A Cameo Appearance By John Edwards
This passed unnoticed, but John Edwards popped up and spoke out publicly the other day -- he penned a letter to the editor of The New York Times, demanding that the paper and other media be more accurate when it comes to counting our wounded in Iraq.
In his letter, he pointed out that the Pentagon has two sets of numbers for counting the wounded -- a weekly stat, which is incomplete because it leaves out those who became ill and required air transport from the war zone, and another monthly report that has complete numbers.
"After five years, it is time for respected news organizations to use the complete number," Edwards wrote. "And every day we should honor those who have been hurt. That number is 60,645 and rising."
Edwards was hitting on an issue that few are aware of but has great importance to veterans and some Capitol Hill staffers working on their behalf.
Whoever you back for president, and whatever you thought of Edwards' candidacy, something was undeniably lost when Edwards called it quits. These days, the only talk you hear about Edwards in political circles is about whether he'll endorse, but he's still out there, plugging away on the issues he cares about.
Agreed.
We keep demanding an endorsement, when the actuality is that he will be an asset to either campaign's administration.
Edwards is a real fighter.
April 10, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How things do change sometimes - I remember letter after irate letter from old armchair warriors in the Dallas paper in '02 and '03 who swore up one side and down the other that it was totally unpatriotic to report the number of casualties at all in any war.
It just used make my jaw hit the floor every time the paper published one of those. They quit sometime in '04, I think, finally.
What the hell kind of patriotism is it that wants to hide rather than honor the people who die while serving in our military?
April 10, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
i've always liked both john and elizabeth edwards. that's why i can't understand the snarky comments about elizabeth and the "honest broker" thread from earlier today. why is it so bad to work on behalf of issues rather than one candidate or another?
is it heresy for elizabeth to choose hillary's health care proposal, then compliment obama on some other issue? is she wimping out? someone called both edwardses "craven" in the earlier thread... the whole "if you don't endorse my candidate, then you suck" attitude is repulsive.
April 10, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it, either. I heard her say that if John McCain put forth a health plan that she could support, she'd be perfectly happy to say so, publicly.
And I thought: see? This is why she would never make it in politics. She's thinking about something other than her own political benefit. She's thinking about the people of this country. The nerve of her, I say!
I wish she had been a candidate.
April 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that supporters on both sides could and would handle themselves like you do.
You seem to always bring about a rational position that you support without resorting to name-calling or bashing the opponent. It's reading posts like yours that makes me think kindly of Clinton and her supporters.
Obviously we differ in our candidates of choice, but ultimately we're on the same team.
Sorry to divert from the topic at hand, but I just wanted to throw a thank you your way for upholding a higher standard in supporting your candidate.
You do a much better job of it than I do, I'm sorry to admit about myself. Alas, it's another day and I can always try harder... ;)
April 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, jaysin1414... i appreciate the kind words. it makes up for the vile attack that i suffered earlier this morning in the "Clinton Ahead by Six" thread. at some point we're gonna all have to come together or lose...
April 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
not as far as I'm concerned, but you know how it is - passions run high right now.
John Edwards was my first choice.
April 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
i voted for edwards in the 2004 primary though kerry was already a sure thing, but i never liked kerry (and still don't.) i donated to edwards' campaign in 2007 when people started screaming that he drop out to "take care" of elizabeth. both john and elizabeth have added something to the political landscape. edwards really pushed the issues from the beginning and for that he gets plenty of credit in my mind. so i see it as completely consistent of them to continue to push the issues over any individual candidate. let's face it, in order to win, the dems need to run their general election campaign on issues, not only for the presidency, but for the house and senate races, too. the dems win if it's an issue-oriented election. anything else gives the republicans a chance that they don't deserve.
April 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed.
I hope he keeps hammering this point about reporting of casualties. We hardly ever hear about the number of casualties--deaths
, yes, but not everything else.
And I guess I have never understood why it would be considered unpatriotic to talk about this.
April 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"something was undeniably lost when Edwards called it quits"
Or gained, maybe. He has the freedom to follow his political interests now. He's able to be out there "plugging away on the issues he cares about" rather than attending town meetings and rehashing campaign talking points in preparation of a primary.
April 10, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I know the reason - it's just so horrific that I can't believe the paper would even publish those letters. The reason they think that is because the truth always makes people anti- war.
And they apparently live for it, some of those old guys.
April 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Creepy, stunted, and diseased behavior, if you ask me.
April 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think anyone who wants to be president is nuts to start with, so in a lot of ways, this just helps me to see Edwards as rather more sane than not, frankly.
April 10, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I began as an Edwards supporter. He was clearly at the Left of the spectrum which suited me. He was the most passionate about health care.
That said, I have been disappointed that he hasn't endorsed someone yet. I believe that many were turned off by a whiff of vanity from Edwards. Of course all the candidates are vain, but Edwards wasn't able to hide it.
I would still like to hear from him. I'm not sure any endorsement will carry that much weight at this moment.
What carries more weight today, and considerable weight is Powell's comments on the Wright issue. That's real big time politics. On the other hand, Edwards no longer has this "big-time" feel.
April 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's creepy alright. And it's irrational for about a thousand reasons, but the main one is that anyone who is any kind of student of history - even the most shallow - should have realized by now that war is man's most futile endeavor. It almost never solves the problem it was started to solve, and even if it does solve some problem, it invariably leads to bigger problems down the road.
In a sense, we humans have been fighting the same damn war since the beginning because all war does is begat more war.
And don't talk to me about WWII - I know in America that is the holy of holies - and that's one thing that is wrong with this country right now.
April 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
beget
April 10, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cameos are nice if you are into antique costume jewelry, but why no serious thread dedicated to this:
*
Pres '08 (D)
Apr 10 Gallup
Obama 50%, Clinton 42%
*
Pres '08
Apr 10 Gallup
Obama (D) 45%, McCain (R) 44%
*
Pres '08
Apr 10 Gallup
McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 45%
*
AK-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 43%
*
AK-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 57%, Clinton (D) 32%
*
MT-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 48%, Obama (D) 43%
*
MT-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 54%, Clinton (D) 36%
*
NM-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
Obama (D) 45%, McCain (R) 42%
*
NM-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 43%
*
OH-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 40%
*
OH-Pres
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 47%, Clinton (D) 42%
*
Pres '08 (D)
Apr 10 Rasmussen
Obama 48%, Clinton 41%
*
Pres '08
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 45%
*
Pres '08
Apr 10 Rasmussen
McCain (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 42%
April 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe because it's rasmussen?
April 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try reading it again. It starts with Gallup.
April 10, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a particularly pragmatic side to keeping the Wounded In Action number front and center in the debate about the war, and that's the cost and care this number represents.
Is the VA getting sufficient funding for all of the veterans it will have to treat? Many of these wounds will require ongoing treatment for years (physical therapy, maintenance of prosthetics, etc.), and this is to say nothing of the PTSD treatment, which to date remains sketchy at best. Remember that at one time fully 1 in 3 homeless were Viet Nam vets, and the homeless numbers for Iraq/Afghanistan Vets aren't looking much better (veterans still make up ~33% of the homeless, though veterans of which war isn't as clear).
20 years from now there will be tens of thousands of Americans living the legacy of this war on a daily basis. The groundwork for the care they will need should be laid now.
April 10, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If these numbers have any relation to reality - and I'll freely admit I hope they do - then New Mexico looks like it ought to look right now, I think. The Richardson endorsement really made a big difference and I think all the talk of Hispanics not voting for Obama can quit now.
If New Mexico really is looking like those numbers suggest, and that's just right now - before the campaign - O baby!
April 10, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, um, regardless of Rassmussen's slant - BO is within five points of McWalnuts in ALASKA?! Um WTF? Post plz? Kthxbai?
April 10, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent post -
April 10, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something worth pondering:
What are the Edwards really up to. They sure are doing everything they can to keep their selves in the limelight, and they have been playing the two Democratic contenders off against each other, but it sure keeps the Edwards, both of them, in the Media. Not too long ago, John Edwards even showed up on The Tonight Show. He is behaving like he is still a candidate for president.
What if:
What the Edwards are really up to is actually laying the ground work for John to run for President as an Independent. He sure seems to be up to something.
April 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is time for anyone to get a brand new campaign off the ground - the primaries are almost over - how would Edwards get on the ballot for the general? Petitions?
I admit up front I don't know the law on that.
April 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd need truckloads of cash to be able to get on the ballot--You have to gather X number of signatures to get your candidate on the ballot, and presumably, you'd have to do this for many many states, so you have to have Michael Bloomberg size wealth to do it.
I don't think the Edwards' are up to anything. I think Elizabeth cares passionately about health care, she just joined a thinktank, and the thinktank probably sent around press releases about this, and voila!
April 10, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent post -
Posted by HusseinTenaX
Thanks.
: )
Here's a group blog you might like; it was organized by a very no-nonsense, very Democratic redstater woman who's all about defense of the Constitution against anyone and anything.
April 10, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
nobody cares what John Edwards says or does. he had his chances, and he blew them.
so what if you agree with what he's saying? i agree with a lot of what Sean Penn says, that doesn't mean i'm inclined to listen to him bloviate on whatever takes his fancy that week.
i'm tired of people pandering to Edwards, and i'm increasingly suspicious of his motivations. either come out and endorse or quit fishing for airtime.
April 10, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always felt that Dem talking points should be ranked like this:
1. Total Dead (Iraqis included, so we're saying "over a million dead)"
2. Total Americans Wounded (tens of thousands)
3. Total Americans Dead (thousands, but at this point, Hannity is interrupting you)
This way, we are saying bigger numbers, and bigger numbers fool ignorant people. It conflates the million dead with U.S. soldiers, just like the right likes to conflate terrorism with Iraq. In my opinion, the murder of the people is far more criminal than the murder of soldiers, so I would have no moral problem with this conflation.
April 10, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, what we lost when Edwards withdrew was a real, live, liberal Democrat who could beat the pants off John McCain. But he wasn't the flavor of the day so now we're stuck with two centrists who can't beat McCain. Good thinkin folks!
April 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep hoping that Obama and Clinton will both do the right thing and drop out of the race after endorsing Edwards.
Forgive me . . . I get misty eyed when I thnk back to the time when an actual Democrat was running for the Democratic Party's nomination.
April 10, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
donnerpass,
John Edwards was and remains a centrist Democrat. It is only in the thermoglow aftertmath of Reagan through baby Bush epoch that either Obama or Clinton can be labeled anything but right of center.
April 10, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh Edwards is a slimy weazel just looking for a new angle to keep his pretty face in the news. I can assure you, he doesn't give a rat's ass about some dumb hicks from Arkansas getting their asses shot off. I find it hilarious: the people who voted for w are getting their sons back in body bags, and they vote for him again. Isn't that funny, in an ironic kind of way?
April 11, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink