Why Edwards? Simple.......

[Flabbergasted]

Edwards has already stood up against Corporations; as a lawyer. Not only that but he won. He won so big that he made a lot of money.

Why wouldn't we want a winner leading us in our fight to take back America from the clutches of Corporations?

Does any other candidate have the record? None.

[Reno.Muse]

1. And he calls a spade a spade. He's learned.

[neutron]

53. Too bad his senate voting record doesn't reflect what he's

saying in the liberal blogs.

It's a rather corporate and even republican kind of a record, IMHO

from Edwards' voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

[Nutmegger]

2. R&K...

... For Edwards!

:thumbsup::applause::kick:

[asdjrocky]

3. Go Edwards!

I'm kind of a fan...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3736893

[gateley]

4. REALLY nice pic! nt

[rwheeler31]

5. This is the guy . Rich smart and caring he is the Dem.

[Richard Steele]

6. We could do much worse.

Living in NC, I'm not a huge Edwards fan...never was, never will be.

But even with the things I dislike about him, he's still my #2 choice
after DK.

I think he'd be one hell of a President. He's savvy enough to know
that he could establish an ego-satisfying LEGACY just by doing the right
things for the right reasons.

That's a rare opportunity, but it exists in 2008. And he's got the skills
to make the most of it. An "Edwards Administration" could really rip
this country a new one. If he chooses to assume his "Bold Street-Fighter"
persona for the tone of his Presidency, he could make a real DIFFERENCE
that would take the RW corporate whores a few generations to undo.

Key word being "if". Same as it ever was.

[sellitman]

7. He voted to give the bushes the power to go to war.

Dennis Kucinich didn't. Therefore unless DK is removed from concideration then Edwards is always going to be my second choice.

[aquart]

10. That's fine.

Every vote for Kucinich sets a standard for the winner. The more votes, the closer the winner has to come to that standard in the general.

[spag68]

8. I like Edwards

However I fear that the infamous "they" would use him up and spit him out as was done to J Carter. It would be up to activists to not let this happen. I wish him the best of luck.

[inthebrain]

9. Kucinich has a better record standing up to corporations

Edwards is probably better than Clinton and Obama. Definitly better than Biden on that front.

Still he has pock marks.

Hands down Kucinich is an ace in that category. Not only that, how many candidates on that stage have had the mob after them for staring down a corporation?

Kucinich and no one else.

[silverojo]

15. If Kucinich is so great at standing up to corporations

How come HE didn't get rich by taking them on? John Edwards didn't just talk about beating the corporations, or introduce legislation to beat them...he DID beat them, face-to-face, in courts of law.

[inthebrain]

17. That was Edwards only motivation for taking them on

Kucinich didn't do it to get rich. He did it because that's what a public servant is supposed to do. Edwards never took on the corporations as a senator.

He voted for China trade

[Flabbergasted]

22. Edwards Trade Record:

Against NAFTA, against Chile trade, against Singapore trade

Level the playing field for American workers

Against Fast Track--not enough for US workers

Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record

NO on expanding trade to the third world

YES on removing common goods from national security export rules

YES on extending free trade to Andean nations



Not Perfect...but pretty good.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_Edwards.htm

[inthebrain]

27. He wasn't in the senate for the NAFTA vote.

So it's kinda easy for him to claim that he's against it. He did vote down a few Free Trade bills for Afica and Carribean. The one trade bill that he did vote for that's a major liability is;

09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y

Tied to the trade issue though is his voting down two bills late in the Clinton presidency that would have raised the federal minimum wage.

11/09/1999 Two Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
11/09/1999 Three Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N

And to further compound the issue, Edwards has voted down Health Care Legislation during the Clinton years that restricts insurance companies from discriminating and denying care.

06/29/2000 Health Care Amendment N

Allows patients to sue healthcare insurers in federal court if harm resulted from the denial or delay of medical service

- Calls for insurers to have internal and external reviews to examine medical denial claims

- Bars insurers from denying coverage or adjusting premiums based on a patient's “predictive genetic information”

- Provides access to specialist and out of network doctors

07/15/1999 Patient Bill of Rights bill N

- Requires group health plans covering emergency medical care to provide coverage for emergency medical screenings which have been deemed necessary by a “prudent layperson”

- Stipulates that patients do not need a referral from their primary care provider to receive care from obstetricians, gynecologists and pediatricians

- Requires insurers to disclose all information in a specified plan to potential enrollees, current participants and beneficiaries

