Edwards: "They'd rather kill the messenger. They're not going to kill this voice."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==Edwards noted his efforts on behalf of the center to raise the minimum wage in states, help low-income students attend college, organize workers into unions and engage young people in the fight against poverty.

"All of this was an effort to try to deal with the issue of poverty in America, which is the cause of my life," he said. "What I've been doing is not only significant and there's nothing wrong with it, it's something I'm very proud of. Everything we did was not only completely legal but we did a lot of good."==

==He said people ask him why he's running for president when he's subjected to so many attacks over his personal wealth. A statement issued by Nevada Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Lowden before the event referred to his $4.2 million house and $400 haircuts.

"Does that mean I can't speak out for those who don't have a voice?" Edwards asked. "Every time you do that you're going to get attacked ... It's always been that way in America because people who have wealth and power, they don't want to hear this. They'd rather kill the messenger. They're not going to kill this voice."==

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2007/jun/23/062310633.html

[Kagemusha]

1. Isn't that just a touch melodramatic?

Yeah, I've seen the front page piece the NY Times put out. I also saw nothing there that lays a glove on Edwards, which somehow purports to make it worse. Extra, Extra! Papers do unflattering stories about leading candidates. Democratic ones included. Or especially, if that's how you'd rather see it. Didn't everyone know this months and years ago? I can see why there is indignation. I cannot, however, see why we are speaking of messengers being done away with.

Mainly because there's no way that such weak attacks can do any such thing in and of themselves, and besides, the press is free, if not necessarily wise, to say what the hell it likes.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. I think he has a point. The CMSM is trying to chill candidates from speaking on behalf of the poor

The CMSM is trying to tar and feather Edwards over his "poverty platform" because he is rich. The implication is that any wealthy individual who speaks about poverty is a hypocrite. Since all prominent politicians are wealthy, the purpose is to prevent anyone from daring to take a strong stand on poverty, which affects 37 million Americans.

[Kagemusha]

4. I guess my point is, yes, and so what? I thought he expected this.

Characterizing it not as tar and feathering as you did, but as something reminiscent of the end to the political careers and lives of JFK and RFK, seems a bit much to me. I thought he was a candidate, not a martyr.

[tired_old_fireman]

5. I don't get your point

I don't see where he said he was a martyr. I didn't see where he mentioned RFK or JFK in the article. Am I missing something? I'm not trying to attack you...I just don't understand what part is melodramatic.

[Kagemusha]

6. The part you uh quoted in the original subject line.

Feel free to disagree with me of course..

[tired_old_fireman]

7. I didn't quote anything

But "kill the messenger" is an expression. It's usually not meant literally.

DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER -- From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman: "Don't shoot the messenger. Don't blame the person who brings bad news. This idea was expressed by Sophocles as far back as 442 B.C. and much later by Shakespeare in 'Henry IV, Part II' (1598) and in 'Antony and Cleopatra' (1606-07) The word kill may be used as a substitute for 'shoot.'" Related saying: "Don't shoot the piano-player; he's doing the best he can. Don't hurt innocent people. Originated in the United States in the Wild West, around 1860. During his 1883 tour of the United States, Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) saw this saying on a notice in a Leadville, Colorado, saloon. It is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain, but neither Wilde nor Twain has ever claimed authority."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/3/messages/520.html

[Kagemusha]

10. Sorry, I thought it was the other poster replying. My honest mistake.

I just don't subscribe to the idea that every negative comment about Edwards is part of a giant nationwide conspiracy to keep the poor down.

[venable]

8. this is simply not 'melodramatic'...it's just stating a will to perservere

I, too, don't see what your problem is with this.

[Clark2008]

30. It's not because he's rich - it's because he's extravagant

which DOES make him a hypocrite.

[Catchawave]

35. Oh please

explain your version of hypocrisy. Preferably not with RW talking points :evilgrin:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. He gave $350,000 in charity last year but is a hypocrite because he is rich?

You seem to be saying, regardless of what he does to help others, he is a fraud because he happens to be very wealthy? Would his efforts be any more or less valid if he lived in a shack?

How much did some others who claim to care about helping the less fortunate give in charity? One millionaire candidate on the Dem side who speaks about our responsibility to help others gave less than the national average (i.e. 0.4% of his income. The average is 2.2%) for years until he became a national figure a few years ago. He is not a hypocrite but Edwards, who puts his money where his mouth is, is?

