What Has Edwards Actually Done? What Am I Missing Here?

[MannyGoldstein]

He talks with empathy, but when I look at his actions, I'm not seeing anything positive of note.

Has he ever taken a political risk? Even once?

He talks of being sorry about co-sponsoring the IWR, while making threats to attack Iran.

Has he ever picked a cause and really gone after it with repeated legislation? He claims to be the friend of the little guy, but yet he voted FOR the first draconian bankruptcy act in 2001, which was wriotten to protect predatory lenders. And he voted in favor of most middle-class-gutting 'free'-trade agreements.

Of course Edwards is "in favor" of all sorts of nice things... but talk is cheap. What actions has he taken to deserve my vote?

[femmedem]

1. One risk he took:

He campaigned for Ned Lamont in CT. He was the first big name to do so. That doesn't make him a saint, but it's something most other candidates--including Clinton and Obama--were either unwilling or afraid to do.

[MrPrax]

2. So...?

Lamont didn't win?

Why would you see that as a 'high five' moment in the career of John Edwards that endorsed a candidate that lost, who knows?

Moreover, as the poster thoughtfully eluded to, Edwards position on a few things like Iran is virtually the same as the guy who beat Ned Lamont -- namely Obama and Clinton's good friend, Joe Liebermann?

Who's fooling who here?

[Clarkie1]

5. I would just like to note that Clark also campaigned for Lamont.

I don't consider that a huge political risk, on either Clark's part or Edwards' part. It was simply the right and expected thing to do to support the Democratic nominee.

[Jai4WKC08]

6. One of the top people in Lamont's campaign staff

Wrote at dKos that Edwards showed up within the first days after Lamont won the primary. But when it became clear Lieberman would run as an independent, he refused to come back, even tho the Lamont people asked him too. That same staffer said Kerry and Clark were the only two "heroes" for Lamont's effort.

I'm sorry I don't have the link. I know it was written up here at DU, so maybe a search would turn something up.

[AP]

9. That revealed how stupid Lamont's campaign was

Edwards showed up and talked about how great Lamont was and didn't define him as anti-Lieberman.

Lamont's campaign wanted him to talk about how bad Lieberman was.

In '68, LBJ said that there was no way Goldwater was going to win because all he did was tell everyone how bad LBJ was and never talked about why anyone should vote for Goldwater.

Do you remember Clark's commercial for Lamont? He said Lieberman's name something like 8 times and HE DIDN'T SAY LAMONT'S NAME EVEN ONCE!

If that's what a Lamont staffer thought was heroic, then that's why Lamont lost.

Incidentally, a week after Edwards campaigned for Lamont in CT, Lamont joined Edwards at a fundraiser in Sacramento where he said that he was going to repair the mistake in his campaign of only talking about Iraq and that he was going to begin talking about issues that were important to CT voters who were suffering economically. I thought that ws interesting, but I don't remember anything really changing in his campaign.

[Jai4WKC08]

12. Clark's ad for Lamont

Was widely considered one of the most effective ads of any congressional campaign (other than some of the "non-partisan" ads run by VoteVets.org... which Clark also helped get on air). That's not just Clarkie opinion. If you read the major leftist blogs, it drew raves from all over.

I think you're also misrepresenting the way Lamont's campaign went. He did change to address a wider range of issues, and it was only after he returned to the one issue that got him the Democratic nomination in the first place that his numbers started to rise again. But then, you've been pushing the "Democrats shouldn't challenge Repubs on defense issues" story for as long as I've known you here. It's because you back a candidate who isn't capable of challenging anybody on defense issues.

Lamont made some mistakes in his campaign to be sure. But the reason he lost is because the GOP machine got behind Lieberman. It's really as simple as that.

It's too bad Edwards didn't back Lamont up, no matter how he chose to focus his campaign (which is after all the candidate's perogative). It might not have made a difference, but it would have been the right thing to do.

[AP]

14. ...didn't mention Lamont's name once.

You are NEVER going to win an election without telling people what you stand for.

Anyone who thought that ad was effective knows as much about politics as Lamont's staff and way way way less than LBJ.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Clark's ad got people's attention

No one relies on one ad to get a message out. Clark's was only one.

Negative advertising works, and don't try to tell me LBJ didn't know that. He practically invented it.

[AP]

19. It didn't get voters' attention. It didn't give them a reason to vote for Lamont.

My point here is that the staff member's criticism that Edwards showed up and tried to put the focus on Lamont and not Lieberman says much more about how bad the Lamont campaign was.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. And you have data to back that up?

That's a pretty bold assertion that Clark's ad "didn't get voters' attention." And voting against Lieberman is a good reason to vote for Lamont. It works and you know it.

Also, the staffer never said anything about Edwards wanting to focus on Lamont. That's your claim. Maybe it's true, but it isn't relevant. Lamont's guy just said Edwards couldn't be found when they wanted him later. You think it's because he disagreed with the thrust of the campaign (as if there wasn't room to do both). I think it's because Lamont was losing. Edwards was hardly the only national Democrat to run out on Lamont as Lieberman shot ahead, but I will not give him credit for being any better.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. You aren't as naive as this sounds

Clark did an attack ad against Lieberman on behalf of Ned Lamont. It wasn't a below the belt attack ad, but it was hard hitting, fair and square attack ad. Every ad does not attempt to accomplish all things for one candidate. Some are designed to raise his or her positives, some are designed to lower the opponents positives. Each ad exists inside the context of an overall campaign. Now if you want to quarral with Lamont's overall campaign, go ahead, knock yourself out, but Wes Clark's Ad was effective at what it set out to do, remind voters of why they needed to dump good old Joe, and that is what the election was ultimately about, tring to convince voters to dump good old Joe.

Clark played the role he was asked to play by Lamont's campaign with that ad, and he did it well. Clark was the National Democrat with the courage to not only say nice things about Ned Lamont, but help pin the blame for the Iraq war, Lamont's central issue, right on the chest of one of the IWR's chief sponsors, Joe Lieberman. Most Democrats ran from doing that, either because they had blood on their own hands also or because they didn't want to anger Joe too much if he got reelected. Clark answered that call for Ned Lamont. Clark also campaigned in person with Ned Lamont, and said all kinds of really nice things about him then.

[AP]

99. I'll repeat my argument: Lamont's campaign was poorly run.

They wanted someone to do what Clark did. What Clark did was not what Lamont needed. Lamont lost, IMHO (informed by LBJ's comments about Goldwater), because all he did was define himself in opposition to Lieberman rather than filling out his own identity with voters (much the same way Dean did with Bush). Criticizing Edwards for not saying Lieberman's name is a naive comment and says more about Lamont's campaign than it says about Edwards's political instincts.

[Jai4WKC08]

112. None of which absolves Edwards for bugging out on Lamont

Whatever the quality of Lamont's campaign, any real progressive had a moral obligation to support him. Regardless of the risk to their own political aspirations.

Edwards failed that test. Period.

You can complain all you want about Lamont's campaign. You can try to twist this into an issue of positive vs negative advertising. You can even try to shift the blame to Clark, as if it were he who somehow let Lamont down by making a great ad.

But the FACT remains that Edwards was called and didn't show.

And it's nothing short of absurd to cite LBJ in a criticism of negative ads. The guy who made the little girl with the nuclear bomb ad? What did that particular ad do to promote LBJ as opposed attacking Goldwater? LBJ may or may not have critiqued Goldwater's overall campaign accurately. The same critique may or may not to apply to Lamont's campaign. But it has NOTHING to do with with Clark's contribution to Lamont nor Edwards' lack thereof.

As for how effective the Clark ad was, folks here can certainly judge for themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6xyDbhZzPw

And to see how positive/negative the campaigning was toward the end, here's part of a rally for Lamont with Clark (note, the segment was loaded by nedlamont.com, so I'd assume it's the part they most wanted folks to see):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEyaIFbZ188

[FrenchieCat]

90. I'm not sure why you are dissing Clark's ad for Lamont...considering that

Clark also did what Edwards did...Campaign with Lamont in person.

