Do you know ANYTHING about John Edwards career as a lawyer???

[LSK]

How on earth can you question him if you know about his career as a lawyer???

I see post after post here about not trusting John Edwards to fight Corporations. How in the hell can anyone say that if you know about his past? He was not born in 1998 you know.

A proud product of public schools, John became the first person in his family to attend college. He worked his way through North Carolina State University where he graduated with high honors in 1974, and then earned a law degree with honors in 1977 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children just like the families he grew up with in Robbins. Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country.

http://johnedwards.com/about/john/

Before running for political office, John Edwards was a personal injury trial attorney, specializing in representing people who were alleged victims of corporate negligence and/or medical malpractice.

After law school, he clerked for a Federal judge and in 1978 became an associate at the Nashville law firm of Dearborn & Ewing, doing primarily trial work, defending a Nashville bank and other corporate clients. The Edwards family returned to North Carolina in 1981, settling in the capital of Raleigh where he joined the firm of Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove.<12>

Edwards' first notable case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. As a young associate, he got the assignment because it was considered a losing case; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.<13> In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.<12>

In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's settlement, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.<12> Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.<13>

After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. His fee, as is customary in "contingency" cases, was one-third of the settlement plus expenses. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"<12>

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.<12> The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl<14> who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured. In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."<15> The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.<13> The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the settlement was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the settlement was unprecedented and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment<12> that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.<12>

In December 2003, during his first presidential campaign, Edwards (with John Auchard) published Four Trials, a biographical book focusing on cases from his legal career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_edwards

I don't know why anyone doubts John Edwards when he talks about taking it to Corporations. I trust John Edwards to take on the Corporations as much as anyone.

[saracat]

1. John Edwards was also reputed by his peers to be the best trial attorney in America

and was directed the legal team representing Bill Clinton during the impeachment proceedings.

[iconocrastic]

63. I haven't seen the movie - does Cuba have government-sponsored health care?

[Prophet 451]

85. EVERY industrialised nation except the US does n/t

[iconocrastic]

107. A nonsequitur if there ever was one.

Sheesh

[dugggy]

115. All I know is he made tens of Millions of dollars by winning over juries

[Midlodemocrat]

2. He has a big house.

:hide:

[youthere]

3. and he pays too much for haircuts.

:yoiks:

[closeupready]

7. and really, isn't that all we need to know?

:D

[Hieronymus]

54. You don't want to know how much Hillary spends on her hair .. trust me.

[LittleClarkie]

129. All of it?

Oh, did I say that out loud?

[LSK]

4. and expensive hair

:P

[benny05]

11. BFD, they all do

George Soros helped form MoveOn.org and he has one too.

[Midlodemocrat]

18. Actually, no he didn't. He's just a big contributor.

http://www.moveon.org/about.html

Formed by two silicon valley entepreneurs.

[benny05]

20. Ok, he gave a few million

But he still has a big house. Do all people who live in big houses and are wealthy automatically disqualify them for caring about the poor or democracy? :shrug:

[Midlodemocrat]

25. I think you are missing the tone of the post and the responses.

We are poking fun at all the posters who can only argue the merits of his house or his lightbulb choices. We're not picking on Edwards.

[benny05]

26. Thanks for the clarification

And a very good day to you all!

To celebrate, I will link a post from JRE's blog, in which Cate Edwards is on the road in NH with her parents. Today's focus: health care.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/8/24/143557/900

[noahmijo]

90. YES in fact if your water source doesn't come from a lake that is infested with mosquitos

and when I say infested none of this sissy 100 eggs or so we're talking THOUSANDS and your home must be a straw hut that has been demolished by hurricane big bad wolf and you only utilized the services of Piggy #3 (Who belongs to the Local 103) to rebuild it each time and for your food source you eat raw cactus (NO FRUIT ALLOWED!!!)

If you do not abide by these stringent guidelines you are obviously out of touch with "The common folk"

Am I missing anything ??

Yes I am crazy this morning :silly: :crazy:

[Ken Burch]

52. You mean Soros doesn't shave his head and sleep in a lean-to?

:wow:

[Divine Discontent]

59. you just described me 5 years ago.... LOL n/t

[huskerlaw]

14. and the wrong kind of light bulbs!

The bastard!

:sarcasm:

[IndyOp]

29. ...and he's ruggedly handsome.

Oh, I meant "he's a pretty boy!"

[Hieronymus]

53. FDR lived in a big house, and did more to promote a middle class

anyone.:applause:

[Midlodemocrat]

55. Refer to post #25.

[FormerDittoHead]

67. ...and lays on the Southern accent a little too much at times...

I don't need to know anything about his past.

He ran in 2000 against the Bush-Rove Machine.

That's a bigger buzzsaw than anyone else is ever going to run into.

The only thing that todays corporate media can throw at him is smears and fag jokes.

Edwards has been vetted.

As it stands, I will vote for him in the primary, I will vote Democratic in the general.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

80. “The only thing that today’s corporate media can throw at him is smears and fag jokes”

That’s for now, if Edwards wins the primaries...they'll ALL talk about how he was recently a part-time Senior Advisor to a GLOBAL INVESTMENT FIRM...and how he didn’t just sign the IWR ---he co-sponsored it.

The biggest thing Edwards has going for him (besides his Kennedy good looks) is his “talk” about helping poor people (and yes, John could be swift-boated for his connections to the investment firm that foreclosed on Katrina victims)

...and not for nothing...when middleclass America hear the words “help the poor” they think about tax hikes.

We need to win in '08.

[meowomon]

87. He's not Laying it on

If you lived here you'd know that people really do talk like that here. I'm a proud southerner (not confederate, thank you very much!) and believe me, his accent is tame. Now Hillary puts on a fake accent, honey!

[FormerDittoHead]

105. You DO understand that I was joining in to the sarcastic "criticisms" listed above... right?

there was a thread last week and a subthread went long about his "fake" Southern accent.

If Edwards can carry the South, he can "y'all" all the way to the whitehouse!

I also agree re: Hillary's "accent"...

[Honeycombe8]

82. Yes, the size of his house doesn't matter. But....I think his judgment....

in building such a huge house on the eve of running for the presidency on the platform of representing the poor was poor.

In the end, it's all about judgment, for me.

Nice guy. Smart guy. Great wife. Good family. Good intentions. Lacking in experience AND judgment, though.

Obama - Judgment, but little experience.

Clinton - Experience, but little judgment.

That's the dilemma I'm in.

[Donnachaidh]

94. oh come ON please

He built the house he could afford for his FAMILY. I doubt seriously if any future run for the presidency was even IN the process of building the home he wanted for his family.

This *argument* is total bollocks. And if you think it isn't - then point out the presidential candidate on either side who has created a home for their family that meets the criteria you are using.

[Honeycombe8]

109. That's my opinion, like it or not. It's a mansion..not a house.

And yes, he has known for years that he would make another bid at the presidency. I don't begrudge him the house he can afford. I question the judgment in building/buying it NOT because he's running for President...but because his presidential candidacy is based primarily on helping the poor...the "two Americas" thing, and such.

It's sort of like a Republican caught using a prostitute, when he got elected on a platform of morality.

Or sort of like Gary Hart getting caught fooling around with Donna Rice on his yacht, in the middle of a run for Presidency. Not that he needed to be a puritan...but the poor judgment it showed excluded him from becoming President.

So whether Clinton has a mansion doesn't really matter. She's not running a candidacy on a "two Americas" proposition.

Poor judgment is what that shows. For me, it's all about judgment this time around.

[alteredstate]

110. I agree.

I think he picked a bad time to buy a freaking 28.000 square foot home. Every time he mentions the "two Americas" someone's going to point out that Edwards is firmly entrenched in the America of the wealthy.

[Totally Committed]

5. But, there are such glaring inconsistencies... I WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT HE'S SAYING!

But, he voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act.

He spoke at and attended Bilderberg in 2003.

He was a member of the DLC.

He ran as the VP on an all-DLC ticket.

He still doesn't support same-sex marriage.

I want to be able to trust what he is saying now. I like most of it very much. But, I'm old enough to know that NO ONE changes this dramatically without either being disingenuous (hence, the inability to trust him), or he's had a personal transformation I'd LOVE to read about or hear about. I have gone so far as to PM one or two Edwards supporters and beg them to tell me where to look for the answer to this, I have even begged on this open forum for someone/anyone to give me this story. It has to be amazing, but no one has been able to answer this.

