I just have to ask this question, for those that trash John Edwards,

other than Edwards having earned his wealth and not coming from a wealthy and connected eastern family, what is the difference between Robert Kennedy and John Edwards?
Both were one term Senators with a lot of money. Both supported an unpopular war and both campaigned on their change of heart. Both had great hair, smiles and charisma. They both lived in huge houses.Both were considered to be vicious barracudas in their legal profession. Both were said to be totally ambitious.Both Senators espoused poverty as their major issue during a campaign for the presidency.Both men were known for their devotion to their families.In his day Bobby Kennedy was also accused of hypocrisy for his interest in the poor.Both men were also accused of inexperience in government.Bobby had been appointed AG by JFK right out of law school and also didn't completed his first Senate term before running for President.
Why then do so many on Du , who admire RFK have such contempt for John Edwards?

before he's RFK.

TC

Was it any less hypocrtical for Bobby to endorse poverty? To be against Vietnam after supporting it?

One was AG, the other never was.

One was an amazingly inspirational public speaker, the other not so much.

One was a genuinely concerned advocate for the poor and down-trodden, the other I'm not so sure about.

One went doggedly after organized crime, the other I don't think so.

I'm not saying anything bad about John Edwards, because he's not saying he's like RFK, you are. But, I don't believe he's much like Bobby. And, I think it is doing him a great disservice to compare the two.

For the record: I am not "for" any candidate as yet. This is only my opinion. It is not anti-Edwards, as much as pro-RFK.

TC

he was considered the single best trial lawyer in the nation. He "doggedly represented" the victims of insurance companies.Bobby wasn't "genuinely concerned" about much beyond being elected.He was ruthlessly ambitious.But that is my opinion.
I was more interested in the comparisons that are obvious.Why is it hypocritical for one and not noteworthy in another?Just wondering.

but that isn't the case.

Ambition cannot disqualify a candidate. Every one of them is stuffed with it.

I don't think I liked him either.

Yeah, a lovely credential. Most of the google sites only say Kennedy represented the Democrats on the committee. A very distorted picture. This one may be, too, but it has a lot more detail about how much and how often he worked at those hearings.

<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_32/ai_66495287/pg_3>

And then there's this:

"http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_32/ai_66495287/pg_4"

"Robert Kennedy was a true believer in counterinsurgency. He coined the term, according to Michael Forrestal, a national security staffer who often worked with him. "Counterinsurgency might best be described as social reform under pressure," Kennedy wrote. Combating communism by building roads and hospitals appealed to his idealism and sympathy for the downtrodden. Training guerrilla fighters played to his storybook sense of history and reverence for "toughness"; among his heroes was Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, whose hit-and-run tactics had bedeviled the British during the Revolutionary War. Kennedy soon had Special Forces troops showing his children how to swing from the trees at Hickory Hill. On his desk at the Justice Department, the attorney general kept a green beret.

Kennedy had a romantic and naive faith in the possibilities of "psychological warfare" and "political action," as the CIA defined its cover attempts to stir the masses. RFK could not accept the fact that the KGB was better at these black arts than the CIA. When the Soviets resumed nuclear testing at the end of August, RFK demanded to know why the CIA couldn't bring angry homes into the streets of Europe, shouting against Soviet war-mongering. He summoned David Murphy, the head of the CIA's east European division, and demanded an explanation. Murphy tried to explain that the CIA could not simply order up a street protest. "Kennedy didn't understand our limitations," recalled Murphy. "He just pouted."

Other government officials could see not only the limitations of trying to win the war of "hearts and minds," but also the dangers of trying. One of RFK's pet ideas was to try to train the police forces of developing countries, particularly those of Latin America. On September 11, 1961, RFK sent a memo to the president urging him to order the FBI and Pentagon to "determine whether all necessary steps are being taken by the internal police to deal with communist infiltration and whether the military or police are prepared to deal with mob riot, or guerrilla bands that may become active ... "In January 1962, the White House set up the Special Group (CI) ("CI" stood for "counterinsurgency") to prod the various government agencies into greater efforts in the struggle against communist subversion. "He thought that by making their cops more like ours, we could stop communism," said Charles Maechling, a State Department official who served as staff director of the Special Group (CI) and had the thankless task of communicating RFK's wishes. The State Department diplomats had their doubts. They knew, from firsthand observations, that the fragile democracies of Asia and Latin American had "no control over their security services," said Maechling. By making them more "professional," the well-meaning Americans risked simply making them more efficient engines of repression."

He is the guy their people are running against.

And some of them might not be what they seem.

;-)

I could care less what Edwards portfolio looks like.

I do care when his campaign rhetoric does not match his voting record.

"Bobby had been appointed AG by JFK right out of law school"

Not true at all. Bobby worked on both sides of the McCarthy hearings as counsel and was a big part of the hearings on Union racketerring. Remember his famous back and forth with Jimmy Hoffa?

JFK nepotism in that appointment caused it to be made impossible forother Presidents to appoint realtives.I also remember Jack Kennedy supporting McCarthy.I thought the dealings with Hoffa were when Bobby was AG but I could be wrong.

But he was not totally unqualified like a certain FEMA director.

"I thought the dealings with Hoffa were when Bobby was AG but I could be wrong. "

He took it a step further while AG.

I actually had it wrong the famous TV back and forth was during his AG period.

During one of the most turbulent times in American History...the Civil Rights era...

Not to mention his pivotal role in virtually every aspect of the Kennedy administration including the Cuban Missile Crisis...

But regarding experience, Robert Kennedy was essentially the alternate President during JFK's term in office. It was Bobby who Jack always turned to to hash out all of the most difficult decisions. It was RFK who went to talk one on one with the Soviet Ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was RFK who ran the Justice Department when Civil Rights demonstrations were errupting all across the nation. RFK was accused of inexperience when JFK took office, true, but he had his brother's ear and back at all times, and he produced. So by the time he became a one term Senator, RFK was highly seasoned, and it is the RFK of those years who most often is recalled with deep emotion.

Possibly the greatest Attorney General in American History...during one of the most turbulent times in American History...the Civil Rights era...not to mention being a pivotal figure in the successful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis...

While a Senate staffer took on Union corruption and Jimmy Hoffa...

Ran JFK's Presidential campaign...

Nothing wrong with John Edwards...but Bobby Kennedy he isn't

hypocrisy in RFK but do in Edwards for the same things! No one ever demanded Bobby give up Hickory Hill because he crusaded for the poor.

You are way off...Bobby Kennedy was hated by a small but rabid group of people..and while trivial issues did not receive the airplay they do now with 24 hour news cycle...Edwards does not generate the hatred among those opposed to him that Bobby did...he was assasinated after all...

I believe his concern for the poor is sincere. But to speak to your question, RFK was born into wealth. It simply was there. He didn't have to build a family compound, he played there as a child. RFK wasn't faced with having to prioritize whether to put his energy into personal wealth accumulation vs channeling his energy into public service. The public has had a front row seat to watch as Edwards has accumulated personal wealth while he also campaigns for the poor. Fair or not, the imagery simply doesn't play the same.

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

Also, there are a few inexactitudes in your post. Kennedy was not just out of law school when he was named AG. He took the bar exam in 1951, 10 years before that. In between, he had a lot of experience in governemental affairs, even if these are not experiences that go to his credit (McCarthism).


In 1961, he was named AG for his brother, and it is fairly clear that he was instrumental in avoiding a 3rd world war in the Cuba Missile Affair. He also then expressed his committment to civil right (even if his anti-communism led him to some poor decisions concerning MLK).

He ran for the US senate in 1964, and then, may be his career starts to have some similarities with Edwards.

So, what did Edwards for his country (good or bad) during the 15 years before he decided to start politics? I have always been very underwhelmed by his lack of participation in the important issues of the country during the 1980s and 1990s.

Almost like watching an Elvis impersonator. Yes, it looks similar and yes, it's singing the same songs. But it's not the King.
With Edwards, there are a few similarities to RFK, but how many of those are natural and how many of them are put on? The fact that the campaign seems to be pushing this Edwards=RFK angle tells me it's the latter. And it's insulting.

you don't think Bobby actually believed a lot of his own rhetoric do you?

and Edwards probably is as well, but doesn't make any less put on. Edwards' poverty tour is retracing some of the steps of RFK's journey, so it's obvious the campaign is trying to draw comparisons between the two.

if that were your issue? I think both RFK and Edwards were/are sincere but I think it is also political calculation and it was for both. Any campaign would then be have to be looked at as "put on".

:shrug:

RFK prevented a riot in Indianapolis when they killed Martin. He didn't talk about it on Larry King.

I don't want to tar Edwards. But I am old enough to have watched the metamorphosis Bobby went through. Edwards shows no indication of having undergone such a profound and humanizing change.

leads me to the conclusion that the so called "metamorphosis" that Bobby went through wasn't quite what you think.Bobby was first and foremost a master politician.He often used the phrase "winning is everything".I have tremedous respect for all his abilities. He would have been an incredible president.He knew how to accomplish his goals.
Edwards strikes me as having a softer edge and is in fact, slightly less ambitious than Bobby. Bobby craved power.I think Edwards wants to make a difference.I admire them both.

to enjoy power.

But he also had a drive for excellence that was quite remarkable. I don't think I've seen that quality since, actually.

But you are very right.That was another memorable quality of RFK!

of attractive candidates this time. :)

at all. (And a black out wouldn't suprise me.)

I thought it was really telling that He asked John why he was doing this if he wasn't "campaigning" or "raising money".Cooper really couldn't understand why Edwards was doing this.Maybe like the GOP guy said on one on the FOX shows, "there aren't any poor so why go after their votes? "

:)

when he could have been off making big money. He spent plenty of time with poor folk - when no one was looking.

He also did a lot of philanthropic work in NC and in other places that he hasn't been credited with.

Another excellent reason to despise Kennedy. His supporters think he's royalty. He was an extremely imperfect human being and much of what he did with the best intentions destroyed lives.

Frankly, I'd rather you worshipped Elvis. He did less damage.

That doesn't mean I consider RFK to be the King, although I do admire him. I know he was imperfect.

there are alot of people who like the guy but, are supporting someone else and do not trash him.
If you stood back and watched you would see very few actually trash Edwards here compared to the anti Obama clique.
We get slimed at least a couple times a day everyday.
I like Edwards and don't trash the guy. Aside from Hillary, I am supportive of the other candidates.

But I do see a lot of Edwards trashing. I was just asking this question as I couldn't understand how people could rave on about RFK and dislike Edwards for the same conditions.

for one thing. They're on their own in many ways that the Kennedys weren't. Have to fold that in.

she even had her citizenship papers. The day they killed Bobby, we'd made a second round at the two precincts she and I were working. I was only 11 but already in it up to my elbows.

I find Edwards attractive and more real than most politicians. And I agree with you that there are many parallels between the pair.

I don't think I'll ever be able to view either JFK or RFK objectively. Too much hope ripped away too traumatically, too much promise stolen.

fwiw

And it continues to be stolen in many ways today.

Edwards blatantly ignored easily available evidence at the time of the IWR and declared on the floor of the senate things we "know" which were actually well in doubt.

Edwards advocated his responsibility as a check/balance on the executive branch by signing onto the Iraq war and even, long after it was clearly revealed it was a lie, stood by his decision. Edwards even went so far as to disparage the leader of the democratic party, stating that Howard Dean didn't speak for him.

I was not alive to see how much evidence RFK had to ignore to support the unpopular vietnam war... I was alive to see how much evidence Edwards had to ignore, how much he had to carry the torch for the administration and the incredibly timing of his "oops" moment (many years too late). I got to watch this man callously send people to their death for I absolutely believe was only his own political advantage.

One question I would have is how much did RFK attempt to for the poor while he was in the senate... we know Edwards did nothing.

I believe RFK was a great man, but that is based on limited knowledge and I can be convinced otherwise if you show me that he absolutely should have known vietnam was a mistake and he was helping to send people to die for nothing and that he worked against check/balance measures (voting against things like the Levin amendment). If you show me that he attempted nothing for the poor while senator, but only picked up the cause as a part of a campaign strategy, I will change my opinion of RFK.

I judge Edwards based on his actions and lack of actions. He has one of the worst track records I have ever seen in that he only takes popular positions and only changes when public opinion sways (Remember, in 2004 when evidence had proven WMD was a lie, he still stood behind his vote).

The whole wealth thing is a red herring. The real dislike of John Edwards comes from his obvious and incredible hypocrisy and crocodile tears. I am just surprised so many people are falling for it.

But he was warning Johnson about escalating the conflict as early as 1965. And the evidence to oppose the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution wasn't nearly as good as the evidence to oppose the IWR. Let alone the fact that in 2002, lawmakers had the history of the disaster in Vietnam to look back on. In 1964, America had never been involved in a conflict like Vietnam before. Korea was the closest, but Ike managed to end the stalemate.

Robert Byrd stood on the senate floor in 2002 and said that the IWR was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution all over again. Consider that he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, I'd say that those are pretty powerful words. Yet plenty of senators had no problem turning a def ear on them. Ted Kennedy who has been in the Senate for over 40 years and was also there to vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution says that voting against the IWR was the best vote he had ever cast. Again, too many senators didn't care what he had to say.

BTW, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed the Senate 98-2. Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK) were the only two to vote against.

Hey, you asked.

proven either way!

are doing it based on their opinion, right?

Although I think his pretzel-logic on the war is more than sufficient to question his honesty, but I'm sure that's just me.

or they didn't have a vote to begin with.

I'm actually less than impressed with the lot of them at this point.

Edwards started opposing Iraq when the country started having war fatigue.

If Bobby Kennedy had started opposing the Vietnam War in 1972 (assuming he hadn't been assassinated), nobody would have cared because almost every Democrat was against the war by 1972. The country had war fatigue at that point and it was easy to oppose the war. 1968 was a much different story. The country was deeply polarized over the war and taking a firm stance against it was courageous.

In 2004, the country was deeply polarized over Iraq. In 2008 the country has war fatigue and again almost every Democrat is now opposed to the Iraq War. Edwards might be comparable to Bobby Kennedy if he'd opposed the war in 2004 or better yet, in 2002. Opposing it in 2008 doesn't take much courage.

Let me say up front that I haven't firmly settled on a candidate for '08.

Edwards was an incredibly successful attorney who made his mark going after crooked insurance companies and all manner of corporate scoundrels.

Have you wondered why so much attention is being paid to him even though he's behind in the polls and in fundraising? Quite simply, he scares the shit out of the Corporatocracy.

Dennis Kucinich and Edwards are the only ones speaking out consistently about the poor, the shrinking middle class, our unfair trade policies, and other issues that are traditionally Democratic. Kucinich is the stronger progressive; but unlike Dennis, Edwards has a very realistic chance of getting the nomination if he can last through the early primaries and do well.

This must not be allowed to occur if you're part of Corporate America. It is pulling out the stops to ruin his chances before he becomes a serious threat. Hence, the corporate lying-whore media spending hours on stories about his haircuts and his big-ass house. Screw that. I'm not falling for it.

decided but I am leaning more in Edwards direction every day.But I have time.

Far and away the Dem Candidate that has taken the most hits from both the MSM and the Right is Edwards.

Wonder why? Cause he scares the hell out of both of them.

Edwards could/would win alot of middle of the road bible belters and would likely keep alot of red voters at home.

Out of the current batch of candidates he is easily the most electable.