Stick a fork in John Edwards' candidacy, it is all over for him

[Nimrod2005]

When you want to present yourself as a poor man's advocate, it is sooooo hard to come back from the $400.00 haircut, 28,000 sq. ft. home, working for the hedge fund for more than $500K a year in salary...saying things like he worked there to better understand the poor??? All so difficult to watch...I thought his message had made him a strong candidate.

Nutshell: he has already been swift-boated, the Dems have a strong field, no reason to stay with Edwards. Where will his 15-18% go? Who will get his votes?

[DS1]

1. I don't follow any suggestions beginning with "Folks,"

:-)

[Nimrod2005]

Fixed

[ClassWarrior]

7. Oh it's still there. You know it's still there.

:evilgrin:

NGU.

[Lex]

2. Hahaha! Another "John Edwards is done" thread?

Wait, this is a parody, right?

[fooj]

3. Funny how he leads in many polls, yet THIS is ALL the media SQUEALS about.

Notice how the man never gets a 20 second mention unless it can be spun in a NEGATIVE way? Just my 2 cents...

[Carolina]

79. yes and it will only

get worse if he becomes the nominee because of the media. The MSM will harp on this and more; the repuke nominee won't have to say a word.

The press has never shined so brilliant a light ad nauseum on Cheney's income and other assets BUT then Cheney doesn't even pretend to give a rat's ass about anyone, certainly not the poor.

[windy252]

86. In my view,

the media's going to smear whoever the Dem nominee is. Their owners don't want this gravy train to end. The 3 front-runners are simply getting a glimpse of what's in store for them if nominated.

[frogcycle]

144. that's because he is the one they fear

forget the "breck girl" crap - they know he has broad appeal - he can lure those soccer mom's away from puggerville like mad

I used Google Earth today to explore the ultra-affluent area of Barrington in suburban Chicago - plenty of "houses" that would put Edwards's to shame. All those fat cats with their tax breaks making fortunes on LaSalle Street by pillaging retirement funds and destroying companies with predatory tactics in hedge funds (yet another recent development to enable people to get obscenely rich at the expense of others while contributing NOTHING to GDP). They and their ilk are the power behind the neocon machine, trying to smear Edwards for having made money by getting compensation for people hurt by big-business for-profit healthcare conglomerates (another neocon development).

The chairmen of GE, Halliburton, etc can live in a house like that, fly around on private jets, thumb their nose at the world, so can limbaugh, and then they have the audacity to criticise Edwards.

[Cassandra]

4. So true...the rich must hate the poor.

After all, what did FDR ever do for anyone?

[Lex]

8. and the Kennedys . . .

[Justitia]

5. Yeah, it didn't work for FDR in any of his four terms either, the phony!

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

Which candidate is poor??

I didn't know we had a poor candidate running for President - somebody didn't send me the memo.

:shrug:

[DearAbby]

43. Dont you have to have Millions and millions and millions

to even send in your resume, for the job of Presidency? That narrows the field down a wee bit, for that child born "could be our next president" American dream. Something has to be done about big money in our elections.

[MonkeyFunk]

48. No

the Clintons were worth about $700,000 in 1992.

[Carolina]

83. 1992

seems like eons ago. Yes, $700,000 went a lot further back then didn't it?

This go round let's hope get a BILLION dollar donkey. :kick:

[earthlover]

70. Well Clark was at least born of humble roots....

...Raised by a bank secretary. And you don't make much money in the service. Now that he is out, he is making good money I believe. But he has humble enough roots at least to remember what not having money is.

But Clark is not running (yet).

[sandnsea]

90. I think Edwards does too, and Obama

and Biden. They all had a pretty normal American life, yes normal not humble. Kucinich is the only one who it could be said had "humble" beginnings. Dodd, Richardson and Clinton were more affluent. Even that $700,000 up there for the Clintons, top 1% in 1992. I do not know why people don't understand how the vast majority of Americans live.

[Endangered Specie]

96. Well the guy from Alaska has only raised $15,000.

[sandnsea]

99. Is HE poor??? That's the question n/t

[Endangered Specie]

101. Hes probably as 'poor' as its gonna get

which is to say... not poor at all

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

119. "The guy from Alaska"???

When he raises $15 million, then we'll know his name, right?

Until then, it "hey, some guy ..."

:rofl:

[Endangered Specie]

121. Pretty much

I think 500k is a good cut off, and if I didnt already know his name Kucinich would be one of 'those guys' also.

(you know the ones that we smile for but know they don't stand a chance in hell).

