I want this guy to be my next President

No timeline. No funding. No excuses.

And for one of the more insightful rationales about why Edwards is the real deal – and not Clinton or Obama – do read this recent analysis from Steve Kirsch.
His methodology? “The same as I used in 2000, i.e., if you want to know the truth about these candidates, you have to look beyond the surface. You must look at the facts that they are not telling you.”

So I felt I needed to do my homework because I was very confused as to who I should support. So in May of 2007, I started as an undecided voter and I spent about a month pouring over the voting records, legislation, statements, policies, actions, responses to my questions, and impressions of others who know the candidates. I wrote up nearly 40 pages of analysis with references, but that’s too long for most people to read, so I summarized it (in the link above.)

Here’s one small sample of what he found:


She’s been talking about the need for universal health care for more than 15 years, but as of September 6, 2007, she still hasn’t proposed a universal health plan! What more evidence do you need than this? If she can’t even come up with a proposal after 15 years of working on this issue, then how do you think she’s going to perform on other important issues? The answer is obvious: virtually nothing is going to get done under her administration because it takes her too long to decide what she is going to do.


A President Obama wouldn’t be much different than President Bush with respect to removing troops from Iraq. CNN reported that Obama announced his plan for reducing troops on September 12 in Clinton, Iowa. Obama would withdraw troops “at a pace of one or two brigades every month.” So it could take as much as 10 months under Obama’s plan just to reduce the troops to pre-surge levels. That’s not much faster than the rate that President Bush wants to withdraw the troops (reduce to pre-surge levels in 10 months). Contrast that with what Senator Clinton would do (she didn’t say), or with what Edwards would do (immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops).


He’s a leader. Look at the same Iraq war funding vote for example. While the other two candidates voted silently and refused to tell people where they stood on whether to fund the war in Iraq, Edwards was repeatedly urging his followers to tell their Members of Congress to vote against giving Bush the money to keep the war going. Edwards was outspoken in his opposition to the war and the need to cut the funding. The other two candidates were silent. It is a stunning example of the huge leadership difference between Edwards and the other two top candidates. If you want someone who will lead us out of Iraq, Edwards should be your choice.

Kirsch is one of the few Silicon Valley serial technology entrepreneurs who puts his money where his mouth is, pouring millions of dollars into his own charitable foundation, and donating funds to environmental and world safety causes, not to mention his own community.

He’s also one of the smartest people I’ve ever met – and I say that even after deciding not to continue to pursue a job with him him back in the mid-90’s (I moved to Oregon instead.) And (if that’s not enough), the man’s out there actively fighting spam and gave the world the optical mouse. And I’m grateful to him for confirming the gut choice I made back in 2004 to back Edwards next time around!


  1. Ellen

    I’m glad you found a candidate who works for you; for the first primary since 1984, I’m wishing a pox on all of ’em. :/ (Though I may vote for Gravel as a protest, if he’s still in by the time they hold primaries in my state.)

    No matter what I think of the rest of his background and policies, I will not vote for Edwards. He’s responsible, in large part, for the C-section rate in this country today. :(

  2. James R. Herman

    I intuitively knew we couldn’t continue to increase our population indefinitely. Just do the math some time just doubling the population every 20 years. But I didn’t realize how bad it had already gotten until I watched “An Inconvenient Truth”. I encourage everyone to see this film. You can buy a copy at http://www.climatecrisis.net. Al Gore had an update a year after the movie was made. He tip toed around an inconvenient solution and didn’t call for an outright reduction in population. But that is what we need along with all the other measures to reduce carbon dioxide to below 300 parts per million. When they first started measuring CO2 in 1957 it was increasing and the population then was 2 billion. So the population was already too large then. Now the population is 6.5 billion and projected to be 9.6 billion in less than 50 years. I heard on the news that the US population will increase by 100,000 million by 2040. So please connect the dots here and realize how overpopulation is reducing our quality of life world wide.

    There was a piece on the news about the polluted Ganges River in India. India is so overpopulated that the Ganges is becoming an open sewer. What kind of a quality of life is that? That’s a country that definitely could do with a reduction in population. China already has a 1 child per female rule. But they are becoming industrialized and are building coal fired power plants. Their people will want to have cars instead of riding bicycles. I propose that we have a one child law per female in effect along with any other measure to reduce CO2 to below 300 ppm. When the CO2 level stabilizes and temperatures stabilize then we can go to a 2 child law to simply maintain the world’s population. This should be part of the Kyoto treaty and the US and Australia need to join the rest of the world and sign the Kyoto treaty.

    It may already be too late to keep the Greenland ice and the Antarctic ice from melting and raising the ocean water lever by 20 feet world wide. So forget about saving New Orleans. Most of Florida will be under water as will ground zero in New York. A lot of San Francisco will be flooded too. Again I encourage everyone to watch the movie. The fact that there is global warming is indisputable. We are seeing the evidence now more than ever. Thirty years ago you could drive a truck on the frozen Alaska tundra for 235 days of the year. Today you can only do that for 75 days. This is not a problem we can ignore. It is just going to keep getting warmer and warmer year after year until we stabilize it by getting the CO2 levels back down under 300 parts per million.

    A saw another piece on the news about Las Vegas wanting to pipe water from farther up north. As global warming continues we’ll see a lot more water shortages because the dry areas will just get drier while the wet spots will get soaked. One town in India got 36 inches of rain in a single day which broke all records. We can’t imagine how things will change as wind currents and sea currents are affected. But instead of moderation we’ll have extremes. As a personal note I went to http://www.surleybikes.com and was reading their blog about the Surley Pugsley. The Pugsley is a bicycle that has 4 inch tires for riding on terrain like sand, mud, snow where an ordinary bicycle can’t be ridden. This is in Minnesota and the guy had pictures of the Minnehaha Creek that had quit flowing into the Mississippi river. There were just pools of water with some fish alive and some belly up. This was just a few months ago and he said it’s the first time that happened in his life. Thanks for listening.

Surely you're not going to let me have the last word - are you?