwards again kept things most to his message…" [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-o.html]

ABC's Rick Klein: "A good question from Edwards -- don't the people who are giving you money expect something?" "10 pm: A good question from Edwards -- don't the people who are giving you money expect something? Obama's answer was fine, but little that didn't sound pre-packaged, even insidery." [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-o.html]

Reno Gazette-Journal's Anjeanette Damon: Edwards Steeled His Credentials "By Pointing Out He Is the Only Candidate to Explicitly Oppose the Construction of New Nuclear Power Plants." When "the inevitable Yucca Mountain question is broached...Edwards attempted to steel his credentials by pointing out he is the only candidate to explicitly oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants." [http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/inevitable-yucca-mountain-question-is.html]

ABC's Rick Klein: "This is a real point of distinction for Edwards, and a valuable one in South Carolina, on guns." "10:43 pm: This is a real point of distinction for Edwards, and a valuable one in South Carolina, on guns. For as far left as he's tacked, it's not happening on the Second Amendment, and that could be worth a few points." [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-o.html]
How You Can Take Action

1. Join the Campaign

2. Spread the Word
3. Contribute
4. Grassroots Fundraising
5. Join One Corps

From the Blog

* MSNBC Democratic Debate Open Thread Part II
* MSNBC Democratic Debate Open Thread
* Pre-Nevada Debate Open Thread
* My Vote, My Voice: The Entries So Far!
* Setting the Agenda

Upcoming Events

* Town Hall Meeting with John Edwards Jan 16, 2008
Reno, Nevada
* Town Hall Meeting with John Edwards Jan 16, 2008
Las Vegas, Nevada
* My Vote, My Voice Deadline Jan 16, 2008
National
* Town Hall Meeting with John Edwards Jan 17, 2008
Henderson, Nevada
* Rally with John Edwards in Los Angeles Jan 17, 2008
Los Angeles, Calif.
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20080115-reviews-are-in/
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:40 pm
Edwards would be a great improvement.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 04:50 pm
Blueflame
this nonsensical, barbaric lobby oriented world will never uphold decency, decorum,Decipline or DEMOCRACY
Am I cracy or wrong?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:13 pm
Rama, they say it's always darkest before the dawn. But I only have a tiny bit of hope of overcoming the corporate fascist stewards of this world. They have near omnipotence and love the staus quo.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2008 05:22 pm
Blueflame
I hope that we will see a better world.
If it is a Dream then let us Dream a lot.
Reality sucks and our efforts are USELESS.
Keep cool and not allow the cold admosphere to divert your attention.
Thank you Blueflame
Rama
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 01:21 pm
Polling Firms Drop Edwards!

The message is clear: if you oppose the corporations, they will oppose you. Polling firms have decided, on their own, to leave John Edwards out of thei polling.

http://leftylane.blogspot.com/2008/01/oregon-poll-leave-edwards-out.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:42 pm
"More than any of the presidential candidates, John Edwards has come up with a specific and plausible plan that provides for health care coverage for all Americans."

Nicholas Kristof
The New York Times

"[W]hile health care for all is now a popular slogan, Edwards is the only candidate offering a plan that would actually get to universal coverage."

-- Karen Tumulty
Time Magazine

"John Edwards came out with the most comprehensive plan for healthcare."

 Andy Stern, President, Service Employees International Union

"John Edwards has made a serious and thoughtful proposal to address the growing health care crisis. His innovative plan offers practical steps to lower the high cost of health care, improve the quality of care and provide coverage for all Americans."

-- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (MA)
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:46 pm
Under the Edwards Plan:
Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:
Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.

Securing universal healthcare for every American will require the active involvement of millions of Americans
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jan, 2008 02:56 pm
I've known all along that Edwards is the strongest candidate in a general election. I'm not saying that Obama or Hillary couldn't win a general election, I just believe that Edwards would win big. Whether it's the polls in red states like Oklahoma showing that he's the only Democrat who could beat the GOP. Or, this polling out of Ohio that shows he's the only candidate who beats all the GOP front runners. IMO, if McCain is the GOP nominee, Edwards is our best bet
http://leftylane.blogspot.com/2008/01/edwards-support-is-growing.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 03:29 pm
Edwards should return to his 2004 roots, combining a progressive populism with an optimism about what America can be if he is elected. He should talk about two Americas among voters, but also the greater America that is possible with Edwards as president and a Democratic House and Senate.

As the economy moves to center stage and the injustice and bad economics of the Bush viewpoint come to the center of our national debate, Edwards should reach beyond mere anger and offer policies of hope and reach out to Middle American families and working-class voters with hard but uplifting visions that he would champion during the coming debates.

Edwards should champion a freeze of the Grapes of Wrath-style foreclosures that are driving America towards recession, and champion substantial cuts in interest rates to help the average American.

