Watching Edwards

Edwards' campaign is becoming quite fascinating to me.

Here is a guy who has been through the wringer in 2004, and no doubt has a totally realistic picture of what he faces, particularly with an implacably hostile M$M, wholly owned by his enemies, out there with the assigned mission of destroying his campaign, and with the limitatins he has imposed on himself in accepting matching funds.

As a lawyer and as a politician, Edwards has a track record of winning, or at least not repeatedly tilting at windmills, and of learning from experience. In 2004 he didn't get the nomination, and then he didn't get the Vice Presidency. But in the course of that campaign, he got a very close look at how the system works, with all its corruption and bias. He would not now be in the game if he hadn't at least convinced himself that he had analyzed the game and figured out a strategy that gives him at least a reasonable chance at the gold ring. This is all the more true given Elizabeth's health status. Surely he would not waste so much of what time they have remaining together in a quest they see as Quixotic.

All of this suggests to me that he has a game plan, and he thinks it's good enough to be worth playing out, even at considerable cost to him. I have absolutely no insider knowledge nor any pretense to special insight. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that this will be a campaign worth watching. We can only wait to see what unfolds.

when he could not wait to get on TV to show that he talked to Musharaff. He called the embassy and asked the embassy to call Musharaff, who called him back. Edwards is not a Senator. He is a citizen. Granted he is running for President, but--it just struck me as odd that a citizen would call Musharaff and give him advice.

It was not his best moment.

first statement. it was like Edwards was parroting Joe Biden. and they call Joe a plagiarist.:eyes:

Do you plan to do this all day again, you know, if you see a decent thread, you have to jump in there fast and snark?

Funny, I liked Biden before I started coming to DU. I even liked Clinton, not so much any more. What do you people think your doing?

pointing out Edwards obvious flaws, Hoping beyond hope we Americans elect someone who actually knows what they are doing. instead of some populist like Edwards or Hillary. who would take at least 6 to 12 months to get the hang of leader of the free world.

Say no more. I understand now. Anyone dim enough to actually call Hillary a populist... well, do I have to say anything else?

You my friend, must have sand between your ears. I'll feel free, in the future to completely ignore your opinion.

Hillary, a populist!:rofl: You are indeed, a silly little misguided person. Have a nice day.

By the way, how'd that press conference go yesterday? Did anyone at all cover that grandstanding? I looked, but couldn't find it on my TV. Interesting, they must have looked at his poll numbers.

YOU what you WANT to hear.
and about that lack of pro-bono work...
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/f28104f3-9a24-4bd9-a426-11724a429f80

And anyone who knew anything about how the law works, would not make a silly comment like that. By the way, did you see? Your boy is all the way to 3% in the Iowa poll, you must be so proud.

The largest contributer to Hillarys campaign is........Citigroup Inc.

http://opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2004


Edit: sorry that was 2004


for this election Citigroup is the third largest contributor to her presidential campaign

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008


Is Citigroup tied to the Saudi's? Terrorism?

http://www.usanews.net/_archive2007/0000000a.htm

Leonard D. Wallace
4077 Harwood F
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 U.S.A.
954.420.2999 voice
954.420.2907 fax
ldw3233@msn.com
www.spheresvcsltd.com

The Mass Murder of nearly 3,000 innocent victims in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 (“9-11”) was financed by:

Citibank/Citigroup 399 Park Avenue New York, New York 10043 United States of America

"For well over five years, I have attempted to shed light on this matter. As part of this effort to seek justice for the mass murders of 9-11, Kenneth R. Feinberg, Esquire of Washington, D. C. agreed to counsel me on issues that are kept non-partisan.

Citibank/Citigroup (“Citigroup”) financed and managed various Saudi banks in Saudi Arabia prior to and after 9-11. Citigroup has never chosen to dispute the facts being said here or to ask for retractions from print journalists who have reported the same information.

Citigroup has never offered any sort of proof that they did not finance Saudi training camps where the 19 Arabs learned how to become a synchronized group of murderers. Some of the terrorist leaders have been detained and/or killed but others have not… including their American enablers.

Alberto Gonzales, and the U.S. Department of Justice that he heads, have successfully blocked any investigation of Citigroup, despite evidence that has been presented to them"




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/specialsales/spotlight/saudi/art10.html

Banks on a Roll
Rich retail markets, growing assets and a sympathetic regulator — no wonder Saudi bankers are smiling.
Saudi Arabia's banks are not big by global standards but all of them have big grins on their corporate faces this year. Last year, all 10 Saudi banks reported strong earnings growth: in fact, the worst performer grew profits by a reassuring 10 percent. All of them also saw their total assets grow. The first-half interim results for this year suggest that the good times are continuing to roll: all but one of the players posted six-month earnings growth in double-digit territory.

That this is in stark contrast to other regional markets is the product of a number of factors: under Dr Hamad Saud Al-Sayari, the central bank is widely regarded as one of the best regulators in the region; the Saudi economy is booming and the retail banking market, long left untouched, has shown a remarkable capacity for sustained growth.

It is difficult to find a senior banker in the Kingdom who can stop himself smiling when asked about the growth of consumer banking, and the potential for future growth. "We want to become the premier consumer bank in the Kingdom, and basically we have chosen this vision because we believe that it holds the biggest opportunity," says Abdullah Bahamdan, chairman of National Commercial Bank, in terms of assets the largest bank not only in Saudi Arabia but also in the whole Arab world.

<snip>

"Of course there will be more competition, but although we might at first glance say that the banking sector is closed to foreign competition, we are actually in competition with them every day, because Saudi American Bank is a joint venture with Citigroup and Saudi British Bank is a joint venture with HSBC," says Bahamdan.

Thats alot of ?????? you fill in the blanks

Hillary......a Populist.?????
:rofl:

No credibility here.

and hopefully, someone who doesn't repeatedly embarrass himself and his party on the Sunday talk shows....

but I agree with you on this. It was Edwards way of injecting himself into the situation. To make himself seem more involved in foreign policy. I'm sure most objective thinking people see it as well.

:)

;-)

THE ASSASSINATION of Benazir Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Within hours some revealing results were in. One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive; Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were thin. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.

Let's start with Mr. Edwards, who managed not only to get Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on the phone Thursday but also to deliver a strong message. The candidate said he had encouraged Mr. Musharraf "to continue on the path to democratization to allow international investigators to come in and determine what happened, what the facts were." Those are words the Pakistani president needs to hear from as many Americans as possible. He has yet to confirm that the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections will go forward and risks a destabilizing backlash against his own government unless he delivers a full and credible account of the authors and circumstances of Ms. Bhutto's killing.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain also endorsed Pakistan's continued democratization. Each cited an acquaintance with Ms. Bhutto or Mr. Musharraf and opportunistically trumpeted their foreign policy experience -- but both also offered some cogent analysis. Ms. Clinton rightly cited "the failure of the Musharraf regime either to deal with terrorism or to build democracy," adding that "it's time that the United States sided with civil society in Pakistan."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3903086

both because they already tried and in DK's case failed immensely, and Edwards because of the lack of experience.
I'd write Obama off too for the experience thing but he has proven that there is a "star" factor involved and he is the darling this tme around.

.
One seems to be buying into the corporate media song.

Leadership comes from within. Experience at being a human being will carry Edwards, and DK. The rest of the Democratic Party candidate field is playing the corporations' games and gaming the system.
.

corporate interests as a priority! That's the difference between him and the other candidates running, with possible exception of DK. He has the American public interest first and foremost in mind, both at home and abroad!

The move would have been shouted from the rooftops by her supporters.

But hey -- she DID get the first soundbite out regarding Bhutto. So by her supporters standards - she *wins*.

Obama were all ahead of her statement. She indeed is the only one who did not make political hay out of the death of her friend. Her statement was personal, and beautifully stated.

She did not clammer to the first video camera to exploit it. In fact, she has not given an interview on the subject--you cannot say that for most of the other candidates. They were practically climbing over each other to get in front of the camera.

THE ASSASSINATION of Benazir Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Within hours some revealing results were in. One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive; Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were thin. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.

Let's start with Mr. Edwards, who managed not only to get Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on the phone Thursday but also to deliver a strong message. The candidate said he had encouraged Mr. Musharraf "to continue on the path to democratization to allow international investigators to come in and determine what happened, what the facts were." Those are words the Pakistani president needs to hear from as many Americans as possible. He has yet to confirm that the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections will go forward and risks a destabilizing backlash against his own government unless he delivers a full and credible account of the authors and circumstances of Ms. Bhutto's killing.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain also endorsed Pakistan's continued democratization. Each cited an acquaintance with Ms. Bhutto or Mr. Musharraf and opportunistically trumpeted their foreign policy experience -- but both also offered some cogent analysis. Ms. Clinton rightly cited "the failure of the Musharraf regime either to deal with terrorism or to build democracy," adding that "it's time that the United States sided with civil society in Pakistan."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3903086

a reason to insist voters choose Clinton.! Bl eh!That was unsavory to say the least!Even Bayh is a jerk and a typical of the Hillary campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3893295

I'm not trying to be snarky. I just don't understand why a citizen can't do what he did. Now I can't comment on his going on TV because I didn't see it. But I sure would rather have Musharaff listening to Edwards than chimp.

My take? He's run a nearly flawless campaign so far. There have been a couple of hiccups, sure, but for the most part, he has played the timing like a master. I'm sure much of this has to do with his experience of being here before.

And one more point- I believe if it were not John Edwards now, it would be someone else carrying the banner of Progressives. America is ready to change, there is a movement building in the country, and the populace is ready for a new, New Deal. That's what Edwards is bringing us. And that is why so many poor, working poor, and middle class Americans are hearing the rally call, and heeding that call.

.
The sidelines are not where one belongs though. As long as Edwards does not get the Benazir Bhutto treatment, the leadership of his campaign may carry the day.
.

That is another risk he's taking as he works his way up "Gandhi's Ladder" (First they ignore you...).

I'm afraid they'll do everything they can to protect the old ways. We can hope that this time, truth wins out.

please, a link to the whole thing?

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Calling it "Gandhi's Ladder" is my doing, and intended to suggest that you can measure your progress toward winning by observing whether the people in power are ignoring, ridiculing, or fighting you.

I don't know the exact circumstances under which he first said it; in fact, I would imagine that he said it more than once, perhaps in slightly varying words.

for any "it" candidate that in retrospect is revealed to have a smart winning strategy, etc. is always the media. Edwards took it head on rather than from the side so it is going to happen fast. From what I can gather he DOES have the best campaign in place with the fewest mistakes and the fewest dogged errors that will carry over into November.

What he does not have is a media even willing to let him take a place in the contest. Take Bill Clinton who was very pointedly attacked by the NYT almost as a policy, and got the typical GOP scandal treatment.
he had to win over their objections as he did with the impeachment. Yet there was no doubt in that field that he was the "it" candidate. In 2007 they play off the rather unready "it" candidate Obama who is nicer to corporate media policies against Edwards. They are tempted heartily to try to make him a thing of the past like Gore, but that would mean paying attention. So after pointedly going after house and haircut, silence descended. It is the noise for Obama and the silence for Edwards that is straining, confusing things for people like me who usually see the "it" candidate and smile. Yup, that's the one, the smart sure thing. The field being what is is this year, Edwards can only dream of a race where he gets away from the rail and can move alongside the contest bout. He was squeezed out of attention last time and it was too late to get a squeak out before it was all over. This time it still could happen that way again, but this time he is fighting all the way.

I note the polls for 2004 were completely askew. Little has been done to the media picture this time except to repeat the exploitation of the same polls with a little more hedging so as not to look too stupid this time- as if they really care. Hillary too is no Gep or Dean. She has extremely strong organization and a more powerful base. Obama has been successfully set up as the second choice. Last time there was the Dean/Gephardt blowout and the Kerry/Edwards upsurge. By the same board, different game, I would imagine it has to play out as a three way slugfest with edwards gaining in every field but not as much because of a strong Hillary state organization. He will throw things to Obama in that event to try to knock her down as far as possible. He would LIKE to eliminate one of them, but that is unlikely to happen. He has done one thing, gambling the whole thing again. By drawing the others into this clash he has made their fate part of his own and any victory in Iowa one that the media won't be able to sniff at("but of course, Edwards threw everything into Iowa") although they are trying to without admitting he will win! Very neatly he has put the other two on the same horns of a Rubicon dilemma. At least one cannot say the other two have set this up. Suddenly, Iowa IS important, perhaps a lot more than in many past years, despite people trying to shy away from what happened as recently as 2004. The Edwards Plan in effect, as far as that goes. We shall see.

This WILL be one to watch.

As I pointed out on another thread,

:patriot:

John Edwards will bring democracy back to the American public!

:hi:

I hardly ever come here. You should check out the "Is Hillary NUTS?" thread. What a hoot! :D

And I agree with her on that count! :silly:

I'm hardly ever here in GDP, either. The "Mars Attack" scare really, really shook me up, and I'm here waiting for more reports.

I'm just so frightened! Thank God God is in the White House!

Martain Campaign Volunteer

would make a handsome choice for vice president.

Sixteen years of progressive Democratic government sounds pretty good to me.

Good to see you as always. I second that motion.

Is it cold? Is it wintry? Is it the thrill of a lifetime?

Soldier on for those of us who can't be there, and send updates!

This time tomorrow morning I will be "eight miles high" as they say. Today is a day of planning and packing.

Wind rips across those farmlands with authority.

I predict you're going to love this experience and will be on an adrenalin buzz the whole time.

You'll arrive back home physically tired but otherwise elevated and charged.

Keep a journal! Take photos! Make friends! Have fun!

I can't remember the last time I so looked forward to something. Got the long-johns yesterday, and I'm going to pick up some good gloves today.

I've had to get a few things. Since I live in Ca, my drawers are full of shorts and t-shirts. Hell, I can go months at a time without wearing 'big boy pants.'

world attention this coming week.

And current polling says it's going to be a sizzler.

You're landing into History, asdjrocky.

That ain't small taters.