I was watching the news last night and they did a short story about who the Republicans WANT to run against. It's just like watergate all over again. Nixon wanted to run against McGovern, and that's who they ran against. I can just feel Rove somewhere in an undisclosed remote location, giving orders to his minions. The news report covered the rumors that were being spread in Iowa about Edwards having an illegitimate child and poison phone calls trying to convince voters to go against Edwards, in favor of Obama.

They WANT to run against Obama. If you put Romney, or even Huckabee up against Obama, sooner or later they can make him seem like an inexperienced dolt. The nice thing will backfire on him, and they'll make him seem like some ignorant dilletante unaware of what lies ahead. (Of course it KILLS me to hear Huckabee discussing economics, which from him, sounds more like a tithing strategy than anything else. So Obama might be able to sparkle on policy compared to that idiot).

The person they do NOT want to run against is Edwards. He is smart, he's tough, he's experienced. I suspect THAT is why he doesn't have any money----I suspect Karl Rove is up in his retreat pulling the money strings as well.

I knew Hilary wold never get the support of women under 65. I posted months ago that she gets the support of women who were housewives in the 60's because they finally want the opportunity to vote for a woman, ANY WOMAN, before they die. But women in the world now see her as a corporate shill, a crook who can't be trusted any more than a Dick Cheney or a Dubya can. Notice she never ever discusses Big Pharma, Corporate America or the insurance industry. She can't. She's already in way too many pockets.

If we are lucky, New Hampshirites will reject all the crap from everybody and have enough vision to elect Edwards. He's our best chance of recovery from the horrific mess we find ourselves in.

That was a good point, Doloresflower----time to check his voting record.

Now the first thing I have to say to you and the other posters who say things like "he voted against the minimum wage act" or in favor of no child left behind, you cannot make assumptions that those votes are clear good or bad votes. We all know they're complicated; the net record is what I think we have to consider. Because let's be honest, the Bush white House, especially at the outset had huge support, especially related to 9/11, and putting forward bills with names like "No child Left Behind" was a natural "go". No one had the power in 2002 to see just how duplicitous and evil the administration was (well, I did, of course, but I am rare and exceptional).

But let's consider Edwards' record more generally.

He supports (generally):

1) defense spending (aka supporting our troops)

2) the environment (Votes in favor of reducing dependence on foreign oil, votes against arctic reserve oil drilling, etc.)

3) gun control

4) prescription drug benefits

5) Victim's rights

6) Right to Choose

7) hate crimes legislation

Now you're right that there were some votes I was surprised by, namely:

1) Homeland Security Act (yes)

2) Women's Health and Cancer Rights Amendment (no)

3) Minimum Wage, twice!(no)

But let's say he had some reasons for not voting for these bills. I looked them up and while I can't find public speeches from Edwards justifying his votes, I WAS able to find out how the other members of the senate at the time voted on the same bills. So for the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Amendment, for example, which would have expanded health care coverage for women with breast cancer, exactly down party lines, the republicans voted yes, and the democrats voted no. I am guessing that somewhere in that legislation was something that meant money for insurance companies or the AMA or some special interest and I am also assuming that there may have been some benefit to the bill that would not have been outweighed by whatever those special interests would be able to claim. Call me cynical, but that is the way I see this.

Homeland Security in 2002? Come on. They ALL went for that one.

And the minimum wage bills (1999 and 2000) were once again totally split down party lines. Republicans voted yes, Democrats voted no. I decided to look that one up. There were a huge number of totally unrelated amendments attached to those bills, including everything from social security caps to a teacher empowerment amendment, to an amendment diminishing the differences between crack and powder cocaine. So I am not sure exactly which of the amendments made the bill unpalatable to the democrats, but it was enough to make every democrat vote no, and every republican vote yes. It sounds to me like Edwards voting record is pretty darned impressive!

Here's the best part of all, though.

If you look at how he voted on executive branch appointments, he voted against Ashcroft for Attorney general (when alot of other democrats totally dropped that ball and voted yes, like Russ Feingold, for god's sake!)and against Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior (when almost ALL the democrats caved---and it was only when the Mad Cow disease warnings of three years ago reared their ugly heads that they distanced themselves from her). All of his yesses were for people I think I might have voted yes for too, given the sad selections the Bush white house was serving up: Christie Todd Whitman for the EPA, Mineta for Transportation, Holbrooke for the UN.....

Look, I think it's great to be picky and careful and to do your research, but I really haven't had reason to believe that Edwards only talks the talk.