Where's Shelton now?

My understanding is that Shelton worked for Edwards and went
on record as dismissing Clark as a man of low character.

Of course, the stupid media took that ball and ran with it. For
a moment, Shelton's words were gospel to CNN, Fox, and MSNBC.

Well now, I'm wondering...where is that old sourfaced blowhard?

I mean, if he is in Edward's corner, shouldn't we get him to denounce
Bush as a man of low character. It worked once.

/end sarcasm.

This is not by any means a slur against Edwards. But rather, it
is a bitter aftertaste in my mouth about how Clark was railroaded
but moreover how complicit the media is in smears, except when
it comes to Bush.

I would really like Edwards to coach Shelton into saying something
about the strategic and military blunders of the Bush administration.

I know Shelton support the Iraq war, but I assume being an Edwards
supporter, he would be more than happy to help us go against the
Bush administration.

By the way, I am not sour at any of the candidates anymore, except
Lieberman is a toad. All in all, I am glad we nominated Kerry.

I hope Clark becomes Secretary of State or National Security
Advisor. Against my own bias against trial lawyers, I am back
to thinking Edwards would be the best face with the best political
skills on the VP slot. It's a judgment that's subject to change
but that's where I stand right now. Who knows, maybe I am just being
duped by the mass media but Edwards seem to carry hi favorability
ratings.

I agree about the "bitter aftertaste," except I'm more angry about it. But I don't want to see Shelton's face unless or until he retracts his slur of General Clark first.

I believe having his words used by Milosevic during his trial humiliated Shelton beyond measure. It was truly a disgrace, imo. He's lost all credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

Shelton's got no business speaking for the Democratic party after what he did to one of our own. (YES, one of our own!)

(And, Edwards is the weakest pick Kerry could make, imo.)

He specifically said "I won't say if I'm a republican or I'm a democrat".

n/t

will show up at some halftime event at one of the NC State football games this coming fall. I plan to stay seated in my seat even though he's an alum.

This is a fuller picture of the Shelton story:

The time line, as I remember it, was that, after a ton of publicity for Clark in the run up to his entering the race, the first week of his campaign was marked by BRUTAL attacks on his character.

Most notably, there was the Eric Westerveldt report on NPR in that first weeik (in addition to Mara Liasson's perpetually nasty coverage).

Eric Westerveldt found two or three generals who were willing to go on record with criticisms of Clakr. Those two or three had obvious PNAC pedigrees.

Now, the deal with Shelton: he had been at some tiny college in CA giving a presentation and took a question from the audience about Clark, and a made a very brief, critical comment, which he never repeated again anywhere. Not for neoliberal-apologists, NPR, not for Fox, not for anyone.

Now, because it played into the theme of the attack that was being orchestrated by the media, and becaue it seemed to buttress the evidence enthusiastically volunteered by the obviously biased PNACer generals, it was repeated ad nauseum.

As for Sheltion's connection with Edwards: Shelton and Edwards went to the same college and had been friends through the alumni association for over 20 years, long before either one of them was anyone. When Edwards entered politics, he took advantage of his (very probably) ONLY pre-existing personal relationship in DC.

Who else are you going to know is bullshiting if not a person you've know personally and non-politically for two decades? Edwards would have been an idiot if he hadn't sought out Shelton to discuss national security. (After all, it's class connections to people in power through bording schools and Yale University which give others the imprimatur of "foreign policy expertise," no?)

In the primaries, Edwards continued to consult Shelton to prep himself on national security questions for debates. That was the extent of their relationship.

Shelton never made any other public statements about Clark, so it's not clear that (although personally disliking Clark) intended for his off-the-cuff, unscripted answer to the question at the small CA college to blow up to the proportions they did.

And Edwards never attacked Clark, ever. And Shelton never even endorsed Edwards. In fact, he went out of his way to say he wasn't endorsing anyone (and has only ever said complimentary things about Kerry during the primaries).

So make of it what you will, but I think it's a mistake to lump Shelton into the same group as those PNACer Generals who were willing to go on every program that invited them to defame Clark.

Not long ago. Giving Bush Co. a pass on Iraq intelligence.

It seems disingenous to suggest Shelton isn't down with the PNAC crowd.

Edwards himself is happy to link Iraq and 9/11.

That Edwards would befriend someone like Shelton doesn't say much about Edwards.

Clark is a White Hat in the very sense of that phrase. He stayed in the army because he CARED about the men and protecting the country. That Shelton would make ANY slur against Clark was indeed personal politics of the worst order.

There are ALOT of military people from both North and South Carolina Edwards' could have reached out to.

Kerry went to school with Bush and has to work with him but we know Kerry isn't getting Policy Advice from him.

Long ago, when the usual suspects were desperately trying to smear Clark using Guilt by Association and many Leftist's ignorance as to what the NED is all about.

There are White Hats and Black Hats at the NED.

The NED is bipartisan and does good things and bad things according to which "side" is appropriating the funds for whatever projects.

there are gray areas?

It is an Organization that can be used for good or ill depending on who is wielding it.

So I would say TRANSPARENT is the appropriate word.

Look at the the various NED Fellows and their projects... some are without question worthy of support.

Others upon closer scrutiny bear the stink of Neo-Conservative Imperialism.

That Shelton happily stood up for Bush says volumes.

That he was willing to disrepect Clark, a fellow Officer, on the record and FOR ANY REASON also says volumes.

