How old are you dougnwagner? It's my guess that you are one of those twenty-somethings with a little education and no real life experience, attracted to get involved in the Obama campaign by his feel-good rhetoric.

Don't misunderstand me here, I think that's a good thing, because young people need to get involved, as they have been uninvolved for much to long already.

Decisions have been made by presidents and politicians of both parties, bad decisions, over the last four or five decades that will, very surely, negatively affect your life, and the lives of your children and your grandchildren, and you, apparently, have no in-depth understanding of where we have been nor where we are going.

I see it in your child-like, infantile efforts to win for Obama by smearing the only other electable top-tier candidate, John Edwards, who is actually speaking the truth about what needs to be done in order to right the ship of state, that is listing so far over from the tidal wave of corporate money, that it is in serious danger of capsizing. You need to understand that if the ship goes down, you, your friends and families are going down too.

Don't let your zeal for short-term profits blind you to the bigger picture and the long term goals. Yes, it is about change, and it's about getting out the message of what changes are needed. And right now, Edwards is speaking the message of change while Obama is showing the face of change.

As I have said before, the best thing that could emerge from the Democratic primary would be a ticket with both Edwards and Obama on it. Now that is something to work for.

Dougwagner does not know there are two sides to a coin Mike.

Yes dougnwagner, and Obama says he won't get us out before 2013.

It seems like whenever the comments section goes longer than 50 or so entries, it degrades into personal attacks and insults between posters. Maybe direct democracy might be a bad idea. Some people can not even keep a civil tongue in their heads long enough to discuss the issues.

"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought...

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?...

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

Kem,

"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."

"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

The reports came out just prior to the election and that's when Edwards recieved any press on his views.
Wrong again HUCk.

NO MeYOuWeUs, I don't favor fascism. Where have you been? Go check my previous posts in the archives, all 900+ of them and stop attempting to show I am somethnig I am not, you are wasting your time. I agree, ignore me and I will ignore you.

"John Edwards came out against the war when he and every other senator learned the truth about the false NIE report. He said in 2004 that he had erred in that vote, it isn't a recent observation. You say he will say anthng to get elected , guve us a lie he has told? You should wonder."

Wrong again, Kem, Edwards apogized long after the reports came out. And here is the proof, if that happens to part of your dysfunctional ideology: otherwise feel free to follow the lead of other fundamentalists who purport their own mythologizes above the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

If you don't agree with me then I'm a troll. (yawn)
Rely on that much.

Are you trying to fight fascism with fascism?

let's you and me just drop it

peace ;)

"He was more of the "I love to hear myself speak type".

Hee...

"My husband and I are voting for Edwards."

Double hee and a big yay for your support.

"You're easy to astound huh?"

very progressive...not!

peace ;)

I was excited about obama when he started his campaign but after listening to him I decided he wasn't the "Presidential Type" . He was more of the "I love to hear myself speak type". My husband and I are voting for Edwards.

Kem
Someone (Foxtrader) else made a statement about why they would not vote for Edwards and you took off with it. So is the "someone" your apologizing for you?

The W.O.D. is a subject that actually effects our lives in a direct manner it should be talked about and there's no use waiting for CD to post an article on the subject, or do you only want to talk about what we're told to talk about.

Your Anecdotal evidence (however valid) pales in comparison of the statistics and recourses spent.
The "what about the children" cliché, aside from being played out, can be applied to any and every issue, that's why it's a punch line on southpark, not to mention it's a slippery slope.

I appreciate your presence here Kem but I wouldn't be me if I didn't check you on this, I am not trying to fight with you.

You're easy to astound huh?

I have been anti party for years now…that said I have allowed my position to be influenced by the dialogue in the these posts enough to get on the D.K band wagon.

After that disappointing bit of throwing away his support to Obama, there is no way I am going to misplace my support on any of those pimps.

The fact that we are even talking about them and not our own candidates goes to show the effectiveness of the propaganda machine.

And the apologists for these people astound me.

SUKHI. News flashes not required thanks, I've been around the block a couple of times. I know some adults can use both weed and alcahol responsibly. But when I drove coaches I had to take about two no-notice alcahol and drug tests a year. There are not as many people in such jobs using it as you may think do.

It's not the adults I would have a problem with so much. If it's legalized we have told our kids it's Okay. Their body and brain cells are not fully developed yet and when a kid uses it, their brain cells do mis-align. Sometimes they don't line up again when the kick is over and they never do line up properly again.

What does one tell their 15 or 16 year old child who asks if they can use it when the parents light up? "No, Jeanie, Paul, you have to wait until you're 21." And don't tell me it isn't addictive, because for over 20% who do use it it has been well proven it is. When they aren't spaced they are moody and often irrational. Sort of like some of the people who blog here. Kids will have easier access if it's legal and the drug dealers will have a field day, __ it's acceptable and kids wil be enticed to try the hard drugs and it willl be far easier to entice them. "It's Okay, your mom and dad use it."
I'm sorry someone mentioned drugs because it's off subject for this thread.

You are making assanine assumptions about my opinions posted concernig programs to fight the drug problem and I don't wish to see Blackwter do anything, except be dissolved. So don't make any bets on that. Don't be a prick and start some nasty, unnecessary crap and attempt to paint me as somethng I am not.

I thought it was humerous what you posted BTW. Some one ~astounded~ by that, WOW, that was what was funny to me. I replied, I'm sorry it annoyed you so seriously.

I continued to respond ___ because you brought it up again, I was responding to you. I told you why I said I was sorry I'd brought it up here, but it was because of several others on other threads, not just the one here.

Every one of those shooting you mentioned was done by known current, and or, past drug users. Drugs CAN fry brains. If you want to see what it's like to live in drug country, move to Newark, or Trenton NJ, or Baltimore or Wshington DC for just a few good examples. Don't go out alone at night. I have two relatives who are police officers, over 80% of all serious crimes are now committed by people who use drugs frequently.

Whatever the reason for crack, it's dangerous, inexpensive and very habit forming and if mind altering drugs are ever legalized, far more children will be using it.

Those are my opinions based upon what I have personally seen. What is your problem with me? I didn't mean to hurt your sensitive feelings by posting that crack. You have your opinions about drugs and I have mine __ we disagreee, don't start getting nasty about it. I don't get crappy with others until someone else starts it.

Contrary to what many people are currently asserting about Nader, here is what he had to say yesterday in an interview with Hartmann:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=475&Itemid=1

I guess the sheeple will take anything out of context if they think it will score political points for the Blue Team: as long as their comfort zones are satisfied all is right with the world.

KEM-here's a news flash for you "Your bus driver, your lawyer, your doctor, your teachers, your judge, your police, firemen, aircraft pilots, train conductors, your military, your city council person, your cab driver"

-are all already using it. They are just responsible enough to use it while at home and not at work, just as they would not abuse alcohol while at work. Most users are responsible about it, and the money spent on arresting pot users would be better spent on helping people with hard drug addictions. Having met many, many marijuana users, I can say that there are only a minority who use other, harder drugs. This is a conscious choice of theirs to try other drugs. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. If someone is going to get into heroin, I think they would whether pot is legal or illegal.

"While Edwards and Republicans Mitt Romney, Giuliani, John McCain and Fred
Thompson are providing no specific information on how much their bundlers or other fundraisers have actually raised (Giuliani has disclosed those who have either pledged or raisedat least $50,000), each of them has provided a substantial list of bundlers or fundraisers. Eachhas also indicated that some fundraisers were expected to produce tens of thousands, or hundredsof thousands, of dollars. There is no reason to suspect that these campaigns are any less relianton their fundraisers than Clinton and Obama."

http://www.citizen.org/documents/IndustryCoding.pdf

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

Edwards "IS" the man ONLY if he wins the nomination. Otherwise, he will disappear into the margins of history and forgotten with the rest of the political pond scum.

If Nader does not get in, my vote will go to Blumburg. Not to suggest my vote matters anymore than anyone elses. Edwards, Nichols, Haden, Clinton and Obama are nothing more than a bunch of empty suits. The sad thing is back in the sixties i admired Haden, now, he has become another assimulated status quo type marching to his ideological handlers.

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011802176.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html

Obama has the most contributors of any presidential campaign in history at this point: 495,000 Americans. Think about it. I'm glad you finally got off your high horse long enough to admit that Edwards, like all the other candidates in this race, uses bundlers. However, it's a shame he still does not feel the need to disclose who they are.

Edwards "Bundler" To Go To Prison

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/washingtonpost/main3279132.shtml

"Candidates are not required to reveal the identities of "bundlers" -- people who collect contributions from many individuals -- and disclosure records range from inadequate to spotty to nonexistent. The best, but still inadequate, disclosure comes from Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have provided the identities of their big bundlers and the amounts but only within broad ranges. Ms. Clinton, for instance, lists 311 "Hillraisers" who have brought in at least $100,000 each -- but with no indication of how much each is responsible for. Mr. Obama is slightly more specific; he lists "bundlers" within the ranges of $50,000 to $100,000; $100,000 to $200,000; and $200,000 and up."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901416.html

"THE 2008 presidential field has already begun to sort itself into candidates willing to disclose the identities of their big financiers and those who balk at providing this critical information. On the side of real disclosure are three Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, along with two Republicans, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and — in the latest addition to the ranks of openness — Mitt Romney. Officials of the former Massachusetts governor's campaign told us that Mr. Romney will report the names of his big bundlers, the fundraisers who collect donations from large numbers of people and who thereby help their candidate far beyond the maximum of $2,300 they are legally allowed to contribute directly. Declining to provide this information are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani."

"Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701145.html

Obama has the most contributors of any presidential campaign in history at this point: 495,000 Americans. Think about it. I'm glad you finally got off your high horse long enough to admit that Edwards, like all the other candidates in this race, uses bundlers. However, it's a shame he still does not feel the need to disclose who they are.

Edwards "Bundler" To Go To Prison

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/19/politics/washingtonpost/main3279132.shtml

"Candidates are not required to reveal the identities of "bundlers" -- people who collect contributions from many individuals -- and disclosure records range from inadequate to spotty to nonexistent. The best, but still inadequate, disclosure comes from Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have provided the identities of their big bundlers and the amounts but only within broad ranges. Ms. Clinton, for instance, lists 311 "Hillraisers" who have brought in at least $100,000 each -- but with no indication of how much each is responsible for. Mr. Obama is slightly more specific; he lists "bundlers" within the ranges of $50,000 to $100,000; $100,000 to $200,000; and $200,000 and up."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901416.html

"THE 2008 presidential field has already begun to sort itself into candidates willing to disclose the identities of their big financiers and those who balk at providing this critical information. On the side of real disclosure are three Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, along with two Republicans, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and — in the latest addition to the ranks of openness — Mitt Romney. Officials of the former Massachusetts governor's campaign told us that Mr. Romney will report the names of his big bundlers, the fundraisers who collect donations from large numbers of people and who thereby help their candidate far beyond the maximum of $2,300 they are legally allowed to contribute directly. Declining to provide this information are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani."

"Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701145.html

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011802176.html

Lobo Gris, I didn't miss that. I also didn't think it was something any candidate could commit to with a yes or no answer. Edwards' positions on Iraq have been consistent and reasonable. If some won't vote for him because he voted for the resolution to use force, so be it. I'm willing to accept his apology and his stated commitment not to have permanent bases there and to remove combat troops as quickly as possible. Obama and Hillary fail miserably on this issue.

Thanks MIKE BIN for posting industry contributions. Now, someone please post the *Washington* lobbyist donations to Edwards. You won't find any. Can the same be said of Obama and Hillary? Obama only stopped taking DC lobby money when challenged by Edwards. If we want change, we need to start with how campaigns are financed. Edwards has taken a courageous step by running on public funds. Give him credit for that, at least.

Kem, it IS okay. And it's NOT a gateway drug. More establishment brainwashing...

I am sure glad you are here MIKE BIN.

Well, see. Never can tell what people are going to do in the booth. I hope he kicks ass.

God, I hope Iowa gives Edwards the green light...he's by far the best candidate we've got right now..

Just a quick observation, Tom:

Referring to Michael Gordon as a "leading military correspondent" is scarcely more meaningful than referring to Bill Kristol as a "respected conservative intellectual."

Granted, this is an argument for another thread, but the fact that Gordo The Great has remained on NYT's payroll -- even after his "accomplishments" with Judy "Waiting For The Aspens To Turn" Miller -- is why their recent hiring of Overcompensating-For-My-Little-Willie Kristol just made me yawn.

As for Edwards, well, after the rimjob he gave the Likudniks at the Herzliya conference, I'm none too inclined to take anything he says at face value.

Some have offered the opinion that Edwards is sneaky, saying now, waiting until the final days before the Iowa vote to say that he would pull our troops out of Iraq within less than a year.

Poltics is a rough game, it's hardball all the way. This is smart politics for the Edwards Campaign Committee. You have to be smart when you're playing ball with the likes of Hillary, Obama and the others. They're smart. It's a bit like basball, you save your hard hitters for the last inning if possible.

Remeber, John Edwards is playing catchup in Iowa, he didn't have the money Hillary or Obama had. He's a fine man, and will be a great president, __ just as he is a great lawyer. Most importantly, __ he cares for American and it's citizens. And you can bet all you have, he will honor his oath of office, and he will uphold and protect our Constitution. ___ Hard to beat that.

My sentiments exactly Oscar!
EDWARDS IS THE MAN!!

I LOVE John Edwards!!!

He's The Man!

Michael Moore endorsed him too today (practically).
Paul Loeb did also.

We really need Edwards.

He MUST be elected!!!!

Goldman-Sachs is certainly making sure that usury isn't going away any time soon.

dougnwagner, here is the list of top contributors to the
Barack Obama campaign -

Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300

And here is the list of top contributors to the
Hillary Clinton campaign -

DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
National Amusements Inc $193,850
JP Morgan Chase & Co $173,350
Kirkland & Ellis $172,000
Skadden, Arps et al $151,460
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
Cablevision Systems $135,113
Merrill Lynch $125,550
Time Warner $124,150
Lehman Brothers $123,450
Bear Stearns $120,580
Patton Boggs $118,400
Ernst & Young $110,650
Blank Rome LLP $105,100
Latham & Watkins $100,950
News Corp $99,350

And here is the list of top contributors to the
John Edwards campaign -

ActBlue $1,965,274
Fortress Investment Group $187,850
Stearns, Weaver et al $131,000
Lerach, Coughlin et al $93,950
Goldman Sachs $77,100
Whitten, Nelson et al $66,250
Girardi & Keese $64,400
Beasley, Allen et al $61,850
Watts Law Firm $61,000
Morgan & Morgan $60,050
Skadden, Arps et al $54,950
Deutsche Bank AG $54,750
Citigroup Inc $49,200
Sidley Austin LLP $43,950
Brent Coon & Assoc $42,700
Kramer, Dillof et al $36,400
Motley Rice LLC $36,200
Baron & Budd $35,590
Brayton Purcell $35,100
Weitz & Luxenberg $34,600

Any questions?

dougwagmer:
Gosh, when you compare Edwards' top contributors to Hillary's, Edwards looks very tame:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

ActBlue claims it's a clearinghouse for democratic support, so on the one hand, it may include many small contributions, but on the other, it may be a kind of money laundering for corporate donations. From the POV of the corporations, they will find ways to hedge their bets and contribute to all of the major front-runners.

As with FDR, who may have been inclined otherwise, the proof is in the performance of a president.

DOUGWAGNER, could you explain what history it is that I altered? __ You are a staunch Obama fan, but it is not necessary to keep repeating things that are not so about me or any others who have posted comments here because of that.

Your valid claim that the war in Iraq was for oil, has not one single thing to do with what I posted. I will tell you this and you can argue it until the moon explodes. __ ( If the truth had been given in the NIE report, it is quite possible the only Democrat Senator who would have voted yes was Liberman.) __ Argue that.

For exampple, had Colin Powell read to Congress the following, how many Senators does anyone honestly believe, would have voted yes?

1. "President Bush and Vice Preisdent Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, have been totally incorrect about Saddam. Saddam has not attempted to, nor has he ever purchased, ANY uranium from Africa, or from anyplace else. ___2.__ Saddam has no WMDs, none, he had all of those weapons destroyed in 1991, right after the First Gulf War ended, therefore, Hans Bliss has been absolutely correct. __3.__ Saddam had absolutely nothng to do with Osama bin Laden, or the 9-11 terrorist attacks."

That is what was in the factual NIE report, that Bush ordered Tennant to alter. The Senate instead heard exactly the opposite. Had the truthful NIE report been given to the Senate, to us, to the entire world, which of the Senators do you honestly believe, would have voted to go to war with Iraq for any reason? If you say Johh Edwards would have DOUGWAGNER, then you are a fooL. __ Please do say it.

Again, tell us all where I attempted to alter any history DOUGWAGMER. History never lies, it can only be flawed, by those who write it or tell it. What I wrote is how it was reported by the CIA in 2004. I never attempted to say what was in John Edwards mind whenhe voted, or what else he may have known. He says he voted yes, after, being given faulty intelligence. You say, he is a liar. You also say I alter history, __ which is a lie.

You destroy your credibility and you obviously attempt to twist the truth. Are you afraid that if Edwards wins the primary, he will easily beat any Republican? Perhaps that is your reasoning, I don't know what your reasons are, but I do know your are attempting to alter the truths about John Edwards and also attempt to show all here, that I am wrong with what I posted on this issue, by writing snide remarks about me, that I am attempting to alter history. ___ I did not.

Any who wish to check it out and compare what I have posted here may do so, perhaps you believe most will not bother, and instead rely upon your words. _____ I sure do hope not.

I don't think either Hillary or Berack are electable in this country at this time.Their good people, but lets face it; America would not trust a woman as commander -in- chief,
and we all know of those not likely to vote for a black man just because of his color,he is not viable. Its all unfair ,but thats America 2008.
I think Edwards would give the fascist a run for their money, and that would be worth the price of admission alone. Can you imagine all the rat holes that Edwards ,because of his legal experience could expose.

A lot of good things are being said here about John Edwards on a few different threads.

Don't waste this moment. Regardless of how you feel, close your eyes and imagine having a President you absolutely love.

John Edwards isn't as pretty or smart as his wife, Elizabeth (I'm sure he'd agree), but I don't know that it's a negative.

Good points, sdf!

sdf,

Edwards has taken money from corporations, they're simply bundled into individual contributions. ActBlue is a 527 PAC and Fortress Investment Group is a trillion dollar hedge fund. Of course Edwards takes corporate money. And why can Open Secrets tabulate these contributions. Because of the Obama-Feingold legislation. Senate Bill 230.

"In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007.

The final bill that the Congress passed closely mirrored and drew key provisions in a bill (S. 230) that Senators Obama and Feingold introduced in January 2007 to establish a "gold standard" for reform. Among the provisions in the Obama-Feingold bill that were adopted by the Senate and the House were: strict bans on receiving gifts and meals from lobbyists; new rules to slow the revolving door between public and private sector service; and an end to the subsidized use of corporate jets.

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists "bundle" – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees. The New York Times called this provision "the most sweeping" in the bill, and the Washington Post said: "No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington."

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

Come on.

Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

#1 Contributor

Act Blue

"Is ActBlue a 527, or a PAC, or what?

All of the above. For federal elections, ActBlue is a registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) as a Political Action Committee (PAC) and is not connected with any candidate, party, or other entity. We can directly contribute to and coordinate with candidates, and can transmit earmarked contributions from individuals to candidates. We are also registered with the IRS as a 527 political organization for many of our non-federal political activities. For our state-level political activities, in more than 20 states we are registered as a political committee.

It gets awfully complex at times, but that's part of what we do. We worry about the legal issues so that you can focus on fundraising for the candidates you support."

http://www.actblue.com/faq#q9

#2 Contributor

Fortress Investment Group

"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html

*usaspending.gov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

"THE 2008 presidential field has already begun to sort itself into candidates willing to disclose the identities of their big financiers and those who balk at providing this critical information. On the side of real disclosure are three Democrats, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, along with two Republicans, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and -- in the latest addition to the ranks of openness -- Mitt Romney. Officials of the former Massachusetts governor's campaign told us that Mr. Romney will report the names of his big bundlers, the fundraisers who collect donations from large numbers of people and who thereby help their candidate far beyond the maximum of $2,300 they are legally allowed to contribute directly. Declining to provide this information are Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani."

"Mr. Edwards, alone among Democratic candidates in 2004 in refusing to disclose the names of his bundlers, is well aware of both the value and peril of bundlers; his campaign was fined $9,500 by the Federal Election Commission last year for accepting in-kind contributions and illegally reimbursed donations from one of its big 2004 bundlers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701145.html

Edwards would make a fine president. Especially finer than any Republican.

Barack Hussein Obama is the name of the Republican dream candidate, the Hussein to beat.

Obama said recently something to the effect that, if we all got 40mpg in our vehicles, we would not need foreign oil.

For how long?

And how long would it take to junk and rebuild all the vehicles currently on the road?

Yes, we need to improve fuel mileage on all US vehicles, but it will take time, even if we required all new vehicles have higher standards tomorrow.

And as oil supply goes down, and demand goes up, everything in our economy that is awash in oil (which is everything) will get hit. It's not just about cutting dependence on foreign oil. I have not heard any candidate (including Kucinich) or non-candidate (Nader) put forward a realistic plan for dealing with the broader crisis coming, which is not just about dependence on foreign oil. The next few presidents will be dealing with crisis after crisis (oil prices and shortages, global warming, vast economic consequences), and for the most part, candidates (especially major media-designated "front-runners") are not talking about it.

dougnwagner, huck

Right. I think Obama is more consistent. Edwards has a good chance of turning out to be a liar. That is my conclusion. He has realized that most of America is against the war and wants it ended as soon as possible. (Smart guy. Smarter than Hillary even) But as far as I can see Edwards, regardless of what he wants people to think, has no record of making real progress fighting big business in any major way. Does he? If he does I stand corrected but someone has to provide concrete evidence of this.

He approved the Patriot Act, he is connected to the coal industry, he voted for the war in Iraq. He takes corporate money. I'm sorry but if I was going to believe someone, this is not the person I would believe.

If someone anywhere can produce what Michael Moore asserts is evidence Edwards has a track record of being anti-big business please let me know.

If someone can produce evidence Edwards is for single-payer universal healthcare and not a mandate to force people to pay insurance companies, then by all means educate me, please.

All I ask of Edwards supporters is provide facts to support why you think he is best. I mean other than about how you like him because he has the best chance or how you'll vote for him because he's electable, since he's not black, or a female and he's not short or funny looking.

Fans of Edwards, please just give me some real examples of what the guy has done to back up what he says he is going to do.

Michael Moore knows that EDWARDS IS THE MAN!
Check out his article here on CD -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/02/6108/

No candidate can be all things to all voters, and Edwards is not perfect, but he's the best shot we've got. Get behind him and send him some love. For God's sake people, what are you waiting for?

I favor immediate decriminalization of drug use, with an eye toward studying and possibly implementing future incremental legalization efforts, but first we need to stop big pharma from advertising and promoting the use of their drugs. 10% of Americans are already on prescription mind-altering drugs.

Considering all the crooks we have in the present administration, having a lawyer for our next president seems like a good idea.

When Kerry and Edwards were nominated in 2004, My brother observed that they could win easily by portraying Kerry as the "public prosecuter" who would bring the bad guys to justice, and presenting Edwards as the "public defender" who would stand up for the rights of the consumer, the employee, and the victim of corporate malpractice.

It might have worked... If Kerry had not been such a damned fool and bet the whole campaign on on his military record.

I'd like to see Edwards find a "prosecutor" for a vice president and try it again.

Huck, I would only add that if Obama does not win I will probably vote for the Green Party candidate, whose candidate looks like it will be Cynthia McKinney. Not a bad choice in my opinion.

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

Ideally, I wish we had a single transferable voting system in the United States: a methodology for counting votes that initially allocates an individual's vote to their most preferred candidate, and then, after the least favorite candidate is eliminated in a round of voting, subsequently transfers votes for the least favorite candidate in the previous round according to those voters' ranked preferences for the remaining candidates.

Example: A Kucinich voter in round 1 becomes an Obama/Edwards voter in round 2, etc. until one of the candidates receives 50.1% of the general vote or there are only 2 candidates left competing for the single seat. (Ireland's been doing it since 1919 and it seems to work).

Note that Obama introduced resolution SB 1789 in 2002 to introduce single transferable voting in Illinois. http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

Kucinich supports IRV as well.
www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/Kucinich_Campaign_Reform_and_IRV.pdf

The Green Party also is also in favor of single transferable voting.

Proportional Represenation would be a plus too. In many states of Europe the bar for participating in government is usually around 5% for a political party on a national scale. Germany has a dual proportional representation/single-member-district system where there are representatives of both geographic locations and of the proportional representation vote of the national electorate. Seemingly, if we had proportional representation and single transferable voting I could vote confidently for Kucinich and the Green Party with my first vote every time without feeling like I was throwing it away.

At least Obama knows single transferable voting exists. I'd say that's more Progressive than Edwards or Clinton and their reliance on 527s to get their message out.

I agree that Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan may not appease everyone, but I think it is reasonable to believe that there will be US troops in Iraq to guard whatever form of embassy we end up having there and to provide humanitarian aid. That is what Obama has said, and that sounds reasonable to me.

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

At least Obama is consistent. Like Kucinich.

Kem, you can rewrite history in your mind as much you want to, sane Americans know it wasn't about WMDs and Hans Blix, it was about OIL.

"Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war."

"Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the senators who read the report and a staunch critic of the war, said the findings were "enough to have me vote against going to war in Iraq."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-senators-read-iraq-nie-report-2007-06-19.html

'What I knew before the invasion' by Senator Bob Graham D-Florida

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

Like Kucinich, Obama opposed the Iraq War Resolution from the beginning in October of 2002.

Huck, I would only add that if Obama does not win I will probably vote for the Green Party candidate, whose candidate looks like it will be Cynthia McKinney. Not a bad choice in my opinion.

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

Ideally, I wish we had a single transferable voting system in the United States: a methodology for counting votes that initially allocates an individual's vote to their most preferred candidate, and then, after the least favorite candidate is eliminated in a round of voting, subsequently transfers votes for the least favorite candidate in the previous round according to those voters' ranked preferences for the remaining candidates.

Example: A Kucinich voter in round 1 becomes an Obama/Edwards voter in round 2, etc. until one of the candidates receives 50.1% of the general vote or there are only 2 candidates left competing for the single seat. (Ireland's been doing it since 1919 and it seems to work).

Note that Obama introduced resolution SB 1789 in 2002 to introduce single transferable voting in Illinois. http://fairvote.org/?page=1755

Kucinich supports IRV as well.
www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/Kucinich_Campaign_Reform_and_IRV.pdf

The Green Party also is also in favor of single transferable voting.

Proportional Represenation would be a plus too. In many states of Europe the bar for participating in government is usually around 5% for a political party on a national scale. Germany has a dual proportional representation/single-member-district system where there are representatives of both geographic locations and of the proportional representation vote of the national electorate. Seemingly, if we had proportional representation and single transferable voting I could vote confidently for Kucinich and the Green Party with my first vote every time without feeling like I was throwing it away.

At least Obama knows single transferable voting exists. I'd say that's more Progressive than Edwards or Clinton and their reliance on 527s to get their message out.

I agree that Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan may not appease everyone, but I think it is reasonable to believe that there will be US troops in Iraq to guard whatever from of embassy we end up having there and to provide humanitarian aid. That is what Obama has said, and that sounds reasonable to me.

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

The point to me is that Obama is honest with the public- he hasn't flip-flopped or changed who he is. He's trying to bring this country together in a principled way as the antiwar candidate like Kucinich. He doesn't call his plan 'universal healthcare', he lays out what he thinks the major obstacle to healthcare reform are: the costs of healthcare- the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the underinvestments in infrastructure-, and that the costs are more important to tackle first before you pursue a mandate that could punish the working poor. I believe he realizes we have to tackle Wall Street with a real plan that aims at affordability. Wall Street has us running after all kind of single-payer proposals while in realtime they continue to jack the costs. The costs have to be addressed first in my opinion and that is what Obama is focusing on. Thats why I believe Obama really is a Progressive on the issues and am glad Kucinich has endorsed him as a second option for his Iowa delegation instead of Edwards.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

The Federal Employees Plan

"To begin with, not everyone makes the $165,000 a year or so that members of Congress do. In fact, at least 100,000 federal workers — at least 5 percent of the active work force — do not have health insurance. In many cases, according to the union that represents the workers, they consider even the cheapest options within the federal plan unaffordable. The lowest-priced family coverage offered by Blue Cross, for example, costs the employee about $2,400 a year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/20fedhealth.html

The Masachussetts Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

auspiciousbunny, dougnwagner, huck, you need to just give it up. Edwards IS the man. Instead of asking for more examples, why don't you just go to his website and read them for yourself. Edwards is, without a doubt, the best man for the job, period. Now if you don't start giving him some love for what he has been saying, I'm going to start thinking that you're all trolls. What does a progressive candidate have to say to get your approval anyway? Who else has to give him their approval before you believe? Come on you guys!

sdf B.S. Kerry ran in 2004 on a platform of increasing the number of troops in Iraq and a "strong America," do you remember this? I do...

Those of of you who for a DLC Dim (anyone other than Kucinich or Gravel) are going to wake up with a war monger supporter headache in the morning.

Tom Hayden, pour us some more corporate lemonade, why don'tcha?

Edwards has had that JFK/Clinton style 'boyish good looks' that seduces some, and frightens the bejeezus out of others - especially the horned rim, southern baptist, john birch nazis. I never much cared for Edwards because he has been very stubbornly resistant to populist ideas. I also am a bit peeved that he has shown only antagonism for some who've dared ask for a new and independent investigation (with subpoena power) into the events of 9/11. Not three days ago Kean and Hamilton (chairmen of the 9/11 coverup commission) come forward accusing the CIA and Whitehouse of obstruction of their 'investigation'. And it was a shoddy one at that, headed by the wizard of public myth spinning himself - pals and business partners with "We never imagined jets as missiles" Condi Rice. We now know that the concept of 'jets as missiles' had been imagined very well, with several war games being played out along those lines during the very moments the jets actually struck. Obstruction of a congressionally authorized investigative body is a felony, if I am not mistaken. We haven't been deceived. We've only seen a blitzkrieg of lies and disinformation so massive that only an equally massive and coordinated resistance to it would have a chance in hell of overcoming it. Sadly we are lacking this, and too many well meaning people have allowed themselves to be intimidated into taking the blue pill.

Anyway, I think Edwards is too little too late. No course correction of the level of Edwards, much less Hillary or Obama is going to keep us off the rocks. To save this ship, someone will have to step up and forcibly grab the wheel, and make a very drastic turn to the port side. Even then, the force needed could cause the ship to capsize. I'm not even sure if Kucinich could do it, and he's the only sane choice if we wish to preserve the republic we were told by our teachers we were a part of.

Dennis has the right idea, but I know he'd find nothing but the sort of noncooperation from both parties that Carter received from the house, senate, judiciary, and the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Let us not also forget the military. Oh, and damned sure let us not forget the press. You can be sure that if these people sabotaged Carter that they'd probably be positively gunning for Dennis.

Did I say GUNNING?

And here I hadn't even considered going back as far as JFK, but truth be told Edwards is more reminiscent of JFK than Kucinich, and even Edwards may be enough to send these fascists into enough of a tizzy to try that again. Even Jack was a little hesitant to take on the prevailing mythology of the cold war, having begun as a true believer. He had to be pushed forcibly to do the right thing for civil rights. Edwards strikes me as something along these lines. I only hope he can be so pushed to do the right things. Kucinich is my first choice, but even if he had a snowball's chance in hell he would be facing some pretty huge opposition even from those pretending to be on his team. I have my doubts that he could survive it, and I mean that both literally and figuratively.

If it comes down to it, what else am I going to do but vote for Edwards? I mean, I could vote green, for all the good it would do. I voted for Kerry last time around, praying every moment he wouldn't sell us downriver. So much for that. Unless we get our shit together and mount a cohesive campaign against the forces of corporate fascism in this country, we are finished. Any way you look at it, the Constitution has been the victim of warfare, and it hasn't been coming from islamic fundamentalists.

Thank you, Senator Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is not other viable plan for the tragedy that is Iraq.

I understnd your position EZEFLYER, I don't agree with all of it. I have had young people work for me who came in spaced out and didn't care about a thing. __They were mellow.__ Two of the guys later got into cocaine and they were really mellow, until their highs wore off, then their personalities were those af a very nasty person. They did not care about ANYTHING, except the "white lady". One is now dead from an overdose, the the other is serving a long prison term for armed robbery. ___ They were both swell kids until they started smoking marijuana and advancd to the so called hard drugs.

If it is legalized, we are telling the kids it's Okay, that's my fear. The argument that after using marijuana won't entice kids to try hard drugs don't fly with me. Finally, if it's legal, do you want any and all to have the right to use it? __ Pilots, cab drivers, long haul truck drivers, doctors, eye surgeons, etc. Will the kids buy it from street corner drug dealers at a lower cost? __ you know they will.

It's a big problem and until some sensible means and laws are inacted to effectively control drug use, I would not want to see it legalized and that's Edwards position. So don't vote for the best choice because of that issue, I don't care. Except if enough voters have that opinion, we may have Huckabee or Hillary in the White House. You still won't see it legalized any time soon if that happens either.

KEM -- My "steps" comment was w/o any implication to your comments, as I didn't see your message until recently

I have been an Edwards supporter for some time now, and I just have to say that when people say there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans I would like to point out one tiny detail in response.

If there had been a Democratic president instead of our current administration, WE WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ TODAY. A million Iraqis would not be dead, nor would 4,000 American troops. Can you dig it?

No difference, my foot.

DOUGWAGNER is a staunch Obama supporter. Nothing wrong with that. However he has posted this same post, showing which Senators voted to allow Bush to use militry force against Iraq as a last resort on three different threas here this week. DOUGWWAGNER wishes everyone to know, Edwards voted yes, as did 76 other Senators.

The Senate had refused to vote on that issue until they had seen the current NIE report. They got the report, not knowing that the director of the CIA, George Tennant, had altered the National Intelligence Estimate becaue of pressure from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The Senate, us and the entire world, saw it televised, as Colin powell read the altered report, __ lies. After recieving the lies, the Senate voted. It was over a year after that vote that the truth came out. Edwards admitted he had made a mistake by voting yes in late 2003, and he did. Should he have believed that false NIE report? __ I don't know if he should have, he and at least 76 other Senators did rely on it.

Some other important things about that Senate vote that DOUGWAGNER fails to mention and HUCK follows in his wake are: When they voted, Bush said he would not use military force, unless there were no other options. ___ Next, Hans Bliss was still doing his job in Iraq and as far as the Senate knew, he would be allowed to contine his inspections.

As Soon as the Senate voted however, Bush forced Bliss out of Iraq and prepared to invade. There was no last resort, Bush got what he wanted by lying to congress and it was lies that are perhaps the most serious criminal act any American President has ever committed. And Congress refused to impeach him Cheney or Bush for that and other crimes.

Yes, Edwards made a mistake, perhaps he should have sought better 'inside' information, from whomever did know the truth. Perhaps he should have listened to rumors, gossip or called DOOGWAGNER, who on thr following Monday morning,__ knew it all, __ he still does. John Edwards relied upon the NIE report and the facts, that our president, our director of the CIA, would not alter such an important document, for such a seriios crime was then not imaginable. ___ It sure is now.

Good posts Vern, vaudree, Mordechai, jcephrie, alexnosal, Adele and others.

Kem, here is some info on the WOD. I hope it helps you to see the other side of the argument and understand why many of us here who would vote for Edwards would not because of his pro-WOD position:

Marijuana
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America (behind only alcohol and tobacco), and has been used by nearly 80 million Americans. According to government surveys, some 20 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year, and more than 11 million do so regularly despite harsh laws against its use. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

NORML supports the removal of all penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including cultivation for personal use, and casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts. This policy, known as decriminalization, removes the consumer -- the marijuana smoker -- from the criminal justice system.

More than 30 percent of the U.S. population lives under some form of marijuana decriminalization, and according to government and academic studies, these laws have not contributed to an increase in marijuana consumption nor negatively impacted adolescent attitudes toward drug use.

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 829,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

US Marijuana Arrests
YEAR MARIJUANA ARRESTS
2006 829,625
2005 786,545
2004 771,608
2003 755,187
2002 697,082
2001 723,627
2000 734,498
1999 704,812
1998 682,885
1997 695,200
1996 641,642
1995 588,963
1994 499,122
1993 380,689
1992 342,314
1991 287,850
1990 326,850

Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,710 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, roughly 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.

NORML supports the eventual development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source. This policy, generally known as legalization, exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which enjoy lower rates of adolescent marijuana use than the U.S. Such a system would reduce many of the problems presently associated with the prohibition of marijuana, including the crime, corruption and violence associated with a "black market."

Medical Use
Marijuana Medicine BottleMarijuana, or cannabis, as it is more appropriately called, has been part of humanity's medicine chest for almost as long as history has been recorded.

Of all the negative consequences of marijuana prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal cannabis to the tens of thousands of patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.

Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications.[4] These include pain relief -- particularly of neuropathic pain (pain from nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders.[5] Marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia.[6] Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors[7] and are neuroprotective.

Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision.

Legal Issues
Driven by the Drug War, the U.S. prison population is six to ten times as high as most Western European nations. The United States is a close second only to Russia in its rate of incarceration per 100,000 people. In 2005, more than 786,000 people were arrested in this country for marijuana-related offenses alone.

Marijuana prohibition causes more problems than it solves, and ruins thousands more lives than it supposedly tries to save. The NORML Legal Committee provides legal support and assistance to victims of the current marijuana laws. NORML also monitors developments in state and federal law, and files appellate and amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs in cases which may affect the interpretation of existing marijuana laws, or which will, hopefully, change them.

Industrial Hemp
Hemp PlantsHemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. that contains minimal (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It is a tall, slender, fibrous plant similar to flax or kenaf. Various parts of the plant can be utilized in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed and other products.

Hemp produces a much higher yield per acre than do common substitutes such as cotton and requires few pesticides. In addition, hemp has an average growing cycle of only 100 days and leaves the soil virtually weed-free for the next planting.

The hemp plant is currently harvested for commercial purposes in over 30 nations, including Canada, Japan and the European Union. Although it grows wild across much of America and presents no public health or safety threat, hemp is nevertheless routinely uprooted and destroyed by law enforcement. Each year, approximately 98% of all the marijuana eliminated by the DEA's "Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program" is actually hemp.

http://www.norml.org/

Huck wrote,
"You wonder why politics is dirty: take a look at what these people do to the non-franchised. I recant my post above. Edwards is, was, and will always remain nothing more than a shill."
"Edwards and censorship: shades of GWB. Edwards can kiss my native ass…"

I think it would be wrong to assume that Edwards himself made any threat to the school's journalism department, or that this small story indicates that Edwards favors censorship. Some local campaign worker made a bad call. I've observed and worked in enough campaigns to know at least a few things:
1. Candidates don't micromanage campaigns to that extent.
2. Overzealous paid staff and volunteers often make clumsy mistakes.

Edwards and Obama have both thought a lot about, and talked a lot about, poverty; but this doesn't mean Edwards has to base his campaign in a poverty-stricken neighborhood-- that's the kind of litmus test Karl Rove would love to push.

If I were Rove, I'd start a smear campaign saying Edwards should find the neighborhood with the most poverty, the highest crime rate, drug use, car-jackings, etc., and base his campaign there. Oh, yeah. Think how willing all the volunteers would be to drive to that neighborhood. Get a FOX News team to identify such a neighborhood, and pay some minoirity representative to complain that, if Edwards really cared, he should have his campaign right there in a building that had been abandoned and used by the homeless, etc.

This NC story may have been started by the school Republicans in the Journalism department for all we know. Like the Astro-Turf group, "Students for Academic Freedom." Republican propaganda.

Just say no.

Lincoln was a trial lawyer. Nader was a trial lawyer. A good trial lawyer ain't a bad thing to have in your corner.

Who knows what Edwards would be able to deliver. But at least he's articulating the crux of the problem. Right now, corporations rule. They aren't ever going to voluntarily take a back seat again. Wresting away control will be a battle.

EDWARDS/OBAMA '08

I do not know how Obama got into this. I also feel that whoever is trying to say that Dennis Kucinich has endorsed Obama is pulling a very dirty trick. I believe it is coming from Obama's camp a la Karl Rove. The last time I looked, Kucinich had not joined with Obama. Kucinich has always been against sending troops to Iraq. He believes in strength through peace and was the first to ask for the recall of troops. Additionally,he was the first to call for the impeachment of Cheney.
I like his style because he has advocated a single payer health care plan for all Americans. Edwards has come pretty close, but he is not the first to go against the establishment.

One more reason to choose Nader as VP - who would kill Edwards to end up with Nader - besides those who voted for Edwards to begin with and they are all peaceniks!

The forces that want an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq are considerable and relentless. An analogy for this is the recent hiring of Bloody Bill Kristol by the New Jerk Times. If Edwards becomes president, how long before he suffers the same fate as Benazir Bhutto? Empires that are in the heat of decay, as this one most definitely is, will stop at absolutely nothing. They are like the terminal patient lying in his hospital bed assuring his family in a barely audible voice that he's in tip-top shape.

rmax January 2nd, 2008 3:18 pm

"I don't think this is as major a turnaround for Edwards as some here think."

You obviously missed Edwards's in the Democratic debate where along with Hillary and Obama refused to promise to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term in office in 2013.

Lobo Gris

Edwards was the first of the M$M's "big three" to detail his cuts he'd make in the military budget.

I'd still rather Gravel or Kucinich, but I'll gladly vote for Edwards.

Edwards wants to pull out of Iraq because we're wasting our money and troops on propping up their bad behavior?

Come on, folks. The chutzpah involved in invading a country, killing a million people, destroying their infrastructure, terrorizing their citizens, supporting prison camps, ethnic cleansing and death squads, trying to steal their oil, and then complaining that they are not worth your effort is beyond belief.

Besides, pulling the troops out is not going to happen. Who would man the giant bases the US is building?

Auspiciousbunny,
You made an assertion which is not true.Edwards does NOT take corporate money, that's the thing! He has raised all his money from individual contributions and from the public funds that go to a candidate (which are quite limited). I think that's exactly why he does not get as much attention as the others. This is a big part of his campaign, that he doesn't accept corporate money. Check out Michael Moore's article today. I quote him: "[Edwards] is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded."

sdf

"I will never vote for anyone who supported this war in 2002. Edwards or Clinton. Which is why Kucinich's endorsement of Obama makes sense to me."

Thank you for your honesty and more importantly, your consistancy. While i admire Obama's statement against going to war in Iraq: his current plan calls only for a draw down and NOT the end of occupation. He had it right to begin with but now caves to the status quo position which asserts occupation forces will remain in Iraq for decades. Strikes me as hypocritical of obama.

Edwards should take it one step further and promise an end to America's imperialism; close ALL bases abroad, slash the Marine Corps and generously fund the Peace Corps, dismantle our nuclear arsenal (only in conjunction with everyone else of course!), join and respect the World Court, pay our UN bills, cancel this ridiculous Missile Defence Program, dissolve the C.I.A. and pass the exaggerated terrorism problem to the police (rather than the Pentagon) where it belongs.

The problem with the US forcing Canada to focus on their war on pot is that it takes them away from fighting more dangerous drugs such as cocaine and crystal meth.

About Marc Emery prosecution of Pot:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=713

The Fifth Estate on Crystal Meth:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/darkcrystal/index.html

My guess is that Eli Lilly considers Crystal Meth as a lesser threat to their profits. In fact, many of those who survive their bout with crystal meth are apt to need Eli Lilly's products for a good portion of their lives just to function!

Re: - like a slick unethical lawyer

Edwards had to have been clever and cunning to win his cases - but I have never heard of him acting in an unethical or unprofessional manner or of him taking on cases where he would be expected to behave in such a manner.

Are you saying that Joe Comartin and Thomas Mulcair are unethical just because they are good lawyers?

I dare you to name 5 Canadian Prime Ministers who were not lawyers!

Yes, withdraw American troops, and proceed with the following:

1. Publicly admit its crime of violating the UN Charter, which prohibits aggression against sovereign states. (Tip: forget about 'winning')

2. Ask the UN, without any US participation, to assemble a peacekeeping force to replace US troops within Iraq to assist toward a political solution to the problems caused by the invasion, and to be fully funded by the US.

3. Ask the UN, again without US participation, to assess war reparations against the US for the illegal invasion of Iraq. (Remember: forget about 'winning')

4. Make a commitment to acquiesce to an international task force charged with eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, and conducting regular inspections to ensure ongoing compliance from all nations.

There - that would be a good first few steps toward restoring the kind of values the US claims to hold.

John Edwards was the right candidate in 2004 and he's still the right candidate in 2008. No, he's far from perfect--but he's the best of the bunch we have in front of us.

I will never vote for anyone who supported this war in 2002. Edwards or Clinton. Which is why Kucinich's endorsement of Obama makes sense to me.

Nader2000: You wrote, "Running third in the polls, Edwards makes his last-minute move to distinguish himself, promising Iowa Democrats a complete pullout from Iraq. If elected, would he deliver? Who can say?"

This was NOT a last-minute move. Have you been paying attention only to the Hillary/Obama "fight"? Edwards has held this position, including no permanent bases in Iraq, for a long time.

It's amusing that the REAL Ralph Nader endorsed Edwards a couple of days ago, while you invoke the magic Nader name to urge people to believe Edwards is a faker of some kind.

I don't trust anyone who changes their mind on the eve of an important milestone event, unless there is a demonstrable period of several months of "reconsideration". Sorry, Edwards reeks of typical political B.O.

@Kem Patrick
Your screed against marijuana was atypically poorly thought-through. I know hundreds of marijuana smokers, and they are all very normal people. I know many, many more who have tried it, and prefer tobacco and/or alcohol as their drug of choice. Despite the Govt's best propaganda programs, marijuana is not the life-wrecker that we are told. Yes, there are exceptions, but they constitute a very small minority. There are ALWAYS outliers in any distribution.

And as for "harder" drugs, why not take the line that many progressive nations are now following, and treating drug-use not as a crime, but a disease and treating it as such? De-criminalize all drug-use, and instead offer programs and incentives for addicts to give-up. We do it for alcohol and tobacco addiction, why not cocaine, heroin, etc?

Intersting statement:

"Thanks for voting for the Iraq war that continues to kill millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans John! What a hypocrite."

Just a hypothetical question: what happens if Edwards lose the nomination to Clinton - would it then be "hypocritical" to vote on her behalf in the general election?

Thanks for voting for the Iraq war that continues to kill millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans John! What a hypocrite.

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

Fortress Investment Group

#2 Contributor to Edwards Campaign

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html

You wonder why politics is dirty: take a look at what these people do to the non-franchised. I recant my post above. Edwards is, was, and will always remain nothing more than a shill.

Edwards and censorship: shades of GWB. Edwards can kiss my native ass...

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/750356.html

Unfortunately, none of the Democratic candidates will be able to act on 100% of the public's concerns. I will vote for any Democrat in the general election but my preference is a little different.

I want a deliberate, self-assessing candiadate that's not perfect, acknowledges his flaws and comes around to understanding what is actually going on in the country. I want someone who does not accept the current financing of elections and recognizes the threat from corporate America as well as willing to fight it. I want someone who understands timing and message. I want an ethical individual that has an obviously supportive spouse (who would be a great candidate as well) and partnership that has spanned over three decades. I want someone who is skilled enough to make something of himself and understand how poverty and healthcare are big issues for many working class Amercians. I want a candidate that just may pick up Kucinich's crucible and DELIVER as a top tier candidate that hasn't sold out to megaopolies. I want someone who recognizes the occupation is not worth continuing as recognizes the true threats to democracy. I want a candidate to try to be the next FDR or JFK. I want John Edwards.

I don't think this is as major a turnaround for Edwards as some here think. It's really more a matter of the media picking up on what Edwards has pledged for some time: to withdraw 40,000 troops immediately, and a phased withdrawal of all combat troops in a year. He has also pledged against permanent bases in Iraq (a *huge* deal, in my opinion). I think his approach has been reasonable and consistent. He also talks about the risks of genocide, and how we need to bring in the international community to help reduce that threat, so he's thinking about what might happen in Iraq as we leave. It's just people are paying more attention, now that the HillObama media frenzy/freak show hasn't pushed Edwards out of contention in Iowa.

Okay REALITY, see you must think legalizing drugs is okay, I don't. I posted that because I agree with John Edwards on that issue and gave some of my reasons. I've seen several young kids lives ruined by using drugs, some relatives, they started with the 'harmless' weed. Ever wonder if maybe your posts are dumb or ignorant? I never have said so, it wouldn't be fair or nice.

We keep hearing about Edwards and populism. We keep hearing about his bold, anti-corporate stand. I will not presume to know what's inside Edwards' head and inside his heart.

It seems to me, however, that to speak against corporate tyranny must go much deeper than just rhetoric; three specific policy areas must be addressed.

The first is the defense budget. The US should have all the defense it needs; spending excessively on defense, however, WEAKENS the country and deprives critically needed programs of the funding they require. To truly earn the anti-corporate vote, calls to make deep, very deep, cuts in defense spending are the price of admission.

The second is the dissassembling of America's global empire. The wars we fight and the countries we occupy with foreign military bases (730+) do nothing to protect the US. These are nothing but corporate-welfare mechanisms that enable parasitic multi-national corporations to feed on their US host.

And the third is the restoration of our democracy by kicking the big money boys out of the halls of the people's government. No more paid corporate lobbyists. No more private meetings between elected representatives and corporate employees. If corporations have something to say, let them say it publically in open hearings on the House or Senate floor. And, of course, no private money to political candidates.

I'm glad to see Mr. Edwards starting to talk the talk. To win my vote will take far more than that. Shut down America's foreign bases and bring all US troops back home. Kick paid corporate lobbyists out of Washington. Slash the defense budget in half. Put some muscle behind the words and then we'll talk about political support. Talk is cheap; time is short.

Ever wonder why it took him so long to change his mind?

Answer: It's just a political ploy.

Kem Patrick- that is by far the dumbest, most ignorant post I have ever seen from you. Funny you didn't mention prescription drugs which are entirely more mind-numbing than any weed. Just a piece of advise- stick to what you know, this is not a topic you should be discussing.

So Edwards is changing his mind about the war in Iraq?

That can be a good thing, assuming he's changing his mind because he now believes the war to be pointless and wrong, which it clearly is. Of course he could also be changing his mind because he simply wants to get elected, and wanting to get elected is how politicians work. However, neither Hillary nor Obama are changing their minds about the war and, since they're also politicians, they must want to get elected too. Either way, Edwards is promising to end the war, or at least to try to, which is a good thing, regardless of his motives. Do we know if he'll keep his promise or not? Of course we don't. But at least he's said he will, which neither Hillary nor Obama have done.

At least it looks like Edwards is responding to the polls, most of which indicate that the majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq within a year. And what a politician is supposed to do is what the people want, regardless as to what he or she wants, so that's a good thing. We've just had eight years of a President who has done exactly what he wanted, without changing his mind or compromising, and look what that got us.

Is that for me Nspire? I thought I was speaking about Edwards, and defending him from those who offer how bad he is because of whatever?

By fair judges, I mean fair minded.