Was there a personal epiphany that he had that made him do this 180-degree turn-around? If so, is there a story I can read, a video I can watch, or even a story you can tell me? If you don't want to post it here, PM me!

I am sincere, and would appreciate this very much.

TC

[LSK]

8. ...

But, he voted for the IWR and the Patriot Act.
- Yes and apologized. This was a time that everyone seems to forget. You were labeled a terrorist at that time if you didnt support Bush then. See Bill Moyers special from a few months ago if you need a reminder of that environment.

He spoke at and attended Bilderberg in 2003.
-I thought it was Spring 2004 and how do you know all serious candidates do not attend this???

He was a member of the DLC.
-Source? For how long?

He ran as the VP on an all-DLC ticket.
-Kerry was no longer a member of the DLC at that time. Kerry is easily one of the most Progressive members of the Senate right now.

He still doesn't support same-sex marriage.
-True, he has said that he battles with this and he also has said his personal beliefs should not interfere with this issue. Also Elizabeth is on board with this.

[Totally Committed]

16. I appreciated his apology for his votes on IWR and the Patriot Act.

But, he cast them, nonetheless, and that is an indication to me that he wasn't the blazing populist then that he wants us to believe he is now. That's all I was saying with that example. Just changing his mind on those two votes and saying so indicates a HUGE change in consciousness. HUGE.

Yes, it could have been 2004 (I thought it was 2003, though)that he went to Bilderberg. The date, again, doesn't matter because it's his very attendance at this gathering would indicate that his current pose as a populist man-of-the-people wasn't always his POV:

The Bilderberg Group

:graybox: The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg conference is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of business, media, and politics.

:graybox: The "Bilderberg" name comes from the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek near Arnhem in the Netherlands where the first meeting in 1954 took place. Although the conference is not officially regarded as a club of any sort, many members are regular attendees, and guests are often seen as belonging to a secretive Bilderberg Group.

:graybox: The original intention of the Bilderberg Group was to further the understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between powerful individuals. Each year, a "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum of 100 names. Invitations are extended only to residents of Europe and North America. The location of their annual meeting is not secret, but the public and press are strictly kept at distance by police force and private security guards. Although the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, it is not clear that such details are disclosed by the group itself. Also, the contents of the meetings are kept secret and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed. The group's stated justification for secrecy is that it enables people to speak freely without the need to carefully consider how every word might be interpreted by the mass media.

:graybox: Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America. Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger, as is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of British Petroleum. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss engineering company ABB. Former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary and former World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member, as is Roger Boothe, Jr. The group's current chairman is Etienne Davignon, the Belgian businessman and politician

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

All the "elites", "invitation-only", "secrecy", etc. does not indicate this is a poulist gathering, and he attended and key-noted (it was said) to great and uncharacteristic applause from the members.

DLC Membership List -- Dated 2007

Brian Baird Politician 7-Mar-1956 Congressman, Washington 3rd
Max Baucus Politician 11-Dec-1941 US Senator from Montana
Evan Bayh Politician 26-Dec-1955 US Senator from Indiana
Shelley Berkley Politician 20-Jan-1951 Congresswoman, Nevada 1st
John Breaux Politician 1-Mar-1944 US Senator from Louisiana, 1987-2005
Maria Cantwell Politician 13-Oct-1958 US Senator from Washington
Lois Capps Politician 10-Jan-1938 Congresswoman, California 23rd
Russ Carnahan Politician 10-Jul-1958 Congressman, Missouri 3rd
Thomas Carper Politician 23-Jan-1947 US Senator from Delaware
Ed Case Politician 27-Sep-1952 Congressman, Hawaii 2nd
Ben Chandler Politician 12-Sep-1959 Congressman, Kentucky 6th
Bill Clinton Head of State 19-Aug-1946 42nd US President, 1993-2001
Hillary Clinton First Lady 26-Oct-1947 US Senator from New York
Kent Conrad Politician 12-Mar-1948 US Senator from North Dakota
Bud Cramer Politician 22-Aug-1947 Congressman, Alabama 5th
Joseph Crowley Politician 16-Mar-1962 Congressman, New York 7th
Artur Davis Politician 9-Apr-1967 Congressman, Alabama 7th
Jim Davis Politician 11-Oct-1957 Congressman, Florida 11th
Susan Davis Politician 13-Apr-1944 Congresswoman, California 53rd
Cal Dooley Politician 11-Jan-1954 Congressman from California, 1991-2005
Byron Dorgan Politician 14-May-1942 US Senator from North Dakota
John Edwards Politician 10-Jun-1953 2004 Vice Presidential candidat
Rahm Emanuel Politician 29-Nov-1959 Congressman, Illinois 5th
Eliot Engel Politician 18-Feb-1947 Congressman, New York 17th
Bob Etheridge Politician 7-Aug-1941 Congressman, North Carolina 2nd
Dianne Feinstein Politician 22-Jun-1933 US Senator from California
Harold Ford Politician 11-May-1970 Congressman from Tennessee, 1997-07
Dick Gephardt Politician 31-Jan-1941 Congressman from Missouri, 1977-2005
Al Gore Politician 31-Mar-1948 US Vice President under Clinton
Bob Graham Politician 9-Nov-1936 US Senator from Florida
Jane Harman Politician 28-Jun-1945 Congresswoman, California 36th
Brian Higgins Politician 6-Oct-1959 Congressman, New York 27th
Rush Holt Politician 15-Oct-1948 Congressman, New Jersey 12th
Darlene Hooley Politician 4-Apr-1939 Congresswoman, Oregon 5th
Jay Inslee Politician 9-Feb-1951 Congressman, Washington 1st
Steve Israel Politician 30-May-1958 Congressman, New York 2nd
Tim Johnson Politician 28-Dec-1946 US Senator from South Dakota
Bob Kerrey Politician 27-Aug-1943 Governor and Senator from Nebraska
John Kerry Politician 11-Dec-1943 US Senator from Massachusetts
Ron Kind Politician 16-Mar-1963 Congressman, Wisconsin 3rd
Herb Kohl Politician 7-Feb-1935 US Senator from Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu Politician 23-Nov-1955 US Senator from Louisiana
Rick Larsen Politician 15-Jun-1965 Congressman, Washington 2nd
John Larson Politician 22-Jul-1948 Congressman, Connecticut 1st
Joseph Lieberman Politician 24-Feb-1942 US Senator from Connecticut
Blanche Lincoln Politician 30-Sep-1960 US Senator from Arkansas
Zoe Lofgren Politician 21-Dec-1947 Congresswoman, California 16th 1995-
Terry McAuliffe Politician 1957 Clinton's Chairman of the DNC
Carolyn McCarthy Politician 5-Jan-1944 Congresswoman, New York 4th
Mike McIntyre Politician 6-Aug-1956 Congressman, North Carolina 7th
Mack McLarty Government 1946 Clinton's Chief of Staff
Gregory Meeks Politician 25-Sep-1953 Congressman, New York 6th
Juanita Millender-McDonald Politician 7-Sep-1938 22-Apr-2007 Congresswoman from California, 1996-2007
Dennis Moore Politician 8-Nov-1945 Congressman, Kansas 3rd
Jim Moran Politician 16-May-1945 Congressman, Virginia 8th
Ben Nelson Politician 17-May-1941 US Senator from Nebraska
Bill Nelson Politician 29-Sep-1942 US Senator from Florida
Gavin Newsom Politician 10-Oct-1967 Mayor of San Francisco
Sam Nunn Politician 8-Sep-1938 US Senator from Georgia, 1972-97
David Price Politician 17-Aug-1940 Congressman, North Carolina 4th
Mark Pryor Politician 10-Jan-1963 US Senator from Arkansas
Chuck Robb Politician 26-Jun-1939 US Senator from Virginia, 1989-2001
Timothy J. Roemer Politician 30-Oct-1956 9-11 Commission member
Loretta Sanchez Politician 7-Jan-1960 Congresswoman, California 47th
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Politician 3-Dec-1970 Congresswoman, South Dakota
Adam Schiff Politician 22-Jun-1960 Congressman, California 29th
Allyson Schwartz Politician 3-Oct-1948 Congresswoman, Pennsylvania 13th
David Scott Politician 27-Jun-1946 Congressman, Georgia 13th
Adam Smith Politician 15-Jun-1965 Congressman, Washington 9th
Debbie Stabenow Politician 29-Apr-1950 US Senator from Michigan
John Tanner Politician 22-Sep-1944 Congressman, Tennessee 8th
Ellen Tauscher Politician 15-Nov-1951 Congresswoman, California 10th
Tom Udall Politician 18-May-1948 Congressman, New Mexico 3rd
Anthony A. Williams Politician 28-Jul-1951 Mayor of Washington, DC 1999-
David Wu Politician 8-Apr-1955 Congressman, Oregon 1st

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

The truth is I just want to know if there is a story to his personal epiphany, or if he's just "playing" us to get elected. I would be overjoyed to hear ANY of our Presidential candidates saying most of the things he is now. I just want to know where I can read what led to his transformation, or if all of you are just taking his word that he honestly feels this way now.

Just give me a link. Or PM with what you've heard, even. That's all I want.

Thanks!

TC


ETA: Hillary Clinton attended Bilderberg in 1997; Mark Warner attended in 2005; Diane Feinstein, Chuck Hagel, Evan Bayh, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Richarson attended in 1999, and Christopher Dodd attended the last three Bilderbergs. Every one of these politicians are either DLC or RNC.

[karynnj]

21. That list still includes Al Gore and many other people who are not still in office

It also seems to have no one who was just a governor - so several prominant DLCers are missing.

[Totally Committed]

23. I have a very complete list, but no link for it.

That list was posted here about a month or so ago, with the link, by LynneSin (I think?)

I wanted to be able to give a list with a link, and I didn't want to edit it in any way.

TC

[Totally Committed]

30. Here's the 2005 Complete List, as it appeared before it was removed from the site:

I have no link for it, because the link is no longer working...

Jim Aldinger, Council Member, Manhattan Beach CA
Patrice Arent, State Senator, UT
David Aronberg, State Senator, FL
Toni Atkins, City Councilmember, San Diego CA
Loranne Ausley, State Representative, FL
Som Baccam, School Board Member, Des Moines IA
Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Thurbert Baker, State Attorney General, GA
Brenda Barger, Mayor, Watertown, SD
Gonzalo Barrientos, State Senator, TX
Viola Baskerville, State Delegate, VA
Alan C. Bates, State Senator, OR
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Melissa Bean, United States Representative, IL
Ralph Becker, State Representative, UT
James Bennett, City Council, St. Petersberg FL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Ethan Berkowitz, House Democratic Leader, AK
Barbara Blanchard, County Legislator, Tompkins County NY
Patrica M. Blevins, State Senator, DE
Marty Block, Community College Trustee, San Diego CA
Alice Borodkin, State Representative, CO
Lisa Boscola, State Senator, PA
Betty Boyd, State Representative, CO
David Braddock, State Representative, OK
Daniel Brady, State Senator, OH
Zach Brandon, City Councilmember, Madison WI
Bob Brink, Delegate, VA
Matt Brown, Secretary of State, RI
Don Brown, Jr., City Councilman, Louisville, CO
Polly Bukta, State Representative, IA
Cruz M. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor, CA
Robert Butkin, State Treasurer, OK
Thomas Campbell, State Delegate, WV
Jane Campbell, Mayor, Cleveland OH
Roberto Canchola, Superintendent of Schools, Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Twanda Carlisle, Council Member, Pittsburgh PA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Adolfo Carrion, Borough President, Bronx NY
Terrance D. Carroll, State Representative, CO
Karen R. Carter, State Representative, LA
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Bill Cegelka, City Council Member, Lexington KY
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Ken Cheuvront, State Senator, AZ
Carol Chumney, Council Member, City of Memphis TN
Paul Clark, Town Supervisor, West Seneca NY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Martha Coakley, District Attorney, Middlesex County MA
Mark Cohen, State Representative, PA
Steve Cohn, City Councilmember, Sacramento CA
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, OH
Fran Coleman, State Representative, CO
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Christopher Coons, Council President, New Castle Co., DE
Roy A. Cooper III, Attorney General, NC
Lou Correa, Supervisor, Orange County CA
Cathy Cox, Secretary of State, GA
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
J. Joseph Curran, State Attorney General, MD
Lou D'Allesandro, State Senator, NH
Ruth Damsker, County Commissioner, Montgomery Co., PA
Swati Dandekar, State Representative, IA
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Ray Davis, Registrar, Stafford County VA
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Sergio De Leon, Constable, Tarrant County TX
Ryan Deckert, State Senator, OR
Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Jim Doyle, Governor, WI
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Joseph Dunn, State Senator, CA
Michael Easley, Governor, NC
Doug Echols, Mayor, Rock Hill SC
W.A. Drew Edmondson, State Attorney General, OK
John Edwards, Senator, NC
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Robert Faucheux, State Representative, LA
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
John Fernandez, Mayor, Bloomington IN
Barry R. Finegold, State Representative, MA
Eric Fingerhut, State Senator, OH
Joan Fitz-Gerald, State Senator, CO
Michael L. Fitzgerald, State Treasurer, IA
Jamie Fleet, City Councilman, Gettysburg PA
Elizabeth G. Flores, Mayor, Laredo, TX
Dean Florez, State Assemblymember, CA
Romanie Foege, State Representative, IA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Dan B. Frankel, State Representative, PA
Shirley Franklin, Mayor, Atlanta GA
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, IL
Douglas F. Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery Co., MD
Michael Garcia, State Representative, CO
Steven A. Geller, State Senator, FL
Allen Jay Gerson, Council Member, New York City NY
Gabrielle Giffords, State Senator, AZ
Glen D. Gilmore, Mayor, Hamilton NJ
Michael Golden, Borough Council Member, Jenkintown PA
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Phil Gordon, Mayor, Phoenix AZ
Ken Gordon, State Senator, CO
Jennifer Granholm, Governor, MI
Darlene Green, City Comptroller, St. Louis, MO
Ron L. Greenstein, State Representative, FL
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, PA
Wendy Greuel, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Daniel Grimes, City Council, Goshen IN
Peter C. Groff, State Representative, CO
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Ken Guin, Majority Leader, AL
Bob Hagedorn, State Senator, CO
Karen Hale, State Senator, UT
DeAnna Hanna, State Senator, CO
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Jeff Harris, State Representative, MO
Patrick Henry Hays, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR
Martin J. Heft, First Selectman, Chester CT
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, FL
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Thomas Hickner, County Executive, Bay County, MI
Brian Higgins, U.S. Representative, NY
Richard Hildreth, Mayor, Pacific WA
Debra Hilstrom, State Representative, MN
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Helen Holton, City Council Member, Baltimore, MD
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblymember, NY
Dave Hunt, State Representative, OR
Ross Hunter, State Representative, WA
Geri Huser, State Representative, IA
Daniel W. Hynes, State Comptroller, IL
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Thomas Irvin, Commissioner of Agriculture, GA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Michael Jackson, State Representative, LA
Gilda Z. Jacobs, State Senator, MI
Wendy Jaquet, State House Minority Leader, ID
Nicholas Jellins, Mayor Prom Tem, Menlo Park, CA
Evan Jenkins, State Senator, WV
Douglas Jennings Jr., House Democratic Leader, SC
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
Robin Johnson, Alderman, Monmouth IL
Donald Jones, Council Member, Jefferson Parish LA
Patty Judge, Secretary of Agriculture, IA
Charlie Justice, State Representative, FL
Tim Kaine, Lieutenant Governor, VA
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Lynn Kessler, State House Democratic Leader, WA
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Richard Kriseman, City Council Chairman, St. Petersburg, FL
Annie Kuether, State Representative, KS
Rosalind Kurita, State Senator, TN
Eric LaFleur, State Representative, LA
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Leah Landrum Taylor, Assistant Minority Leader, AZ
Patricia Lantz, State Representative, WA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
David Lindenmuth, Councilman, Woodstown Borough NJ
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone Co., ID
Alice Madden, State Representative, CO
Louis Magazzu, Freeholder, Cumberland County NJ
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, CT
Matthew Mangino, District Attorney, Lawrence Co., PA
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, PA
Steve Marchand, City Councilman, Portsmouth NH
Jack Markell, State Treasurer, DE
Lisa Tessier Marrache, State Representative, ME
Rosemary Marshall, State Representative, CO
Barbara Matthews, Assembly Member, Tracy CA
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IA
Kevin McCarthy, State Representative, IL
Kenneth McClintock, State Senator, PR
Bill McConico, State Representative, MI
Matt McCoy, State Senator, IA
Sharon McDonald, Commissioner of Revenue, Norfolk, VA
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Charlie Melancon, United States Representative, LA
Jules Mermelstein, Township Commissioner, Upper Dublin, PA
Dolores Mertz, State Representative, IA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jonathan Miller, State Treasurer, KY
Tom Miller, Attorney General, IA
Doug Milliken, Treasurer, Centennial CO
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, DE
Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., City Councilman, Baltimore, MD
Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS
Richard H. Moore, State Treasurer, NC
Richard Moore, State Senator, MA
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Karen Morgan, State Representative, UT
John Morrison, State Auditor, MT
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York City, NY
Keith Mulvihill, Commissioner, Mt. Lebanon PA
Charles A. Murphy, State Representative, MA
Pat Murphy, State Representative, IA
Ed Murray, State Representative, WA
Therese Murray, State Senator, MA
Janet Napolitano, Governor, AZ
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Gavin C. Newsom, Mayor, San Francisco CA
Michael Nutter, City Councilman, Philadelphia, PA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
Michael A. O'Pake, State Senator, PA
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
Alex Padilla, City Councilman, Los Angeles, CA
Alfred Park, State Representative, NM
Sally Pederson, Lieutenant Governor, IA
William Peduto, City Councilmember, Pittsburgh PA
David Pepper, City Council, Cincinnati OH
Beverly Perdue, Lieutenant Governor, NC
Eddie Perez, Mayor, Hartford CT
Scott Peters, City Councilman, San Diego, CA
Janet Petersen, State Representative, IA
Bart Peterson, Mayor, Indianapolis IN
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Jeffrey Plale, State Senator, WI
Tom Plant, State Representative, CO
Charles Potter, Council Member, Wilmington DE
Debra Powell, Mayor, East St. Louis, IL
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Brian Quirk, State Representative, IA
David Ragucci, Mayor, Everett, MA
Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive, WA
Stephen Reed, Mayor, Harrisburg, PA
Ed Rendell, Governor, PA
Ann H. Rest, State Senator, MN
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, CO
Graham Richard, Mayor, Fort Wayne, IN
John Richardson, State Representative, ME
Bill Richardson, Governor, NM
Joe Riley, Mayor, Charleston SC
Andrew Romanoff, State Representative,, CO
T.J. Rooney, State Representative, PA
Samuel Rosenberg, State Delegate, MD
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Sharon Sanders Brooks, State Representative, MO
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Jefferey Schoenberg, State Senator, IL
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
Timothy Scott, Council Member, Carlisle Borough PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor, KS
Eugene M. Sellers, Vermillion Parish Engineer, Lafayette, LA
James Shapiro, City Representative, Stamford, CT
Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, Burleson TX
Ron Sims, County Executive, King County, WA
Scott Slifka, Mayor, West Hartford CT
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Malcolm A. Smith, State Senator, NY
James Smith, House Democratic Leader, SC
Rod Smith, State Senator, FL
Vic Snyder, United States Representative, AR
Eleanor Sobel, State Representative, FL
Andrew Spano, County Executive, Westchester Co., NY
Carol Spielman, County Board Member, Lake County IL
Eliot Spitzer, State Attorney General, NY
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Greg Stanton, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Larry Stone, Assessor, Santa Clara County, CA
Peter Sullivan, State Representative, NH
Harvey D. Tallackson, State Senator, ND
Abel J. Tapia, State Representative, CO
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Charleta B. Tavares, City Council Member, Columbus, OH
Mark Taylor, Lieutenant Governor, GA
Michael L. Thurmond, State Labor Commissioner, GA
Lois Tochtrop, State Representative, CO
Charles F. Tooley, Mayor, Billings, MT
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
John Unger II, State Senator, WV
George Van Til, Surveyor, Lake County IN
Juan Vargas, State Assemblymember, CA
Jennifer Veiga, State Representative, CO
Val Vigil, State Representative, CO
Michael Villarreal, State Representative, TX
Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA
Peter Voros, Mayor, Pittsgrove Township NJ
Lewis J. Wallace, State Representative, CT
Mark Warner, Governor, VA
Steven Warnstadt, State Representative, IA
Jonathan Weinzapfel, State Representative, IN
Jack Weiss, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Peggy M. Welch, State Representative, IN
Kenneth Welch, County Commissioner, Pinnellas County FL
Steve Westly, State Controller, CA
Michael J. Wildes, Mayor, Englewood NJ
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC
Earnest Williams, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL
Suzanne Williams, State Representative, CO
Constance Williams, State Senator, PA
Sue Windels, State Senator, CO
Philip Wise, State Representative, IA
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR
Barbara Yamrick, Regional Tranportation District Director, Aurora CO
David Yassky, City Councilmember, Brooklyn NY
Caprice Young, President of the Board of LAUSD, Los Angeles CA


Just an aside: And, people don't think that the only "viable" presidential candidates are the ones with the DLC's corporate $$$ coming in? Look at all the "Top Tierers" on that list!

TC

[DemDogs]

128. Edwards was NEVER in the DLC

They tried to claim him, but he was not. Ask someone who is in Iowa or New Hampshire to ask him the question.

[LSK]

22. From what I understand about the meeting

I think it was in May, 2004 and if the conspiracy theories are true that they really control the world, then it seems reasonable that they would want to meet with a possible Vice President (not sure if Kerry chose him at that point), and Edwards would have probably been told to go there by Kerry if he wanted to be picked.

All we know is that he met with them. The details are not clearly known and I am sure there are people with an agenda who would want to smear Edwards with this meeting.

I do not judge John based on his tenure as a rookie Senator. I look at his whole career and I ask that others do the same.

I also look at the other candidates and whether they can win when choosing my favorite.

[Totally Committed]

24. You don't know how he went from a world-class corporatist to a roaring populist?

You just trust that that big a change is sincere? Holy sh*t. No offense, but I'm going to need to see some real proof, because people just don't change like that overnight.

TC

[LSK]

28. did you read the OP????

What makes you think he was a world-class corporatist besides some old DLC list???

[Totally Committed]

31. His attendance of the Bilderberg conferences is a bigger indication of that, than his former DLC

membership? I am just giving you the links and information you asked me for. All I want is the last piece to this puzzle. I am delighted if he has, indeed, seen the light, and given up his DLC/Bilderberg/Corporatist ways (did you read the edited in list of attendees at the bottom of my post? All of them are either DLC or RNC.) I would be grateful as all get-out if I could trust this "new Edwards" to be the real Edwards!

TC

[LSK]

34. heres a link for you

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251008

Read the whole thing please.

[Totally Committed]

39. "Your loose associations without any concrete details are meaningless..."?????

I just wrote the most detailed/longer than the average bear post in reply to your request for links, etc., and you can say that? Especially when all I'm asking for is anything that will help me understand his current transformation to populist man-of-the-people?

Let me just say this to ALL candidate supporters: Some of us are as yet uncommitted to any candidate, and the way you treat those of us with real, sincere questions about your candidate is sad. The answers you give and the tone in which you give them can either entice or insult, but most of you just insult away anyway. Your candidate does not deserve my vote just because you think he or she does. And, you would be serving him or her far better by being less combative and more informative.

I'll read your link all the way through, but I won't be back here or anywhere else trying to find a reason to possibly vote for a candidate whose supporters do nothing but fight with me because I have questions about his/her positions, past and present. Not everything is an attack. Not every question is an accusation. Sometimes and answer is all that's needed.

TC

[LSK]

41. I withdrew that line with the edit

Please read that whole speech. It is consistent with the John Edwards of today.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

83. Thank you for that.

It completely re-enforces my decision to vote for him in the primary.

"I think there are four things we should do.

First, we should eliminate tax shelters that serve little or no purpose but to provide a legal way for companies to hide their income. Too many people benefit from America's public investments and capital markets and then renounce their citizenship to avoid paying their fair share. That is a disgrace, and it certainly shouldn't be legal. Companies shouldn't be allowed to deposit their officers' salaries in offshore accounts, so their officers can avoid taxes. And American companies should not be allowed to set up virtual headquarters in foreign countries that are hardly more than mailboxes so they can hide profits earned in America.

Second, we should put an end to one of the most distasteful practices the tax code allows -- the deduction for life insurance that companies take out on their nonexecutive employees. Companies get billions of dollars in tax breaks by buying policies on thousands of secretaries and janitors who never see a dime of those benefits. Even if the company lays these folks off, they can maintain the policy, get a tax break for doing so, actually collect on the policy when the former employee dies, and get another tax break on top of that. The employees and their families often don't get a dime. The government should not be subsidizing companies to get tax breaks when their former secretaries die. It is economically pointless, it is morally perverse, and it should stop.

Third, we need to make sure that businesses and wealthy investors are held to the same standard as ordinary Americans when it comes to following our tax laws. Something is wrong when a poor working family is four times more likely to be audited than a corporation. Something is wrong when the White House is seeking to muzzle an IRS commissioner who has a simple warning: some fortunate but unscrupulous people are breaking our laws with virtual certainty they won't get caught. We can and we should save law-abiding citizens billions of dollars by requiring fair enforcement of our tax laws.

Finally, we need to take on the political obstacle course of corporate subsides. Washington isn't very good at this kind of thing, and that's why I think Senator McCain and Congressman Gephardt's proposal to establish a commission that will present a complete package for an up or down vote -- like the Base Closing Commission -- is a good idea."

[saracat]

47. Don't you think one might go to find out what they think? Geez. I would

go if I could.

[valerief]

37. They don't change. You know that already, though.

Growing up, I had a sister a year younger than me. We each got the same toys, except my dolls were brunette, hers blonde. My color was pink, hers blue. She used to massacre her toys. Mine were pristine, until she destroyed them. She grew up with charm of a Dick Cheney.

I know someone will always own me and lie to me. I just want those owners to treat me like I treated my dolls, not the way my sister treated hers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. What world class corporatist?

He's been fighting the corporations for decades. He was invited into the DLC, and after a few years of seeing what they are really about HE rejected THEM.

You don't have a leg to stand on, here.

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. "Roaring populist" is good! You've succumbed to the media's spin.

"Roaring elitist"... now that's bad.

You do understand that "populist" refers to the people generally, i.e. a pretty large majority, and not just the comfortably-off, don't you?

[hfojvt]

38. the links do not show that those are current members

Only that they have been. Including Gore, who is justifiably very popular here.

Attending the Bilderberg conference is something you do to further your career. It gives you connections to them, does not necessarily make you their puppet. I, myself, went to a leadership seminar put on by my Republican Congressman, hoping thereby to increase my influence with him and within my community.

My bottom line is that, regardless of how you feel about him, a vote for him is also a vote - FOR THE THINGS HE IS SAYING. The Democratic nominee has a mandate from the voters - to take his message to the nation. The elected President has a mandate from the voters - to put his message into legislation. The message is more important than the man, or it should be.

[Totally Committed]

40. I was "challenged" to prove that Edwards and Kerry were DLC when they ran in 2004.

I believe those lists show they were, and that's all those lists were meant to show.

This is an awful lot of work just to find out if Edwards will ever get my vote in the GE.

TC

[Divine Discontent]

61. hi

"just to find out if Edwards will ever get my vote in the GE." ---- so if he's the nom in the GE, and you don't fully believe he's turned around on some issues (despite being very helpful to the little guy in court battles his whole life), then you're saying you would consider voting for Mitt, Rudy, or Fred? Seriously?

[Totally Committed]

70. I would never vote for a Republican.

And, I won't vote for a Democrat who votes with them or like them, either. The Democratic Party has begun shoving real middle-of-the-road, mealy-mouthed, DINOs at us, knowing that if they are nominated, who are we gonna vote for? They think we're stuck voting for their goats whether we like it or not.

Up until now, I have been a good little Democratic Do-Bee. I voted for anyone with a (D) after their name on the ballot. But, 2004, 2006, and Katrina changed my mind of that being the proper way to vote. This time, the Democratic Party gives me a candidate I can vote for without major reservations, or I stay home. Period.

Please don't lecture me about this. Believe me, this is one of the most difficult decisions I've ever made, and I plan to do it, no matter who bullies me, criticizes me, lectures me, or belittles me for it.

One more thing: when people ask you Edwards supporters questions about his record or his positions, you need to come up with a better answer than "F*ck You". Some of us really need a reason to vote for him or any other candidate, and alienating us doesn't serve your candidate well. Don't be so defensive and combative, and be a little polite. It won't kill you, and it might win him a few votes in the balance.

TC

[Divine Discontent]

91. I understand your frustration with the politicians

and in telling me not to lecture you, I will tell you, please don't lecture me with this - "One more thing: when people ask you Edwards supporters questions about his record or his positions, you need to come up with a better answer than "F*ck You". Some of us really need a reason to vote for him or any other candidate"

I have, and would never tell anyone F U for asking about a candidate. You're just pissed at the political hacks like a lot of us, I know, but don't choose my post to take it out on. I asked you, in short, because of your own words, if what you were saying about not voting for a dem meant you'd consider then voting for a repub, that's all.

Sorry you feel that none of them who are in the lead seem to mix your cookie dough. I'd just say, out of the leaders in the race, Edwards seems the most likely to stand behind his word for fighting for the little guy since that's what his profession before this was.

God bless!

[Totally Committed]

95. Yours was not the "FU" post... I should have been clear about that.

I apologize that you took it that way. I was frustrated, not with your post, but a few upthread where the poster got hostile just because I was asking for answers to questions I have.

Again, please forgive the misunderstanding. It wasn't your post I was referring to in that paragraph of my post.

Peace to you, themartyred!

TC

[Divine Discontent]

104. thanks you too. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. But which of them have repudiated the DLC, turned their backs

on DLC support and financing, and ridded their campaigns of DLC strategists?

Gore did, and he was undermined by them in 2000. Dean did, and they gutted him in the 2004 primaries. Kerry did, and they helped with the swiftboat trashtalk. And Edwards did. And you can see how he's doing now against the DLC frontrunner.

I think it's safe to say he is free of the DLC taint.

[provis99]

60. Gore has never repudiated the DLC

looking at the list provided, I read it as a long who's who of whats wrong with the conservative wing of the party. Any list with Sam Nunn on it makes me cringe. I too like what Edwards is saying, but I am dubious he will actually carry out any of the things he advocates for. What specific plans does he have that will get passed in Congress that will help out poor folks? None that I've seen, only a lot of vague promises.

And I don't trust anything a Democratic politician says before they get elected to the office. Look at how the Democrats elected to majority status in 2006 screwed the nation over the war.

I'll only go on proven track records, and several of the minor candidates in the Democratic field are the ones with proven track records I like. They'd get my vote before the big three do.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

86. Here are some specific ideas to help the poor

http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Poverty-America-Restore-American/dp/1595581766



That book was a product of the work of the poverty research center he founded at UNC. Also see the poverty center's website: http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/poverty/default.aspx

Edwards wrote a book offering solutions to poverty. He could have wrote a self-serving book hyping himself. That would have served as a far better launching pad for a presidential run.

[loudsue]

76. Why do you need someone else to confirm this for you?

Do you believe your own eyes? That's what I'm relying on, because I, personally, watched Edwards grow. I worked on his Senate campaign in North Carolina, but then did not particularly like him as a Senator, nor was I supporting of him during the 2004 campaign. But while he was campaigning as VP with Kerry, I watched Edwards grow & change.

Rubbing elbows with all the millions of people he came in contact with during the campaign of 2004, and then watching Edwards recoil in horror as John Kerry threw in the towel the day after the election, and all of his EXTREMELY dedicated work with people since then, has shown me that Edwards began to really "get it" in the past 5 years.

Yes, as a young senator he ended up at a Bilderberg meeting. And I'm glad he did, because now he REALLY sees what the power brokers are up to. At the time he went to the meeting, I was on DU bitching with the best of 'em about how he was a DLC sell-out, and spewing hate and distrust his way.

But, ya know what? I've evolved, too, over the years. Only wingnuts are stagnant in what they learn. Once they've made a conclusion, you can't budge 'em when things change.

Everything in the world changes and evolves. Why can't John Edwards? Why can't you? Just believe your own eyes.

:kick:

[yardwork]

89. You are expressing frustration with the Democratic Party, not a candidate

I share your frustration - believe me. I would love to live in a country with European-style democratic socialism. However, we're here. It's going to take a long, long time to climb out of this pit that the corporations have created.

John Edwards is a good candidate. Either he or Kucinich has my vote in the primary. I will vote for the Democrat in the general.

I will complain and pester and push whoever wins to improve our system. With a Democrat in the White House I have a chance of being heard. If another Republican gets in the White House this time, we can kiss this country goodbye.

[Truth2Tell]

93. I'm hoping

that he had some epiphany also. I think that's the only hope we have with any of the "big three." Maybe it was triggered by some of the life and death issues his family has faced?? He talks now as if he has discarded the CFR, DLC political consensus and adopted a real populist outlook. I also have wondered about your exact question.

But we've been fooled before, and I fear....

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. "I WANT TO BELIEVE WHAT HE'S SAYING!"

Don't worry about it! There will be more than enough people voting for him. You shouldn't let the very tenuous negatives you cite countervail against the definite positives John brings to the party.

I dare say the politicians in the post WWII Labour Party in the UK were mostly motivated by personal ambition, but it did not prevent their producing a welfare state. To expect politicians, ESPECIALLY SUCCCESSFUL ONES, to be as disinterested as saints could scarcely be more unrealistic.

[DemDogs]

127. Here's your answer

He has apologized for his vote for the IWR.

At the request of Kerry, he spoke at and attended Bilderberg in 2003.

He was never a member of the DLC and repeatedly turned down invitations to join

He did not run as the VP on an all-DLC ticket. He wasn't DLC.

He still doesn't support same-sex marriage. Except for Kucinich and Gravel, he is the most progressive on GLBT issues: in favor of civil unions, in favor of eradication of discriminations under the law, for full repeal of DOMA.

He hasn't changed dramatically. The Edwards you hear today is different that cardboard cutout that is the portrayal some Dem opponents made of him in 2004. Except for the IWR vote, which he clearly wishes he could recant, there have been no major changes except that he doesn't have Bob Shrum with a editing machine between you and him. The Edwards you hear today is the same Edwards who fought corporate indifference in courtrooms. The Edwards you hear today is the same one who talked about his father was mistreated by a textile company that had fought the unions for years. You can trust him. Listen to his passion when he speaks. If he was a good enough actor to fake that, he would be President already.

[napi21]

6. I didn't know the specifics that you listed, but I did know his reputation

as a trial lawyer was GREAT! I want to know WHY I haven"t seen "THAT John Edwards" on TV? Two weeks ago, I was talking to an out of state friend about the different candidates, and when John's name came up, I said, "You know my only problem with Edwards? He's TOO NICE!"

Maybe I'm the oddball, but I want a STRONG WILLED President. Someone who I KNOW will fight for his positions and not instantly compromise just to kep peace! From his bio, that sounds like what Edwards really is, but damn it, every time I watch a televised stump speech or even in the debates, he's sooo soft spoken, and even when he raises his voice level, he still sounds too "nice"!

[LSK]

10. did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=49107&mesg_id=49107

[napi21]

12. Yes I did. It ISN'T what he says, it's the lack of passion I guess.

You know what I mean. Passion like you see from Job Biden or Chuck Schummer or Ted Kennedy.

I KNOW that kind of talk doesnt do much for a candidate who is trying to gain some support from the opposition Party, but IMO, that's the way you rally YOUR supporters to your side!

[LSK]

15. well you know what they do when a candidate shows passion

Mike Gravel is called a nutcase.

Dean scream.

Need I say more?

[Totally Committed]

32. Very good points, btw. (n/t)

TC

[H2O Man]

9. I agree.

Nominated.

[huskerlaw]

13. For anyone who cares to learn more

I recommend his book "Four Trials"

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Trials-John-Edwards/dp/0743272048/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7494879-0864420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187982929&sr=8-1

[AtomicKitten]

17. I'm famliar with his voting career in the Congress.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Maybe you can answer this question then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3471103&mesg_id=3474526


here is my question on the draft Iraq
Oil Law.

Passing the oil law was a benchmark in both of the recent supplemental bills. When Bush vetoed the first bill Edwards said we should keep sending the same bill back. With the benchmark?

By his silence does he support the draft oil law? The unions in Iraq have been trying to raise this issue both in Iraq and here, yet he has said nothing.

In case you do not know the unions in Iraq have gone on strike over this issue and other issues.

For me this is another example of saying that Iraq's oil should not be exploited in 2004 and remaining silent now when it counts.

Do you know why he is silent on this issue?

http://www.basraoilunion.org /

[LSK]

27. I googled and could not find anything on this

Have the others besides Kucinich said anything?

[slipslidingaway]

50. No other candidate and only a few in Congress have stepped

forward to address the issue. Now I see another person in Congress is now voicing their concern, see below.

And Edwards has remained silent and this question has been asked before on various threads and I have called his office before, no press release on this issue. If he wants to take on the big corporations and work for the poor and unions he can step up to the plate now.

Update, called his campaign office again. She said Edwards does not support the benchmark in the supplmental, when I asked why he remains silent, she said the question has not come up in a debate!

My reply was that his office is always issuing press releases and this is an ENORMOUS topic for the Iraqi people as this is THEIR FUTURE. I also said that I could personally care less about 'she devil' comments, who said what about whom etc. Most of those are just to keep the masses entertained :) while the important issues are ignored, like this one!

My final comment was that if Edwards really wants to take on corporations, help the poor, be a friend to labor he should address this within the next week or two.

Do Edwards' supporters not see the disconnect here??? Why do some consider legitimate questions and criticism a form bashing. Months later still no answer on this topic.

Thank you for at least acknowledging the question and sorry for the late reply as I had to run an errand.


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/18/sestak-oil-law/

"Sesktak Warns Iraqi Oil Law Contains ‘Undue Ability Of U.S. Oil Companies To Control Iraqi Profits’
Alternet’s Joshua Holland reported recently, “If passed, the Bush administration’s long-sought ‘hydrocarbons framework’ law would give Big Oil access to Iraq’s vast energy reserves on the most advantageous terms and with virtually no regulation.” The framework law proposes to hand over effective control of as much as 80 percent of the country’s oil wealth.

A recent poll showed that all Iraqi ethnic and sectarian groups across the political spectrum oppose the principles enshrined in the oil law, and 419 Iraqi oil experts, economists and intellectuals recently signed their names to a statement expressing grave concern over the bill. The head of the Iraqi Federation of Union Councils said recently, “If the Iraqi Parliament approves this law, we will resort to mutiny.”

While the Bush administration has prodded the Iraqi government to pass the oil-sharing agreement, few members of Congress have voiced alarms over the details in the current bill. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) recently told ThinkProgress that more attention needs to be paid to the oil legislation. “Who knows what’s in that,” he said. Sestak continued:

The indications from a draft of several months ago that the Kurds were using, is that…there is an undue ability of our oil companies to control the Iraqi profits by controlling the infrastructure and the wells that are there.

I mean they are going to get much more, if the draft is correct, of profits than we would under a normal oil sharing agreement, of these oil companies to a country like Saudi Arabia or others. Heaven forbid that at the end of this time, after all this, if we find out that there’s undue advantage given to our oil companies."


Update on Iraq Oil Law
http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3750



http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_07_19.shtml

"On July 16, Iraqis took to the streets of Basra in a demonstration organized by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions against the proposed law, which would place 2/3 of Iraqi oil under foreign control, granting 30-year contracts to US and UK energy corporations for 'development' of Iraq's oil resources.

"The oil law is nothing more than a scheme to allow the US and Britain to pillage Iraq's source of wealth," said TE Smith, black Vietnam War veteran and member of the DC Statehood Green Party. "The oil law benchmark confirms exactly what antiwar protesters have said all along -- that President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq were largely motivated by 'blood for oil.' Iraqis are right to fear that the oil law will mark a return to the days of colonial plunder by western nations."

The Bush Administration, with bipartisan support in Congress and the approval of most Democratic presidential candidates, is pressing the Iraqi Parliament to pass the oil law. The law would overturn Iraqi legislation passed in 1961 and 1973 to ensure that the Iraqi people enjoyed control over and profits from their own oil resources."

[depakid]

33. Actually- your post makes one wonder even more

For instance, why would he take a cushy job at a hedge fund the week before announcing a "two America's tour?"

Why does his doomed to fail health plan (in reality- it's Jacob Hacker's plan) throw money at the root of the problem- parasitic insurers?

:shrug:

Things like that don't make sense to people.

[Totally Committed]

35. That's all I'm trying to say!

I just want to know the truth. Maybe I'm just a distrustful old bag, and more power to all of you who can just make these leaps of faith, even after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and the pitiful Democratic Congress we've ended up with. I just can't anymore.

TC

[LSK]

36. his plan DOES NOT throw money at insurers, it puts them out of business

Third: New Health Care Markets. The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create
regional Health Care Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance
plans. At least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare. All plans will include
comprehensive benefits, including full mental health benefits. Families and businesses could choose to
supplement their coverage with additional benefits. The markets will be available to everyone who
does not get comparable insurance from their jobs or a public program and to employers that choose to
join rather than offer their own insurance plans. The benefits of Health Care Markets include:
• Freedom and Security: Health Care Markets will give participants a choice among affordable,
quality plans. Americans can keep Health Care Market plans when they change or lose their jobs,
start new businesses, or take time off for caregiving.
• Choice between Public and Private Insurers: Health Care Markets will offer a choice between
private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it.
Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution
will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve
toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.
• Promoting Affordable Care: Health Care Markets will negotiate low premiums through their
economies of scale so they can get a better deal than individuals and many businesses can get on
their own. Health Care Markets will also hold down administrative costs by reducing the need for
underwriting and marketing activities (two-thirds of private insurers’ overhead), centrally
collecting premiums, and exercising leadership to reduce costs on billing practices, claims
processing, and electronic medical records. Finally, they will be able to work with insurers to
adopt cost-effective approaches to health care like preventive care and to collect the data necessary
to drive quality improvement.
• Reducing Burdens for Businesses: By assuming the administrative role of negotiating benefit
plans with insurers and collecting premiums, Health Care Markets will minimize administrative
burdens for participating businesses and other employers. Businesses that opt into the markets will
only have to make financial contributions to the cost of covering their employees through markets,
similar to their role in Social Security and Medicare.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

The amount of DISINFORMATION on DU lately is STUNNING.

[depakid]

42. Edwards' "plan" doesn't address the major problems-

that are driving up health care costs and making our businesses less competitive.

And it hardly puts insurers out of business!

It's a sham if there ever was one.

TNR did a fairly concise and accurate review:

Edwards's method of achieving universal coverage is to establish what wonks call an "individual mandate"--a model for reform that has recently become trendy among health care economists on the center-left. (Yes, I just used the words "trendy" and "economists" in the same sentence.) Since getting a big push from the Washington-based New America Foundation a few years ago, individual mandate schemes have found advocates in former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (who passed such a plan for his state) and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who has proposed such a plan for his).

Not surprisingly, there are many parallels between those two and what Edwards has offered this week. As in those other schemes, under the Edwards plan, people would be required to buy insurance. If they can get it through their employers, great--then they can keep getting coverage that way. But, for those who can't, Edwards would offer an alternative place to buy insurance--something he calls a "Health Market." It's a new name for what's really an old, but important idea: coming up with some way to let people buying insurance on their own get the same low rates that people with employer-sponsored, group insurance get. Insurers who wish to sell coverage through these Health Markets would have to abide by certain standards: They'd have to offer the same minimum benefits as the local Blue Cross-Blue Shield plan, and they couldn't discriminate based upon preexisting medical condition.

Like Romney and Schwarzenegger, Edwards has also preached the need for shared responsibility: Just as he would demand that individuals get insurance for themselves, paying what they can for it, he'd demand that employers pay part of the cost--either by offering workers coverage directly or contributing into a pool of money.

...........

Supporters assert that this is some "incremental" way towards actual universal care. Unfortunately, they're being duped.

One big concern is the possibility of adverse selection--the idea that the public program would continually attract sicker beneficiaries, thereby tilting its beneficiary pool in a way that forces it to jack up premiums, thereby scaring away healthier people, further driving up the premiums. If that sort of cycle begins, the public program would eventually lose most of its beneficiaries--not because it was deficient but because, in effect, it was too good. Edwards's plan theoretically has protections against this: Regulation of private insurers would, supposedly, keep them from selecting out the best risks. But that's easier said than done and it's an open question whether the protections would work.

Another big question mark is cost. Because the Edwards plan leaves the employer system fundamentally intact, at least for a while, it's bound to leave in place a lot of the inefficiencies that go with it. And, no matter how much government makes up for that with smart disease prevention and technology review, it probably means living with higher costs than a more streamlined system--i.e., a wholesale reinvention--might produce.

Full article: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070205&s=cohn020607

[LSK]

43. ok, dont read his plan

Choice between Public and Private Insurers: Health Care Markets will offer a choice between
private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it.
Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution
will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve
toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.

:shrug:

[depakid]

48. You don't get it.

Unfortunately, some of the concepts in health economics (and the insurance industry) aren't obvious on their face- you have to either have studied them or seen them in action.

Adverse selection (among other things) will inevitably doom this rosy little scenario.

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. Don't confuse Edwards' querulous "doubters" with facts. They form their

own facts, thank you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. I don't know. Maybe he wanted to get on the inside and see how

they really work, after hearing tales of the problems with them. Maybe, being a good lawyer, he wanted to do a little research so he could actually know what he's talking about.

If he is the evil money grabber, why would he take that position, and then leave it so quickly?

Maybe he doesn't automatically believe that capitalism is evil, but upon getting to know the business decided he didn't really belong there.

As for health-care, it's ultimate result is essentially the same as DK's plan for single-payer; the only difference is a transition period that keeps the insurance industry in the loop, and not immediatly destroying a few hundred thousand jobs. I think that's called a 'moderate' position (not to be confused with the so-called moderates that want to hand it all over to the insurance industry and call it moderate because it agrees with the republicans).

[ChiciB1]

44. Thanks LSK... AND Here We Go Again!! There Are Times When Some

of the stuff I read posted by "some" here at DU, that Edwards is ACTUALLY a Repuke!

Oh well, Johnny... I'm still here!!!

[cui bono]

49. Yep. And that's why the Rovian tactic is to attack him for being a trial lawyer.

Rove always goes for the strengths.

[WTF cubed]

51. I learned all this four years ago!

And that's why I'm supporting him again!

[usregimechange]

56. kick

[The Count]

57. I know he was a bullshitter back then too - shades of Bill Frist/Terry Schiaffo

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1188187200&en=35c7aea36e6bc6f4&ei=5070
n 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

sounds to me like his recent "I've struggled with my vote for IWR" - when we know full well - it was the bill he had sponsored, and a year later he was telling Tweety that if POTUS at that point, he's attack Iraq himself!

[rucky]

62. John Edwards can talk to the dead.

I saw his show a few times.

[The Count]

77. They dedicated a South Park episode to him too!

But truly, for a thread about his legal career, nobody seems to pay attention to this article/interview about the subject matter...I guess only gushing is allowed.:shrug:

[yardwork]

88. Nonsense. I've been in the healthcare field for more than 20 years.

There are times when medical malpractice lawsuits are absolutely justified. Most doctors are wonderful, but there are a few out there who kill people. Literally. Most of the time nobody is willing to take them on. I know about cases that would curl your hair.

If you knew the facts of this and other cases that John Edwards argued, you wouldn't make such a silly comparison to Bill Frist, who truly is one of the bad guys.

[The Count]

113. Pretending to speak for the dead/comatose to achieve one's agenda - is what

they have in common. Let's face it, this little circus was put on for a fat fee, therefore it's no less crass than Frist's pathetic show.

[ColonelTom]

120. Tucker Carlson? Is that you?

Whether you know it or not, you're parroting Republican talking points from the '04 campaign.

Medical malpractice cases are almost always taken on a contingency basis. The attorney fronts the cost of the case, including hiring all the experts, staff, court costs, etc. The fee is substantial because the attorney bears the risk, if he loses, of making nothing on the case. Lower the contingency fees, and many cases won't be taken by attorneys, preventing individuals from having good representation and thus meaningful access to the court system.

You know, Dick Cheney's a big fan of tort reform too. That ought to give you pause about your position.

[The Count]

125. Not parotting anything. This is about his personal actions, not tarnishing

an entire profession. And it came about as said practice was brought up as a shining proof of some sort of virtue.

[saracat]

100. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this.I think this is a brilliant and hearfelt statement

Haven't any of you actually felt someone speaking to you? Felt, not heard. Inspiring you to say the right things? If not I am sorry.You are poorer in spirit for it.This is not about channeling anyone.This is about empthey and it is obvious that those that do not understand this comment lack that quality.Fortunately the jury did not.

[The Count]

112. No, I tend to use my own brains - whether addressing a jury, a judge or posting

in a forum on the internet. I've seen lots of snake oil peddlers like this one in my practice - it's usually for the future clients that they put on the show - the jurors are rarely THAT gullible. But yeah, it's "rich in spirit" circus like this that gave legal practice the dismal name it has, giving professionals a really hard time.
But if you have other people dead or alive speaking through you - say :hi: from me!

[saracat]

114. So Now you attack his juries? Right every case Edwards won it was

because he has "stupid" "gullible" juries.That is what you are saying. Because, if you remember, Edwards WON that case and the jury did believe him.It certainly sounds like you have some jealousy issues.

[The Count]

116. Again with the jealousy from you guys!

I have no idea how THAT case ended, or the facts. Just saying these shennanigans do not usually play too well with juries. In my experience.
Still didn't tell me who's speaking through you....
And no, I wouldn't like to see a snake oil salesman looking back at me in the mirror. My cases - in front of judges usually, and did just fine, just presenting the facts.
This is the umpteenth time you Edwards' bots accused me of jealousy - the first one being my secret desire of cutting down 50,000 trees to live in the sticks somewhere...
I know you think Edwards is the center of the Universe and the source of everything , but, some of us are perfectly happy being ourselves. I wouldn't even trade places with someone I like/admire - let alone someone like this guy!

[saracat]

119. The entire world knows how that case ended I believe it was one if not the largest award in NC h

He voted one of the best lawyers in America by the Bar Assoc. I would guess "your experience" with these so called "shenanigans" doesn't count for much! And your cases, in front of judges, you say? Great, you managed to convince one person. Edwards convinced a jury.And he convinced many juries.I guess they all must have been stupid whereas you only appeared before super intelligent judges. Sheesh.

[The Count]

122. The entire world? My, my, my - what a small world yours is!

And your personal attacks against me won't make the dead baby impersonation any less pathetic. Already I saw 3 defenses to this: "Lawyer arguments - not political speech", "Spiritual outburst" "The center of the world"
Truth is, in whatever corner of your candidate life you look, you find deceit and posturing.

[saracat]

123. The case outcome was in the NY Times link YOU provided! How small is your world that it doesn't

include reading your own links?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31E...


"The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The Count]

124. A successful con is still a con - still dishonest and crass

I had read the article back in 2004 and only remembered the blood curling theatricals - which I posted. A few other things have happened in my world beyond that.
As I said, all the personal attacks on me will not make this swill smell any better - your candidate is a snake oil salesman.

[saracat]

126. Not so.And that is certainly not the judgement of his clients.

They campaigned for him.And his opposition atoorneys describe him as "one of the most honest lawyers they knew".So stop with the slime.And your "personal attacks" on Edwards do not do anything to make you sound credible.

[ColonelTom]

103. A closing argument, not a political speech. HE WAS HER LAWYER!!

From the North Carolina State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct:

As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system.

Edwards was doing his job - and doing it pretty damn well, thank you very much. Get off your high horse already.

[The Count]

117. I didn't bring his legal career as reinforcement for his character. You guys did!

You purported to enhance your boy's image - "integrity" of all things - by bringing his actions as a lawyer. In other words, you opened the line of questioning. I added some facts - now you get all defensive. :shrug:

[nam78_two]

58. K&R.nt

[Stand and Fight]

64. Amazing how people fail to actually research the candidate, but...

They're all about criticizing said candidate as if they're an expert on them. Laughable -- at best.

[saltpoint]

65. In the broad landscape, please give me John Edwards' model of the U.S. justice

system and not Judge Scalia's. Please. I think a sharp distinction can be made there, and that we are the ones to make it.

Under the same broad umbrella, there were people with little money and even less clout who triumphed under Edwards' skill set as an attorney. Which is a matter of essence, since the point of that broad umbrella is to protect the right to justice of those with little money and less clout. It's both a matter of essence, and the nature of that essence, and Edwards is using the Robert Kennedy model for U.S. justice. I trust that model completely.

I'll take a public-directed trial attorney over the Bush faith-based justice model any day of the week.

Hurray for John Edwards.

[FormerDittoHead]

66. deleted - wrong thread s/b in upper thread... sorry n/t

[Triana]

68. I DO! And that's why I support him! (n/t)

[Chalco]

69. I have some direct info.

A relative of mine worked on a few cases with Edwards as an expert witness. My relative is extremely honest and will only work with lawyers who are not "ambulance chasers" and will only say the truth about what he sees. My relative said that Edwards was the most honest lawyer he'd ever worked with, that Edwards would not take a case and go after someone for damages unless there was clear evidence of fault. My relative who is a staunch Repug believes in Edwards.

[Inspired]

72. That is what I've always heard too.

Don't mind the people who claim to hate Ann Coulter and then charge back with the very same words she uses....that they claim to hate.

I call them hypocrites.

[saltpoint]

73. I've heard the same from a close assiociate in the NC state legal system

and have no reason to doubt it.

Edwards is the real deal.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. He Was Making A Fortune To Sue Corporations

He seems to do whatever makes a lot of money for him.

Coincidence, no doubt.

[Blackhatjack]

84. Shows your ignorance of how the legal system works....

Every time Edwards took a personal injury case he was taking a chance he would not be paid. Fees are contingent on winning.

There was a lot more guaranteed money in the corporate area, and he would not have to work as hard to get it.

He helped change the law in NC by the cases he took, all for the better.

But if money is your qualifying characteristic for our Democratic Nominee, I guess you overlooked some of the other candidates.

At least Edwards made all his money through his own efforts, and he made the world a better place in doing it.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. My Point Is He's No Ralph Nader - It's Always About Money For Edwards

Why else would he shack up with a predatory-lending hedge fund?

[saracat]

101. You are right he is no Nader.Nader ran on ego alone and didn't give a damn if he destroyed the

nation to make his point.He was so "proud" he taught the Democrats a lesson.Ralph Nader is egocentric slime. John Edwards is not.

[LSK]

106. lets see, he CONSULTED with the hedge fund...

Maybe to learn about the industry...

Maybe to change the industry...

Maybe to see how to get Wall Street to actually care about the poor and middle class...

There are lots of reasons to work with a hedge fund, but in the absense of FACTS you assume the worse, in spite of knowing about Edwards past. That is disgusting.

By the way, what do you think of Al Gores hedge fund?

[NYCGirl]

111. Which hedge fund is Al Gore involved in? NT

[The Count]

118. Then why didn't he return the money from the subprime loans?

The ones he found out in May but still benefited from in August and just promised to sell rather than return? To those poor he's been self-proclaiming himself a representative?

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. Serendipity is a particularly wonderful thing when it benefits everyone.

Anyway, doesn't your joy at the thought of those corporations being sued, at their having to pay back to Joe Public some of their ill-gotten loot, trump your negative emotions arising from your doubts about the etiology of his philanthropy? His ambition is to become a good President of the US for all the people, not to satisfy the etiological quibbles of Philosophy students.

[Blackhatjack]

74. IF you want to know about Edwards' resolve in facing off with corporations, ask opposing counsel....

I have practiced in Raleigh since the early '80s and am very familiar with Edwards' practice and reputation.

Opposing counsel will tell you they respect Edwards' and his abilities and resolve.

Edwards out worked each one of them with far less resources at his disposal.

Edwards' settled numerous cases without going to trial because the opposing counsel advised their clients to settle rather than go to trial because Edwards was always brutally honest about the merits of his cases.

Corporations know about Edwards and know he cannot be bought. That scares them.

It also scares them that Edwards has been through opposition research and he has no skeletons in the closet.

[saltpoint]

75. Jesus, this is a great post. Thank you.

All good points, instructive, pertinent, and context-shifting.

I'd hire you any day, counselor.

[DemDogs]

130. I've heard the same thing

He outworked every other lawyer. He learned medicine to cross-examine doctors. He learned about insurance accounting to skewer them. He bankrolled the lawsuits even in areas where he had to make new law and then win the case because he believed someone had gotten mistreated by insurance companies or corporations. Then he did change the law and win the case.

We won't get too many chances in our voting careers to vote for a fighter who fights with everything he has and consistently wins. Edwards is the one.

[surfermaw]

79. On the day of the trial for the little girl---faulty pump

I understand ever seat in the court was taken by other lawyers waiting to see how John handled the case.

[Blackhatjack]

81. whenever John Edwards was making a closing argument, the courtroom was always full...n/t

[Not Sure]

92. I agree

"I don't know why anyone doubts John Edwards when he talks about taking it to Corporations. I trust John Edwards to take on the Corporations as much as anyone."


I agree, although I think Kucinich could be trusted to take them on, too, assuming he can become a more powerful candidate. At this point, it might take someone like Edwards to get the ball rolling the other direction for a guy like Kucinich to break through the corporate controlled media machine. I think that's the real issue underlying all the other issues (taking on the corporations). I don't trust Clinton on that issue one bit.

[Blackhatjack]

108. Edwards is going to open a lot of doors for other Dems when he is President...

I would love to see Kucinich get the support needed from the White House to do some really heavy lifting for all of us.

An Edwards Presidency would be filled with lots of Democrats who will change things for the better. If Kucinich cannot be President, the next best thing for him is for Edwards to be President.

[Greyhound]

121. Thanks for posting this, I was aware of most of it but the trucking company was news to me.

Of the top 3, I like him the most. It is astonishing how many people don't learn much of anything about a candidate, yet still develop very strong opinions about them.