So in essence, Clark did more than Edwards in hopes of electing Lamont.....
Not only did he appear with Lamont campaigning,
endorsed Lamont,
But also Clark showed his face on national TeeVee making it clear to even the dumbest among us that he was firmly in the Lamont camp....and that Lieberman should be ousted because of Iraq.

October 6, 2006
Ned Lamont and Wes Clark at McDonalds for Vets Meeting
Derby, CT


Rally and Endorsement Event for Ned Lamont at UConn
Storrs, CT
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/126/0/feed

[karynnj]

125. It was an extremely well done clear ad

and it was on the issue that seperated Lieberman and Lamont. As Leiberman was suddenly speaking of Bush's errors - Clark set the record straight.

[cgrindley]

138. Lamont's campaign failed because CT isn't really blue as it seems

It's at least partially red and people are kidding themselves if they think otherwise. It's one of the richest states in the union. It's got a Republican governor, the senators are split between Republican and Democrat, and there's one Republican congressman. Of the two houses of state government, there are 12 republican state senators out of 36, and there are 44 republican members of the house out of 151. I'd say that when you sort of factor in the governor and LIEberman, CT is more or less 50% Republican. There's a lot of wealth to protect here. This state has the highest % of homes in the US worth a million or more. People send their children to private schools. And the inner cities are hellholes, decaying and crimeridden. New Haven, near where I live, for example, is intensely dangerous.

[chimpymustgo]

41. Edwards gave college scholarships, worked to raise minimum wage, unionize workers.

Edwards gave at least $300,000 for college scholarships last year. Along with his work to raise the minimum way in numerous states and unionize workers.


*********

John Edwards: Poor are treated immorally in the U.S.
Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press, May 29, 2006 by Charles Emerick

John Edwards questions the morals of a country that lets millions of its own people struggle daily to survive.

At the Legal Aid for Western Missouri's Eighth Annual Justice for All Luncheon last week, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee continued with the theme that nearly carried him to the White House.

-snip-

Edwards also hopes to rally support for his College for Everyone program, which offers scholarships for high school graduates who attend college.

Earlier this month, Edwards passed out more than 100 scholarships totaling $300,000 at a North Carolina high school. More than 70 percent of the graduating class took part.

We can do this all across America, he insisted.

Additionally, he called to raise the nation's minimum wage.

Nobody can live on $5.15 an hour, he said.

Nearly all in attendance Wednesday applauded the former senator's statements and his criticisms of the current administration.

Jane McQueeny, an employee of the U.S. Department of Education, said Edwards has plans that can improve the country.

He was very inspiring, McQueeny said. He has a vision for our society. We have so much in this country and we do so little with it.

-snip-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_2006052...
Alert | Add to my Journal

[kitticup]

71. Again mostly talking

First off, Edwards is not the only dem for increasing the min wage. Raising the min wage is an incredibly popular measure and there have been organizations and dems who have been working on the issue for decades. To have Edwards swoop in the last election and act like he was a big part of the efforts is insulting to the people and organizations that did the work. More improtantly, if he cared about the poor, why did he vote for the Bankruptcy bill of 2001? It only would make the existing law worse. He had to know; his wife is a bankruptcy attorney.

Second, as for college scholarships, good for Edwards, but it still seems like an effort to create an image, since he didn't do anything before on this issue. $300,000 is not a lot of money, especially in the context of a presidential campaign. I see this as basically buying good press. If he had a long standing record like Teresa Heinz-Kerry of giving money and creating programs that addressed education and the needs of the poor, I would feel different. But when I look at his record, I can't help but be cynical. I am tired of image over substance.

[kitticup]

67. Sorry but that was all political posturing

Edwards wanted to be the first to phone and be seen with Lamont, because Lamont at that time was the darling of the netroots. Edwards is very calculating politician. He has to be because he has no record to run so he has creates the images of being of the people, fighting for the poor and working with the netroots. When the realtiy, he doesn't have anything to show prior to his latest run for president.

[kitticup]

68. Sorry but that was all political posturing

Edwards wanted to be the first to phone and be seen with Lamont, because Lamont at that time was the darling of the netroots. Edwards is very calculating politician. He has to be because he has no record to run so he has creates the images of being of the people, fighting for the poor and working with the netroots. When the realtiy, he doesn't have anything to show prior to his latest run for president.

[Tellurian]

89. Wow...such support for Kerry's former VP mate...

yup, the loyalty is not reciprocal.

If Edwards wins the Nom...and asks Kerry to be his VP..then what?

Or maybe Kerry is going to support Hillary...and she will ask Kerry to be her VP mate..

Not very smaht...for the Dem Bashers!

[dwahzon]

152. Scuse me

I don't believe he was the first big name to campaign for Ned Lamont... in fact, Tim Tagaris, gave him less than a starring role in terms of support offered to Lamont.

Of course, it won't surprise some here which two potential (at the time) 2008 candidates he said were rock stars as far as the Lamont campaign was concerned: John Kerry and Wes Clark.

He spilled the beans in this diary on dailykos.

[dwahzon]

153. Scuse me

I don't believe he was the first big name to campaign for Ned Lamont... in fact, Tim Tagaris, gave him less than a starring role in terms of support offered to Lamont.

Of course, it won't surprise some here which two potential (at the time) 2008 candidates he said were rock stars as far as the Lamont campaign was concerned: John Kerry and Wes Clark.

He spilled the beans in this diary on dailykos.

[PresidentObama]

3. It would be interesting to hear the Edwards supporters on this.

I like Edwards, but after reading this thread I'm not having any light bulbs that he's done.

So whats Edwards important legislative accomplishments? What has he done?

Why is he deserving of the Presidency?

I'd love to hear the Edwards supporters take!!

[MannyGoldstein]

7. I Find The Silence Stunning

I asked the same question a few days ago of Mrs. Clinton's supporters, and got essentially the same answers.

[AP]

13. What silence?

I hope you gave the Clinton supporters time to write something.

[chimpymustgo]

42. I find the OP stunningly ignorant and uninformed.

Try doing a little reading rather than bitching.

www.johnedwards.com

[Clark2008]

92. Can we look other places than the man's own website?

Because, when I Googled, for example, "John Edwards legislation for the poor" I got nothing. Well, I got stuff: how he had "poor" attendance when he was in the senate and how he wrote legislation for the Iraqi War and for the banking industry, but I didn't get any hits on any actually legislation he sponsored concerning the disadvantaged.

[Tellurian]

77. All the Kerry supporters are dealing with a huge void..

Their focus has been on one candidate for so long they are unable to get back in the game.

Most of the Dem supporters are listening to ALL the Dem candidates. We have 11/2 years to go and to make a decision. Why you people expect someone to make a case for you is beyond the pale. Why don't you listen to all the candidates and take a position yourself then comeback and tell us why-

[fedupinBushcountry]

129. Huge void ?

Please you do no t speak for me. I have no void, and I don't play games, I continue to fight for what is right for the country.

I am on a campaign for my country, right now, who I chose in a year and half from now can wait.

[blm]

4. Compare ALL of them on what they actually did IN OFFICE.

What battles did they choose to fight for the American people?

And GOP majority isn't an excuse for any of them. Kerry started office under a GOP senate and immediately went to work with the FIRST pro-gay legislation, uncovered IranContra and illegal wars in Central America, and started his 5 year investigation of BCCI - in his FIRST TWO YEARS.

[AP]

8. In '92 a black man named Gant ran for NC Senate.

The Republicans ran a commercial showing a black hand holding back a white man's arm. Before that commerical ran, Gant had an excellent change of winning. Gant lost. Gant ran again the next time, but didn't have the momentum that he lost when that commercial aired. Also, the Republicans claimed that voting machines were broken in heavily black districts. The news that night showend thousands of black voters standing in line until past midnight even though they'd been told the machines were broken and the polls were closed hours earlier.

Someone I met who knows Edwards's family said that's why he decided to run for Senate. He decided that he was going to break the Helms machine and win an election for all those North Carolinians who stood in line for hours and didn't get a chance to vote.

After he was elected, he represented those people.

I read an interview with a bank lobbyist in 2004 who said that John Edwards never returned his calls. The banking industry is the biggest industry in NC. Edwards wasn't returning their calls because he was busy representing the people whose voices were denied.

Edwards doesn't mention this story in his book. In his book he says that he ran for Senate because, when he was a lawyer, he won a case against the trucking industry because of their negligence in forcing drivers to drive for sometimes 14 to 24 hours straight (a truck ran into the back of passenger car killing two parents and leaving an orphan, who ended up going to a military academy and Edwards signed his recommendation letter in his capacity as NC Senator). The legislature ended up changing the law to protect trucking companies from liability ensuring that the legal effect of Edwards's case was limited to that single instance and wouldn't change corporate behavior.

Edwards said he ran for senate so that corporate lobbyists couldn't buy legislation shifting the benefits of society to the wealthy and powerful and the burdens to the poor.

He did that as a senator. He never took a single dollar from a lobbyist as a senator or presidential candidate and he supported legislation, as Elizabeth has said many times, that always put the interests of working people in NC before the interest of anyone else. That is why he voted against the three trade bills that made the DLC detest him and the National Association of Manufacturers (the most pro-corproate PAC in America) tell Kerry that they would actively campaign against him if he put Edwards on the ticket.

If voters didn't learn all this stuff in '04, they'll learn it soon.

[ClassWarrior]

26. I find the silence of the Edwards-haters to your post stunning.

:eyes:

NGU.

[AP]

100. It is pretty stunning, isn't it?

[kitticup]

76. NIce story about Gant

So what did Edwards do to help ensure voter integrity or help blacks (while in office) since that was his alleged motivation for running?

Kerry never took PAC money (and unlike Edwards he doesn't have a pile of cash to fall back on; Kerry can't use Teresa's money) and drafted legislation for public financing.

And while Edwards supposedly didn't return the calls of banking industry, he did have time to vote for the bankrutcy bill that was draconian and served their interests. I've read stories of Edwards not returning calls of people seeking support to help diversity efforts or about natural disaster relief.

As for the trade bills, Edwards record seems very similar to other democrats. He even states that NAFTA should be renegotaited but not cancelled. Again I don't see him as special.

[AP]

102. Edwards's record on bills relating to global trade is exceeded by

only one person, and no other democrat besides Edwards and that other Senator were anywhere close to voting against half the trade bills that came before them.

And that fact addresses the rest of your questions.

[kitticup]

104. You can compare records at

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Free_Trade.htm

At the bottom you can link to the voting records of others. Edwards was not in the Senate for NAFTA so we can't compare records there. He voted no to most free trade legislation but so did a lot of other democrats at that time.

[mzmolly]

122. That is very good to know.

Thanks :)

[karynnj]

126. He voted for the 2001 bankrupcy bill

There were 82 Senators who voted for it but many of the real progressives and liberals (and mysteriously Brownback) voted against it.

I think the OP for leading me to look this up - after he mentioned it as one thing he didn't like about Hillary.

Here are the no votes:
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wellstone (D-MN)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

(Note Dodd voted against it. Obama wasn't in the Senate and he is suppose to have an excellent IL record on this.

[fujiyama]

133. I have never heard Edwards' stance on the Bankruptcy bill

I'm also curious if he said anything about the legislation passed in '05.

[Kerry fan]

130. If all this is true as you say

Why was Edwards not likely to be reelected to the Senate? And, why was Edwards not able to carry his own state in the presidential campaign?

I have definitely come to the conclusion that both Edwards and Hillary are totally phony and hypocritical and I cannot vote for either of them.

Wes Clarke is about the only choice that I have left that I could really support.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. What I would like to know

And I really do ask this sincerely, is what has Edwards' poverty center with UNC accomplished?

The only thing I've heard of was working to get minimum wage raises in several states. Which was most worthy cause. Even tho getting a Democratic Congress seems to be doing us more good in the long run, it helped to get those things on state ballots, to draw attention to the issue, and to get Democratic voters to turn out in an off year. Very smart move for our side.

But other than that? And how much money have they spent? What sort of staff do they have? In which fields predominantly?

I've seen Edwards travel an awful lot, but a WAY disproportionate amount of his travel has been to Iowa and NH. I know the poverty center pays for at least some of his travel, but would be curious as to how much and to where. I don't think poverty is a big issue in Iowa or NH -- not compared to other places.

I also noticed that when he went to OK, more than once (no doubt caught my attention because of the close race there in 2004), he didn't speak to any of the Native American leaders as far as I could tell... and I was looking for it. I don't see how you can claim to be working poverty issues and avoid the reservations.

[AP]

11. For me, it put a spotlight on the journalism John Epstein of the Buffalo News

It's an educational institute so it's purpose is to cultivate ideas and encourage discussions.

Edwards has done a great job at doing that. He featured Epstein's work on a panel at UNC and then went to Buffalo to discuss poverty and opportunity issues further. Epstein has done some of the most brilliant journalism on poverty issues that I've seen in an American paper in twenty years.

This is how you change minds and solve problems.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. I thought it was advertised as a research institution?

Publicizing one author, not even one on the staff, is a good start. But after two years? How much money are we talking about?

Surely there's more to it than that. Do they have a website that tells what they're doing? I'd be interested in seeing it. I suppose I could google it... maybe later.

[AP]

18. FOR ME, i connected with the work of a journalist

I'm one of many people who were exposed to RESEARCH and ideas that were discussed as part of the center's activities.

[Cameron27]

20. I couldn't find much,

but apparently the center doesn't pay for Edwards' travel expenses, but does pay him $40,000 a year for a part time position.

"Edwards' job at the center, which has three employees, was billed as part-time. Edwards has spent much of the past two years traveling as he laid the groundwork for his presidential bid -- stumping in 39 states for local candidates, pushing for a minimum wage increase in six states, editing a book on childhood homes, and meeting with foreign leaders in such counties as Israel, China and India.

Edwards, a multimillionaire, was paid $40,000 per year as director, which UNC officials said came from investment returns on private funds.

The center did not pay Edwards' travel costs."

oops forgot the link:

http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/532901-p2.html

[KingofNewOrleans]

24. Actually, that's a very good article

Tries to give an evenhanded balance and an overview of how the center tries to be different from other poverty centers and discusses it's potential for current and lasting impact. Obviously, the center won't be the be-all end-all of poverty, but it does seem to be a genuine effort to move the debate.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Three employees?

No shit? Well no wonder it's hard to point to any accomplishments. It takes three people to put up a decent website. Which they obviously haven't done.

So this was just a PR thing? An impressive title for the resume, but no real function?

[Cameron27]

29. Well,

if he gave up the $40,000 paycheck, they could've hired another person.

He resigned from the position when he announced his bid for the presidency, so I don't know what's up with the $40,000 now.

[mzmolly]

30. How many employees does Clark's anti-poverty center have?

Oh wait ... :eyes:

[KingofNewOrleans]

35. Wes Clark merely has to

gaze into the eyes of the poor and they are cured.

[mzmolly]

37. Ahhh, that's good to know.

;)

And, while we're on the subject, how many square feet make up Wes Clarks home?

[FrenchieCat]

40. Clark saved did valiantly attempt to save a few "poor" folks, ...

and lost his job in the process.....but I guess that doesn't count: :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=51999&mesg_id=52934

[mzmolly]

43. I have nothing against Clark.

I'm simply defending Edwards against ridiculous attacks. I like Clark, I like Edwards - both are good/noble men.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I don't care about the house......

I do think that Poverty became an election cause after the 2 America speech caught fire....because there is little prior to that on what he did for the cause.....

But for me, it is Edwards foreign policy naivete that doesn't allow me to support him.

That is all.

[mzmolly]

47. If that is your position, I'd like to know what Clark has done to "fight" poverty.

And, it could be said that Clark is naive on domestic policy.

Let's learn from 04 and stop trashing good candidates.

[Adelante]

48. Getting 10,000 houses built for the poor in New Orleans

Providing transportation for 9th Ward evacuees to return to New Orleans. He doesn't talk about this stuff much, but it doesn't mean he is not doing it.

[mzmolly]

52. Edwards also helped out in New Orleans.

I do appreciate the info though, thanks.

