« Where I Be | Main | I'll Take That »

December 28, 2006

The Announcement

By Ezra

Yesterday, John Edwards spent the day shoveling, flattening, and recreating Orelia Tyler's yard.  Today, outside that same yard, at 8:03 in the morning, he announced for president.  The speech was more casual than most in the announcement genre, at least in my experience.  Edwards was dressed in blue jeans, and a plain white undershirt peeked out behind his unbuttoned collar.  The address didn't soar or sing; standing atop the wreckage of the second America, he appeared uninterested talking about it.  Instead he focused on what you -- not he, not the president -- could do about it. 

That was the theme of the entire speech, in fact: How much could be done without public office, without winning primaries, without legislation.  "This campaign," Edwards promised," will be a grassroots, ground-up campaign where we ask the people to take action."  As part of that, there'll be monthly Days of Action, the first on January 27th, which will exhort volunteers and supporters to enter their communities and work on a particular issue.  "Americans," Edwards kept saying," have to be patriotic about something besides war," and that means taking individual initiative to ease poverty, conserve energy, and create the Good Society even without holding office. 

The announcement was striking for sounding less like a campaign for the presidency and more like a telethon. His campaign would certainly like to lead in the polls, but Edwards seemed more interested in leading a movement. The virtue of the message is obvious, but its magnetism, urgency, and electoral efficacy are less so.  It'll be interesting to see if he's any more explicitly political in Iowa later today.  A few other disconnected thoughts:

• The announcement used race in a rather explicit way.  The site was found by the NAACP, the homeowner is a middle-aged black woman, and the smiling children behind Edwards were all African-American.  The city (New Orleans) and the subject (poverty) are both racially charged as well.  It occurred to me that Barack Obama, a black man, couldn't run such a campaign, while Edwards, a white man, can. 

• Edwards explicitly condemned the "surge" plan for Iraq.  But he didn't call it the surge.  "It is a mistake," he said, "for America to escalate the war in Iraq."  That's the term the blogs have adopted as well, and its prominent placement, used before he mentioned the word "surge," struck me as a possible dog whistle to the left. 

• I can't shake the impression that very little was said about poverty or the Two Americas in this announcement, and that was, in some essential way, odd.  The theme was civic action, a verb, not a noun.  It's an interesting organizing strategy, but it didn't sound, even here, like a message.  And that's fine, it may not be.  This announcement, so far removed from primary voters, appeared more intent on creating a national base of engaged, involved, supporters than articulating a sharp-edged political theme. It'll be interesting to see if his focus at the Iowa townhall is significantly different.  For now, though, Edwards is doing a better job explaining why you should volunteer with him than vote for him. 

December 28, 2006 in Election 2008 | Permalink

Comments

"Americans have to be patriotic about something besides war"

That's probably the best thing I've ever heard Edwards say, honestly. I'm still not a fan, but anyone who will actually challenge voters to get past the ridiculous jingoism that passes for citizenship these days gets some serious points from me.

Posted by: latts | Dec 28, 2006 10:26:43 AM

He's going to be very interesting to watch.

Posted by: nolo | Dec 28, 2006 10:40:09 AM

i thought miles o'brien did a very inhospitable interview with edwards with edwards this morning...but i was impressed with the way that edwards remained on course with his message, and with real candor. he showed a lot of sincerity and conviction in the interview.
....miles o'brien,unreasonably went for the jugular, and in my eyes, it diminshed him, and strengthened edwards.
...as for you, ezra...keep up the great work!!!!!

Posted by: jacqueline | Dec 28, 2006 11:02:16 AM

Indeed latts, that sentence just seized me. Very impressive appearance by Edwards.

Why couldn't Obama run such a campaign? A feeling that he was alienate white voters? I sure hope not, as it would say some pretty bad things about the state of racial unity in this country.

Posted by: Adrock | Dec 28, 2006 11:03:16 AM

Here's the brilliant innovation of the Edwards Campaign: he's conducting an empirical test of his own leadership abilities. It's straight out of high tech marketing. He's giving us a demo. That's a high wire act.

The operational definition of a leader is someone with followers. So here's Edwards saying, hey let's get busy and start getting things done now instead of waiting until the election. If people get busy, Edwards is a leader. If we don't, he's not. Has anyone ever done that before? Kennedy famously challenged the country to, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." But that was in the inaugural address, not the campaign.

Edwards isn't asking for the order on election day. He's asking for it today. If people respond, he's delivered an irrefutable demonstration of his leadership.

Posted by: Mickeleh | Dec 28, 2006 11:20:18 AM

The theme was civic action, a verb, not a noun.

Nitpick for an otherwise excellent article:

"Action" is a noun. "Civic" is an adjective. No verbs here.

Not trying to be a jerk. But he is talking about a solid concept, even if it isn't a solid object.

Posted by: Chumley | Dec 28, 2006 11:23:40 AM

I've spent the last year or so bashing Edwards in these comments, but I have to say - I think he's really been shaping up to be the best candidate in the field. I don't know if that says more about him or about the field at this point, but he's the only one running for president who's trying to be about something more than himself.

Posted by: Christmas | Dec 28, 2006 11:26:10 AM

But how does this differ from, say, "a thousand points of light"?

Posted by: Joyful Alternative | Dec 28, 2006 11:54:58 AM

If you sign up to join a local support group on his web site, he advocates those groups do something like "Organize a food drive."

Posted by: Elizabeth | Dec 28, 2006 11:56:07 AM

for me, al gore eclipses everyone in the playing field, but with no pronouncements yet from him, i think i agree with christmas at this time.

Posted by: jacqueline | Dec 28, 2006 12:03:10 PM

I'm afraid Edward's Two Americas will be perceived (and attacked) as the poor versus everyone else, instead of the very rich versus everyone else. I think is clearly is the later, but that doesn't seem to come across as the message.

Given this fear of his message being warped, a lower-middle class mixed-race neighborhood in industrial Ohio would have been a better setting (IMO) than the 9th Ward of New Orleans.

Another way of saying this: Is Edwards appealing to the lowest economic class or all of those who don't live upper class economic lives - as reflected in the perception of the public, the media and those who will attack any Democrat but particularly anyone who sounds populist. [I am not opposed to populism, per se, I need to add].

The 'action now' theme has some real dangers as well. People live busy lives, and while much good can be done in the private sector, the real issues of contest involve public governmental action. It almost seems Edwards doesn't want to discuss in detail these common-good governmental policy/legislative ideas.

So is this a community barn-raising, or a plan for a truly helpful role for government in making most Americans lives better?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 28, 2006 12:23:05 PM

Not to denigrate the good samaritans who work in food pantries, but I don't want to spend my free time doing a food drive. If I'm gonna be involved in a political campaign, I'm much more interested in taking political action in regards to more overtly political issues. Like habeas corpus. Torture. Warrantless Wiretaps and the 4th Amendment, maybe. Shutting down Gitmo. Now, that isn't to say that "poverty" and economics, generally, isn't an issue. It is. But, it isn't one that generates much political passion on my part. Mainly because I see it as the government's job to make sure everyone in our society has food on the table. Now, if John Edwards were castigating the government for "placing this burden on communities" rather than government "living up to its obligations to the people", well, then that might be different. As its framed now, though, I can join the Edwards campaign and support the local food pantry. Great. But how does that help us get away from needing the local food pantry in the first place? And, why do I need to join the Edwards campaign in order to help out said local pantry? Fact is, I don't. So, why join the Edwards campaign?

Hes all about "let's help these poor people" and we should. But he is addressing how we can address these issues individually. When you run for president, you are able to gather a posse together to address issues systemically and COLLECTIVELY. That's what's missing here. There is no larger context within which our individual efforts would be a part. Thus, taking those individual efforts, while personally uplifting, will be meaningless and futile in the larger context, except as a symbolic gesture.

Posted by: Jeremius | Dec 28, 2006 12:28:05 PM

Edwards definitely the best bet if Gore doesn't enter the ring. Matt Lauer was unsuccessful playing "Gotcha" with him this morning... Edwards is truly becoming adept at this. There's hope for that populist!

Posted by: Doubting Thomas | Dec 28, 2006 12:28:43 PM

The Truth About John Edwards ...djm4america on DKos via MY

The more I see and hear about JE, the less I like and trust him. I no longer consider him a pretty face and empty suit, but something darker and more dangerous, like Bush. A stealth candidate.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 12:30:13 PM

Stay away from the brown acid, Bob.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 28, 2006 12:50:44 PM

I think that he might be sidestepping the Two Americas thing, because he wants to place a greater emphasis on a certain kind of patriotism: the kind that says that we are all in this together. That's One America, not Two.

The thing about food drives and the like is that they can be fun and you get to meet like-minded individuals. It's very similar to working on a political campaign; you get to do some good, but you also get to meet people. It's also possible for a lot of people to understand why government reform is necessary after coming into contact with real people. For a lot of people abstract data don't have the same emotional resonance.

And it's also the case that one of the major criticisms of big government is that it allows people to get out of caring for and feeling responsible for others. These kinds of projects demonstrate that it is not incompatible to recognize a role for government and caring enough to help out individuals. Being a liberal doesn't mean you have to leave everything to the State.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Dec 28, 2006 12:53:29 PM

What Bostoniangirl said.

Posted by: MC | Dec 28, 2006 12:57:27 PM

Nothing wrong with civic action by individuals and small groups, but it really is only good for the small stuff. To reduce global warming, to bring our troops home from Iraq, to make sure everybody can get decent health insurance, to rebuild New Orleans - all of these things are going to take governmental action.

I've helped build houses with Habitat for Humanity, I drive energy-efficient cars, and all that good stuff. But unless you can get huge numbers of people to get moving the same way at the same time, it doesn't make a dent in the problem.

Habitat, for all they've done over the past few decades, has barely touched the problem of affordable housing for the poor. Something's better than nothing, of course, but you have to wonder what things would look like today if half those hours spent hammering houses together had been spent buttonholing Congresspersons about the issue instead.

Posted by: RT | Dec 28, 2006 1:13:30 PM

I'm not betting on the magical VW bus trip back to the 60's War on Poverty being a winner - but I could be wrong.

Posted by: Bandit | Dec 28, 2006 1:20:34 PM

djm4america on DailyKos is a lying hack who spends most of every day raiding threads on John Edwards and speing lies. Believe his dreck at your peril.

Posted by: DrFrankLives | Dec 28, 2006 1:40:30 PM

I like Edwards a lot, but I think I prefer him as Secretary of HUD or something.

Posted by: donna | Dec 28, 2006 1:59:10 PM

"Believe his dreck at your peril."

"John Edwards was a co-sponsor of the 2002 GOP Iraq War Resolution. [1]
John Edwards did vote for the 2002 GOP Iraq War Resolution. [1]
John Edwards did hire Gen. Hugh Shelton to swift-boat Clark in '04. [1][2][3][4]
John Edwards did vote for the Patriot Act. [1]
John Edwards was listed as a member of the DLC Leadership. [1][2][3][4]"

Help me out then. What in this is untrue?

Not that any of these directly bother me about Edwards.

I read the Stoller piece over at MyDD that caused a ruckus when Ezra responded, and liked it a lot. Link on request. Edwards is just way too pretty, and I do not mean his looks.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 2:41:11 PM

some of you are funny because you are sad. let me know when JC is running.

Posted by: akaison | Dec 28, 2006 2:50:08 PM

"let me know when JC is running."

I thought he announced today.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 3:02:20 PM

I intend to volunteer and I'll spend my mandatory time at the food drive desperately trying to explain to the other volunteers that things like the Democratic Party opposing rather than supporting illegal immigration would do far, far more good than all Edwards' food drives combined could ever do.

Posted by: IllegalImmigrationIntroduction | Dec 28, 2006 3:20:31 PM

Posted by: Elizabeth | Dec 28, 2006 8:56:07 AM

Is Ms One America lurking? :D

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Dec 28, 2006 4:41:14 PM

The 'action now' theme has some real dangers as well. People live busy lives, and while much good can be done in the private sector, the real issues of contest involve public governmental action.

Perhaps the narrative will be "look at all of this good we did even without passing any bills or getting anyone elected. Now imagine what we could do if we had the US government getting one hundred times as many Americans working to end poverty here and abroad. We would spread good will and regain American's moral leadership, in addition to making people's lives better."

Also the campaign right now is strictly about the activist base—nobody else is paying attention— so maybe he is just trying to get as many college kids onto his VW bus instead of Obama's or Hillary's or Dennis Kucinich. There are eight bazillion news cycles between now and the Iowa caucuses.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Dec 28, 2006 4:54:06 PM

no bob a human announced today. I know your expectations were for JC, but really, none of us expected perfection. hello, I don't expect any of them to be perfect, but I do hope they realize they can make mistakes, will make adjustments accordingly and will mostly listen and figure out how better to lead (not just talk, but lead). I personally dont think at this point its a bad thing to encourage people volunteer. you may not think its effectively politically, but as a matter of it being cynical or manipulative or even some other term- I just can't see it. I just think this is something thats important to him, and thats okay. I will take that as a good sign. but, I remain open to all Obama, Edwards, whoever so long as they listen, and can give us good answers or the best they can.

Posted by: akaison | Dec 28, 2006 5:07:02 PM

Akaison, I am tending toward HRC, who many here consider the devil. I trust her precisely because I know she has flaws, and is not pretending to be a movement rather than a politician.

I expect Edwards to be washing the feet of lepers any day now.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 5:20:43 PM

Look, let's just admit that Bob is going to vote for McCain, and treat him like the special...citizen... he is. And jeremius - there is such a thing in public life as momentum: you get enough people working on a small problem, then a some of them will take on the next level, then a few of those will start working on policy. On the other hand, if you disenfranchise people, tell them they can't do anything, tell them they are in it by (and for) themselves, then you get inertia. Like Bob's thumb up his fundament.

Posted by: ignoreland | Dec 28, 2006 5:21:22 PM

Mcmanus is highly unlikely to vote for McCain, ignoreland.

As for that MyDD post, Stoller is a Wesley Clark partisan and has been since 2003. His agenda isn't exactly hidden, but those posts aren't exactly open-minded and agenda-free either.

Posted by: JP | Dec 28, 2006 5:41:32 PM

I see--- So Edwards asking people to volunteer is bad because it means , according to Bob's crazy subway guy logic, that he's trying to be a saint. But HRC's pandering on issues like flag burning is good because that's 'real.' Well, "no accountin' for stupid" as my granny used to say, "akai, if you see a fool, leave a fool." On that note, Bob, I am sad to report, I am leaving you.

Posted by: akaison | Dec 28, 2006 5:41:35 PM

By the way, can I just say I find all of this my candidate is the best partisanship interesting. I happen to think there are several good candidates running. I like both Clark and Edwards. I hope that Richardson enters the race. Although at first I wasn't enthusiastic, I also am in favor of Warner changing his mind. Finally, a candidate such as Gore would be a good thing. And, as for HRC, if she gets the nom, I'll vote for her, but she's about as interesting to listen to as watching paint dry on the wall. Seriously -- zzzzzz when it comes to her talking. I would even be good with Obama if his supporters would stop the 'we be oppressed by y'all asking us those questions" routine and he, personally, would show that he's tough (the best example I can give is I think of Clinton in 1992 when he lost the primary saying "I am the come back kid"-- that took chutzpah that I don't know Obama is showing with all the can't we all just get along speeches. Other than that, I don't know enough to pick anyone else (well except Biden- he needs to stay in Delaware).

Posted by: akaison | Dec 28, 2006 5:47:40 PM

crap, screwed up the editing.

Posted by: JP | Dec 28, 2006 5:48:58 PM

The idea that Edwards is somehow a sinister figure is truly...well, bizarre. Stipulated: I liked Edwards last time and volunteered for him. Also stipulated: some of his supporters have indeed drunk some intoxicating koolaid. Nonetheless, the idea that he's sinister is laughable. Is he ambitious? Yes (so was Lincoln). Is he reminiscent of George W. Bush? Yes, in the sense that he is the precise opposite of Bush in practically every way.

I know, let's nominate Wes Clark, who voted for Ronald Reagan for president and evidently doesn't now see anything wrong with having done so; because, you know, Wes was career military and he thought electing RR would mean an increase in the military budget. That's the ticket - what we need to finally turn the corner on the narrow, self-interested, entropic Reagan Ethos is a technocrat who *voted* for him and sees nothing wrong with that vote, even today. Besides, he was a General!

I know, let's nominate Vilsack. He's so boring he MUST have 'gravitas'.

I know, let's nominate John Kerry! He's a war hero, and those mean republicans won't be able to push HIM around!

I know! Let's nominate Hillary Clinton! She's absolutely mastered the politics of the 90s! And she's a woman!

I am a progressive Democrat (and not married to any candidate for '08), but, much as I hate to say it, many activist Democrats are really *Political* Morons - MORONS. I hope those of you who are so busy trashing our - so far - best candidates (Obama, Edwards) have very little influence indeed in the next two years. If FDR himself were running now, many of you would be implacably against him: he's shifty! he's inexperienced! he smiles way too much! he says he wants to balance the budget! he's rich! he's crippled!

It really is no wonder at all that the GOP has won so many elections - esp for pres - in the last 25 years. We do more than half their work for them.

Republicans campaign in 'poetry' and win; unfortunately, they try to also govern in 'poetry', which is a disaster for the country. However, 80s-90s Democrats have mostly campaigned in PROSE, which is disasterous electorally (and for the country, ultimately). Enough! It is a really pathetic feature of our politics that the Republicans have lately been the ones with the superior sense of humor (in the broad sense of that word). I hope that's changing now.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 28, 2006 5:52:17 PM

I don't think anyone really believes that Edwards is a sinister figure. What you have here is that there are some activists on the left who want to copy the tactics of the right (the ones that Mark Schmitt writes about here). Always escalate rhetoric, never back down, trash your opponents, give them a taste of their own medicine, etc. Like Schmitt says, it's a high-stakes game and eventually you'll go down in flames, but as long as your luck stays good it can be tremendously effective.

What you'll increasingly find as time passes is that those progressives who choose to adopt these tactics won't just use them in retaliation against the right but will use them just as much, if not more so, against other progressives - not necessarily centrists, but any liberal who disagrees with them on anything. Other liberals, after all, are an easier target because they won't expect their allies to come at them with everything and give no quarter. Once you embrace that style of play, once you acquire a taste for crushing and humiliating your opponents, pretty soon you won't be able to discriminate between those who deserve it and those who don't. You'll just use it anytime you want to get what you want.

Posted by: JP | Dec 28, 2006 6:17:18 PM

What you have here is that there are some activists on the left who want to copy the tactics of the right

I think that's true (cough...Sirota...cough), but in the case of Edwards and the silly DailyKos thing Bob McM linked to above, I think it's about a sort of feud between the Edwards and Clark camps which goes back to '04 - very silly. Notwithstanding my comment above, I would enthusiastically vote for Clark for pres. in '08 if he were the nominee. However, I really do think he's not the best person for the moment, and I don't quite understand his camp's slavish devotion to him (talk about koolaid!!). I'm sure he's a very good man, but not the right one for '08, IMO: Reaganism is finally riding off into the sunset, and I think it needs as big a push as we can give it - as explicit a push as possible.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 28, 2006 7:02:09 PM

The thing about food drives and the like is that they can be fun and you get to meet like-minded individuals. It's very similar to working on a political campaign; you get to do some good, but you also get to meet people.

You get to do very, very little good. It seems like a lot because you get to meet all the people you help, but a cent spent on a liberal political campaign does more good than several dollars contributed to charity. For $500 million every four years, you can help liberals have big enough a majority in government to increase the amount of money in the poor's hands by tens of billions of dollars every year in the form of welfare, lower out-of-pocket expenses on health care, funding of international birth control organizations, humanitarian aid, and what not.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Dec 28, 2006 7:19:32 PM

No one has to make a choice between working on a campaign and volunteering in the community. They are not mutually exclusive.

Edwards point in New Orleans was pretty simple:

Things need to change. The current Administration is not addressing any of the problems in this country, or for that matter, the world. We need to elect people who care about the middle class and poverty and global warming and healthcare (see middle class and poverty, supra.) And, in the meantime, lets roll up our sleeves and start addressing some of those problems ourselves because it's pretty damn clear Bushco isn't going to.

Unlike Clark, Obama, Clinton et al, Edwards isn't perfect. But he is putting some issues on the table that have been ignored too long. He is extremely capable and -- not that this matters -- would be a great president.

Posted by: MC | Dec 28, 2006 7:31:51 PM

JP, you're right - and I apologize for the slash-and-burn assault on McManus. But dragging votes which Edwards has already repudiated (and was among the first Democrats to do so) to the forefront is playing right into the GOP's hands. It's only those Democrats who continue to deny that Bush screwed up in the invasion and occupation of Iraq (I'm looking at you, Sen. Lieberman) that enable Bush to even think about 'surging' as a bipartisan solution.

Edwards' performance against Cheney blew Lieberman's out of the water, and made Dick look sour and old; he's got the rhetorical chops to go up against any GOPer or their media surrogates, the backbone to stand against any swift-boating, the skill to bring a variety of parties to the table. So he's good-looking and he's rich - can't help the genes, and he worked for the money. If nothing else, I think he can bring positive attention to the primary process. My $0.02.

Posted by: ignoreland | Dec 28, 2006 7:38:33 PM

john edwards could have been spending christmas in some impossibly rich resort in colorado and elizabeth could be slipping into a four thousand dollar armani dress for a vacuous holiday party ...but they have chosen, in earnest, to initiate their campaign with an example of invitation to volunteerism,which does not appear disingenuous...an act of concern and good intention...at a time when nothing else in the news even resembles a statement like that.
whatever comes of this, the act itself is positive, charitable and i think they deserve a commendation for trying to lift spirits by helping and caring for others at this time of the year.
it seems like it is not hard to put a negative spin on even a simple act of good intention.
i applaud john and elizabeth edwards for their good example and intentions....
in light of most of our other political leaders, i applaud them and thank them for their true christmas spirit. whatever bodes down the road for their campaign, who knows...but what they did today was a meaningful act and example of kindness.
thank you, john and elizabeth...it is refreshing to see people in politics attempting to do the right thing. that in itself, is a very big deal these days.

Posted by: jacqueline | Dec 28, 2006 9:29:42 PM

well jacqueline according to bob everything is for a nefarious and evil end. see, here's how it works- Edwards choose to lead that center in NC because of a nefarious goal of convincing people he was concerned about poverty, which we all know is the most decisive issue upon which Democrats and Americans vote. Also, see, it's like this- if he doesn't have a nefarious reason then HRC's pandering doesn't look as good by comparison.

Posted by: akaison | Dec 28, 2006 10:08:59 PM

"whatever comes of this, the act itself is positive, charitable and i think they deserve a commendation for trying to lift spirits by helping and caring for others at this time of the year."

Jacqueline, (akaison is just in attack mode), I am a full Marxist. There is a long tradition and history of emphasizing private charity and volunteerism as a way to protect the existing class structure, with plenty of examples from 18th century Britain. As one whose family were potato famine refugess, I can lead you to some uplifting stories as to how the Irish should help each other with moral guidance from their Britishh rulers.

The most recent example was called "compassionate conservatism" which was fogotten as soon as the tax cuts were passed.

Yeah, when Edwards announces with the same theme as GWB, I get a little suspicious.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 10:43:07 PM

Shoot. Make that 19th century Britain.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 10:44:31 PM

and there you have it Edwards is just like the former GOP Presidential candidate George Bush- and as the future GOP presidential Edwards can't be trus--- No- wait, which party are we talking about again? Bob is confusing me.

Posted by: akaison | Dec 28, 2006 10:51:39 PM

And that, as I read it, was ultimately Matt Stoller's point. Amerivca is in the middle, and I emphasize, middle, of a multi-generational class war. The workers didn't start the war, but they have been losing for thirty years. Rising inequality, lower real wages. It is the middle, because now that the rich have raped the FICA fund for tax cuts for 23 years, they sure don't want to pay any imaginary made up bonds and promises back.

Stoller was asking if Edwards is a class warrior, or, since we all are, which side is he on. "Populism" and "progressivism" sometimes doesn't hurt the rich too bad, like breaking up Standard Oil so a dozen could become oil moguls instead of only Rockefeller.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 28, 2006 10:55:03 PM

when Edwards announces with the same theme as GWB, I get a little suspicious.

It's not the same theme at all. What you're talking about is private charity/volunteerism as a replacement for public policy and unionism (AKA 'a thousand points of light'). Of course Edwards is not only the most pro-union national dem there is, he is explicit in his support of government action, public policy, too. Odd that a 'full marxist' would be suspicious of the Solidarity candidate.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 28, 2006 11:02:43 PM


when i sense sincerity and honest motives in an act of kindness, i just think it is a good thing.
maybe that is naive.
...i dont pretend to have a grasp of political science or economics, i just think it is good when people who have the power and money to be idling away their lives, choose to set an example of building houses with displaced people and show real concern for others
....one only needs a very small candle to take away the darkness.
acts of kindness = simple gifts

Posted by: jacqueline | Dec 28, 2006 11:36:02 PM

I am an English-American humorist and broadcaster who lives in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, along with John Edwards. In response to his announcement to run, I have set up watch9.blospot.com, to keep a friendly but gently irreverent eye on his Campaign. This is the first post:

"England has David Cameron and Notting Hill. Here in America, we have John Edwards and Chapel Hill - currently my home town in North Carolina.

Both politicians affect a concern for the less fortunate. David talks of Compassionate Conservatism; John of Two Americas - the one rich, the other poor.

John Edwards has just announced his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008. He did so from the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, the area worst affected by Hurricane Katrina. He tells all and sundry that this is reflective of his genuine concern for the poor in society.

However, what might be more reflective is where he has situated his new Campaign Headquarters: a suburban village in Chapel Hill, which I have lovingly christened the Upper Ninth. As in the houses you can buy there reach into the Upper $900K's; or the average income is in the Upper Ninth percentile of all Americans...

The HQ itself occupies the upper floor of what can only be described as a luxurious faux rendition of the sort of Mediterranean villa you might find in the smarter parts of Palm Beach, Florida.

The moral, I guess, is: beware politicians who affect concern for an issue, but then have a lifestyle that belies that affected concern.

We have an abundance of that in Chapel Hill, where the 'progressives' tend to be what we call Merlot Democrats. There used to be an equivalent in England - the Glenda Jackson, Hampstead set of Champagne Socialists. Have they been overtaken by the Cameron, Notting Hill set of Beaujolais Tories?"

Posted by: Geoff Gilson | Dec 28, 2006 11:39:01 PM

oy vay.

Posted by: jacqueline | Dec 28, 2006 11:44:35 PM

while I'm at it...

I think what Edwards is doing is important because he's actually being ambitious. His theme is poverty (and unions and solidarity) because he wants to end the Reagan Ethos. The Reagan ethos is a grotesque extrapolation of Adam Smith and Hayak - the very one Marx and early marxists dreaded: if everyone just tends to their own individual needs and desires, everything will work out for everybody in the end; the world and everything/body in it is a big Market, in which every item, thought and emotion has some sort of dollar value. Greed and selfishness are good. etc. etc. etc.

Making poverty a keystone theme is about the most anti-Reagan political posture imaginable, which is, I think, why he's doing it. Poor people mostly don't vote, as Edwards himself has pointed out, and they aren't organized in any way. Reaganism is about atomizing individuals, attacking government, unions, etc. Edwards is calling for a psychic sea-change - de-atomizing, if you will. Much more effective than 'Together Forward' or whatever the DC dems came up with, BTW.

When you have a chance like the dems will in '08, you can't be passive: if you get an inch, you have to take a mile. Wes Clark's not rethinking his Reagan vote bothers me a little because it says that, as far as he's concerned, we live in Reagan's America now and that's that - we can tinker around the edges, but what's done is done. But the Reagan Revolution must be thought of as a cultural revolution as much as a political one. The basic attitudes themselves need to change. I imagine that for some people who are too young to remember life before St. Ronnie, this might be a little hard to see - like the fish seeing the water it's swimming in. Like I said, ambitious.

I won't be supporting any candidate who isn't ambitious. The Reagan Revolution is 25 years old now, and pretty burnt out. It's a doddering hulk which needs to be pushed over. I like Edwards, and think he has done his rhetorical homework better than anyone else (as in '04). It's so early that I have to keep an open mind about '08, but it's foolish - in more ways than one - to ignore Edwards.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 28, 2006 11:51:45 PM

Geoff. I am dead-poor and I live in Southern Village. A great place to be - people say Hello to each other on the street. A real sense of community. I am very happy that the HQ is here - I visited earlier today and it is so conveniently close to me I expetc to be there all the time.

Posted by: coturnix | Dec 28, 2006 11:56:18 PM

It just may be that Edwards' announcement today was of the sort to actually weaken jacqueline's attachment to Gore.

Whatever could accomplish such a thing is not to be treated lightly. I now take Edwards much more seriously than before, and he's had my vote for a while now.

Posted by: Stephen | Dec 29, 2006 12:22:43 AM

hi stephen!
i still am a loyal gore-o-phile, ya know!!
but there was something in the honesty of the moment today, that touched me and caught my attention.
...by the way, after reading your comment on christmas day, i couldnt help but think, what an amazing day for your mother, to be surrounded by 17 grandchildren on christmas day! what a dream come true to have all of those little babies under one roof celebrating christmas!
.... bob, i thought of you too, another christmas to be celebrated in your special home, in which you have had so many treasured holidays!
...and akaison...i thought of the driftwood carvings you wrote about that meant so much to you...
and for christmas...merry christmas!!!
blessings for all!
tis the gift to be simple
tis the gift to be free...
tis a gift to come down where we ought to be....

Posted by: jacqueline | Dec 29, 2006 12:35:08 AM

The announcement used race in a rather explicit way. The site was found by the NAACP, the homeowner is a middle-aged black woman, and the smiling children behind Edwards were all African-American. The city (New Orleans) and the subject (poverty) are both racially charged as well. It occurred to me that Barack Obama, a black man, couldn't run such a campaign, while Edwards, a white man, can.

A white candidate surrounding himself with black people is supposed to signal "authenticity" for the TV cameras. Same thing with surrounding oneself with non-service-sector union folks, or lower-middle-class families. Notice how Geoff uses Edwards' wealth to call him inauthentic.

I don't necessarily endorse that point of view about Edwards. Coming out of law school with the grades he had, Edwards could have easily gone into corporate law practice and earned a lot of easy money. Instead, he chose to make his living suing big companies, which can lead to making big money, but is a much riskier path. I don't mind that much if he's done well while doing good.

The other part of being a trial attorney is that it involves a lot of self-promotion, just as running for office does. That "self-promoter" aspect comes across in his public persona, I think. Not that it makes him a bad person - I'm strongly considering supporting him - just that it's a personality trait he's adopted out of necessity for most of his adult life, and it's not something you can just flip off like a switch.

John Kerry's been dreaming of being president since, like, what? Three years old? It doesn't surprise me that he's not quite ready to let go of the dream yet, and thinks he can still win in '08.

Posted by: Chris | Dec 29, 2006 2:41:31 AM

Geoff writes: "The moral, I guess, is: beware politicians who affect concern for an issue, but then have a lifestyle that belies that affected concern."

That hardly qualifies as a "friendly but irreverent eye
on his campaign." Unless you consider a hatchet job friendly.

Edwards does not "affect" a concern for poverty and inequality, he has acted on it. And, the notion that Edwards (or anyone) has to live an impoverished life style to care about the poor is just wrong.

Geoff is making the same argument about Edwards that the weasel Brooks made about Kerry. Both are wrong. There is a difference between lifestyle and values.

Posted by: MC | Dec 29, 2006 2:42:31 AM

I'll be supporting Clark, if he runs, but I think Edwards and Obama would be very good candidates, and I think Edwards is running a great campaign so far. HRC could be good, depends if she wants to be.

I think non-profit and volunteer work and private charity is important, and good, and complements political activism, doesn't detract from it.

I regret Wes Clark Jr.'s attacks on Edwards, which are not called for. I guess everybody lashes out in anger, sometimes, and the web makes it easy. However, there is a substantive issue. Wes Clark and Hugh Shelton fell out because they had a deep, deep difference of opinion on Kosovo, and they both pulled every lever they had, tried their damndest to prevail, in opposition to each other. Well, Clark prevailed, and Clark turned out to be right on this issue.

And as Dumbledore reminds us, it's far easier to forgive someone for being wrong than for being right. That's why Shelton is still so bitter at Wes Clark. Shelton had a fine career, and served America well, but on this issue of Kosovo, at the peak of his career, he vehemently opposed Clark, he was wrong, and he knows it.

Now I don't hold it against Edwards that Shelton endorsed Edwards and advised him. In fact, I welcome it, Shelton is a good guy. But Edwards *must*, IMO, tell us where he stands on the substantive issue of Kosovo, and future Kosovos, even if it risks losing him some valued friends and political support. It's too important an issue to duck, even though it might be possible to do so politically.

I also had vaguely negative reaction to Edwards's op-ed about withdrawing 40,000 troops, because it seemed like a number that was somewhat arbitrary, and seemed to buy into the boundaries the elites have placed on the Iraq debate, rather than being willing to look at the core assumptions.

Rather than talk about the number of troops, it's more important to talk in some detail about what our troops are doing there, and why. As Swopa of Needlenose has pointed out, some of the missions for our troops seem to boil down to "drive around until you get attacked, and then fire back in the direction the attacks are coming from".

One point I wish somebody with a megaphone would make on Iraq is that there is a *huge* disconnect between the opinions of the Iraqi people, who don't want foreign troops, and the opinions of the top Iraqi political leaders, who do. The reason, I think it's fair to say, is because the top Iraqi leaders are being effectively protected by foreign troops, unlike ordinary Iraqis. If we could get it so that the top Iraqi leaders were effectively protected by their own people, it seems that they would be much more likely to move closer toward mainstream, normal Iraqi opinion, and be much more open to getting the foreign troop presence reduced ASAP.

Posted by: roublen | Dec 29, 2006 2:45:05 AM

Ezra writes: "For now, though, Edwards is doing a better job explaining why you should volunteer with him than vote for him."

Which makes perfect sense. Nobody can vote for him for a year. But volunteers can build a winning campaign. Edwards has his eye on the ball (again).


Posted by: MeanBoneII | Dec 29, 2006 6:41:48 AM

This thread marks the decline and fall of a once great commenter, Bob McManus.

Posted by: david mizner | Dec 29, 2006 9:43:56 AM

I think Edwards is great but I just don't know what has changed since 2004 except that he is two years older. The more I think about the Dems in 2008, the more I think the nomination is Al Gore's to lose: he was robbed in 2000, has been consistently right on Iraq (unlike Hillary), and will not have a problem with either cash or name recognition... I wrote a story on this at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by: MinorRipper | Dec 29, 2006 9:50:26 AM

I am glad it gives you good thoughts jacq

Posted by: akaison | Dec 29, 2006 10:22:44 AM

"This thread marks the decline and fall of a once great commenter, Bob McManus."

Bandwagon ...Doug Richardson at Agonist;short so quoted entirely;visit the good site for the comments

"Much has been written here by others--and me--about the absolute, dire need for a presidential candidate who can unify and heal this country. Repairing the damage, both at home and abroad, wrought by eight years of neocon madness, will require an individual with some extraordinary skills--and loud, overwhelming mandate from the electorate to do so.

I feel like a member of the mob in "The Life of Brian"--wildly running loose over the politcal landscape in a desperate search for a Messiah.

Hillary ain't it. Obama doesn't have it.

Maybe it's Edwards."

"A Messiah?"

So it is not only here that politics has descended to fever-dream zealotry. I am seeing it all over the web. And I have seen it before, although it is usually the authoritarian Republicans who succumb to a cult of personality and worship.

But in 1968 I remember people crying tears:"I touched Bobby. I actually touched him."

Anybody see the movie Face in the Crowd? One of the best ways to inspire this idolatry, this messianic zeal is an "Aw Shucks, folks, it ain't about me. It is all about you."

I see a millionaire take off his jacket and pick up a shovel in front of a camera and I grab my wallet.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 29, 2006 11:00:16 AM

Ahh, the primaries.

I think this season is why all of us political junkiesreally get into it. So dramatic, such an opportunity for philosophical debate!

I like JE, and hope that he does well. This launch does seem somewhat counter-intuitive to me based on his previous stands, but I'm sure he has reasons for it. The one thing that characterizes the man to me is a sense that he thinks everything out very carefully in advance. So whatever he does now is like a chess move early in a game.

We will hear more about all of the candidates before long. Hopefully they all develop in their abilities to show their strengths.

Special to johnnybutter, Re: the Reagan Revolution. It's not dead, unfortunately. And oh, how I wish it were. The Reagan era is characterized by soundbite-only demagogic politics and absurd military Keynesianism, and niether of those are even close to going away.

Posted by: chimneyswift | Dec 29, 2006 11:15:08 AM

While I do think that Edwards is slick, ambitious to the core, and a man of machiavellian expediency without a true moral core, l have an open mind about whether or not those qualities might be useful ones in the next Democratic President. First, you need a candidate who will not only attract informed people, but ignorant ones as well. Would the know-nothings who voted for Bush because Gore was too intellectual be won over by Edwards, or does he ooze "politician" too much? I don't know yet, and his current schtick may be a brilliant counter to the perception of ooze. We also know that you need a President who can control the kewl kids of the press and set the agenda, lest he get the Jimmy Carter Al Gore treatment. I actually think that Edwards might be damn good at that. I trust his winning political instincts when the going gets tough. He did slice-and-dice Cheney in the debate, and he would be masterful in a Presidential press conference. Democrats already have better values and better policy priorities than Republicans. They all do (well, maybe not Lieberman). But the rethugs win because they are better at controlling the press and driving the terms of debate. I want my Presidential candidate to be better than the rethugs at this game. Might Edwards be that guy? I don't know, but I don't see anyone else out there who does it as well. What do others think?

Posted by: the exile | Dec 29, 2006 11:31:32 AM

I knew what the reaction would be if I refused the kool-aid. I saw what Ezra tried to do to Matt Stoller; entirely out of character, unnecessary, ill-advised. Ezra is responsible for his words as I am for mine, but I have enough experience to understand how people can lose their equilibrium sometimes when scared and despairing and a Messiah appears.

Yes, I consider Edwards a sinister and dangerous figure. I always have.

I plan on taking at least January off; maybe much longer. You won't have Bob to kick around anymore.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 29, 2006 11:34:09 AM

johnnybutter, Re: the Reagan Revolution. It's not dead, unfortunately. And oh, how I wish it were.

I didn't say it was dead - I said it was creaky and vulnerable, and needs to be attacked per se, which is what I think Edwards is doing. And I wouldn't define it as sound-bite demogogery, but rather as an ethos of atomization. Modern marketing (which is not the same thing as demogogery) is not going away - ever.

In Bob McM's partial defense, I do think cults of personality can be scary. However, I'd also say that - rightly or wrongly - personality matters a lot in a leader. I don't know what anyone thinks they can do about that.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 29, 2006 12:19:19 PM

While I do think that Edwards is...a man of machiavellian expediency without a true moral core,

If you are going to call someone a 'man of machiavellian expediency' (what's 'machiavellian expediency', BTW? Have you read Machiavelli?), and judge him as having no 'moral core', you ought to present evidence. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but....geez.

Posted by: jonnybutter | Dec 29, 2006 12:26:41 PM

[[I have enough experience to understand how people can lose their equilibrium sometimes when scared and despairing and a Messiah appears.]]

So, that means you've been paying attention since 9/11, eh?

As I said to Geoff Gilson (commenter above) on his blog, if he's serious about keeping an eye on John Edwards, he can join the club, but he needs to keep his eye on the ball. That means watching where Edwards goes on the issues, not pretending that the size of one's house necessarily affects, or even reflects, his values. The fact that Dubya is a flaming hypocrite (fake Christian, fake Texan, etc.) didn't stop people from voting for him; I don't know why the size of Edwards' house should lead people to think his administration wouldn't be good for poor people (or at least try to be).

Posted by: Lex | Dec 29, 2006 2:09:57 PM

I don't know about concern for the poor, but Edwards' repudiation of his vote for Iraq signals very clearly that he's against any war that the public has already turned against.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Dec 29, 2006 2:25:11 PM

Edwards explicitly condemned the "surge" plan for Iraq. But he didn't call it the surge. "It is a mistake," he said, "for America to escalate the war in Iraq." That's the term the blogs have adopted as well, and its prominent placement, used before he mentioned the word "surge," struck me as a possible dog whistle to the left.

I'm not sure it's a real dog whistle, since it's the more accurate term. Dog whistles tend to be ambigious terms that are only meaningful to a small group. That's a pretty straightforward description.

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Dec 29, 2006 9:46:59 PM

I think it's both.

I saw his "homecoming" rally Saturday in Chapel Hill, by the way, and I'll try to post on it tonight or tomorrow. (Busy week at work.)

Posted by: Lex | Jan 3, 2007 4:26:35 PM

antibiotics antibiotics
hair loss hair loss
herbal remedy herbal remedy
colon cleansing colon cleansing
acomplia without prescription acomplia weight loss

Posted by: tamiflu | May 26, 2007 3:23:54 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: last longer | Jun 2, 2007 4:10:51 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: best penis enlargement | Jun 2, 2007 7:33:45 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: free penis enlargement exercises | Jun 2, 2007 9:20:49 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: free penis enlargement | Jun 2, 2007 11:03:16 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: penis enlargement pills | Jun 2, 2007 12:39:32 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: penis enlargement pump | Jun 2, 2007 2:21:43 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: penis enlargement | Jun 2, 2007 4:08:28 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: real penis enlargement | Jun 2, 2007 6:07:34 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: natural alternative to viagra | Jun 3, 2007 4:50:31 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: herbal cialis | Jun 3, 2007 8:27:44 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: how can men last longer during sex | Jun 3, 2007 9:55:33 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: how to last longer at sex | Jun 3, 2007 11:31:52 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: how to last longer in bed | Jun 3, 2007 1:12:57 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: how to last longer in sex | Jun 3, 2007 2:49:25 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: last longer sex | Jun 3, 2007 8:49:49 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: last longer | Jun 3, 2007 10:31:22 PM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: ways to last longer in bed | Jun 4, 2007 12:05:49 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: free penis enlargement | Jun 4, 2007 5:04:28 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: penis enlargement pills | Jun 4, 2007 8:09:38 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: penis enlargement | Jun 4, 2007 9:45:39 AM

herbals@drugs.com

Posted by: real penis enlargement | Jun 4, 2007 11:25:37 AM

giants black meat white treat -
girls that gush -
gooey holes -
horny spanish flies -
in the vip -
i spy cameltoe -
knee high sox -
lesbian teen hunter -
lick that ass -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife1on1 -
housewife 1on1 -
latin adultery -
latinadultery -
milf cruiser -
my friends hot mom -
girls hunting girls -
annas assets -
brandys box -
milf cruiser -
my sisters hot friend -
teen hitchhikers -
naughty office -
big sausage pizza -
bookworm bitches -
meredith 18 -
krissy love -
megan qt -
next door nikki -
teen hitchhikers -
socalcoeds -
the dirty latina maids -
girls hunting girls -
phil flash -
housewife 1on1 -
ass arsenal -
banged babysitters -
my friends hot mom -
my sisters hot friend -
so cal coeds -
all reality pass -
allrealitypass -
bare foot maniacs -
bus stop whores -
coeds need cash -
see her squirt -
seanna teen -
taylor twins -
big league facials -
big tit patrol -
busstopwhores -
coeds need cash -
i spy cameltoe -
big tit patrol -
bus stop whores -
coeds need cash -
mr chews asian beaver -
please bang my wife -
bus stop whores -
pump that ass -
reality pass plus -
teenybopperclub -
barefootmaniacs -
bigleaguefacials -
the big swallow -
thebigswallow -
coeds need cash -
horny spanish flies -
ispycameltoe -
mrchewsasianbeaver -
pleasebangmywife -
pumpthatass -
seehersquirt -
tinys black adventures -
tinysblackadventures -
cam crush -
dangerous dongs -
milf next door -
dangerous dongs -
mike in brazil -
round and brown -
sperm swap -
only dp -
camcrush -
realitypassplus -
teeny bopper club -
allsitesaccess -
asslikethat -
mike in brazil -
round and brown -
ass like that -
give me pink -
sperm swap -
cute angie -
swinger quest -
cute angie -
deepinher -
deep in her -
ultimate surrender -
princess blueyez -
dirty teachers pet -
ultimatesurrender -
iloveitblack -
i love it black -
deepinher -
deep in her -
i love it black -
naughty best friends -
phat white booty -
naughtybestfriends -
iloveitblack -
metmodels -
my moms first dp -
milfnextdoor -
pepes adventures -
ass traffic -
give me pink -
deep throat men -
kandy valentine -
met models -
gayeducation -
all sites access -
onlydp -
real rookies -
realrookies -
cuteangie -
swingerquest -
kandyvalentine -
onlydp -
naughty best friends -
pepes adventrues -
pepesadventures -
ass like that -
all internal -
naughtybestfriends -
ass traffic -
only dp -
real rookies -
ass2mouthsluts -
ass 2 mouth sluts -
banzai sluts -
black dicks latin chicks -
born to swing -
borntoswing -
born to swing -
deepthroatmen -
deep throat men -
drool my load -
gay education -
gayeducation -
deepthroatmen -
metmodels -
pepesadventures -
pervert paradise -
allinternal -
met models -
pervertparadise -
swinger quest -
vip reality pass -
sizegenetics -
fastsize -
prosolutionpills -
volumepills -
volume pills -
all reality pass -
mr chews asian beaver -
pump that ass -
texas dildo massacre -
tinys black adventures -
the big swallow -
vanilla teens black cream -
horny spanish files -
lesbian adult movie matrix -
teen adult movie matrix -
interracial adult movie matrix -
mature adult movie matrix -
ebony adult movie matrix -
please bang my wife -
big tit patrol -
mr chews asian beaver -
panties and fannies -
papi -
phat booty hunter -
pimp my black teen -
pink eye surprise -
please bang my wife -
plug her holes -
public invasion -
pump that ass -
real big hooters -
reality pass plus -
road side pickups -
round and brown -
see her squirt -
semen slurpers -
sexy round asses -
shemale ambush -
smoking foxes -
street blowjobs -
swallow this bitch -
taylor bow -
team squirt -
teen slut bus -
teeny bopper club -
the best latinas -
the big swallow -
tinys black adventures -
tokyo pickups -
tranny surprise -
tug jobs -
vip crew -
virtual chicks -
we live together -
wild porn pass -
wrong side of town -
xxx proposal -
40 inch plus -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
ass parade -
real big hooters -
reality pass plus -
road side pickups -
round and brown -
see her squirt -
semen slurpers -
shemale ambush -
smoking foxes -
ball honeys -
bangbros network -
big mouthfuls -
princessblueyez -
ebony internal -
seanna teen -
seannateen -
taylortwins -
taylor twins -
tiffany teen -
tiffanyteen -
bookworm bitches -
dirty latina maids -
naughty office -
big sausage pizza -
fast times at nau -
fasttimesatnau -
hardcore partying -
18 inches of pain -
40 inch plus -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
ass parade -
ass plundering -
ball honeys -
bangbros network -
bang my hot wife -
bare foot bad girls -
barefoot maniacs -
papi -
phat booty hunter -
pimp my black teen -
pink eye surprise -
please bang my wife -
plug her holes -
public invasion -
pump that ass -

Posted by: muff | Jun 12, 2007 4:26:11 AM

The efficacy of Viagra, the Pfizer manufactured drug in treating erectile dysfunction has been found to be extraordinarily brilliant for which the drug has been hailed as a promising treatment for male impotence. Erectile dysfunction patients around the world are scrambling to buy viagra online and a whole lot of them are queuing up in front of authentic online pharmacies. Before getting hold of Viagra and administering the drug to the system, you should avail relevant information regarding Viagra via going through viagra stories, Viagra news or viagra notes etc from authentic online Viagra sources. Informative viagra articles published on various places in the cyberspace throw light on the hidden aspects of the medicine and make it adequately clear that why erectile dysfunction patients should proceed to purchase Viagra and how far viagra has been successful in treating male impotence.

Posted by: viagra | Aug 13, 2007 1:33:18 AM

In the ancient era, the viagra influence was nowhere to be found as the erectile dysfunction medication Viagra didn’t came into being at that time. Specific details on impotence and pre-viagra age inform us that in that period men relied on Unani, Chinese, Herbal and other medications to treat their erectile dysfunction. But with the arrival of the modern age, Viagra was manufactured and approved by the FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) as an effective treatment of erectile dysfunction and after that the drug emerged extremely successful in treating impotence in modern society. Other than erectile dysfunction, Viagra has also evolved as an effective medicine to treat pulmonary hypertension and other ailments and this has further increased the popularity of viagra in global society.

Posted by: viagra | Aug 23, 2007 5:21:59 AM

In 1998 a particular blue pill came as an angel that rescued all those tormented by the demon of erectile dysfunction. That blue pill was christened Viagra. Since then viagra has completely changed the scene of the treatment of ED. Nowadays one can even buy viagra online. Customers are reluctant to buy viagra from the local chemists for a varied number of reasons since the availability of viagra online. In order to lure the customers the online pharmacies also offer cheap viagra.

Posted by: viagra | Sep 14, 2007 6:20:20 AM

kiev women kiev women
russian women russian women
kharkov romance tours kharkov romance tours
ukrainian marriage tours ukrainian marriage tours
krivoy rog krivoy rog
kazan russian women kazan russian women
crimean women crimean women
zaporozhye ukraine zaporozhye ukraine

Posted by: bride | Oct 6, 2007 9:51:27 PM

Post a comment