At the request of a couple of members, I will begin putting up full blogs rather than linking to my blogspot site....

In 2004, I rooted for a John Edwards victory in the Democratic primaries. I wanted the senator from North Carolina to take his populist-themed message against George W. Bush and his wealthiest 1%.

Disappointment over his primary losses to John Kerry turned to hope when Edwards was added to the ticket as the candidate for vice president. The best of both worlds, perhaps, with the experienced New Englander teaming up with the young, ultra-smooth Southerner poised to take on the Republican machinery.

John Edwards, I believed, would add a great deal to the ticket, particularly because he drew such a striking distinction with Vice President Dick Cheney. I hoped that Edwards would expose Cheney as the driving force behind the rampant malevolence of 2000-2004. The charming, Southern gentleman versus the grumpy, old-boys network crony: how could Edwards lose?

That feeling began to dissipate, however, on October 5, 2004. That evening, at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, a surprising 43.6 million people tuned into the only Vice Presidential Debate of they year, giving Edwards the stage many believed he would thrive on (click here for video).

The results were not as I had hoped. Cheney managed the debate brilliantly, at times portraying a shrewd leader on issues of foreign affairs, at others an "aw shucks" Midwestern charm, and still others lying through his teeth. Edwards looked baffled and shaken, as if he was surprised by Cheney's political tenacity.

My theory then and now holds that Edwards had always been able to navigate political debates with more self-assurance and poise than any opponent he had faced to that point. Cheney simply caught him off guard, and the American people, some of whom were getting their first exposure to Edwards, saw a side that he could not have been happy about.

Post-debate polling showed what I feared while watching. Only 25% of those polled felt that John Edwards would be qualified to assume the presidency compared to nearly twice that many believing the same for Dick Cheney. Victory: Cheney.

Fast forward to 2008. John Edwards has solidified his "Two Americas" platform and is again striking a populist chord among Democrats eager to find a candidate who represents their core values and with whom they can easily identify.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose message at times feels vague and Barack Obama, whose popularity surge people are still growing accustomed to, Edwards message comes with an easily interpreted sincerity.



As the above video shows (avail at ), Edwards maintains his at-ease style as well as ever. I can honestly envision this man going door-to-door eschewing his everyman beliefs. His platform is, in a word, believable.

The tenet of "Two Americas" that hits home for me is this: one America lives comfortably with inordinate wealth, and one lives on the edge of despair. The latter not only includes the obvious poor and unemployed, but also the huge American middle-class. These are teachers, laborers, middle management, small business entrepreneurs and many others who are one unfortunate circumstance away from despair.

When a medical emergency strikes and insurance does not cover enough of the costs, then what? If your vehicle breaks down and your savings account does not cover repairs, how do you get to work or school?

Those are the types of questions to which Edwards seeks answers, and many Americans can identify.

If Edwards learned from that difficult Cheney debate in 2004, he may just have the opportunity to take his solutions to the ultimate stage: a 2008 showdown against the Republican nominee..

In 2004, I rooted for a John Edwards victory in the Democratic primaries. I wanted the senator from North Carolina to take his populist-themed message against George W. Bush and his wealthiest 1%.

Disappointment over his primary losses to John Kerry turned to hope when Edwards was added to the ticket as the candidate for vice president. The best of both worlds, perhaps, with the experienced New Englander teaming up with the young, ultra-smooth Southerner poised to take on the Republican machinery.

John Edwards, I believed, would add a great deal to the ticket, particularly because he drew such a striking distinction with Vice President Dick Cheney. I hoped that Edwards would expose Cheney as the driving force behind the rampant malevolence of 2000-2004. The charming, Southern gentleman versus the grumpy, old-boys network crony: how could Edwards lose?

That feeling began to dissipate, however, on October 5, 2004....


For the rest of the story, please visit us at:

The Democratic controlled Senate bent to Republican and White House pressure Friday night passing a bill that gives the National Security Agency the power to spy on any American's overseas communications without a warrant. President Bush threatened to suspend the Senate's August recess unless Bill 1927 passed, which it did by a 60-28 vote.


At least they don't have to cancel their barbeque plans....

Click here for the rest of the story:

The latest issue of TIME Magazine includes an interesting article focusing on George Bush's refusal to rid his cabinet of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Titled "Why Bush Won't Axe Gonzalez," author Christopher Morris lays out four reasons the embattled leader of the Department of Justice remains in office.

I find reason #3 most intriguing:
"If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues."

So to avoid handing the Democrats a victory on corruption, Bush is hanging onto the biggest political hack on his cabinet? This is the same man who hired and fired federal prosecutors based on political loyalties ("loyal Bushies" were kept around), not on their ability to convict criminals.

For the rest of this story, click