What Edwards Has That Kerry Doesn't: (opinion column)

[papau]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_ferguson&sid=af.mQBESqLf8

What Edwards Has That Kerry Doesn't: By Andrew Ferguson

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- With the March 2 presidential primaries in 10 states looming over the political landscape like the Big Kahuna, Democrats might appreciate a quick guide to the differences between their two remaining serious candidates, John Kerry and John Edwards.

Both are faithful Democrats, both wealthy, handsome and well- tailored. As senators, both voted to authorize the Iraq war, favor keeping the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and advocate ambitious but incremental reform of the nation's health-care system. <snip>

...not that Kerry talks too much -- all politicians talk too much -- but that so much of his talk is undisciplined, self-referential and pompously unappealing. Here he stands in sharp contrast to Edwards, who is by far the more disciplined political performer of the two --and, though Democrats may be reluctant to admit it, the better candidate, too. <snip>

Edwards...honed his skills during 25 years as a trial lawyer -- pacing courtrooms, pruning arguments, trying to keep juries awake. His stump speech, repeated as often as six times a day for more than a year, is buffed till it glows. In five minutes he can cover more issues, and push more hot buttons, than Kerry can handle in half an hour.

Republicans like to complain that Democrats wage ``class warfare.'' They mean the phrase metaphorically, but with Edwards they get the real thing. ``I believe,'' he says in his stump speech, ``that the son of a millworker can go toe-to-toe with the son of a president.''
<snip>

In November, voters will vote for the candidate who has withstood six months of pitiless exposure, including a series of debates with President George W. Bush, and survived with his personal appeal intact. Democrats should ask: Is Edwards more likely than Kerry to wear well? That's one more ``yes or no question'' that John Kerry might have trouble answering.

Andrew Ferguson in Washington at [e-mail].

[SoFlaJets]

1. what he has is

the SCLM wants him as our nominee because the Bush cabal thinks they have a better chance at stigmatizing a"trial lawyer"better than the can a WAR HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!bwah screw them Go JFK2

[Bombtrack]

3. Yeah, as if being able to say "who knew Ted Kennedy was the conservative

senator from Massachusetts" doesn't have a stigma. As if Marrying a couple of woman worth more than some small countries wouldn't have a stigma.

As if constantly bringing up Vietnam because without it you're the cookie cutter perfection of what a republican wants to face, and it being completly obvious when you are exploiting it shamelessy doesn't have a stigma

[Skwmom]

13. Personal injury attorney

If the Republicans succeed in making Edwards the nominee, they won't be calling him a trial lawyer.

[atre]

37. We need a debate on the issue anyway

It would be great if people were forced to confront their own bigotry.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Candidates Are Speech-makers, Presidents Are Leaders

Sorry. No sale.

[Bombtrack]

4. And becoming president requires being a candidate

And Kerry is has always been the top tier candidate the GOP wanted to face most after Dean

[MsUnderstood]

6. speaking on yesterdays response to the chimp

Kerry started with BUSH IS WRONG.

Edwards started with GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG.

I go for the one that points the finger at the president, not the people.

[Bombtrack]

8. That is complete and utter bullshit

Kerry and Edwards are both for states rights on gay marriage civil unions, against the constitutional amendment, and apposed personally to Gay Marriage. They're both right on the first 2, and wrong on the last, at least as far as I'm personallly concerned

Kerry just tries to be everything any audience want him to be, and his inconsistency and rhetorical-only pandering is obvious and shameless, and obviously, to alot of democrats, effective

[MsUnderstood]

27. Edwards reminded me of Bush

Before bush took a stand against gay marriage with this amendment, he was more mellow with "Well, shucks we are all sinners."

The first thing that comes out of Edwards mouth is that "homosexuals are wrong wanting equal rights".

Yea both kerry and edwards have the same ideas, but the expression of the ideas is what hits home. Edwards needs to think about all of the people that can vote for him, not just the ones highlighted by the exit polls and surveys.

As a homosexual, I don't want to vote for a man who puts my wrong above the wrong of the law. Edwards did that.

[Care Bear]

5. I believe the DNC

picked Kerry at the beginning, gave us some entertainment, and are now annointing him.

However, he has no appeal for independents and I am afraid he is going to put Bush back in the WH.

Edwards DOES appeal to independents as well as many non-fundie repukes who have lost their jobs along with democrats like me.

The DNC has sealed our fate once again. I only hope we live through the next 4 years.

Please don't flame me. It's only my belief. I mean no insult to anyone; just please remember this in November. Thanks.

[Bombtrack]

7. You're exactly right

Kerry has no strategy for winning the general election other than hoping to god that he has as much appeal to people in all the blue states as Gore and more in at least 9 EV's worth of state more than Gore. He has no margin for error, no hope of making Bush work hard enough for socially right-leaning states, particularly in the south, that he runs his campaign in such a way that he has to excite social conservatives sufficiently, and therefor turn off moderates everywhere.

Kerry does that for him, and although he lifetime record is replete with things that can be picked apart to the advantage of the right, he isn't solid on the one issue that democrats truely would win on across the board if we were credible as a party on, corporate reform and accountability. He is not on the citizens side of that issue, at least not with any clearness.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

9. Yeah and I have more legislative experience than Edwards

I have been an elected official in my home state for 8 years working with our senators and congressmen/women. I guess I should run for president.

[Bombtrack]

12. Although I really doubt you aren't full of shit I'll give you the benefit

of the doubt and say you have been elected to STATE office, you would have a greater quantity of elected experience, but you don't have the greater quality of it that Edwards has compared to you and arguably Bush. Edwards has served on the intelligence committee of the United States of America for longer than George W. Bush has been in presidential office and twice as long as Bush has even been truely even paying attention to affairs of national security in any great way, since 9-11.

Edwards has also acconplished a great deal in his non-political career, probably more than all but few other lawyers. He was the youngest person ever inducted into the Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only group of the nation's top 100 trial lawyers. By the mid-1990s, Edwards had become legendary.

And so if you want to run you can, but you aren't going to get anywhere unlike Edwards, who has been beating the odds his whole life

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

17. Great response...I guess Edwards and you have psychic and channelling

abilities. I find it amazing that you can use your psychic abilities to look through the computer into my being and decide what kind of chances I would have running. You fit in well with the one term senator who will channel unborn babies so that his fat wallet can get a little fatter. If you want to talk about working for the people, why don't you show something that Edwards has done pro bono or actually for the people that he "feels" and speaks to now.

[Bombtrack]

23. Trial lawyers are the only people with the ability to compete on an

even playing field against the most powerful companies and corporate entities on behalf of the people on the stage of law. But if you want to accept the right-wing propaganda that they, and not the citizen exploiting executives and CEO's are the problem then you go right ahead.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

24. I'm not saying anything about trial lawyers...You have chosen to divert

the attention of my first post to something that would be divisive. Sounds to me like you accept the ways of the right wingers. All trial lawyers are not bad. I know many trial lawyers, but the truly great that I know have done extensive pro bono work. They will work for those that cannot afford to pay for the legal services. They will volunteer so that it is goodwill coming forth to help those less fortunate. They do not just sift through the thousands of cases of families with personal injury claims and pick the ones that they know will win.

[Carolina]

10. Kerry's talk is "self-referential and pompously unappealing"

hits the nail on the head. I zone out on him and I am an over-50, lifelong, yellow dog Dem.

All Kerry's talk, talk, and more laborious talk --- exhibit A being his lengthy speech justifying his yes vote on IWR --- won't wear well with the general populace during the GE.

Remember Mr. Straight Talker is in the White House. Kerry and Edwards both can talk circles around him but in the end which one's talk will
resonate with more people? Which one is more APPEALING to independents and GOP moderates?

Which one can plead the case to the American people not just Democratic primary voters and obtain the desired verdict?

EDWARDS 2004

[Skwmom]

14. Kerry sounds presidential

Edwards sounds like a smarmy personal injury attorney playing to the jury.

