Smears, Lies, & Distortions: Top 7 Falsehoods about Senator John Edwards

[JohnLocke]

Poll question: Smears, Lies, & Distortions: Top 7 Falsehoods about Senator John Edwards

Lie #1: "Edwards co-wrote the Patriot Act!"
Truth:The Patriot Act is not the Borg. Though many provisons are invasive and should be repealed, there are many other changes that simply update laws for the twenty-first century and aid law enforcement. And though Edwards was on the committee that wrote the Patriot Act, the only portion of it that he was responsible for was the sunset provision which called for the Patriot Act to end. This is why Bush is now having to ask for the Patriot Act to be renewed.
Read Edwards's floor statement here to find out the portions of the bill that are good for America that he supports, what portions of the bill that are bad and need to be repealed at once, and and his advocacy for the sunset provision.
More here and here.
----
Lie #2: "Senator Edwards Voted to Support President Bush 71.5% of the time -- 76% of the time in 2002!"
Truth: Edwards voted against Bush 58.7 percent of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly's independent analysis. He voted against Bush about as much as any other Democratic senator. Much of those bills are mundance and not politically charged at all. Samples of some votes which are part of that 58.7 percent:
S.743: Naming of a Post Office
S.620: Requiring Sprinkler Systems in Fraternity Houses
S.941: Establishing a National Heritage Area
More here.
-----
Lie #3: "Edwards has no foreign policy experience!"
Truth: Edwards served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was one of the first senators to visit Afghanistan after the Taliban was removed from power, and met with American and coalition forces. Edwards has also traveled to Pakistan and central Asia to discuss the war on terrorism. He has visited Israel and other Middle Eastern nations to discuss the peace process, and has met with America’s key allies at NATO headquarters and in London. He has an extensive plans for foreign policy.
More here.
----
Lie #4: "Edwards voted for the Bush tax cuts!"
Truth: Senator Edwards voted aganist the Bush tax cuts in HB 1836. He voted for the extension of unemployment benefits bill which also contained temporary business tax breaks (HR 3090). These temporary business tax breaks were for development in and around the World Trade Center. More here, here, and here.
-----
Lie #5: "Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, but has changed his position and is now against it."
Truth: Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, and believes that we should improve the bill and properly fund it. Bush's budget for fiscal year 2004 is nine billion dollars short for NCLB, and was 7.3 billion short in fiscal year 2003. Edwards is against unfunded mandates, and believs the bill can be improved. More here.
----
Lie #6: "Edwards has weak policies, and what he has were stolen from another candidate!"
Truth:Edwards's detailed policy booklet Real Solutions for America and his followup Real Change for American Families are extremely detailed plans for America. The former chief of staff under Clinton, John Podesta, was quoted in Time as saying, "If you look at who's got the best stuff out there, it's Edwards." His "Real Solutions" booklet was published and distributed in early 2003, before any of the other candidates began forming their policies and ideas.
----
Lie #7: "Senator Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer, and he channeled a baby, and did no pro bono work!"
Truth: Edwards was a trial lawyer who fought for people without a voice against large corporations and insurance companies. In his Senate run, the Faircloth campaign failed to identify any Edwards case that could be labeled as frivolous or an abuse of the legal system. Edwards has a plan to end frivolous lawsuits, and to remove lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits with a "three strikes and you're out" policy. This policy will be enforced by a panel of doctors to reduce medical malpractice premiums. More here.
----
Adapted from this thread.
----
So, which is the most overplayed and least supported lie about John Edwards?

[chimpymustgo]

1. Lies, and the lying liars who tell them. I can't vote. The BS is

too pervasive. All those lies get thrown around pretty liberally.

Thank you so much for laying out the truth.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick (nt).

[Darkamber]

3. Wish I could vote for 3 of them...1, 3 and 7 are popular

those are the ones I hear most. I get tired of trying to fight against them.

[JohnLocke]

4. Kick (nt).

[Doosh]

5. kick, to educate edwards haters

[joanne]

6. Thanks for posting this

I guess this proves the Bush cartel is taking Edwards seriously as a potential running mate if the smear campaign has begun.

[Skwmom]

7. Is that why Bush supporters

are gushing over Edwards on the airwaves and tv? Even Edwards wondered why a big Bush supporter on Imus was singing his praises.

[JohnLocke]

8. Give me a fucking break -- you have done nothing but repeat the RNC line.

[AP]

9. Didn't Dick Morris say he liked Clark?

Are we going to measure Edwards and Clark by Imus and Morris?

Really?

[JohnLocke]

10. The cavalry has arrived!

[AP]

11. Check out this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=535945&mesg_id=536581

[JohnLocke]

12. Notice how our friend repeats the RNC "baby channeling" press blast.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Darkamber]

14. Was that ever mentioned in more then one article?

I know one "friend' posts it in every Edwards thread there is but is this story repeated more then once and how long ago was that?

And thanks for posting this. I added a link to it on the JRE Grassroots site for their reference as well. This is a nice 'all in one place' fact sheet.

[AP]

15. Edwards writes about it in his book to make an entirely different point.

The judge in that case reduced the award because he said that Edwards inappropriately appealed to people's emotions with that line.

The point was that the RW judge could find no reason to reduce the verdict to save the insurance company millions, so he invented something outrageous.

RW'ers are getting mileage out of it again as evidenced by that times article (which was so obviously coming from the right wing).

[Virginian]

33. What's baby channeling?

Sorry, I don't hear much RNC stuff it causes high blood pressure. I avoid it for my health. So, what is baby channeling?

[JohnLocke]

36. A lie.

Back in Edwards trial lawyer days, he used a dramatic final argument that political opponents mocked as "baby channeling." Google it, and you'll find more than I could possibly explain to you. :):):)

[Andromeda]

88. As a Bush supporter yourself,

I'm sure you would know who is *in* and who is *out* in the Republican party. The problem with this line you keep pushing is that is is soooooo *yesterday.*

[Virginian]

27. Who in their right mind could hate Edwards?

He ran the cleanest most positive campaign I've ever seen. He has good ideas for the future and he just seems like an all-around nice guy.

I am sure the BFEE hate him because he contrasts so sharply against their evil, self serving ways. That is why I qualified my question with "in their right mind."

[Leilani]

49. I do not hate Edwards. I do not dislike Edwards.

But as to his campaign, I will not forget that his advisor was Hugh Shelton, who smeared Wes Clark in a vicious manner.

His smear trailed Wes, & he had to spend too much time trying to address the smear. This was at the beginning of the campaign & did more to damage Wes than anything else.

So, no, I do not think it was the cleanest, most positive campaign I have ever seen. It was dirty & Edwards, if he was so positive, should have publicly refuted this vicious attack from his advisor.

[Darkamber]

60. John Locke...can you add Hugh Shelton on that list?

Here is the "official response from Edwards"

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=351


I wanted to bring to your attention a letter by a member of your staff sent to me regarding General Hugh Shelton. Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction.

Although General Shelton has not endorsed me or any other candidate, I value his advice as one of our nation's top military leaders. He is a fellow North Carolinian and has been a friend and advisor for many years. I will continue to seek his advice. When I talk to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's about the safety and security of our men and women in uniform, not about politics.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter.

Is Shelton's one comment about Clark at an event that had nothing to do with Edwards the whole foundation for your belief that Edwards campaign was 'dirty'?. Do you really believe that this single comment, that only seems to be brought up by Clark Supporters when wanting to attack Edwards, is the whole reason that Clark had difficulty?

Personally, I think better of Clark then that and what Shelton said or didn't say really has no effect on my view of him one way or another. I would hope that his supporters would feel the same way.

[AP]

63. Edwards wouldn't go negative on the Kooch, remember?

Edwards had the least dirty campaign I've seen from a front runner in years.

[AP]

61. Shelton wasn't speaking for the Edwards campaign when he spoke about Clark

He was at a small college in CA and took a question from a student in the audience about Clark. He spoke off the cuff, probably didn't appreciate that the press would jump on it. He refused to make any further comments about this when prodded.

He made the comment a couple days or weeks before the RW press was trotting out those three other guys who went on every radio and TV show and slandered Clark up and down (at the end of August). Although it was used to buttress the solicited (and generously provided) criticsms of those three other assholes, I find it very hard to attribute to it the same level of malice as the others. At the very least, if Shelton intended harm, you'd think he would have repeated the criticism.

Edwards has known Shelton for 20 years because they went to the same small college together. They knew each other from attending events at the college. They weren't in the same social groups, or the same business, and never did anything for each other than attend the occassional alumin event.

When Edwards was elected to the Senate, Shelton was also in DC working with Clinton. Edwards took advantage of that connection -- probably one of the few he had with anyone in any position that would be useful, considering Edwards didn't go to Yale like everyone else in power in DC.

When Edwards prepped for the debates he asked Shetlon to help him. Shelton wasn't paid. Shelton never spoke for the campaign. When asked whom he supported, he wouldn't say. The only candidate he ever complimented publicly was Kerry.

If you want to hate Edwards because Shelton's the one guy in DC Edwards knew before he became successful, go ahead. It's fucked up that in a world where old school ties and social circles are a source of so much evil, you would give Edwards shit for having just one (and then not even having a good argument for why this one says something bad about Edwards). It seems to me that if you're going to have such strong opinions about Edwards, you'd base them on something a little more concrete.

[Leilani]

78. Reread my post.

I said I do not hate Edwards.

I said I do not dislike Edwards.

But I judge a person by the company he keeps.

[AP]

113. Kucinich, when asked by Jon Stewart, who was a decent guy, said Edwards.

Kucinish seems like a pretty good guy. When Edwards's staff told him that he shouldn't let Kucinich get away with hitting him (on IWR vote no doubt) said, "aw man, I can't go negative on the Kooch."

You couldn't even get Shelton to admit he liked any candidate other than Kerry.

[be inspired]

13. Thank you SO much!

This is GREAT! So good to have the information to combat these lies all in one place. Thank you for pulling this all together.

We want to change America, and together we will!

[JohnLocke]

16. You're welcome (nt).

[bushwakker]

17. Isn't that sprinkler system thing connected to Skull & Bones?

he's off my list.;)

[Leilani]

18. #3 Foreign Policy Experience

Sorry, but I do not think a few trips abroad & the experience of a first term senator is enough to be qualified as Prez.

The situation we find ourselves in is extremely complex. Our allies are alienated,& we have the entire Muslim world mad at us. Our troops are deployed around the world, engaged in 2 active wars, & many military missions we are not hearing about.

Our CIA has proven to be useless; their intelligence stinks, & the FBI is dysfunctional.

Our military is way overextended for the assigned jobs.

And we have a group of extremists who would love to attack us again.

The above problems would be difficult for any well experienced person running for Prez. {I say Prez, because the Veep cannot be in training.} John Kerry, with all his years of experience, will have a tough time dealing with these issues.

Therefore, I truly do not believe John Edwards is ready for the job. This is not personal in any way, it is common sense. When people talk of the downside of each candidate, the fault found with Edwards is lack of experience. Each candidate has a downside, or a weak spot, & that is his.

If John Kerry chooses Edwards for Veep, I will lose any respect I have for him. Because he will be putting politics above principle. John Kerry will be judged, against Bush, & the Veep selection will not win the race for him. But it could affect his administration & in the case of an emergency, it could be disastrous.

[AP]

19. Are there any presidents who had less experience than Clark on matters

of foreign policy whose foreign policy suffered BECAUSE they didn't have that experience?

Isn't what you'd do abroad a product of so much more than how often you've been abroad and how many people abroad whom you know by their first name?

It seems to me that Edwards has the right priorites, the right convictions, and, most importantly, he isn't compromised by interests that conflict with those of the vast majority of Americans and of citizens from around the world.

I don't see how there's anyone he doesn't know or place he hasn't been that, if he knew that person or been to that place it would change anything that really matters about his convictions, and his overseas political goals and policies.

[Leilani]

20. Quite frankly, I think many of our Presidents have done

a lousy job in foreign policy, because of lack of experience, or misplaced goals.

And we are paying a price today, for failed policies of the past.
Witness: Iran, Iraq, Israel vs Palestine, etc.
And that is just the Mideast.

But with each year that passes, the mistakes loom larger because of the ease of travel, proliferation of WMDs, ease of communications, etc.

And because Americans tend to be very egocentric, & not very knowledgeable about other countries, I believe we choose politicians based on shallow expectations. We, as a country, are getting dumber & dumber, & I fear things will not soon change.

[AP]

22. Which is it, "lack of experience" or "misplaced goals"?

Take Bush, for example. I think he's getting EXACTLY what he wanted abroad: huge profits for the oil industry thanks to intended chaos.

You don't need experience to have those priorities, or to be able to achieve them.

[dogman]

21. His position on the Iraq War

shows me that he lacks the experience, knowledge, and ability to handle this country's foreign policy. He is in agreement with at least two other Democrats (Lieberman and Miller) and all of the Rethug leadership on the connection between the war on terrorism and Saddam.

[AP]

23. His position is the same as Kerry's.

[AP]

24. His position is the same as Kerry's.

What are you citing as evidence for that last sentence?

[dogman]

26. I witnessed him in the South Carolina debate

break in after Kerry's response about the Iraq War to say Kerry was wrong, that the Iraq War was justified by the attack on 9-11. He and Lieberman were in definite agreement on that point. They both voted for authorization, but Kerry said he never thought Bush would fuck it up like he did. Edwards said Bush was doing the right thing because this is part of the war on terrorism. This is now the issue in the forefront and Clark gets it, Edwards doesn't.

[JI7]

28. if Edwards is picked for vp, his position will be whatever Kerry's is

[dogman]

31. Well that will sure help people trust him.

We don't need any more flip-flop for Rove.

[AP]

39. Trust him? What about you? You seem to be basing your opinions

on Edwards based on a pretty faulty recollection of the SC debate.

[JI7]

41. Kerry will actually be President unlike Bush

he doesn't need a vp to do what a president should be able to do in terms of actually being president as bush does. his vp pick should be based on whoever helps him win the election.

[Leilani]

90. What if something happened to Kerry?

That is the point of a Veep...not who helps him win.

Look up Kerry s statements on his priorities for a Veep. #1 is someone qualified to step into his shoes.

[JI7]

116. yes, that is a good point for Clark

but i'm just saying that as long as kerry is there he is not going to pass on the jobs of the president to his vp as bush does with cheney. but i do think one of clark's strongest points is he has very good knowledge on just about everything that he would be ready to take on the job of the president. especially in regards to foreign policy/national security.

[AP]

30. I listened to every debate and I don't remember that at all.

I'll race you to the SC transcript.

[AP]

32. Here's the transcript.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61340-2004Jan29_3.html

I'll race you to the quote.

[dogman]

42. Here it is

Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.


Who is right?


KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...


BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?


KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.


Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.


I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.


I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.


That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.


But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.


And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

Edwards:

Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.


It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.

[AP]

46. And? See post 35. This does not say what you're pretending it says.

How do you get that Edwards believes there's a connection between 9/11 and Iraq out of that?

And why do you stop the quote there.

I have the full quote in 35 which makes it clear what the thought was that Edwards was expressing.

[dogman]

48. Read Kerry's four points. They clearly relate to Bushco linking Iraq

and the war on terrorism. then look at Edwards calling Brokaw back to Kerry's statement to say there is definitely a link. Why did Edwards go back other than to correct Kerry? I was watctching with other people who were disgusted that Lieberman and Edwards were defending the Iraq war.

[AP]

51. Read Brokaw's question. It's not about Iraq. Kerry decided to only

talk about Iraq. Edwards answered the question. He doesn't say that he's only talking about Iraq. He doesn't even mention iraq.

9/11 was terrorism. Bush claims that Iraq is about terrorism. Edwards says, yes, terrorism is a problem, but Bush is going about it all wrong and making world more dangerous (and he's neglecting other issues).

He's not saying that 9/11 justifies anything. That's your imagination. Just like you imagined that Edwards cut in on Lieberman.

And in that other quote. Edwards CLEARLY says that the justifications given for Iraq seem to be a untrue and they need to get to the bottom of it. So even if your fantasy that Edwards was linking 9/11 and Iraq were true, he would have been contradicting himself by saying that he doesn't believe that the justifications were true.

So, you see, in the quote you cite, he's not linking Iraq to anything. He's just saying that there is a threat of terror (which everyone admits) and that there are better tools to deal with it than Bush is employing.

[dogman]

53. When he felt it necessary to correct what Kerry said about Iraq

I can only conclude that he felt Kerry was wrong, otherwise why didn't he answer his question and give other candidates their fair share of time? We all knew the terrorists did 9-11. Kerry pointed out that there was no connection to Al Queda. look at the context. Once again I never said he interrupted Lieberman, he broke in on his own answer to another question to go back and correct Kerry.

[AP]

55. You'd think for such a firmly held opinion you'd rely on something a ...

...little more concrete than this.

And your logic is bewildering. Edwards was taking up other people's time.

Every time I clocked those debates, Edwards got less time than everyone else. One debate he got about 4 minutes to Dean, Lieberman and Kerry's 12, 11, and 10 minutes. Edwards had to interject just to get 1/3 rd the time Dean got!

Kerry answered the question narrowly. Edwards answered it broadly. It was Kerry's fault for not saying, "First, terrorism is a problem, and we need to do things to stop it. However, what we're doing in Iraq doesn't stop terrorism."

Kerry heard the word exaggeration and started talking about the justifications for the Iraq War. There's not logical reason Edwards had to be contrained to Kerry's interpretation of the question. Reread the question. Brokaw does not limit it to Iraq. The question is, "is Bush exaggerating the threat of terror?" There's no limitation there to only Iraq, and in fact, Bush doesn't limit that question to only Iraq. There's also Afghanistan. And there's also home grown terror. And there are the people who bombed the trains in Spain.

In fact, Brokaw might have been luring Kerry with a broad question in order to get him to answer narrowly and then have it later spun as dismissing the entire threat of terror. Kerry's lucky that Edwards caught that and not Bush and Cheney.

[dogman]

58. Are you sure you know what the question was.

Are you familiar with Kagan's remark that Brokaw referred to? When you answer a question that you were asked and then interrupt to answer another question that was asked previously when others are not even allowed to finish their answer I think it's rude. Some people find rude behavior to be cute.

[AP]

66. When you're given 1/3rd the time to answer questions in a nationally

televised debate, some people would consider that total bullshit.

Can you read Brokaw's question?

He's asking about terrorism, and not about the justifications for the war. He was probably setting Kerry up and Kerry didn't realize it. Edwards was a great lawyer because he listened to the quesitons the defense attorneys were asking the witnesses and capitalized on openings like the one Kerry left.

[AP]

56. Furthermore, how do you resolve the quote in post 38 with your theory?

Right there Edwards says the justifications for Iraq seem to be faulty and an investigation is needed.

How could he believe that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq but feel that none of the justifications can be trusted until Congress investigates and we hear the results?

[dogman]

62. Kerry said Bush exaggerated terrorism

by linking the Iraq War to Al Queda. Edwards said you could not say there was an exaggeration because of 9-11. It's quite clear to me that Edwards had a different opinion than Kerry and felt the need to go back and point it out. I feel Kerry was right and therefore Edwards was wrong like Cheney. That's about as clear as I can make it. I feel Edwards, like Bush, was not willing to admit his Iraq War vote was wrong.

[AP]

65. Edwards saw that Kerry answered the wrong question and scored points

by calling Kerry on it.

It was better than having Bush score points the next day by saying "Kerry thinks threat of terrorism exaggerated."

Read Brokaw's question. He doesn't limit it to Iraq. Kerry answered the question narrowly. Edwards answered the question that was asked.

[dogman]

69. see 58

[AP]

71. I already did, and I raised you there and a couple other places.

[dogman]

77. So, what was Kagan's remark?

I don't know but since Kerry answered as he did without challenge from Brokaw, I would guess Kerry did. It's odd he would bring up four points about the Iraq War and Brokaw would accept that answer. Kerry was clearly talking about Iraq and Edwards was clearly at odds with Kerry's answer.

[AP]

80. Kerry was probably answering the way Brokaw wanted him to answer:

bush is exaggerating the threat of TERRORISM (rather than "Bush's justifications for the war were exaggerations"). That could be spun nicely by GE.

Doesn't Brokaw say he talked with Kagan. Who knows what they talked about. He asks about the threat of terror, and that's what the audience heard, so if Kerry were smart like Edwards he would have assumed that 99.9999% of the audience had no idea what Kagan said, and that he should answer the question asked rather than pretend he was in a political science seminar with a bunch of grad students who all read the assigned reading.

[dogman]

87. Kagan is with PNAC.

They were after Iraq since 1998. Maybe Kerry knew that.

[AP]

100. And your point is?

If the audience doesn't know who Kagan is, whose votes is Kerry getting by answering a questiong different from the one Brokaw asked?

The debate isn't an oral exam for your PhD.

Edwards, from working with juries, knew that. Kerry didn't. Brokaw might have been suckering him into answering a different question which Brokaw knew the audience didn't hear.

Edwards saw the trick. Kerry didn't. Kerry is lucke that a Democrat up there on that stage cleared things up for the Democratic party. The Democratic party does not think the threat of terrorism was overstated. But, as they said later, Edwards and Kerry think the justifications for Iraq need to be investigated because they don't look to be good.

[dogman]

107. That was the question Brokaw asked, read the text.

Edwards should have answered his question and shut up instead of trying to say Kerry was wrong and Cheney was right.

[AP]

110. Just because you want to hear less from Edwards, doesn't mean the voters

aren't entitled to hear his positions.

And, like I said below, every Democrat on that stage benefitted from having one of them speak up and in two consise, short paragraphs, say, "there is a threat of terrorosim, but bush is dealing with it a way that makes America less safe. And he's an idiot for thinking that national security is the only thing he needs to deal with."

Compare that to Kerry's meanderings which left the audience thinking, hmm, maybe democrats don't take seriously the threat of terrorism.

[dogman]

114. I wanted to hear from Edwards.

That is how I knew he was not qualified. Until then I thoght he might be worthy of my support. This debate locked in Kerry as my second choice and moved Edwards to the bottom with Lieberman, the other Bush apologist.

[AP]

67. Bottom line: when Edwards was asked about justifications for Iraq,

he said that he thinks there should be an investigation because they seemed to be wrong.

That doesn't square with your theory, does it?

[dogman]

72. It has nothing to do with my observation

and as I previously noted, other people observed the same thing I did. He didn't spell out what should be investigated so you are interpreting that the way you want.

[AP]

74. Well how can I argue with the esteemed opinions of "others"?

You were so upset about Edwards taking up precious time in the debate telling people what he thought, and now you're criticizing him for not identifying precisely every piece of evidence he wanted investigated?

Clearly he wanted the things presented as justifications investigated.

This clearly contradicts your claim that he was happy enough with 9/11 justifying Iraq.

And if this is your reason for not liking Edwards, you'd think you'd want a little more than innuendo to make the argument.

Did Edwards ever say anythign that buttresses your claim?

No.

Did he say that he wanted the intelligence investigated? Yes. Many times.

[dogman]

84. I'm still not talking about intelligence.

I'm talking about lack of intelligence, on the part of Bushco and their supporters. He's the one that wanted to go back and dispute Kerry's answer with good old "9-11". Where did he state Bush led us into a false war, there is no connection to 9-11. By that time even Bush was admitting that point.

[AP]

101. Kerry answered the wrong question. He's lucky Edwards cleared it up.

He says that Bush led us into the false war when he says in the part that you edited out that Bush is not handling the threat of terrorism properly (he's making the world less safe) and in the other part I quoted in which he says that the justifications Bush gave need to be investigated.

[dogman]

104. Once again!

What was Kagan's remark that Brokaw asked about. Kerry answered but Edwards had to defend his support for the Iraq War by correcting Kerry's answer by going back to the Cheney mantra that there is a connection between the Iraq war and 9-11. Edwards spoke out and stuck his foot squarely in his mouth.

[AP]

109. What question did the audience hear? "Is there a threat of terrorsim?"

Is the threat of terror exaggerated.

Surely, Brokaw is asking questions that he thinks are traps. Either the candidate doesn't know what Kagan really said and answer the question asked looking like fools for not knowing who's who, or they respond to Kagan whichh leaves the audience with a false impression (since they clearly don't know who Kagan is).

So, Brokaw lured Kerry into sounding like a technocrat, and saying something 99% of the audience heard as "yes, the threat of terrorism is exaggerated."

All the democrats on that stage are lucky Edwards spoke up an answered the question that was asked so they wouldn't look like a bunch of fools who think the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

If you don't see that then I feel sorry for you. And please don't ever get into the business of running political campaigns. In a political campaign you're trying to get people to vote for you. You're not trying to pass an oral exam for a PhD in the writing of Mr Kagan.

[dogman]

112. That is the question you heard.

I and the people I was watching with heard the question asked. That's why we were so offended by Edwards pushing the Bushco meme. Why, if Edwards saved the day, is Kerry not using him as a surrogate to speak about the Iraq War? I would venture that it is because it is obviously beyond Edwards' grasp. If we need politicians to tell the people stories they want to hear we can just keep Bush, he is very good at that. He was even able to convince Edwards.

[AP]

34. Lieberman wasn't intettupted by Edwards once in that debate.

In fact Edwards didn't speak after Lieberman spoke at any point in that dembate.

Now I'll search for "Iraq."

[dogman]

43. I didn't say he interrupted Lieberman. He interrupted the answer

he was giving Brokaw.

[AP]

44. He didn't do that either.

You have the transcript. And it proves that your memory is very faulty.

[AP]

35. Maybe you're confused and your mind spun this statement:

Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.

I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.

And number two, the president actually has to be able to do two things at once. This president thinks his presidency is only about the war on terrorism, only about national security. Those things are critical for a commander in chief. The president of the United States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be able to do two things at the same time.

If you want to spin that as endorsement of the idea that Bush is doing the right thing scaring people. Go ahead, but what he did was jump on opening Kerry created.

Edwards said, yes, terrorism is a problem -- we know it because we remember 9/11. But the real issue is not whether terrorism is or is not a threat. It's that Bush ISN'T making the world safer by doing what he's doing. Edwards is also saying there's way more to being a good president than pretending that the ONLY issue in America today is terror and national security. (And in fact thinking like that makes America less safe).

So, is that what you remember? I don't see any claims about 9/11 and Iraq being linked in that statement. I'll keep looking.

[AP]

38. This seems to contradict your recollection:

Here Edwards says that there needs to be an investigation because the things they were told seemed to be untrue. That's just about the opposite of interjecting on Lieberman's time that Iraq was justified by 9/11. In fact, he seems to be saying it wasn't even justified by what they were told.

BROKAW: But in fairness, David Kay also told me the other day that he thinks now, looking back, that the two years before we went to war was the most dangerous period in Iraq in a long, long time because it was spinning out of control. Saddam Hussein was not in charge. There were people coming in and going out of the country, including well-known terrorists.




You saw the defense -- you saw the National Intelligence Estimate, Senator Edwards, as a member of the Intelligence Committee. Did you believe it when you saw it? And was that the basis for your vote, which you enthusiastically talked about when you made the vote to authorize war against Iraq?




EDWARDS: Well, it wasn't just the National Intelligence Estimate, it was a whole -- it was actually two or three years of sitting in briefings and receiving information from the Intelligence Committee, not only about the weapons issue, which is what Howard just talked about, but also about the atrocities that Saddam was committing against his own people, gassing Kurdish children in northern Iraq. And I have to say, I think it is not for the administration to get to the bottom of this. It's actually not for the Congress to get to the bottom of this. The American people, we, need to get to the bottom of this, with an independent commission that looks at -- that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there.

[JI7]

25. when did he say he agreed with lieberman and zeill miller ?

i don't believe he ever said that.

[dogman]

29. They all agree that Bush did the correct thing in starting

the Iraq War. I heard him say it.

[JohnLocke]

37. Link, please?

[AP]

40. He thinks he said it in SC. But it looks like Edwards said the opposite.

See above.

[dogman]

45. Read the whole thing in context.

He definitely links 9-11 to the Iraq War. So does Cheney.

[AP]

47. Oh lord. He does not. You couldn't even provide the whole "context"

You cut out 2/3rds of the reply becaue the "context" proves that he's not saying that there's a connection.

So, you have a faulty memory AND your argument is intellectually dishonest.

[dogman]

50. Read #48

Read the whole debate if you want context.

[AP]

52. Read 51.

Kerry chose to interpret the question as being abotu Iraq. Edwards answered the question. He even restated the question to make sure it was clear what question he was answering.

if there's a context there that I'm missing, you tell me what it is.

Where is he linking 9/11 to Iraq???

[dogman]

54. Read 53

[AP]

57. Why didn't you provide Edwards's entire quote?

by the way.

[dogman]

59. It wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

I included the part by Kerry and Edwards reply to that part.

[AP]

64. I thought you were big on context?

Is that the context contradicted your argument?

[dogman]

68. I made a statement

that you said was a faulty recollection. I pointed out the statements that supported what I said. The other parts that you like were not about the subject I was discussing. They did not contradict what I said. You wanted full context so go read the whole debate. It does not change the fact that Edwards felt he had to correct Kerry's statement and tie it back to 9-11. On top of that there is the part where Edwards brings up the gassing of the Kurds. I believe that was Iraq and the only one that I've heard use that as an excuse is the rethugs and Lieberman and Miller.

[AP]

70. "correct Kerry"? Edwards felt the need to tell people where he stood on

an issue discussed in presidential debate. So shoot him. Who does he think he is? A candidate for president.

Who's your candidate? Clark? Do you think he never answered a question he wasn't asked in a debate?

Do you think the candidates who get 4 minutes in a debate where the average time is 8 minutes should just sit back and hope their silence is earning them the dogman's vote?

[dogman]

73. Edwards told me where he stood.

With Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, and Miller. I know where Clark stood, he was clear and correct.

[AP]

75. You must be channeling something or somebody then, because...

...it doesn't look like you can provide any evidence that supports your conclusions.

[dogman]

79. Channeling isn't my trick.

As I have said and repeated, Kerry made a statement and Edwards corrected it to support his vote by once again agreeing with Bushco.

[AP]

82. Edwards was right to correct Kerry if Kerry's answer made it sound like

the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

That's a very important clarification and Kerry is lucky that Edwards corrected him because it would have been worse for him if Bush corrected him.

[dogman]

86. Once again you are pretending to know the question better than Kerry.

What was Kagan's remark that Kerry was commenting on?

[AP]

76. How clear is this, by the way?

(from Arizona)

CLARK: Well, Judy, I would like to rebut this. I am not going to attack a fellow Democrat, because I think everybody on this stage shares the same goal.

(APPLAUSE)

I think it's a little -- I think it's really embarrassing that a group of candidates up here are working on changing the leadership in this country and can't get their own story straight.

Let me tell you what my story is. I always supported taking the problem of Saddam Hussein to the United Nations and bringing international resolve to bear. I would never have voted for war. The Congress made a mistake in giving George Bush an open-ended resolution that enabled him to go to war without coming back to the Congress.

WOODRUFF: But you acknowledge you made a...

CLARK: And that's the simple answer to it.

WOODRUFF: You acknowledge...

CLARK: At every stage as we walked down through this resolution, since I wasn't in Congress and I was a CNN military commentator, I took the situation as it was and necked it down to look for the least worst choice.

I did praise George Bush and Tony Blair for sticking with the offensive in Iraq once it had begun. But I also noted in every op-ed and every comment I ever made that there was not enough forces there, there was not a plan for dealing with it afterwards.

And I've said all along, it was not an imminent threat.

WOODRUFF: But you acknowledge...

CLARK: I think that's a very clear answer, Judy.

WOODRUFF: But you acknowledge there were some changes in your statements about Iraq...

CLARK: No.

WOODRUFF: ... after you announced as a candidate.

CLARK: I had a discussion with a newspaper reporter that -- when I said what I was trying to say, I took an answer. The answer is very clear. The answer is, I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It's that simple.

(APPLAUSE)

WOODRUFF: All right. A number of you are trying to get in and because of the time constraints that we all agreed on, you all and CNN, we're going to have move on.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

[dogman]

81. It's clear to me.

He supported going to the Un with a resolution to force them to deal with it seriously. He did not support actually going to war since all other means had not been exhausted. He didn't give the Bushco answer "9-11".

[AP]

83. Ask 10 people where Clark stands on the war

after hearing that and I bet 8 wouldn't be able to say that.

[dogman]

85. So 80% of people can't understand a complex equation.

That's a surprise. Why do you think so many people can be mesmerized by "I'm the son of a mill worker". Clark doesn't realize how simple the general public is or he could have said "I'm the grandson of a mill worker". Of course then most Clark supporters would have lost interest in him, quickly.

[ngGale]

89. Rural America knows very well who a son of a mill worker is....

and all across the country that have lost their jobs. Edwards is the only one that ever mentions poverty and the working poor...

[dogman]

91. How long before that fable would be exposed?

Rural America knows a mill worker from a time study manager. Wouldn't be a surprise to Kucinich who actually lives the life of the working poor to know he doesn't mention poverty? Come on, Edwards must be the only one you've bothered to listen to.

[AP]

99. If you want to be president, you have to be clear, you can't go in circles

That was the problem with Kerry's answer too. He wasn't being clear. He was being too technical, and he was running the risk of having his audience think that the was saying that there threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

[dogman]

103. The link to Iraq was exagerrated!

That is the biggest reason Bush is in major trouble now. That is why agreeing with Bush would get you nowhere and would leave him in power.

[AP]

106. And Edwards said those justifications need to be investigated.

He said it in this very debate and he said it to Chris Matthews and he said it to Tim Russert.

[dogman]

108. Every one knew that.

Does he like to hear himself talk? He was not asked the question and contributed nothing by his answer except to push the same line as Cheney.

[AP]

111. zZ

I can only take so much of this.

[nclily]

98. Foreign Policy Experience

"Sorry, but I do not think a few trips abroad & the experience of a first term senator is enough to be qualified as Prez."

Bill Clinton had virtually no foreign policy experience (certainly less than Edwards), and he turned out to be the best foreign policy president we've had in recent memory.

It's about how smart you are and how much you understand about what's going on. Bush is a) not smart, and b) doesn't have a clue about foreign policy and doesn't care to learn. Edwards is as smart as Clinton but doesn't have the baggage.

Edwards may not be a long-term Senator, but he's been there 5 1/2 years, which is long enough to understand how things work. If somebody's got the best ideas about how to fix things, why shouldn't he be able to run for President, regardless of how long he's been in office? Just hanging out in the Senate for 20 years doesn't make you a better president than you would have been 15 years before, it just makes you older.

[Skwmom]

92. #7

Lie #7: "Senator Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer, and he channeled a baby, and did no pro bono work!"
Truth: Edwards was a trial lawyer who fought for people without a voice against large corporations and insurance companies. In his Senate run, the Faircloth campaign failed to identify any Edwards case that could be labeled as frivolous or an abuse of the legal system. Edwards has a plan to end frivolous lawsuits, and to remove lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits with a "three strikes and you're out" policy. This policy will be enforced by a panel of doctors to reduce medical malpractice premiums. More here

You left out Edwards legal work against DOCTORS. Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich? "But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants."

"But the recent scientific studies may make those lawsuits "scientifically unfounded," Olson explained. He contends that the medical malpractice suits that enabled Edwards and other trial lawyers to become rich and famous are crippling medical specialties like obstetrics, emergency room medicine and neurosurgery."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html.

The channeling of an unborn child - Edwards in his own words: “In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.”

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND.


Proof of Edwards pro bono work?

[JohnLocke]

96. Having fun repeating the huge insurance company line, Skwmom?

[AP]

105. Recent scientific studies do NOT make those lawsuits unfounded.

A recent scientific study says that a C-section might not be warranted when the FHM shows the first sign of distress because the FHM gives false signals over 95% of the time.

Edwards never sued anybody simply because there was no C-section at the first sign of distress.

In fact, in this case, the doctor performed a pelvic exam on the baby and wrote down on his chart that he could feel something strange. Later, it became clear that what he described was the umbilical chord around the baby's neck. He did nothing. The consistently bad FHM report over a long period of time should have been the second sign of trouble. The breach position was the third.

It wasn't one sign of trouble. It wasn't even just the FHM. The plaintiff probably would have won the case if there was no FHM.

One of the biggest problems for the defendant in this case was that the nurse said that she could tell there was a problem but was afraid to contradict the doctor because she thought she'd be fired. It turned out that, indeed, nurses suffered retaliation at that hospital (and all over NC) for embarrassing doctors by correcting them.

After Edwards won his case, NC hospitals enacted regulations protecting nurses from retaliation when they challenged doctors' decisions.

There aren't many POLITICANS in ELECTED OFFICE who can claim that their actions achieved such a significant change in policy which improved the lives of patients and nurses and the quality of medical care.

[LWolf]

93. Clearly # 7.

But I don't need convincing; I like John Edwards. He was constistently #2 on my list of primary hopefuls, and I would have been satisified with his nomination. I would be happy with him as Kerry's VP choice.

re: The NCLB vote

You aren't going to find too many dems that did not vote for NCLB. That's because it is a comprehensive legislation that covers many more issues than standards, accountability, and high-stakes testing. It has become the single most hated piece of education legislation across the country because of that one piece; the standards/accountability/testing piece which is the focus of GWB's education policy. The piece that * dubbed "No Child Left Behind." The piece that is destroying us.

Democrats don't have to apologize for their vote for NCLB; they do need to speak out against high-stakes testing as a measure of accountability, and to put forth a concerted effort to repeal those portions of the bill.

[Cuban_Liberal]

94. #7 is one that a one poster in particular insist on posting over and over.

One poster who supports a candidate who shall remain nameless insists on posting #7 into every edwards thread she sees. She knows it's total and complete bullshit, but her hatred for Edwards knows no reason, so she SPAMS it like it was Holy Writ from God himself. #1 and #3 are pretty egregious, as well.

[JohnLocke]

95. The Church of our Father the Edwards-Hater.

Holy writ from that church, right? ;)

[Cuban_Liberal]

97. yup, yup!

That would be the one. Repeat a 20 year-old story that was discredited 6 years agoduring his US Senate campaign over and over and over again. It's a basic tenet of their faith, dontcha know? ;)

[spooky3]

102. Great job, JohnLocke!

[Scoopie]

115. And none of this

disputes his smarmy and over-zealous attitude.
He's simply not fit to be a heartbeat away from the presidency during a war. Period. End of discussion (even though I could dispute MANY of these alleged "proofs." I won't go into it.)