Why John Edwards Cannot Endorse Hillary Clinton (In His Own Words)

[Buck Power]

Run time: 02:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7CAIsSd44   Posted on YouTube: April 05, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 05, 2008 By DU Member: Buck Power Views on DU: 5030

 
Please Digg!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Why_John_Edwards_Cannot_Endorse_Hillary_In_His_Own_Words

[onehandle]

1. He can't endorse either pro-corporation centrist.

Goes against the theme of his campaign.

But he'll endorse the nominee no matter which one wins.

He's a good Democrat.

[babylonsister]

2. I dunno; she dangled a new position for him today; poverty czar.

I'm sure it's his for the taking.

[Buck Power]

5. Obama

already dangled Attorney General months ago.

A far better offer, if you ask me.

[babylonsister]

7. I don't know that there's proof of that. nt

[Buck Power]

9. No proof

but it was common knowledge even before Novakula printed it.

[babylonsister]

10. Common knowledge from who? I never heard Obama say it, so I

think it's common speculation.

[Buck Power]

16. Common knowledge

for those in the know.

[babylonsister]

18. Prove it with a link, and how, pray tell, are you in the know? nt

[onehandle]

6. Maybe.

I don't think he'll need either of them. I believe he may be the Al Gore of Poverty.

But if he thinks he needs the nod to boost that possibility... Well, maybe.

It would be a Big risk considering the path that Hillary is on.

[babylonsister]

8. I hope not; it would go against many of the

things he was passionate about, like anti-lobbyists. We'll see. I would imagine there might be a place for him on the Obama team should he want one.

[onehandle]

11. I think it would be difficult for him to serve in that capacity, again based on his campaign.

But, no I wouldn't rule anything out.

AG would obviously be the natural choice.

[ihavenobias]

14. I wouldn't put Hillary and Obama in the same category

I was behind Edwards, but when he bowed it, it was a no-brainer (And I have always conceded that his past voting record didn't match up to this populist rhetoric BTW).

Besides, Obama has shattered the record for most *individual* donors. And he actually got some ethics reform passed. And publicly funded elections is up front in his Blue Print for change. Of the three candidates he is by FAR the most likely to bring us closer to public financing, and that single act would be enormous. Edwards should be aware of that.

And Edwards himself said Obama was for change, but that they had different methods (fighting vs being more conciliatory) of achieving it. You're being too harsh on Obama IMO. He's not perfect by a long shot, and we won't always agree with his decisions and likely compromises. But there's at least a *chance*, however small, that he'll do something great.

[Andy823]

44. I think he would be a great AG

Maybe we could get some of the "crooks" who are running things now put behind bars where they belong! :think:

[Yavin4]

40. A Poverty Czar In Clinton's Cabinet?

The same Clintons that signed Welfare reform into law which forced millions of poor families begging for money? That Clinton?

John Edwards aint that stupid. No one is.

[jemsan]

3. I can't watch that video!!

It makes me too sad. What's wrong with people that they just didn't "get" John Edwards and his great message? I miss him and Elizabeth very much.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. I'm with you....

:-(

[IndependentDem]

22. i felt the same way. n/t

[vanboggie]

26. I totally agree

John Edwards would have been so much better.

Edited to add that any respect I might have been able to muster up for the remaining two candidates has been dashed by the ridiculously juvenile remarks of their supporters. I often wonder if they've been hired by Rove to turn Democrats off to these candidates...but I don't think I could have been excited by either one of them anyway. John and Elizabeth Edwards were the real deal.

[navarth]

47. amen to that, Wings fan. n/t

[Buck Power]

4. Haha

Well he can't endorse either "pro-corporation centrist" but he CAN endorse Barack Obama.

Dude, why would you even THINK that he might endorse McCain?

DER!!

[DWilliamsamh]

34. Thanks for the laugh! They are sorely needed here! (N/T)

[pedo]

28. i watched most of the early debates

and he seemed to take obama's side against hillary every time. he would often go after hillary like he did in this video and i don't recall him ever going after obama the same way.

[balantz]

36. Either candidate will be owned by the mega-corporations of the elite.

Edwards was speaking passionately at the debates about the need to grab Washington by the ankles and shake the corporate interests and their war profiting machine out of the pockets of OUR government. Etc.

That is what we desperately need, and we won't see it happen once again.

[H8fascistcons]

13. Tragic!!!!!!

We have already lost! The corporations got exactly what they wanted, Edwards and Kucinich out of the race. Democrats beating each other up over Obama and Hillary is ridiculous, we are getting a republican, it just depends to what degree....

[babylonsister]

15. Baloney. Chill out. nt

[Buck Power]

17. Kucinich?

He's great but if you think that "the corporations" were his downfall then you're sorely misinformed.

[tomp]

29. right.

and barring a change in either of h or o's foreign policies, kucinich cannot endorse either, either. we're looking at a split in the party. something's gotta give.

[RBInMaine]

19. Edwards told the TRUTH ! (He was my first choice, now I'm with Obama.)

[Plucketeer]

20. He's STILL my first choice

And the sad truth is that the corporate media fears too, that they might not be able to buy favor if Edwards was in the White House. Alas, they took care of that.
At this point - I'll vote for anyone but Miss I've EARNED it and it's MINE. Having lived in the White House once is NOT qualification for being president. :dunce:

[DaLittle Kitty]

68. I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT JOHN EDWARDS... Corp America Selected ALL 3 Candidates From Which We R2ChoosE!

The American TWO Party political system is damaged beyond repair. John Edwards was the man who was on top of this and was the ONLY candidate who was challenging the STATUS QUO! Corp OWned and Operated and CONTROLLED media select just WHO IS Heard and just WHO... IS NOT Heard! Anyone who disputes this is just not playing w/ a full deck! Let's fight this paradigm... I know some people who are considering a strategy lower down the ticket to combat this. I hope they succeed! :)

[Buck Power]

23. Absolutely

and just once I'd like for someone to tell the truth about Bill Clinton's presidency. It wasn't as rosy as they paint it. The Clintons were DLC right-wing surrender monkeys.

[Voice for Peace]

21. I would LOVE to see this guy as AG

watch out, evil corporations that spawn poverty death and disease

[file83]

24. I hope Obama appoints Edwards as AG - that would be friggin poetic.

[Buck Power]

25. As

a Union guy I cannot begin to tell you how awesome that would truly be.

[chill factor]

27. I agree, also!

Edwards is the perfect choice for AG. Being an old-timer, I remember Bobby Kennedy as the AG. Edwards would be just as tenacious! }(

[bobbolink]

37. no, No, and Please, NO! Edwards is the only voice we poor folk have, and we can't

afford to have that one and only voice lost in the office of the A.G.

Most of us hope he'll do an Al Gore on poverty.

Oh please,Oh please,Oh please,Oh please,Oh please,Oh please,Oh please,Oh please,

[Voice for Peace]

39. Don't you think as AG he would go after the criminals who perpetuate poverty?

Strike at the root?

[bobbolink]

41. That's NOT where he can do the most good.

And we're desperate.

Deathly desperate.

[Voice for Peace]

45. How do you envision he would go after poverty? I'm not being skeptical, I just haven't

thought about this as a role for him.

[bobbolink]

53. You haven't thought of what as a role for him? What is "this"? AG? Poverty?

Edwards was the ONLY ONE speaking out about poverty, so I'm not sure what you're asking.

Many of us are hoping he'll be the Al Gore for poverty.

Some of us are suffering deeply.

[Voice for Peace]

54. By "this" I mean your reference to him being the Al Gore of poverty.

Do you envision Edwards leaving the Senate & politics, and spearheading an international effort?

I'm not opposed to this, I just hadn't thought about him taking that particular direction. I know he has been the most outspoken on poverty, that he cares passionately about that issue.

But I don't know enough about what would work best for eliminating poverty in America and in the world.

My simplistic perspective is that so much of the poverty everywhere is the spawn of government and corporate corruption, and the US is a shining example to the rest of the world in that regard, just like with human rights. This is why I have thought that as part of an Obama administration he would have the power & authority to strike the roots of poverty. We know he has the guts, and the record, to succeed at this.

[bobbolink]

55. Yes, that's exactly what I envision--Just as Gore has done. However,

John and Elizabeth haven't consulted with me on this.

:rofl:

"as part of an Obama administration he would have the power & authority to strike the roots of poverty."

I think we both know that would never happen. I'm afraid that anything I say on this subject will just get me flamed, result in NO understanding or discussion, and I haven't the stomach for it.

I think we all know what the reality is in all this.

:(

[Voice for Peace]

56. I don't know that it would never happen. I can see it happening. And I don't flame people,

it's not in my own interest to do that. At least half the reason I am here on DU is to learn from people who know more than I do and learn from people who see things differently, which always makes me think.

The other half is a mixed bag.. part fun, part masochism, some other stuff.

[bobbolink]

57. It never hurts to have a supply of masochism when posting on DU, eh?

:rofl:

I'll just say that Obama and Edwards don't have much in common.

I'll leave it at that.

[Voice for Peace]

58. Yes, LOL. BUt I probably disagree with you about how much they have in common.

And I believe Obama is going to have the BEST people in his administration. One of the things which I like about him is that he's a team player, a team manager -- a far cry from the kind of egomaniacal executives currently in office. I think he is going to work closely & collaboratively with the people in his administration, to do the best and the most in every area possible; and to do that he wants and needs to work with the best. Edwards is in that category; I hope he'll be there.

[bobbolink]

59. that's why I didn't reply more fully.

I'm just in no mood for a fight.

edited to reiterate: Obviously, I have no say in what he chooses to do, and I *trust* him.... I could be mistaken... I have been before... but I think he is SINCERE in his goal of doing away with poverty.

It's clear from his presidential run that he can't do it effectively in this government, in this national mindset, and with today's Dems.

I hope he does a Gore.

I'm counting on it, because I'm desparate.

[Two Americas]

61. the "best"

Hi Voice for Peace. Thanks for the interesting perspective.

I have no doubt that Obama is brilliant and will assemble a team of brilliant people. So did JFK, and those brilliant people got us into one brilliant mess in Viet Nam. Competence and brilliance alone are not anything to rely upon.

What is missing is the political will to defend and support the poor, the working poor, and all of us who are not independently wealthy, it is not competence that has been missing.

I think people make a tremendous mistake when they see the Bush administration as being incompetent or stupid or ineffective. It is perhaps the most effective administration we have ever seen. Clearly, the goal of the current administration is to promote the interests of the wealthy and powerful few at the expense of the rest of us, and they have done a masterful job of that. They have been perhaps a little to heavy-handed and obvious. Do we merely want an administration that pursues the same goals, but less obviously and with more art and grace - that is more competent and stylish?

The problem is that there are some in the Democratic party - they are few, but they dominate and control the discussion and the direction of the party - who see "competence" as a matter of style over substance, as a matter of promoting the interests of the wealthy and powerful few with a little more panache and elegance, and with fewer bodies laying around cluttering up the scenery, or at least keeping the uglier aspects of the direction the country is heading more cleverly hidden from view.

No amount of competence or intelligence will ever replace a moral commitment to the traditional ideals and principles of the Democratic party.

[Voice for Peace]

62. I agree, the Bush administration is terrifyingly competent.

I will be very surprised if Obama is not responsive to the real needs of the country. I think he is much more radical on many issues than is apparent in his campaign. The brilliance I see in him includes a long-term vision, an understanding that to accomplish change, you have to get more people on the right side.

This is accomplished by showing them how it is in their own best interest to make change happen. This was the main impression I took away from his speech on the economy.

Despite Edwards' passion, he is threatening to corporate America and consequently was marginalized by the powers-that-be, despite his enormous popularity.

When Obama talks about the war, and says "being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" -- my impression is that he holds a similar perspective for changing the direction of this country. Changing the mindset that got us into war, into two americas, into environmental catastrophe, economic disaster, and more. I believe it's doable, and possible; and am hoping America is ready. Signs are good.

[Two Americas]

64. both cannot be true, by definition...

"(Edwards) is threatening to corporate America and consequently was marginalized by the powers-that-be..."

"I believe it (change) is doable, and possible..."

Those two statements contradict each other. Don't get me wrong, I am open to the miracle that Obama supporters are hoping to see.

You say we need to change "the mindset that got us into war, into two americas, into environmental catastrophe, economic disaster..."

No mindset caused those problems, and no change in mindset can correct them. It doesn't matter what the mindset - personal preferences, belief systems, personal choices - is for the 99% of us who must work for a living, we will still be exploited. It doesn't matter what the mindset is for the 1% who control the wealth and power in this country. I don't care if they smile or "are green" while they defend and build their oligarchy and extend their power over us.

We could possibly change the mindset of the wealthy and powerful by telling them this - "look, your greed is getting too obvious and out of control. If you want to retain your privilege and power, we need to make this all look a little better and pander to the people a little bit and throw them some 'hope' or we will have a revolution on our hands, and that would be bad for business." I fear that is exactly what Obama is talking about doing.

It is fine if we want to invite the wealthy and powerful to the negotiating table and "heal the divide," but how come that 1% of the population gets one seat at the table, and the other 99% also get one seat - at best?

[Voice for Peace]

65. Thanks for this discussion.. I can't debate your points at all because I just don't know

what I'm talking about when it comes to economics.

I am hopeful; and the riches that matter most to me aren't controlled by anyone. I don't say that to minimize the problems of poverty, I just simply don't know enough. I'm interested in what you see as the solution, how to eradicate poverty?

It seems to me that poverty must be approached from many many angles. Elevating the consciousness of people is also paramount -- because unless people voluntarily make changes, there will always be powerful resistance, and the people with the most money and guns usually win those fights.

I believe the whole picture can be transformed over time, it can't happen overnight -- such that it becomes in the best interest of people with a lot of money to invest in the lives of those who don't have any -- whether it's for their own economic benefit or just the good feeling they get when they do. Some will always be richer, some poorer.

But again, money doesn't buy happiness, nor does power. And happiness is what people ultimately want. Poverty of the heart and mind also exists, everywhere; and real change has to happen there first, or at least simultaneously.

That's where inspiration comes in, and grassroots engagement. When I watched the movie "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" I was blown away. What stuck with me most powerfully was that the poor began to learn their own constitution. It remains to be seen how it all will play out down there; but when people begin feeling hope, and getting a little better educated, it's powerful. Energized not by anger and hate, but energized by the power within their own hearts.

[Two Americas]

67. we are "between religions"

Most of the transformation you are talking about - important as it is - lies within the realm of religion, and not politics. Money may not be the key to happiness, but oppression and control and domination and denying resources to others - which is why people accumulate money, to "win" - definitely diminishes our lives and that problem has political remedies, and only political remedies.

With the decline and collapse of the traditional religions in our culture, and the emergence of a new "spirituality" - new religions are never called "religions" - we are a culture caught between religions, as it were. In this condition, everything in our society is being spiritualized and all organizations and movements tend to become cult-like. There is an emptiness and rootlessness people are experiencing. That emptiness is usually filled by religion in cultures.

But I do think that we should try to keep religion (or "spirituality," as most modern people prefer to call it) out of politics, because mixing the two can be very dangerous.

Improving human nature is a noble pursuit, but holding it to be a mandatory prerequisite to social change is paralyzing and counter-productive, and undermines and sabotages all of our political efforts. Politics is, and always has been, about power and economics and about attacking problems collectively. Reforming and improving human beings as individuals is, and always has been, the business of religions.

[Voice for Peace]

69. I agree that religion doesn't belong in politics, but I'm not talking about religion

I'm just talking about being human beings, period. Everyone has a better nature. Some use it, consult it, let it guide them, and some don't. In this regard religion is truly irrelevant.

When you act with thoughtfulness or respect towards another, what has that got to do with religion?

When you extend yourself to someone who needs help, and it makes you feel good, what does it have to do with religion?

When you comfort your child, or your dog, what has it got to do with religion?

When you see a beautiful work of art, or an awesome sunset, or stand on the top of the mountain, and you feel something, what does it have to do with religion?

I am talking about something that's more fundamental to human beings than religion, an innate urge for goodness, the gratifying feeling that comes from doing the right thing, an urge for satisfaction. It's about the human heart and its possibilities.

Religion is something else altogether: rules to live by, so people don't have to think for themselves or figure out what God is.

[Two Americas]

70. "spirituality," then

The word "religion" has fallen out of favor.

I am not dismissing it, just saying that it does not translate to politics very well.

[Voice for Peace]

71. Respect, honesty, responsibility, integrity DO belong in the realm of politics

and that's a big part of the problem. It has nothing to do with spirituality, as I understand the concept.
It's just about being decent human beings.

Otherwise why bother to have politics at all? It might as well be religion.

Taking "being decent human beings" out of politics is what's gotten things where they are today. All the pleasantries and niceties are superficial, mostly artificial. Behind the scenes what is in charge is the god of lowest common denominators: greed, cheat, deceit.

Thus we have wars, poverty, pollution, starvation.

But you can't mandate that people be decent. You need inspiration, example, motivation, purpose.

[Two Americas]

72. sure

Respect, honesty, responsibility, integrity do belong in the realm of politics, no more and no less than they belong in all aspects of life. But those should not take the place of politics.

Taking politics out of politics is what's gotten things where they are today, in my opinion. Politics is about power and economics. The politics of personal morality, personal choices, with the goal being to make people better, leaves the rapacious few free to prey on the rest of us. It does no good to make 90% of the people into saints walking the earth when the other 10% are left free to set themselves up as tyrants, exploiting and oppressing the many and destroying the earth. I don't think we can ever tirn 100% of the people into saints, and that is what it would take if we are going to see politics as an endeavor the purpose of which is to make human beings decent.

You can't mandate that people be decent, no. But the goal of politics is not to make people more polite or generous or noble or decent, the goal of politics is justice.

The reason we "bother to have politics" - the purpose of politics and government, is to protect the many from the predations of the few. The wealthy and powerful have no need for government or politics, they can buy whatever they want or need.

Politics is not about reforming the many, it is about restraining the few.

[Voice for Peace]

74. I think we agree, but we're coming at it from different angles.

I don't see politics as making people better, I see better people making politics better. The inspiration part is about getting people who aren't in politics more involved in getting good people into office for the right reasons. What I mean by inspiration is when people feel moved & energized to do the right thing, when something fundamental in them responds to words, ideas, example. I think that's what leadership is about, motivating that dynamic.

Thanks again for this discussion and I've appreciated your views.

[Two Americas]

75. thanks

Good discussion, thanks.

I think when people are inspired to do the desperately needed things, rather than the right things, then we will see action, and I think that inspiration will come from increased awareness of the suffering and the crisis rather than from people improving themselves.

Trying to get people to do the right thing, to generate motivation within themselves, is too close to self-actualization and self-improvement ideas, and can sugar-coat things and insulate people from the desperate need, from the real suffering going on. People who are struggling to get motivated or energized to do the right thing are avoiding looking at reality and are focused on themselves. The power of the modern self-actualization ethic is so powerful and pervasive, and so contradictory to what is needed for political organization and effective action, that we shouldn't underestimate it.

[Voice for Peace]

77. I figured it out...

...We have different interpretations of certain words and concepts. In the essence of what we're talking about, I think we have no disagreement.

"I think when people are inspired to do the desperately needed things, rather than the right things, then we will see action, and I think that inspiration will come from increased awareness of the suffering and the crisis rather than from people improving themselves."

I equate "the needed things" with "the right things." Same thing. That which sits right with the conscience. Not a learned concept of what is right or wrong -- but an understanding about what is essential to life and the welfare of all.

I think that looking at reality IS motivating -- except when there is a sense of helplessness and/or hopelessness. That's where leadership is needed. People who can provide not only good management, but also vision of what is possible. When people see possibilities, AND the way to proceed -- it's both motivating & empowering.

Unless someone just doesn't care.

So another important piece is getting the attention of those who are busy worrying only about themselves. When people begin to understand that the welfare of all affects their personal welfare, they're more inclined to help with what's needed.

When they start helping out, doing what's right (aka needed), they get a good feeling from it. And that's what improves people.

[Two Americas]

80. very good, thanks again

I wasn't disagreeing with you, but trying to clarify that we were in fact talking about the same thing.

[atal]

30. I miss Edwards he was fabulous

I feel Obama has taken on a lot of his ideas. Which is why I moved on to support Obama..

[Buck Power]

79. That's one

way of looking at it. But honestly, Obama was the same cat all along. Maybe you just didn't notice.

[bpeale]

31. he will not endorse obama either. they have NOTHING in common

since obama IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE.

[Buck Power]

48. You're so

full of SHIT.

[bpeale]

63. you want him to endorse so bad you can taste it, but he won't

mark my words, and you can take this to the bank, he will not endorse obama. period.

[Buck Power]

66. You don't

have a fucking clue what I want and what I don't want.

In case you can't read, the title of the video is "Why John Edwards Cannot Endorse Hillary Clinton".

Does it say "Why John Edwards Must Endorse Barack Obama"? NO. I wouldn't presume to tell Mr. Edwards what he must do. But anyone who has watched the clip knows in their gut that John Edwards cannot, with any shred of credibility, endorse Hillary Clinton after having said that.

Period.

I think he will endorse neither candidate until there is a nominee. And FYI, I wouldn't want him to right now anyway, because chances are he'd put a ding in Obama's 23 point lead in NC.

Der.

[padia]

32. I miss him too

I have been rather flat since he dropped out. I know some of my co-workers say that HRC is completely out of the question and the only way BO will get their vote is to have Edwards on the ticket. In case anybody is interested in what moderates are thinking.

[DWilliamsamh]

33. I don't know about your premise .. but it makes me know my first choice was right.

This just makes me wish all the more that Senator Edwards had gotten a fair shake from a media that seems incapable of reporting on a race that had more than two excellent candidates. I really hope he is Attorney General one day soon.

[RazBerryBeret]

35. As much as I like JE...

and I do, and I would've voted for him..

but I don't think this video "proves" anything.
Because I also heard him tell Blitzer he was in the race for the long run.
all the way to the convention if needed...

then 2 days later he dropped out.

just sayin....

[Buck Power]

49. Don't be naive

candidates HAVE to say they're in the race for the long haul.

Until the day they get out. Not even the same ballpark.

[kaygore]

38. Man o Man do I miss JE!

The MSM could NOT let him continue in the debates and they sure could not cover him because to do so was against their selfish self-interests.

Man o man do I miss JE!

[Lucky 13]

42. I miss John.

He was my guy. My FIRST choice.

I've seen the clips above before and I think it's pretty clear he favors Obama over Hillary - and I considered this when making my second choice.

Whomever he supports, I just wish he would say it. He made me totally respect his opinion and now he's refusing to state it! JOHN! YOU ARE KILLING ME HERE PAL!

If he endorsed Obama, then obviously I'd be happy. Me, Obama, and John - all in agreement.

If he endorsed Hillary, I'd be FASCINATED and PERPLEXED more than anything. I'd REALLY want to hear why. I'm not saying it would necessarily change my mind, but if John came up with something really compelling, I would have to carefully consider it.

[cooolandrew]

43. Well if he is consistent with his word, this video says it all...

All up to John though and we have to respect his decision either way.

[happygoluckytoyou]

46. CLINTON WILL BRING ABOUT CHANGE.....

INSTEAD OF THE $3 YOU NOW HAVE IN YOUR POCKET..... YOU WILL HAVE LOOSE CHANGE

OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA OBAMA GO-BAMA HOLY-LAMA YO-MAMA BAMA

[goletian]

50. wow, the music really sets the mood for this video.

music is pretty cool.

[Buck Power]

81. Thanks.

I think it's getting a bit played out, but so long as it works...

[Freedom Train]

51. Others should have been endorsing him at this moment,

not the other way around. I still don't get why he dropped out so early, even before Super Tuesday.

[bobbolink]

60. clearly, there is a lot we don't know, and will probably never know.

clearly, there was a lot of pressure on him.

I ask you to remember... the week before he suspended his campaign, remember the threatening letter from the head of the national Chamber of Commerce?

That letter was pretty clear about the intentions towards Edwards of the corporations.

:cry:

[malik flavors]

52. Kick

[PatriotJack]

73. Attorney General?

Think there's any chance he made a deal with both of them to keep quiet until the nomination, and in reward he'd get the Attorney General job? Because, quite frankly, "Attorney General John Edwards" sounds mighty dandy to me.

[Buck Power]

76. Mighty dandy

indeed.

[D23MIURG23]

78. Kicked for the Kronos Quartet!