- Calls for insurers to have internal and external reviews to examine medical denial claims

- Replaces the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and specifies agency mandates

- Bars insurers from denying coverage or adjusting premiums based on a patient's “predictive genetic information”

- Allows self-employed individuals to fully deduct health insurance costs from their gross incomes

- Bars group health plans from requiring patients to seek preauthorization for emergency medical treatment

07/14/1999 Women's Health and Cancer Rights Amendment N

Highlights:

- Allows patients, in accordance with their physician, to determine in their health care plan a period of time necessary for a hospital stay following a mastectomy, lumpectomy or lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer

- Requires insurers to provide coverage for a patient seeking a second opinion from a specialist on a cancer diagnosis

[mrfixit]

34. More on Edwards' Voting Record

You are right. I certainly wouldn't say "perfect."

from Edwards' voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

[surfermaw]

48. Dennis can talk a good game he has nothing to loose

he know he isn't going to win, if the circumstances would change with him in a tight race, he would be a different man, however I like Dennis and wish someone like could win, I don't see that happening any time soon, so I am going to stick with Edwards, that is running ahead in Iowa, even if he hasn't been given credit, In the end Dennis will support Edwards

[inthebrain]

56. Dennis is not goint to drop out

So supporting Edwards is not going to happen.

How do you know "he know he isn't going to win"

Is that why Hillary, Edwards, Obamma and Biden are raking in corporate cash?

[mrfixit]

72. Dennis can talk a good game because he can walk it, too.

Unlike Johnny-Come-Lately.

If you believe a candidate is the best one, then you should show the courage of your convictions and SUPPORT that candidate - not defect to another, just because he is ahead in tthe polls.

Is this what passes for support around here? No wonder the place is awash with HilBots. I thought this was Democratic Underground, not Democratic MAINSTREAM.

Here's a clue:

This is what a President of the United States is supposed to sound like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDyE

Kucinich WALKS his TALK. EVERY DAY. No one else up for the nomination comes even close. NOT ONE of them has the balls to debate Dennis, because as we all know, sooner or later it all comes down to "what have you DONE, rather than "what have you SAID."

Edwards does a pretty good Democrat impersonation, but he votes like a friggin' Republican.

[Clark2008]

31. Because Kucinich didn't become a corporate buster in rhetoric

alone.

Edwards is all talk. His actions are very right wing on key issues - check his Senate voting history for further info.

[cali]

18. Actually, his Senate record

is worse than Clintons.

[LSK]

37. which votes?

www.senate.gov

[LSK]

36. please educate yourself on Edwards career prior to 1998

[Triana]

11. That's what I'm sayin.... K & R (n/t)

[PurityOfEssence]

12. You want simple? No nuclear power.

He's very clear about it.

[weeve]

13. Yes !

While Obama is very much pro-nuclear. And imagine how great it'll be when Al Gore decides to be Edward's VP, with the condition that he will deal almost exclusively with eth Environmental Crisis !!

[Dawgs]

30. And he's also wrong.

[Yukari Yakumo]

38. ...and the alternative?

And be realistic here.

[frogmarch]

14. An Edwards U.S. presidency

is what the world needs.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. Because he's a successful trail lawyer, he'll be a good President?

I'm Flabbergasted by that stretch of logic.

[surfermaw]

47. here it is , He has done well all his life in every thing he attempted to do

He is a hard working intelligent man, who pulled himself by his boot straps, loading trucks for funds to stay in college.

[mrfixit]

19. Dennis Kucinich's Congressional Voting Record:

It speaks for itself:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC032003

Ugly truths about Edwards:

Edwards:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill - Voted Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Voted Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution - DID NOT VOTE
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq - Voted Y
10/06/2004 National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 - DID NOT VOTE
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 - Voted Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution - Voted Y
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill - DID NOT VOTE
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 - Voted Y

Edwards cannot AND WILL NOT walk the talk. Kucinich CAN and WILL, period.

P.S. JRE looks like some cheesy televangelist in your pic. Does he know Benny Hinn? Nice job!

[asdjrocky]

23. Dem Senator, Red state,

Nuff said?

[waiting for hope]

24. Hey - it's another

Kick! :hi:

[MGKrebs]

35. Yup, guys like that have trouble winning national races.

[CTLawGuy]

54. didn't make a dent in NC for Kerry

Kerry did better in VA.

Nuff said.

