It's not the message, it's the messenger (about Edwards) - long.

The message is great. Too great even. Too great to be true probably.

I don't like Clinton (I abhor her) but I've studied all the records of each of the candidates and Edwards comes up short on experience and on consistency. His pre legislative career is that of a trial lawyer and though it's popular on DU because people see litigation as a way for the powerless to "stick it to the man", most normal people just don't plain like lawyers. Further, though there is the "social justice" aspect of it, the real engine behind litigation is the big cash payouts for lawyers. Often after the lawyer takes their huge cut and the gov't takes theirs, the final sum for the client is peanuts. So that's strike one.

Strike two is the fact that Edwards legislative career is just not that impressive. He's no Russ Feingold that's for sure. I've certainly NEVER heard an Edwards supporter tout his career as a Senator as a selling point. He missed a lot of votes. That's why he gets a 50% rating from the ACLU, which is worse than Obama and Clinton, mind you. I may be wet on this but look at GDP right now, do you see much of anything that suggests Edwards is the man of great action who got things done while a Senator?\ He does a lot of talking, but not really doing as far as I've seen. I'd be happy to be reminded otherwise if someone has the links or a synopsis. Many of the important votes that I know of, he was on the WRONG side and "sorry" just doesn't cut it because doing one thing then and saying another now just isn't good enough. Even Hillary, who is a corporate whore, has done more "good things" in her legal/political life than Edwards.

Strike three is subjective. Edwards is a trial lawyer through and through, he plays the "challenger" very well. He has a pretty face but he does not connote gravitas. He has a gift with words but he's never been convincing as the "person in charge". He does dumb things that are antithetical to his message and his heritage. Millworker values don't incle $400 haircuts on the list. Big city rich liberals may not get this, but as one who comes from "millworker folk" it's an offense. It's trivial but it's symbolic. I know I will get flamed for that but it's just one of the many little things that add up and make you say "is this guy for real"? Another example is how he goes after Hillary like a rabid dog before NH and now he takes the magnaminamous role in the SC debate. He's an opportunist. This is the trial lawyer in him. People can smell it, they know his kind.

I know Edwards folks want to blame this on the big bad all-powerful "media" and it's true to an extent that Clinton and Obama have always been the story. But that didn't prevent Edwards from creating grassroots support and $$$ via the internet, just as Dean was able to do. Further, people really forget that Edwards was THE MEDIA CELEBRITY CANDIDATE OF 2004. If you didn't notice, you weren't there. They just got bored of him, that's all. Obama replaced him as the "rags to riches" and political fame story. Clinton has always had this nomination sewed up anyway. There's a lot of very powerful forces going on behind the scenes in the Dem party that shape all of this antic.

But yes, Edwards has a message that's right for the times. Almost. He talks about 2 Americas. But there are more 2 Americas than rich and poor. Unfortunately the parties themselves have nearly ruined and bankrupted this country and the Democrats are JUST AS to blame ad the Republicans for it. The spirit of the country is torn in two and we are locked in a death embrace with the right, and they with us. John is NOT trying to bring that 2 Americas together, but rather trying to exploit it.

I hate to kick a man when he's down, but John does a lot of kicking of his own when he smells blood in the water. Just as he did last night. Just as he did back in New Hampshire.

Finally, I don't understand why this guy is still running if he and his camp know he can't win one primary. It's his responsibility to the party to get out of the way and let them pick from the final two so we are darn sure we know who we want. If he wants to play spoiler or kingmaker then he is just wasting a lot of campaign donations and everyone's time. No good can really come of it.

I started this process by actually mildly supporting Edwards (but after Clark's pathetic run in 2004, I was cynical of all politics). However, my wife pulled me back in and I studied the candidates, and I've become a staunch supporter of Obama. I hope desparately he wins. But I say desparately because I think the writing is on the wall, women will come out strongly and vote for Hillary and they comprise a majority of the population and I think the party as well. You just can't beat that built-in support as well as an entrenched establishment that wants to "get back to business" like they did in 1992 to 2000. Go NaFTA!! Go deregulation of banks and telecommunications!!!

I don't blame the Edwards supporters for falling in love with him. It's easy to do. I did with Clark and he was a far worse candidate (though probably a far better person for the job of being President than Edwards).

The only thing I don't like about the Edwards fans here (and interestingly you are the majority of this board right now) is how you guys act like you are going to "win it all" if you just hope enough. My guy has a much better chance of beating Clinton, and I will be damn surprised if he makes it even close on Super Tuesday. Right now the Clintons have him off his game. And yes, they did it with race baiting, lies, and an unholy gangbang from both Clintons and all their surrogates. I know in the end once victory is certain the Clinton supporters will have to be contrite and I know that many here will "forgive and forget" because it will be time to take on the RW. But if Obama doesn't stand a really good chance, where HONESTLY, does that leave Edwards. Just be honest with the rest of us please.

Many of us came to DU to avoid spin and now I feel like I get the story more straight if I go to nytimes.com - now that's sad.

I'm compelled to write this because I think if Edwards know he can't actually WIN, then he should drop out. And if his team is saying he can't win one primary, then he knows he can't win. It's that simple.

I know people probably hate me for this and other things I've written as of late but I have to say I don't remember the kind of outright dissemination of falsehood from the Democratic party or this forum board as I have of late. I have to admit I've lost my cool and talked trash and this is not a "come clean" post either. It's just that I'm fed up with a lot right now and this is just one of the things I feel I have to get off my chest.

Thanks for reading.

you counter my statements with something that on it's face is true but you don't get down to some of the other facts that matter. Yes, they are all lawyers. However, each one of them is a different kind of lawyer and that's what is partly at hand here. If you really, really wanted to discuss this on the merits you would have to pay attention to that.

Not only that, but get back to the bigger point of how most of congress are lawyers. That's true. But historically legislators have a bad track record at winning the Presidency. Clinton was a lawyer, but not a "litigation" lawyer like Edwards and the other 3 most recent presidents weren't lawyers at all.

The last real liberal President we had was Jimmy Carter and he was a navy man and a farmer. His springboard to beign prez was being a Governor first.

But just to say "All three Democratic candidates are lawyers, along with most of Congress" neither adds nore subtracts, it only serves to confuse because though it's part of the story it's not the whole story. That is what a lot of us are sick of, which is people who only present information in a way to confuse rather than illuminate.

I'm not sure if you were being snide, glib, or helpful to be honest. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but there has to be SOME reason why Edwards is a distant 3rd and it's not just the "media". It's Edwards job to work the media to his advantage, not their job to promote him. Clark had a similar problem. It might be time to just admit they were bad campaigners.

Edwards put all his eggs into the Iowa basket, it didn't pay off. That's the arc of his story.

He was a moderate.T he last liberal we had was Jack Kennedy. Even Johnson wasn't really a liberal. He just had the power to pass the civil rights bill because of the assassination.

no gravitas

very thin record

no evidence he'd be able to carry through on the rhetoric

no experience in international affairs

fact he's sued corporations does not translate to having the political savvy and competence to rein in their politcical power

why does he keep running? narcissism?

we need a new system.....a panel of diverse, highly wise, competent individuals from a variety of fields, who are selected/drafted to serve on a 4/6 year presidential governing committee

gets rid of the insane present system, which attracts narcissists, the power-hungry, etc....

"There's a lot of very powerful forces going on behind the scenes in the Dem party that shape all of this antic."

I couldn't agree more. That's my whole point when I post anything of substance. My thoughts and comments here at DU are more about what's going on with the process - behind the scenes party control, influence of media - than John Edwards.

Yes, I'm an Edwards supporter, but even more I am a concerned citizen.

Regardless of the candidate, I think there are basic issues, such as this behind-the-scenes control, that I wish we could acknowledge and not give in to it as though we have no choice...always remembering that, while your chosen candidate may seem to have things all sewn up at the moment, this same behind-the-scenes control can pull the rug out from under anyone as things stand now. I, for one, refuse to accept that it's "just the way it is and always will be." I grew up hearing that and never did accept it.



Nighty-night, all.
:hi:

at a "pre debate" rally in Detroit. We parked ourselves out front of Hockeytown USA restaurant for the rally and waved at all the candidates as they rolled in. IT was awesome. My wife and I went to a bar afterwords with a lot of other pol junkies and watched the debates. At the time Dean was leading, Kerry was in serious trouble but he came onto the seen literally with his own marching band playing bagpipes and the whole shot.

WE met Terry McAuliffe on the street and he promised he was going to "kick their asses" in November (how did that work out for ya Terry?)

After the debate Dean, Kucinich, and Clark gave speeches at the local bar. Gephardt had a union rally in the street.

Where were Kerry and McAuliffe?

At Hockeytown USA at a private party.

Who won the nomination? Well...

I'm not saying anything bad was going on at that moment and certainly Kerry was worthy of the nomination.

But I've always had the sinking feeling that all of us out there in the street can hoot and holler all we want but the real decisions are made in private parties by those with the most access.

Maybe Edwards has been "cut out" of the deal but I think if that's so, it's an insider Dem leadership job, but it's not the media. The media is just out there to sell you commercials. They'd make Britney spears President if they thought it meant more money and deregulation.

But thanks for your "concern."

Here is his populist record:

Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
"We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we've cast." Edwards calling Obama out for his hypocrisy in the CNN debate

jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan-22-08 02:33 PM
Original message
The truth: Edwards' voting record on trade is like Ted Kennedy's

Edwards

Date Bill Title Vote
07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill N

Edwards also opposed South Korea trade, Peru trade, and CAFTA since leaving the Senate. I don't know if he commented on Oman but he presumably would have also voted against that.

Kennedy

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill NV

I would not, however, be upset if Edwards got the nomination. He has pluses -- of course, they all do.

doing all the good things he promises, I'd gladly eat crow.

Go, John Edwards!

for the board.

And unfortunately right now reality has a negative bias.

Your post exemplifies it.

Circus.

"a corporate whore" you call Senator Clinton, as if you spoke for her constituents who have twice affirmed her representation of their interests.

Your post is narrow and nasty and unecessary.

votes (which is a practice used in the Illinois State leg)? Like Clinton, he is totally lacking in intellectual honesty. By the way, I agree with your post. Well said.

Moreso because there is a much better discussion downpage with extensive information on Edwards legislative career by "purityofessense".Points one and three of three are "He's a Lawyer"-unlike which other candidate???And my opinion of who should truly drop out-those who somehow think their candidate will do just fine if the guy telling the truth dropped out...

pages... I must be missing it. I can't find it.

I've been on this board for nearly 4 years and I can't say there's ever been an ongoing debate or discussion of what Edwards has actually DONE. I'm not saying it's not there but the Edwards supporters seem to do a lot of cheerleading rather than watching gamefilms.

If Edwards dropped out today, his support could very well go to Clinton. I don't care. It's just the dog and pony show is getting old.

And again, if y'all want to extoll your love for him go ahead. But his implausible bid right now would be better served in terms of debate by a little more brutal honesty.

Castles made of sand...

If you're going to get a haircut on the campaign trail, and the barber has to come to you, it's gonna cost ya.

The haircut wasn't $400. It was the cost of having someone come out to him rather than having him and the entourage disrupt some barber somewhere.

I don't think Edwards is quite the phony you do, mostly because his wife is so genuine, and you can't fake a relationship with a spouse like that. Still, I think Edwards had his chances, both in 2004, and in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. To me, Edwards supporters and Obama supporters have a lot in common, including that many of us believe Hillary cannot win in the GE and that a nomination of her would be bad for the party, and thus for the future of America. It would be a generous and sensible move on Edwards part, in the face of bad polls, and knowing the stakes, to get out of the race and throw his support behind Obama. I won't condemn him for not doing it, though.

and I giddily hold dear the moment she totally slapped Ann Coulter down live on the air.

I feel incredibly for her, him, and their family.

Although if I knew that I wasn't going to win the nomination and my wife was ill with cancer then I'd get off the damn campaign trail and spend some time with her. That's just me. It's probably her greatest hope that he wins and so he might be carrying out her wishes but in the end she is more important than his bid for the Presidency.

supporters are a real mix of people. Some may go to Obama (I won't), some may go to Clinton (I haven't decided), and some may stay home, but the truth is, we are with him until he gives up.

zalinda

Populism, especially in a time like this, has a way to speak to the hearts of the people suffering (which is a large portion of them) and mobilize them under a common banner.

But populism rhetoric being thrown around in a display that reeks of pandering does nothing but turn people off.

I heard by chance that Edward's father "worked in a mill for 35 years". If thats true, I doubt its a point hed tout regularly and wear on his sleeve, and throw out every chance he gets. From a person like me, whos father pounded nails for 45 years with his aching body (and hes only 60 and still at it), it looks like a red flag being thrown up by someone trying to say, "Hey, Im just like you." But people just like me don't need to throw red flags around to identify with eachother. When you come from the working class, you know who its members are and what things are really like, and you know the difference between a blue collar laborer and a white collar manager. This type of talk coming from him truly looks phoney and shallow. The bottom line is he had opportunity he had no part in creating, and that has grown into a fortune of 40 million dollars (and if he only had 20% of that his lifestyle would be just as lavish and glorious in his 20K SQFT home). Im sorry, but I cannot swallow this image.

And being a man whos going to fight for us? Where was that fighting the last 7 years? We only get it if we elect him? We have to forget his voting record and just trust him? Come on now...Ive met more consistant car salesmen.

On a personal note, his blinking, voice, accent, tendancy to almost choke on his large tongue as it leaves his mouth, his first with the thumb forward gesture, haircut, etc, are all personal attributes that chip and erode at his image in my opinion. Maybe that plays great in some cultures/areas, but not here.

The bottom line is that his persona seems to be nothing more than an act to attempt to get elected, which has no backing by his voting record or basis in reality. I would jump on a true populists bandwagon and scream his name from coast to coast, but Edwards is not our man.

Couldn't have said it better myself and have tried many times.

...then it leaves Billary and Edwards.

We'll see...AND I think it would be good for him to stay in after that even if Obama DOESN'T drop out.

Why?

Because JRE has literally DRIVEN the national conversation and the debate on the Dem side of the race and he needs to KEEP driving it. Issues of social and economic justice - AND the issue of the corporate stranglehold on our government AND the potloads of money Obama and Clinton suck in from the corprats (a la quid-pro-quo) - ALL OF THESE are messages that - no matter if Edwards loses or wins, NEED TO STAY FRONT AND CENTER - or at LEAST IN the mix of issues being discussed and examined RE: The Dems and where this country is going and needs to go.

JRE has an IMPORTANT ROLE in this election in that regard EVEN IF HE'S NOT THE NOMINEE. I agree with MLK III - he OUGHT TO STAY IN IT - for THAT reason if none other.

All this "oh he's a narcissist" and whatnot - :wtf: have you guys been reading lately? Certainly NOT DU! Because if you were paying any attention at ALL you'd have seen what was documented about Edwards's voting record (and it IS ON RECORD - see below this thread and link to the other thread detailing that - sorry but that meme has been debunked ), and you'd have SEEN what has been said about the IMPORTANCE of JRE's message - whether he wins or not - THAT MESSAGE NEEDS TO REMAIN PART OF THIS RACE.

It IS that important.

And if you don't think so, then maybe you're just one of the less progressive of us - and that's fine. But in MANY people's opinions, mine least of all and MLK III's - JRE's messages of social and economic justice are worth his staying in this race for - to the very VERY end.

for writing the most thoughtful and reasoned post I have read today.

I'm not even going to waste my time reading beyond the first paragraph. It is so incredibly false and so unfathomably ignorant lord knows where you dug up such crap:

"(Edwards') pre legislative career is that of a trial lawyer and though it's popular on DU because people see litigation as a way for the powerless to "stick it to the man", most normal people just don't plain like lawyers. Further, though there is the "social justice" aspect of it, the real engine behind litigation is the big cash payouts for lawyers. Often after the lawyer takes their huge cut and the gov't takes theirs, the final sum for the client is peanuts. So that's strike one."

"most normal people don't like lawyers." That's a smear-monger's smear if ever I heard one. So if you're "normal" you can't like lawyers. That's like saying if you're "normal" you by definition won't get to know any black people because "most normal people don't like blacks". I think I want to puke.

But the real ding-dong on the dummy scale is: "the real engine behind litigation is the big cash payouts for lawyers. Often after the lawyer takes their huge cut and the gov't takes theirs, the final sum for the client is peanuts." If you were a trial lawyer you would know how utterly and despicably false that is. If by "the gov't takes theirs" you're referring to filing fees for complaints with the court clerk, you're talking chump change that anyone can afford. Jury fees are higher, but not that high, and trial lawyers try cases before judges far more often than before juries. Even so, the jury fees paid to the court clerk are peanuts compared to *any* favorable verdict, and in many cases judgments include not only damages but also costs of suit, and in some cases includes attorney's fees awards. Furthermore, in personal injury cases like the ones Edwards handled, the attorney is only entitled to charge up to about 33% (many charge less) of a favorable money judgment (usually 33% of the money judgment *after* deduction of costs of suit), leaving a full 67% (which you call "peanuts"??? Are you nuts???) of the award to the client. Furthermore, in personal injury cases like the ones Edwards handled, attorneys working such a "contingency fee" arrangement risk a lot: they typically front all the costs of suit for the client, who typically can't afford them, do not receive a plugged nickle if they don't win the case, and in the event the lose, they typically never even get reimbursed for their expenses and costs of suit from the clients.

I suppose if Obama were running against Howard Dean, you'd say the same thing about doctors: "the real engine behind practicing medicine is the big cash payouts for doctors", followed with a similar pile of falsehoods about how badly patients are treated by their money-grubbing doctors.

Take your talking-out-of-your ass smears and stick them back where they came from.

This has got to be the most revolting thread I've ever observed on DU.

Shame, shame, shame on you and the diseased horse you rode in on!

per key stroke per total words typed.

Possibly it could be done, but it would take some doing.

Nasty piece of work in an election cycle when focused collaboration is our best hand to play against the red team.

whenever you can't refuse the argument, make the argument that of the enemy...

Just to clue you in, your beloved candidates are all much worse in their criticisms of each other. My words may be sharper, but their "realpolitick" has a much more caustic effect. Don't blame me for criticizing them when they are all doing their fair share of criticizing of each other, both truthfully and with blatant smears. At least I'm trying to be truthful.

By your standards, they are helping out the "righ wingt" more than I. Hold your leaders to some modicum of accountability, please.

It's also of interest to me that you accuse me of negativity but you've done your darndest to insult me and go negative. But thanks for keeping the thread afloat.

Finally, just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean you can try to bully me and put me on the same side of the fence as the right wing. I know that's a popular thing to do around here because it's a lot easier than actually thinking for yourself.

If you can debate on the merits, go ahead, but what you are doing is just name calling. Put some substance behind what you say and just an ounce of objectivity, then maybe I will listen.

brought nothing to the effort to win larger majorities in both chambers of the 111th Congress, to say nothing of the White House.

Ugly, mean-spirited, poorly constructed, and unnecessary.

This genderless OP poster actually claimed: "At least I'm trying to be truthful."

Oh my fuckin' Gawd!

....and there is nothing tougher than standing up as the plaintiff's attorney all alone and by yourself and the defense side of the table has about 10 defense attorneys, 15 paralegals and a jury consultant..all paid for by the INSURANCE COMPANIES. Don't knock it until you try it, OK?

John Edwards always worked for the little guy, not Walmart, not landlords, etc. He went after corporations that freaking HURT people in the name of profit.

BTW: I worked with Mark Robinson who went after Ford Motor on the exploding Pinto gas tank cases. Think about that and the difference between having a law degree and having a law degree and helping the little guys.

JMHO

Edit for typos

And thank you for your service. Truly!!

I think "trial lawyers" are heroes for exactly the reason you mention: they fight for the little guy.

It's sad, but few people do these days.

...I freaking HATE insurance companies. When I was in law school, I worked first as a clerk in a PI defense firm before I went and worked with the plaintiff side of cases...one of the big defense firms in Los Angeles that had MILLIONS to spend on defense, but not a dime for the injured...and the bottom line with those bastards was always $$$$. What really got to me what that on EVERY freaking case assigned to me EACH month I had to write to the insurance companies on the status of the case. Not write a status letter to any defendant that we represented... but to the insurer of the defendant who called the shots in the case. Even if the defendant admitted liability, if the insurance company said "fight on" that is what we HAD to do.

I learned to HATE insurance companies long, long ago. They are a profit making BUSINESS...they could not care less about any particular person.

to say that message does not matter. Of course, if Edwards was not in the race, then whose policy proposals would Hillary be able to copy?

I also think your conclusion is way off. As long as one candidate is below 50% then Edwards should stay in it. He speaks for people like me who care about the message, irregardless of the messenger. A candidate with a good message who might not live up to it, is far better than a candidate with a bad message who will likely live down to it. At least he promises to try, and if he wins, that is a mandate for his message.

Hillary and Obama are not as clear on their message. It seems to be more about them than it is about their message. If Hillary wins, what exactly will be her mandate besides the health care plan she copied from Edwards? What will she be able to do with the Republican congress she is likely to bring with her?