Edwards should oppose the Bush vision of permanently extending tax cuts that are the gold standard for injustice, and champion tax cuts for the middle class and refundable tax cuts or other assistance for the poor that will stimulate the national economy and help the two Americas become one America for a rising tide that would lift all boats.

Edwards should oppose corporate giveaways while supporting business incentives for safe renewable alternative energy and visibly champion those business sectors that would help the new America.

Edwards should call for national usury laws that would ban outright credit card interest rates that rise above 30 percent for good customers, with good credit card histories, who miss only one or two payments.

Edwards should escalate his noble support for homeless veterans and make a direct appeal to military families as well as Middle America, because on issues like healthcare, they are all part of the one America we seek, and all shortchanged, in the same way, for the same reasons, by the same forces, in the two Americas we have.

Edwards can win the upcoming debates, and win them big, but to do so, must reconnect with the broader Middle America — which he has not done in 2008. In 2004 he argued populism with optimism; in 2008 he argues populism with anger. He was right the first time, and just as John McCain adjusted back towards his message of 2000, Edwards should adjust back towards his message of 2004.

The big truth that we are not hearing from the insider political classes is this: With far fewer candidates in the coming debates, Edwards has a far greater chance to get his message out, win those debates and revive what would be a long-shot candidacy based on high principles and high hopes.

Edwards needs to give his own vision, his own "I Have A Dream" message that not only dramatizes the injustice and wrongs, but uplifts voters with a portrait of the good that is possible with a Democratic president named John Edwards and a Democratic Congress to pass his program and lift America, while he changes America.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print/12069
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 06:07 pm
I wish and hope that Edwards regret for the past.

Let him lead for a while.