[Adelante]

53. Yes, many of our Dems are doing good in NOLA

You're welcome :hi:

[kitticup]

93. Yes we all saw the photo ops

And I've seen Edwards supporters claim that Edwards and Gore were the only ones who did anything about NOLA. It annoys me.

[mzmolly]

101. Actually it was more than a photo-op if you ask those who were assisted.

What annoys me is unknown posters trashing known candidates.

Welcome. :hi:

[Texas_Kat]

141. Apparently quite a bit in New Orleans ....

Clark is a partner in James Lee Witt Associates (JLWA). Their company has been working towards Katrina recovery in NO and the Gulf Coast. Of course, there's a downside, no pictures of him with a shovel....

James Lee Witt Associates (JLWA), has been honored with a Merit Award from the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Louisiana Chapter.

The award was in recognition for an online planning tool - the ESF #14 Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) Planning Tool (RPT) - developed by JLWA along with Moore Planning Group, Sides & Associates and ATCS, Plc. on behalf of FEMA and the State of Louisiana's Recovery Authority Partnership.

"With the assistance of James Lee Witt Associates, Louisiana and the entire Gulf Coast are better equipped to meet the challenges of rebuilding after the devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita," said Patrick Moore, Managing Principal, Moore Planning Group and Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architect.

"We are extremely pleased that our products have been recognized by the ASLA as the valuable planning tools that they are," said James Lee Witt, CEO & President of James Lee Witt Associates. "In addition, we are particularly gratified that this award acknowledges the efforts of many to help the people of Louisiana."

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070129/20070129005415.html?.v=1

[FrenchieCat]

80. You asked a question, I answered.....

I hope I provided information so that you do not have to ask next time....What Clark has done. That is all.

[mzmolly]

85. Actually the question I asked/you responded to was this:

how many square feet make up Wes Clarks home? However, in all honesty, I don't really care what the answer to that question is. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

94. I meant answering your question of what Clark had done for poor folks

In answer to the question of square footage, The answer is.....not many.....

There was a story about the '04 candidates' homes last primary...and I only recall that Wes Clark's house was modest...although not as modest as Kucinich...but more modest than Al Sharpton's house.

There were photos and everything!

Wish I could find that story again.

[GreenArrow]

105. it was a very telling story

I've looked for that one as well, but have been unable to find it. Kerry's was some tall brick fortress, while Edwards' was the sort of oversized and ostentatious home favored by the nouveau riche.

Kucinich's was the most modest, a little two bedroom cape cod smack in the middle of his district, while Sharpton had a very nice Victorian style house. Clark had a handsome Colonial style house, and Dean a typical suburban middle class house.

I haven't posted on any of the Edwards' house threads, since as plenty have mentioned, it's his money and he can spend it however he wants, but I do think it says something about his character and values, and it doesn't come unexpected from him. Two Americas indeed!

[karynnj]

127. Hey, I've seen the outside of Kerry's elegant Beacon Hill

house. It, like all the town houses on that square are brick - but certainly it doesn't look like a fortress. It does have a huge flag flying from a balcony. As to tall - it is in an urban setting - of course it is tall - just like every house on the square. It is also about a 5 - 10 minute walk from the Boston commons. It is far less isolated than "tall brick fortres" sounds.

[GreenArrow]

137. that's the one they pictured

and I certainly grant that a lot of my perceptions may come from the angle the picture was taken from. As I recall, they took a shot, looking upward, at one of the building's corners, and it did give it a fortress-like appearance.

I prefered Sharpton's house to all of them; classic American victorian with a great long open porch.

[Clark2008]

96. I used to have a picture of it, but I don't know where I put it.

I'd say, if I took a rough guess, that it's about 3,600 square feet. It's a little larger than mine, but is, by far, no palatial estate. It's in a regular neighborhood, down the way from a Target, a Borders bookstore and a 7/11. LOL.

But, seriously, it's a two (maybe three story if the third is basement) story house. Looks to have, maybe 10 to 12 rooms.

It's not a monolith, but more of an upper middle-class abode.

Hope that answers your question. :)

[Adelante]

115. The General lives in a very nice house in Little Rock

It's about 4,000 sq ft, is brick, has a front lawn and columns on the porch. He paid about $350,000 for the house after he retired, so maybe six years ago. The house was built, I believe, in the 1960s. He and Gert can walk to stores nearby. He also owns or did own a small cabin in the woods someplace in Arkansas. That's about all I know about it.

[Jai4WKC08]

44. I don't know how many square feet

But I do remember an article about all the candidates' homes in 2004. Iirc, Clark's was valued at around a couple hundred thousand. And he still had a mortgage on it.

Clark may not have a poverty center, but if Edwards has one that's never done anything, what's the difference?

On the other hand, Clark runs a PAC that helped get an awful lot of Democrats elected to Congress in 2006. Not to mention helping to establish and serving on the boards of other contributing organizations, like votevets.org. I know Edwards did a lot to help out too and I have never said a bad word about it. But I've read that no one was invited to campaign in red states and red districts as much as Clark. I'm also told Tester wouldn't allow any other national Democrat into his state.

I happen to think a Democratic majority does more for the poor than anything any one individual, or a three-person "center" (oops, looks like just two since Edwards quit) can do.

You know, attacking my (potential) candidate doesn't make much excuse for yours.

[mzmolly]

50. One can actually appreciate Clark without trashing John Edwards.

And, to say that Edwards poverty center did not accomplish anything would require proof of that assertion.

Also, five star generals generally do pretty well income wise, heck - I'd wonder about Clark's ability to manage his finances if I were in a bitchy mood. ;)

Can't you prop Clark or Kucinich or XXXX without trashing other candidates? I got stuck in that sh*t in 2004 and I won't do it again.

I'm playing devils advocate here against ridiculous criticism of a good person/candidate. I will do so for Clark if the occasion arises as well.

[Jai4WKC08]

56. I asked an honest question about the poverty center

I can't prove it has done nothing. Proving a negative is seldom possible.

But I have asked people to tell me what it HAS done. I hadn't read anything much and I wanted to know. But with three employees, and Edwards only part-time, I can understand why they haven't accomplished more. It just struck me, when I read that, that maybe it was never intended to. I realize that can be construed as trashing Edwards, altho it really wasn't my intent -- more trashing the UNC, but I guess they're in this together. But I was sort of shocked, and upon further consideration, I do think it's a reasonable assumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Actually, four star generals (there are no living five-stars) don't make all that much. When Clark retired, it was something like $86K/year. He would get less than than (not sure how much less), in retirement. Don't go by the pay charts. Congress caps military pay so that a four-star doesn't make much more than a full colonel.

I'm not saying Clark is poor tho. He has been a successful businessman and made good investments. I seem to recall his net worth was about a million and half when he ran last time. I don't know what it is now, but I'd bet he and Gert don't go hungry -- except when they work too hard and travel too much to take time to eat. ;)

[mnhtnbb]

57. self delete. wrong place

[mzmolly]

60. What your doing is insinuating that his work with the center was a political prop.

You're simply doing so under the guise of asking a question.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4351/is_200502/ai_n15194397

The center appears to be a think tank about various policy initiatives that can be undertaken to combat poverty. Some people actually volunteer for such goals, and the small number of "employees" does not mean it is not an effective avenue for change.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html

The Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity will be a nonpartisan initiative, bringing together UNC-Chapel Hill faculty and other national public policy experts to examine innovative and practical ideas for moving more Americans out of poverty and into the middle class. The center will have an advisory committee of senior faculty representing multiple disciplines across campus. In addition to leading the center, Edwards also will serve as a guest lecturer on campus.

"John Edwards is a distinguished Carolina alumnus, and we are delighted that he will return to campus to bring together today’s best minds to focus on issues that affect us all," Chancellor James Moeser said.

Edwards spent six years in the U.S. Senate. In that time, he championed policy initiatives such as raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, creating matching savings accounts for low-income families, and providing incentives for teachers to teach in low-income schools. Edwards also focused on poverty during last year’s presidential campaign.

