Why I chose Clark over Edwards

[TexasSissy]

I looked closely at Edwards. I watched his speeches at rallies on CSPAN. He was so enthusiastic that I found it contagious, even though it was exact same speech I'd heard twice before. Until energy of it all wore off (which it does, inevitably), I was all set to buy some Amway from the guy! (just joking) Yes, he's a great stump speaker. One of the best.

But ultimately, I gathered my thoughts about me and realized:

1. He's a plaintiff's trial lawyer, which is considered by many Americans as the next thing to a used car salesman. A lot of middle Americans, and particularly Independents, wouldn't want to vote for a trial lawyer. That's why tort reform is so popular these days. I happen to think it's Republican bunk that has made people think that lawsuits are the cause of high medical costs, but that's me. Most people have fallen for that line.

2. He's just too inexperienced. He was a plaintiff's trial lawyer for about 20 years, then a senator for about five. He's never been a leader of just about anything. When middle America compares him to Bush, they won't see someone ready to protect us from terrorists or "evil" foreign nations, or someone ready to go toe to toe with big deal congress people who try to thwart his every move. Or fight against a cabinet that tries to "handle" him. Whether he would be able to do these things, I don't know. But I think middle America would think he would be less likely to be able to handle the job than Bush, cute as Edwards is, and as glib as he is. (I mean glib in a good way).

3. He has been a millionaire for years. Not an automatic strike against him. But it doesn't help to combat Bush's "moneyed" image.

4. His inability to raise campaign contributions. If he can't raise money for himself, how can he get $$ for the country? How can he convince others to do just about anything they're not inclined to do? Not a big issue, but worthy of consideration.

5. He voted for the Patriot Act, and yet disses it now.

6. He voted for the IWR. I'm willing to cut him some slack on that. But I don't like his backpeddling on his decision after the fact.

Maybe in a few years for Edwards, but not now. He's not ready.

Clark, on the other hand, is Bush's worst nightmare. Yes, he's got problems, same as all the others. But there's no voting record to attack. There's no real character issue. For gosh sakes, even though he had an exemplary West Point and military stint, and was a Rhodes Scholar, he CHOSE to not cash in on it, instead choosing to devote himself to the service of the country. He turned money away for the sake of service. Character. His wife has been involved in helping underprivileged children for years. A good family with good values....great for taking on Bush.

Years of leadership experience, working out negotiations among groups of people, trying to get people on board with his ideas or someone else's ideas.

An outsider who has a number of contacts in Washington, nonetheless, which is helpful.

He has tons of money now. He can CONVINCE people to help him with his campaign. He's a leader who can work with people and bring them on board.

That's why I went with Clark.

[Loren645]

1. Thanks TS. I had many of the same perceptions...back when I was

debating. Glad to have your vote!

[Toucano]

2. Welcome to the U-Wes-A!

I can't understand how people could consider Edwards for THIS election when we know it's going to be run on National Security.

I think Sharpton has met with more foreign leaders than Edwards!

[TexasSissy]

6. Yes, I think Edwards is the wrong direction, re Nat'l Security

and electability.

[AP]

14. If this election is run ONLY on national security, Bush will win.

NS is Republican home filed advantage, and Bush is in total control of the situation (even thought they've designed-in chaos in Iraq to lure Democrats into thinking he's not in control).

The economy is the Democrats' home field advantage. Run a candidate who makes Republicans talk about that, and Democrats will win.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. It's a pleasure to read an honest endorsement thread.

So many of late seem contrived. And yes, it is a pleasure to read an honest endorsement thread even when it isn't for my candidate, though in your case of course it is.

You didn't need to speak poorly of Edwards to do it. (I do appreciate the counter to "that other thread" though lol.)

You know, Bush has lost the ability to even look sincere. He's stuck in his resolute look, the smirk. Clark doesn't have to act tough, he's a decorated war hero and a former 4 star General, and he IS sincere. What a contrast.

[Auntie Bush]

4. I'm glad you have seen the light

and explained your reasons so well. You must have seen all our candles!

[AnnitaR]

5. Welcome to the Clark Camp!

It was nice to read such an honest statement of how you came to your conclusion about who to support!

Your assessment of Clark compared to Edwards (and Kerry) are exactly the reasons I support Clark.

Hopefully there are a lot of folks in NH that have came to the same conclusion as you!

[AP]

15. "Welcome to the camp"?

For the sake of accuracy, TS has been critical of my pro-Edwards posts since the first time I noticed TS.

[elixir]

7. Thank you. He strikes me as a medicine man, with his

hands held in prayer and his perfect hair. Also, I heard the majority of his contributions are coming from the law community - not a bad thing, but, reinforces that he is not representing the common man. He's been preparing this campaign since he got into the senate. He and Kerry both voted for IWR.

Clark is the genuine article, no pretense - just policy.

[AP]

8. We'll keep your seat warm.

[elixir]

9. I also heard his folks were poor when he was born but soon

progressed to becoming an upper middle class home.

[Bread and Circus]

10. Trial lawyers are helping raise medical costs....by billions...

"1. He's a plaintiff's trial lawyer, which is considered by many Americans as the next thing to a used car salesman. A lot of middle Americans, and particularly Independents, wouldn't want to vote for a trial lawyer. That's why tort reform is so popular these days. I happen to think it's Republican bunk that has made people think that lawsuits are the cause of high medical costs, but that's me. Most people have fallen for that line."

---

My reponse:

80 billion dollars per year is spent on un-necessary tests
and procedures because doctors play defensive medicine. This
defensive posture has been forced on them by litigation. Doctors
are forced out of areas and people go wanting for care because
of malpractice costs or non-coverage. It is not just "right
wing hype". It's the honest patient, doctor, and nurse
that's suffering. The insurance companies are above the law
and the rest of us are paying the price.

[spooky3]

12. Then you will want to read this article by JE

"Let's keep doctors in practice"

http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/052203/opi_0522030031.shtml

snip

"What the president's proposal won't do is work. Insurance premiums have spiked recently because of insurance companies' losses on their investments, not their losses to victims. In fact, about half the states already have some limits on victim compensation, yet premiums in states with caps average about the same as premiums in states without caps. California finally controlled rates not by attacking victims -- that didn't work -- but by reforming the insurance industry and rolling back premium increases.

We need a real solution that frees doctors from crippling insurance costs -- without preventing the most badly injured victims from receiving the compensation they deserve.

That real solution has three elements. Most important, we need to crack down on price gouging by the industry. We also need aggressive action against frivolous lawsuits that don't belong in court -- not against the serious lawsuits that bring help to the most badly injured. And finally, we need to reduce the number of medical errors, many made by a very small fraction of the medical profession..."

(then he gives details on each element of his solution)

[TexasSissy]

16. Yes, this is what I think. Ins. cos. have gotten greedy, trying

to make up for investment losses, and just plain greed. Nothing to do w/lawsuits.

Also, the AMA's failure to properly disclipline or take licenses away from incompetent doctors.

Recall the Florida "accident," where the man went into hospital for foot amputation? The dr. amputated the wrong foot. They of course later had to amputate the one that SHOULD have been amputated, leaving the man with NO FEET. What is that worth? Was the dr. or hospital negligent?

People don't like the idea of lawsuits for negligence....until it's one of their own that has been harmed by it.

AMA needs to take more licenses away, and ins. cos. don't NEED to make 400% on their premiums, and drs. don't NEED to make a 200% profit (not counting malpractice premiums, which will go down, if negligent drs. are not allowed to practice).

There is a procedure in the law called "frivolous lawsuits." If a lawsuit is filed, the defendant merely asks the court to determine whether it's a frivolous lawsuit. The court will examine it and dismiss the case and charge the plaintiff with all the costs if it finds the lawsuit is frivolous. Therefore, most of the lawsuits that proceed are valid in one way or another.

[AP]

13. Life has a high value in the US. A couple more years of Bush, it won't.

If people didn't have valuable lives, Doctors wouldn't go out of their way not to make mistakes. Compare health care in the US to the UK. Med neg damages are capped at values way lower than the actual damages that you could suffer. As a result, Doctors don't go out of their way to take every possible precaution.

Insurance companies are also hugely profitable and charge based on their market returns.

Family Doctor, if you lost your hands due to somebody else's negligence, what would that cost you? What would that person's negligence have cost you in lifetime income?

10 million? 20 million? 50 million?

Not every country in the world values a person's life at those levels.

Not every country in the world creates a business environment in which insurance companies can be multi-billion dollar industries.

It isn't lawyers who make medicine expensive in America. It's largely the value of life in America.

But if Edwards isn't president next year and Bush is, we'll probably reduce those valuations of an American life a great deal.

[TexasSissy]

17. Well, I agree with your last sentence. Though I'd feel safer in

someone hands besides Edwards, I'd take Edwards over Bush any day.

[dawn]

11. All the candidates will be attacked by the RW

I think it's best to just support the one you like best.

For me, it's Edwards, then Clark. I'm rooting for both of them!