[smalll]

36. "They're not going to kill this voice" - you bet it is. Along with poverty "the cause of my life" -

The "cause of my life" thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2891651 (from LBN, "Edwards Defends Poverty Center's Efforts")

[K8-EEE]

44. I think BushCo has gotten us into a melodramatic situation

Yay Edwards!!

[Robson]

3. Edwards vs. 21st century corporatist robber barons

I certain respects I feel better about Edwards in defending America against the 21st century corporatist robber barrons than Hillary, and most others currently on the slate (except Gravel). He's had experience.

IMHO the others will throw the US middle class a morsel or two of spam while keeping the same ole underlying pro-corporate line that has run this country since Reagan, knowing they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them the prime rib.

[skids]

25. Personally I don't know if I trust him...

...a politician can say just about anything and do something entirely different, even opposite.

However Edwards is my favorite of the leading candidates currently precisely because of what he says -- saying it is in and of itself some level of progress in getting middle class and poor America to wake up and actualize. He's right, many people do not want rank and file citizens thinking in those terms. Screw them.

[Robson]

28. A little class warfare or sparring (figuratively speaking) might not be totally bad.

90% of the people don't necessarily have to accept what they've been told by the elitists. In many countries the populace is demonstrating in the streets with far less provocation than what the proletariat in the USA has experienced in the last 20 years.

I agree I don't trust any politician. Like salesmen they are conditioned to say what others want to hear, not what they truly believe.

[19jet54]

9. The $400 haircut did it for me...

... sorry John, not enough pro-bono work to back up your claims on poverty - Try being more humble in actions as well as words. - Nevada Resident speaking.

[Raven]

11. Oh for Christ's sake, get over it! If John Edwards wants to spend his money on

his hair, it's his business. He earned it and he earned it representing people who otherwise woundn't have had a voice. If the guy has decent ideas and a way to get this country back on the right road, I don't give a shit how much money he has. By your logic, is it only poor people who can effectively represent the interests of the poor???

So there! And I'm not even supporting the guy.

[19jet54]

12. You're right...

...it is his business - but mine is WHO gets my vote - He ain't it for me; besides I only vote for Veterans - I have had enough of chicken-hawks or just chickens period!

[Raven]

14. So who is the vet in this group of democratic candidates who has served

in Vietnam or Iraq? And who, among the Dem candidates, have been to Iraq? Edwards hasn't, DK hasn't.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. I guess he is supporting Gravel by default

Wasn't Gravel in Korea?

[19jet54]

22. Wes Clark for one...

Mike Gravel, Al Gore, Duncan Hunter, John McCain... and there is Lebanon, Panama, Columbia, Cold War, Grenada, Bosnia, Iran/Contra and a few other places for an American Veteran to serve - How about the Peace Corp or Foreign Medical Service too? Anything to show something other than the "what's in it for me?" attitude.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Hunter, McCain aren't Democrats...Gore is not a candidate

So you are supporting Gravel then?

[19jet54]

42. We have a very long way to go...

... before the primary

[Moochy]

31. If only a bald pro wrestler were running!

Damn Haircuts!! :dunce:

[NobleCynic]

33. Dupe n/t

[NobleCynic]

34. Only voting for veterans is as bad or worse than never voting for veterans

If you advocate that as your litmus test, why not take the next logical step and require military service for full citizenship? Veterans are no less noble and no more so than other people. You will find just as many good people, and just as many bad both on the civilian side and within the service. They are people just like anyone else. A good person in fatigues is still a good person, and a bastard is still a bastard. The danger in thinking like that, voting for only veterans, is that you end up with idiots like Gibbons. Sure, he was an exemplary fighter pilot, but his political career as hardly been handled with similar skill. If you didn't vote for Titus in '06 just because she isn't a veteran, then you truly deserve the government you have. The rest of us however don't.

I'm not saying you shouldn't consider someone's millitary record when they run for office, I'm saying you can't only consider their military record. If a lack thereof is enough to disqualify someone in your eyes, you seriously need to reconsider your priorities. Such a statement implies that civilians are unfit for office, and that sentiment is just as dangerous to our democracy as anything this administration as done.

[19jet54]

41. We were talking about for POTUS

How did this digress to Governor or any other office?

