John Edwards is right, "the system is rigged and it is corrupt..."

[texpatriot2004]

and the American people need someone who is going to restore the trust of the American people in the US President and in the US Government. Americans need someone who will take on this system.

I missed the Las Vegas Debate the other night and I am watching it now. I like what Edwards says and does...like Kucinich too and Biden...

guess I am still undecided eh.

Still, Edwards is right, it is corrupt and it is rigged against the American people.

[MADem]

1. That's the sort of comment you make at an inaugural address though.

Not when you're trying to come from behind.

It doesn't "read" well to the inattentive population. It's as lame as saying "It's corrupt because I AM BEHIND..."

Don't shoot the messenger--I am talking PERCEPTION here.

Now, he's right--the system does suck. The Supremes have said that Money Equals Speech, so I guess those with no money just have their mouths duct taped shut.

But even though he doesn't intend it to sound so, it comes across like sour grapes. And it's even more of a challenge for him because he is """"perceived"""" as very wealthy, as though he should be able to Ross Perot/Mike Bloomberg a campaign.

He didn't help himself in Nevada. He was off his game.

[sandyd921]

2. You don't think that this resonates with most people?

Most of the people I know, anyway, would concur that "the system is rigged and corrupt". Maybe my family and friends are unusual.

[MADem]

3. If he were thirty points out in front, sure. But not when he's trailing badly AND coming off an

absolutely uninspiring and struggling performance in Nevada.

I want to reiterate what I said above, just to make sure we're clear:

Not when you're trying to come from behind.

It doesn't "read" well to the inattentive population. It's as lame as saying "It's corrupt because I AM BEHIND..."

Don't shoot the messenger--I am talking PERCEPTION here.

With your remarks, you're inferring that I don't think there's any rigging or corruption going on and that just isn't correct, based on what I said initially. However, in politics, perception IS reality.

[itsrobert]

4. "absolutely uninspiring and struggling performance in Nevada."

Out of the Bush/GOP playbook. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth. You're part of the problem, not the solution.

[MADem]

7. Oh, CUT THE SHIT. I am undecided, and when he performs well, I SAY SO.

And he has performed well in the past. And I have said so.

Fuck that "Out of the Bush/GOP playbook" crap. I suggest you think hard before you toss that kind of shit.

What you are obliquely doing is falsely accusing me of being a troll--and that's not ON, pal.

YOU'RE part of the problem. I suggest you review the fucking DU rules, first, and not go looking for a goddamn Amen Choir for your candidate when his performance didn't merit it the other night.

If you don't want to hear honest fucking OPINION, why don't you just send laudatory emails to yourself, instead of engaging in discourse here and getting all fucking shirty when people don't agree with your halfassed, poorly thought-out, and plainly partisan views?

You don't have to agree with ME, but you can't go calling me a Bush/GOP playbook purveyor.

That's just NOT acceptable.

[neutron]

8. for a ready-made John Edwards chorus

you might try Daily Kos. They've kicked everyone off except dittoheads.

[MADem]

15. Do they love him or hate him?

That site is just so .... user unfriendly. I like the quality of the discourse there, though--there's a lot of thought in many of the posts. I just wish it was easier to find stuff on the site!

I simply can't go for RAH RAH or BASH BASH crap when discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. I actually like most all of them, and I only think there are two candidates that probably need to say so long after these first three state contests.

I like reasoned discussion and honesty of opinion, not partisans who are so eager to PUSH their candidate in your face so damned hard that they PUSH AWAY anyone who hasn't chosen a candidate yet, and by their shitty 'advocacy,' they actually make one start to dislike the candidate they're advocating--it's unfair to the candidate, really, to have these idiots, plainly in denial, who "aren't helping" even though they think they are.

I've seen Edwards do a stellar job, both in debate and on the stump. That said, he was not stellar in the last debate.

He was way the fuck OFF in Nevada. To say otherwise is to deny the obvious.

[itsrobert]

10. I witness his performance on Thursday night

and a majority of DUers had him in their top 2 on the DU poll on who was the best. Thanks for playing, however.

[MADem]

13. Oh, really? Point me to that majority. I read the post debate analysis here, and that's not what I

saw. One swallow does not make a summer, and one little fakeass poll here isn't decisive. But you know that.

I'm so happy you "witness" his performance. I watched it. I studied it, and the performance of all the candidates. CAREFULLY. THREE TIMES.

But here's the thing, "itsrobert." I don't make up MY mind based on what "other people think." From your post, I gather that's how you come to your conclusions.

I make up my mind based on MY PERCEPTIONS of how the individuals performed.

To do otherwise, and especially, to follow the crowd--be it your fictional "DU majority" that you pulled out of your ass, or any other crowd--is a bit...weak minded. To say the least.

Thank YOU for playing. See, that IS what you're doing--playing.

I, OTOH, am entirely serious.

[itsrobert]

14. That's nice

IMO, nobody "tanked" at the debate and nobody gave an "uninspiring" performance at the debate. That's my honest opinion. Have a good evening.

[Spiffarino]

18. I thought he did fine

I didn't watch, I listened, so I missed the visual clues.

The booing he and Obama received when they went after Hillary didn't make much difference; it came across as scolding rather than outright hostility. Sure, his attacks on HRC fell flat but his populist message still came across.

[1932]

11. And it's a claim contradicted by the OP.

[JDPriestly]

26. Edwards is only trailing in the primary race.

Edwards is and always has been consistently ahead in the race against the Republicans.

[MADem]

35. A (D) puppy in a diaper could beat any Republican, if you ask the right questions.

You can find a poll to support any of the top three candidates, depending upon which campaign commissioned the poll. I haven't seen this poll you're talking about. Do you have a link?

[texpatriot2004]

6. That is how my friends and family see things too. nt

[creeksneakers2]

20. Edwards gets applause for that

Its when Edwards says something like, "We shouldn't replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats" that he crosses the line. That's the same as Ralph Nader's old line that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Edwards paints himself as a lone honest crusader against everybody else who he calls corrupt. Everybody isn't corrupt. Edwards isn't a saint. What starts out as good grass roots politics ends up as sanctimonious finger pointing.

[JDPriestly]

27. So do you want to replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats?

Is a corporate Democrat better than a corporate Republican? If so, please explain why. Thanks.

[michaz]

36. Does that mean he is not capable of being a good President?

Just who do you think is electable that isn't? Do you think the man off the street is going to run and win? I do believe that Edwards is electable. I am still not sure who I am going with but because the man is a lawyer is not a reason to "not" vote for him.

[creeksneakers2]

37. They aren't corporate Democrats.

Edwards just calls them that.

[Spiffarino]

17. Good point, but

The system IS rigged to favor big money, and the Clintons are masters at working the system. And, while Hillary will make a far better president than any Repub, she'll dance with those that brought her the White House.

Until the movers and shakers in the Democratic Party start acknowledging that our electoral system is broken nothing will change. I give Edwards props for making some noise, even if it ends up hurting his chances. Somebody has to say it.

[creeksneakers2]

22. Why is it assumed that if Hillary takes money she's going to

sell out but when John Edwards takes money he'll remain pure? Edwards dances.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N0000228...

JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Top Industries
1
Lawyers/Law Firms
$8,161,150

2
Democratic/Liberal
$2,001,674

3
Retired
$1,168,681

4
Securities & Investment
$773,600

5
Real Estate
$638,755

6
TV/Movies/Music
$458,990

7
Business Services
$434,793

8
Health Professionals
$419,326

9
Misc Business
$358,325

10
Education
$351,261

11
Misc Finance
$278,000

12
Printing & Publishing
$193,734

13
Computers/Internet
$182,585

14
Civil Servants/Public Officials
$178,995

15
Commercial Banks
$153,650

16
Insurance
$129,600

17
Retail Sales
$102,756

18
Non-Profit Institutions
$92,750

19
Other
$91,950

20
Accountants
$66,950

[JDPriestly]

28. Individual donors to Edwards work in these fields.

Lawyers do not necessarily work as lobbyists for corporations. Lots of lawyers work for non-profits, represent plaintiffs in employment or personal injury cases against big corporations. Others represent parties in divorces or prepare wills and trusts.

These raw numbers don't mean much. To understand what they mean, you need to compare them to Hillary's and Obama. Your post is pretty useless you do. Face it, Edwards is running under the public financing laws. He is not getting the big bucks from the lobbyists. Look, unless your favorite candidate is also running under the public financing rules, you need to stop defending him or her. Public financing is the only way to remove corporate control over our government.

You are not going to convince anyone that Edwards will owe his success to big business when elected. He won't owe them a thing. He is the candidate of the American people, not of the lobbyists.

[Cameron27]

31. We don't know who donates to Edwards

because he refuses to release information about his bundlers.

[JDPriestly]

44. Apparently the Justice Department went after some of the

attorneys that were accused of bundling for Edwards. I don't know whether they really were bundlers, however, there is a lot of suspicion that the actions against some of the attorneys were intended to intimidate and silence supporters for Edwards. That could explain reticence to release the names of those who are loyal to Edwards and who raise funds for him -- if you want to call them "bundlers."

[creeksneakers2]

38. So its different when Edwards does it

The same list from opensecrets.org is passed around for Hillary. She gets no corporate donations or donations over $2300. All those people on the Hillary list get classified by who they work for too.

Edwards didn't start out deciding to work under public financing. He went that route when he wasn't offered enough money to compete.

Edwards doesn't take money from lobbyists but he admits he takes money from the people who hire lobbyists. That's the same thing. If Edwards doesn't owe anything in return then Hillary doesn't either.

[JDPriestly]

43. It is my understanding that Hillary has received support from Rupert Murdoch

among others. Hillary takes money from lobbyists. She announces plans in the corporate offices of lobbyists. She is a lobbyists' candidate. That is what makes her a corporate candidate. Edward has received a minimal amount of money from lobbyists.

[MADem]

32. Yes, I conceded that point. But perception will triumph in this instance.

The perception will be "sour grapes" after Nevada--especially since the "perception" is that he's super-wealthy, with a massive house and fancy haircuts.

[JDPriestly]

25. I disagree. People are sick of the rigged system.

It is the first thing on many people's minds. That is what the whole immigration distress is about. That is why people do not like outsourcing and the "free trade" agreements that allow and encourage outsourcing. The American people feel "I am behind . . . ." And Edwards speaks for the American people when he says that. This message is why Edwards appeals more to voters than any of the Republicans. This message is why Edwards polls better than Hillary and other establishment candidates when put up against the potential Republican candidates.

[MADem]

34. Immigration and big money are not "similar" issues. Either one or the other is

"the first thing on many people's minds." If they even are. I do think they're important issues, but where you stand depends on where you sit. If you sit in a border state, immigration is an issue. If you're a worker with no job protection, then worker rights are important. If you have no health insurance, that's your big concern. If you're in danger of losing your house, or every other house in your neighborhood is for sale, that housing bubble mess is a worry. If you're gay or have gay famiy and friends, you're going to put equal rights up high on your list.

Campaign money is just NOT high on the radar this time around. It isn't.

Frankly, I think Issue #1 is wrapped up around National Security--ending the Iraq mess, staying out of Iran, repairing our fucked up military, taking care of vets, and general Pentagon mismanagement and waste. I think most people realize we're hemmoraging money through the Pentagon, and they want to plug that hole. The GOP will try to play the We're Strong/You Aren't card, no matter what Democrat gets the nomination, so even if the selected candidate prefers another frontrunning issue, he or she IS going to have to lance that national security boil.

The polls I've seen don't have Edwards polling better, at least not nationally--in fact, from that perspective, he's third. It's neck and neck in Iowa between the 'top tier' at this stage, but who knows how that will shake out by the time the caucuses roll around. It will all come down to the 'push' by all candidates in Iowa, NH and SC--and THEN we're off to the races.

[Reno.Muse]

30. Sorry, I don't agree. Afterall, what was the 2000 and the 2004 election all about?

Clue in.

[MADem]

33. The 04 election was all about TERRA. The 00 election was all about Monkey jawboning the

Saudis to open the spigots so we wouldn't have to spend a whole buck fifty a gallon on gasoline. It was about "Got Wood?" It was about Lockboxes. Nahn Wun Wun hadn't happened yet. The only one griping about campaign finance was McCain, and he got shot down in Carolina with that "black baby" story shopped by Rove.

I don't know where you're getting a retrospective idea that "Big Campaign Money" was a front and center issue throughout that contest, because it wasn't.

If anyone needs to "clue in" it's you.


Here ya go, a little reading to get you back up to speed.

Election 2000 issues: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/resources/where.they.s... /

Election 2004 issues: http://www.npr.org/politics/issues2004/

[gateley]

46. I'm with Edwards on this one, and I think it was excellent to say it during

the debate! nt

[texpatriot2004]

5. "Big Corporate Interests have literally taken over this...

government." John Edwards

He knows what is going on here.

[neutron]

9. he's only repeating the obvious

I'm just not convinced he has the savvy to deal with it effectively.

[texpatriot2004]

12. "We need to stop Bush, Cheney and the NEOCONS..."

John Edwards has my ear.

[texpatriot2004]

16. I liked what Kucinich and Biden had to say also. nt

[Spiffarino]

19. Yeah, they were solid

Biden has decided to just be himself and it works.

Kucinich got far less time than any other candidate on that stage, yet he managed to say more than all of them combined. Blitzer and Campbell Brown (Dan Senor's wife, BTW) should be fed worms for a week for not giving Dennis a fair share of time to speak.

[weeve]

21. Edwards speaks truth to power.

Which is why I fear the media is really going to start gunning for him. They obviously want Hillary to get the nomination ... if John can weather this non-stop barrage, I think he will make a fine President.

[JDPriestly]

29. Edwards is the best.

Daily Kos has posted a link to the environmental forum debates today. They are great.

[ClassWarrior]

23. He speaks the truth...

...even though some people don't like to hear it. What are they hiding?

tex!

NGU.

[texpatriot2004]

39. Methinks that they are hiding many a thing. Nice to see you

Class. Edwards knows what's up...first hand, I'd say. NGU!

[DianaForRussFeingold]

24. HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH! Also-I have to say, I really like Edward's pro-union, pro-working-family agenda

I thought Edwards did great at the debate..You could tell he's a little frustrated-as well we all should be...

[texpatriot2004]

42. I also like that Edwards supports the poor, the working poor, the

Unions, etc.

Hey, great picture you have there of Sen. Biden...I like alot of what he has to say also.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[William769]

41. He should know.

[iheartobama]

45. If the system is rigged....

.....then how come he has a 28,000 sq ft house?

[neutron]

47. and he's so superior

right.
I remember his sanctamonious little speech when Kerry and others were
attacking Dean. Now, here's our above it all hero who will do or say anything
I repeat will do or say anything. I wonder what he's done in the past 4 years
besides obsess on personal ambition.

[Hieronymus]

48. Of course Edwards is right.