[Sapere aude]

6. Yeah and it was hard for FDR also. The rich just don't seem to understand our needs.

And the Kennedys. They really didn't have a chance because of their wealth.

[Nimrod2005]

14. I did not mean that he is rich therefore....etc.

I have no problem with what people make, none...But hedge funds are not poor people's type jobs...It just does not look good on him and his message.

[Sapere aude]

28. Any ideas on how a poor person can run for president these days?

[Nimrod2005]

34. Sadly, no..........nt

[Justitia]

37. And FDR was a rich, fancy-schmancy, Wall Street corporate lawyer - so what? -eom

[WinkyDink]

9. Oh, I don't know; I remember Bobby as a pretty good advocate for the poor.

[nini]

10. so you're letting the right define him?

If you grow up somewhat poor - you understand the issues.

hell, you can understand it even if you haven't.

A Rich man CAN help the poor - when people start looking at a man's work on not his pocketbook maybe they'll get it.

[havocmom]

15. more like helping the right define him

X( fooey on those who utter RW talking point on DU!

[Lex]

18. at least no one seems to be buying this crap here

nt

[AnnInLa]

49. "concern" posts are easily recognizable

after so many years here!

[Clark2008]

52. But he didn't grow up poor - not even somewhat

He was upper middle class.

[nini]

53. Upper MIddle class?

that's a stretch. However my point is even someone with money can understand and help.

[Catchawave]

66. His dad had to borrow the money to

bring baby Johnny and Mom home from the hospital :) It's quite a bio.

[dogday]

126. Tucker, is that you?

Didn't you already cover this on your show yesterday? ah right wing talking points, they just have a way of catching on with the media's help and apparently others as well...

His dad was a janitor at a mill... They did not have much when he was growing up... At

[Adelante]

130. Everything is not RW talking points

The family started out as most did in that time and worked its way to a better life. That's how it was done. The father held various jobs, as did his mother, then the father managed the mill and later became a consultant to the textile industry. Edwards was not raised "upper" middle class, but he was raised middle class. His contemporaries attest to that lifestyle. Two working parents in a plant in that era meant a pretty good living. (A lot of families wished they had it.) Edwards' paternal grandparents were middle class to begin with, owning a furniture store, so there was additional incentive for the father to succeed. Milliken had an establishment company culture and the Edwards family lived it. There is nothing wrong with Edwards' family background, obviously. It's an American story from the 1950s and 1960s.

RW talking points; Edwards PR talking points: Both deceptive, both lame.

[dogday]

131. That is why he talks of sitting round the kitchen

table trying to decide which bills would get paid, and which ones would not... They were middle class by the time he was grown, but it sure beats these doorknobs that come from money and do not know what kind of life the normal US citizen leads....

They are RW talking points.... And apparently your dislike of Edwards prompts you to say that...

[Adelante]

135. I dislike Edwards, no question about it

But I like the truth. If it sometimes falls in with RW talking points, that's Edwards' problem, not mine. Edwards seems to have dropped this 2004 mythology for the most part in 2008. I don't understand why his supporters hang on to it so ferociously. Sitting around deciding what bills would be paid is ordinary life, then and now, for most people. It's not a badge of honor, just life.

[dogday]

136. I am not an Edwards supporter

although I liked him in 2004 as VP choice, he is not my first for Pres...Shattered theory there...

I am more progressive as per my avatar....


I am not willing to tear down any Democratic Candidate at this point..

[Adelante]

137. I didn't say anything that tears Edwards down

I described his life story. I think mythologizing it one way or another is wrong and lame. I think the OP is wrong and lame, for that matter.

[Blackhatjack]

108. Not true --PROVE IT!

You just pulled that right out of the air.

[RevCheesehead]

11. I'm hoping he'll be Al Gore's choice for VP.

Sort of a Karma 2000/2004 charm. :)

[Nimrod2005]

17. Bingo

[movonne]

32. Thank You..this is my dream..

[dddem]

73. Oh my God

We're all having the same dream!

[Peregrine Took]

76. Won't happen - not two southerners on the same ticket.

[Zomby Woof]

128. It worked for Clinton and Gore in 92/96

[RB TexLa]

91. No one takes a V-P slot twice unless they are running for re-election as V-P

[rinsd]

12. I think the fork may be a teensy bit premature 8 months before the IA

But maybe its just me :shrug:

[havocmom]

13. Some rich chaps actually did much to inspire Americans of simple means

Seem to recall a chap named Jack who was well heeled but much loved by the poor and working classes.