[NobleCynic]

47. I misread your statement then

I used that specific example because it is demonstrates the potential folly of deciding on who to head the executive branch based solely on military service.

But the point regarding military service stands. Making it a litmus test, even if for only the office of the presidency, is a dangerous sentiment.

[Robson]

13. The poor and down trodden have no clout except one vote (well maybe)

The problem with the USA is we (or should I say the huddled masses) are controlled and manipulated by the masters of the media. They know how to push the buttons and pull the strings so that mass opinions are swayed like tall grasses in a wind storm. BTW I don't include all the masses in that as some of us get involved as do the DU posters, but even our opinions are sometimes bent. So it isn't the politicians that really control us but the media that controls both us and the politicians.

Some wealthy folks still have a level of empathy and honor that supercedes the greed and gluttony that many more believe is a badge of honor. It is those few, that we need to influence the direction of the country and they are indeed few and far between.

Edwards offers far more hope than most even if he does expose himself to the life of the rich and famous with expensive homes and haircuts. Most of them have unbridled greed with a bevy of pseudo slave illegal immigrants working their yards at each of their 10 million dollar homes.

[19jet54]

15. Good ideas are not enough...

... John has a background in law & legislation; none as a CEO or a major position in the executive branch - I don't know about you but that is also NOT how I pick my brain surgeons either; little or no experience but Great Ideas!

[Raven]

16. So, who in the democratic group has CEO experience? Let's see,

not Clinton, Biden, DK, Dodd, Obama...maybe Richardson as the gov. of a state. So who fits your criteria?

[Robson]

17. OK ...but I don't look up to CEOs as pillars of decency

The so called movers and shakers imho need shaken up and a reality check. They've been riding the gravy train at our expense for too long (since Reagan). I'm voting for someone that isn't in their club, and that includes the clubbies at the DLC .

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Edwards ran a major law firm he founded

That is the legal equivalent of being a CEO of a regular business.

[Texas_Kat]

45. My understanding was that Elizabeth was the managing partner of his firm

"Running a law firm" may or may not be like being a CEO, but the managing partner does it. Whether it's even a valid comparison depends on the number of employees and its business model.

A law firm (Edwards & Kirby morphed into Kirby Holt http://www.kirby-holt.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp ) that employs 5-10 attorneys probably qualifies as a small business, but most firms don't claim CEO status for their managing partners.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. He gave $350,000 in charity last year and you focus on a haircut?

Priorities?

==not enough pro-bono work to back up your claims on poverty - Try being more humble in actions as well as words.==

The Edwards made $1.25 million last year and gave $350,000 in charity. Some millionaire Ivy League candidates with a legal education who talk about being "our brother and sister's keepers", our responsibility to help others, etc. have been known to be stingy with giving their money to help others... You have a point but you have the wrong target, unless you think $350,000 in charity is not enough.

[w4rma]

20. Hillary got ~$1500 haircuts paid for by her campaign.

Edwards' haircut is dwarfed by hers and it was fully paid for by Edwards himself for a campaign ad where the stylist had to drop everything and travel across California to get to where the shoot was.

[calteacherguy]

24. Yes, but Edwards is a man and it does make a difference. nt

[tkmorris]

29. Another Edwards thread, and here you are

Oh and btw, my wife doesn't pay 375% more for her hair cuts than I do. Let it go.

[calteacherguy]

43. OMG! You actually calculated the percentage difference between Hillary and Edwards

haircuts!

:rofl:

[Moochy]

32. Yeah cuz only effeminate

girly men get nice haircuts. :wtf: Is this DU or some bizarro world satire?

[last_texas_dem]

37. How does it make a difference?

FWIW, I'm a hippie-looking guy who rarely gets haircuts and am pretty laid-back about my own appearance. But I'm wondering why it "makes a difference" how much a man spends on a haircut vs. a woman? Is it just old-fashioned sexism on your part or am I missing something?

[calteacherguy]

23. Same here. nt

[badgerpup]

40. So what would have happened...

...if Edwards, after the haircut and IF he had been told at the time the amount of the bill "$400?! I think NOT! That's extravagant and I'm not paying it. Here's $90 and that includes your tip, now STFU".

He'd have been pilloried for stiffing the 'hardworking professional who took the time to close his business and come and cut Edward's hair.':eyes:

And then the 'Sh'yeah, right, he's really all about poverty but he won't pay a decent wage to his barber' meme would have taken the place of 'John Edwards got a $400 haircut!'


:argh:

[ChiciB1]

46. Do You Recall That Haircut Bill Clinton Got At An Airport Once??

It really boggles my mind that people can't focus on ANYTHING other than a hair cut! I grew up in a military family, my father was super great and didn't beat any of his SIX daughters, but ONLY voting for a veteran seems a bit simplistic in my view.

It was ALWAYS my goal NOT to marry a guy who was in the military! My father brought many of the men he commanded home to meet "his girls" and 3 of my sisters DID marry military men... none of which actually became "lifers!" I attended school from the 6th to 12th grade at Ft. Hood, TX and have great empathy for soldiers, especially having seen how the people of that town treated them. However, I always knew that I didn't want to be a military wife! I do respect the nobility of serving, but I don't see why one HAS to be a Veteran to have any substantive value as President!

Even though I knew and still know many noble military people, there is a certain aspect of that life that I was always uncomfortable with. My father retired as an E-9 and served in the Medics, even so as a daughter we were subjected to many rules and regulations that were imposed upon us because he was in the Army. We were constantly told that how "we" conducted ourselves could possibly result in action being taken against my father. Maybe it was only something my father fabricated, but nonetheless, I never was comfortable with "the rules and regulations" we had to follow. The fear of doing something wrong always hung around and I knew that life wasn't for me.

And I didn't turn out too badly either. I'm a hard-working, upstanding citizen who has always been concerned and politically active.

I guess I just miss your point, but to each his own!

[paparush]

26. John, stay away from: small planes, balconies, pretzels, and no hunting trips.

[PATRICK]

27. Dean and Kucinich

I remember when people couldn't get united behind either until both were toast. Dean especially was distrusted and Kucinich was highly favored by organizations like Moveon. dean was almost a johnny come lately on the war compared with Dennis. I am not exactly sure what one means by "trust" compared to GOp candidates who can be absolutely trusted to be murderous lying criminals.

In the world of politics as it should be, a candidate who proposes to lead a movement or base has to have the basic trust that he is sincere and in practice doing and going to do something. Edwards, I think, can claim that basic trust. All that means is that he is openly committed and thus empowered by mandate should he be elected(if not forcefully obligated- which he will be by ALL sides regardless of ill will or good) to go in those directions. he can be moved further in that direction, such as health care. If he disappoints(which all mere mortals must) it will be in falling short on delivery because of lack of votes or not going far enough on various applications. That would be an echo of this pre-election grumbling about him not being (fill in the blank) enough. I would not distrust him at the, equally extreme, level some people would distrust Obama or Hillary and those two worthies are practically pledged to paths of caution and compromise with unconfronted criminality. Should they win there is only a mandate for how and what they campaigned on and freedom from political pressure to go more progressive or strongly means one can only hope they personally would make some move in and of themselves. However the pressure on them then will not be ours in the least, but that of the monsters, the losers, the corporations etc. For all theses years we will be still stuck hoping for grass roots efforts against the grain of our own party leadership. And we will have come full circle, finally losing Dean as chairman.

I am proposing, not as a fan nor as a diehard progressive, that getting behind a progressive candidate is important. Gore is not running yet and he would have been an obvious choice. Edwards is the strongest, root and branch, social-economic, solid program, strong electoral candidate. Maybe I am supposed to argue for a guarantee on him and on victory and on the most progressive change. I would rather people remember how defeat IS guaranteed if we repeat the mistakes and irritations and divisions of the past and not make the other candidates hear our voices. Dean broke through that in 2000. Some of the top leadership feels it has inoculated itself against this "McGovern" threat. So far, having people talk only about a will-o-wisp Gore candidacy is the only way to chill the Hillary inevitability machine or the charisma thrust of the Obama campaign. By the numbers and polls as last time AND typical MSM treatment, Edwards is doing fine at this stage and very much in a winning position. if the netroots and other new left or grassroots efforts come late to any of the scenarios they will have less clout than ever and quickly join the ranks of Labor and minorities in having any strong expectations at all from DLC leaning disaster. If the political winds are really going to create change.

I am not saying the same people fluffed off Dean as look askance at Edwards, but the pattern must be reassuring to corporations and corporate leadership in the party. And if not Edwards(or Gore, should he materialize), goodbye Dean.