Who thinks Edwards is going to start rolling when we get to TV Commercials

stage of the election? I know that Edwards has been showing commercials in IA and NH, and that, although he has been going up in both states, he hasn't jumped to first place because of it.

However, I have a feeling that, when he gets to the stage where they're all competing with commercials, Edwards is going to improve a lot in the polls. The commercials will circumvent the media's domination of the tone of the campaign, and they'll all be on TV at the same time, so people can make comparisons of the candidates.

Also, I've seen his commercials, and they're really good. They get accross his meta-message really well.

What say?

I think that Edwards is a very good candidate and will do well if he can get any media attention. He could well win, IMO.

Unfortunately SOOOOO much emphasis is placed on Iowa and NH, that it may be too late for Edwards after that. Personally, I'm glad to see Clark & Holy Joe skip those two states. I say this as a Clark supporter.

I think there will be less emphasis this time.

Iowa is already losing its importance. Lieberman and Clark have pulled out, so Iowa is not quite the test it was.

Dean cannot win New Hampshire; if he comes in first in the polls, it will in part be chalked up to his living next door. (If Kerry wins, I think it would be a bigger deal since it could be seen as an upset...) Second and third place would be bigger deals.

If Dean wins Iowa and New Hampshire, I'd say he's golden, but I'd say that otherwise it's possible to lose these and stay a contender.

donors.

Why is that AP?

and I think that's the best of both worlds.

fiscal conservative who doesn't care about progressive tax policy and likes to privatize utlities and likes to do favors for big businesses. Can you explain that to me?

Try to say it to you.

But I feel blue.

2) already bought and sold several times over.

for a guy who's not bought and sold several times over.

I'd have more respect for him if he were in the pocket of some industry, because just being pro-big business for no apparent reason makes it seem like he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And EVERYONE agrees that Dean is totally electable.

It explains your fascination with Edwards.

isn't in the pocket of big business.

Whose pocket do you think he's in?

By the way, next to Dean, Edwards looks like a socialist.

Not that I think they are evil.

Just that Edwards is squarely in their pocket.

access to the courts.

Those trial lawyers are on your side. And they apparently all paid attention in their Tax Law classes, 'cause they can see through Dean's big-business friendly tax BS.

I have to wonder why Edward's "regular guy" appeal has resulted in only 1% of his donations coming from under $200 donors and almost 90% from $1000 or over donors.

Edward's fundraising profile makes Bush's look broad based.

to a fiscal conservative who tells the Cato Inst. they should like him.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

http://www.deanvolunteers.org/DeanVolunteers/press_view.asp?ID=1337

Small donors with any sense would be giving their small donations to Edwards, presuming that there's a correlation between small donations and having your economic interests lie with the working and middle class.

And most of their policy differences favor Dean.

Don't confuse Edwards with someone who doesn't care about tax policy and doesn't mind giving big business an unregulated market.

Furthermore, Edwards has had the same concern for the middle and working class since he was old enough to realize who they were.

Dean seems to have had a conversion to liberalism in about 2000.

Who's more real?

What is the difference between Edwards and Dean on fair trade?

they're poorer and rich are richer.

Clinton didn't even like those tax rates. He wanted something more progressive but Republicans wanted to compromise.

Why is Dean arguing for something so regressive? Why is he making arguments that sound stupid? Why is he confusing his small donors into thinking something bad for them is good? Why are you changing the subject to a quesion I already addressed? You're just forcing me to repeat myself. You still haven't addressed the issue I raised the first time.

As for fair trade, NPR reported that Edwards isn't liked by the DLC because he has voted against free trade when it hurt NC laborers.

Whereas Dean was all for fair trade when he was governor, but has had a campaign year conversion, right? (Am I wrong about this?)

classes.

So how could rescinding all of them -- including cap gains & estate -- be a bad thing?

But stickdog can't. Thus the sloganeering that substitutes for engaging with the issues.

Edwards is for an healthcare system that won't pass and is inferior to Dean's:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=3&DR_ID=18978

Edwards was for invading Iraq and still is.

Edwards hasn't promised to force the FDA to evaluate medical pot.

Edwards helped write the Patriot Act and has hardly criticized it.

This is just off the top of my head.

You say Edwards is stagecraft because of the way he looks. Now in an election how he looks actually helps but here it's what he says that counts. And he says the most serious things -- in debates, in his policy statement Real Solutions, <http://www.johnedwards2004.com/real-solutions.asp>. Read it and get back to me.
And even if you think Dean has ideas (his own, I mean, and I can't understand how you could come to this conclusion), you cannot seriously suggest Edwards is anything but thoughtful, comprehensive, innovative, and DEMOCRATIC in his platform.

There are candidates who are aligned with the DLC like Lieberman, there are candidates who have been associated with the DLC for a long time like Dean. And there are candidates who have kept good relations with the DLC like Kerry and Edwards. But to call Edwards a "tool of the DLC" or a "puppet figurehead" is ridiculous and there is not one single fact you could muster in support of that attack.

And what does "no real experience" mean? He has served in the Senate representing eight million constituents, he has worked in Washington without becoming a Washington insider, and he has worked for a lifetime for people against corporations and powerful interests, which is not exactly the DLCs favorite line of work.

This kind of baseless attack is what the other guys do, not what we do.

...he has voted against free trade when it hurts NC mnfg jobs. I think the exact words were, "he's not a favorite of the DLC."

Also, the guy has worked on retai-level social justice almost his entire life and has, one person at a time, transferred a quarter billion dollars to regular people from negligent corporations. There aren't many politicians who have done that much for their constituents. They guy wan'ts to do the same thing, wholesale, for every singel American.

I WANT this guy representing me BECAUSE he has that kind of experience.

Edwards looks like a courageous fighter who does the right thing. And he's a winner.

Raise taxes on the middle class will get Dean nowhere. The best thing about Dean is his campaign. Dean as a candidate I give him a C+

Dean does very well with white males. Look at the NH polls.

Dean does very well with independents. Look at the NH polls.

The smarter you are, the more informed you are and the more you vote, the more you're for Dr. Dean. And the closer you get to the general election, the more people get informed.

Dean is a doctor. So he has immediate credibility on healthcare.

Dean was a fine centrist governor. This gives him immediate credibility on economic policy.

Bush's numbers have plummeted since Dean lept into the lead by telling it like it is about the boy king. Do you really think that's just a coinicidence?

Dean already has almost 420,000 supporters and 100,000 volunteers.

Dean's campaign is REVOLUTIONARY. It's not politics as usual. People respond to new, exciting campaigns -- especially campaigns with so much potential to change American democracy for the better.

Dean doesn't need to sell out completely to raise the money he'll need to fight Bush. This will allow Dean to put people before big corporations in practice, not just in rhetoric. Many people are smart enough to understand this, and have been disgusted with big money politics for a long time now.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush on ALL THE ISSUES. Bush has done EVERYTHING WRONG and Dean has been complicit in NONE OF BUSH'S HORRIBLE FAILURES.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the right on the deficit.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the near left on the war, abortion, corporatism, tax cuts for the rich and civil rights.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the center on the environment, healthcare, imperialism, secrecy, corruption, accountability and competence.

Putting the spotlight on Dean will show only that he's more of a regular guy and more of a centrist than the media initially portrayed him.

Because Dean is a fighter who relishes a fight and a tough guy who relishes making tough decisions, Americans will feel perfectly secure with him once they get to know him.

Edwards does very well with white males. And with black males. And he has. He won more black votes in NC than any other Democratic senate candidate had.

Edwards does very well with independents. Edwards had to win independent votes to win in NC, so in an real election context, he has won their votes.

Most people who decide close to the time of the election decide for Edwards and candidate like Edwards that they make a connection with.

Edwards has fought for health care both in his real life and on the floor of the Senate, including working with John McCain (independent voters) and Ted Kennedy. He has real credibility fighting for health care instead of being part of the delivery problem.

Edwards insists on middle class tax cuts, including additional cuts to open prosperity to the middle class. Candidates who want to get rid of the middle class tax cuts have no credibility on economic policy.

Bush's numbers have roller-coastered. Most Americans can't name a single candidate, so no candidate is responsible for the downs or ups of GWB.

The Edwards campaign understands that you can't lose the general election in an effort to win the nomination. If you are willing to do and say things in the primaries that make you unelectable in the general, it is just an ego trip. The Edwards campaign is REALLY about the people, not about him.

Edwards takes no money from PACs or Washington lobbyists. And he has fought the misdeeds of big corporations when other candidates were sidling up to them to make them happy and meet their needs and demands. The real fighter in this race is Edwards.

Edwards has been fighting the fight in the place where the fight has been taking place: in the halls of Congress.

Everyone can attack Bush from the right on the deficit. Edwards can cite real votes where he fought Bush with something other than campaign rhetoric.

Everyone can attack Bush from on his conduct of the war and the post-war, on his view of the US's role in the world, on choice and stem cell research, and on tax cuts for the rich. Edwards, more than any other serious candidate, can make the case against Bush on his insider friends in corporations (he's been doing it) and on the moral outrage of Bush's undercutting of civil rights (he has fought the judges Bush has nominated, no one else has).

Everyone can attack Bush from the center on healthcare, international relations, the openness of government, insider deals, accountability and competence. All the candidates except one can attack him on the environment

Edwards IS the American voter. EDWARDS is the regular guy. Edwards is a FIGHTER who has made tough decisions. Americans will feel more secure with EDWARDS than any other candidate.

And he can win in the South.

He wouldn't even guarantee NC as part of the ticket -- top or bottom.

...seat, had he run for it.

And we will bring Bowles in on his coattails when he runs for and wins the presidency.

North Carolina a state with many old rednecks, who vote as daddy did eventhough, daddy had been in his grave for more than 50 years. The political winds are changing in North Carolina, and if any one can bring home the bacon it would be John Edwards...and the same goes for South Carolina....

Not one of the democratic candidated can postively say they will win North Carolina....Edwards has the best chance.

I know the answer

Even Bowles is beating Burr. Only if Bush clobbers the candidate (if we are foolish enough to nominate Dean) will Bowles lose. With Edwards as the nominee, we win NC, the NC Senate seat, Louisiana, Arkansas, probably Georgia, maybe Tennessee and Kentucky.

you have the right idea and realize just how great of a candidate edwards is. now for the rest - jump on the bandwagon.

i've been wondering-- is it the number of people who sign up to receive campaign email/snail mail updates? donations? where do the campaigns get the numbers?

You keep saying that but I'd like to see you back that up...
and please don't mention a speach to Cato Institute as your proof.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_economy_reclaimingtheamericandream



"Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts and Reform the Tax Code

Financed by federal deficits and by shifting the burdens to states and localities, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts benefited the wealthiest Americans while doing little or nothing for the middle class. In fact, the Bush tax policies furthered the administration’s goal of shifting the federal tax burden from income derived from invested wealth to the shoulders of working Americans. For many Americans, increases in state and local taxes, cuts in services, and falling incomes outweighed any modest decrease in their federal tax rate. The tax cuts are part of the long- term Republican agenda to starve the federal government of the resources it needs to meet our commitments to public education, Social Security and Medicare.

The first step in reversing this agenda, balancing the budget and putting the US fiscal house in order must be the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and returning the tax code to rates that were in effect during the prosperous years of the Clinton-Gore administration.

The distribution of the income tax burden has changed dramatically. In 1973, corporations paid 40% of federal income tax revenues. Last year, the corporate contribution was down to 16.8%. Experts estimate that corporate tax avoidance schemes are costing the US taxpayers up to $100 billion a year. Senator John McCain claims that even a modest effort to eliminate unnecessary special interest tax preferences and loopholes would raise nearly $50 billion a year in increased federal revenues.

The current tax code is overloaded with special interest favoritism and stacked against working Americans. Unfair tax subsidies, shelters and loopholes abound. Corporations use foreign tax havens solely to avoid paying US income taxes. Tax cheats escape detection and prosecution. Abusive tax shelters are commonplace.

Governor Dean will make fundamental reform of the tax system one of his first priorities. He will crack down on tax shelter promoters and their clients He will pursue actions to impose hefty fines and bar further practice before government agencies by lawyers and accountants who certify abusive tax shelters. President Bush’s own tax commissioner testified that the IRS lacked sufficient resources to collect $30 billion in known unpaid taxes. The Governor will provide the Internal Revenue Service with the budget it needs to do its job.

The Dean economic program will strive for greater tax fairness for middle class working families. Closing corporate tax loopholes will help shift some of the burden off the shoulders of individuals. Ending unfair tax preferences will raise additional revenue to reduce the deficit and help set the federal budget on the road to balance.
"

If Bush locks you up, who are you going to call?

First, the term all is quite extreme - be careful how you use it. Second, it's not at all true. The common knowledge that Edwards raised a great deal of his early money (1Q) from lawyers is true. But, not all of it came from lawyers and, believe it or not, has raised quite a bit since then. Stop lambasting him for his background. Learn more about it and then you'll be campaigning for him.

comprehend the issues. This isn't an insult. It's actually a compliment. I think there are a lot of people who vote based on looks or other irrelevant factors. I've met these mindless people and there are a lot of them, mostly in the Republican Party. These are the people who voted for Arnold.

I don't agree with Edwards on all the issues but he is currently my second or third choice. I was very impressed that he opposed the $87 billion and that he stood up to Dean on the Vermont health care issue. I am also impressed with his stance on civil rights. Besides I'm tired of electing a bunch of rich guys.

I'm amazed that someone who flip flops so much can be doing so well in the polls and donations.

The answer is simple: Dean is a C+ candidate and his campaign gets an A.

And Edwards is our one A+ candidate.

and I believe that was his winning strategy in the Senate race in NC. Tons of TV. He is VERY good in the commercials I have seen.

He's very telegenic, and I have no doubt he'll come across well in the commercials.

And the media don't show much of Edwards.

Once people see him and get to know Edwards, he will do much better in the polls and pick up support.

Don't count him out! He can win this!

..

Now that Edwards is getting the media attention he deserves, people will start listening to his ideas and that....
A)he has the best policies
B)he's from the South
C)he can win the Midwest
D)he would destroy Bush in a debate

These commercials will really help and, if Edwards gets a good showing in Iowa because of the ads, it will really help his campaign in South Carolina

Just as we speak, the media is starting to give Edwards more of the attention he deserves. Cehck out this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61741-2003Oct21.html

"He draws big applause from a weekday crowd of 200 at a small community center here. He has 5-year-old girls booing pharmaceutical lobbyists."

"One of the striking things about seeing Edwards up close is the degree of raw anger he evinces in his speeches -- and the level of anger he elicits from his audiences toward the president."

That verges on a lie.

"The North Carolina senator likes fighting imagery. Not in the cliched, metaphoric manner of "fighting political battles" or "leading the fight for working people," but actual, blood-smeared fights. He recounts one from high school. Edwards was a freshman, his opponent a junior or senior. The other guy was a bully, Edwards says. The other guy started it."

I have NEVER heard him use fighting imagery in a speech. Where is this coming from?

Belying a pleasant mien, Edwards is quick, if not to anger, then to revel in his rawer self. He eats like a savage, chews hard, rips off pieces of sandwich with his teeth. His grimaces when he discusses the people he knew growing up, people "that were never given the proper respect."



He squints. "My father used to always say he could tell in 30 seconds if somebody was talking down to him." His grandfather, a boxer, was paralyzed over half of his body in a fight.

"And I'd see people making fun of him. And it had an effect on me."

Edwards is at his most animated when describing how his roughened edges were and are manifest. When he first moved to Robbins, a group of kids from the neighborhood invited him to play football on Sunday afternoons. Edwards's style of play was so chippy and physical that other players didn't even try to tackle him, he says.

Like the fighting metaphor, this works as a tidy symbol for a man who makes tidy presentations of his life's narrative. But to see Edwards up close is to view a decided lack of tidiness -- a raw, emotional edge.

His self-assurance collapses as he recalls a case he tried in the late 1980s. He represented an injured young man who was suing a trucking company and was devastated when the jury ruled for the company. "I had to go tell this young man that he lost," Edwards says. "He had a serious brain injury. He just didn't understand. And he kept asking me over and over again."

Edwards stopped sleeping. He blamed himself.

x( The writer said that Edwards said it, not necessarily in a speech. A writer of a Raleigh newspaper story interviewed somebody on Edwards' high school football team who talked about what a tough guy he was.

I think this writer was making a point that in person this "anger" thing comes across.

He wasn't angry. He was great. And he was funny.

will get him more support as soon as he gets more attention. Three months is a long time and he can win this. Dean came out of nowhere and became the front runner just like that. The same can happen to Edwards but the difference is that Edwards might peak at the right moment.

every time i see edwards i go "aaaaw". the more they put his mug on the tube the better... for his campaign ;-) unfortunately, not for mine!

and has made some progress.

A new Zogby poll of Iowa shows that it might be a real race between Kerry and Edwards for third in Iowa. (Kerry has 9% and Edwards 7%)
If Kerry came in third in Iowa that would be considered a very good showing for him.

He hasn't even completed one full term as a Senator.

actually transferring wealth back from negligent corporations and insurance companies than Edwards has.

He has won jury awards of about 250 million bucks for ordindary people from insurance companies and big businesses (and I doubt a single one went out of business because of him). That a quarter of a billion dollars for people.

Even on their best days, most Democratic senators are just trying to stop the flow of blood in the other direction, from ordinary people to big bad corporations and insurance companies.

Kucinich is the only Senator who can actually say that he stood between rapacious corporations (electricity privatizers in Cleveland) and won a battle for ordinary people. But even that battle cost him a job. Edwards has gone from success to success winning the good fight.

Bush is from Texas which has a weak governor system, infact, the LT. Gov has more power on budget matters. Bush was in his fifth year as governor when he was running for president. Edwards is in his fifth year as a US Senator.

corporations to rip people off, or so that he could be a sinkhole for people trying to get favors from his father.

Edwards sued negligent corporations for people who had been injured, and his father had nothing to do with it.

while Bush has been a failure. Bush is a mediocre president, he was a terrible governor and failed at everything that was given to him his entire life.

Edwards came from nowhere and he is what he is by his own merits. This man would make a great president and once people learn what he is all about you will see his support rise pretty darn quick!

I like his style, I like his tone, and he has put forth some really excellent proposals on domestic policy. But I also believe that the 2004 election is going to have, at its foundation, a concern about national security. If the final candidates (Bush v. whoever; or R v. D) are perceived as "equal" on the national security front, the debate will focus on other areas. I have this niggling feeling that if we don't nominate someone who is strong on national security and foreign policy, the well-funded Republican message is going to be that we can't trust the D's to defend us adequately. I believe that there is enough residual fear leftover from 9/11 and other violent things to turn people towards the Republicans - even if they hate Bush on other matters.

John Edwards would have been a wonderful President in any other time, and if he does get the nomination, I'll work my butt off for him, but I think we'd be better off with someone who exudes strength on a global basis.

There is nothing inherently wrong with John Edwards and we would be served well by him. I personally would prefer someone who has more experience on a national stage.

I kinda like Edwards, too. He's running 2nd or 3rd among the 9 with me.

It's this comment I'd like you to elaborate on: "I think we'd be better off with someone who exudes strength on a global basis."

This gives me the creepy shivers. It brings to mind a global dominator/bully. That's probably not what you meant, but it's the visceral reaction I get.

After living with 4 years of America as an empire builder, I want a candidate who will build coalitions and partnerships; not give the world ultimatums and go it alone when the support isn't there. That's the kind of global strength I wish to see; strong at building partnerships.

The military background is not a factor for me; it's the ability to interact with others and work toward agreement.

I doubt the millworker and post office stuff would resonate if they are put into the commercials. If Edwards can hammer home three or four reasons why people should vote for him over the next 90 days, his numbers may go up marginally. But he should have been laying the groundwork for that months ago.

and they're great. They include the roots stuff, and people respond.

About the $87 billion is terrific. That'll get a lot of votes.

Lots of women I know are pissed. He skipped the PBA vote. He clearly doesn't see us as a priority. The Dems surely know that whoever the candidate is he should be on good terms with women voters.

He has a 100% ranking with NARAL. He has been consistently pro-choice, and missing a vote that wouldn't have changed the result will not matter to anyone who isn't trolling.
And he has fought more than any other candidate against Bush's anti-choice judicial nominees. You ought to be thanking him, and supporting him.

It's sympbolic he didn't stand up and resoundly let women know where he stands yesterday when he had a chance. His colleagues were there -even Lieberman. Dean responded to the vote very quickly.
There are some things I like about him, but as a woman with a disability, this guy has failed to stand up and be counted as a supporter of my most important issues TWICE! He didn't vote against confirming a judge that has stated he wants to reverse ADA and he didn't stand up to vote against the most damaging piece of legislation for reproductive rights.

First - you're playing right into Republican hands. They purposely scheduled this vote at a time they knew would be difficult for the Democratic candidates to be there. Yes, Lieberman was able to adjust his schedule at the last minute, but it wasn't possible for the others to do the same. The Republican leadership knew that their votes would make no difference since the margin was so lopsided, but they want Democrats to hold it against their own for not cancelling important campaign events - events that could help them eventually beat the Republicans - to rush back to Washington to make a symbolic showing by casting a vote that would make not one difference in the outcome.

Second, John Edwards has taken principled - and difficult - votes against countless nominees, often going against the popular will of his conservative state. It is foolish, in my opinion, to continue to hold the fact that he didn't oppose ONE judge you don't like. That vote, once again, would not have stopped this nominee and, one of the realities in politics is that Senators have to pick their battles. While it may feel good to always make the symbolic gestures, it is often not the smart thing to do.

Edwards has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee, using his immense legal skills to fight bad judges. His cross-examination of Charles Pickering, including the Perry Mason moment in which he forced Pickering to admit that he had violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, has been lauded as one of the most effective takedowns ever seen in the Judiciary Committee. He has been so committed and effective that ADA Watch, NOW, NARAL, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, and numerous other civil rights groups begged Daschle to keep him on the Judiciary Committee after the 2002 elections, even though the seniority rules called for his removal when Republicans took control of the Committee.

And, although it doesn't get much national attention, Edwards has single-handedly blocked bad North Carolina judicial nominees, including a former Jesse Helms staffer whom Bush is trying to force onto the Court of Appeals. Despite enormous pressure from the White House, Republican Senators, his conservative North Carolina constituency and an avalanche of negative editorials, Edwards courageously refuses to budge and has successfully prevented this nominee from moving through the Committee.

To insist that Senator Edwards has "failed to stand up and be counted" because you don't like two or three out of hundreds and hundreds of votes he has cast - many of which he did at enormous political risk - is myopic and counter-productive. We've got to be careful not to fall into the trap of "getting back" at candidates because they aren't perfectly in sync with each and every one of us 100%. This "I'm not going to vote for him - that'll show him!" attitude will only result in another four years of George W. Bush in the White House.

By being a part of my primary and making an educated choice?????

"Edwards has been an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee, using his immense legal skills to fight bad judges."

Maybe that's where he should stay.

"To insist that Senator Edwards has "failed to stand up and be counted" because you don't like two or three out of hundreds and hundreds of votes he has cast"

I'd vote for him if he happened to be the dem candidate. But he has wimped out on my two most important issues during primary season. I have like some things about his demeanor, but he didn't stand up when it counted (southern strategy gto appeal to white men?).
According
to his rhetoric and recent stands, he has not indicated that he will stand up for anyone but children (his health care plan excludes people to the same degree that his loser vote did- does nothing for adults with disabilities) and "mill working" men if he's elected.

I thought he showed class one time. When he mediated on the stage when candidates started attacking each other. Other than that, his class warfare rhetoric is tiresome. He's starting to use a little violent imagry (see below). It's like Kerry trying to act macho with his ridiculous "extreme" displays. I think that primitive posturing is intended to appeal to men- it works. Medals, sports, and fightin' words, and the white men are finally impressed. Women are more interested in policy and action. If a candidate wimps out during primary season he doesn't have what it takes to go all the way.

BTW: On Sutton, he hid out in his office. He might have voted to confirm. THAT would have killed his candidacy and he knows it. He didn't make his voice heard on that issue. It's a massive failure. He didn't stand up! Those groups you mentioned will not endorse him in the primary.

http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

http://www.namiscc.org/Advocacy/2002/BrooksSmith.htm



Edwards, 50, was raised in a procession of Southern mill towns. He got into fights. "This kind of fight," he says, holding his right fist to a reporter's nose. It was, he says, "very much the law of the jungle. . . . If you couldn't protect yourself, they'd run all over you."

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61741-2003Oct21.html

just curious.

Here's the Common Dreams Press Release on D. Brooks Smith's nomination. If the Dems are trying to keep their powder dry so that they have more authority when the oppose the truly evil nominees, Smith might not be the worst nominee imaginable. I'm not saying Edwards did anything he should be proud of. I'm saying that I know that the Democrats are desperate to object to only the worst ones so they CAN block them without being called obstructionists.

Smith, 50, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, had attracted the strongest opposition of any Bush judicial nominee since the Judiciary Committee, on a straight 10 to 9 party line vote in March, rejected the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Smith's critics accused him of a serious ethical lapse in the handling of one case and of espousing an overly narrow view of the powers of the federal government. They also said his decisions too often have sided with business against the interests of others.

But the strongest criticism of Smith centered on his membership in the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, a fishing and hunting organization that excludes women. As part of his 1988 confirmation to the district court, Smith promised the Judiciary Committee that he would resign from the club if he failed to win a change in its bylaws to admit women. Smith resigned from the club, which remains closed to women, in 1999.

Laying out the Democratic case against Smith, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the judge had "flagrantly broken" his promise to the committee. He said that to elevate him now to an appeals court would send "a bad message." Leahy and others also cited Smith's failure to recuse himself immediately from a case involving a bank where his wife worked and in which he had a substantial financial interest.

Yesterday's meeting took place in a subdued atmosphere. Committee Republicans, apparently confident that they would prevail, said little before the vote.

Of the three Democrats who supported Smith, Biden's vote was the most surprising. He had vowed to "do everything I can to defeat" the nomination if he thought Smith was ducking questions.

Yesterday Biden said, "I'd like to vote against this guy" but "I don't have a sufficient reason" to do so. He said he would impose tougher standards for Supreme Court nominees.

I am my own person. This has been widely reported in the disability community nationwide. People are very upset.
As far as I'm concerned, I find it most disturbing that he was too chicken to let us know which way he was going to vote. He skipped the vote- hid out in his office. Why should I believe that he would make a strong president when he's too big of a chicken to vote to confirm a judge when it may be unpopular with a portion of his base or vote against the guy and let me know he stands up for me? I want a president who is strong enough to get things done and be re-elected.

you speak for the entire disability community. Numerous disability groups, including ADA Watch, fought to keep Edwards on the Judiciary Committee earlier this year when, as the member with the least seniority, he was slated to be removed after the Democrats lost a seat on the Committee. These folks know that Edwards has stood up for them time and again, both in the Committee and elsewhere, casting tough votes against Jeff Sutton, Jay Bybee, and many other bad nominees, often against the wishes of his constituency. They know that he has fought for the disabled throughout his career, both before and since he entered the Senate.

They are also politically savvy enough to not fall into the trap of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

I just won't support him in the primary. It's not only his Senatorial wimpiness. I'm sick to death of the tired son of a mill worker story and really hope we don't have to listen to it all the way through November. His health care plan also does nothing for adults with disabilities. The funny thing about his covering children plan is that our Gov. tried a similar strategy and failed. He had to make massive cuts, and he said "He had to make a hard choice and he chose the children."
I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself. I do know that many people with disabilities are aware of it, though. He is not well liked in my circles. In fact I know a SS disability attorney who WAS an avid early supporter (went so far as to go to NC to meet with him) until he pulled that hiding in the office routine.
If you think large numbers of people with disabilities would endorse this guy over a candidate who wants ADA to be a part of civil rights and attendent care a part of medicaid and health care for adults as well as children, you're insane. There are several other candidates calling for universal health care that includes adults.

The guy is from NC, and jotes with NC's orther senator the second least of all senators. He votes with his party 94% of the time.

If you don't like the mill worker story you're doubly ignorant. Did you hear what Sharpton said about that? He criticized Edwards for playing it down. He said that Dean and Kerry were wrong about thinking their own stories were more important. Sharpton said we should salute Edwards because his story gives a kid from the ghetto hope and makes them think they have a few more options than they'd otherwise think.

I totally agree with Sharpton.

And you know what. There isn't a candidate other than Edwards who has a plan that will give as many adults jobs with insurance within 8 months of election than Edwards will give them. You'll get kids covered within months, and you'll see real improvement with jobs, and he's going to expand medicare (medicaid?) to cover more adults in the meantime. I don't see any of the other plans resulting in as much actual coverage right away. Dean is delusional if he thinks he's going to get his plan passed.

"By being a part of my primary and making an educated choice?????"

No - You are playing into Republican hands by attacking John Edwards because he didn't fall into a trap set by Republicans and engage in futile act.

"Maybe that's where he should stay."

Interesting. On the one hand, you attack him, suggesting that he's not fit to be president because he's not doing a good enough job in the Senate. Yet when it's pointed out that he IS doing an outstanding job, you claim that he should just stay in the Senate.

And you don't think you're playing into Republican hands?

Did you used to have another name? Because you sound like the woman who used to post about the Brooks nomination where Edwards vote did not matter either.
Edwards has been great on the rights of women and the disabled. He spent his adult life fighting for disabled people, for heaven's sake. And if his record is good enough for Kate Michealman, it should be good enough for you.

Senator Edwards Statement On Kate Michelman's Retirement - Monday, September 22, 2003

RALEIGH, NC: Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement in response to Kate Michelman’s announcement that she would step down as president of NARAL Pro-Choice America:

"Kate Michelman is an extraordinary leader who has played an extraordinary role in the battle for equal rights and equal justice in America. In her 18 years of leadership, NARAL moved the debate about women’s rights from back rooms to the national stage. Her advocacy helped make reproductive freedom a fundamental American freedom.

"Somewhere in America today, a woman sits alone, anxious--trying to confront a decision that millions of women have faced before. She'll call on her experience and on her sense of right and wrong, and she'll make that decision. But the important thing is that that decision is hers and it is hers alone. It is because of NARAL, and it is because of Kate Michelman that she has that right.

"I have valued Kate's leadership on questions facing the Judiciary Committee and the Senate, and her leadership on the campaign trail. Kate’s work has helped build the support for the next step in this battle, a federal Freedom of Choice Act. I pledge to pass this legislation, which will serve as a firewall against those who would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose."

There must be more than one of us who is aware of his recent dismal record. His vote may not have changed the result and if you don't have a disability, it may not matter to you. BUT, it damn well does matter to me and a lot of other people with disabilities. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but he killed all chances of getting my support in the primary when he didn't didn't draw his lines in the sand with these votes. He can talk all he wants but he didn't go on record when he could have.

There is no other candidate who has spent his entire life working for the dignity and rights of disabled people. He has been at the front lines for twenty years, and you know it. There are no "these VOTES" that change that, and you know it. He drew lines in the sand as a lawyer and as a Senator, and you know it. He didn't "talk all he wants" he talked the talk and walked the walk all his adult life and you know it. It matters to him and you know it.

You used to have another screen name, right? Or do you post using more than one screen name because this is the same patter that was used by you when he announced.

Universal health care? Anything that moves us toward making ADA immune to the gutting it keeps getting? Any amendments offered to provide attendent care under medicaide? Did he champion stem cell research?
These are the things that make a difference.

But you might have noticed that was stopped by Bush's executive order. Look at his work in the Health committee.

He's the one I "fear." Very few missteps. The only mistake I think that he's made is his lack of early, heavy adverstising. He had the early buzz and squandered it, imo. Other than that, he's played a close-to-the-vest, well-run campaign. He could very well get on a roll.

My local PBS station replayed the AARP debate in Iowa a week or so ago, and Dean took a big swipe at Edwards. Why would he do that? It has to be that Dean sees Edwards coming up in polls and sees the candidate and the campaign as a threat. So I think you are on to something.

ever so deftly and graciously parried him . . .

…
Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina continued to buy ads in Iowa - nearly $250,000 worth in less than two weeks - and still leads among the four candidates in Iowa ad buys, having spent about $1 million. The latest polls show him attracting only 7 percent of likely Iowa voters, trailing Gephardt, Dean and Kerry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3297514,00.html

And as a Senator he could not live in Iowa and New Hampshire like other candidates, so it is not surprising that he has had to build name recognition through advertising. And his numbers keep going up with every poll and will keep going up because he connects with voters better than any other candidate.

Dean was lesser known than Edwards. I remember seeing pieces on Edwards early in 2002. You could make an equal case for Braun, Kucinich and Graham.

like he might have been able to do if he was not in the Senate. This fact hurts all sitting Senators and Congressmen, but it hurts the ones with less name recognition more. So he had to get known through commercials.

And it is his necessary game plan, hard enough as it is being second in preliminary considerations to other candidacies AND being an active Senator. That is probably why Kerry will continue to struggle unless some fantastic stage is given the Dems in Congress over the GOP's dead carcasses.

The test is in reaching and proving himself to the voters because the money game will not yield him an appearance of dominance. So his strategy, like Clark's has yet to be allowed to its real test.

I feel Kerry is probably the best qualified of all candidates, but the popularity contest among other very strong candidates may swamp him, cripple Dean's march to the inevitable, and create some interesting alliance scenarios before or during the convention.

I think the GOP scream machine is muted to allow as many candidates as possible to split the costly primaries and possibly the party. Edwards strength is in the electorate when the electorate gets to really see him. Today's stage is one the first and so far very indecisive one

I mean, NO ONE had dropped out, even those who realistically have no chance of convincing people of their electability and thriving on the issues. Picking on Edwards, who seems to be trailing strongly in the pack shows more concern than confidence by critics who likely wish he was not coming up behind them in the stretch.