He is there and voice make no noise
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 10:09 pm
Edwards is set to reconsider his campaign, after the next primary vote. He may decide to drop out.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 03:36 pm
Edgar
It seems so.
But his departure will not bring any radical change.
For me the ensuing election is very important.
As a Gandhi-cum-KarlMce the corporate controlled callous cut-throts.arx believer i expect a decent human to repla
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 05:15 pm
Let me admit my mistake.
The title of this thread is about noise and voice.
The noise emanates from USA will subside in due course.
The voice of edwards will reverberate around the globe.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 10:14 am
Does America have a soul? Yes, it has a collective national soul. A soul that reflects the principles, the values, the ethics and moral convictions of our citizenry. And whether we realize it or not, there is a tremendous battle being waged to determine which of the competing forces in this monumental struggle will win the battle for the soul of our nation.
These competing forces are all those many conflicting voices and influences that are bombarding the American mind from every angle every day -- some informational, some objective, some laced with lies and deception, and some cleverly designed to create an atmosphere of fear and silent compliance.
This is not meant to be a discussion of the influence of any political party or its particular philosophies. We will not get into Democrats vs. Republicans, Red vs. Blue states, liberals vs. neoconservatives. It will, rather, be an attempt to portray the intense struggle going on within this American society to determine the direction that our collective moral compass will take us in the future. Right now this direction is quite uncertain as this nation and this society try to cope with the critical issues that have resulted in a greatly divided nation. A nation that I believe is trying to examine itself, to consider what it once was, far from perfect, but one that seemed to espouse honesty, integrity and ethics to a much greater degree than is apparent in our society today.
One of the biggest questions that we need to answer is whether we as a nation and we as individuals still retain a moral sense of the difference between right and wrong. Do we still have the capacity to make such judgments by setting aside our own needs, wants and prejudices and look at these issues in an objective way that takes into account the welfare of all people in our nation and on this planet. To make this determination and to see just how this battle is taking shape let us consider the following issues and just how we honestly feel about the right or wrong of each.
Our discussion must, in my estimation, start with the question of when our nation should conduct a war against any other nation. Will the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preemptive strikes be wholly acceptable to us if and when our leadership in Washington once again "thinks" that there is a potential threat to our security? Such as Iran? Or will we as a nation insist that war must be an absolute last resort, not to be pursued until all other viable options have been thoroughly assessed? When we find ourselves involved in a war such as Iraq, do we take a stand against it because it is illegal and morally wrong? Or, rather, do we want to end it and bring our troops home simply because we are not winning? Shouldn't this question of right versus wrong be very easy to answer? But is it for millions of Americans who now are almost mind numb from the barrage of propaganda and fear that has been thrown at them in recent years?
It has now become quite clear that the reason for the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs, liberating and bringing democracy to the Iraqi people, and that the real intent was to control the massive petroleum resources of the entire Middle East. Do we Americans, now knowing these facts, completely reject and disavow this totally misguided foreign policy nightmare that has nearly destroyed that nation, its culture and has resulted in meaningless deaths, displacement of citizens and financial disaster for the majority of the Iraqi population? We loudly proclaim ourselves as being a Christian nation but are we worthy of that identity if we condone and accept such actions of invasion and occupation of another nation simply because as loyal Americans we must support our troops and our government?
What about the great moral issue of torture? What about kidnapping and renditions? When we consider this administration's policies in Guantanamo, what we have witnessed of the inhumane abuses at Abu Grahib, when we listen to the debates about whether waterboarding is torture or not, what do we really feel deep down? Do we accept these decidedly non-Christian actions at face value, just things that happen in the course of making sure that our nation is secure? Or do we look deeper and consider that we can make our nation secure without sacrificing our principles and our place in the world community of nations?
How do we feel about the charge that America has become an imperialistic nation that wants to use its position as the world's only superpower to make other nations of the world subservient to our own concepts of government? Is that something that we now feel comfortable in accepting or does it make us feel that our nation has taken a distinct turn in the wrong direction? Is the fact that America has over 700 military bases/installations located in nations all over the world, is planning a missile shield in Poland and The Czech Republic, and may be contemplating an attack on Iran make you feel more secure or do these issues trouble you greatly? Is it in our basic nature to want to dominate other nations?
In domestic issues, how do you feel about the fact that 47 million Americans currently have no health care while, at the same time, every member of the U.S. Congress, federal employees in the DC bureaucracy and employees of state governments are covered? Would you be willing to sacrifice something, possibly even some higher taxes, to see that all Americans have the same benefits or do you feel that life has never been fair to everyone and that is just the way it is? That is one really big question in this battle for America's soul.
Do you believe that global warming (deemed a reality by the majority of the world's climate scientists) is a most definite threat to the future of our children and our grandchildren and to the very existence of our planet? Or do you think that it is one of the greatest hoaxes in our history? This is one issue that every one of us better think about very deeply for if we refuse to see the danger of this rapidly approaching tsunami that will affect our entire environment in devastating ways, then we all may end up dead-wrong. Or do you agree with many of those in DC and in our business sector that may well know of the dangers of global warming but who have declared that they will not do anything that will endanger or slow down the progress of our economy?
And what about Peak Oil, the theory supported by numerous geologists and petroleum experts, which states that in the very near future the total world demand for oil will outstrip the total world production capabilities, thereby adversely affecting the commerce and lifestyles of all nations, especially in America, the greatest consumer of petroleum? Do you believe that this theory is actually relevant and that America and the entire world must drastically change their ways, undertake conservation programs, develop alternative energy strategies to replace fossil fuels? Would you personally make some sort of positive sacrifice such as trying to limit your use of autos, by refusing to ever again purchase a large gas-guzzling SUV or pickup, and think seriously about purchasing a hybrid auto? Or do you, again, think that this theory of Peak Oil is yet once again nothing more than a hoax that will damage our economy and our lifestyles for no viable reason? Yes, one more big question in the battle for America's soul.
America is entering into one of the most dangerous periods in our history relative to our financial stability and solvency, as related to the actions and decisions being made by this nation's financial sector and by individual Americans. This could not be better illustrated than by our current housing crisis, the subprime mortgage dilemma and accelerating foreclosures. This massive problem that threatens the economy and individual solvency seems to be the result of gross irresponsibility on the part of many elements of the banking and mortgage-lending sector. While many people were victims of these shady, predatory loan practices, there also were many home buyers who knowingly and irresponsibly entered into highly questionable mortgages; those that offered no, or very low down-payments. interest-only loans, and various types of ARMs with low initial monthly payments, followed by exorbitant increases in interest rates.
What this housing crisis is clearly illustrating is the growing incidence of greed and materialism in our society. We want more and more "things," material possessions of all sorts; we want bigger and bigger autos, more horsepower. Mega-mansions are becoming quite common. And so, more and more greedy, opportunistic CEOs are more than happy and quite capable of coming up with new ways to satisfy that enormous appetite -- and in doing so, to increase their already lofty salaries, bonuses, retirements and other perks to unconscionable heights. And not feeling the least bit guilty as they use any and all illegal tools and techniques at their disposal to increase their wealth while causing millions of Americans to go into deeper debt.
America has now arrived at a crucial crossroads; and which direction we take into our future will answer this critically important question -- do we still perceive ourselves to be a moral, ethical nation and people? Or have we now been transformed to the point that our nation is dangerously close to losing this momentous battle for its very soul?
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_2860.shtml
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 12:07 pm
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/22/143341/885
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes.
My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society.
He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going.
Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
Sincerely,
Martin L. King, III
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jan, 2008 06:33 pm
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was running third, a sharp setback in the state where he was born and scored a primary victory in his first presidential campaign four years ago.
Issues are not important and the American way of life as well.
Rama Fuchs
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Noises will recede while Edwards voice will reverberate
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 06:06:38