As a Professional at the level Shelton occupied, he is responsible for the words coming out of his mouth.

Slurs based on politics are NOT appropriate... especially for a MILITARY man who is supposed to be non-partisan.

Shelton admitted his comments were politics when Milosevic used his comment.

in my opinion.

Shelton may be an ass, but much of what NED does is downright evil.

You know who runs NED, don't you?

You know it's one of the programs Bush has targeted for increased funding.

spewing the anti-NED garbage SHOULD be beneath you.

Perhaps you just need to read up on how it operates...

By the way, the Supreme Court gave rise to such abominations as the Gore vs. Bush decision.

Perhaps we should do away with such an evil institution. In the wrong hands it can do such terrible things.

Same with the military... in the wrong hands it can do terrible things.

Same with our Executive and Legislative branches of government...

posted details about Vim Weber's political leanings?

If you have a defense for NED, you probably should have posted it in that thread.

They weren't coming off to well, and NO DU'er bothered defending them.

which he isn't doing. I believe he wants to double their funding.

There are numerous Democrats and Labor people in the NED.

Just as the Supreme Court, Legislative Branch and Military has some Liberals and some Conservatives.

It is bipartisan.

It does very worthwhile things with the Fellows and Projects supported by the Left.

It does has done some questionable things with the Fellows and Projects supported by the Right.

Pretty much like the Supreme Court, US military etc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...I'm pretty sure that the first time I mentioned each and every fact in that post, I cited my source the first time I posted it.

If I thought there were something at stake in this thread, I'd take the time to find the cites, but I think this is a useless exercise at this point.

However, I do think there's a great debate going on about med neg below.

He didn't recieve a salary or commision from Edwards. And although I was a Clark supporter up until he quit, I really see a strong double standard from Clark supporters on this issue, when the Clark campaign litterally kicked off their campaign by directly snubbing Edwards from his rightful official anouncement speech and the press it entailed, something every other major candidate got. Alot of Clark supporters have no problem with their campaign doing that, but they beleive Edwards is to blame for what the media did with something an advisor of his said about a subject that Clark never really explained satisfactorally and/or avoided. That being his early leave/firing.

for what Shelton said.

The "early leave/firing" has been explained over and over, in person and in writing. What happened is very clear, and it had nothing to do with "character and integrity" (except Shelton's).

Shelton has never repeated the slur, and has dismissed it as "just politics." I want him to retract it outright.

(How does someone 'snub somebody from a speech?')

introduced for his official anouncement speech, to leak to the press that Clark would anounce for president, so his wife introducing him was litterally talked over while the subject switched to Clark. An analysis of the press coverage that day revealed Edwards recieved about 1 7th of the average coverage that the other major canidates each recieved, and Clark recieved 5 times more coverage that newscycle than Edwards.

charge that the Clark campaign timed it down to the minute like that. I think some of that was bad luck for Edwards. Fact is Clark was a very intriguing candidate, and there was buzz for a week or two before he announced. It was more newsworthy than *another* senator who was already in the race for all intents and purposes.

As if Fabiani didn't know Edwards was anouncing when he leaked to to all the cable channels and newswires

in Jan 2003 to the press. He was going to anounce at the mill that day, but when the people who later pushed Clark to run (and who formed his staff) leaked it to the press, they showed up in the driveway of his house instead. They had to cancel the mill event because it was no longer news.

And then when he did go to the mill, Clark stepped all over that one too.

Clarks people really didn' want Edwards to get any press at that mill!!!

Regardless of what you think of Clark the man, I think you'd have to be a fool to ignore all the evidence that the people who were behind him seemed most interetested in preventing Edwards from getting the nomination.

Nonetheless, Edwards has treated Clark with dignity and respect.

Clark wasn't even considered a possible candidate at that time

Allegedly, people who later managed his campaign were responsible for sabotaging that event. I've heard that rumor at DU and also from people involved with Edwards's campaign.

That's why I said, (paraphrasing above) that, no matter what you think of Clark personally, that I think it's myopic to ingore that people managing him seemed to have their sites set on Edwards primarily. Before they even knew Clark was running, they were trying to sabotage Edwards's campaign.

And they really seemed to have the jones over any event happening at that damn mill!

(By the way, not Jan 03, but Dec 02?? -- the leak meant they got pictures of Edwards in his driveway, rather than at the mill.)

you are even making that charge :tinfoilhat:

further than the fact that the press did, in fact, surprise Edwards in his driveway to know that something odd happened.

supporters here to try to discredit Edwards, and the allegations of Clark's team's obsession with sabotaging Edwards.

It's circumstancial evidence, I know. But it really does buttress the argument.

huge jury awards and a lack of health insurance for millions Americans.

And if you want national health care and capped awards, I invite you to go back in time and exeperience the NHS during the Tory years in the UK. Just pray you don't need good health care.

I read a story about how a hemorahging mother bled to death after delivery in the UK in 1996. Her hospital had no blood. They called a hospital accross town SIX times for blood. After the third time, the hospital with the blood said they needed to match it first. After the FIFTH call, the first hospital was BEGGING for the blood. They even said they could have a cab outside the hopital at that moment.

The mother died. The blood never arrived. Most doctors say that matching is definitely a waste of time in that situation.

In the US that event would have resulted in a huge jury award and no hospital would ever do that again. In the UK med neg claims like that one are capped at about 10K bucks, IIRC.

Do you think 10K bucks is going to compensate that baby for the SENSELESS loss of her mother's life?

UK has a cap on malpractice.

Someone in the UK died in a hospital.

Therefore, caps on malpractice cause death in hospitals.

The costs of negligence are so low in the UK, the sytem tolerates more of it than would be tolerated in a system that places high costs on negligence.

In Edwards's book, he writes about a case in which a nurse didn't tell a doctor he was making a big mistake that she was aware of becuase she was afraid of losing her job (which often happened to nurses who challenged doctors).

Edwards's record verdict compensating his client for that CLEAR act of negligence changed hospital policy across the state.

NC hospitals enacted policies (which cost them nothing more than the paper they were written on) protecting nurses from retribution if they challenged doctors' decisions. Why'd the hospitals do this? Becasue they did a cost-benefit analysis and didn't want to incur any more record judgments.

Everyone wins. The injured are fully compensated by the people who caused them damages (which is good -- they don't become wards of the state and can have as fulfilling lives as possible) and policies change, which ensures that nobody else sufferst the same fate.

Thank you Mr Edwards.

Walk the streets of any British city and look at the scars and limps.

Sit in any criminal court and listen to trials that got converted to murder trials because of bad treatment at a hospital. I can think of two off the top of my head. I remember a case where a kid was stabbed by a pen knife in school. No big deal. After recovering steadily for five days, a 22 year old intern failed to clean a tube that was draining fluids. He died from the infection. It's a murder trial.

Another one: guy poured gasoline through the slot of his former friend's apartment, thinking the friend wasn't home. It was intended as an arson. They guy was home and was burned, but not too seriously. The guy felt so bad, he visited his former friend in the hospital every day for a week. At the end of the week, a doctor's negligence resulted in the guy's death. Trust me, this deceased's family wasn't about to sue the hospital for neglience. But suddenly it's a murder trial.

Med students are unleashed (as internts) on patients in the UK sometimes at the tender age of 22. Everyone knows the WORST time to go to a hospital is when those 22 year olds hit the wards.

I'm not kidding you -- I wasn't even looking for these stories. They stick out like soar thumbs. The contrast between the sort of negligence you see in UK hospitals and waht you see in the US is startling (however, profit motivated HMOs are giving the NHS a run for the money).

These aren't enormous mysteries.

These are the ABCs of law, economics, and public policy.

If people can't connect the dots between these things, we might as well call it a democracy, and just stop voting or participating in government at all.

The ABC's of economics and public policy are to cite evidence that leads to making connections that actually exist.

You cite three examples of doctors' negligence in the UK. I could cite thousands of cases of doctors' negligence in the US.

The US has no caps on malpractice cases. The US has doctors and interns who make mistakes that kill people, sometimes negligently. Therefore, no caps on malpractice leads to negligence on the part of doctors and interns.

This is a faulty syllogism, just like your UK example.

...analysis that, if it's foreign to you, suggests you can't possibly have been paying attention to the way public policy is made for more than a couple minutes.

Perhaps you need to reread the post in which I describe how hospital policy changed in NC because of Edwards's law suit.

Furthermore, take a state like MI which makes it exceedingly difficult to sue for med neglignence -- spend some time talking to people about their experiences.

Combine HMOs with no real economic incentive to not act negligently, and you get a system which, like the NHS, tolerates a lot of negligence and misdiagnosis and mistakes.

You know, you only have two eyes, two arms, two legs, one heart, two lungs, and a single life. If you don't want to take the economics of medical negligence seriously, go for it. But please don't make policy in any state or nation I live in. Please!

if they make decisions based on anecdotes instead of data.

and you justify your inability to offer such data with logical contortions that do not survive even minimal scrutiny.

Cognitive dissonance. What an amazing thing!

Fear of malpractice has dramatically increased the rate of C-sections. Ironically, the rate of CP hasn't changed. But, C-sections are more dangerous than vaginal delivery. So, for no benefit, the risk to mothers is increased.

How does your claim even make any sense.

Doctors are driven by cost-benefit analysis to do something more dangerous? Clearly the problem isn't with cost-benefit analysis, but with the calculation of the costs.

This is a problem that a law suit will often fix if the hospitals and doctorts don't address it first.

nm

If you chart jury verdicts, adjusted for inflation, on a graph and then placed the price of insurance premiums on the same graph, there is almost no statistical correlation. Any correlation that does exist is statistically insignificant.

Then take the stock market, adjusted for inflation, charted on a graph. When you add the price of insurance premiums on that same graph, you get a statistically significant correlation (an R squared of greater than .95).

What does this tell us: Insurance companies invest their premiums. When the economy is good, the price of premiums is low. When it is bad, the price of premiums goes up.

I also suggest you look at some comparison charts for states that cap insurance premiums and states that do not cap them to see whether there is such an impact on premiums (I'll save you some time: there is not).

versus health insurance premiums?

Don't you mean that there is an inverse correlation between the stock market and health insurance premiums? If the economy is good, the stock market goes up, and premiums go down (your words more or less).

The lag between jury verdicts and premiums would destroy any correlation.

Three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and Edwards supporters' posts.

In a wealthier society, the awards go up. In a society which doesn't value life and limb, they go down.

In a society which ARTIFICIALLY suppresses the awards so that they don't reflect the costs which they are supposed to compensate, in fact, simply socialize the costs of negligence in two ways: (1) by allowing more negligence to occur, which ends up unnecessarily costing future victims (that's simple economis), and (2) in shortchanging the current victims, it's society which ends up compensating if, say, they become wards of the state, or go on welfare, or if they're simply unable to have their full potential value as human beings recognized by the rest of society.

Who benefits by shortchanging victims of negilence? The owners of hospitals and insurance companies. Socialize the cots. Privatize the gains. That's what malpractice limits are all about.

And because there's so much profit in doing that, it tends to buy a lot of lying to the public about it.

it's really hard to fight that off if you're just a volunteer.

"The lag between jury verdicts and premiums would destroy any correlation."

How convenient for you! You have no evidence whatsoever for your claim, but it's still valid because you can't prove it! Remarkable logic, there!!!

Sorry, but I'm tired on this fight and though others here do a good job on it I'll simply give you a web site to read up on it.

In the first 13 years of Caps in California medical malpractice insurance rose 450%. Caps do not lower medical malpractice insurance.

This issue is also close to me as in Washington they were trying to pass a Caps bill and I had to listen to ads day after day after day putting the blame on the lawyers. And hear the attacks against our Senator Patty Murrey for going against Caps.

If it matters at all, I heard a voter tell Kerry about Edwards plan for reform. The medical reviews paid for by the lawyers and the 3 strikes you are out for 10 years. And Kerry said it was a good plan.

Anyway...here is the link...Consumerwatchdog Medical Malpractice

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php

went awry back in early 2003 in no way is evidence of an action by a Clark supporter/supporters. It is evidence that Edwards didn't have his shit together at the time. sheez.

no matter what you think of Clark the man, I think it's hard to deny that his managers had the knives out for Edwards even before Clark was a gleam in their eyes.

And, let's not forget, this is a guy who was drafted to run.

If you asked me today to put this pieces together to form an argument, I would say one of several possible theories is that the higher-ups in the party might have been afraid that Edwards would win the nomination and not run on a strong enough national security message. I think they want to run him when we're in the midst of a second great depression (which is when his strengths will be obvious).

Maybe they didn't want to taint him with a loss in the 2004 GE, which they felt would be run on terror. Maybe Clark entered the race because he was supposed to take out dean and edwards, leaving a clear run for Kerry.

I don't know. That's really just one of many possibilities.

But I really think it's undeniable that people running Clark's campaign may have been focussed on stopping Edwards at least as much as they were in having Clark win.

I have ever read.

Mine is to believe the word of the good people I met on the Edwards campaign, and yours is to believe that the people behind your candidate were good.

But I also look to other pieces of information and see how they fit together under the umbrella of this piece of information.

of hanky panky by Clark supporters before there was even a campaign as you charged. Its really quite preposterous. If you did any reading of the draft clark sites/yahoo sites or the articles written about the draft you would see exactly who the original founders were and how they started the movement. And whether Edwards had problems with the party insiders or not has nothing to do with Clark.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't say others would not deny it.

And I'll go out on a limb: I think many people will deny it.

Edwards raised a lot of money in the first quarter, by the way. He was clearly on the radar. And anybody who knows enough about politics to play out the narrative, could see where his arc was headed.

Incontestable. Can not be contested.

deny.

Jeez Louise, you're really reaching. Surely you know that?

more of a stretch than many other things that start as rumors but turn out to be true.

Furthermore, lots of pieces of evidence fit together in a way that makes sense thanks to that bit of information.

people here from saying things about Edwards.

I think I'm entitled to the same respect for my rumors that you give each other for the anti-Edwards rumors.

I wasn't paying much attention to Edwards. All I remember is CNN mentioned several times that Clark's announcement effectively upstaged Edwards. I never heard any discussion of leaks or heard a charge by any *reputable* source that something was underhanded.

Clark DID annonce in the same hour that Edwards was having his event. It totally stole his thunder.

There was no excuse for that. They, lamely, said they needed to get it out before the hurrican hit, but they could have waited three more days.

One thing I heard long before this summer, that is a mantra about primary campaigning, is that one courtesy you always give your fellow democrats is a free day of media when they do their official annoucements. But Edwards was actually a real threat to win, so that couldn't happen, eh?

And then you add in the rumor that Edwards's unofficial annoncement 8 months ealier was ALSO sabotaged...well, then you have a interesting consipiracy theory.

Edwards was a candidate since January. The mill was a PR stunt.

Mill mill mill mill mill.

when nobody knew anything about mills?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...rumors and accusations about Edwards?

Well I already did substantiate it. I heard that rumor from people in the Edwards campaign whose sincerity I believe. At about the same time, someone wrote about it here at DU, so you can search the archives for the earlier discussion.

I'm totally willing to admit that it's hearsay on all counts, but so is 99.9999% of what you read on DU. So, uh, how 'bout a little equal treatment?

things BS equally when I see them ;)

whole year and that was just old news. Wasn't a big deal. His nose was just out of joint. Where Edward's man, Shelton defiled Clark's Charactor...something West Point and Military men take very seriously and personally. Edwards should have publicly apologized for Shelton's disgusting remark...which got all the way to the Hague and around the world. Shelton should be ashamed of himself (he broke the code of military honor) and stripped of the stars he no longer deserves. I do not want him to have any influence in our government.
The hell with Pugh Shelton.

Mosley Braun had official anouncements in their runs for president long after their anouncements and filings of exploratory committees and all gleamed their rightful attention from those official anouncements. Clark's people decided to deny that to Edwards. Not someone who advised Clark on his or her own, his senior campaign staff and likely him made a strategic decision to metaphorically cockblock Edwards from his rightful political currency

Edwars. I appreciate it 100%.

Nonetheless, I find it such a stretch to deny that this wasn't nasty campaign strategy on the part of the Clark team.

I am still willing to say that Clark seems like a decent guy. But I'm not willing to deny the obvious fact that this was very nasty campaignin strategy.

For all we know, the leakers could have been supporters of Edwards who were overly-enthusiastic. And even they could have jumped ship over the summer, when Clark was rumored to be considering entering the race.

And as for Clark's announcement bumping an Edwards event...in September 2003, you couldn't throw a stick without hitting some candidate making a speech.

are damn close to agreeing with Bushes foreign policy. Whatever attack they launched on him would be relatively weak and have to do with Bushes diplomatic skills. Still, it would be another voice against the shrub.

publicly apologizes to Clark for the cowardly comment he made about Clark for pure political gain. It doesn't speak well for Shelton's character. Military men don't do that...not acceptable...unless you are scum.

Also, If Edwards were VP he would continue using Shelton for advice and he and Clark/Kerry are not in agreement. That would set up a sense of conflict the minute he takes office. Edwards...No way!

This makes no sense to me. First if Kerry picks Clark as VP, I would vote for a Kerry/Clark ticket.

How in the world do you get the view that Edwards as VP would go to Shelton for advice? Wouldn't that be in Kerry's decision making? Kerry and the VP would work together with the Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Edwards and Shelton are personal friends from College and both from NC. And what gain did Shelton get from his comment?

If there was repeated comments coming from Shelton that Edwards supported that would be one thing, but there wasn't.

Why does this one items make your choice on who you will vote for President?

The primaries are over. Edwards and Clark are both on the same team now. Team Kerry.

I agree with everything you said.

after Paul O'Neill's book came out.

, as Clark wrote in his book, Shelton and Cohen were sabotaging the Kosovo operations because their mind was on the Persian Gulf...
That of course didn't stop Edwards to lobby for and get Shelton a Gold medal - one of the few bills he got approved in the Senate.

"I assume being an Edwards supporter he would be more than happy to help us go against the Bush administration"


Edwards is a friend of general Shelton, but Shelton never endorsed Edwards. And I know some Clark supporters don't like Shelton because Clark and Shelton had disagreements.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=351

doesn't know the meaning of the words integrity and character.

"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."

He "hired" Shelton, Shelton isn't even a Democrat just to have him if he needed dirt on Clark.

He ROBO called using a famous football coach just to win AR votes. It wasn't even an endorsement but was used as such which shows no proof of character or integrity.

Would I want Edwards as VeeP. HELL NO with what I've seen.

membership is hunky-dorey?

Right.

It's because the Republican was looking for ANY reason to reduce a huge jury award against some very negligent parties.

So he picked this one line out of the closing argument and wrapped a rarely (if ever) used argument about inciting the emotions of the jury.

Edwards uses this event as evidence of the justice system working against the people and for big businesses, thanks to the borderline corruption of very conservative judges.

By regurgitating this as a smear against Edwards, you're endorsing and affirming that right wing behaviour.

How does apologizing for corruption make you feel?

Kind of like Edwards hiring Shelton.

Checkmate.

evidence. And the jury decided according to the best knowledge AT THAT TIME.

And if there were the slightest suggesting that SCIENCE couldn't justify the award, the judge would have used THAT evidence, rather than reach so far up his own asshole to pick out the idiotic argument that you've regurgitated.

In fact, the argument that you regurgitate is excellent evidence of the fact that responsible phsicians and scientists were NOT on the defendant's side in that case.

the emotions of the jury. The jury needs to decide on the scientific evidence alone in these malpractice cases. Playing on the emotions of the jury is irresponsible. You may get your big pay day, but it corrupts the jury system. That speaks to character and integrity.

pretty much free reign to make their cases. Objections to opening and closing statements are incredibly rare, and considered VERY rude. It has been that way for years, and the justice system isn't suffering because of it.

It's suffering because of the sentiments of right wing judges which you endorse.

And, I believe, in the Edwards trial there was no objection to his closing statement. I still don't understand how that judge could even use a point of law the defendant didn't object to in trial in order to reduce the award. That's the right wing judiciary in NC for you (and it's shocking to see that they have enablers at DU).

Please tell me the truth: if it wasn't Edwards who did this, you'd be criticising the judge just like every other democrat at DU would?

of the uninsured and not the trial lawyers.

Without 'Right wing judges', as you call them, even fewer Americans would have health insurance.

I'm on the side of the workers who don't get health insurance at work and who can't afford it on their income.

I'm also on the side of physicians who work every day to save lives.

that you don't have health insurance.

The government totally enables big businesses to cut costs by denying benefits to employees like health insurance. Cobra is a joke. We do almost nothing for people who don't have insurance (whether they work or not).

99% fo the reason is a combination of protecting businesses from high labor costs, and protecting their profits from taxation to pay for a better situation for the uninsured.

Yet it's the lawyers fault.

Any honest Clark supporter should take you aside right now and tell you, 'thanks, but we don't need this kind of defense for Clark.'

aside and tell them that they are not helping his cause.

I can think of three DUers who have done a huge disservice to Edwards with their one-note defense of Edwards.

?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Edwards had nothing to do with it.

We don't like Shelton because he had disagreements with Clark. That's just plain bull. We don't like Shelton because he lied about Clark's character. Go back and read all the posts and threads... None of them say Clark didn't like Shelton because of differences in opinion. So stop making up factious stories!

We have no idea what his problem with Clark was behond the two or three sentences he uttered out in CA.

So you're suggesting he forgiven and shouldn't be held accountable for his underhanded and vile comments...just because he hasn't made any MORE comments? Give me a Break!

problem with Clark.

Do you think everyone you know professionally only has nice things to say about you?

Obviously he has a personal problem with Clark! It is not "legitimate" to spread a lie about someone, however, no matter what the personal problem is.

testify for Milosovich AGAINST Clark, that his remarks were "Just Politics".


Hmmmmmmmm

You mean the two or three little sentences that were heard around the WORLD? Those little sentences that probably hurt him to the inner most depths of his soul?

Spiderhole. :shrug:

The reason that the Clark campaign never took off is because Clark did not run a good campaign. The people have spoken, and they've said they want someone with more than just a good resume. It's time to get over that.

This one little statement by someone with a tenuated connection with John Edwards did not even register a blip on the political radar. Fewer than .5% of the American voting population would even know about that comment. Fewer still were impacted by this comment in their votes. All told, I would be very surprised if more than 12 people in this country changed their votes in the primary because of that comment.

Take a moment to ponder just how silly it is to blame Edwards, or even Shelton, for Clark's failure as a candidate. Then consider how silly it is to blame the media, when Clark received many times more coverage than any candidate other than Dean in the early going.

Furthermore, take a moment to consider the fact that we don't know whether Shelton's statement was true or not. Any claims by people here to know is mere conjecture by people religiously attached to a single candidate.

Only 0.01% even cares about what Shelton said.

We can argue 'til the cows come home what the reasons were that Clark's momentum in New Hampshire stalled after Iowa. It doesn't make Shelton's smear any more acceptable to me.

There were months when it seemed no article or interview left out Shelton's remarks, which wasted time and emphasized one man's words, words not supported by one fact in any record or one statement by anybody else -- in fact it was refuted by Clinton and others -- so I presume Clark's 'innocence,' if you will. You apparently suspect guilt based on one person's unsubstantiated, unproven, unrepeated smear -- so you see, it worked. And I can't believe you're the only one.

Again, it was only one of several hits, but there was always at least one circulating in the media. The RNC/Drudge creative editing of his testimony about Iraq; the "gotcha" when he said people *work* for an education at West Point (which is damn true); the pouncing on anything at all to back up the already-scripted story that he's "not ready for prime time." Nobody -- except maybe Dean -- got that treatment from the RNC and the media. None of them are perfect.

The fact that there were multiple attacks (and obviously many other factors within and outside the campaign), and the fact that none of them alone tanked the campaign, doesn't make Shelton's smear any more benign.

Hugh Shelton did not volunteer anything about Clark -- which, if he were working for a candidate he would do. HE WAS ASKED POINT BLANK and he answered truthfully.

Edwards has never met with Shelton -- he and Shelton have both said this except that Edwards attended events at which Shelton (a NC native) received honors. I am pretty sure that we heard that months after Shelton's comment, Shelton participated in staff level discussions with Edwards' staff and advisors about military policy. And this proves what? Shelton gets to pick who he does like. Shelton as a North Carolina native is a natural place for Edwards to go for advice. Apparently Shelton, who doesn't like Clark, does like Edwards.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Odd that when Shelton had to justify his remarks to the judge in Milosevic's trial he admitted they were just political.

So, he didn't like Clark. BFD. It doesn't make him edwards' attack dog, ffs...

If he didn't like Clark fine. Dem Dogs said he answered truthfully. Obviously he didn't if he later said it was political. I never said he was Edwards attack dog. He was Edwards adviser and maybe that's why Edwards claims there was a connection between 9-11 and Saddam as Cheney does. Just as Clark was associated with Moore's remarks, Edwards ends up associated with Shelton's. It was poor judgment on Edwards part to seek FP advice from a supporter of B***'s policies. Edwards has a lot to learn before he will be ready to lead. I don't care for him as VP pick because I feel he will hurt our chances. I could be wrong and that is for Kerry to decide. I think under present circumstances Clark would be a good choice but not the only one. I would prefer to see him as Director of Homeland Security because I think it suits his many talents and has not been developed properly under B***. Since it requires organizational skills, interpreting intelligence, diplomacy with the Governors of 50 states and is a cabinet position in the security discussions Clark would be perfect. It requires relations with our neighbors and allies and is the largest bureaucracy in the Gov't. I think the country would be better in Clark's hands than what we have now. If Edwards can help Kerry get B*** out that is what is most important.

Seems to me that's an assumption on your part. I don't see any evidence, from Shelton or anybody else, that he answered truthfully; in fact, what he said was refuted by others, including Clinton.

I think it's time that Clark supporters finally realized he was not speaking FOR Edwards. He was on his own, and gave his own opinion, but he wasn't speaking for the Edwards' campaign.

I like Gen. Clark, and I like Sen. Edwards, and I've always thought that this was one of the silliest things Clark supporters ever 'held against' Edwards. That pissing match about who was 1st in OK was another, IMO.:shrug:

...and Breck Girl can burn with him!

34 years in the friggin' military, and EDWARDS through SHELTON dissed that service. Edwards doesn't have lead in his ass--he never took a bullet for his country, and he allowed someone to start a rumor about a man who DID take a bullet for his country.

To team up with Hugh Shelton, he surely has lead in his brain.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...somehow distanced him from Edwards? Bullcrap.

YOU get over it, Padraig.

What about Shelton speaking for Shelton isn't clear? EDWARDS didn't say it, cosmo! :wtf:

Guess not.

You ever heard of people speaking for themselves? I'll type this slowly--- Shelton was not then, nor has he ever been a spokesperson for the Edwards' campaign.

That was easy, wasn't it? Didn't hurt at all, did it? :eyes:

...when reality finally gives you shock.

As defined by whom, cosmo? :eyes:

Not Edwards.



You guys sure do hold a lot grudges against Shelton by the way.

Ever heard the phrase "the buck stops here"?

And I suppose Shelton telling the Judge at the Hague, who asked him if he wanted to impeach Wes' testimony on behalf of Sheton, that it was "Just Politics" somehow distances Edwards from that conflict?

Get over it. Edwards is just as responsible for allowing it to continue and NOT distancing himself from it.

He was someone Edwards KNEW, and OCCASIONALLY sought advice from. He never WAS part of the Edwards' campaign, nor was he ever a spokesman for it--- not EVER. You Clark people need to untwist yourt panties over Shelton's remark...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if you don't think that Edwards encouraged Shelton's smear. Edwards was asked, point blank, if he would be willing to repudiate Shelton's unsubstantiated smears about Clark, but he never did so, even though (1) Shelton was unwilling to substantiate those remarks, and (2) the remarks directly contradicted other statements Shelton made.

Washington press reporters have been telling us for months that Edwards staff was helping to shop Shelton's smears (see Elizabeth Drew's excellent article in the NY Review of Books as well as a piece by another journalist in the Village Voice).

I am not saying by any means that Clark's campaign didn't do any of this. Can any of you pin down a single smear spread by Chris Lehane? No? But do you doubt that he was digging stuff up? Given the preponderance of evidence here, Edwards and Shelton were connected and Edwards was given the chance to pull the plug on it or at least wash his hands of it. He never did.

If everyone smears, what's the big deal about this one? The big difference here is that Shelton's smear was especially egregious. Because of his previous position and the unique character of service and responsibility in the armed forces, he crossed a line. And it shows something about Edwards' knowledge of how military culture works that he thought that this was just politics as usual, because it wasn't.

In the sense, of course, that he said Shelton's entitled to say what he thinks and that Shelton wasn't on staff, and didn't speak for the campaign.

Here it is (11/03):

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) today sent the following letter to General Wesley Clark in response to a letter he received from the Clark campaign:


November 11, 2003

General Wesley Clark
Clark for President
PO Box 2959
Little Rock, AR 72203


Dear General Clark:

I wanted to bring to your attention a letter by a member of your staff sent to me regarding General Hugh Shelton. Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction.

Although General Shelton has not endorsed me or any other candidate, I value his advice as one of our nation's top military leaders. He is a fellow North Carolinian and has been a friend and advisor for many years. I will continue to seek his advice. When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Incidentally, do you have links for your "shopping" claim. I'd love to see what the NYT says about this. I found their coverage of Edwards hostile and packed with lies. It'd be fun to add another "data point" to the graph as it were.

Precisely. It has been childish in the extreme for certain Clark supporters to tax Sen. Edwards with 'responsibility' for Gen. Shelton's remarks, and says far more about them and THEIR problems than it does about Sen. Edwards.

And if he hasn't, would you not tie Limbaugh's remarks into his support for Bush*, or would you still think that Limbaugh was working for Bush*?

Limbaugh's on the air every weekday for hours, spewing hatred for dems and lies for Republicans. And what exactly did Shelton do?

which is that no one should be surprised when people link a candidate with their supporters, particularly when that supporter is appearing in the media attacking another candidate.

And what exactly did Shelton do?

Supported Bush*

about is Kerry, iirc.

What's your point?

Your analogy is limbaugh. He's not just associated with Bush, he's a cheerleader for Bush.

Shelton's merely associated with Edwards. There's no evidence that Shelton and Edwars agree on anything. Edwards consults Shelton in the same way that he consults expert witnesses as a lawyer -- you want to year all opinions, regardless of whether they conform to your ultimate argument on trial. So it's not clear that they even agree with each other.

More interestingly, the only candidate other than Clark whose name has even passed Shelton's lips in the last few months is Kerry's, and, iirc, he said that Kerry would make a good president because of his military service.

So, Edwards has consulted with Shelton, but Shelton cheerleads for Kerry. Who did Clark endorse and campaign for?

There is so much about hating Edwards over this that makes no logical sense, if you ask me.

Carried to it's logical extension, then, Sen. Kerry should be taken to task over that slimeball Toricelli, and so on.

I'm saying that you shouldn't be surprised that people are linking Shelton to Edwards. People have linked candidates to others (ex. PNAC, DLC, etc) on less eveidence

The fact that the two men know each other and that ON OCCASION, Sen. Edwards has sought his advice suddenly turns Gen. Shelton into an official campaign spokesman? :wtf: The far more logical and rational explanation is that, in a candid moment, Gen. Shelton answered a reporter's impromptu question all by himself. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with the 'pity party' faction of the Clark campaign who wants to blame everyone for everything that went wrong, except Gen. Clark himself. It must suck for those poor folks to try and keep nurturing a persecution complex, with such a thin factual basis to nurture it with....:eyes:

but after seeing candidates being linked to others on far less evidence, you shouldn't be surprised that people are going to do that.

been taken.

Can you find a flimsier argument that has generated as many threads and posts as this one over such a concetrated period of time?

The other thing that is different about this one is that every time it's revived, the people making the argument use almost the exact same tone and phrasing for their outrage as if none of this other stuff has ever been discussed.

Usually, when people are SERIOUSLY committed to an argument, they try to adapt it to new facts and to the other side's argument once they've heard it. The way the facts are ignored on this issue suggest that there is something else at work -- that the problem isn't really what is stated.

People are saying that Kerry is a pro-war PNAC imperialist simply because he voted for IWR.

Can you find a flimsier argument that has generated as many threads and posts as this one over such a concetrated period of time?

Shelton is a fellow North Carolinian. You guys can make up the best conspiracy theory. It is just a theory you have no hard evidence.

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0919a-pr.html

Shelton and Clark has had strong political disagreements with each other, but Shelton has served this country well.


http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=351
This is Edwards response to these baseless attacks.

Sounds like something a freeper would say on Free Republic.

Chill!

Both campaigns are over now and neither of them sank or soared on anything said by Gen. Shelton, whether he was "working for" the Edwards campaign or he was simply speaking for himself in response to a question.

I'd also say the conspiracies about Clark's announcement date are over the top, too. We will all see waht we want to see, but there is no need for the animus between different camps any longer.

Thank you. Now get back to bickering.

However as a Clark volunteer and contributor, I want to say that all Clark folks are not Neanderthals about malpractice and the good that John Edwards and the rest of the trial lawyers do in getting rewards form negligent Doctors. There are a lot of good doctors but when one of them makes a mistake it can be heartbreaking for the person who suffered the negligence. A good trial lawyer must point that out because damages are based on what a person suffers. How much would you take to lose a leg or suffer an incapacitating injury at birth? We cannot stop the pain and suffering, the best we can do is provide for care and try to cover it with funds. As a matter of fact few medical malpractice cases ever get compensation for the victim. The insurance companies want to blame the trial lawyers for the raise in rates, but they usually coincide with investments going bad or the market falling, not the number of verdicts. There might be a way to cut down on Dr's. negligence, but Dr's. have fought any meaningful disciplinary system and are prone to cover for their incompetent colleagues.

Really, I did.

Donors
Donations to Sen. Edwards questioned
By Sam Dealey
http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx
Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign finance documents show a pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.
snip
Edwards' campaign records also reveal that many of these individuals' spouses and relatives contributed the maximum on the same day. The Hill found many of them to be first-time givers. Some have no previous demonstrable interest in politics, while others appear to be active Republicans.

Voters
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html
Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry
Voters who are enthusiastic about the Bush Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry
Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards
Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.


LIHOP? MIHOP? Does it matter?

John Edwards's Mudslinging Ways
November 12th, 2003 4:00 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0347/mondo5.php



This week Edwards hauled out former Joint Chief of Staff chair Hugh Shelton to attack Clark.
snip
In September Shelton said that Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of "integrity and character issues." He never said what these were.

Then last week Matt Bennett, Clark's communications man, said he was "simply astonished" at Edwards's use of Shelton and "politics-as-usual mudslinging." "General Shelton . . . initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up," said Bennett.

Edwards kept the tiff going with a snooty reply directly to Clark: "Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction." Concluded Edwards: "I will continue to seek his advice," adding, "When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics." more

Deanies will find hair raising stuff too from Mr Positive here.

Since when is it a crime to seek advice from a friend. This has been pointed out many times and it has not changed a voters mind.

Milosevic quoted Edwards's buddy in court (via the New Yorker article).
The prosecutor Carla marinicci called Shelton and asked if he wanted to be a character witness FOR Milosevic (Clark was testifying AGAINST HIM at the time). Shelton had to dismiss it: "It was just politics."
The incident was distasteful enough for Stormin' Norman - he booked himsef on Capital Gang to distance himself from Shelton (whose slurs on Clark he previously echoed)
Edwards was NEVER embarrassed by these ramifications - on the contrary - he seemed to have all his events at Serbian dance halls.

drive-by smear of Wes Clark. It was no different than cornering someone in a busy store and shouting, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and then hightailing it out of there. It was disgusting, imo.

Is it getting Gen. Clark in the White House? Is it causing Gen. Shelton to lose sleep at night? :eyes:

You sure you want to aim that with such a wide angle of destruction?

I'm sure you know to whom I refer: that small group of Clark supporters who laid Shelton's remark at Edwards' doorstep, even though it both was irrational and juvenile to do so...

And I may be guilty of being irrational...that's a matter of opinion.
But I'm sure not a juvenile...I have a son the same age as Jim4Wes.

Just remember that he never was a part of the Edwards campaign, and he was damned sure never a spokesperson for it...

does that make me a juvenile. ;)

Just how old would that be?

40

At least, I hope not lol. I'm 38. Will be 39 in June. I think I'll have one of those "breakdowns" when I get to 40. he he

:)

You'll make it.

I suspect you're right. My "juvenile" brother (31) never ceases to remind me how close I am.

"If you make an accusation...you should back it up with facts." Of course he was giving Kerry some advice but I wonder if Shelton was feeling guilty. Probably not...you have to have a conscience to feel guilty.