Mr. Edwards's Bundle of Secrets

[HFishbine]

ABIG PIECE of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's campaign message is about how he would work to "clean up" Washington if elected president. He accuses President Bush of putting "the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors above the interests of regular people." But Mr. Edwards -- alone among the serious candidates for president -- declines to provide a list of his major campaign financiers: the men and women who have not only the capability to write $2,000 checks themselves but the networks that allow them to harvest bigger bundles for their favored candidates. President Bush posts on his Web site the names of his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers. Mr. Edwards's Democratic rivals -- Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- have, at our request, provided similar lists of major underwriters.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40385-2004Jan22.html

[DU9598]

1. So what?

Did you have a point, or just mongering inuendo?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Rest assured

that this only came out because the Rethugs now realize Edwards is a contender.

It would be a good idea for all candidates and their supporters to be ready to counter arguments like this, because they will be coming as soon as a candidate appears to be getting ahead in the polls.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. Yep, one by one...

they're getting the Gore treatment, with Bush untouchable. Not one word from anyone in the press, for example, giving even the background of the AWOL charges --

[dArKerArrow]

3. Edwards said in the TH a few days ago that he didn't accept any money

from ?????, was it lobbiest?? It was some group. Could anyone clarify!

I like this guy.

[HFishbine]

7. He siad lobbyists

A claim clearly contradicted by the facts:

Here are three campaign contributions from lobbyists I found in a search of contributors by name A - Ba.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN
--------------------------------------

ABBOTT, MELISSA MULLINAX
MARIETTA,GA 30068
THE EDISON GROUP/LOBBYIST
1/9/2003
$500
(link 1 below)

ASSAGAI, MEL
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814
THE ADVOCACY GROUP/PRINCIPAL LOBBYI
5/13/2003
$250
(2)

BALDICK, NICHOLAS
BETHESDA,MD 20817
DEWEY SQUARE GROUP/CONSULTANT
3/28/2003
$1,950
(3)
(Mr. Baldick is a registered lobbyist: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/lobbyist.asp?ID=107687&year=2000)

1) http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=edwards%2C+john&txt2004=Y&Order=N

2) http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=edwards,%20john&txt2004=Y&txt2002=&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=1&Cycle1=2004&Cycle2=&Cycle3=&Page=7

3) http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=edwards,%20john&txt2004=Y&txt2002=&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=1&Cycle1=2004&Cycle2=&Cycle3=&Page=10

[AP]

19. Did they lie when they answered these questions?

Please Confirm: *
I am not a federal contractor. (check box)

Please Confirm: *
I am not registered as a federal lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act. (check box)

[HFishbine]

22. I have no way

of confirming that lobbyists who made these contributions were asked the questions you cite. Do you?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

26. Please prove I'm wrong

I provided links to public records to show that these people are indeed lobbyists. All one has to do is click on the links. If I'm wrong, then surely you have some source other than your hysterical denial. Why don't you offer some substantiating source for your claim, as I have?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

36. Oh, I don't know

I think when someone lists their occupation as "lobbyist" they are probably a what? Pig Farmer?

[beaconess]

39. When they list their occupation as lobbyist IN 2000, they were a lobbyist

in 2000 - that would be 4 years ago. Nick Baldick is no longer a lobbyist and wasn't a lobbyist when he donated to Edwards' campaign.

Apparently, you were in such a hurry to smear John Edwards, you missed the part of the document that read "2000 DATA." You should read your own cites more carefully before you lecture anyone else about them.

Damn, this is getting pathetic.

[HFishbine]

42. 2000?

The records I provided are for contributions made in 2003, as the records show.

[beaconess]

44. But you offered a 2000 document as "proof" that Baldick is a lobbyist

Don't you read your own citations? If you had, you would certainly have seen that great big "2000 DATA" at the top of the page.

So yes, Nick Baldick was a lobbyist in 2000. But he was not a registered lobbyist in 2003 when the contribution was made. Therefore, your point falls flat.

Give it up. You're just digging yourself in deeper.

[chimpymustgo]

46. Nick Baldick is Edwards' campaign manager.

nt

[HFishbine]

47. How did that little gem

get in under the radar?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=180998

[AP]

55. So, what industries is Nick Baldick running Edwards's campaign on behalf

of? And how are they going to exert their influence?

[HFishbine]

61. You can change the subject

Or we can stick to the issue of Edwards' truthfullness:

"I've never taken any money from Washington lobbyists..."

- John Edwards, New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate, 1/22/04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer

[chimpymustgo]

65. YEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHRRRRRRRGGGGGG!

You nailed him. That's it. He's toast.

Now maybe Dean can scratch out third in NH.

NOT.

[AP]

69. Like Howard Dean, without a coherent argument, this is going to be...

irrelevant.

I'm not saying H can't make a coherent argument, but without one this his charges are about as relevant to voters as Howard Dean's campaign was to Iowans (for the same reasons).

[beaconess]

70. And you have offered nothing to refute him . . .

Your citations merely show that he has taken contributions from lobbyists who do not lobby Congress - i.e., THEY ARE NOT WASHINGTON LOBBYISTS!

Give it up.

[beaconess]

56. It's not under the radar - it's no big secret

Most people who know anything about the campaigns know this.

"On January 2, 2003, Sen. Edwards announced formation of a presidential exploratory committee. Edwards for President, Inc. is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. Nick Baldick, a former top Gore operative, is the campaign manager." http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edworg.html

Iowa Presidential Politics: John Edwards National Campaign Organization: NICK BALDICK -NATIONAL CAMPAIGN MANAGER http://www.iowapresidentialpolitics.com/candidates/edwards_profile.html

Funny, you managed to find the one website that showed Baldick was a lobbyist four years ago, but managed to miss the more than 400 hits showing that he was John Edwards' national campaign manager.

Figures.

[HFishbine]

63. I'm not perfect

but thanks for bringing that to our attention.

[Jerseycoa]

76. I get fundraising emails from Nick Baldick.

[tryanhas]

78. Get over Dean

He is a terrible candidate, PERIOD.

Continue your DESPERATE research on Edwards, it's not going to make Dean any better of a candidate.

[bearfartinthewoods]

83. were lobbyists...were at one time lobbyists

i have been convinced by one of the candidates that that's OK.

[TexasSissy]

37. He said he didn't accept $ from "PACS" -political action committees

These are funds given to candidates by companies, oftentimes collected from the owners' pockets, but also out of company funds. PACS.

Edwards may have also said lobbyists, but I didn't hear that. I just heard PACS, and I'm sure of it, since I'm very familiar with that (my co. has a PAC fund and gives regularly to candidates).

[HFishbine]

40. Did you watch this week's debate?

"I've never taken any money from Washington lobbyists..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer

[AP]

57. Once a lobbyist, always a lobbyist? If you're not registered, you can't

lobby.

[jenk]

4. anti-Edwards agenda?

is he worried the Edwards freight train is about to pass Dean in NH? lol

I can't believe people fall for this drudge propaganda, might as well cite newsmax

[cthrumatrix]

6. I think the media is anti-dem period .... get use to this

[beaconess]

34. It's one thing to fall for propaganda, it's another to knowingly distort

and mislead.

[HFishbine]

67. Absolutely. 100%. Distorting and knowingly misleading is not good.

"I've never taken any money from Washington lobbyists..."

- John Edwards, Democratic Presidential Primary Debate, 1/24/04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer

[beaconess]

71. And you have yet to prove he has taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist

[AP]

72. and you still haven't made a coherent argument that this is happening!

And you must be a little discouraged that, other than the usual suspects, nobody cares. But I'm going to give you a big hint: if this is true, and there's something there, you need a bigger and better argument about it (as was so easy to do with Dean).

If you can't, you're just proving that there is nothing there.

So hit the books. Get back to us when you have a real argument.

[beaconess]

73. :-)

[madrchsod]

5. it`s really hard to believe

anything that Pravda prints about democratic canidates....oh i meant to say the Washington Post.

[question everything]

8. No doubt, if and when Edwards moves to the front

he will provide the list if he sees that this becomes a serious issue.

[dArKerArrow]

10. Unfortunately I have no respect for the south because

of Satan's little helpers like Lott, Delay, Helms, J Bush, Junior... but listening to Edwards I started to believe in a candidate for the first time. As he spoke without a teleprompter or notes; all from the mind and heart and he was sharp!!!!

Then Kerry just blew me away yesterday, cspan live at a school, when he did about the same thing as Edwards did, with even some humor.

I'd like to see Junior survive 30 seconds of what they did for about 1 hour plus+, each.

I've stayed out of the south for 18 years because of scum like the above repuke mentioned. If they really got people like Ewards down there, I guess they can stay in the Union and when they put the above mentioned scum in prison, we can become friends!

But before I saw Kerry yesterday, I was a Edwards/Kerry hopeful but Kerry
really did a great job of communicating. No notes, no teleprompter. The Dems. got to learn that an idiot with a little humor/personality can win the WH as they've proved 3 times with Reagan and Chimpy. Then look at Mondale, Dukakis and Dole. Daaaaa Democratic leadership! Do they need to hire a DU member to show them how to win the WH?
 
PS. I donated to Dean 12 months ago because he was the only one who

stood up to Junior and the entire Repukelican Satanic Manchine (which includes the American Press). None of you should ever forget that and Dean should go down in history for such a courageous stand in the face of Satan and he had no fear. The only other man with the same amount of courage met with an assassination; Wellstone.

In conclusion, I don't think Dean can make it but he sure deserves a cabinet post.

[HFishbine]

11. Hmm. A Courageous Stand vs. Bush Enabler

The choice is yours, of course.

[jenk]

12. anybody but bush, electability

I'm surprised you don't "get it" by now

none of our candidates are bush enablers

[HFishbine]

13. Edwards is unapologetic about his support for the war

and glad we went. He enabled Bush's folly.

[jenk]

14. edwards is just happy saddam is gone

let's face it, kerry and edwards didn't expect to be lied to like this, and they sure as hell didn't expect such an abuse of power

so what are you banking on? Bush with a 50 state dean or kucinich whitewash? would that make you happy?

[HFishbine]

24. Edwards insists he wasn't mislead

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3131295&p1=0

[AP]

16. Iowa voters said that Bush would have gone in no matter what and the

vote was a trap to screw the Democrats on the patriotism issue.

I agree with them

[jenk]

17. well they get it, unfortunately some dems still don't

[maxr4clark]

30. Then you don't understand the law.

The US cannot go to war without the approval of Congress; that decision is assigned to the legislative branch by the Constitution. That is exactly why it was so wrong to give Bush the authority to declare war on his own, if he felt it merited; why so many here care about who voted for the IWR.

I can understand Edwards, as a first-term Senator, making a mistake on what the implications of the IWR would be, even with his lawyer background. Kerry knew what he was doing; he voted for it because he believed that the US should invade Iraq.

Clark and Dean were right in September 2002: Congress should not have approved the authority to go to war. I'm not sure Kucinich would have voted to go to war under any circumstances, but he is the only remaining candidate that voted the right way on that resolution, and he gets credit from me on that account.

[AP]

32. But the democrats who voted for IWR understood the voters.

[maxr4clark]

43. Interesting point

So you're saying that Kerry and Edwards are smart enough to do the wrong thing because it will help them get reelected?

You're not going to get anywhere with me with THAT approach.

[AP]

52. heaven forbid they want to actual win an election and vote to keep

Americans safe. You know Clinton said that when he was president, there was enough evidence that justified taking action. He said they thought SH and OBL were huge risks.

Last thing a candidate needs to do is run against Clinton.

[spooky3]

58. "I'm shocked--shocked, I tell you--that there is gambling in this

establishment."

[colonel odis]

84. bigot

the south is also home to jimmy carter, john lewis, julian bond, phil bredesen, wes clark, bill clinton, al gore, and ralph mcgill, to name just a few.

sorry, but i gotta run. the moonshine's almost done, there's a nascar race on, and my sister's blowing me kisses.

[AP]

15. I wonder if they're going to be forced to release my name if I continue to

do well raising money for the campaign?

Maybe the don't have pioneers? Maybe they don't have anyone who goes around and solicits donations? Maybe the don't keep track of it? Maybe they do, but they're not raising any money from those kinds of people?

Maybe they're all lawyers?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

25. Let's check the facts, shall we?

Since you are on the verge of calling me a liar, how about some facts to back up your accusation. I listed three individuals and provided links to public records to show that they are indeed lobbyists:

ABBOTT, MELISSA MULLINAX

ASSAGAI, MEL

BALDICK, NICHOLAS

What proof do you have to refute the public record that shows these pople are indeed lobbyists? Something other that hystrionics would be nice.

[beaconess]

29. I don't have to prove that they are NOT lobbyists

You are claiming that they ARE lobbyists, so the burden is on YOU. Lobbyists are registered, so there is a record. I've already checked my facts and know they are not lobbyists. You, on the other hand are claiming they are, even though you have no proof at all that they are.

Now you claim that there is a public record that these people are lobbyist. Produce it or else stop lying about them and Sen. Edwards.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This is despicable.

[HFishbine]

35. The Public Record

You are 100% correct, there are indeed public records that show that these people are lobbyists. Since your insistance that I provide evidence indicates that you haven't bothered to check any of the PUBLIC RECORD sources I've already provided, let's make this real easy.

HERE ARE THE PUBLIC RECORDS THAT SHOW THESE PEOPLE ARE LOBBYISTS, all you have to do is click on the links.

ABBOTT, MELISSA MULLINAX
MARIETTA,GA 30068
THE EDISON GROUP/LOBBYIST
1/9/2003
$500
(link 1 below)

ASSAGAI, MEL
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814
THE ADVOCACY GROUP/PRINCIPAL LOBBYI
5/13/2003
$250
(2)

BALDICK, NICHOLAS
BETHESDA,MD 20817
DEWEY SQUARE GROUP/CONSULTANT
3/28/2003
$1,950
(3)
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/lobbyist.asp?ID=107687&year=2000)[br />
1) http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=edwards%2C+john&txt2004=Y&Order=N

2) http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=edwards,%20john&txt2004=Y&txt2002=&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=1&Cycle1=2004&Cycle2=&Cycle3=&Page=7

3) http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=&txtState=&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=edwards,%20john&txt2004=Y&txt2002=&txt2000=&txt1998=&txt1996=&txt1994=&txt1992=&txt1990=&txtSoft=N&Order=N&Cycles=1&Cycle1=2004&Cycle2=&Cycle3=&Page=10

This is the evidence you've requested. It is the public record. Now, either produce something to condradict the public record, or stop calling me a liar.

[beaconess]

41. Since your revised your post, I'll revise my response . . .

Your cites still do not prove your point, but at least your getting closer to the mark.

Nick Baldick is listed as a CONSULTANT - that is not a lobbyist.

The other two are indeed listed as lobbyists, but please note that they are with firms that are in Georgia and California and do not lobby the Senate and Congress. John Edwards said he does not accept money from WASHINGTON lobbyists. He has never claimed to refuse contributions from lobbyists who have absolutely no involvement with or influence over federal legislation.

[AP]

68. It's called proving a negative.

HFishbine has set up an argument where, to win, you have to prove a negative.

Of course, anyone who wants to can call these donors on Monday at their offices and ask them to explain. So it can actually be proven. But, since it's H's evidence, he's the one who needs to buttress its credibility.

[MrB]

80. Thank You

The poster has supplied no evidence that the lobbyists mentioned as Edwards contributors are D.C. based lobbysists who lobby the Federal Gov't. on federal legislation.

Here's what I found on Melissa Abbott (from: http://www.edisongrassroots.com/ ) "As a principal and co-founder of The Edison Group, Melissa has over 10 years of political experience and has organized and managed political, grassroots and media campaigns throughout the Southern United States. Melissa works extensively with women's, child advocacy and labor groups throughout Georgia including Women's Action for New Directions, the Women's Policy Group, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic, Women In Numbers, the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO.

In 2002, Melissa served as the Director of Georgia Families Deserve the Best, an independent political committee organized to raise the profile of issues important to working families through direct mail, voter analysis and targeting, radio buys and phone banking. "
She's a Georgia lobbysist involved with lobbying for progressive issue in GEORGIA, not WASHINGTON, D.C.

Similarly, a search of Google indicates Mel Assagai is a lobbyist based in Sacramento who has lobbied for and against various gov't. initiatives in CALIFORNIA, not WASHINGTON, D.C.

If someone who happens to lobby STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT also follows national politics, and cares about issues and who their president is, does that mean they can't donate to a federal presidential candidate? Does it mean John Edwards is "bought"? Does it mean Edwards is lying about not being influenced by WASHINGTON lobbyists?

It's already been established that Nick Baldick is a political consultant and Edwards' campaign manager. Hell, if I were running for president, I would hope my campaign manager had enough confidence in me to donate to the campaign. Mr. Baldick was not a registered D.C. lobbyist when he gave to Edwards.

It's pretty obvious from this thread that the poster has an ax to grind w/ Edwards over the IWR vote, and is now seeking to smear
Edwards on behalf of a rival campaign, whose scorched earth, take no prisoners strategy netted only 18% of the vote with the most money and endorsements in IA, and which is well on its way to another disappointing showing in NH. Keep up the smears, it's worked so well so far!

[spooky3]

81. fabulous post--great factual info, eloquent presentation

Thank you. I agree with your conclusions about the poster's apparent motivation, and believe that it may be time for all people who support fairness (not just those who support Edwards) to resist this poster's smear attempts by not responding to them.

[AP]

85. THANK YOU.

They sound like good Democrats.

[beaconess]

87. Bam!

[Renew Deal]

20. What Bush, Kerry and DEAN are doing is much worse.

Edwards is at least playing within the rules. Dean and friends have forgone the system all together. What good is it to have these rules if Dean and the others are going to break them. Dean, Kerry and Bush have no interest in campaign finance and campaign finance reform. So if you are looking for someone to put out a hit piece on it should start like this.

Dean, Bush, and Kerry disregard campaign finance laws.

[HFishbine]

27. "Dean, Bush, and Kerry disregard campaign finance laws."

Really? What laws have they violated?

[Renew Deal]

28. Not violated, disregarded.

[HFishbine]

38. Okay, then

What laws did they disregard and how so?

[Renew Deal]

50. I'm not playing this silly game with you.

Dean is not staying within the finance spending limits. Right or wrong? Is it a law or not?

[HFishbine]

59. The law

allows candidates to adhere to spending limits in order to qualify for matching federal funds, or to decline matching federal funds so as to have no spending limits. Either way is within the bounds of the law.

[Renew Deal]

21. One more thing... If Edwards is the nominee, he will get 1 or 2 $2000

checks from me. That goes from almost all the candidates. Can I afford it? Not totally, but it is worth it.

[spooky3]

51. same here

[xultar]

33. I'm gonna start counting...Everyone here knows what I'm counting

This is 1

[surfermaw]

45. A couple on the track

Is that what is bothering you so much you will tell stories on the other candidates, are you so bent on having on certain candidate, that you would destroy another democrats chances. Bas Bush, and leave the bashing of democrats to republicans....

[AP]

86. I see a reference to an old post of mine.

You want to rephrase that in a more coherent form?

[AP]

48. H, do you think Edwards is combing through his FEC reports and trying to..

...find lobbyists he can help?

What's your real allegation here? That Edwards has started to do something he's never done before: listen to the interests of lobbyists over the interests of citizens, compromising his principles?

There was an article interviewing a NC bank lobbyist -- the biggest industry in NC -- saying Edwards RARELY retruned his calls before 2002, and he never returns them now. Why don't you spin that as Edwards ignoring his constituents? But the bottom line is you got a politician who doesn't legislate on behalf of lobbyists.

That he doesn't take money from PACs and DC lobbyists is a symbol of the bigger truth about him: he works for people, not monied interests.

That you can find people who were FORMER lobbyists (Baldick), or people who live far from DC who list their occupations as lobbists (something you, H, could do if you donated 200 bucks or more to Edwards) doesn't change the essential fact of Edwards's campaign.

If you want to attack that aspect of his persona, why don't you find the legislation that Edwards voted for that was so out of charcter with his person and then trace it back to a lobbyist or a PAC.

Furthermore, come up with a good argument for people donating money to the canidate who's seems pretty intent on making their jobs so much harder.

[HFishbine]

49. Let's not overcomplicate the issue

It's a very simple matter of honesty. When Edwards proudly claims on the campaign trail that he has "never taken any money from Washington lobbyists" (1), is he being truthful? He is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer

[chimpymustgo]

53. The smell of fear and desperation in the morning...

early afternoon. Whatever.

[Renew Deal]

60. _

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

66. And another reason why you desperately need to complicate things a little

is because, if you don't, you sound absurd because you're doing exactly what you're accusing Edwards of doing. You're saying his problem is he left out a little fact -- that someone who donated to him put "lobbyist" (even though they checked a box saying they weren't a federal lobbyis).

You, yourself, are leaving out a lot of little facts, like whether theyse people are federal lobbyists.

You won't have any legitimacy if you're only complaining about what you yourself are doing.

[robbedvoter]

54. AWOL from voting too:

Thanks for the overtime!

Checked c-span's congressional records. The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was passed on Weds, Jan 21, 2003 by a vote of 48 - 45
Senators not voting:
Joseph Lieberman (D)
Selby Chambliss (R)
Daniel Inouye (D)
John Kerry (D)
Mark Dayton (D)
Max Baucus (D)
John Edwards(D)

Note: Max Baucus was having surgery.

[beaconess]

64. The Ominbus passed 65-28

The non-voting Senators would have made no difference.

That's one of the reasons the candidates didn't stop what they were doing and come back to vote. There was no point.

[jpgpenn]

74. The heck with his secrets this guy has NO experience at anything!

Instead of skipping steps up the ladder, he should have put more time in actually helping the party by staying in office and changing the system to help the average everyday person. He chose instead to further is own personal agenda to suit what he wants.

[AP]

75. You do what you can do the best. Don't waste our time wasting your time.

He was a great lawyer. He wanted to help people more than one person at a time. He didn't waste time as town mayor. He reached as high as he could.

Now, he's a Democratic senator in a world controlled by Republicans. The only power he has in the world is the power of the fillibuster (how discouraging, when you know you can do so much more).

He's itching to make a difference in our lives. What does he do? Sit back and watch Democrats lose to Bush again, so he has to wait another 4 years before he can have a huge impact on the world?

Should Mozart have put in his time writing jingles for ten years before he was allowed to write symphonies? Should Norman Mailer have plied his trade writing for the J.Perterman catalogue before he went on to write novels?

Don't waste our time. Get down to business. The guy has a hunger to make the world a better place. We're idiots if we don't latch on to that energy and enthusiasm.

[jpgpenn]

77. he shouldn't be wasting our time!

I stand by what I said.this guy is far to inexperienced to lead this country. He could have stayed in office and did what he could to build things back up. Instead he chose to join the race that was already weighted down with many career Dems for his own personal gain.

[spooky3]

82. He could have stayed in his practice and made more millions

but he chose to take a huge pay cut in order to run. That's hardly a strategy for achieving personal gain. Obviously he wants to make real change rather than be continually frustrated by the RW's BS in the Senate and House. 20 years of experience building a business from scratch and managing it successfully, 20 years of integrity of fighting for the little guy, plus a term on the Senate fighting the appointment of unqualified judges and serving on the Intelligence committee adds up to great experience in my book.

Rather than bash candidates without evidence, why don't you build the case for the candidate you like?

[chimpymustgo]

79. AP, you just made a beautiful case of John Edwards. Thank you.

Okay - next?

[David Zephyr]

88. Kick.