Ex-senator Edwards to try fresh run for president in 2008

Ron Burgundy · 12-28-2006, 01:04 AM

AFP - Former US senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards is expected to announce a new bid for the White House in 2008, his campaign managers told US media.

Edwards, 53, was expected to make his announcement during a visit to New Orleans, Louisiana, where he will take part in rebuilding efforts in the wake of the devastating 2005 floods of Hurricane Katrina.

Far less popular than senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are not in the running, Edwards is the third Democrat to enter the race for his party's nomination to run for US president in 2008.

The two other hopefuls are outgoing Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and US Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Since losing to Senator John Kerry in the 2004 Democratic primary and then becoming Kerry's running mate in the 2004 presidential elections, Edwards has headed a University of North Carolina research center on poverty.

a fan of Wes Clark · 12-28-2006, 01:42 AM

to be a president. You would think there'd be a rule against having a candidate who violated the constitution and helped to destroy the country. And if you doubt it was unconstitutional, take it up with Sen. Byrd and Thom Hartmann. How come Edwards and Kennedy didn't have the sense that Kennedy and Levin had when they decided not to vote yes cuz of what Clark said???

7960 · 12-28-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by a fan of Wes Clark

to be a president. You would think there'd be a rule against having a candidate who violated the constitution and helped to destroy the country.

Voting yes was not unconstitutional.

And if you doubt it was unconstitutional, take it up with Sen. Byrd and Thom Hartmann. How come Edwards and Kennedy didn't have the sense that Kennedy and Levin had when they decided not to vote yes cuz of what Clark said???

So it must have been unconstitutional because "they decided not to vote yes cuz of what Clark said"?

How about you give some evidence that a yes vote was actually unconstitutional rather than rely on logic that looks frighteningly close to "well nobody didn't say it was not unconstitutional therefore the uncontitutionality is never not in question."

a fan of Wes Clark · 12-29-2006, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Voting yes was not unconstitutional.

So it must have been unconstitutional because "they decided not to vote yes cuz of what Clark said"?

How about you give some evidence that a yes vote was actually unconstitutional rather than rely on logic that looks frighteningly close to "well nobody didn't say it was not unconstitutional therefore the uncontitutionality is never not in question."

You truly make no sense. If an academic who is as respected as Thom Hartmann, and Senator Byrd (as well as Peter Irons, the author of War Powers) say that it was unconstitutional, you're telling me that they're opinion has no bearing? Jesus.
It's quite preprosterous of you to think I was saying it was unconstitutional because of how Kennedy and Levin voted. I'm simply pointing out that respected men like Kennedy and Levin made the right decision because they understood that Clark should be deferred to on this matter, whereas Edwards and Kerry and Hillary somehow felt that they were more qualified to make this decision than a man like Clark.

motivez · 12-30-2006, 04:41 PM

Er, there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Senator casting a vote for a piece of legislation that I'm aware of.. whether or not the legislation is unconstitutional (as I suspect is the actual claim) would be a different matter entirely.

And, no disrespect to Clark, but the only "qualification" needed to make the decision to vote a certain way is to be an elected representative.

While I certainly believe Clark is qualified to give his advice and would be qualified to make the decision if elected, as he has not been elected to any office he was not qualified to make the decision.

JaJae · 12-30-2006, 05:04 PM

Smart people say stupid things all the time. Intelligence is taking as much information as you can get and thinking for yourself. There are many people who disagree with their positions, many very smart and well "qualified" individuals. But I'll simplify this whole debate. What part of the constitution did they violate and why?

a fan of Wes Clark · 12-31-2006, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Er, there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Senator casting a vote for a piece of legislation that I'm aware of.. whether or not the legislation is unconstitutional (as I suspect is the actual claim) would be a different matter entirely.

And, no disrespect to Clark, but the only "qualification" needed to make the decision to vote a certain way is to be an elected representative.

While I certainly believe Clark is qualified to give his advice and would be qualified to make the decision if elected, as he has not been elected to any office he was not qualified to make the decision.

The above "logic" is beyond belief. Are you actually claiming that it's not unconstitutional to vote yes on a bill that is unconstitutional? How come you ignore the fact that guys like Hartmann and Byrd are on my side? Just because a person was elected doesn't mean that they necessarily are the ones best capable of understanding the issue.

I will not be bothering to read anymore of this thread because you are very sophomoric, so I'd rather not waste my time, so don't bother to respond.

motivez · 12-31-2006, 03:59 AM

What's sophomoric is your useless personal attacks. You do General Clark a disservice by coming to a website in his name and then attacking people for no good reason. Something tells me he would disapprove of your actions.

If you're unwilling to actually discuss an issue with someone who likes Clark and would probably vote for him given the chance, how do you expect to actually convince anyone who doesn't? You're doing a pretty piss poor job of representing him.. and I feel bad for his chances if you're in any way officially connected with him.

If you have proof that it's unconstitutional, please actually post it. All I've seen so far from you is generic remarks about how Senator A or Senator B says something, so it must be so!

Unfortunately for you, this is a debate website and generally we like to see proof of such claims. How about you point to the part of the Constitution it violates? It should be easy for a faux intellectual like yourself who throws around words like "tautological" and "sophomoric," after all, big words = big brain.

I don't believe there's anything unconstitutional about voting yes on a bill that is unconstitutional if the unconstitutionality of the bill isn't determined ahead of the vote.. but one of our law / libertarian crew could probably say for sure better than me.

As far as being qualified, seems like you failed to comprehend my meaning. There was only 1 qualification for making a decision to go to war in Iraq as determined by the vote made by Congress, and that's actually being elected to Congress.

Clark was not elected, thus he lacks that qualification to make the decision. He can offer his well qualified advice based on his capabilities as a General, which I'd hope those who are elected with less relevant experience would follow, but that's all he can do until he gets elected to office.