This is why they want Edwards: “In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.”

"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." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

[AP]

16. That baby was born and alive at the time of the trial and is alive today

living as comfortably as she possibly can with the money Edwards won for her.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

19. Where did you get this information that she was born before the trial

Everything that I have seen suggested otherwise.

[SangamonTaylor]

28. then get the facts straight

or go away.

You are propogating a serious lie and it is very hurtful. If only you knew who you were talking about, maybe you'd show some compassion. jeez.

[AP]

29. Four Trials. She was somewhere between 7 and 14 at the time of the trial.

I let someone borrow the book, so I don't have it. There are two little girls who are plaintiffs in that book, and I might be mixing them up. Edwards describes both of them and what their personalities are like, and talks about at least one of them testifying, I think.

It's a good book. It's a great read.

[KittyWampus]

20. Yeah, Edwards Made Sure To Pick Only Cases He Knew He'd Win

and make tons of money off of.

[AP]

30. The bigger the cases, the more likely they changed hospital/corporate ...

...policy.

I'm glad a good, smart, talented, competent person who cared about the clients was taking on the big cases.

It would have been a tragedy to lose those cases, which would have meant hospitals and insurance companies would have been unjustly enriched and policies which injured peole severely wouldn't have changed.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. Personal Injury Is One Of The Sleaziest Areas Of Law Practice

Of course there are Melvin Belli's out there. But most attorneys go into plaintiff personal injury because they want to make a quick buck through any means. In California, the customary way in which the worth of a personal injury case has been determined (I presume it's the same everywhere) has been to multiply the doctor bills by 3. That forms the basis for their settlement demand on the insurance company. That way, the doctor gets a third, the lawyer gets a third, and the injured party gets a third, minus expenses such as filing fees etc. On top of that you could add lost wages and future medical. If the lawyer has to file the complaint and begin appearing on the case, such as at an arbitration, the attorney's fee usually goes up to 40%, with 50% of the recovery if it actually goes to trial. Those have been standard fee structures. Often, the client receives remarkably little money. The practice area has been rife with abuse. In Los Angeles, more than half of the attorneys are reputed to be engaging in running and capping (paying brokers a fee who in turn hunt down cases and share this fee with the injured party to get them to file a case through that lawyer - it's illegal). Worse yet are the kick-backs many lawyers get from doctors - even more illegal because the attorney can't declare it and ends up not paying income tax on this part of his revenue. If a lawyer sends a case to a chiropractor, for example, who spends six months billing like crazy for putting hot packs on the injured client's neck, the lawyer might ask that chiropractor for a portion of his one-third, UNDER THE TABLE!!! as a premium for having brought him the case. I left personal injury years ago because there was so much dishonesty, even at high levels, and I didn't want to get involved in it. If Edwards get the nomination, you can be sure that every aspect of his law practice will come under a microscope. So far, there has been a vast silence by the right wing regarding Edwards, which is just one of the reasons why I would prefer not to support him.

[atre]

39. Facts? Cites? Or just overgeneralization based on a few bad apples?

You think you add credibility to your specious, speculative claims by throwing out the name Melvin Belli? If you knew anything about him, you wouldn't be heralding him as a paragon of virtue. Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call B.S. here.

Personal injury attorneys are no more or less unethical than any other type of lawyer, or any other type of professional for that matter. The vast majority play within the rules.

There are a handful that engage in the sort of practices you mention, but that is not an indictment of that whole area of civil litigation practice than it is an indictment of the profession of chiropractics that chiropractors also engage in this practice.

People who engage in this sort of gross stereotyping ought to be banned... or at least taken out back and given a good whipping.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

42. You obviously know little about the realities of p.i. practice

I do, having spent years in the field in Los Angeles. I got disgusted and became an immigration lawyer instead. While it's true that there are honorable p.i. plaintiff attorneys, I tend to think they are in the minority. I have dealt with many scumbags. It's more than the "handful" your post states it is. Much more, especially in the highly competitive environment of law these days, when there are not enough jobs to go around. The same goes for chiropractors. After a few years, it gets to be all about money, up to the limits of whatever they can get away with, especially when their practices grow to the size of "mills". Regarding Melvin Belli, I have kind of admired him. I heard him speak at my law school way back in the mid 1970's. He wrote a ton of books, around 20 or more. He defended Jack Ruby and wrote an interesting book about it. And I liked his appearance on Star Trek (the original) which I thought was pretty cool for a lawyer. In other words, there has been a lot more to him than just the money. Melvin Belli posed as a complete indigent person after graduating from law school and took notes about how the Great Depression was affecting the nation's vagrants. I never have known Belli personally, but your suggestion that he's isn't a paragon of virtue isn't consistent with anything I've ever heard about him. In fact, he's been considered a kind of pioneer in the torts field, in the use of demonstrative evidence for juries. Anyway, you're entitled to whatever opinion you care to have, but your suggestion of whipping or banning is pretty bizarre.

[SangamonTaylor]

32. link?

he made his name by taking on impossible cases. cases where he was up against a small rural town's largest employer (hospital). cases where everyone in the town knew of the doctor who was negligent. he changed the way hospitals work, by making them more than just a 'motel'.

I guess you wouldn't mind if your observing nurse thought you were about to die but was TOO AFRAID to speak out (in fear of losing his/her job) by finding the supervising doctor. If only you knew.

get the facts straight. jeez. You sound like a right-winger and it makes me sick.

You know, personal injury lawyers DON'T CHARGE THEIR CLIENTS ANYTHING UNLESS THEY WIN. The contingency fee is the only realistic way that people who cannot afford a lawyer are able to be represented. Pro bono is for people in law review who go on to represent big law and then get their 'kicks' from 'serving others'.

[atre]

38. Yeah, it's highly immoral

to employ good business practice by picking only cases that have merit (which would be the ones which would be sure to win). I'm not sure how that's supposed to denigrate Edwards. Of course he'd only argue meritorious claims. If he didn't, he'd be violating the Rules of Professional Conduct which govern the conduct of all lawyers.

John Edwards made millions helping people alleviate their suffering. He had to work to earn his money. Therefore, he's a terrible person.

Kerry and Bush made their money through silver spoons, "spendthrift" trust accounts, and wedding rings. Therefore, they're good people.

Kerry/Clark crowd: Cognitive dissonance. Whatever supports my view, no matter how untenable.

[katieforeman]

41. Did you read the book?

Is an alcoholic in North Carolina left permanently brain-damaged by a respected doctor's negligence a winner?

Yes, John Edwards made sure the cases he took had merit and were not frivolous. What's wrong with that?

[bigtree]

11. Bring it on!

http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/../mag/back/issue5.5b.html



AW: Now, don't you think in politics that there are forces at play, just like in nature?

JK: Absolutely. Oh, I absolutely believe that. 'Course there are! Big forces way beyond one's control that can pick you up and slap you down or give you that perfect jibe. It can work both ways. It really does. I've seen it happen. Things way beyond our control. There are those forces and it's one of those great linkages I suppose between politics and windsurfing.

AW: So, as a metaphor, are you sitting on the beach assessing the forces of the wind before venturing into the waters?

JK: Well you know, you and I never assessed the wind. We just decided we're going to go and this was going to be it. We take what we get and what we got has been good. That's not what I'm assessing. I'm assessing whether or not I have a board and a sail. It's a little different. You need a little equipment to go out there. Whatever the wind, I want to make sure that I am going to be real physically fit. That's the metaphor.







Senator John Kerry, Nevin Sayre and publisher/editor John Chao windsurfed from Cape Cod to Nantucket on July 3rd, 1998. The six and a half hour crossing celebrated the closing of this article which began on July 4th, 1997.

[Scott Lee]

36. Kerry the surfman. That should go in the brochure.

[robbedvoter]

15. He has Bushies voting for him in open primaries + media

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html


Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry

Voters who are enthusiastic about * Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry

Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards

Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.

Look at how they tout his being third in Hawaii without mentioning DK BEAT HIM!!!!
Or CNN denied Clark his OK win for a week to call it "a 2 man race" and edwards has it on his website: "Tied for 1st in OK"

[Bombtrack]

18. There was no "looking to beat Bush" category

there was an option for those who's MOST IMPORATANT issue was to beat Bush than any other. But you know what a misleading statement it was that you made up, to make it look like Edwards voters don't want to beat Bush.

The people who voted for Kerry voted more for him because they thought he was electable than he agreed with them on the issues or cared about them than compared to edwards. Probably because that's what New Hampshire voters thought, probably because right wing fascist Jay Severin, the most listened to radio host in New England said that Kerry was more electable and endorsed him and people beleived him.

[KittyWampus]

21. Sure, People Happy With Bush Are Looking To Beat Him

of course that makes no sense...

[Bombtrack]

25. Only a tiny fraction of Edwards voters were "happy with bush"

Was it a bigger fraction than those "happy with Bush" that voted for Kerry, yeah, according to one exit poll, but that's not what you posted, you posted that Edwards voters, not "more Edwards voters than Kerry" didn't want to beat Bush and that is a shameful lie.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

22. Yes, didn't you hear....everyone's brain in New Hampshire was

dominated by the assumption of one man...

[katieforeman]

26. And another thing.

Edwards defines the debate with a positive vision of One America. Kerry's "Bring 'em on" attitude just invites attacks and gets us into a slugfest. Kerry might still win in November but he'd be a highly damaged and unpopular figure. It's a huge strategic blunder to re-engage in the divisive debates of the past like Vietnam and Kerry's voting record.

Another example, of Kerry's lack of discipline. He used the words "stupid" and "completely inept" to attack Bush's Haiti policy. No doubt, most of Bush's policies are stupid and inept, but it's even more stupid to use this kind of language against him. Republicans can use Kerry's language to justify their attacks on him and undermine Kerry's legitimate argument. Edwards is disciplined enough to level effective criticism against Bush without making himself look bad in the process.

[sangh0]

31. Nonsense

1) It's misleading to suggest, as you do, that Kerry's "attitude" is accurately described as "Bring 'em on". It's just incredible how Kerry can be criticized for being both wordy *and* direct

2) There's gonna be a slugfest, make no mistake about it.

3) VietNam is a brilliant strategy

4) Kerry's record will be raised no matter what. Are you suggesting that Kerry hide his record? Not bring up Bush*'s record?

5) Predictions concerning the use of the word "stupid" and "completely inept" would be more believable if you had a track record of successful predictions. Until then, it's just an opinion.

[katieforeman]

33. BS

1.) I've seen Kerry repeat this many times. If it's not his attitude, he shouldn't keep repeating it. Or is he just saying something he doesn't believe?

2.)We win a slugfest by not looking like we're in a slugfest. Dole went way negative on Clinton. Clinton stayed positive and focused on his message. Clinton won. Sure Republicans will play dirty. The best way to respond is to call them on it not stoop to their level. Edwards can deflect the blows by saying he is focused on something bigger than the snipes. He is focused on fighting for ordinary Americans.

3.) Brilliant strategy? Focus on the past instead of the future. Most people already know that Bush didn't go to Vietnam. We've milked this issue for all its worth.

Bob Dole, John McCain, Max Cleland- all war heroes, all lost.
Clinton and Reagan never served in combat, both won twice.

4.) Right. I'm not saying Kerry should hide his record. I'm saying we should nominate a candidate without Kerry's record. Edwards will be able to attack Bush's record without having to spend as much time defending his own.

5.) What predictions have I made that have been proven wrong. We are both analyzing what we think would happen in the general elction. Since the general election has not occurred neither one of us has made predictions that have been proven wrong.

[Scott Lee]

35. A face NOT shot up with botox?

[David Dunham]

40. Doesn't matter. Edwards will be Kerry's VP at most.