Does John Edwards have any flaws?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Does the GOP machine have anything to smear him with? Is he Smear proof?

[spooky3]

1. yes, but if you think I'm going to help Rove and friends, you're crazy :-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. "he's a lawyer"

that's what they have.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Here's one smear

http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

[DjTj]

6. he returned them.

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2003-04/04182003edwards.asp

[BeyondGeography]

11. Different contributors, different stories

But it's good he returned those particular contributions.

[DjTj]

19. I believe that's the only one ever reported as under investigation...

In your article, it says:

There is no direct evidence that the pattern of giving in this article constitutes improper or illegal activity on the part of any individuals, law firms, or the Edwards campaign.

So I'm not going to worry about this until there's some real proof, or at least, a real investigation.

[beaconess]

46. Funny - it took the Bush Admin about 1 day to launch the investigation

and another whole hour to leak the fact that they had launched an investigation.

[Renew Deal]

3. They like to call him a lawyer?

Also that he doesn't tell who is fundraising for him. That's about it. Nothing dirty. Oh yeah, he was against the $87 Bill. He has a great response to that one.

[cjbuchanan]

4. He licks his lips too much

I know this seems stupid, but why not share it. Anyway, some one should get him some lip balm.

Hope everyone gets a little chuckle out of this.

[madrchsod]

12. hmmmm

edwards and little georgie lick their lips ,hmmmm. can`t vote for him ,to much like bush. dam i`m running out of people to vote for.

[cjbuchanan]

23. I just want to clarify

I was not saying this is a reason not to vote for him, it's just one thing that I noticed about him. I thought it was silly, sorry if that did not come through in my post.

[Bucky]

25. Also sometimes he wipes his nose while listening to people or talking

I noticed this twitch--it's the gesture of a thoughtful man, but it's still tacky. He was on C-SPAN listening to some farmer in Iowa and he just started working his thumb and the knuckle of his index finger on either nostril while nodding and listening. Maybe that's what happens when Carolina boys go up into snowy places like Iowa and New Hampshire during January. But I shure don't want him shaking my hand or kissing my baby when I know he's got snot on those fingers.

But of course ABB

[beaconess]

49. ROFL!!!

[Bucky]

17. He's handsome, but I can't help staring at that lip mole when he talks

I miss half of what he says because I just can't pry my eyes off that mole just above his upper lip (on the left). Oh, and he's a personal injury lawyer. But that doesn't bother me--corporations must be held accountable. I just don't want to spend the next four years staring at that godawful mole.

[cbua34]

37. yeah....

I have always wondered what that is

[AP]

34. Somtimes he talks with his eyes closed and then grins kind of funny.

[Dagaz]

5. He made his fortune suing doctors

That and his relatively short public resume will be the main points I know of.

[AP]

35. He only made money off the negligent doctors, and corporations

(and the money came from insurance companies -- some of the most politically powerful entities in America).

[ozone_man]

77. So making millions from insurance companies

is a wholesome occupation? Most lawyers are bottom dwellers and Edwards is a pretty good stereotype.

[AP]

79. So, if corporations are negligent and cause millions in damages, it's

better off to let them get off scott free, and guys like Edwards are the bad guys?

OK. If this is the quality of the criticism of Edwards, you're only making MORE confident that I've chosen the best candidate.

[beaconess]

81. Let's not forget the insurance companies had lawyers, too

Pretty good ones, the best that money could buy, no doubt. And they had the manpower and resources to defend themselves against John Edwards. Everything that Edwards said the jury, they had every opportunity to counter. Every piece of evidence he introduced, they had an opportunity to respond to.

The bottom line is that juries - regular people like you and me - after listening to both sides, ruled in favor of Edwards' clients.

Insurance companies and defendants try to play the victims in these arguments, but don't buy it. The real victims were the men, women and children who were injured and damaged by the egregious behavior of these defendants and whom the insurance companies tried to screw out of their fair compensation. Fortunately, they had John Edwards to speak up for them.

[joeybee12]

7. As a gay person, I think he's got a BIG flaw

A little while back, when pressed by Russert on Meet The Press, he said that he was against civil unions. He said it was a decision left up to the states, but that he, would not support them.

I'd have a pretty hard time voting for him unless he changes his position--this is the least acceptable position on this issue of ANY of the Dem cnadidates.

[spooky3]

13. I believe he said he thought the country was not ready for "gay marriage"

He is in favor of leaving civil unions up to the states and is in favor of giving gays equal rights under the law, e.g., in employment, in hospital access to visit & make decisions for partners.

I think his position is pretty much like everyone else's except Sharpton's but people with evidence can correct me.

[DjTj]

28. John Edwards on gay marriage:

http://www.votebyissue.org/primary/issue.asp?i=36

I believe in equal rights for all, including the rights of gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians should have the same freedoms and the same responsibilities as all Americans, and deserve to be treated with the equal respect.

I support legislation to end discrimination in employment against gays and lesbians and to punish hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

I also support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in committed, long-term relationships.

While I personally do not support gay marriage, different states will address this in different ways, and I oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution in response to the recent Massachusetts state Supreme Court decision.

[bearfartinthewoods]

20. he says it's up to the staes to determine terminology,

but promotes equal rights by law.

[joeybee12]

27. But when pressed, he said that if he were governor (of some state) he

would not support civil unions.

[AP]

38. I think he says "North Carolina". If he were governor of Hawaii, he might

think otherwise.

One of the key things here is that it's actually the state's business what a marriage is. It's not the business of the federal gov't and he's said that. He said it's the federal government's job to guarantee equal protection under the law, regardless of sexual orientation (which, legally speaking, is a step forward -- there are only a couple protected classes, race, gender, etc., so this is a step forward).

[tryanhas]

71. With all due respect that is NOT a flaw

We are talking about things that the GOP WOULD USE AGAINST HIM.

If he is against gay marriage which he is, and even if he were against civil unions, which I have not heard him say, and did not hear him say on Meet the Press either, that is NOT SOMETHING THE GOP WOULD TRY TO SMEAR HIM WITH.

If they are supposedly against gay marriage, as is most of the country, why would that be a talking point?

That's just ridiculous.

That may be a problem for TEN, TEN, TEN, TEN, TEN, TEN, TEN PERCENT of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but most of America could care less about that issue as long as he IS NOT for gay marriage.

He is not going to lose an election over this issue.

Besides, he when he was on Meet the Press, the question about IF YOU WERE GOVERNOR, was aimed at "GAY MARRIAGE" not civil unions, and none of the MAJOR CANDIDATES are crazy enough to commit political suicide by saying that they support gay marriage:

MR. RUSSERT: If a gay couple goes to Canada and is married legally and returns to the United States, should that marriage be honored here?

SEN. EDWARDS: Again, I think this is a decision that has to be made on a state—individual states have to make that decision and...

MR. RUSSERT: If you were governor of a state, would you be supportive of that?

SEN. EDWARDS: No, I would not.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not. Why?

SEN. EDWARDS: I would not. Because, well, first of all, you probably know this, I just went through my discussion of what rights I think need to be given to gays and lesbians, those in committed gay and lesbian relationships, but I don’t support gay marriage.

[AP]

36. and he says it's up to the constitution to protect the legal rights

of same-sex couples regarldelss of their religious and spiritual relationships.

[Dagaz]

24. What about Kerry?

He said just this morning that he is against gay marriage.

[tishaLA]

31. Not only that, but he couldn't answer a question

about DoMA, which is the "last word" nationally about lesbian and gay marriage/civil unions right now. I wonder why he isn't better educated about this policy, which has been important in American debate--and especially for LGBT people--for a while now.

BTW, the way he framed his response in the debate made the federal intervention in sodomy laws look positively enlightened. His version of "states' rights" would effectivly recreate the ethos of sodomy laws without the constitutional problems they posed in Lawrence v. Texas.

[AP]

39. He wasn't sure if it gave states the choice to recognize other state's

same-sex marriages, or if it prevented them.

He thought it was MORE restrictive than it was.

At least he erred on the side of being overly-alarmed.

Another interpretation however is that DOMA says a marriage is between a man and woman. If he meant that DOMA prevents states from conferring federal rights of marriage on same sex couples, then he didn't err when he said DOMA prevented states from recognizing same-sex marriages if they chose to.

[AP]

40. and the thing you say about sodomy just isn't true.

He's said that the federal government should guarantee equal rights to same-sex couples regardless of what states call them or whether a state extends those rights or not.

Unless I'm missing something, your sexond paragraph sounds a little alarmist. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[tishaLA]

55. Sure. My second paragraph is about

states criminalizing prospective legal contracts between people of the same sex and the federal government giving that criminalization its blessings. That is what DoMA does. It is an untenable and inconsistent position to support DoMA (which is what his response did) and to argue that you believe in federal protections of equal rights.

And a lawyer/legislator who worries about "two Americas" should know about a bill that constitutes the juridical lynchpin of a dual set of American divsion between gay and non-gay citizens.

[AP]

57. sodomy isn't a contract, it's an act. And it looks like the Supreme Court

is moving towards getting federal law out of regulating that act between consenting adults. Wasn't there a case recently?

DOMA is coming apart in the courts too (as the SOTU mentioned) and if you elected Edwards, that process is going to come about more rapidly.

Edwards didn't support DOMA. He criticized it.

You're all over the place with this criticism. Read the transcript of the debate, listen to the commonwealth club Q&A, read Lisa Duggan's book, The Twilight of Equality, and then we'll talk.

[tishaLA]

61. Yes. I sais the ethos of sodomy laws

i.e., legal and illegal. I guess I didn't understand what you objected to.

I am quite up to date on DoMA, Lawrence v. Texas, and Edwards' response in the debate. But the Rugs won't go after because they don't care. I do. BTW, DoMA will never withstand judicial scrutiny, as Edwards would have known had he known what it says.

[AP]

67. Proving negative. I've heard not a single candidate say DOMA won't

withstand judicial scrutiny. Does that mean none of them know what it is?

What are the ethos of sodomy laws?

I'm really confused about your argument.

[tishaLA]

69. Creating two Americas

based on sexual orientation: one--gay--relegated to constant wrangling in state legislatures and public opinions and the other--non-gay--bathed in sunlight as transcendent and untroubled.

[AP]

72. Recognizing differences and saying that they shouldn't result in different

treatment in the eyes of the law.

If this were civil rights in the 60s, your argument is sort like if blacks said, 'we want to be white -- we want you to call us white.'

That's not what the civil rights movement did. They said we want our DIFFERENCES not to create different treatment in the eyes of the government.

Why would you fight so hard about the definition of a religious and spiritual term, "marriage" rather than fight the battle Edwards wants to fight, which is arguing that the differences should constitute a protected category in the eyes of the law and that you're guaranteed equal protection?

[tishaLA]

78. marriage is also a juridical term in the US

not just a religious/spiritual one, which is why there is legislation about it, including DoMA. See? "Marriage" even appears n the name of the bill and it is a legislative document, not a religious one.

Edwards' states right position makes it perfectly legal for states to maintain laws that criminalize marriage contracts between consenting adults of the same sex, which has the effect of producing a dual system for American citizens. That is not "equal protection" to anyone who looks closely.

[AP]

80. Exactly. And the gov't shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage.

Render onto god what is god's and onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

It's ridiculous that we have to register our legal committments to each other in the eyes of the law and then the GOVERNMENT says that signing a legal document isn't enough and you have to waste your time having a ceremony, and if you don't believe in god, we have this quasi-religous waste-of-time and taxpayer money called a Justice of the Peace civil ceremony.

We should be arguing about getting the government out of the buisiness of defining marriage, yet the debate is dominated by people who what to expand the definition of the most conservative institution we have in our society.

Edwards doesn't have a state's rights position. Family law is ALREADY a state law issue. What he's saying as president he will not let federal government interfere with the states, and that he will consider denial of rights married people get to same-sex couples a violation of the equal protection requirement under the constitution.

this is going to get you to the promised land much faster than arguing for the expanision of the definition of marriage in the federal government who can only pass laws that address cross-state issues and which will all get overturned under the constituion anyway because family law isn't a federal issue in the first place.

[tishaLA]

84. We agree to disagree

but one cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Marriage has been both juridical and religious since the foundig of the republic. Of *course* non-gay couples can go to the justice of the peace if they choose to, or to churches/synagogues/mosques if they choose to. LGBT people cannot do that; Edwards favors the legislation--DoMA--that protects states from recognizing possible future gay and lesbian marriages. Now, if I set aside the fact that it violates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution and will be overturned when it goes before any reasonable judge, I can see that this position allows states to deny equal protection to LGBT people rather than enforce equal protection OR lead LGBT people to the "promised land" (a highly fraught religious phraseology when we are discussing a secular concern, that!).

I admire you for defending your candidate on this, but I to my mind his position is just wrong. We don't create equal rights by permitting states to extend inequality to LGBT citizens, as it did with sodomy laws. I understand and appreciate that you see it differently.

[AP]

85. Are you asking me if I agree? Marriage hasn't come out of the tube.

However, family has become more dramatically progressive than probably any other area of law. It was pretty draconian in terms of marrigage, divorce, and custody only 35 years ago and it gets better every year.

it's not outragious to imagine that it would be considered a violation of the contitution to tread same-sex and opposite sex coupls differently in they eyes of the law. And it's not a stretch to imagine that, after developing that idea for 7-10 years, that many states would then decide that requiring a religious (or any ceremony) is eithere simply unwarranted, or too tight a connection of church and state. And then it's not hard to imagine that states would instituted civil union laws not for same-sex couples, but for everyone. Ie, if you wanted the bundle of rights, any two people can go down to the county building and sign up. No separate ceremony required. If you want to go get married before, after, or never, to make your parents happy/unhappy, so be it. But the government will no longer be in the business of defining or relying on spiritual relationships in deciding whether to confer LEGAL rights.

I just laid out the map to get from point A to B the fastest way possible, which removes a lot of misery not just from the lives of gay people, but straight people too.

What's your roadmap for success? What do you want the government to do?

Also, where did you get that Edwards favors DOMA? That totally contradicts what he said. He thinks it's a violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the constitution.

You say his position is wrong, but you don't seem to know it.

[DjTj]

52. Lawrence v. Texas was struck down on...

...Due Process grounds.

John Edwards speaks about these issues with an argument that more closely resembles Equal Protection, which would give many more rights to the homosexual community.

AP defends him, but I will admit that it was clear that Edwards was not an expert on the DoMA at the time of the debate. However, I will guarantee that he has read it now and a few relevant state court precedents. The next time he's asked about it, I'll bet he gives a very thorough answer.

The bottom line is that the GLBT lobby isn't one of his main priorities, just as he doesn't pander to the environmental lobby or the union lobby, even though these groups are stalwarts of the Democratic party. John Edwards stands for equality for all and lifting up the working people of America rather than simply saying or doing what will get him votes from particular lobbyist groups. He doesn't go after all the single-issue voters, and that's one thing that I really like about him.

[AP]

53. Like I said, at the worst, he thought it was MORE restrictive than it is.

At least he's not taking it lightly.

[robbedvoter]

50. Repeated this today on This Weak

I am not gay and still am bothered.

[AP]

51. Yeah, Right Wing is really trying to sow the sees of anger among the left

on this issue, medical marijuana, and the war.

Don't be a sucker.

[Zinnola]

68. Did not know that about Edwards

If that is true and he will not support Civil Unions. He will not get my vote either. That issue is very important to me.

[AP]

70. Lord. Not only does he support civil unions, he wants to protect same-sex

couples from being treated differently than married couples in the eyes of the law.

I don't know how hard I should fight this misperception. If you have to live with your left wing being under a mistaken impression that costs some votes, but you can keep the millions in the middle who will be under a different misimpression, I think I'd chose the latter on this issue.

But just among friends, trust me, Edwards is the one who's going to get you where you want to be faster.

[leyton]

8. Well, they're going to attempt these:

Inexperienced (domestic policy):

To which he will answer, he has helped regular Americans through his law practice for twenty years. He protected the defenseless against monolithic corporations. He understands the needs and problems of ordinary Americans, not just the rich like Bush does.

Inexperienced (foreign policy):

He is not as well-versed in foreign policy as John Kerry or Wesley Clark is, but on the other hand, he sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and in my opinion, at least, this counts for something. Especially when you consider that when we elected Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush, they had no foreign policy experience either.

Trial Lawyer:

This is the perfect opportunity for him to talk about all the people he's helped and it fits in perfectly with his "Two Americas" theme. Lauch Faircloth tried using this against Edwards in 1998... it didn't really fly.

[morgan2]

9. he sucks at interviews

all he does is giggle the entire time

[spooky3]

16. please cite one in which this occurred, specifically.

I have never seen him do this. Did you see his interview with Wolfie today? No one was laughing.

[AP]

43. If you're kidding, that's funny, but if you're not, watch Cold Pizza:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/media/video/20031211-espn-coldpizza.ram

[NashVegas]

10. A Willingness to Play Up to Southern Resentments

"we don't need people like you (yankee carpetbagger) coming down here in the Sunday church hour (atheist) to tell us blah blah blah"

[spooky3]

21. this was IN RESPONSE to a comment made by another candidate

for which that candidate later apologized. As someone living in the south, I can tell you that 90% of the people who are native here would have reacted the same way or more negatively to the other candidate's comment.

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. wow....somw warp of a quote. there was no reference to church when

he said it.

[AP]

44. I think he encourages people to overcome southern stereotypes

He's asking people to reach across regional differences.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Only one: he's too perfect.

[dkf]

15. Actually there is one icky thing that I found a little shocking

Something to do with the selling of his house.

Here it is:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/7156070.htm

Edwards' house deal scrutinized
Saudis' PR man agreed to buy D.C. home
JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - While he was a member of Congress' investigation into U.S. and Saudi intelligence failures, presidential hopeful John Edwards agreed to sell a Washington home for $3.52 million to the public relations expert hired by Saudi Arabia to counter charges it was soft on terrorism.

snip

Several ethics experts who reviewed the Petruzzello transaction at the request of AP said they believed Edwards had an obligation to recognize the appearance of a conflict of interest once he learned of the Saudi connection.

"The potential conflict of interest is readily apparent when a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence receives $100,000 in a real or sham business deal with a foreign agent or a person with extensive foreign contracts at the same time the Senate is investigating possible lapses in national security," said Kent Cooper, the former head of the government's public disclosure office for federal candidates.

snip

Petruzzello is a registered foreign agent and managing partner of the Washington public relations firm Qorvis Communications, which was hired to oversee a lobbying and public relations campaign to counter criticisms Saudi Arabia was soft on terrorism. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis.

[spooky3]

18. ok, this has already been dealt with on DU so I'll leave it

to a better Duer to give you details, but as I recall, he was NEVER informed at the time of the offer about the background of the prospective buyer, which if you have ever bought or sold a house, you know to be standard operating procedure.

It's a seller's market in Washington so I'm sure he found another buyer if the problems with this were not resolved.

[leyton]

29. It'd be hard to make much out of this.

Whether or not it was really a shady deal (and I hope it wasn't) the GOP will have a hard time using this one. I mean, it's not like Halliburton bought the house...

[beaconess]

54. This was a non-story

Edwards said he never knew anything about the guy who offered to buy the house, which makes sense since the deal was handled by real estate agents. And then the guy reneged on the deal, never bought the house, and the Edwardses ended up selling the house to someone else for $500,000 less, losing money on the deal. The $100,000 earnest money was in escrow, so Edwards has not received it and was under no obligation to report it since it was not yet in his possession.

"If I took control of the $100,000, I would disclose it because that would be an asset of mine and it would be necessary that it should be disclosed. And that disclosure would include making sure that it was appropriate because of the legal issues associated with it. It is absurd that a contract dispute with a total stranger would become a source of wild speculation and international intrigue. Only in Washington," he said in the article you cited.

[maxr4clark]

26. flaws yes, smears-not that I know of

I'm only saying this because you asked; I have no agenda against Edwards. My view is that he has less experience to run on than Clark, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, or Kucinich. His time in service to the country is limited to his half term in the Senate; and I don't find his voting record in that time to agree with my views particularly well. His primary platform concerns appear to be lobbying and campaign finance reform. These are not what I consider the most important concerns facing the nation, not by a mile. He is charismatic and a practiced public speaker; so was Al Gore, and he lost. In short, I don't think he makes a very credible candidate to run against an incumbent President, even one as bad as George W. Bush.

[DjTj]

32. Edwards will have served a full term in the Senate...

...by the time he is inaugurated. He was elected in 1998.

And if you're comparing Edwards' charisma and public-speaking ability to Gore, then I doubt you've heard Edwards speak.

[spooky3]

33. sounds as if you have never heard his stump speech.

I don't think those two issues you identified stand out, but that is only my opinion.

[maxr4clark]

42. Yes I have

...and I heard a lot of domestic issues in it. Those two issues stood out for me, though.

Thanks to the previous poster about his Senate term starting in 1998, I had been going on vague hearsay on "half a term", and now I can be clearer that it has been most of one term. I'm a bit concerned about what will happen to our Party in the Senate, with Gephardt, Edwards, and I think Graham choosing not to seek reelection. We need Dems at all levels of government to make real progress!

One thing I applaud him for is running a positive campaign. I approve of that message, and apparently a lot of Iowans did, too.

[AP]

47. Al was a terrible public speaker.

[maxr4clark]

87. Al Gore had a reputation as

a great debater. It is only after the 2000 election that people started saying Gore was a poor public speaker.

[AP]

91. You know who gave him the reputation? Rove.

I'd NEVER heard anyone call him a great debater ever until the media said he was (after Rove told them to say it) in 2000.

I'd seen Gore debate and I honestly couldn't remember it at all.

They said he was great so that if Bush merely pronounced more than half of the three syllable words he used correctly, it would have been seen as a great performance against a great debator.

Gore has never been more than a mediocre debator (and he was miserable in 2000).

[Jerseycoa]

86. Edwards and Gore/Night and Day

There is nothing similar in terms of charisma or speaking ability. Edwards has it all over Gore. In the current field of candidates, he stands out in this regard, as well. He has an amazing ability to connect with his audience.

[maxr4clark]

90. I suppose I just value different things

Please understand that the comments I make below are about me and how I see the candidates, not about the candidates. I'm not trying to say any candidate is bad, just to explain why they don't impress me in particular like Clark does.

Edwards speaks in easy to understand sentences, but I don't get the impression that he has thought deeply about what he is talking about, or that his opinion would be the same if he did.

Dean is an emotional speaker; so is one of my sisters. They both make me think their opinions are based solely on one criterion, without any consideration for other facts or factors. That is what I see when I watch Dubya talk, too--converting full-color issues into stark black and white. The sister I mentioned can't believe that I don't support Bush, by the way; we're not really on speaking terms at this point.

Kerry is the one I think has poor public speaking skills. He is so monotone and has such an immobile face, and at times such a strident tone, that I tune him out more than I listen to what he has to say. I usually find that I agree with him, at least in principle. My only real issue with Kerry is electability (which I think Clark wins hands down, Kerry is second).

Clark explains things the way I prefer. I have found over the years that more people like speakers that I don't than like the ones I like, so that probably isn't a good thing for Clark. Still, he does what I expect a President to do: he explains things fully. Some people seem to think that his hesitation at the beginning of some sentences means he is insincere, or is waffling; I tend to think that he is looking for the right words for what he means, not that he is uncertain about what he means.

I actually think a lot of candidate preference has more to do with relatively irrelevant things--hair color, height, speaking style, accent, etc.--than with the things that will have mattered at the end of the term in office, which are the candidate's ability to lead, his ability to assess situations correctly, and his ability to choose good solutions to problems. These are the attributes of Clark's background that convince me he will, in hindsight, have been the best President we could have chosen.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. He comes across as

fake. That's my personal opinion. The hair, the smile, and trying to portray himself as a "clean" campaigner when we know it's not true.

He voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act. No he's not smear proof. They will kill him with those votes. Well, if he didn't think it was the right thing to do, why did he vote for it? I can hear it now.

[TheDonkey]

60. they always grill Kerry now about those votes, but never to Edwards

that I have seen.

[beaconess]

65. Edwards gets grilled about Patriot alot, but you're right,

he doesn't get grilled as badly as Kerry on IWR. I think it's because he hasn't tried to shift his position - he says he felt it was the right thing to do, he did it and he stands by it. Even if you disagree with his vote, it's kind of hard to go after someone who is willing to stand up and take his hits.

I think that may be one of the reasons Kucinich aligned himself with Edwards in Iowa. They are on opposite sides of the issue, but I think Kucinich really respects him.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Even though he's a southerner, in the south Tort Reform is gaining

much momentum and has been passed by numerous state legislators, who use the idea that "Trial lawyers are to blame for jackpot justice".

His history as a trial lawyer will be played upon by the pukes here--where there is already much hatred of lawyers.

Sad, but true, that this will be used against him.

[AP]

48. Then we need Edwards as president to explain the mistake they're making.

[rumguy]

56. Edwards is setting himself up to win on this "issue"

It will only feed into his theme of two Americas. It will allow him to tie his life's work into what he really wants to talk about anyway.

It's brilliant and seamless. Edwards is a master tacitician - as a lawyer he knows how to set up the frame of a debate.

[snyttri]

58. Butter wouln't melt in his mouth, like most trial lawyers.

[TheDonkey]

59. Oppurtunist: Not even 1 complete term as Senator

so he has less domestic and foreign policy than anyone but Sharpton in reality.

He also does make strange grins and smirks at random times during talking. or when he finishes a good zinger he looks really proud. It's odd.

I like Edwards but he's not prefect.

[beaconess]

66. He's criticized for being an insider because he's in the Senate

and then he's hit for being an opportunist who hasn't been in the Senate long enough to deserve to run for president.

[Southsideirish]

62. He makes my "phony-dar" go off big time. Something I just don't

trust about him. Granted, I'm a Dean person but I have scouted Edwards as a possible VP - and I rejected him for Clark. He just hasn't been "vetted" enough for me. How did he amass that 38 million dollar fortune? I understand he specialized in difficult birth cases which resulted in cerebral palsy and was quite effective in speaking before the jury. I just don't like the sound of it - learned all those cunning skills in manipulating people.

[AP]

64. How does he amass 38 mil? By winning over 250 mil suing negligent corps.

There are few arguments more solid thatn "I just don't like the sound of it."

I can't beat that.

[maxr4clark]

92. While being a good lawyer is very impressive

I don't really see why it is good preparation for being a President. A Senator weighs legislation, and needs the skills a lawyer needs.
The President, however, has a very different job. He doesn't spend the majority of his time considering legislation or dealing with the detailed view of laws that a lawyer does. He spends most of his time running the Executive Branch--absorbing reports from the Cabinet about the issues the different parts of the executive branch are facing, and setting standards and directions for those parts of the executive branch to act on. He needs to be able to delegate authority and to assess how things are going, so that he can identify problems and get them set back on course. Some of that effort goes into identifying laws to propose or modifications to law to suggest, but the majority of the work is like running a large organization.
I don't see any evidence that Edwards has experience doing that.

[Fleshdancer]

63. The RNC lists the major smear reports on every candidate on their website

it's easier for the sheeple and media whores to attack the Democratic candidates when the rnc hands them the talking points...thinking for themselves is too damn hard and time consuming.

Out of respect for my sanity, I'm not going to cut and paste what they're saying, but if you're interested, it's rnc.org.

[jpgpenn]

73. Yes he has Flaws. He has NO experience at anything!

[AP]

75. Started with zero, is a senator today. How'd he do it? Luck?

[beaconess]

82. I guess it's better to be born on third base and then

get credit for scoring a run on an error than than to get to home after hitting a homerun and running all the bases.

[AP]

83. Kerry's a nice guy, but how'd he become a senator?

And do you count time spent in a swiss boarding school as foreign policy experience?

Edwards and Kerry come from vastly different backgrounds and have reached the same point, and Edwards got there faster.

So, could someone remind me what it is we value in a president, because I think Edwards has nothing to be ashamed of, and I think even Kerry would admit that.

[jsw_81]

95. He was elected by the people of Massachusetts

And unlike Edwards, Kerry wasn't rich when he first won his seat.

Edwards and Kerry come from vastly different backgrounds and have reached the same point, and Edwards got there faster.

Wrong. Kerry was elected to the U.S. Senate at age 40; Edwards was elected at 45.

[aldian159]

96. Kerry had a politcial job before

He was dukasis LY. Gov for two years, before that he was a prosecutor in MA.

But on to Edwards. The more i see him speak the more i realize that he is a great man, and would kick the holy crap out of Bush in any debate or election.

I love our nominees, even Lieberman.

[thebgrkng]

74. Foreign Policy

I find him completely lacking of a world-view. He's a great guy and i think his heart is in the right place. But thats still no qualification for the white house.

Just so im not attacked, bush is far less qualified. Does the average american believe that? I kinda doubt it.

-TheBgrKng

[AP]

76. He knows more about MY world than any candidate running besides Ku

[mmonk]

88. Yes; No, nobody is completely smear proof

[jsw_81]

89. Yes

He's young, has no real foreign policy credentials, and he's a trial lawyer.

[goodhue]

93. sure

As do they all.
My biggest issue is more apparent in person than on tv.
Namely, he is way too slick, like a used car salesman.
Makes Clinton look like Elmer Fudd.
I saw him speak live in Des Moines on labor day.
His smile was plastered on strong and his tan much better than anyone else in room. It felt very manufactured.
But as long as he is talking about poverty and the two americas, I'm not complaining.

[La_Serpiente]

94. The only thing I can think of

is that he has a lack of foreign policy credentials.

Other than that, he has some awesome ideas for his domestic agenda.

And I like Trial Layers :thumbsup: