It's on! Edwards assails "Corporate Democrats!"

[jsamuel]

From DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/23/1224/86654

According to USA Today:

"We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other," Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards plans to declare today in what the Associated Press is calling his "toughest" attack yet on his rivals for the party's presidential nomination.

I haven't seen this anywhere on Daily Kos, but if it has been posted here, someone please alert me and I will delete the diary.

Edwards finally gives voice on the campaign trail to the discussion we have been having here for years. No one can tell me that this discussion, conducted continually and publicly, hasn't finally "trickled up" to having become part of the discourse among the actual candidates.

David Sirota, among others, has been beating this drum consistently, and he mentions Edwards' speech in passing today. I'm sure David, an Edwards supporter, will weigh in on this later.

Edwards goes on to say:

Those wedded to the policies of the '70s, '80s, or '90s are wedded to the past -– ideas and policies that are tired, shop worn and obsolete. We will find no answers there.

But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -– and still is.

People can read into it what they want to. I take it as a frontal assault on Hillary Clinton and Clintonist "third way" corporate-friendly politics and policies.

I continue to wait for Al Gore. Barring a Gore candidacy, Edwards had looked like Plan B. By putting into words what many of us have been discussing, and one hopes, by forcing the "Corporate Democrats" to defend themselves and their policies, the discourse takes a new and long-sought turn, and Edwards looks a hell of a lot better to me today than he did yesterday.

[acmavm]

1. See, this is what a democrat sounds like.

[Colorado Progressive]

105. Yup!

nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

109. This is what a President sounds like.

nt

[BrainGlutton]

118. Never since FDR.

[saracat]

2. Go Johnny Go! He speaks truth to power! And is electable too!

I pray to God the Dems don't blow the chance they have with this man.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. More specifically, I hope the corporate media don't shove a corporate candidate

down the throats of the well-meaning but poorly informed public who are looking to the Democrats to provide a change from the corrupt corporate status quo.

After listening to the radio shills proclaiming the Clintons "far left," "liberals," etc., it is depressingly possible that the people who are looking for an actual liberal will accept that Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly branding message as having some basis in reality.

[underpants]

3. Tighten it up because HERE IT COMES

They aren't going to let this get out and they are going to try to BURY HIM

Expect terms like "loose cannon" "out of control" "desperate" "on his last legs" to be used.

Good for you Johnnie. That message will CRUSH if it ever gets out. That reminds me I need to email this around.

[Colobo]

4. I'm hoping this attack will affect Hillary negatively

and move the focus of the debate to Edwards and Obama.

[jsamuel]

5. my thinking too

[sandnsea]

31. It won't

The majority of Dems will recoil in horror that the vrwc talking points of the 90's are being used by a Democrat against the Clintons. I see a collective gasp, and then eye-roll in Iowa, and Hillary's numbers go up 5%. And Edwards goes down. Exactly what happened to Dean whenever he went on one of these wild rants. The red meat wing loves it, but it doesn't win primaries or elections. Edwards will retain around 18%, just like Dean did all through 04. The only way Obama wins is if he manages to peg Hillary with the dirt, without sounding hyperbolic himself.

[Imperialism Inc.]

90. I'm probably misunderstanding something but I keep seeing

people say that criticizing Clinton for being a "corporatist" is a right wing talking point. That confuses the hell out of me. When and why would the very right wing, who is totally pro-corporate, attack Clinton for being to close to corporations? It just seems ridiculous on the face of it. Being too corporate is a left wing criticism not a right wing one. Can anyone who says otherwise please provide some links and quotes from right wing individuals attacking Clinton (either one) for being too pro-business?

Thanks

[noahmijo]

54. Obama is my pick from the crop but Johnny is a close 2nd

I'll happily vote for Johnny if he gets it...Hillary lost my respect with The Media Marketing Accountability Act she penned with Holy Joe and she has yet to do anything to regain it.

[zulchzulu]

6. Edwards has gotten $7 million from corporate lawyers...so...um...

...is he giving the money back?

:shrug:

Jus' sayin'....

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1185268003561

[jsamuel]

8. i think it is clear he isn't talking about campaign donations

1 - it is illegal to take corp money
2 - most perfectly good donors work for corps

What he is talking about is the overwelming support of corporations in congress and little to no support for workers and their rights. Among other things

[WCGreen]

18. He is taking money from the Trial Attorneys which are more

likely to support democrats...

The Wall Street Corporate lawyer types are more likely to give to the GOP...