"The time I spent at Chapel Hill gave me many of the tools I have used all my life to help those who are struggling, and I am so proud that I will be able to continue this work and also give something back to UNC-Chapel Hill," Edwards said. "As director of the center, I will work to explore creative approaches to the difficulties that families in poverty face every day."

I'm out.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. No insinuation until the resources issue was answered

I asked what the center had accomplished. If it has accomplished something, that shouldn't be hard for someone to tell. Every think tank I've ever heard of has published paper, sponsored research, sent out representatives to speak in public (and I thought that last was what Edwards had been doing, but someone wrote that the center doesn't pay for his travel).

It was only when I was told that there were only three employees, apparently one of the Edwards himself, that I came to question whether anyone ever intended it to be more than, as you call it "a political prop." I can still be persuaded otherwise. As you correctly point out, there could be volunteer work being done. I'm still asking what?

You can believe it to subterfuge on my part if you want to. I challenge you or anyone else at DU to point to a single time when I have refused to answer a straight-forward question about Clark, whether the questioner was hostile or not.

[mzmolly]

72. Academic think tanks often don't have a specific/tangible measurement process.

They advise on policy and "study" issues from an intellectual and evidentiary stand point.

Here is the mission statement:
http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/details.aspx?ID=453&Q=3

Mission

Introduction

For over two centuries, the University of North Carolina has educated North Carolina's leaders and improved the lives of its citizens. It has long been a place where scholars expanded the horizons of thought and knowledge and students received a world-class education regardless of their ability to pay. In recent years, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill established the groundbreaking Carolina Covenant, enabling low-income students to receive a debt-free college education. The UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity joins this proud tradition to bring together scholars, policymakers, lawyers, community leaders and students in a mission of public service and public outreach to the state of North Carolina and the nation.

The Vision and Goals of the UNC Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity

The UNC Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity will create a forum for the best minds in the state and the nation to work on issues of poverty, work and opportunity. The Center has four goals: first, to address the pressing needs of those currently living at or below the poverty level; second, to provide a non-partisan interdisciplinary forum to examine innovative and practical ideas to move more Americans out of poverty; third, to raise public awareness of issues related to work and poverty; and fourth to train a new generation to combat the causes and effects of poverty and to improve the circumstances of working people.

1. Address the needs of persons living at or below the poverty level.

Insufficient incomes to meet daily needs and lack of financial resources to achieve long-term goals have adverse consequences in every aspect of life.The Center will seek solutions to the problems plaguing the poor, as it strives to break the cycle of poverty.To accomplish this first goal, the Center will analyze and devise solutions for a wide range of issues affecting low-income Americans. These include:

(1) The lack of job opportunities for Americans living in poverty who seek to work their way out of the poverty cycle;

(2) The circumstances facing millions of Americans who work full time but have inadequate savings or insurance against misfortune;

(3) The persistent deficiencies in the delivery of high-quality education to students in low-income areas;

(4) The unavailability of affordable health care coverage and the disparities in access to and quality of medical services and health outcomes;

(5) The shortage of quality and affordable housing, particularly in areas close to job markets;

(6) The plight of low-income Americans forced to borrow and bank with abusive lenders due to lack of access to mainstream financial institutions; and

(7) The particular challenges facing low-income communities affected by high-levels of crime and drug use.

2. Provide an interdisciplinary forum for examining poverty, work and opportunity issues.

The cause of poverty is multi-faceted. Alleviating its effects will call for interdisciplinary solutions to create opportunities for work and to address problems in the workplace. To accomplish this second goal, the Center will establish an advisory committee of senior faculty representing the best thinkers across a wide range of academic fields. In addition, the Center will create opportunities for collaboration among experts in economics, public health, law, and governmental policy from around the country and the world to explore questions on poverty and work opportunity.

3. Raise awareness of work and poverty issues.

Inequities in labor markets and poverty in America are not attention-grabbing headlines.Yet, they sap the human capital of our communities and cause suffering among an alarmingly high number of individuals and families. We, as Americans, have a moral responsibility to address the structure of labor markets and the effects of poverty in our country and to explore the relationship among meaningful work, a living wage, and a vibrant participatory democracy. To accomplish this third goal, the Center will seek to bring attention to work and poverty issues in innovative ways. To sharpen the state and national focus on these issues, the Center will host conferences and lecture series to educate community and thought leaders on poverty, work and opportunity issues and to increase public awareness of the grave difficulties facing their neighbors.

4. Train the next generation of community leaders.

Fighting poverty and improving conditions of work in the United States are not the tasks of any single generation, however brilliant or inspired. To accomplish this fourth goal, the Center will be a central locus to prepare a new generation of leaders to take innovative approaches to disrupt the cycle of poverty and improve the lives of working people. For those called to devote their professional lives to these issues, it will facilitate a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary education. Talented students drawn to UNC-Chapel Hill by the work of the Center will receive here unparalleled legal and social science training. They will have opportunities to be directly involved in community development projects and the creation of state and federal policies, under the direction of experienced teachers, policymakers and lawyers dedicated to public service. The Center will work closely with the School of Law's civil clinic, Center for Civil Rights and Community Development Clinic, as well as with other disciplines across the campus - including the Schools of Education, Public Health, Social Work, Business and Journalism, and the graduate departments in city and regional planning, economics, geography, public policy, sociology and related disciplines - to ensure that the next generation has the knowledge and skills necessary to solve tomorrow's hard problems.

Here are some of the "events" they've held.

http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/details.aspx?ID=430&Q=3

[FrenchieCat]

70. Generals don't make much, certainly not as much as congressional

members. He made under $50,000 most of his life until he became a 3 star, I believe. As you see he made under $100,000 until his retirement. His sales of his books and speaking fees accounts for the majority of his income jump in income in 2000, the year he retired.




Plus Clark has done work for the disavantage, just hasn't done a lot of photo ops!

http://www.nemmar.com/real-estate-Gen-Wesley-Accessibility-Program.html
Gen. Wesley Clark Launches Accessibility Program

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark launched a new lnternationai code council (IcC) program last month to improve the quality for veterans with disabilities. http://www.icc-foundation.org/about/

The Ohio home of Vietnam veteran shelby Bowling is the pilot site for Project H .E.R.O. — Homes Eliminated of Restrictions and Obstacles bringing together building officials architects engineers businesses snd other volunteers to help make the homes of veterans with dIsabIlities accessible

He also is participating in Global Green in NOLA...

If 50,000 homes were rebuilt according to the energy cost reduction goals in the competition, residents would save $38 million to $56 million EVERY year. Each sustainably designed home would also reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 11 tons per household per year, the equivalent of taking 100,000 cars off the road.

Global Green USA - the American affiliate of President Gorbachev’s Green Cross International – was founded by Diane Meyer Simon in 1993. Its newly opened field office and green building resource center will serve as a focal point of green building expertise for New Orleans residents and is the face of its “Healthy Homes, Smart Neighborhoods” initiative whose Honorary National Task Force includes: Julian bond, Gen. Wesley Clark, Leonardo DiCaprio, Morgan Freeman, Lee Hamilton, Pat Mitchell and David Orr. Global Green USA has been a national leader in green building for affordable housing, schools and communities for more than a decade and has influenced more than $20 billion dollars in green construction.
http://www.globalgreen.org/press/releases/2006_07_17_winner.htm

And has been a member and speaker for the Girls and Boys Club...
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/30/18375/7096

He also did work for NOLA via Witt & Associates - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x7510

[mzmolly]

74. Under 50K in the 1980's was very good income.

I applaud his goal of public service along with John Edwards. Neither of them need $$ one gets to be President.

[FrenchieCat]

78. "under" $50,000 doesn't mean $50,000.....

In the 80s as he wasn't a general, I would put him as having earned 1/2 of the $50,000 mentioned, about $2,000 gross per month.

http://www.dod.mil/dfas/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/militarypaypriorrates/1980.pdf

[mzmolly]

84. You fail to mention that he didn't have the expenses most Americans do.

He likely lived in military housing, no?

Heck, I grew up in poverty, I am not particularly moved by the 50K story, but I don't insult people for making money either.

Peace

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. Yup. He got to live in a couple of dozen or so different "homes"

Due to career required relocations. Lucky him.

Clark was not poor, and no one says that he was. Clark was middle class in the way that meant he had to always budget his income, like most Americans do. Money was never a non issue for Clark, like it is with the truly wealthy. No one is making Clark out to be a martyr, though clearly Wes Clark turned up many opportunities to make far more money, in order to keep serving his country in the manner that he freely chose.

[mzmolly]

87. I'm not criticizing Clark - once again,

I'm defending Edwards, I like them both. However, Clark did choose the military, and I don't disrespect that decision.

Peace

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Not a problem. Peace returned. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

79. Don't forget

Clark is a major sponsor of City Year, and chairman of the Little Rock organization.
http://www.cityyear.org/sites/clipp.cfm?Site=skc&CatID=6&Clipp=1104CYLROD

He has also joined with Jimmy Carter on the Advisory Board of Democrats Work.
http://democratswork.org/index.php?page=display&id=61

[FrenchieCat]

82. Yes, I forgot about both of those....

Democratswork.....
We are honored to have the following leaders serving on our National Advisory Board:

President Jimmy Carter

General Wesley K. Clark

U.S. Rep. David Price (D-NC)
http://democratswork.org/index.php?page=display&id=5

[Cameron27]

107. I don't give a hoot what anyone's house is worth

and I didn't get involved in those threads, but to answer a request:



General Wesley K. Clark:
Little Rock, Arkansas
Style of house: Georgian
Year built: 1967
Square footage: 4,023
Rooms: Unavailable
Bedrooms: Unavailable
Baths: 2 full, one half
Assessed value: $365,450

Pretty modest, it's actually valued lower than many houses in my neighborhood.

(stole the link from someone else's post-- cool site, most Dems houses listed except for Gore's)

http://www.boston.com/realestate/galleries/pres_res/1.html

[Adelante]

39. Here it is, Jai

http://www.law.unc.edu/centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3

[kitticup]

95. Hmm, shades of the fake Texas ranch

It's all for show. I bet he is hoping that once becomes president, it will become well endowed with other people's money but he will benefit from the association.

[McCamy Taylor]

16. Edwards has the COJONES to talk about class, poverty, wealth

in a country where the corporate media will nail you to a cross for bringing up the fact that the divide between the poorest and the richest has steadily widened in the last 30 years and is getting wider during W.'s rule.

It has always been a truism--up until now--that class talk is political suicide in the US. Edwards is sticking his neck out pointing a finger at the dark underbelly of this country which tolerates poverty, racism, lack of education opportunity, lack of health care.

Anyone who does not understand how hard this is to do or how important it is that it be done is so utterly clueless that they might as well go crawl back under a rock and continue evolving for a few more million years.

:dem:

"In speaking of Love, the intellect is impotent,

Like a donkey trapped in a bog;

Only Love itself can explain Love,

Only Love can explain the destiny of lovers.

The proof of the sun is the sun itself:

If you want proof, don't turn your face away." Rumi


"To live humanly means to feel the warmth of someone who says to us, in spite of our physical and spiritual misery: ' It is good that you exist, Brother. You are welcome.'" Leonardo Boff "St. Francis: A Model for Human Liberation"

[Jai4WKC08]

21. You're kidding, right?

Well allow me to come out from under my rock for a minute, 'cause I don't see what's so hard about it.

Sticking his neck out? Political suicide? How so? What danger is there in it for him? I don't recall him talking about it so much in 2004, but his "two Americas" didn't seem to keep him from getting the VP nod, and it doesn't seem to be hurting him in the polls now. Edwards problem is his lack of experience, not his willingness to speak out on important issues.

Besides, I honestly don't think there's a single major Democrat who hasn't at some point talked about "poverty, racism, lack of education opportunity, lack of health care."

One of the main themes of Clark's 04 campaign, a theme I've heard him return to many times since, was the idea that family values is based on jobs, education, healthcare, the environment, and equal opportunity for all (women and gays too). He would have eliminated income taxes for the working poor (less than $50K per year). He has even called for a single-payer healthcare system -- has Edwards gone that far yet? Clark is also the only one I remember talking about the psychological impact on someone who can't provide for their family financially. I think he gets it because he grew up with just such a step-father, and they lived off his mother's salary as a secretary.

Edwards is to be applauded for talking about poverty. But he isn't the only one who has. Maybe the only one who acts as tho that's our only problem as a nation? Because I'll admit that Clark thinks our main problem is that we're losing our constitution form of government and the principles that underpin it.

Besides, I think the question of the OP was, what has he done other than talk.

[mzmolly]

31. You can see how sticking his neck out on poverty has come back to bite him.

Read this thread and the many others that insinuate that he's not allowed wealth because he cares about the poor, for example.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. No, I think you've got it backwards

No one is not allowing Edwards to be wealthy. On the contrary, he obviously is quite wealthy, and doesn't have any problem with it at all.

No, if anything, I'd say it's the being wealthy, ostentatiously so, that takes credibility from his stand on poverty. Not the other way around.

But honestly, I doubt it has hurt him or will. As many have pointed out, Kerry, Clinton, Gore and most of the others live in pretty nice houses, and several more than one. Nor do I think Edwards considers it a risk to his political standing. If he did, he's have put off buying it. Either he has a tin ear, or it's not gonna hurt him. You can't have it both ways.

In either case, I have not said anything about his house (except when you asked about Clark's house, and then I dont' think I was critical of Edwards') or his wealth. I only took exception when someone said he's the only one with the balls to talk about poverty, education, healthcare, racism... there was a laundry list. That's just nonsense. ALL good Democrats care about those things (or they're not good Democrats), and many speak out about them all the time.

[mzmolly]

55. "No one is not allowing Edwards to be wealthy."

Actually people are suggesting he should drop out of the race because he's building a large home. The OP is an extension of that absurdity.

I will say again that I have nothing against Clark, and I hope his supporters will not make that a difficult position for me to maintain.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. Well, I think that's silly

If every rich man dropped out of politics... well, we'd have to start over, which doesn't sound so bad after all. :lol: But seriously, I don't begrudge him a big house or think it disqualifies him.

But it's still a matter of the house jeopardizing his politics, not the other way around. He could choose not to buy/build the house if he thought having it would hurt his message or his prospects for 2008. I don't think it does, so I guess it seems likely to me that Edwards doesn't think so either. YMMV.

Oh, and I'd also like to point out that the OP is not to my knowledge a Clarkie. I've sure never seen him or her in the Clark group, and don't recognize seeing him in Clark threads in this forum.

Edit because I got my negatives backwards. duh....

[mzmolly]

62. I'm not sure who the OP supports?

I've never been able to determine that. ;)

[noamnety]

113. You've missed the point.

He was wealthy before the house was in the news, we all knew he was wealthy, and yet you didn't see all these threads about it. So we can rule out "he's not allowed wealth" and "people are just jealous of his wealth" as causes of the disgust.

If DUers are upset at people needlessly driving gas guzzling SUVs, nobody is accused of insinuating the driver has too much money, or of being jealous, or of being paid shills or of being communists.

I don't know what it would take for people to do enough critical thinking to see the connections between a car that damages the environment and a house that damages the environment, and to see that while all cars and (nearly) all houses damage the environment, there is a point in which needless and grossly excessive damage becomes an outrage.

[Kerry fan]

131. Not true.

He and Elizabeth pretend to be just "regular folks", criticize the Kerry's for their wealth, pretending that the Edwards' don't have sheets good enough for the Kerry's to sleep on. They still "shop at Target and eat at Wendys".

That doesn't sound just a bit phony and pretentious to you? Does to me.

[The Count]

33. Chris lehane, his spokesperson now, thinks it's clever though:

"Edwards has identified a message area that will give him a niche,"
said Chris Lehane, a longtime Democratic strategist who has worked on
several presidential campaigns. "The issue of poverty reminds people
about Democratic values."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/

[Adelante]

73. Link didn't work for me

But is Chris Lehane working for Edwards? I hadn't heard that.

[Clark2008]

97. Good news: Chris LaHane is working for Edwards.

If you knew Chris Lahane and didn't like Edwards, you would be thrilled with this news.

:evilgrin:

[blm]

103. No way would Edwards tak on that snake Lehane. No way. He has to know there is

no way to trust that oily snake - he is the first strategist that RW writers would use to get a quote from a Dem strategist.

[kerrygoddess]

132. Lehane was tossed out

of both Kerry and Clark's campaign's if I remember correctly. Too bad Edwards hired him in my opinion.

[kitticup]

91. Disagree

Edwards is not saying anything that other haven't said before and more importantly have actually done work on.

If Edwards wealth is becoming an issue, it is because of Edwards posturing. I don't care about someone's wealth at all, but Edwards has staked his whole polictical career on being the son of a mill worker and being a poor person. The Edwards keeps trying to promote the idea John Edwards is uniquely qualified to be president because he was the son of a mill worker and that he alone really understands poverty. Why should I care if his father was a mill worker? Why does that him qualify to be president over people who actually worked on progressive causes without enriching themselves? Honestly, I don't think Edwards was "that" poor growing up, just lower middle class. It sounds like his father always had a job and in the 50 and 60's a mill worker would have made a livable wage. In the 70s, the Edwards were already attorneys earning substantial incomes (even in their first year) compared to the people around them. I read Elizabeth's book and she seemed to go out of her way to stress the Kerry's wealth while she and John were just average folks (ex. the whole Wendy's dinner and I can't have the Kerry's stay in my guest room because it is just not grand enough), ignoring the fact that Kerry was very close to bankrupcty prior to the mid nineties because he chose to forego a lucrative legal career for public service and ignoring that Kerry and the Heinz foundation has done a lot for the poor). The Edwards chose to make this an issue.

Edwards has not promoted ideas that other haven't. At best, Edwards is a standard democrat. At worst, he is an opportunist who needs a platform to run on.

[Jim Sagle]

22. This thread ain't nuthin' but shit.

[mzmolly]

32. "Flamious baitous"

at it's worst.

[mzmolly]

27. What have you done - to answer your own question?

;)

He has a strong record on health, labor, choice, education etc...

Start here: http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNC68243

[The Count]

28. here's an answer:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

The answer to the OP:

In fact, Edwards is a classic, corporate-friendly, centrist New Democrat. In his five years as a freshman senator, Edwards on his own produced little legislation, much less than some other first-termers — although he was assigned by Tom Daschle to represent the Democrats in negotiations over a patients’ bill of rights, and so can boast he was a co-sponsor of the final, but aborted, bill."

What I find fascinating is that Ireland, and everyone else missed his co-sponsoring of the IWR - in spite of his boasting about it at the time. His speech on the IWR:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:102:./temp/~... :

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

[mzmolly]

34. Oh my gawd!

NOT A CENTRIST!!!!!!! Did you say DLC!!!???

[spooky3]

36. "corporate friendly"? It will be a cold day in ****

when corporations embrace successful attorneys who represent "little people" that their practices have injured.

[venable]

148. easy to say, Count, but wrong

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:nI_CiezSVTwJ:www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm+John+Edwards+Voting+Record&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

If you check this out, you'll learn something about the man. His record. It's not what you say it is.

[Generator]

38. He sat next to Cheney

Now, there's a risk few would take.

On a serious note, true he couldn't have accomplished much, he wasn't in the Senate very long. I wonder if he made a calculated move because (and it was true in Kerry's case) I heard it said that a senator has never been elected to president. Too much baggage of the votes. And we have is IWR vote which will be held against him forever (just like Kerry) by many here. I don't feel that way and didn't about Kerry. What they have said and done since is what matters. (see Hillary-still pro-war after all these years)

He was a lawyer. Some will never forgive him for that either. I've seen snake oil salesmen as a term here on DU. And pretty boy. And other slanders.

No, he has worked against poverty since the election. I'm sure he thought (AS I DID) that he would be vice-president. Four years of Kerry, then he would have ran for president and the world would be a different place.

Basically if you want a long record of accomplishments, you are going to have to pick a rep we already have. Compared to Clinton,he's another party. Compared to Feingold, well he's not running. Kuchinch-yes-he is wonderful-I don't think he can win. So, again you are stuck with who is electable. Obama-what has he done? Not much.

And ultimately you go with who you think in your gut is decent. I think Edwards is decent. If I wanted to base it on accomplishments it would be Conyers. He's not running either. So I'll keep watching. Edwards hasn't been less than stellar in foreign policy but I think he's learning. Which is possible. It is possible to get better and grow.

[fujiyama]

134. Senators have made it to president

Just not too many.

And the last one to make it was John F. Kennedy.

[LittleClarkie]

46. He's running for president. That's what he did.

Welcome to primary season, DU style

[The Count]

51. If it was meant as defense, it backfired. It's the most accurate answer to OP.

For the past 4 years at least - it was his main job.

[Robson]

54. Self Destructing Slugfest

I suspect that the existing big name candidates and their supporters will have a long and public slugfest, and that none of them will look good by the time 2008 rolls around. They will have all self destructed before our very eyes.

About then a new candidate will come forward (could be Gore, or some other relative unknown) and they will become the savior for the Party.

Any wagers?

[mnhtnbb]

58. Link to the UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity

http://www.law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=453&Q=3

[mnhtnbb]

61. Link to Edwards involvement in a pilot program in a poor rural NC county

to provide college scholarships

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2006/07/senator-john-edwards-on-poverty.asp


In Edwards' own words from above interview:


Finally, the skyrocketing cost of college can be an insurmountable barrier for many students. Higher education should be accessible to every American child. I am involved with a pilot program in Greene County, North Carolina, which allows students to go to the first year of college for free if they are willing to stay out of trouble and take a part-time job. This year, we were able to provide students there over $300,000 in aid. That means kids who never before would have dreamed of going to college are not only leaving for school this fall -- but paying for their first year without going into debt.

[Skwmom]

139. And he did this AFTER making poverty his campaign platform.

I'm really impressed.

[mnhtnbb]

63. Link to OneCorps: nationwide community groups developed by

Edwards dedicated to fighting poverty and providing community service.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/oc/about_onecorps

[depakid]

64. During the VP debate, he called for getting the drug ads off TV

Pretty gutsy move, considering what the corporate media would have gone apoplectic if the Kerry administration had gone ahead with it.

(It needs to be done, btw -the hell with what the media giants and PHARMA thinks)

[GreenArrow]

106. I'll give him a thumbs up for that

.

[abburdlen]

66. He's helped steer the conversation

to the issue of poverty and the eroding middle class. I'm glad it's important enough to him that he's using his time in the spotlight to remind America that this isn't the land of milk and honey for everyone.
Of course he isn't the first politician to speak about it and unfortunatly he won't be the last but if there were more people in Washington focusing on the issue as much as Edwards has then we'd all be better off.

Edwards is not one of my favorite Presidential candidates but it sad to see others question his sincerity because he doesn't any majority anti-poverty legislation with his name on it. During his tenure in the Senate the republicans were in control for how long?

What sort of reaction would one get with a thread asking what Gore has done about Global Warming beside talking about it?

[Jai4WKC08]

75. During his tenure in the Senate the republicans were in control for how long?

Only the last two years of a six year term.

[Clark2008]

98. No he hasn't.

That's laughable.

Regular Americans have been talking about that long, long, long before Edwards and will continue to do so long after him.

Again, what legislation, if any, did he sponsor whilst in the Senate that would have aided the disadvantaged?

I can't find ANY.

[abburdlen]

111. Of course he is not the only one

talking about poverty but he has some national attention and he's using it talk about poverty. That's a good thing. Right?

There's no problem questioning how he plans on fixing the problems were he elected but it's disappointing how many question his sincerity. I think that's beneath democrats.

[Jai4WKC08]

114. Why would that be "beneath Democrats"?

I think Democrats have an obligation to question our leaders. If they do or say things that make us doubt their sincerity, or if they fail to do or say things they should, then we should hold their feet to the fire and demand better, or find new leaders.

There have been hundreds... no wait, make that thousands of threads at DU that have challenged whether Clark is a sincere Democrat. They point to how he voted over 20 years ago, and a single county Repub dinner he spoke at right after he retired from the military. Ok, fair enough. If that were all he'd ever done, I'd doubt him too. But it's pretty easy for those of us who support Clark to provide tons of documentation of what he has done for the party, for individual Democrats, and for Democratic values and policy.

If someone asks, what has Edwards actually accomplished, you folks should be able to answer that. The man is running for president, for God's sake. We sure as hell have a right to expect more from him than a passionate speech.

[JohnLocke]

117. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=51712&mesg_id=58654

I eagerly anticipate your response.

[citizen snips]

118. bookmarked :)

[Jai4WKC08]

121. From that whole long list

I see five amendments that were accepted. Not a single bill made it out of committee. Only one even got a hearing. Kind of hard to understand since most of them were proposed during the time Democrats controlled the Senate.

I'd be interested to know how that stacks up against other freshman senators. Obama for example (altho it might not be completely fair since his two years were under Republican control). But it'll be interesting to see what he does in the year between now and the Iowa caucus.

[mnhtnbb]

69. A little history on his interest in poverty. After the 2004 loss, and after

spending months supporting Elizabeth while she battled breast cancer,
Edwards started looking around for a cause--a mission--a purpose
in life. This is when the idea of going after poverty really became an interest for him.

Elizabeth writes about it in her book, "Saving Graces".

So don't look for legislation that he would have sponsored related to poverty. He was no longer in office.

[election_2004]

83. Not many accomplishments

Edwards, Hillary, and Obama are among the presidential contenders who are only being considered because they have Big_Names.

Not one of them has done anything in terms of accomplishments or legislative progress that causes them to tower over the rest of the pack.

[AdHocSolver]

108. FDR was a multimillionaire who did a lot for average Americans ONLY AFTER he became President.

So the arguing here allows people to vent, but otherwise it does not seriously address any issues. The main concern here is to elect a Democratic President in 2008, and it is too early to determine who our candidate will be. Most U.S. presidents were wealthy. This, by itself, doesn't tell you how good or not good they will be in office. Lyndon Johnson, another multimillionaire, promoted the Great Society programs, and if memory serves, the EPA was instituted under Richard Nixon.

DU would be better served by discussion of who can best get out and secure a large enough margin of the votes so that Republican chicanery like happened in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 won't be enough for them to steal the election. And, you can be sure they will try something in 2008.

I think Edwards' experience as a litigator would make him a strong candidate. A trial lawyer has to be persuasive and think on his feet, and his wealth and success shows he is good at it.

I think Clark's military leadership experience and his negotiating experience would serve him well as a President and as a candidate. He needs more experience in campaigning. An Edwards/Clark ticket would have a lot going for it both as a strong candidacy and as good leadership for the country.

[Jai4WKC08]

116. FDR did nothing as governor? Or in the NY senate?

I'm not that familiar with his record before he became president, but I find it hard to believe that a Democratic governor, in office when the stock market crashed, sat by and did nothing for the common people of NY.

FDR was also an asst Sec of the Navy (back when his boss was co-equal to the Sec of War). How much he did in that job "for average Americans" might be debatable if your context is economic well-being, but he certainly was providing a public service.

What makes you say Clark needs more experience in campaigning? Have you seen him campaign lately? He's not the same guy as when he started in Sept 03. Remember, Edwards only had one campaign total before he ran for president. I'd bet Clark spoke before at least as many people as Edwards did in campaigning for Kerry. In my opinion, his convention speech was much better than Edwards'. And I am sure Clark spent more time on the stump for 06 candidates.

Ah well, it doesnt' matter. If Clark decides to run, he'll be stumping in Iowa etc soon enough and we'll get to see who has the better campaign.

[1932]

119. He changed the size of apple barrels. Made them smaller to help farmers.

That's how he won reelection.

Roosevelt did have an early reputation as an anti-Tammany reformer, but the real reformers thought he was a hail-fellow-well-met and a lightweight.

I think all the clues were there that he was going to be the great president that he was, and I think if there a DU in 1931, a lot of DUers would be heaping scorn on him.

[Jai4WKC08]

120. "Heaping scorn" on FDR

You mean like you are now?

You seem to be saying FDR did nothing significant as a governor, state senator, asst Sec of the Navy. That his contemporaries thought he was a "lightweight" and that there were only "clues" that he would be a great president, but nothing you could really point to as an accomplishment.

Is that what you really mean?

[1932]

124. For being a lightweight...like HL Menken did. And I love FDR.

I'm not heaping scorn on him. I'm telling you facts.

Have you ever read any books about FDR?

[Infinite Hope]

109. Out of curiosity, who are you supporting? n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

110. Going after predatory lending when representing North Carolina is ballsy

The credit card industry is HUGE in North Carolina. To deliberately target them and other lenders who prey upon the poor was extremely risky for his immediate political future. That was nothing short of pure ethical heroism.

Fighting and voting against the Bush tax cuts was also something that didn't sit well with many of the folks back home. Then there's his vigorous opposition to Ashcroft's nomination; I'm sure that didn't sit well with many in his state.

[Leilani]

123. Did Edwards vote for or against the Bankruptcy Bill?

I know Biden voted FOR it, but I'm not sure about the others in the Senate.

[fujiyama]

135. Edwards voted for the '01 legislation

Hillary did as well.

To Kerry's credit, he voted against it. Chris Dodd as well.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

[Leilani]

136. Thanks very much for the info!

[Skwmom]

128. When did Edwards do this?

Some facts please?

[PurityOfEssence]

142. Google has 139,000 hits

to "John Edwards predatory lending"

Dig in.

[Skwmom]

145. What legislation did Edwards introduce when he was in the senate?

What action did he take?

[Skwmom]

147. How did he deliberately target them? Some sprecifics would

be appreciated. Googling, I realize that Edwards has made it part of his campaign rhetoric but what did he actually DO?

[jcrew2001]

140. 6 years experience

Edwards worked 6 years in Congress, thats more than Clark, thats the same as Hillary currently, more than Obama.

Thats the same as George Bush's 6 years as governor (although that may be a bad thing).

I supported Kerry and Edwards in 2004, and I believed that Edwards would have been a great VP if elected. Although he should have served as VP for the full 8 years if Kerry had won, I feel that the campaign experience and the subsequent 2 years of national and international exposure has provided him with enough education to make a an outstanding President.

[Tom Rinaldo]

143. Edwards seemingly thinks that his short time in Congress

may have left him unprepared to run for Presiddent in 2004:

This from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/edwards-says-he-may-have-been-too.html

Monday, January 29, 2007
Edwards says he may have been too inexperienced in 2004
WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards acknowledged Monday that he may have been too inexperienced in national politics for his White House run in 2004.

The former North Carolina senator was serving his first and only Senate term four years ago when he declared himself a presidential candidate. During a forum at Wake Forest University on Monday, Edwards said he might agree with critics who said he left Congress too soon to seek the presidency.

"They may have been right," Edwards said, adding that the experience he has gained since the election has now prepared him for another run in 2008.

Edwards seems to believe that the time he has spent OUTSIDE of Congress is what prepared him to be ready to run again in 2008.

[jcrew2001]

149. Govt

Well Clark has a leg up on Edwards, since Clark has spent no time in elected govt.

Edwards was saying that since leaving Congress he has had a chance to learn more about the issues that affect everyday americans, as well as foreign policy that he didn't have time to work on while in congress. this has made him a better candidate and established a presidential agenda.

[Skwmom]

146. Edwards spent his life as a personal injury attorney -although he

was a corporate attorney for a short time. Clark's resume is quite different.

[jcrew2001]

150. military

If Clark is so great, then how come we don't see more generals pursue the presidency. I don't doubt his intellect, but it strikes me as pompous that he would expect the public to vote for him when he's never been elected or held accountable by his constituency.

[eddiemunster]

144. Very little...it's ultimately all about JE...

however, if you showed up at his gentlemen's ranch...I'm sure he would give you a cup of coffee, a slice of pie and regale you with tales of how he sued OB-GYN's into oblivion...

[FrenchieCat]

151. Hey....you could have just asked...."where's the beef?"

:shrug: