That puts me over the top for Edwards. It wouldn't have taken much, but this does it.

I believe Edwards has the courage of his convictions, and to be unequivocal in his response to Mimi is great news.

I think there are good times ahead for us, even if the Repugs have driven the economy into the ground!

Do NOT let that scumbag Coulter put you in favor of this warmongering jerk. Just because it is despicable to be saying this stuff about or to anybody does NOT make the target virtuous. John Edwards is a politicking war pig who only CALLS HIMSELF "decent". And he clearly will say ANYTHING for a little coverage. Even if he actually WOULD try to fix the broken elections in this country, he'd also nuke innocent millions for campaign donors.

I don't know enough about Edwards to say that this "puts me over the top", but it certainly scores some points with me. The first effect will be to give the ban serious consideration, and we may see other candidates "piling on" with this one...and that's good for all of us.

John Edwards is one of them. Period. He will never be part of any real solution.

Did John Edwards actually say something about the electronic voting issue? Did he make a public statement about this? It sounds like he said yes to a question, but I'd like a bigger commitment. I'd like for him to address this electronic voting issue in an interview where his words are written down. I don't want him to be saying yes just for the Public Relations gain with activists. If he really stand on this, then we must hear actually words beyond tracing an "X"s in the air and the word "yes" in a 3rd hand report on a blog.

So I'll be waiting for some actual beneficial work that he will do by championing this. Considering that it's been 2.5 years since Edwards lost the last election, and he has said nothing, this weak announcement is not going to quite do it for me.

Thanks for the news though. It's better than complete silence.

Am I the only one smelling a rat ? I hope DRE's get banned, but it's not likely. I think this is a dangerous red herring. Edwards should be advocating disclosure and transparency in voting systems as well as calling for the ultimate ban.A ban is unlikely, while disclosure is immediately obtainable. - Mort S.

{Ed note: After several warnings, Brent Turner of the Open Voting Consortium (OVC), has continued to violate the very few rules we have here at BRAD BLOG. Including posting knowing disinformation and using different names to comment. He has posted on on this blog as "James Kushner", "Todd Simkinjs", "Mort Silverman", "Newman", "Wallace Mckenzie" as well as under his own name in other threads. I'm sorry that OVC continues to work with Turner after repeated warnings and demonstrations that he is unwilling to follow basic rules here and basic rules of decency elsewhere. I can only hope that his atrocious, deceitful behavior does not represent the open voting movement as a whole. His posting will no longer be allowed here at BRAD BLOG. --- BF}

As you well know, "Mort" --- and if you don't, it's because you're apparently too lazy to read the legislation --- the current Holt Election Reform bill already calls for disclosure of all source code used in voting systems (as well as criminal records of system programmers, etc.)

(NOTE: "Mort" is an activist, hamfistedly attempting to promote the Open Voting Consortium on these pages, under a phony name and identity --- he usually says he lives in either New Jersey or Maryland, but he actually lives in California --- to promote himself and the OVC. I won't say anything more about "Mort" for now, other than to say I'm very close to banning him entirely for his disingenuous bullshit and previous disinfo here. Sorry, but I'm losing my patience. For now, back to your previously scheduled adult-ish discussion. - BF)

I am not thrilled with any of the candidates and at this point just may pass on 08. gw needs to go down in history for all the crimes he and cheney have committed NOW. I'm sure there will be more before his term is up! I'm afraid that without impeachment, history will be "twisted" and he, cheney and rove will not be seen for the crooks they are. Dems can do something about it NOW, but I guess that isn't nice!!! Dems are way to passive and unless they get some kahonis real soon, we will be past the point of no return, if we haven't reached it already!

I see that everyone is in total opinionated agreement ...

I have played the very early "who shall the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate be" game, too; but I think at this point we should mainly think of Edwards's answer as an opening. I agree with Juliette in #5 to some extent, except that I think this can be very good. In campaigns, there is always a bunch of great-sounding at the moment things that get buried under other great-sounding things. (Unfortunately, impressions are the main concern of modern campaigns.) Let's play Edwards off against the others, force him to make a statement on the issue, put it on his website and so on. It's a way to strengthen the issue in national dialogue.

If the Edwards campaign would prefer to make feel-good gestures only, we'll find out.

I think Edwards should be encouraged to say more, indeed. But it's a damn fine start if he is on record, even if he's answering a question.

His wife's remarks in her book are understandable to me. In light of being second on the ticket, Edwards was not in a position to challenge a Kerry-decision on the campaign--at least as a matter of personal ethics---the way I see it. You could argue that the President and Vice President are separately elected, and they might consider putting the premium on a clear election outcome instead of party unity. It is a good argument. But I doubt if I would have done or said anything differently from Edwards had I been in his position.

Edwards is running on his own now and he seems to have "learned". I think he should get points for this, but I think he should also be more forceful on the issue. Third time's the charm.

John Edwards also attended Bilderberg meetings.

http://www.prisonplanet....04/061104silentmedia.htm

Suds, he blew out all his "forceful" swearing to the Israelis that he would indeed nuke Iran for them if elected. What he's "learned" he can damn well stick where the sun don't shine.

Would he support adding $10 billion to the Iraq budget to fix the places, such as Walter Reed Hospital, with rats, mold, and other scum, to "take care of the troops"?

All the dems should get together and make the Iraqi's return the 363 tons of $100 bills flown in to Baghdad so we can fix our hospitals here.

Or perhaps a hundred Walter Reed Hospital outpatient buildings without bathrooms, running water, or sanitized floors is what the neoCons had in mind when they wanted to bring their version of "freedom" to Iraq?

Wow, no wonder they said we would be welcomed as liberators!

Dredd sedd:

The Iraq war is terrorism with a bigger budget ...

Whomever supports the war by funding it owns it. Take heed all dems ... try to slow it down or stop it.

I think George Bush looks at the coalition of the willing like Woody Allen looks at sex and the card game "bridge":

Bridge is like sex ... if you don't have a good partner then you need a good hand.

peace out ...

This shouldn't be underestimated. As perfunctory as John Edward's endorsement was, it marks the first time a major national politician has come out in support of a ban on DRE's. It will now be much harder to marginalize the supporters of the needed amendments to H.R. 811. When the history of the election integrity movement is written, Edward's "X" sign is likely to be seen as the moment the movement went mainstream.

I agree with Leftisbest- Edwards is a decent sort who made a tragic mistake. I believe he is truly sorry- Now let's gp forward with the best available - As far as getting the elections cleaned up- I would think we would benefir from better consultation to our legislators.- Newman-

Caleb:

Actually, Howard Dean made a remark some time ago to a similar question that (paraphrasing) "no machine, period" should be used.

Any candidate from here on out who doesn't DEMAND the touch screen machines be banned and complete transparency be employed in 2008, should not be taken seriously.

They should do this every time they talk to the media until we're at least as sick as we were of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction!"

Enough is enough, when it comes to "iffy" elections in America! It's way beyond time to "get tough on crime" committed by the voting machine corporations.

{ed note: Comment deleted. Don't spam the threads. You're aching to banned, so please knock it off and behave like an adult if it's within you. --BF}