[Cameron27]

20. Edwards' has clearly stated that he only chose clients

with cases that he thought had a high probability of winning, so how he'd fare when he couldn't pick and chose isn't really known. As far as his record, you're joking right?

[Flabbergasted]

21. His record is fine...

read all the way down the page...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_Edwards.htm

realize there are are always compromises to be made in life.


P.S Most lawyers especially in his field choose the cases they can win. He also won atleast one that was considered to be a lost cause:

"1In 1984 Edwards was assigned to a perceived unwinnable medical malpractice lawsuit; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.<13>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[asdjrocky]

25. Wow,

When did he say that, I thought I've followed him pretty closely, and I've never heard that quote. Could you provide me with some proof?

[Cameron27]

29. I'll look for a link,

but he was defending his lawsuits against OB/GYN doctors, where he accused them of improper practice by not performing C-Sections. He tied this all to the development of CP in babies. Scientific evidence later established that this was not correct and he was charged (in the media, and OB/GYN groups)with using junk science.

His defense 1. That science was what it was back then, and 2. He investigated all his cases, and only took those that had enough evidence to lead to a probable win.

[asdjrocky]

46. Charged in the media?

Hummmmm, and the people that he sued, OB/GYN groups, don't like him? They cried foul? Well this is some convincing evidence you've brought to life here. (Are you sure you haven't been hanging out with the WMD guy?)

Thank you.

Best of luck to your candidate.

[Cameron27]

51. Did I say he was unethical for suing them?

You asked me when he made that comment, and I told you when and why.

Best of luck with your guy too, it looks like he's going to need it.

[asdjrocky]

55. Oh yeah, and I'm still waiting for any kind of proof that he said it.

Where I come from they call what you did lying.

And have a nice day.

[Cameron27]

58. I found that info in a law review article

that was actually countering the RW attacks against him. I don't know what the hell your problem is, I can easily post a dozen right wing sources with those quotes, but I won't do that. I'm not lying, and I'll continue to look through my files for the credible source.

What he said made sense, and there was nothing wrong with it. He was defending himself against charges of frivolous lawsuits using junk science by stating that he didn't take on clients with iffy evidence. He thoroughly investigated all of them, and if there was enough evidence to base his case on, & if he thought he could convince a jury, then he filed suit on behalf of them.

[asdjrocky]

60. Thank you,

I just think that facts are important.... call me crazy. But I don't think we should be able to say someone said something that there is no evidence of them saying.

[Cameron27]

62. Well, I can't find the article, and I won't post anything from RW sources

so I can't stand by my original post. I can't prove that John Edwards said anything at all about thoroughly investigating all of his clients to obtain significant amounts of credible evidence, that he was more than certain would convince a jury to award them large sums of money.

[asdjrocky]

63. Thank you, but that's not what you said origonaly....

Edwards' has clearly stated that he only chose clients

Edited on Tue Nov-20-07 07:19 AM by seasonedblue
with cases that he thought had a high probability of winning, so how he'd fare when he couldn't pick and chose isn't really known. As far as his record, you're joking right?

Nuff said? Or should we keep this up.... I'm having fun.

Seriously, good luck to your candidate.

[Cameron27]

64. He said what I posted, but I can't back it up,

so I retracted my original statement. That's as far as I'm going with you buddy.

On edit: If one single Edwards supporter had EVER retracted a statement or a post because it lacked a source, I might have a better opinion of them.

[asdjrocky]

65. Hi buddy!

If I ever say anything untruthful in support of my candidate, or against any other candidate, please feel free to call me on it. Beyond that, yes, I guess we are done here.

Have a nice day buddy.:)

[Cameron27]

66. I wasn't talking about you,

but that's a statement I won't back away from. Good day to you too.

[asdjrocky]

67. Sorry, but I was just replying to you replying to me...

Honestly, it's always good to argue with you though.

:toast:

[Cameron27]

69. I'm sorry too.

I can get real snarky sometimes, and I don't like when that happens.:toast:

[asdjrocky]

71. I thank you....

And in the long run, arn't we all on the same side here? I just know if we met in the real world we would be the best of friends!

:hi:

[Donnachaidh]

32. as do MOST trial lawyers -- nice framing there toots

MOST trial lawyers do that. :eyes:

[Cameron27]

42. And what does this have to do with what I said.

I don't know enough about trial lawyers to know whether that's true or not, I'm guessing that's right, but Toots is pointing out that you can't make a case that he would have more success than anyone else, going after corporations as president, simply on the basis that he made big bucks by winning cases against them in private practice. The odds were stacked in his favor back then.

[MGKrebs]

26. I would like to know the strategy of how he will overcome a

$50-$100 million deficit against a repub opponent?

[waiting for hope]

28. The public financing is only for

the primaries, not for the general.

[MGKrebs]

33. Exactly. That's the problem.

Edwards has it backwards. He should consider public financing for the general, since that campaign technically only lasts from September through October, not for the primaries, which- as far as public financing rules are concerned- lasts through the convention in late August. John Kerry (and Kerry/Edwards) raised $250 million for the primary last time, and Bush $270 million. Even if the Repub nominee isn't decided until May, and they only raise HALF of what they did last time, they will still have 4 months and $100 million to bludgeon Edwards with against whatever he has left after Feb. 5, assuming he gets the nom by then. He will certainly have spent $30 million (he's already spent $18 million). That would leave $20 million for for 7 months.

[Yukari Yakumo]

39. Technically, the primaries extend all the way to the Convention in late August. {nt}

uguu

[Ladyinblack]

40. Edwards is it

I will vote for the Democratic candidate. But, I do believe he is our best chance for winning. It seems many do not like Hillary and will not vote for her. Many, me included, believe Obama needs more experience.

Edwards is it, and I believe he would be a great president.

[Laelth]

41. You'll get no argument from me.

I only want to add that he's the most electable. He's from the South. He's photogenic. He doesn't have Clinton's negatives. All that, and he's progressive.

Plus, he'll probably win Iowa.

:dem:

-Laelth

[creeksneakers2]

43. Does any other candidate have this record?

All of the candidates fought against big corporations. Edwards is unique only for his inflated opinion of himself and his disrespect for positive genuine attributes of others.

[rhett o rick]

50. Please do more than just tear down a Democratic candidate. If you have evidence

to back up your statements please share. Who do you recommend if you are so set against Edwards? And how did they fight against corporate control?

[madmunchie]

44. Simple is as simple does for the simple minded

"Edwards has already stood up against Corporations; as a lawyer. Not only that but he won. He won so big that he made a lot of money."

Oh, boy is that spin or is that spin?


"Why wouldn't we want a winner leading us in our fight to take back America from the clutches of Corporations?"

There is more to being POTUS than fighting corporations.

Go ahead continue your rah rah rah crap, keep trying.


"Does any other candidate have the record? None." THANK GOD! Some actually didn't vote for IWR, H1-b Visa, Patriot Act....but don't look at that JE MADE LOTS OF MONEY IN COURT AND NOW WANTS TO REPRPESENT THE POOR PEOPLE!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

49. Why do you feel the need to tear down Edwards? nm

[madmunchie]

61. Because he is a fake, he is inexperienced, he made terrible

decisions when he was in office for one short term and I am terribly ashamed of the Democrats that have such low standards that they don't see thru this guy and actually support him. It is a problem with a country that is full of people that don't use facts, common sense and logic when they choose a leader of the free world. We are already in deep trouble because of the Pubs supporting a goon, now we have way too many Dems supporting somebody who is trying to play leap frog to the #1 position of the free world w/o doing much needed preparation 1st. I am truly ashamed to acknowledge JE supporters as Democrats. He is by far the worst choice for POTUS of all of the candidates on the Dem side and you all should be ashamed that your standards are so low for choosing our next candidate.

[GreenArrow]

45. Y!&@%

!*&!*

[Trajan]

52. I love Edwards ....

I love Richardson, Obama, Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and especially that 'stud' Kucinich (Didnt someone say His wife Elizabeth had a STUD in her ..... er .... nevermind) ....

I love ALL the Democratic party slate ...... each and every one of them .....

Not a one is perfect, but they are MOUNTAINS and OCEANS of Better For Us than the alternative ....

Oh .... And I love you DUers too .... Even you mean and nasty DUers who only seem to hate; each and every day .....

And no: I am not drunk ..... :9

[asdjrocky]

57. I'm feeling the love!

Good luck to all Dems!

[DangerDave921]

59. How

How did he fight corporations? By filing cerebral palsy lawsuits? I'm confused.

[KillCapitalism]

68. He's the only candidate that realizes poverty is a serious problem in America.

This is why he's getting my vote. All the other candidates just seem to be parroting the MSM line of "The economy is great!"

[asdjrocky]

70. He gets my vote too!