So compared to Hillary and Obama

[WNYresident]

So compared to Hillary and Obama what do you all think of Edwards? Would you pair him up as VP with either Hillary or Obama?

Is he as socialistic as some of the democrats seem to be?

[raoul duke]

If Edwards is a socialist, that makes just about every one of the Republican candidates full-blown fascists, right? I mean, while we're throwing around inaccurate descriptions and all. . .

[speaker]

So compared to Hillary and Obama what do you all think of Edwards? Would you pair him up as VP with either Hillary or Obama?

Is he as socialistic as some of the democrats seem to be?

I've been thinking about that, res, the different combinations of pres and VP. I don't think he's socialistic. I worry about the unions but then, these days, I worry about no unions sometimes.

Not that it makes such a difference anymore. See Delphi thread.

[run4it]

socialism is characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production,

Will someone PLEASE show me where any maisntream American politician has advocated for the above?

or is it just empty rhetoric, Res?

[CSense]

So compared to Hillary and Obama what do you all think of Edwards? Would you pair him up as VP with either Hillary or Obama?

Is he as socialistic as some of the democrats seem to be?

Question One: IMO, Edwards has a deeper conviction toward the lower and middle classes and will not compromise as much as either Hillary or Obama.

Question Two: No. Both politically and strategically. IMO, He is too gruff for Obama and too conspicuous for Hillary. Both Obama and Clinton need a "real" southern democrat to take the southern states.

Question Three: No. IMO, he is far from the extreme left of the Democratic Party. Some of his ideas, which seem socialistic, like Universal Healthcare was passed by Mitt Romney (Republican) in Massachusetts are not.

[speaker]

Whatever the combination, any of them would make great vice presidents. Wouldn';t it be stunning to see a woman and an African American, but I love John Edwards, too. Just think he's not quite strong enough at this time.

[run4it]

I'd like to see 8 years of Obama 'uniting' then another 8 years of Edwards 'progressing.'

[Sock Puppet]

If Edwards is a socialist, that makes just about every one of the Republican candidates full-blown fascists, right? I mean, while we're throwing around inaccurate descriptions and all. . .

I don't disagree with any of this, assuming the exception to the Republican fascists is Dr. Paul. Capitalism and corporatism are not the same thing.

I think your sarcasm is spot on.

Edwards is a socialist (and fascist for wanting to keep a base in Iraq)
The Republicans are promoting fascism by beating the drum of an unconstitutional war.

Dr. Paul is the only real answer.

[woodstock]

If Edwards is a socialist, that makes just about every one of the Republican candidates full-blown fascists, right? I mean, while we're throwing around inaccurate descriptions and all. . .

Well stated Raoul.

So compared to Hillary and Obama what do you all think of Edwards?

On poverty for one thing, John Edwards' interest is to help the low-income working families to become middle income status by raising the minimum wage and increasing the Earned income Tax Credit.

Would you pair him up as VP with either Hillary or Obama?

If it came down to that, I'd say he'd be better with Hillary.

[speaker]

This is what I haven't figured out about McCain. He is busy accusing Romney of one time advocating an Iraqi pullout. This stance on the war is a prime reason why I wouldn't vote for JMcCain. And I think this latest maneuver can boomerang on him.

I think Clinton is the most realistic of anybody. And Edward's the least realistic.

[buffaloagain]

John Edwards means well, and, really, he's an excellent candidate. That last debate, he did phenomenally well.
The problem with him is with the loss of the ticket he VP'd in '04, and now the unsuccessful bid of '08, he's now a politically liability. It's a shame, but it's true. Ideally, he'd be the perfect VP candidate... but he can't.

[speaker]

John Edwards means well, and, really, he's an excellent candidate. That last debate, he did phenomenally well.
The problem with him is with the loss of the ticket he VP'd in '04, and now the unsuccessful bid of '08, he's now a politically liability. It's a shame, but it's true. Ideally, he'd be the perfect VP candidate... but he can't.

And that's too bad. I like him very much. But I think he's young and fresh faced enough to try again. His whole personal picture might change by that time.

[woodstock]

John Edwards means well, and, really, he's an excellent candidate. That last debate, he did phenomenally well.
The problem with him is with the loss of the ticket he VP'd in '04, and now the unsuccessful bid of '08, he's now a politically liability. It's a shame, but it's true. Ideally, he'd be the perfect VP candidate... but he can't.

I think that John Edwards would have been the most honest President and while so many voters wave the accountability flag, most won't can the flag in support when they step into the voting booth and close the curtain.

[Linda_D]

socialism is characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production,

Will someone PLEASE show me where any maisntream American politician has advocated for the above?

or is it just empty rhetoric, Res?

Anyone that isn't for giving the richest citizens and corporations more goodies is obviously a socialist!

[Mary3]

So compared to Hillary and Obama what do you all think of Edwards? Would you pair him up as VP with either Hillary or Obama?

Is he as socialistic as some of the democrats seem to be?

Hillary in my view not trustworthy, but Obama is. Edwards is a good man and hopefully, he will support Obama. Obama and Edwards is a great idea and I would like it very much.

Obama thinks before he chooses a position and also has conviction and integrity that has not faltered. Hillary has "gone along with the crowd" like most typical politicians. Her answer about the vote on the resolution to use "force on Iraq' was insulting to me. She didn't read the intelligence report, but had other agenda for non-American group.

Eventhough McCain is scary when it come to war, he has integrity and good character.

What exactly is a socialistic? Can we for once not "label" people. Does caring for another human being is labeled "socialistic"?

Having balance and fairness is called "socialistic"?

Giving people their individual rights and beliefs considered "socialistic"?

Having national security in real terms without corruption and greed considered "socialistic"?

Providing proper gear and equipment for our soldiers in war considered "socialistic"?

Having no-bid contractors account for the money and service is considered "socialistic"?

The bottom line is we all care about waste from our government spending, and have much more in common than not. I trully hate labels WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.