You're a bit quick to try and end the political career of a man who has also garnered much following among people of modest means.

He has taken on some rather big corporations on behalf of folks of modest means. Yeah, that's the sorta crap we don't want...:wtf:

[bluerum]

16. If I had a choice between "forking" you or Edwards, guess who it would be?

Clue - it wouldn't be Edwards.

Not that I have anything against you, but your comment sure invited a response.

[Nimrod2005]

20. ROFL

[senseandsensibility]

26. LOL

I don't understand the need to feed rightwing talkingpoints on a progressive board. If republiks they had their way, this is all that anyone would be allowed to talk about in the campaign. They want an issue-free personality driven campaign because their positions are unpopular.

[gollygee]

19. We can't support anyone but a poor candidate?

Please.

[Nimrod2005]

22. It is not about the money at all...It just clashes with his message

big time

[gollygee]

29. How does it clash?

He has to be poor to care about helping the poor?

[Nimrod2005]

33. No, but you know hedge funds you would know what I am saying

then he made it worse when he said he did it to better understand the poor...? WTF?

[Blackhatjack]

109. Why don't you do some research before you just condemn people ....

The company he was working with was not chartered overseas. The hedgefunds that were set up with the Cayman registration was designed to serve 'foreign investors' outside the US where there would be no US taxes owed. Partners in the firm Edwards joined had the option of investing in the hedgefund since it was set up by the company --HOWEVER AFTER EDWARDS JOINED THE FIRM THEY CHANGED THIS OPTION FOR PARTNERS, and no one in the Company can invest in offshore hedgefunds.

So it appears that Edwards had a positive effect on the Company, rather than the Company having a negative affect on Edwards --which people raising this criticism are trying to push.

Research the '$400 haircut issue' and the '28000 sq ft house issue' and you will find that both were erroneously reported.

But if you knew that and are pushing it anyway, then you are helping to promote a false impression.

[CreekDog]

139. You picked a great screenname for yourself

Reason being is that beginning in 2006, with Edwards, is the first time that a candidate cannot advocate for the poor while being rich. It used to be called noblesse oblige, but this year, with Edwards, we are not allowing the superrich to help the poor -not without caling them a hypocrite.

Nimrod indeed.

[Horse with no Name]

63. Yeah we certainly don't want one of those elitist liberal politicians

paying attention to the poor when he could be figuring out tax cuts for the rest of us. That detracts from the message SOME would like to send.

[Catchawave]

68. Better than Rich People who screw the poor

now that's a "clash". John's been very generous, you need to do some research and stop promoting RW snottiness.

[ulysses]

78. so, no candidate can have a message of fighting poverty, then.

[Lex]

24. Just one glance at the Repuke debate makes me happy to vote for ANY

of the Dems on the ticket, regardless of my differences with them (which, in light of the Repuke candidates) seem awfully small.

[Nimrod2005]

30. I am with you, I will work very hard for whoever the nominee is...nt

[melody]

21. You are joking, right?

Some of the best friends of the poor have been good and compassionate wealthy people.

[karlrschneider]

23. Are you speaking from personal experience?

:eyes:

[Nimrod2005]

25. I wish I worked for a hedge fund?

[karlrschneider]

38. There's something wrong with the punctuation in that reply.

...

[Jamastiene]

27. He is from my area of the country.

I know where he's from, so he still gets my vote. I remember when he was unknown in the national spotlight. He's a good guy with a deep understanding about how impoverished rural areas work. So what if he can afford a $400 hair cut now. I might even go for some luxuries too if I got rich one day and could afford it. After years of living in poverty, you treat yourself to something nice. So fucking what? He still has my vote so far.

[Horse with no Name]

65. Got that right

That would be one luxury I would indulge in. If you have ever had a $6 haircut you would understand.:)

[Clark2008]

71. He's from my area of the country, too, and will not get my vote.

I don't like people who try to erase their entire Senate records with an "oops. sorry."

[Blackhatjack]

111. Oh wait, you never made a mistake and therefore you don't accept apologies from anyone(except Clark)

So when Edwards becomes the Democratic Nominee, Edwards 'will not get your vote'???

[zeemike]

31. Sigh

Once again we let the rethugs chose our candidates for us by buying the swift boat line of reason.
Last time we were herded by a general entering the race to remind us we needed someone with military experience to counter the bush aircraft landing on the carrier and many bought it. and so the populist candidate that could have won by string up the voters to a massive vote was trashed in favor of a Kerry that had the military experience but went wind surfing and conceded the election as soon as possible.

Will we never learn.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. He's A Great Advocate For The Poor And A Great Man Who Would Make A Great President.

I don't think he can win, but I still don't see any reason why his campaign is 'all over'.

[WilliamPitt]

36. Again?

That's...what? The seventeenth fork allegedly stuck in him?

Somebody change the needle on this phonograph.

[Blackhatjack]

112. It is just like clockwork... they must have a schedule to follow...n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. ROFLMAO!!!!!

"Somebody change the needle on this phonograph."

I just love it when I see a great one liner I've never seen before. Perfect!

[VolcanoJen]

39. Ummmm.... No.

Sure, it's clear the Washington Press Elite has figured out who they're gonna "Gore" this election cycle.

But only if you let them. Why are you...?

[rec_report]

40. Why is it we only hear about wealthy Democrats? 'Big Dig' Romney...

has $250 million, but the mainstream media won't be dwelling on that fact, I'm sure.
Polar Bear

[Justitia]

42. Yeah, isn't "Money Bags Mittens" the wealthiest of all candidates? By far? -eom

[rec_report]

44. The Hartford Courant kept raising the issue of Lamont's wealth, when...

he was running against Joe LieberBush in 2006 --as if LieberBush is a pauper, LOL. :eyes:
Polar Bear

[stray cat]

41. A successful individual who cares about poverty - Bill Gates

who has helped millions in poverty. I'd rather have a leader who has obviously been competent versus one who has had everything handed to him on a silver platter and is incompetent. Poverty isn't necessarily a virtue in a candidate nor is wealth a drawback. I won't rule out a candidate because he has shown competence at his chosen career but still hasn't forgotten his roots.

[Pastiche423]

45. I agree w/you

Don't know where his 15-18% might go, though.

[AnnInLa]

46. Um, I don't even know where to start

except that most straw polls on leftie blogs/websites have JE as the winner, of course we are the "radical left." And, I don't think most of the sheeple out there care about his damn hair/looks/pajamas/house/snapple. This does not a swiftboat make. I know a swiftboat when I see one, and the haircut ain't one. Best point I can make: he actually IS a candidate who CARES ABOUT THE POOR --- IT ISN'T AN ACT.

[Old and In the Way]

47. You're not one of those famous, inside-the-beltway pundits, are you?

Your arguments against Edwards sure do sound familiar...

[DireStrike]

50. Did anybody bring up Thomas Jefferson yet? -nt-

[FrenchieCat]

51. I don't think John Edwards is done, nor do I think that he has been

swiftboated.

Swiftboating means telling lies and making insinuations which are not true.

Edwards did just build a 28,000 sq ft house.
Edwards does get $400 haircuts
Edwards did work for an Hedgefund firm, was paid nearly 1/2 million for his work and did say that he was working there to learn about capital markets, the poor and Hedgefunds...
Edwards has made poverty his pet issue, and his Two Americas his signature platform.

So none of what is being commented on by the media in reference to Edwards is untrue. Certainly, it is being spinned negatively by the media....but I would have to ask why anyone would expect this information to be spinned positively by anyone other than the Edwards' campaign? For anyone to be dismayed that the media is treating Edwards as they are; welcome to the real world of politics. Edwards doesn't get a special pass, just like Obama, Hillary and the rest of them don't. Romney has been attacked, and Giuliani's stance on Abortion is topic of conversation on many new channels, as was McCain's little trip to Iraq's market with entourage while saying, it's safe as hell here!)

There is still too long a way prior to the actual vote to determine where Edwards is at. As long as he doesn't lose ground in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, he's in the game. Remember that Kerry had to mortgage his house when all of the pundits were announcing that he was "through" last primary, and Howard Dean was inevitable.

I don't care for John Edwards to become President not so much due to these issues as much as due to his judgment on Foreign policy decisions when it counted, and when he could have demonstrated what he really stood for. I also think that the fact that he really is inexperienced and has shown a lack of judgment until very recently in the foreign policy arena is an Achilles election heel waiting to happen and to Democrats' detriment.

I do notice that the media does NOT make an issue of his co-sponsorship of the Blank Iraq check, or his place on the Intel Committee...Something that a lot of his supporters are unaware of (not here on DU where his supporters know, but don't really care that much cause he said sorry).....and so, I don't know if the media is truly "against" Edwards as much as some might want to think. In fact, the media dogging Edwards out seems to help him with the base, who distrust the media. It is bringing folks together to help John Edwards against the big bad monsters out to get the guy.

It should be noted that Edwards has also gotten a lot of positive press as well, IMO. He talks owls out of trees, far as it has been stated by many pundits.

Bottomline is the campaign has begun, and the media is a larger part of it than we would like. They will influence how it should go, whether we like it or not. At the end of the day, we do not really choose, some of us just think we do.

[Clark2008]

74. But you can bet your sweet bippy if he's the nominee, we'll ALL

know about his co-sponsorship of the Blank Iraq check and his place on the Intel committee; and how he's backtracked on nearly every vote he cast as a senator.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

80. You really can't help yourself ...

can you? Have you ever let a single thread slamming Edwards pass without gleefully jumping in? Do you really think you have any credibility left on Edwards?

[Awsi Dooger]

116. Trust me, it's better than it used to be

You identified the threads they pick now, the ones slamming Edwards. Previously, and specifically late 2003 and during the primary season of 2004, the Clark supporters dumped on EVERY thread with an Edwards theme. One or two of the major offenders no longer posts here, or at least I haven't seen them.

[Blackhatjack]

114. Well Frenchie you just promoted 3 half-truths right there....

You posted as true:

"Edwards did just build a 28,000 sq ft house.
Edwards does get $400 haircuts
Edwards did work for an Hedgefund firm..."

You know, because I posted in reply to your post, that Edwards did NOT build a 'house' with 28,000 sq ft. I posted the county tax assessors records showing the 'house' was a fraction of that total square footage -- and yet you continue to perpetuate this myth.

You state 'Edwards does get $400 haircuts' --which you know was a one-time occurrence. He did exactly what he was supposed to do --the bill was submitted to his campaign by mistake, the campaign paid it, and the campaign reported it on his finance reports. Once brought to his attention he reimbursed the campaign fully from his own personal funds(even though he had no idea the cost would be that high at the time --but hey he did not stiff the haircutter who billed him for the time lost and the amount he could have made if not travelling to meet Edwards). Prove he got more than this one haircut for $400.00. You can't, but you leave the impression he did this all the time.

Edwards worked with a financial firm that had a hedge fund opened with a Cayman charter. It was designed for 'foreign investors' who would not owe any US taxes from their investment, and allowed partners to participate. After Edwards was associated with the financial firm, they changed their policy and did not allow partners to invest in the offshore hedge fund --so it sounds like Edwards had a positive effect on the Financial firm rather than the other way around.

And Edwards has raised millions to finance the anti-poverty center at UNC-Chapel Hill University. He knows the power of financial markets can be harnessed to help address the needs of those struggling in poverty. So there is nothing to apologize for. He is very smart, and will likely use the knowledge he gained to help others. And John and Elizabeth could invest their money anywhere and gain a substantial return. The fact he invested with the firm he joined is not unusual.

I don't fault others for backing other Democratic candidates. However, to perpetuate lies and myths about John Edwards is not acceptable. We at least need to be truthful in our criticism of other Democratic candidates.

[samplegirl]

54. Hey lets ask who's cutting Mitt Romneys

hair. This is bullshit!!! Romney is worth over a hundred million. He is worth triple the Edwards. I'm really tired of
of these Republicans acting like they are just middle men.
It was posted the worth of each canidate and I can't remember where I read it but Edwards is not half as rich as Romney.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

120. Not fair to ask Who's Cutting.

But it's reasonable to ask Who's Paying. And if it's you and me paying, it's fair to ask the price.

I bet Kerry pays a bunch. Kucinich, not so much.
:rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

55. Lynn Cullen (WPTT radio) said the same thing--she wrote him off.

[tkmorris]

56. WHY ARE YOU HELPING THE SMEAR MACHINE?

And no, I won't apologize for th3e caps, they were intended. I really want to know. Why are you helping the right wing destroy an advocate for those who need help most? Don't say you aren't; every time the meme is repeated in public it gains strength and you know it. So really, why are you doing it?

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Good question. nt

[Breeze54]

57. I agree because there aren't any rich reps serving in congress!!

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

[Pyrzqxgl]

58. Man do I think you are wrong!

crap that doesn't mean anything is going to come out about all the Democrats in the race. It wouldn't surprise me to find out others in the race had
expensive haircuts too, and I'll bet others have bigger homes and worked at bigger salaried jobs. They are trying to swift-boat Edwards early because
they are scared of him and thats because he has the best chance of winning in Nov.

[Jed Dilligan]

59. Depends on how you look at it

If he has to sell himself to the middle class as someone who will do something about poverty, then you're probably right. Whitebread America wants its activists to be as monklike as possible.

If, on the other hand, he can get elected by inspiring the poor themselves to come out and vote for him (as they usually don't in any great numbers), it's better to put out the image that he is living large. Poor people think rich people who deny themselves luxury are crazy and stupid. Their homegrown heroes, the stars of hip hop, delight in outrageous displays of opulence.

A somewhat related example: Clinton's fine suits and high living certainly did nothing to undermine his popularity in the black community.

[Horse with no Name]

60. Gee nice of you to drag this shit up again

:eyes:

[Harper_is_Bush]

95. Like it wouldn't be brought up anyway.

Should people expect shit to disappear, and roll their eyes when it doesn't?

Don't be naive. It will be used against him, so the biggest favor anyone can do for him is prepare him now.

[Horse with no Name]

100. NO but I don't expect stupid shit to be brought up again

and again and again and again ad nauseum. I know the concept is very hard for you to fathom. Pity.

[Harper_is_Bush]

148. Oh, I has this poster brought it up "again and again ad mauseum", or are you

exaggerating a little?

Quite frankly, you're anger does not have the benifit of reason. You're a little too willing to attack posters at DU for what you perceive to be deviating from a required message...whatever you've decided that is.

DU is not a place that requires your type of message control. In fact, part of what makes DU so valuable is the open environment it provides for the kind of critisism expressed in the OP.

[Catchawave]

61. Thanks for the Fox News Alert :)

Wonder how long a thread like this would stay up if the name was changed to Gore, Obama, Clark, et al ?

Oh wait, we're all on the same team, right?

[surfermaw]

67. John Edwards...will be president or V. P.

Heck man, who would want a man who attended school for more than 12 years, that can't afford to buy what he want? A man and woman with their level of education should have any thing they want they paid the price...An are aching to help other to achieve the same level of living...It is stupid to make a statement that Edward's is finished.

[Lurking Dem]

62. Noblesse oblige has a long history in American politics.

Because of it, many great things have been done.

[BuyingThyme]

64. He's hasn't presented himself as a poor man's advocate.

He's presented himself as a rich man who doesn't have a problem with holding the ladder so that the poor man will have an opportunity to climb to the top.

[etherealtruth]

69. Heck yes ...

I want more of the same ... Please lets have a rich white male president whose only concern is other "rich folk" ... we can't have people like the Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry representing the less advantaged:sarcasm:

Come on ... unfortunately, a poor person doesn't have a chance in hell to win a major election (its not "right" but is the way it is) ... I'll take my chances with someone basing their campaign on providing opportunity across the board.

[Snotcicles]

72. I happen to admire a guy that can get rich squeezing the nads of big corporations. nt

[illinoisprogressive]

75. Not an Edwards supporter but, I wouldn't count him out yet.

[Peregrine Took]

77. How did that information ever get out? How much does Mittens spend on

that heady monstrosity sitting on his dome?

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Oh, yeah. There's a bunch of bullshit non-issues that the M$M has thrown at him

while, simultaneously, they seem determined to foist Hillary, or barring that, Obama, off on us.

Right. No need to listen to what the man actually SAYS, what with nearly eight months to go before most of the primaries. :eyes:

Bullshit. If Gore doesn't get in, I'm increasingly leaning towards Edwards. I could give a fuck about his hair OR his house.

[The Gunslinger]

84. Unfortunately you need to have a lot of $$ to be President

Name another candidate Republic or Democrat thats interested in the poor. And if you can think of one.....guess what they're filthy rich. It's a terrible system but I do not doubt Edwards concern toward the poor and middle class in this country, and he's the only candidate i feel that way about.

[LiberalFighter]

85. It's not over til the fat lady sings

How many of the others have been advocates for the poor directly? And if he didn't make the wages he made someone else would had.

My preference for the 2008 election is Gore. Has been since 2000.

[bamacrat]

87. His support if it is over will go to Obama. Or Gore if he runs.

But if Gore runs I think all peoples support will go there.

[jcrew2001]

88. Dems DO NOT have a strong field IMO

I think Hillary will not win any Red states - it will be a complete disaster. To think that 2008 is a guaranteed Dem victory - we choose the worst nominee ever, where a clear majority DO NOT want her as president.

Obama, while inspirational, still does not have the experience needed to be the MOST powerful man on the planet. We don't need a prince to learn on the job, it will be very unstable having him as President.

Edwards has really reached out on numerous issues and HE CAN WIN THE RED STATES - which will Ultimately Decide the election.

Otherwise, it will be President Rudy!

[Matsubara]

89. WTF-ever.

He's a successful lawyer. Is he supposed to apologize for that? Other than Kucinich, are any of the dem or repuke candidates even reomtely middle class?

Don't thinks so.

Franklin Roosevelt came from a super wealthy background as did JFK, so what?

This is a shallow, weak-ass attack on a candidate who handled the "haircut" properly and has nothing else to apologize for.

Clinton won re-election despite being CONSTANTLY "swiftboated".

I'm not quite set on Edwards as a candidate yet, but he is a good candidate and hardly out of the running.

If you've got someone better to recommend, then why not write something positive about them, rather than tearing down aone of the most popular dem candidates with silly RW talking points?

Are these the kind of "issues" you want primary voters to think about when voting?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

92. I prefer him, but I'm troubled by his handling of this "image" issue

he needs to fight back harder

[Nimrod2005]

127. I agree and that's all I meant to say...

[MadBadger]

93. You are what your name is.

[piedmont]

102. It does suit him/her. nt

[LSK]

107. AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[toddaa]

94. Would it be too much to ask for an actual vote to be tabulated?

Just once, I'd like to see some democracy in America. It would be a refreshing change from punditocracy.

[Endangered Specie]

97. And to think Ive been saying stick a fork in Obama's candidacy

for the last 6 months (at least IRL, Ive been absent from here for some time).

[Exiled in America]

98. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having heard you.

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

[WillyT]

103. Hillary Is That You !!!

:spank:

[LSK]

104. your right, lets endorse those cave dwellers such as Obama or Hillary

:sarcasm:

[Blackhatjack]

105. I thought my watch had stopped, had been so long since the last 'stick a fork in Edwards' thread...

These threads usually show up like clockwork.

Suffice to say these same old lines begin to lose some of their initial attraction once they have been repeated hundreds of times OVER AND OVER ....

[JVS]

106. The phrase "Ruling Class" was not made up as some kind of lark

and neither party cares to change that.

[More Than A Feeling]

110. You don't have to be poor, to advocate for the poor. I'm sticking with Edwards. n/t

[LSK]

113. Congratulations! You are the 1st person on DU I have ever ignored

This is absolutely the worst post I have ever seen in 3+ years here by a non-troll.

Why dont you read about John Edwards middle class upbringing and how he earned his money through hard work.

This post is disgusting and I have to leave it now before I say something stupid.

[CreekDog]

140. No, he might have been UPPER middle class

Oh the humanity!

What will we tell the children?!

[DemBones DemBones]

115. They are really harping on this bit about Edwards getting his hair

cut "at a beauty shop" by a "beautician." How long ago was it now?

He didn't go to a "beauty shop" and I don't think a stylist who can command $400 for a haircut, even considering that he went to wherever Edwards was, would appreciate being called a "beautician." "Cosmetologist" is the modern term used in trade schools and I think "stylist" is preferred by most, whether they're hair stylists, make-up stylists, or nail stylists.

There's also been talk about the make-up artist from the Pink Sapphire who did his make-up in South Carolina.

The make-up artist from the Pink Sapphire also did John McCain's makeup but you won't hear that, nor her comments that everybody wears makeup on television. (Nixon in the 1960 debates showed that it was not wise to appear on TV without makeup.)

Only if my man Dennis Kucinich gets much higher in the polls will you hear that the same make-up artist did his make-up for tv in South Carolina, but there's NO excuse for reporting about John Edwards using a make-up artist and not reporting that John McCain used the same make-up artist, since each is polling in the top three for their party. They also inflate what Edwards paid, saying he paid $225 for makeup but not clarifying that that was for three occasions @ $75 each, which is what each person is charged when she goes to their location.

[Matsubara]

117. Oh brother. This empty attack on a candidate is still up...

...but my parody of empty attacks on candidates is gone.

Screwed up priorities much?

No wonder the democratic party has gotten so good at losing.



Attacks on candidates over meaningless trivialties - OKAY.

Condemning such attacks - No-no. Got it.

[NotGivingUp]

118. the plan is hillary by dems AND repukes...and i'm not going for it.

hillary can take a hike.

[karynnj]

122. He was not swiftboated

The SBVT used complete fabrication and lies. Here - all of these things are true. They differed from the image Edwards wanted to present.

I do not think Edwards is dead as a candidate. But, he will need some explanation for working for the hedge fund - which was against his stated values. This is bad because it adds to the list of things where his current rhetoric doesn't match actions in his recent past.

The bad judgment with the haircut was that it was charged to the campaign. In reality, the reason for most of the charge was to get the hair stylist to come to Edwards - using his time more efficiently. It was likely a valid expense for the campaign, but shouldn't have been done because of how it would look. (Note - that no one cares that Clinton had a more expensive similar charge.)

A multi-millionaire building an expensive hose is similarly not news. The Clintons have 2 expensive homes and Obama has a nice home too. It was also never an issue with Kerry.

[SunDrop23]

123. As a member of the Edwards 15-18%, I would...

throw support to Obama and keep my fingers crossed that Al Gore would declare his candidacy.

[salin]

124. I love the threads that declare someone out of the race

months and months before the first vote is cast.

[skipos]

125. Yeah, look how "done" he is compared to Hillary and her megamillion

dollar organization, huge name recognition, etc
He outperforms her in 99% of the general election polls.
These are from Ras...

Thompson (R)44% Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%
Thompson (37%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 10%
Thompson (37%) Obama (47%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Romney (R)44% Clinton (D)47% CLINTON WINS BY 3%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Romney (37%) Obama (52%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 5%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Giuliani (45%) Clinton (45%) CLINTON TIES
Giuliani (45%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 2%
Giuliani (45%) Obama (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Hagel (40%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Hagel (34%) Obama (50%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Huckabee (33%) Edwards (50%) EDWARDS WINS BY 17%
Huckabee (32%) Obama (52%) OBAMA WINS BY 20%

McCain (44%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 4%
McCain (41%) Edwards (48%) EDWARDS WINS BY 7%
McCain (42%) Obama (46%) OBAMA WINS BY 4%

[Virginia Dare]

129. With all due respect, THAT'S BULLSHIT...n/t

[WI_DEM]

133. Nah, I doubt it...FDR and JFK advocated for the poor too and were very wealthy

[CreekDog]

134. Kucinich and Gravel aren't rich, therefore much more electable

If I understand the reasoning that started this thread.

[earth mom]

138. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of the thugs...

they are running scared of Edwards! :rofl:

[CreekDog]

141. Have you ever argued that Obama isn't black enough so black voters will choose Hillary?

Same logic, if you could call it logic.

Because you are arguing now that poor and middle class people who would vote for Democrats, will not vote for Edwards because he is rich and instead will vote for a rich Republican who doesn't talk a whit about poor people.

[edwardsdefender]

143. It's funny that the media have actually asked that question, whether Obama is black enough

for minority voters (which helped increase his black support after the media started focusing on it), but they have never asked is he "too black" for the General Election electorate, as opposed to a SC primary where 50% of participants are black.

I'd like to see what would be the result of them having that discussion.

[edwardsdefender]

142. Well, every other candidate has less of a chance of winning than he does, because he is the

only Democrat who would take votes away from the Republican side in a "real" General Election, and do better with Independents.

Hillary is too divisive.

Barak Obama, come on, let's just be real, just like DL Hughley. The country is not going to vote for a black guy named Barak Hussein Obama. They just will not do it.

Bill Richardson? Two words: "illegal immigration." The way people, including my Democratic voting family, foam from the mouth over the immigration issue, the Republicans would probably rather run against Richardson than anyone else. The entire election would be about Richardson being ready to open the borders, Michael Savage going on and on about how "this is it, this is what the 'Mexicans' have been waiting for, the moment where they could ascend to the Presidency of the United States and use the White House to reclaim the southwest for Mexico and blah, blah, blah." Can't you just see that coming?

If Edwards is done, the Democrats are done.

[Swamp Rat]

145. Edwards received 26% of the votes in the latest Zogby poll, but Karl Rove thanks you anyway.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1301

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

146. You don't think the media and Repubs will hit Clinton or Obama? Think again.

ANY candidate the Democrats field will be savaged. They have to be ready and deal with it. Edwards is fine I think. Not done by any stretch.

[provis99]

147. i could care less if the nominee was the richest person in the world

I vote based on how the nominee is going to help the country, not whether they live in big houses. My criteria is: what would they do to ensure we all get richer? Republicans seem to care not so much that they are rich, but that everyone else stays poorer.

[StarryNite]

149. Haircuts and houses are small potatoes

I'm sick and tired of letting the other side choose OUR candidate. Are we really that easy for the neocons to manipulate? Sheesh! If so then maybe we don't deserve to win.