I recently saw a segemnt on CNN about the rift between Edwards and McCain.  I've got to say, the democrats do not need to have someone like John Edwards as their nominee.  Everything about him spells d.e.f.e.a.t., he comes across as a WEAK male.  Its a combination of his accent and his presence.  Democrats need a nominee that exhudes STRENGTH.  Hillary Clinton comes across as a stonger person than Edwards.  Obama is the best nominee the democrats could nominate.

Reality shows that immigrants realize that learning english is important for their advancement in america thus all the english as a second language classes are full with large waiting lists in areas where they are many immigrants. Edwards is merely stating what immigrants themselves know to be true. A senseable way to help immigrants learn english would be to provide funding to expand the number of classes available for those that are obviously already eager to learn english.

I think that immigrants do want to learn the language of whatever country they decide to live in.  I think the bigger issue is the cost of mandating that federal, state and local government forms and fact facts have to be in so many different languages. Law also mandates government to provide and pay for interpreters.  In the big scheme of things, this is peanuts to Haliburton's and Exxon's rip offs.  Regardless,  it is just another unfunded mandate that the taxpayer pays for, of course.  

And it's sort of shocking: either conservatives have infested My DD or critics of Edwards are relying on GOP talking points to attack Edwards. The hair cut, "changing his position" on the the GW--this is just a preview of McCain's campaign against Edwards in the general election. There used to a communal objection to attacks on Dems that relied on GOP frames, but hey, what else can critics of Edwards do? They can't beat him on the issues, so they're left to either talk about frivolous stuff, like the haircut, or to try to portray him as a panderer.

My Dad sometimes just likes to be difficult.  

At Independence, he did not speak about the farm bill.  He was asked about health care and went through the talking points on his plan.  He made clear that everybody would be able to choose between a private and a public health insurance plan and stated that he would repeal the Bush tax cuts to individuals making more than $200,000 (which got the biggest applause).

With the format of the Edwards events this weekend, very few issues get talked about unless the people who happened to be called on themselves raise the issue.  So, with 13 different events, they really could cover 13 different ranges of topics.

Well I think it's Ok to require immigrants to learn English if they want to become citizens. That's not an overly drastic requirement I don't think. Especially since English is basically the primary language for the entire globe. It'd actually be beneficial to the immigrants employment wise and education wise.

I don't know if Edwards has mentioned the farm bill yet. He has talked about his rural recovery act, which is fairly detailed. The one thing I have heard  is he wants to cap payments to farmers at 200k but there could be more he's said, especially at these Iowa forums.

I'm for the English provision too - but in a limited fashion. Should we make a 50-year-old migrant worker learn English? No, that is silly and unfair. But younger immigrants should for their own benefit and the greater good. And by greater good, I don't mean linguistic purity, I mean social cohesion and political and economic participation.

Maybe an age cap would be appropriate, if not overly rigid - such as requiring under-40's to learn basic English to qualify for citizenship?

Of course, the $5,000.00 fine is the most ridiculous part of the whole proposal. Who is being appeased by that component? And who really think any of these people can or will pay?

on the citizenship exam, but correct me if I am wrong.

My husband has an old friend whose parents immigrated from China. The friend's mother learned enough English to pass the citizenship test, but lives in Chinatown, NYC and never speaks English, so she's pretty much forgotten it all.

Is it possible to take the citizenship test in other languages, including Spanish, under current law?

But don't you understand his position?  People don't call 911, go to hospitals, apply for jobs they might otherwise be qualified for, etc.  All based on not being able to speak English.

I am taking the Bar Exam in July and then planning to represent labor unions in Eastern Iowa.  I am an Edwards 1, and plan to help where I can.

Are these staffers all male? Is there a girl uniform? Just wondering.

And she didn't take questions! Must have been pretty behind schedule.

...and a couple hundred inside.

I will answer your questions - though of course I can not do so on behalf of John Edwards. Here is what I think...

My question is why Edwards used the same 'war on terror' slogan in 2004? Was he falling into George W. Bush's trap again?

Because in 2004, just a few short years after 9/11, and shortly after the US invaded Iraq with widespread public support, it would have been political suicide for someone to challenge Bush's 'War on Terror'. The point Edwards is making now, about the War on Terror being used as blanket justification for everything Bush want to do, would have fallen on deaf ears and likely been met with ferocious attacks from all of the Right - and likely from some of the Left. He wanted to be taken seriously, and like all politicians who want to be taken seriously, he had to 'play along' with certain 'truths' of American politics (other examples include the embargo on Cuba, the Israel first, Palestine second policy, farm subsidies, the drug war - all things that politicians rarely challenge because it may very well end their political career).

Is he going to apologize for this?

He doesn't need to. He could, and I don't think it would hurt him, but it doesn't seem necessary. Unlike the Iraq War vote, this was not a situation where he was being asked to make decision between two distinct choices. He was merely doing what EVERY OTHER politician was doing - buying into Bush's framing of the Iraq War and the War on Terror. The fact that he is the first high-profile politician to challenge this is worthy of our praise, and not something to apologize for.

Why did he scrub his past use of 'war on terror' from his website?

Oh, lots of reasons. Didn't want to send mixed messages. Didn't want trolls like you digging through his site looking for 'gotcha' speeches. Wanted to make a clean break from his past rhetoric. In my opinion, he isn't trying to fool anyone, just trying to make a clear policy shift.

That satisfy you?

most union members are more progressive than most of the folks around here.

Exactly..Iowa democrats are more moderate/conservative then those democrats in MA or CA or in other places...Those elected democrats are all moderate/conservative..from vilsack to the house democrats..

Edwards will do good in Iowa because he looks like them..clean cut white male with southern accent..When people in Iowa look at Edwards, they see one of their own..He looks like a farm boy that lived in the country side of his state..This plays well in Iowa.

Hillary is a northeast liberal woman and Obama is a chicago black liberal..People just dont like chicago politics and the northeast liberals being too far left...Those 2 are most likely to scare Iowa residents.

Most people are front runners. Since Hillary Clinton is running at least in part based on inevitability ("I'm in it to win it") it's a real blow if Edwards or Obama can win in Iowa.

It's a sound strategy to put all your eggs into the Iowa basket. It's not a reasonable way to conduct a national election but if I had a candidate I'd be focused like a laser on beating expectations in Iowa.

For Edwards that means he must win.

Why should he apologize every time he changes his mind about something?  I'm glad he's a person capable of re-assessing the world and changing his views on things.  He seems to be changing his opinions for the better - growing as a person, if you will. (I'd even bet that Edwards evolves his poorly considered position on the English language issue, someday down the road - as he grows more as a person.  Call me crazy.)

... ignoring a critical part of your own quote:

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards

It is incumbent on the VP candidate to be consistent with the Presidential campaign through the course of the General Election campaign.

Insisting that Edwards as the VP nominee should break with the way that Kerry was phrasing the issue is being too purist to take seriously. A VP candidate breaking ranks with the Presidential candidate would seriously undermine the campaign.

different terms...

War on Terror is unwinnable because you cannot make war on an emotion.

Terrorism is an military strategy used by guerrilas and zealots. That we can win. A War on Terror we cannot.

The haircut is a red herring.  I suspect Bush's haircuts cost at least as much but nobody wants to talk about that for some reason.    

Global War on Terror is a bumper sticker is right on the money.  Had the "War on Terror" be handled properly, it would have been basically a police action.  The military would never have been mobilized except as a support role for focused and carefully aimed strike forces.    

Having a president with lots of FP experience is the exception, not the rule. As I recall, Roosevelt was a pretty good president in wartime. So was Lincoln.

So you'd be less worried if the new president was merely faced with around a dozen newly independent states, half a dozen still viable revolutionary movements in South America and a deeply unstable and nuclear-armed Russia?

Right now America's occupying two countries and doing so poorly, it's got a terror network that hasn't had a successful attack in America in five years and it's managed to piss off most of the rest of the world.

The current situation isn't good, but if you grow a sense of perspective you'll realise that the solutions don't require too much knowledge of geo-politics, it just requires some sane staff and a willingness not to be an arsehole.

... to the real world out there in the last two years than most people with "foreign policy" experience.

But if you recall 2000, the supposed foreign policy experience of Bush's team certainly is relevant, because Bush pointed to the foreign policy experience of his team to defuse the question in the campaign.

The President has to be a generalist ... the principle reason that Bush has had the most disasterous foreign policy of any US administration in history is because he is such a poor generalist. He has shown no ability to probe the advice of conflicing experts and get to the heart of the matter ... but instead takes his uninformed intuition as his guide.

The only person who has said that it was on Shrum's advice that Edwards voted counter to how he wanted to is Shrum. An article said Shrum and some unnamed aide that was in the room. Do you trust what Shrum says? Do you trust the reporter and their unnamed aide? Edwards says it's completely untrue. I'd trust Edwards over Shrum.

As to Iran he didn't saber rattle. I disagreed with how Matt portrayed that at the time and I still do. Edwards said that all options were on the table. That's exactly right. All options are always on the table. They're always on the table with everyone. It's perfectly on the table that we'd nuke the UK under certain (highly unlikely circumstances). I think that some people get unsettled when they hear that all options are on the table because they are used to neocons not using all the options responsibly.

Edwards would use diplomacy, work with our allies, use sanctions, and only use our military might as a last resort. If someone is a last resort it's still by definition 'on the table.'

Neoconservatives and other right-wing types love to point out inaacuracies in the Democrats world view, so you need to address the contradiction of asserting that global poverty produces terrorism and then looking at empirical data that David Brooks quotes here:

We have learned a lot about the jihadists, from Osama bin Laden down to the Europeans who attacked the London subways last month. We know, thanks to a database gathered by Marc Sageman, formerly of the C.I.A., that about 75 percent of anti-Western terrorists come from middle-class or upper-middle-class homes. An amazing 65 percent have gone to college, and three-quarters have professional or semiprofessional jobs, particularly in engineering and science.

Whether they have moved to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, England or France, these men are, far from being medieval, drawn from the ranks of the educated, the mobile and the multilingual.[...]

I pride myself in understanding my opponents' criticism, and I don't have a response to these observations that allows me to hold onto a belief that it is global poverty that produces terrorism.