What role should John Edwards play in Obama's Administration?

[PresidentObama]

Senator Edwards is a passionate voice for the middle class, and those living in poverty. I've been so proud to have supported him in the Democratic Primary in 2008 for President, and supporting him for Vice President in 2004. I had the honor of meeting Senator Edwards just a few days before he dropped out of the race in my hometown of Springfield, Missouri. And despite having a horrible cold and being physically and emotionally drained from running a long and hard fought race, I have never seen a public speaker speak with such passion and optimism.

So what role should this incredible leader play?

Vice President? Attorney General?

I've heard some float around the option when Dean leaves the DNC someday having Edwards replace him.

What role should he play in the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party?

I would prefer him as Vice President or Attorney General!

[anonymous171]

1. AG, so he can go after corporate crooks.

[PresidentObama]

3. Well as a former trial lawyer, I'd say he'd be a great pick for AG.

[FSogol]

2. Poverty Czar. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. No more Czars....... I'm sick of those titles

Drug Czar, War Czar, Energy Czar.........

The titles were first used by Reagan and Nixon.... go figure.

[FSogol]

13. War Czar should never be used, but I like Czars for certain issues.

It can circumvent the normal cabinet process and focus on important issues without wrapping up the entire administration. Charge Edwards with ending US poverty in 15 years and turn him lose.

[Sparkly]

65. Yes -- a new position on the economic, political, legal fronts on poverty. (And add DK, too...)

Possibly even a modern version of FDR's WPA. We'll need something bold to get out of this.

[billyoc]

4. AG. Guillotine time for corporate "persons".

NO fucking quarter on price gouging hedge funds.

[karynnj]

72. He has no record on this

Not in private life, not in the Senate. There has to be a good Democratic DA, of unimpeachable character, who has done this.

The Senate can deal with these issues - but Edwards never did. If you disagree, show me what he did. In the Senate the leader for going after corruption is the one who fought to end the BCCI corruption, wrote the Cunnigham amendment that will cause legislators to lose pensions if they take bribes or engage in other types of corruption. On the international level, he wrote the legislation to provide tools to deal with international money laundering. His "Kerry agreements" are a tool that may be used to get more transparency in international banking - a fact that came up in the UBS scandal. I am not suggesting Kerry should by AG, he is needed as Senator. Only SoS where he would deal on two issues that he has been passionate since the early 1970s- diplomacy and the environment.

[ChiciB1]

75. I'm Biased & Even Though I Rarely Post Anymore, I Would Prefer That

John Edwards become AG. From all I've seen of John Edwards in the past year, he IS NOT the same man he was in 2004. I think he learned many lessons since then and IMHO would actually have made a GREAT President!! It's my understanding he doesn't want to be VEEP, but I'm not sure, so AG would be VERY suitable for him.

One caveat... I heard that even Obama DOESN'T want to bring charges against any criminals of this current administration. I really don't understand that reasoning myself because it's MUCH NEEDED!! Pelosi says NO and now Obama, what's up??

If I'm wrong about Obama I would like to know.

Thank you.

[gateley]

5. For lack of a better term (and I apologize) Poverty Czar.

I'd rather see Jonathan Turley as AG. He's more focused in that area, whereas helping the poor has been a passion for John Edwards for years. He deserves it.

[SharonRB]

6. AG, for sure

[DevonRex]

8. AG and then supreme court when a place is available. nt

[Lithos]

9. AG

I think it's something that John would do especially well at. So much needs to be cleaned up there that it needs someone as energetic and visionary as John to do.

[wmbrew0206]

10. Maybe None. Top of Drudge: NATIONAL ENQUIRER CATCHES JOHN EDWARDS AT BEVERLY HILTON... DEVELOPING..

[supernova]

16. Oh yes, Drudge is such a credible source

:eyes:

Enjoy your stay.

[Inspired]

22. As is the National Enquirer.

LOL!

[wmbrew0206]

26. Normally I would agree with you.

The story the National Enquirer is pushing is extremely detailed. They are giving precise times and details of different happenings. IF they are lying, info that de3tailed is extremely easy to refute.

If this turns out to BS, I'll eat crow.

[PresidentObama]

30. Prepare to eat crow. How easy is it to make shit up?

Morons claimed Obama was a Muslim, and provided "detail" to "back" it up. And that turned out to be bullshit too.

Why would ANYONE fall for this?

[WinkyDink]

37. Compare the NE to itself, please.

[PresidentObama]

42. I am. They're the same kind of people who push lies, much like those who pushed the Muslim lies

[wmbrew0206]

49. If the NE made this one up, Edwards can sue them for libel

If this story is complete caca, Edwards will be able to sue, win, and get lost wages. Seeing as he is a VP possibility, this story would hurt his chances and he could sue for however much a jury thinks that job is worth.

The NE is taking a huge risk by publishing this story for two reasons: 1. The story is extremely detailed on place and times, making it easy for Edwards to prove it is caca, 2. If they are making this up, the are opening themselves up to be sued for libel and lost wages of one of the best trial lawyers in the country.

[spooky3]

56. Do you know anything about libel cases?

It is hard enough for private parties to win - but very difficult for public figures to win these cases.

Please don't believe anything you read in such sources.

[wmbrew0206]

60. Yes.

All one has to do to win a libel case is prove what the offending party (ie NE) said was false and it caused the victim (ie Edwards) monetary damages (ie the VP spot).

[spooky3]

66. Then the correct answer is "no."

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

"...That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media..."

http://www.texaspress.com/Lawpress/LawMedia/Libel/LibelCases.htm

"...Two cases were decided in one opinion in 1967. They were Associated Press v. Walker and Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts. In that decision the Supreme Court brought public figures under the umbrella it had created in Sullivan.

The court said that a public figure cannot collect damages unless malice is proved. The court established a guideline, “accepted publishing standards,” by which reckless disregard might be judged.

In 1971 in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc. the Supreme Court held that a private citizen involved in an event of public interest must prove malice to collect in a libel action..."

[wmbrew0206]

68. Read your own post again.

From your own post:
"The court said that a public figure cannot collect damages unless malice is proved. The court established a guideline, “accepted publishing standards,” by which reckless disregard might be judged."

From http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm :
"And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies."

So go read the NE article. That article is extremely detailed and gives a timeline. If the article is BS, the NE would have had to know it was BS, thus meeting the standard of a "a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies," to sue for libel.

Also Carol Burnett, a public figure, won a libel suit against the NE.

From Wiki:
Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Burnett was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court.

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

[spooky3]

71. Do I have to simplify this even MORE?

A public figure must prove MALICE as well as falseness and damages.

In your post you claimed, incorrectly, that one simply has to prove that the published information is not true and that the target suffered damages. The reason why this is incorrect is that proving MALICE on the part of the publisher is much more difficult than proving something is untrue. Therefore, your posts were simply wrong about what John Edwards would have to demonstrate. Your first step should be to acknowledge this.

Do you understand anything at all about having the burden of proof as to someone else's intent? You may believe that someone knew they were spreading falsehoods and deliberately trying to harm you, but proving it in court is something quite different. And the entire time that you were pursuing your risky court case, people are hearing about it, giving more publicity to the National Enquirer and believing you were "guilty." The NE may be more than happy to trade-off the free publicity (there's no such thing as bad publicity to a rag like NE) for the possibility of losing a libel case. They know a lot of public figures will decide to simply ignore them instead of go through the hassle and costs of a legal case where there is always the risk of losing.

I read the ridiculous National Enquirer article. Just because you think that they wouldn't dare make up all those details and publish them, because they know they would lose a libel case if they did, doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it.

Why do you think the Burnett case bolsters your argument? I didn't claim that no public figure ever won a case or couldn't win a case. Her case demonstrates the importance of being able to PROVE MALICE and that the National Enquirer is perfectly capable of and willing to libel people.

You would do well not to spread rumors without solid, credible evidence.

[wmbrew0206]

76. Obviously we disagree over what "malice" is.

I think publishing a SECOND piece on a public figure accussing him infidelity while his wife is suffering from breast cancer and he is in the running to be nominated for VP of his party's ticket qualifies as "malice." I don't think one of the best trial lawyers in the country would have a hard time getting a jury to agree with that either.

I don't think we are going to agree on this one so there is no point in arguing it further.

I stated earlier that if this story turn out to be untrue, I'd come back and eat crow. Why don't we wait and see how this story turns out?

[spooky3]

78. Sorry, you're still misunderstanding some key points.

You argument is essentially that lies--even with malice--would never be published, since everyone knows a lawsuit would be filed, that every harmed party including Edwards would choose to file a lawsuit, and that the plaintiff would win (especially someone who is skillful like Edwards) since justice always prevails; therefore, this story is true. I'm arguing that all of that reasoning can be questioned, that there is empirical evidence regarding the costs and risks of lawsuits to plaintiffs and well as benefits to unethical publishers for being sued. I'm telling you what your parents did: Don't believe everything you read in the papers -- particularly not in the tabloids, especially when the story doesn't add up as others have pointed out (why aren't there any photos? why would he go to a well-known hotel for the alleged purpose?). And I'm telling you that posting this crap at DU is morally wrong, whether it violates the rules or not. Rather than eating crow later if the facts are in Edwards' favor, you should refrain from posting it UNLESS AND UNTIL there is legitimate evidence provided by credible sources.

I do agree that it is pointless to discuss this further. See ya.

[WinkyDink]

36. Drudge isn't a source; he's a link. Have you ever been to his website?

He links to Liberals (e.g., Joe Conason), too. And international newspapers.

[supernova]

39. There's not enough money or sex on the planet

to make me read that site.

[ihopeitaintrue]

67. When he said HIl's camp circulated Obama's Somali picture, no one doubted him

Even though he presented no evidence.

[PresidentObama]

18. The same National Enquirer that said he's fathering a child with another woman?

And who said Obama is an Iranian plant?

Reliable!

[Demi_Babe]

11. SC

[Milo_Bloom]

12. None, he's a hypocrite of the highest order.

[Inspired]

15. We can always count on you and the National Enquirer to enlighten us.

:sarcasm:

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Yeah, he didn't vote for the war, the bankrupcy bill or any of that stuff.

What was I thinking?

[PresidentObama]

20. Nice RW smear. NEXT!

[Milo_Bloom]

27. When did telling the truth become a "smear"?

[PresidentObama]

31. Yes, I guess you're giving me some "Straight Talk" *snicker*

[Milo_Bloom]

33. So he didn't vote for the war? Or the bankrupcy bill? Or limiting liability to nuclear plants?

None of that happened?

[PresidentObama]

35. Alright, so name ONE Democratic Senator whose voted in ways you didn't agree with?

I can go down the list of my political idols from Bill Clinton to John Kerry, from John Edwards to Robert F. Kennedy, and tell you how I disagreed with them and policies and positions they took I didn't like.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. It's not about not AGREEING with them

It is about whether they vote according to their own principles.

Edwards has made a career out of saying one thing and doing another and for that he is a hypocrite.

[JaneQPublic]

14. AG (nt)

[XemaSab]

19. None.

n/t

[PresidentObama]

21. Why? Someone as talented as Edwards with no role?

Insanity!

[XemaSab]

24. I think he's way overhyped

and Obama is going to need people with real experience around.

Also, from what I heard about the Kerry/Edwards ticket, Obama's going to want people who will get in line, and not argue with the dude at the top of the ticket. :shrug:

[Alexander]

23. Either he or Hillary Clinton should be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

With the main task being implementing President Obama's healthcare system.

[cali]

28. nope. by far and away the best person for that job is Howard Dean

who's actually run large organizations successfully, has implemented innovative health care programs, and who's a doctor. He leaves both Edwards and Clinton in the dust.

[Virginia Dare]

43. I hope Dr. Dean stays exactly where he is..

the Dems are kicking serious ass with him at the helm.

[cali]

58. Dean has already made clear that he doesn't want to continue

as DNC chair. He's leaving no matter what.

[dansolo]

47. I agree completely

Since Dean has already said he will step down as DNC Chair if there is a Democratic Administration, I really hope that he gets tapped as Secretary of HHS. He would be ideal, and has exactly the right experience for the job.

[Alexander]

54. I would rather have Obama choose Dean to head the DNC again.

We know he will do a damned good job at the DNC, that's for sure.

[karynnj]

74. That would be very interesting - he would be great if he wanted it

and how many people are there who have 12 years as Governor, dealing with legislation, and running 2 organizations and knows from personal experience - his and his wife's the problems the current situation causes for doctors.

[rurallib]

25. AG - AG - AG - AG - AG - AG - AG - AG - AG - AG - AG

I think maybe AG. Or health and human services.

[WinkyDink]

29. There were multiple witnesses to the NE confrontation, including hotel guests. JE is toast, people.

Unless you have some OTHER reason he's running and hiding in a hotel basement in the wee hours of the morning?
Where COINCIDENTALLY the woman the NE PREVIOUSLY linked him with is staying? Hmmmmmm??

[PresidentObama]

32. Yes, lets believe the NE and their "witnesses" And let's believe Drudge.

Soooo reliable, huh?

[WinkyDink]

34. Time will tell. And FYI, Drudge doesn't write the news; he links to news stories.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[PresidentObama]

38. Drudge's sources aren't the most reliable, are they?

And I read the NE story, and while it was detailed, it could easily be made up. The story lacked evidence such as a photo of Edwards at the hotel. Usually when you want to run a bombshell you would want to get a photo providing evidence. And the story says hotel guests "saw" the event unfold, why weren't they sourced throughout the article?

So I'm supposed to believe the guy from the magazine who claims Obama's an Iranian plant when he says this "really" happened?

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. The Enquirer makes some seriously libelous claims.

Let's see the Edwards people challenge them.

It always gets my attention when names are named as personal witnesses. So often you read "unnamed sources" when it's just a bullshit story. The Enquirer puts two of its reporters on the line.

Get 'em to take a polygraph.

[supernova]

41. Doesn't mean they're any more true

Might as well go here, http://b.webring.com/hub?ring=fairytale

[spooky3]

57. the NE "broke" essentially the same story in late fall 2007. Yawn.

This one has exactly the same amount of credibility.
Why would you post such things about any Democrat here?

[Virginia Dare]

44. They also said Pickles had left the Chimp..

and was living at the Hay Adams Hotel.

[DevonRex]

52. I was SO hoping that one was true. I mean, at least it involved

actual living people and not aliens or something. But no...

[Inspired]

50. This was planned...just like the 'breaking story' was just prior to the Iowa caucus.

Where's the proof? Where are the photos? Where is the MSM? Why aren't they picking this up?

Don't be so gullible

[dansolo]

45. Secretary of Labor

I'm not convinced that he is the answer as Attorney General. I'd rather see Patrick Fitzgerald in that role, because if Edwards is Attorney General, than any investigations into the Bush administration will be cast as political payback. Fitzgerald is apolitical, and was even appointed by Republicans.

I also want to be proven wrong about my perceptions of Edwards' sincerity about poverty issues during his campaign. As Secretary of Labor, he could do a lot to help poverty issues--much more than as Attorney General.

[Egnever]

46. Head of jet skii patrol?

[JNelson6563]

48. AG!!

For sure! I would pepper every Senator with countless faxes and e-mails to confirm!

Julie

[SoCalDem]

51. Attorney General is the best spot for him..

But seriously..I think Elizabeth's health will prevent him from accepting a full-time position in DC.. He built her that dream house, and maybe she would prefer being there with her children..

[chapel hill dem]

55. The love child story has been a background murmor here in Chapel Hill since last fall. For

Elizabeth's sake, most folks do not openly speak of it. Whether the Reilly Hunter story is true or not, there are some ex-Edwards team members that are really pissed off at him and clam up when asked why.

My friends all hope it is not true and is a set-up by the NE. Some even suggest that David Kendall, the NE's general counsel, is behind the story and the timing of the outbreaks.

Chapel Hill is a small town (60K people) and we all wish the best for Elizabeth in her battle with cancer. The mental overload of this article is not good for her management of the disease process.

Damn.

[Medusa]

70. If this story is true, he will have no role in an Obama presidency

and that's a shame but he'll have no one to blame but himself. The Enquirer story is interesting as it seems they have photographic evidence of him meeting with this woman (and her child) at a hotel. Regardless of whether or not it's his child, this kind of publicity cannot be good for Elizabeth. Cheating on a dying woman is not the kind of PR you want, that's for sure.

[bigwillq]

59. I would like to see him as AG!

:bounce:

[tritsofme]

61. I can only hope he plays the same role in the administration I will.

The guy who sits at home and watches it all on the television.

[krawhitham]

62. None

[ecstatic]

63. If it were up to me, I'd say nothing

He's a nice guy and I have nothing against him (he was my number two choice in 03/04).

I just continue to be puzzled about why everyone wants to give him so much power considering his past record in the Senate.

What has he done to qualify for such a position? If it's just because he's a nice passionate guy then I guess I could go for that...

[saltpoint]

64. I'd be delighted if both John and Elizabeth were asked to serve.

The alternative would be not having their combined spirits directed at bettering life in this country for those who could use the lift.

I'd hire either one of them for just about anything.

I could see John rolling up his sleeves as veep, as AG, or as Sec of Labor or Health & Human Services, or as Special Domestic Ambassador to the Gulf Coast with he and Elizabeth sharing the exective direction of reviving the post-Katrina, Bush-abandoned U.S. citizens who live there.

[B Calm]

69. Vice President John Edwards

[DainBramaged]

73. Attorney General

[tsuki]

77. AG.