[saracat]

23. Thank you,Very true.Trail Attorneys protect US

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Well, while I have a preference for the small-firm lawyers,

I see nothing inherently wrong with big-firm support. Anybody who opposes "tort reform" is likely to be on the side of the consumer and the average American, even if they're taking that position out of self-interest.

[bejammin075]

21. How is he going to run with no money?

It just comes down to whether you believe him or not. Anybody running for Pres. has to raise a lot of money. It sucks. If you believe him, then you have to believe that he has the "Frodo-factor" to not be corrupted by the process, and then change things once he gets in office. It's hard to know who to trust. Look how many people got duped by Bush, and the asshole can't even speak well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Not all money comes from corporate donations.

A strong, pro-active stand against corporate influence can, in fact, trigger a landslide of small donations. Think about it. Just 1 million people, one person in 300, donating $20 each, and his campaign has 20 million dollars. Just half a million, donating $50 each, and that's 25 million. That's big numbers, I know, but not impossible.

[venable]

30. did he say he disdains anyone who works for a corporation?

no, he didn't, and it's pointless to mention that lawyers (corporate or otherwise) have supported him.

really, do tell us what the point is.

what quid pro quo do a bunch of individual lawyers expect? none, and I suspect you know that.

does that stop you from posting this kind of stuff? not for a second.

[Cameron27]

33. Well for one thing, they certainly would oppose any legislation

limiting jury awards, no?

[venable]

41. wrong - corporate lawyers would want to limit jury awards

plaintiff lawyers would want them unlimited.

JE has proposed very strong legislation against frivolous lawsuits...legislation that is opposed by the ambulance chasers.

the legislation involves heightened medical pre-certification of a case, and a three-frivolous-cases and you're disbarred.

excellent on tort reform.

[Cameron27]

43. Have you got a link for that please?

edited to add that it's too bad that he didn't seek medical pre-certification before he sued all those OB/GYN docs and Hospitals for causing CP during delivery.

[venable]

45. It's a rare occasion for an old man and his computer, but I do:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040126.html

scroll down to the section on Edwards.

He has refined these positions since 04, and a little research can update them. but it's essentially as reviewed in the link above.

[Cameron27]

48. I don't see any proposed legislation,

these are the views he expressed during the 04 campaign. What actual legislation did he write or support while he was in the senate?

[venable]

50. these are his views

take them or leave them.

I can't vouch for his senate record, and don't know the internal scene at the time, or if that was a major concern, or if actual tort reform was possible - I do remember that around 03 and 04 it was becoming hotly debated, but the point is he is not espousing views that trial lawyers would find attractive.


and that he is not involved in a quid pro quo situation with his backers.

[Cameron27]

52. venable, he's got something that trial lawyers find attractive

since they've provided the biggest proportion of donations to his campaign. btw, this whole thing was in response to your mocking someone for bringing up lawyers in the first place.

I'll look through his legislative record again to see if there's anything there that supports his views during the campaign.

[venable]

57. there was no mocking

you said the corporate lawyers would expect something, and I said they have no basis upon which to do so.

thanks for doing the research, you're probably much better at that than am i.

[Cameron27]

66. This was your post that I replied to:

"... and it's pointless to mention that lawyers (corporate or otherwise) have supported him.

really, do tell us what the point is.

what quid pro quo do a bunch of individual lawyers expect? none, and I suspect you know that.

does that stop you from posting this kind of stuff? not for a second."


Maybe condescending is a more accurate description. When any special interest group's donations make up the bulk of someone's campaign war chest, there's usually a reason. I'm not trying to diss you, but I just can't take your opinion as fact, and you haven't provided anything that backs up your "no basis" contention. I haven't had the time to do a search on this aspect of his voting record, but I'll will.

[JDPriestly]

64. The term, "trial lawyers" is a give-away that you don't really know what you are talking about.

There are two sides in a trial. Plaintiffs who bring lawsuits and defendants who, obviously, defendants. Both sides hire trial lawyers. Sometimes the plaintiff is a corporation. In fact, much of the litigation in the country is business versus business and concerns contracts and other business v. business disputes. Sometimes the plaintiff is a corporation suing an individual. This occurs for instance when a corporation tries to collect a loan from an individual debtor. That is also extremely common. There are lots of other grounds for which a corporation can sue an individual defendant such as libel or even fraud. It is not uncommon at all. Then there are lawsuits in which an individual plaintiff or a class or group of plaintiffs sue a corporation. These kinds of lawsuits involve a broad range of claims including work discrimination or wage recovery actions. Finally there are individuals who sue individuals such as in much of the personal injury litigation. A lot of medical malpractice is individual patient versus individual doctor as well as corporate hospital. Car accidents also give rise to individual versus individual cases although the individual defendant's insurance company may actually select and pay the defense attorney. Divorces also fall into this category.

In addition, you have transactional attorneys. They write the real estate contracts, advise corporations and individuals about taxes and real estate and business deals. They assist in setting up businesses, arrange buy-outs and take private companies public.

If you took all the lawyers in the U.S. and counted the number of hours they spend representing clients and figured out the percentages, you'd probably find the largest percentage of time is spent representing corporations.

[Cameron27]

70. I said trial lawyers, because that's the way it's been written up:

"Alabama’s trial lawyers bet on their presidential candidate in the first three months of the year, but other interest groups sat on the sidelines.

A Press-Register analysis of first-quarter Federal Election Commission filings by the 18 major-party presidential candidates — covering donations made between Jan. 1 and March 31 — found:

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, backed with money from trial lawyers, raised $314,902. Another also-ran in the national money primary also did better in Alabama than in the rest of the country: Arizona Sen. John McCain led the Republican field with $81,400.

Snip: In a state that has voted for Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan in 1980, Democratic candidates raised more than double what Republicans did. Two-thirds of Edwards’ money came from trial lawyers, but even without those contributions, Democrats would have an edge for the first quarter of the year.

http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/117723406859290.xml&coll=3&thispage=1

This is Alabama, but I can find more.

[JDPriestly]

78. Lawyers like Edwards because they recognize in him the

good qualities that lawyers have to have to succeed like -- working long, long hours; fighting for what you believe is right; being able to persuade; listening to and understanding opposing viewpoints; negotiating settlements; being honest with your client when you are losing; prioritizing and simplifying issues; knowing the difference between fact and theory; being able to debunk a lie, spot inconsistencies in evidence and articulate ideas clearly; showing your respect for others, even those who reject your ideas; finding a way to explain complex ideas to ordinary people; comforting a distraught client, etc., etc.

John Edwards was not born rich. He became rich competing in a field in which everyone is educated, ambitious, competitive and smart. Lawyers know just how hard it was for him to succeed at what he did. They know that he has proved himself. That is one of the reasons they are supporting him. Abraham Lincoln won the support of many people for the same reasons that Edwards has won the support of lawyers.

George W. Bush could not get into law school. He has no understanding or respect for the law or human rights. And the Bush administration has refused to uphold the law or the American Constitution. Of the candidates, John Edwards is the most likely to see to it that our basic rights and system of justice are restored. That is why lawyers are supporting him.

[venable]

92. best and truest answer yet as to why lawyers support Edwards

and it's not because he's going to butter their bread.

[JDPriestly]

128. He is not going to butter attorneys' bread.

Attorneys can do that without his help. He is likely to cost a lot of the attorneys money. Attorneys who can afford to give meaningful donations to politicians are probably going to see their taxes raised under Edwards, and they know it.

[Cameron27]

99. That's good, but it's really only your opinion

for the reason that this particular interest group has donated so much money to Edwards' campaign. Certainly some lawyers are honest with their clients and provide an honorable service for the money they're paid, but it's also true that many just milk the system for all they can get.

I'm sure that Edwards was a fine lawyer, and part of his success was that he only took cases that he felt had a high probability of winning. I'm not going to go through a review of all his cases, and it's clear that he made millions of dollars in a very competitive field, but that doesn't make him comparable to Abe Lincoln.

[venable]

124. he took cases that would have public policy implications

You write: I'm sure that Edwards was a fine lawyer, and part of his success was that he only took cases that he felt had a high probability of winning.



sure he didn't take cases he would lose, as that would do nobody any good. but the measure he used was whether the corporate malfeasance was such that their punishment would have beneficial consequences for the public - ie either through policy or through corporations behaving.

[Cameron27]

141. What were the consequences of those lawsuits?

I'm not being snarky, I just don't know. Besides suing the company, were any laws passed because of it? Did Edwards further this great cause with any legislation that he either wrote or promoted while he was a senator?

I know that one of the consequences of his lawsuits against OB/GYN's & hospitals, resulted in a dramatic increase in unnecessary fetal monitoring, and may have contributed to an increase in unnecessary C-sections. Apparently he contends that he was using the scientific evidence available at the time, but has he ever made any statement about this issue when the scientific evidence changed?

[venable]

143. right, he was using what science knew then.

I don't know if he has since repudiated anything, nor if he should, unless he unknowingly used bogus science, which was not the case.

as for public policy, I don't think it's that clearly drawn...the point he makes, in his book and in interviews with him then and later, is that he wanted to give voice to those who faced trauma as a result of corporate malfeasance, and they had to fight large teams of highly-paid corporate lawyers. He signed on to fight the corporate lawyers. If he could prove knowing neglect, this could be used by public policy types to further their cause, ie the cause of greater regulation of corporate behavior.

The founding fathers envisioned a battle between democracy and capitalistic over-reaching. You don't have to be a communist or an anarchist or a nut to think that corporate america does much damage to the public good in their pursuit of profit.

Edwards worked in that particular conflict, and still does, now as a public advocate rather than as a plaintiff's attorney.

As for legislation he drafted, I can only point to the Patient's Bill of Rights.

[ProudDad]

76. AFAIK, The operative word is MOST.

As in MOST of the lawsuits clogging up the courtrooms of our country are business vs. business...

[venable]

91. point is, Edwards is not in the sway of corporations

this argument is simply that Edwards is not raising money from a body of people or corporations that expect a quid pro quo.

[loudsue]

81. So do I ....I oppose ANY legislation limiting jury awards.

Under the new law, one of my best friend's mother had a doctor screw up her surgery ROYALLY, ruining her internal organs for life, and then tried to cover up what he did by lying to everyone, and trying to change the medical records. Because of the new law, after legal fees and court costs, my friend's mother got $5,000. If the republicans and corporate Dems hadn't shielded this asshole doctor, under the old rules, this woman would have won an appropriate sum.

I'm TOTALLY in favor of jury awards being just what the jury says, not what the corporate shills say.

:kick:

[Cameron27]

100. I don't disagree with you,

but not all jury awards are fair, some are frivolous and may end up costing the rest of us money in increased insurance rates, unnecessary testing, etc.

[loudsue]

127. That's already been debunked....it was right wing talking points

that they were using as propaganda to provide support for their corporate owners.

As it turned out after research, only 3% of jury awards were ever considered "frivolous". That's a pretty fucking low number. But to hear the rightwing media tell it, you'd think that 97% were frivolous, and only 3% were "reasonable".

Everything the republicans do is to help corporations, at the expense of the citizens of this country. And then the media ignores it, and helps them cover it up.

:kick:

[Cameron27]

142. I'd appreciate a link for that.

I'm not doubting your word, but I had no idea that the percentages were so low. I'd like to do some reading --- thanks.

[venable]

140. it's also a fact that actuarial studies (whatever, exactly, they are??) debunk this myth

they have shown that malpractice suits have zero impact on insurance premiums.

Premiums are tied to the stock market, and when an insurance company loses money in the market, they make up for it by jacking up premiums.

[Myrina]

9. Wooh!

While he's not my choice as a Presidential candidate, I think that Mr. Edwards would do a helluva job sitting high within the Gore-Feingold Cabinet: Labor Secretary, perhaps?

:)

[AikidoSoul]

26. I'm with you Myrina N/T

[stlsaxman]

86. Kucinich as Labor Sec... Edwards as Attorney General.. in a Gore-Feingold admin..

n/t

[Myrina]

97. ooooh, I never thought of him for AG ... PERFECT!!

:applause:

[annabanana]

104. I like the way you think!. . . .. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Uh... People In Predatory-Lending Hedge Funds Sound Shrill When They Throw Stones

I happen to strongly agree with Edwards' current incarnation. I'm just have no idea of which Edwards would turn up in the White House, if given the chance.

[cascadiance]

15. At least he's saying the right things...

Even if he's been "different" in the past. Many of the others don't have actions in the present or past to indicate that they'd do the right things to stop the corporatism.

I'm holding out for Al Gore, but he's my guy if Gore doesn't step into the mix, and/or Dennis Kucinich doesn't become an even better choice than he is already.

He's making a lot of commitments here, like getting rid of Guantanamo Bay prison his first day of office. I fully intend to hold him to those commitments, as we all should! If he doesn't, THAT is the time we start organizing a new party!

[NoFederales]

12. Hope this is as much a shot at the Media as it is against Democrat Corporatists. nt

NoFederales

[pingzing58]

13. Now if he would only get "accent reduction" therapy, I might support his candidacy!

[jsamuel]

16. snark?

that is kinda prejudice otherwise...

[Inspired]

27. True, at least his accent is real.

Unlike some of the accents I've heard other candidates fake.

[Clark2008]

114. Well, no, it's not.

He lays it on thick. I've lived near Seneca, SC and no one who was as educated as he spoke with that thick of an accent.

And, in his ads airing in Wisconsin in 2004, his accent was nearly non-existant. He purposely tries to sound like "the SOUTHERN candidate."

[Inspired]

130. Yeah, sure, whatever.

I've heard him speak in casual conversations. Several times. It isn't fake.

How many times have you heard him speak in casual conversations?

Try again.

[jgraz]

17. Please, put hillary in there as well

Ack! Ack Ack! Ack!

[venable]

32. Edwards accent doesn't change with his audience, unlike HRC nt

[Clark2008]

115. Yes, it does.

I wish I had a link to the ads he ran in Wisconsin and other states near there in 2004. He barely has an accent in those ads - I remember it clearly.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Couldn't agree more.

Of course it also rules out Edwards as a candidate, since he just told us not to vote for himself, but I will go with that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. How did he tell us not to vote for him?

I seem to have missed that.

[BenDavid]

19. This man is such an ass. He's got

to throw these Hail Mary's in hopes the MSM will pickup on it and then let them put their lies and spin. Edwards is mashugga.

I do thank you
Ben David

[rhett o rick]

25. And who do you support may i ask? nm

[Inspired]

28. You might want to pull your head out of yours.

He is speaking the truth.

[venable]

35. do you have anything to offer besides hate?

you have never once said anything of substance, in my experience

you simply come on here and tell us that Edwards is slime.

Please add something to the conversation other than the psychological disturbance that JE causes in you....

Really. I'm seriously asking you to say something, anything, other than 'edwards is slime' or your variation du jour on that.

Serious, sincere request.

[ChiciB1]

46. Check Out ANY Edwards Thread And THESE People Will Be There!

It's totally useless to even entertain their DISDAIN!! Let them "slime" all they want, it only makes me DISGUSTED with all this CRAP!!

I would say a lot more about what I suspect, but it's not worth my time!

[venable]

61. agree ChiciB1, it's not worth our time

I've recently discovered the virtues of the Ignore button - a beautiful thing.

It should not be used to filter legitimate arguments or criticism, but it can be used to filter immature yelping and sliming, such as what we hear from the group you and I both recognize.

[ChiciB1]

102. Actually I Have Never Used The Ignore Button... I Just Try To Ignore

them, although NOT quite always successful! But I make a good effort.

I'm solid with John Edwards and know in my heart that he is really a good person. I'm sure, as I've stated before that there are issues I may not completely warm up to regarding a few things, but overall I truly DO believe that he will be very good for America. He may not succeed in all his endeavors, but no PRESIDENT ever does!

And Elizabeth Edwards has my admiration and I can't think of a finer FIRST LADY!

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

20. Pot.Kettle.Black

[djjimz]

29. Yep!

:nopity:

[venable]

36. cute (a bit tired) phrase, and means nothing at all in this case.

really, do try to explain why you think this.

You are so far off-base it's ludicrous. you replace substance with tired phrases.

how is he corporate? have you read his policies? please do so, and tell us how he is the black pot. you can't do it.

[AtomicKitten]

72. actually I was being kind

I think Edwards should be careful about what comes out of his mouth. This is an election. Fact-checking ensues, charges of hypocrisy are raised, everybody is cranky, and, well, sometimes it's better to stand upwind from these kinds of political machinations.

[venable]

129. can you actually substantiate your objections?

rather than just recommend we stay upwind of this comment, can you say what is, in fact, the matter with what he said?

I'm all ears.

[venable]

139. still waiting for substantiation, any at all... nt

[bejammin075]

22. Corporate Dems: You got served.

Oh, it's on.

[burrowowl]

62. About time

if he is really going to buck Corporate American, then I will take back a former post wherein I said DK was the only one to go after Corporatists. However, to be against Corporatists, Edwards will eally have to be for Single-payer health care, like France, Germany, Sweden, etc., these countries do have private insurance, but like Aflac, you get paid your full salary instead of percentage while you are sick or injured, after you have worked a year.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. I like it when Edwards sounds like us. Reminds me of why I signed on with him.

Edwards listens to us. He feels what we feel. He's not trying to be above it all. He knows that unity and compromise is for the other guys to swallow after your principles have triumphed, not after you've said "pretty please" or already given away the store.

[creeksneakers2]

34. Edwards is talking trash like Nader

The idea that Democrats are in corporate pockets like the GOP is a Nader lie. Edwards is below Nader now in my book. Edwards is going this route because he can't make a dent with an honest campaign. Last I saw Edwards is at 11%. He'll only help drive Democratic votes away from the future nominee with his factually empty Nader propaganda.

[venable]

38. check out IA polls and tell me Nader was in that postion

by which I mean this is NOT Nader.

And Nader was right as often as he was wrong.

Did Edwards say the Dems are the same as Republicans? Show me.

He is sayng something a bit more complex and subtle.

[creeksneakers2]

44. I interpret this statement as equal

to saying Democrats are the same as Republicans. That was Ralph's core argument.

"We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other," Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards plans to declare today in what the Associated Press is calling his "toughest" attack yet on his rivals for the party's presidential nomination.

[venable]

47. no, he is saying let's replace them with NON corporate dems, which do exist.

as opposed to non corporate republicans, which don't exist.

[JDPriestly]

80. Union member Dems are not corporate Dems.

And Edwards stands with the Dems who are union members.

[Cameron27]

42. Taylor Marsh at Huffington agrees:

"Who said this?"

Wake up America. The White House is not for sale; the Lincoln bedroom is not for sale."

Republican Bob Dole said it in 1996.

"How about this:"

"I believe they have had moved that sign the buck stops here from the Oval Office desk to the buck stops here on the Lincoln Bedroom. And that's not good for the country."

"George W. Bush spewed this crap in 2000. As most everyone knows, the Lincoln Bedroom smear became a Republican standard against the Clintons."

snip: ... "There are plenty of ways to come at Clinton on the issues, especially Iraq. But if this is the Edwards re-launch, I hope it makes a turn into better territory. Because between Obama's "Bush-Cheney lite" and Edwards talking about "The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," I've got to say that these guys sound positively desperate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/edwards-jumps-the-shark-_b_61570.html

[venable]

49. check out the comments to Taylor Marsh's piece

they call her out on this...saying Edwards is right.

If you want to quote Taylor Marsh, check out her other stuff on Edwards, in which she basically says he's the one, the only one, who is looking out for real people.

[Cameron27]

51. I'm quoting Taylor Marsh because this is in response

to Edwards speech that's making the news. Since she already seems to be in his corner, I take this criticism even more seriously.

/spelling

[venable]

58. i understand, but I believe she has hit a funny off-note

the fact that rightwingers talked about the lincoln bedroom does not mean that the clintons did not 'sell' it.

the corrupt pigs (republicans complaining about the clintons) were making a point about the use of the Lincoln bedroom.

Edwards mistake, if there was one, was that his accurate criticism echoed some very unseemly people. but the accuracy remains.

it's similar to Michelle Obama complaining about 'keeping a house in order', and the perceived slight to HRC. The repub pigs said the same (with massive hypocrisy, it turns out) but that doesn't make Michele Obama a republican.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

69. so the way to deal with corporate power is to ignore it n your own party/

if it doesn't exist, tell me why hillary voted for the bankruptcy bill or why bill switched his NAFTA position once in office

[Cameron27]

101. Is that the same bankruptcy bill that Edwards voted for?

[creeksneakers2]

108. Maybe Hillary thought the first bankruptcy bill was OK

I'm OK with the idea that if somebody can afford to pay back part of what they owe they should be expected to do so. If somebody owed me money and could pay all or part of it back I wouldn't want a court to let them off the hook. Its not fair.

New bankruptcy exempts everybody under average income, only demands payments for three years, and takes into account the financial ability of the debtor.

I don't remember what Bill said about NAFTA before he was president but I remember that Bill was always a free trader.

Just because a politician does something that you disagree with that benefits a business interest doesn't mean that politician is owned by corporations. Hillary voted against lots of things corporations wanted too.

[yurbud]

39. smoking!

[defendandprotect]

53. I'm for Edwards and if this is what he's saying we have to have a VP who's also saying it -- !!!!

What about Feingold???

[Double T]

55. You can't be talking about 'THE' John Edwards the corporate democrat,........

are YOU?

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2005/10/10/daily27.html?jst=b_ln_hl

http://www.fortressinv.com/


It doesn't get any more corporate than private equity FORTRESS; think everyone around HERE needs a damn reality check!! All the damn front runners are 'corporate' as hell!

[jefferson_dem]

59. Really. Reads like some SNL skit or JibJab parody.

I can't believe so many are buying it.

[On the Road]

68. Sounds Like Al Gore's Gig with Metropolitan West Financial

[NYCGirl]

111. Metropolitan West does predatory lending? NT

[On the Road]

125. Fortress Does Predatory Lending?

Looks like they manage high-end funds.

[NYCGirl]

126. Uh, yeah...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/17/post_27.html

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1653938,00.html

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/08/17/subprime_edwards/

[Clark2008]

116. Bingo!

[1776Forever]

56. Take a look at these Hillary outsourcing to India links from U.S. newspapers!~

Hillary Clinton Personal Financial and Political Ties to India


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf

Would someone please ask her about this? I am still not decided on who I want to support but this really turns me toward the other candidates and I am a Florida delegate - Convince me Hillary you do really care about the middle class if you can! Fool me once - Fool me twice - Fool me - NOT!!!!!!!!!!

:argh:

[question everything]

60. I am curious of why you (and others) are looking for Al Gore

He was as "third way" ad the Clinton were. He supported NAFTA - remember his debate with Ross Perot's running mate?

Personally, I don't see what is to be gained by attacking "corporation" per se.

Most of us are employed by corporations. You can limit the impact of corporations, for example, in forcing them to bid on prices of drugs. And forcing them to offer more generous 401Ks, and levy high taxes for CEOs compensations that are higher than 40 times the average pay in their corporations. But to just bad mouth corporations is a sure way of losing, again.

[ProudDad]

77. "I don't see what is to be gained by attacking "corporation" per se"

"You can limit the impact of corporations" <-- ONLY with STRONG UNIONS.

Only when we join together and realize that there's a class war going on and the PEOPLE are losing.

Only when we reign in the corporations with STRONG LAWS and STRONG REGULATIONS and STRONG ENFORCEMENT of both.

As for "bad mouthing corporations", there are a HELL of a lot more of US -- folks who've been screwed over by the corporations -- as "them"...

Corporations are inherently evil, to oppose them is a natural and necessary thing to do:

http://www.thecorporation.com/

"THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

[bread_and_roses]

87. On target. (n/t)

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Interesting. nt.

[frog92969]

65. I should thank him

But I wont.
Seems like not enough people asking who owns these candidates that corporate media keeps throwing in our faces.
Wonder if there's a backfire in his future.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

67. I think Obama's only in this to siphon voted from Edwards

The Dlc wants to stop Edwards from helping the grassroots get control. I think they want the anti-Hillary vote split. Then he gets the v-p slot.

Do I have proof? No. Just a gut feeling.

[Divine Discontent]

82. I think so TOO!!!!

I think they want Obama and Edwards splitting the anti-Clinton vote from within our party, and I'd prefer JE, but if BO is the one to challenge her fine. Look, we've said it before, any Democratic candidate is better than their shining star, but there are candidates in our group which are a heck of a lot better than HRC, although she is polished, very good at debating, and ready for control - I just would rather have someone else...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

83. Ask yourself, who benefitted most from Obama's entry into the race?

And why do you think the corporate media was hyping him so hard in the fall of 2006?

[EVDebs]

71. Economic 'Royalists' FDR spoke about ! Corporations and GOPers

[Freeusfromthechurch]

73. I'm about to be an Edwards voter - he's getting closer by the day

[Triana]

75. LOVE IT! THAT's my man!! (n/t)

[lovuian]

79. Woohoo Edwards

I like it I like it

:woohoo:

Where have ya been Edwards

[Senator]

84. He Needs To Apologize for "Lincoln Bedroom" Fast

You do not pick up RNC cudgels and start swinging them around.

This is a huge error and he needs to correct it. It may already be too late.

----

[pioneer111]

98. Edwards has nothing to apologize for

Bush has invited many donors and corporate advisors to stay in the Lincoln bedroom.
The Clintons did too. Our government was for sale. I objected to the Republican constant assault on the Clintons.
But it doesn't mean that Bill didn't provide the ammunition.
Keep telling the truth, go Edwards. :kick:

[Senator]

135. This is just more "assault on the Clintons"

Which, by proxy, is another round of assault on Democrats in general.

It's never good for our side to parrot RNC talking points. There are better ways to fight "internal" battles.

The flying monkeys are already all over it -- damaging our brand.

Better that he start "telling the truth" about his failure to stand up against stolen elections. Or about the need for impeachment. His silent complicity there makes it unsurprising that he turns to beltway blather to attack fellow Dems.

---

[venable]

137. whoa there big fella...we can't say anything bad about the Clintons

or we are assaulting Democrats?

You can't be serious.

It is the very defense of traditional, fair-play, Democratic values that inspire the attacks on HRC.

And as far as fighting 'internal battles', the Clinton's dirty tricks and campaign of personal destruction (carefully chose phrase) are in full swing. They have already bought and giving marching orders to the 'internal' forces.

[Senator]

144. Not what I said. Reread the post.

It says some things are counterproductive.

If you have a specific, current "dirty trick" to attack, great. But blanket condemnations -- carefully chosen or not -- and putting words in someone else's mouth is what the neofascists do.

It should not be our playbooks.

---

[venable]

131. did their donors stay in the Lincoln Bedroom? If so, should they?

If they did stay there (they did), and they shouldn't (and they shouldn't), then what is wrong with pointing out that this is the old tit-for-tat back-scratching that the Edwards campaign opposes?

It's not an RNC cudgel, it's a people's cudgel, that just happened to be used (hypocritically) by the RW.

Edwards use of this episode is not hypocritical. He is not selling the White House. The Republicans do, and, in some measure at least, the Clinton's did.

[Senator]

134. Irrelevant

And I didn't say "hypocritical." See how you can get it wrong by not being careful?

It's never good for our side to parrot RNC talking points. There are better ways to fight "internal" battles.

The flying monkeys are already all over it -- damaging the "People's Party" brand.

---

[venable]

136. who claimed you said 'hypocritical'?

read the post more closely if you're such a devotee of getting it right...I introduced the term, not you.

i simply added that the two uses of the Lincoln bedroom fiasco were different - the republicans were hypocritical in their outrage, and Edwards isn't.

you think the fiasco is irrelevant, most Americans, including good Democrats, don't find it so.

My opinion is the the Clintons play very much like Republcans (Lincoln bedroom is but a minor example), and that is why so many Democrats loathe her candidacy.

And loathe is not too strong a word.

[deacon]

85. He's the go to guy. Go Johnny Go! n/t

[waiting for hope]

88. Man - I missed this last night...

My son had his Open House at school....


All I can say - this is Presidential.

Go, Johnny, GO!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :hi:

[JPZenger]

89. There are plenty of Dems who own corporations, including me

Dems can certainly be pro-business, while favoring carefully targeted necessary regulations.

Edwards needs to be careful about offending many loyal Democrats. I'm part owner of a corporation, which employs me. You can still be a businessperson, and a progressive.

[creeksneakers2]

113. I think the majority of Democrats

think attacking businesses without a justifiable reason harms the economy.

[slick8790]

117. That is a valid point.

But would you agree his is valid as well? I don't wanna acuse you of nitpicking or anything, but i think we all know that by "corporate democrats" he means elected officials willing to use their influence on behalf of corporations, against the interest of the country.

[SlingBlade]

93. HERE, HERE !

Thats what I want to hear from a democrat.

[mod mom]

94. End the corporate rule in our party! Glad to hear his populism.

[ultraist]

95. Power to the People!

:kick:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

96. He has the courage to talk about corporate control of our party, I hope he makes a top issue.

[EVDebs]

103. The Corporation movie synopsis. Pathological corporations ....

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

[tom_paine]

106. That's why the REAL Bushie attacks are going against Edwards

NOT Clinton.

The "faux attacks" on Hillary, couched as they are as being against "issues", etc., are not really attacks at all.

Because anyone who has been watchingthe politics of Imperial Amerika since 2000 know that issues have nothing to do with Loyal Bushie TRUE Attacks.

REAL Bushie attacks are against Purple Hearts, and haircuts. Phony attacks which center on issue positions are irrelevant in Bushworld, so we must understand that when the Bushies speak of the issues, something else is at work.

Like pumping up Hillary's populatrity with fake attacks while using the REAL attacks, those with foundation in Bushie Gestalt-based Propaganda, against Edwards' house, hair, and fortune.

It is working, as well all can see. It always works.

[creeksneakers2]

112. If they attacked Edwards all the time

and said nothing but nice things about Hillary, would that mean they wanted Edwards to win?

[tom_paine]

120. No.

You miss my point.

[polichick]

107. I'm with Edwards on this one...

The American people have been sold out over and over again by a government owned by big business ~ this is the kind of revolution we need in this country.

[Clark2008]

110. But he is one... geesch.

Does he think we can't read his Senate voting record?

[sailor65]

119. I was hoping...

that I wasn't the only one sitting here thinking that!

[Cameron27]

121. You're not alone, plenty of us are thinking the same thing.

[Auggie]

122. He's a distant third -- is this a move of desperation? Not that I don't approve

of it.

[Cameron27]

123. I'd say yes, but that's only my opinion.

[OHdem10]

132. Soken like a True Democrat

Edwards has nailed it!!!

Edwards consistently points out what a real Democrat stands for
He is doing a great service for the country. At least some
Americans are being given an opportunity to hear a clear
message.

[usregimechange]

133. kick!

[lpbk2713]

138. I found this too late to give it an *R* but at least I can give it a *K*.

WTG John!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :kick: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: