Where is all the info on Edwards experience to lead America!

It doesn't seem to exist. The only thing i'm brought back to is his High % Trial Lawyer career, his not providing any Pro Bono work for the less fortunate, his small stint in the Senate that really did nothing for NC but made life alot easier for the Trial Lawyer association.

If anything can be provided it would be truly appreciated. BTW, please don't provide links back to his own website, it appears they like to overinflate the man just a tad! Thanks

But I feel pretty confident that Rove has lots of busy bees combing through all those juicy trial transcripts in search of...oh yeah, JE's leadership potential. Just in case, mind you.

They have the really gears grinding for the frontrunner! Edwards is a gnat in their soup!

I just called up my friend who was dubious about Edwards before...and actually he said as far as he knows, the guys "clean as a whistle". In fact, the head of the women's center here is a big supporter.
I was pissed that he moved on to run for pres so quickly when he could've helped NC more, but as my friend pointed out, when will there be a better time?
He is much more charismatic than Kerry, and Kerry is disappointing to me right now..although Edwards has said he's "personally against gay marriage" which bothers me . :shrug:

Where is all the information dealing with anything showing his experience to lead the greatest nation in the world. I'm talking Domestic and World Affairs.

Sorry to say but being " charismatic" is not a major qualifier.

What has he done to demonstrate such experience?

I'm sorry- fighting in a war does not qualify as international executive leadership.

show me a successful tort attorney and I'll show you someone who can be effectively slaughtered by the RW media.

Maybe somebody will come up with something.

there just isn't anything there!

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-edwards24feb24,1,4278390.story?coll=la-home-politics

THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE

Edwards Fumbles on Foreign Policy Answers

First-term senator has come under scrutiny for his lack of experience in defense, global issues.
snip
"I'm not sure I even know what you're talking about," Edwards said when asked if he supports the corporate tax credits. "If I understand what you're asking, and I'm not sure I do … I'm opposed to us using our tax system to give tax breaks to American companies who are shipping jobs overseas."
snip
Later, a campaign spokeswoman dismissed the importance of Edwards' admitted lack of familiarity with the subject.
"When the American people make a decision about security, about who they trust to lead the country, I don't think they're going to be concerned about a relatively obscure dispute between the European Union and the U.S. on a corporate tax credit,"
or maybe this:
?One evening while he was
campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards
was faced with a choice of several events he might
attend. An advance man suggested, ?Maybe we ought to
go to the reception for Leah Rabin.? ?Who?s she??
?Yitzhak Rabin?s widow,? replied the aide. ?Who was
he?? asked Edwards.?
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/10/news-ireland.php

It helps show others what a retread this guy really is!

...and he wants to lead the greatest nation on the face of the earth?

:scared:

He seems like a nice enough guy, very charismatic and a great talker, but what does he have in the way of experience? I'm not a big Kerry fan either, but he at least has leadership and foreign policy creds. Edwards does not, as far as I've been able to find out.

about the same as Clinton, Carter, Bush II, Reagan, Kennedy.

Yet somehow they all became president and they did it because they were better able to communicate their vision.

I realize that you feel that it made Clark the only viable option for you but lets face it, not that many people concur.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, but I was including executive experience in my question. In addition to his vast foreign policy credentials, Wesley Clark also has executive/domestic experience as NATO SACEUR, Commanding General of the U.S. Southern Command, etc.

What has Edwards ever been in charge of? I'm not being coy, I'd really like to know.

Why will people change from the one they have? You've named two successful Presidents and Reagan was a disaster for the working man. Clinton had more luck than skill. Kennedy is a fond memory but not a particularly great Presidency as he wasn't around too long. Carter is a great person but his Presidency set the Democratic Party back so far it allowed Reagan to destroy our Party.

Has Bush gotten better with experience? Are his unilateral policies the result of his lack of experience or the result of his arrogance?

The problem with Bush is his lack of judgment, integrity, and intellect. Edwards is a polar opposite of Bush on these criteria.

I haven't seen integrity or judgment. I have seen his voting record and saw him come back to Kerry's question in the SC debate to make the connection between 9-11 and the Iraq War to justify his vote. I'm sure Cheney agreed with him.

No one has pointed this out to me. All I see is that he fought in a war, which by itself certainly is not credible evidence of foreign policy leadership.

before this falls off the front page, I'd like to give Edwards supporters another chance to contribute some info on his leadership experience. I have no particular preference of candidate since Clark left the race, but I have been leaning toward Kerry based on his level of experience vs. that of JRE. Maybe I am missing something about John Edwards. If that's the case, someone please fill me in. Thanks!

I have posted many time requesting this info from them. To date not one of them has been able to provide anything.

But I'm honestly trying to keep an open mind about Edwards. He and Kerry were tied for my second choice before Clark left the race. Now I can't seem to get excited about either one of them. I'm leaning Kerry at this point but I'm still willing to give Edwards a shot if someone can provide some information on his experience. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen though.

I encourage you to visit http://edwards.senate.gov/issues.html to see what types of legislation he sponsored and some of the issues that will have his attention if elected President. I cant offer any other info other than his service in the Senate as foreign policy experience.

Hope it helps

and did not do so for the General. The answer is, at least from me, if you have to ask, there is no way to explain it to you.

But if you want to try, just ask yourself what the last three Dem Presidents had in common and if those traits are not well represented in Edwards.

Are comments like this by so many supporters of Edwards supposed to come off as being profound or something? I have never heard so much useless gobbly gook in all my life!

I think the Edwards campaign stresses Cryptics 101

The question was about leadership and experience in domestic and world affairs, not some ephemeral quality you and your fellow supporters see in him personally.

As to what the last Dem presidents had in common, well, they were all from the South of course. But that's just geography. In addition to being from the South, they all had relevant experience on which to run. Clinton and Carter were both governors. Gore was a vice president.

What relevant experience does Edwards have in domestic and world affairs? I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm not attempting to knock your candidate. I'd just like some more information. Google doesn't turn up much of anything and the Edwards supporters on DU haven't been very helpful so far either.

Can anyone answer the question or should it just be assumed that Edwards does not have the relevant experience to be the next leader of the free world?

Kayeleigh

little or none. Thats not the point. Clinton knew nothing about foreign policy, did he suck at it ? No.

The point is can they lead, can they prepare a vision, can they communicate that vision and make people want to make it their own.

Can you find experts who you can trust to tell you the truth and do you make descisions based on principles ?

Thats what presidents do. They are soley responsible for the most massive orgnaization short of China. Do you honestly think that they have the time to roll up their sleeves and wonk on policy ?

No one is qualified based on the criteria you seem to want to employ. George Washington perhaps Jefferson and Adams but few if any others. Its just not part of the job requirements.

Clinton and Carter both had domestic experience. Edwards does not appear to have either domestic OR foreign policy experience. Clinton and Carter had both already proven they could lead. To the best of my knowledge, Edwards has not (feel free to correct me on this point if I am mistaken).

And believe me, I am not holding anyone up to an impossible standard. My primary objective is replacing Smirk and I am honestly trying to keep an open mind about the remaining Democratic candidates. I just would like to see something-- anything-- in Edwards' background that demonstrates he has the domestic and/or foreign policy experience which would qualify him to be president. Can you provide some tangible examples?

of Arkansas? Whether or not to invade Oklahoma??

How in the world is being governor of a small state more relevant experience than being a Senator?

He ran an entire state. What executive/domestic experience does Edwards have? What has he ever been in charge of?

Seriously. If I'm missing something about Edwards' experience, I'd like to know.

In the Senate Edwards has dealt with the federal budget. Clinton had zero experience dealing with a trillion dollar budget yet he managed to get us into surplus. You can't seriously think the executive experience of running a small state like Arkansas is anything like being the Executive of the largest most powerful country with the largest most powerful military in the world. Clinton had absolutely zero foreign policy experience, none, nada, zip. Clinton had zero experience working with the Congress of the United States. Please don't compare the AK legislature with the US Congress.

Did you vote for Bill Clinton over George Bush 1 and Bob Dole. If so, you obviously didn't vote based on experience.

I wanted to know his position on stem cell research; I went to his site, but there is no info.

I heard Kerry, Clark & Dean all speak about stem cell research, but not Edwards.

The only answer I got from an Edwards supporter was if I didn't know, by listening to him, than I didn't understand his candidacy.

Duh?

Anyway, I still don't have an answer, & I don't think there is one.

http://www.grassrootsconnection.com/grc_election2004_scr_scnt.htm

Sen. John Edwards

Reply to CAMR request to explain position on stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technology

11/05/2003 from: Presidential Candidates Forum on Women's Issues Part 2

Location: Manchester, NH



Question: Would you each expand stem cell research?



EDWARDS: “The answer is yes, absolutely. We should not use ideological guidelines to determine the research, the important groundbreaking research, that can be done, that can affect the lives of not only families here in America, but families all over the world, so the answer is very simple. Yes.”

Source: Project Vote Smart

and informative too !

& for the info!

I have been referred to Edwards site, & I searched there.

what "Trial Lawyer association" would that be that you say he has made life easier for? Did he make life as easy for them as Kerry has for his fellow members of the oligarchy as he accepted more lobbyist contributions than any other senator in the last 15 years?

Presidential candidate I can think of. I don't dislike him, but why should he be President of the United States? He was born working class? So were a hundred million other people. His policy positions? Mostly mainstream Dem positions held by millions of others. He's from the South? So are millions of others. He was a great trial lawyer? So what. He seems like a nice, personable guy? Huh?

What are his qualifications? Even * was governor of Texas. I think Edwards would be the easiest for * to run against in this color-coded terror alert country we live in today.

Experience:
5 years U.S. Senate, 3 years Senate Intelligence Committee. This means he has more foreign policy experience than Reagan, Clinton, or Carter.

One of first Senators to travel to Afgahanistan and meet the leaders there.

Staved off Right-wing coup d'eta by successfully defending the President of the United States in the Senate Impeachment Trial

As member of judiciary committee, he "Borked" right-wing extremist judge Charles Pickering and others.

He inserted the sunset clause into the Patriot Act and successfully fought to keep some of John Ashcroft's most egregious ideas out.

Passed patients Bill of Rights in the Senate by working with McCain and Kennedy.

Leadership is about much more than experience. It is also about vision and the ability to persuade others to buy into your vision. This is where Edwards has the real advantage. You're right both candidates have similar lists of policies, but Edwards policies are part of a larger vision of turning "two Americas" into "One America."

John "bring it on" Kerry is focused on divisive issues of the past like Vietnam. He is already dangerously close to overplaying his very admirable military service. People already know that Bush was AWOL and Kerry served. They want to know what the candidates will do for them in the future.

As pertaining to Edwards leadership ability shows just the oppisite. One can see that most of those items are "follow the party leadership" stances and actions!

I mean look at what you had to list, even though they are trumped up offerings of his experience they also are weak at best!

Kerry is "focused" on Vietnam as you say for a reason. He is showing in a time of war , he was there, taking fire, saving lives. It people like this Americans follow the most in times like these. Perhaps you think instead they would want to follow a life long trial lawyer?

served this country honorably in times of war, yet very few of them are qualified to be President.

Did you vote for the "draft-dodging" Bill Clinton over war hero Bob Dole?

Max Cleland lost 3 limbs in Vietnam, yet in 2002 (an election after Sept 11th) voters chose a draft-dodging Republican. Republicans won by attacking Cleland directly on National Security.

During the Cold War voters chose Reagan who never served over Carter who had been in the Navy.

Voters don't have a lot of respect for career politicians either.

No. Of course not.

Cognitive dissonance. Look it up.

but it offers little or no foreign policy or Pentagon level experience.

If experience is the most important qualification for President we should re-elect Bush. Afterall, he will have almost 4 years experience of being President by the time of the election and Kerry or Edwards would have none.

at least that jughead had years as govenor before making a run. Something else to consider. *Bush fooled alot people by saying he would have great advisors and knoweledgable people in his cabinet to help him on issues such as World Affairs. Look where a clueless inexperienced person getting advise from others has gotten us! The president himself is the person to be highly qualified and only use others to bounce "his" ideas off of them.

This question will soon be in the past. As of tuesday, Edwards will be doing everything he can to get VP. The most I can see this man qualified for is Attorney General.

overextend our military, divide our nation, and explode our national debt to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans because he was too inexperienced?

Was it because of lack of experience that Bush squandered the good will towards the US after Sept 11th?

I don't think so. Bush's problems stem from deficits in integrity, humility and judgment, not lack of experience.

The fact is that except for Dwight D. Eisenhower (with 0 years) and GW Bush (with 6 years) every President in the post FDR era have had at least 14 years of elective experience. EIsenhower has some very unique non-elective experience.

Has every President since FDR been successful, no. But GWB is the first that seems woefully underqualified and overwhelmed by the job.

Longer political experience means that you're more likely to have been in office in good times and bad. You've seen and yes, experienced more. You've seen the electorate wobble one way and then another.

I have noticed, that in general, Edwards supports here tend to be quick young, mainly in college or some even younger. It's not surprising that younger voters tend to discount experience. It's also not surprising that older voters tend to place more importance on experience.

gotten better. However, I don't see any evidence of that. Bush problems boil down to arrogance.

Besides if experience is the most important qualification, we should elect Bush because he has the most experience as President.

I can name some very experienced Presidential candidates-like Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis and George McGovern who lost to incumbent Presidents.

I can also name some relatively inexperienced Presidential candidates who beat incumbent Presidents-like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.

need to read up a bit on your history.

As for Bush all the experience in the world wouldn't make him competent.

I said "relatively inexperienced." Clinton, Reagan and Carter were relaitively inexperienced compared to their opponent.

In 1992, Bush 1 tried to argue that Clinton was too inexperienced to be President. How could a governor of a small state possibly have enough experience to be President?

Did you vote for Clinton despite his "relaitive inexperience?"

experience in this job is unnecessary.

Please start a new thread if these issues are of concern to you!

I pointed out Edwards experience in one of my posts. Now I'm just proving my point that experience is not the most relevant qualification for being President. Bush would be and even worse president at the end of 4 more years. I think thats a fair point that is directly relevent to the question of how much experience is required to be president.

Did you vote for the governor of a small state with no foreign policy experience over the super experienced Bush 1? Who do you think was the better President?

and fighting large corporations is a lot differnt from being a legislator and doing it. Plus there are limitations to the kind of comapnies you spend most of your time going after as a lawyer, mostly insurance companies, and health care agencies. occasionally employers directly, but I dont suppose Edwards ever had any cause to go after oil corporations for misbehaving. Writing legislation is a lot different than using the laws already written in order to win trials. Though an attorney can do a lot of good fighting these corporations, and at times, the results of those fights can result in precedents that require laws to be re-written, the expericen is just not the same as experience in any legislature, and in that arena, Kerry has a lot more experience. Also as a prosecutor, Kerry has a better slant on how the laws do not work, and how aws are frequently written with loopholes a mile wide, either purposefully, or by accident.

The Iraq Resolution of 2002 looks similar to the same Resolution of 1991, except the experiences with writing the legislation in 1991, and problems that came up as a result of not being as specific as possible, led to a lot of elements being placed in Octobers resolution that were not inclided in the 1991 version. The acts both have almost the same title, and a lot of the paragraphs are worded exactly the same in most places. The 2002 version has a lot more specific language about the U.N., its resolutions, providing COngress with information that showed that Iraq posed some sort of direct threat to the U.S. as well as being able to show that the U.S. was not going to enforce resolutions at a time when not enforcing them could lead to threats to the United States.

Making such changes is something that requires considerable experience in writing legislation, to avoid loopholes and abuses, and that experience is not obtained in the courtroom.

"Sen. Edwards does not talk about foreign policy unless he is asked. That is the wrong kind of nominee for 2004. These days, a president should be fully knowledgeable about a wide range of foreign policy issues, from the Mideast and terrorism, to relations with potential allies in Europe to international environmental treaties.
Sen. Edwards is too reminiscent of George W. Bush in 2000. Candidate Bush had only been elected to his first office six years earlier (though he had sought election long before that). In the early days of the Bush administration, when the president sat down with his foreign policy team, he was the least informed person in the room, by way too much. That makes advisers too important.
Sen. Edwards was also first elected six years ago. True, it was to the Senate, not a governorship. But he has not focused on foreign policy."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/0226opinion.html

DON'T ASK ME, I JUST WORK HERE

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/Hardball:
STEVE WALT, KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: Senator Edwards, you have indicated your support. You still support the war. And many Democrats are now trying to hold the president accountable.

My question to you is twofold. Why didn’t you ask to see what the president’s plans for the post-war reconstruction were before, and insist on good answers to those questions, before you voted in favor of the resolution?

Given that you didn’t ask those questions, why should we have confidence in your judgment when facing questions of war and peace in the future? Can’t we hold you just as accountable as the Democrats would now like to hold the president?

(APPLAUSE)

EDWARDS: I will tell you-I will tell you, Dean, exactly what I said back then and what I said before I voted on the resolution.

First of all, it is not the Congress and the Senate of the United States that decides whether or not we’re going to go into a situation like this. We give authority, but the president conducts the war. Not us.



snip.

MATTHEWS: You said it was the president’s call whether you go to war. That’s not your reading of the Constitution, is it? Congress could stop him, if you guys wanted to.

EDWARDS: What I meant to say was it is the president’s job to conduct the war.

http://edwards.senate.gov/issues.html- There now look at all the bills that edwards has sponsered.


ON EDIT: deleted other links becuase they did not work.

Can somebody tell me if he at least donated some of his millions to Legal Aid? If he didn't donate time, hopefully he donated $ to help those overworked, underpaid folks, who would rather find a way to get those millions to those in need than keep the $ for themselves, or buy two big 'ole fancy houses.

whatsoever... and the Clark to Kerry crowd swallows it whole... without even an inkling of skepticism. Remarkable, wouldn't you agree?

thats why I usually avoid this sort of sniping. Its really just boring but fooling with it generally does shot he poster for the scam they are trying to lay down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/12/politics/campaigns/12EDWA.html?ex=1075698000&en=fceef912d481cf 95&ei=5070

"He represented many sympathetic plaintiffs, among them some horribly crippled children. He became rich doing it, racking up more than $175 million for his clients from 1985 to 1997 and amassing a personal fortune of at least $38 million, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
At the same time, he did little or no pro bono work. Nor did he pursue public-interest lawsuits. While he speaks passionately about civil rights and the bravery of civil rights leaders, for instance, he has never used his legal skills to fight against discrimination through the courts."


Actually, I was giving an opening to rebut this, before I was attacked. Friends of mine in Legal Aid, some of whom support Kerry, some of whom support Edwards, told me that some PI attorneys find it difficult to do pro bono work for the poor. (Though many will take some of the smaller "low dollar" cases to help out, others will do defense work for the uninsured and still others will learn a new area of the law such as eviction defense or default divorce.) Those who choose not to do so, can still be a supporter of legal aid by becoming a major contributor.

I have heard Edwards did little pro bono, I am wondering if he still supported Legal Aid. Calling me an attacker doesn't answer this question. I am sorry my question was not fully developed.

Yes, in all seriousness, someone with such a short political career is lacking overwhelming proof of leadership by definition. I would have you look at his activities in spearheading the attempt to stop John Ashcroft's appointment; he was a mere second-year Senator at the time, and he did this on instinct and moral respect for the law.

He's spent his whole career convincing people of his clients' causes and has been overwhelmingly successful. That's incredible training for a true statesman. He was also instrumental in the campaign finance reform, and has been a very driven guy in the Senate.

Not all pretty people are substanceless, and it's to his credit that he's aware the role looks have played in his success. He's also quite magnanimous about how the American System provided for a success story like his, and he's fighting to make sure future generations have that mobility that he sees being slammed in their faces.

People can and will listen to this guy; he's very approachable, and that alone is gold in the current near-even and vehemently polarized society of ours.

He's not so much "a natural" as he is a truly hard-working people person; those are skills that many very good politicians never hone.

You ask for proof of something that by definition can't be really shown, yet I don't think it's a mere rhetorical device on your part. To a certain degree, we all have to make a bit of a leap of faith with any politician. Will John Kerry have true executive determination and drive? Things that make for a good legislator are often precisely the wrong personality traits for an executive.

John Edwards' incredible confidence, drive and openness are the stuff of greatness, and he'd be self-effacing in a position of such great power. Whatever personality issues, affiliation issues or other baggage you have, I personally implore you to seriously ask yourself who of the two will be more electable, more effective, more resolute and more inspiring.

Watch him in q & a sessions; this guy really knows how to build a consensus, and that blending of independent personal confidence and sensitive awareness are the true attributes necessary in an executive in a constituent republic. He also has the balls to cop to giving you the bad news up front, and accepts the heat for it.

Confidence itself is one of the greatest traits of true leadership, and this guy's got it. He can take hits without responding because he has an inner gyro keeping him on track. For finesse alone, he's the best candidate to rear his head. He hasn't lost his cool even when seriously provoked, and he's kept "in the moment", instead of having a pre-determined course to steer. That's leadership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html
"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
I guess that's why some think he's John Edward...;-)

and his greatest quality is his integrity.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/edwards_positive_040121.html
But ABCNEWS has obtained an official "John Edwards for President" precinct captain packet that includes myriad personal attacks for Edwards caucus-goers to make against his Democratic opponents, perhaps belying this claim.

The document — marked "CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEDGED" (sic) and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" and signed by the senator — encourages Edwards supporters to tell undecided caucus-attendees that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is a "Park Avenue elitist from New York City"