"I have fought them, fought them, beat them, beat them, beat them, beat them, over and over again"

[bigtree]

Edwards set to 'fight' for S.C. win

Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 12:30 am



ST. HELENA ISLAND, S.C. - {snipped}

Stumping in his native state, Edwards railed against multibillion-dollar corporations, predatory lenders and Washington lobbyists.

"I have fought them, fought them, beat them, beat them, beat them, beat them, over and over again," he said, referring to both his political and legal careers.

"And I think we have to have that in a president of the United States."

"Strengthening and growing the middle class is what this election is about," he declared. "When are we going to have a president who is going to stand up for working people?"

He said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton "defends the system and thinks she can work her way though it." In contrast, Edwards said he believes "the system in Washington is stacked against ordinary Americans."

"I think you have to be willing to challenge it to bring about change," he said. And, unlike Clinton, Edwards declared: "I have never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist."

He acknowledged that Barack Obama advocates change but said the Illinois senator takes a "more conciliatory" approach.

"He wants to bring everybody together. The drug companies. The insurance companies. The oil companies. Bring them to the table. And make a deal," Edwards said. "I just don't think that works."

"If you think we can do these things just by being nice to them," he said in reference to special interests, "then I'm not your guy. I think we have to fight for them . . ."


article: http://www.savannahnow.com/node/428360

[saracat]

1. I want a hero who will fight for me.I don't want a negotiator.I want a champion.I want John!

[madokie]

80. I agree

[Left coast liberal]

102. Here, here! Support John Edwards!

[earth mom]

105. Yep-someone who will kick corporate a$$ and take names!

:applause:

[lisainmilo]

113. Me too!

:patriot:

[MissDeeds]

118. That's it

in a nutshell. :applause:

[7 of 11]

122. I prefer a negotiator

Win at all costs!!! that sounds so Neocon. Sheeez!!

The problem is when a Man like Edwards wins, companies pack up and move to China and we loose our jobs.

I'm being real and pragmatic so no thanks to Edwards. I can't sue a job for my self or sue myself out of debt, so the last thing I need is an ambulance chaser chasing my job to china instead.

[Andy823]

123. You are wrong

Is that why they have been moving since Bush took office? Was "he" fighting them? I think not. He gave them the control, and they took it overseas. Bush didn't "fight", he gave the country away, and allowed coporate interests to have postions in his administration.

If you let them "negotiate" what do you think will happen? OK they say if you want us to work with you, then we need to lower wages, take away benefits, and then we can work together. Is that what you want?

Not me, I want someone who will stand up to them, tell them things are going to change, and do what is right for the people for a change. I have had enough of "bringing them to the table", like Bush and Cheney did. Look where that got us, over $3.00 a gallong for gas, and a war that has cost us a trillion dollars!

[FogerRox]

155. MR 7 of 11 demonstrates a complete lack of undertanding when it comes to small "D"democracy civics.

My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet. Labor unions were at the zenith of their power, our eductaional institutions were the envy of the world, corporations made money, the wealthiest made money. The American Dream was born.

Thom Hartman on Ronald Regan, "But as president, Reagan cut the top tax rate for billionaires from 70 percent to 28 percent, while effectively raising taxes on working people via the payroll tax and using inflation against a non-indexed tax system. It was another hit to the already-beginning-to-shrink middle class, to be followed by more "tax cut" bludgeons during the first three years of the W. Bush administration."

The current war on the middle class started with less progressivity in tax rates, then union busting. More recently, tax breaks for corporations to move our jobs overseas, increasing illegal immigrantion to enlarge the labor pool, which drives wages down. The Bush Jr. tax policy is regressive while Bill Clintons tax policy was much less regressive and was moving to true progressivity. Additionaly we've seen 20 billion in cuts from student aid during the last 2 years. This is warfare my friends, the Aristocracy has attacked us, and we must defend ourselves.

[JDPriestly]

124. Edwards will put an end to the agreements and tax cuts that

encourage outsourcing. Edwards will create jobs in the renewable energy sector. Edwards is the only one of our candidates who opposes the outsourcing. Hillary wants to allow more special visa, low-wage-earning competitors for jobs into the country. You sound like you need to look into Edwards more carefully. If you are worried about outsourcing and the loss of jobs, you should vote for Edwards.

Don't believe what the right-wing corporate press is telling you. We are getting to the point that there just aren't any more jobs to outsource. The industrial jobs have pretty much been outsourced as have the technical and computer jobs. They are now starting on professional jobs like lawyers and legal assistants. Pretty soon, doctors in India will be reading our x-rays and handling our confidential medical information.

[vssmith]

142. Have they been moving to China in anticipation of Edwards?

No man like Edwards has been President and companies have already been packing up and moving to other countries.

[venable]

146. stupid argument, friend

first of all if you knew anything at all about his career, you'd know it's the opposite of an 'ambulance chaser'...so you've lost real credibility already.

do you think his campaign is about law suits? if so, i'd only recommend you take a closer look at the man and his positions.

or not. I suspect you won't, so please go vote for someone to negotiate you into the oblivion to which we are headed. smart choice - like that of an appeaser.

too many people here and elsewhere don't quite realize just how dire are our straits, and just how much corporate control has caused it.

i'll just go ahead and add you to the number referenced in the preceding sentence.

[7 of 11]

151. I am not prepared to vote for a man with a plan

taht I ahve not seen. I would only vote for him to keep us free of another repuke term. I mean I would even vote for someone like Nader than suffer another 4 years of the neocon war machine. But I think a Obama could do a hell of a lot better than Edwards. Even Kerry his former running mate is endorsing Obama...what does that tell you?

An Obama and Clinton ticket for sure: Brains + Brawns+ Beauty we just cant lose!!!

[FogerRox]

156. I suggest a book "Wealth & Democracy", Kevin Phillips. then read Edwards 80 page booklet

And here is your first essay question: Why did Thomas Jefferson start the University of Virgina?

[asdjrocky]

158. Spell check friend, spell check is your best friend-

Now take a breath. There ya go. It's funny to me that in your first comment, you referenced the word neo-con, and then you argue a total neo-con argument. The term, "ambulance chaser", is a total neo-con term. You should really hide your true colors better.

I saw you were new, and I was prepared to cut you some slack. I just kind of laughed, and figured 7 was your remaining brain cells, from the original 11, of course.

I have an idea, go sell it somewhere else buddy. The people of DU are far too sophisticated for your simpleton antics.

As far as Kerry's endorsing Obama? Anyone who has been awake in the last thirty years, would see the act for what it is. Old corporate/media/washington endorsing new corporate/media/washington. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Further more, if you had been paying attention, at all, you would have seen that it's John Edwards who has been guiding the conversation from the very beginning of this campaign. He says it, like the true visionary he is, and the others tag along.

[7 of 11]

152. What are his plans then?

I really have not read about him except that he made 13 million suing people. That was a total turn off for me. What are his plans?
What is his road map to get us out of these Chimpy dark days? I know what Obama's plans are and I love what I hear. The man was born to lead, Edwards was born to sue.

[proud2BlibKansan]

148. Welcome to DU!

Enjoy your (brief?) stay!! :hi:

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Edwards ought to at least be back in the Senate getting laws passed.

[bpeale]

108. i read somewhere that he left the senate because they don't accomplish anything

[OzarkDem]

126. He's not a guy who likes to sit around doing nothing

and I can't say I blame him.

[JDPriestly]

125. He became disgusted with the corruption he saw in the Senate.

An example he cites is the passage of the Medicare prescription laws. Apparently that was passed due to some very underhanded and unethical arm-twisting. Edwards wants to get the corporate lobbyists out of the White House.

[OzarkDem]

127. Sherrod Brown was also disgusted by that

He's in the Senate now, keeping a much lower profile than before, much to my dismay. I can understand why Edwards didn't want to stay there and be neutered by worries about campaign donors.

Edwards reminds me of Brown in the old days, when he was still fighting.

[JDPriestly]

134. The Senate is not a good environment for true leaders.

The members are rewarded for playing the game, for not rocking the boat. Imagine, Dodd's threat to filibuster the amnesty for telecommunications companies provisions was considered to be courageous. If you stop to think, you realize that act should have been the rule, not the exception.

[Richard Steele]

3. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

4. Edwards could speak out Now, why is he silent on this issue

"...The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil company would retain control of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oil fields, leaving the rest - including all yet to be discovered oil - under foreign corporate control for 30 years." All in all, a pretty sweet deal for the U.S. and trans-national corporations, paid for in part thus far by the sacrifice of nearly 4,000 American troops and countless thousands of Iraqis, a necessary cost of doing business if you don't mind havin gothers get their hands bloody..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2665314

[Cobalt-60]

24. Corporations didn't pay the cost

we have.

[slipslidingaway]

93. Exactly and yet there is silence on this issue, fighting years later

does nothing for the people who are being harmed now, nor does it ultimately make our country safer.

But it could make some people richer.

[bvar22]

95. Not ENTIRELY silent.

Dennis Kucinich speaks out on this issue, and correctly calls it a "War Crime".

[slipslidingaway]

101. Why is Edwards silent? I know that Kucinich has spoken against

out against the oil companies.

[lisainmilo]

117. Edwards has NOT been silent about "Big Oil" .

:shrug:

<snip>

Addressing his flock of followers, Edwards insisted that he would fight the oil industry, and their profiteering on home heating oil.

“America's dependence on oil not only leaves families vulnerable to rising prices, but it compromises our national security and fattens the pocketbooks of greedy oil companies,” he screamed. “This obsessive need to provide energy and make a profit has got to stop now! Send me to Washington and I’ll make it all go away!”

Edwards told the mob that six of the oil industry's biggest companies had raked in over $477 billion in profits over the past six years.

He also said that Exxon Mobil set a new record by raking in $40 billion in profits last year. “No other corporation has ever made an annual profit of that size,” he yelled, “and it’s all Bush and Cheney’s fault!”

“There are two America’s,” he fired. “And I want to take away Rush Limbaugh’s America. Put me in office, and I guarantee Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton will never fill up their limousines again.”

Edwards also noted that he would do everything within his power to take all of the profits from big oil, and every rich, homophobic, sexist conservative along the line.

He also stated that he would cut government subsidies to oil companies. “The oil companies write off approximately $2 billion per year in costs associated with drilling. We’re going to take all of that away.”

And in a final appeal to the undecided voters, he said that as a successful trial lawyer, he gave his clients hope and won case after case because he was right, and didn't give up. He says he'd bring those same traits to the White House.

“As the President of the United States I will be in a position to appoint those judges willing to take from big oil, from people like Rush Limbaugh, and from the establishment people like Hillary Clinton. As your President, I will make this one America, an America reliant on government.”

<snip>

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=17446


He also has not been silent about the war profiteers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLWqx7ILeqY






Hope that answers any questiosn :)

[slipslidingaway]

120. Thanks, but it does not answer the question on why he remains

silent on the draft Iraq Oil Law that was a benchmark in the last funding bill.

This is a bill we have pressured the Iraq government to enact, in the first supplemental bill (spring 2007) it went as far as to say that certain aid for reconstruction would be withheld pending the passage of the bill by Iraq. That is when Edwards made the commercial about 'keep sending the bill back to Bush'.

I do not understand why Edwards' supporters ignore this issue while the people and labor unions in Iraq ask for our help.

From my vantage point one can say they will fight in the future, why not fight them now while this is happening and while one has the attention of American people?

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

135. Edwards has promised to withdraw the troops within his first year in office.

He does not need to discuss the Iraq Oil Law. He will simply withdraw the troops. The troops are left in Iraq to pressure the Iraqis into passing that law. Once the troops are out, the Iraqis may do as they wish.

[slipslidingaway]

149. Speaking out and fighting for people should take place when

injustices are happening IMO.

And if he does not win, or if the law is enacted prior to his taking office, then what?

He has an opportunity to bring this to the attention of the American people and the rest of the world NOW, he may not have that chance in the future. Then what...oops?

[asdjrocky]

159. Have you seen the video on the front page?

You know, at the very top? Do I have to get the link, or can you find it on your own?

[slipslidingaway]

163. THIS ISSUE...THE DRAFT IRAQ OIL LAW!

Excuse the caps, but it appears most are not answering the question as to why he remains silent on the draft oil law.

He could stand up for the people of America and Iraq now, instead he remains silent on this issue. The video you cite does not mention this proposed law and many Americans do not even know about it.


It's still about oil in Iraq
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-juhasz8dec08,0,4717508.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms...

All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.

We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil..."



Iraqi union leader urges opposition to oil law
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18475951.htm

"A proposed law regulating Iraq's oil industry would foster U.S. "hegemony" over the world's third largest oil reserves and Iraqi oil workers are determined to oppose it, an Iraqi union leader said on Monday.

Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, was speaking in New York as part of a U.S. tour to press for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.

Washington has been pressing Iraq's government to enact the law which the U.S. administration sees as a benchmark of progress toward national reconciliation more than four years after the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

Umara said the proposed law amounted to "a raid by the international oil cartel" and he said unions representing thousands of workers in the industry would take strong measures to oppose it, including strikes if necessary..."

[Breeze54]

5. It's shame he got so vehemently nasty with HRC...

That's going to cost some points and his trekking out of his Elizabeth's ailments is turning people off.

[bigtree]

6. trivial shit

Most folks want candidates to focus most of their energy and attention on them and on their issues and concerns. Both of the things you've listed have nothing to do with his appeal and are the product of media hype and manipulation.

[Breeze54]

8. No they aren't!! They are very much scutinized by the majority of voters...WOMEN!

Get a clue.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. This woman doesn't let the media give me my clues

I get them straight from the horse's mouths. That's why I'm voting for Edwards.

[JDPriestly]

136. Same for me, Viva_La_Revolution.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

154. Yer a woman!

:wow:

:rofl:

[JDPriestly]

157. Yes! I am, and I always have been.

[Cronopio]

121. He has criticized her qualifications for President, and has not attacked her as a woman.

The problem with Hillary isn't that she's a woman, it's that she's the wrong woman. Like Nancy Pelosi, and Margaret Thatcher.

Why? Because they play the same games corrupt men play. If Hillary were the right woman, she'd try to change Beltway politics, not fit in.

Edwards isn't about fitting in, he's about raising the level of the entire game.

[saracat]

7. He didn't but believe MSM if you like.And Hillary was nasty about the Sarakasians ans his clients.

These were not "imported "props " from sad newspaper stories".And Elizabeths story resonates with many of us.

[Breeze54]

9. I have no sway in this...I'm stating facts! He's turning people off big time.

That's a fact.

[Two Americas]

162. that is a lie

And I don't use that term casually. I saw Edwards' comments on video, and there is no way that they can be fairly characterized as "vehemently nasty." Yet the accusation persists, and could only get traction because most people did not see the video and just accept what people are saying about Edwards.

This is happening a lot in the campaign, and yes some Edwards supporters have done it as well. Any flimsy pretext is used for developing a lie, and then the lie is repeated and repeated until it has some presumed legitimacy. I have to wonder who is stirring this crap up among Democrats. All of the candidates are being victimized by this. Actually, all of us are being victimized by this, since all Democrats and the general public are the ones who ultimately lose.

Saying that Edwards is "trekking (sic) out of his Elizabeth's ailments" is mean-spirited and disgusting. I really think you should be ashamed of yourself to use these tactics against fellow Democrats.

[laconicsax]

10. Which Carolina is his home state?

Article says South Carolina. He was born in South Carolina, but raised in and lives in North Carolina. Wouldn't that sort of make North Carolina his home state?

[saracat]

11. Born in SC. but lived and worked in both. Attended Clemson and UNC.

[laconicsax]

94. He needs to decide which it is

North or South, pick a side, we're at war.
:sarcasm:

[OzarkDem]

131. What's to decide?

He was born in one state and lives in the neighboring one. Is he supposed to lie about that?

[MonkeyFunk]

12. If anybody in the race

has fought them over and over and beat them again and again, it's Hillary Clinton.

That's why I love her - she fights those bastarts and beats 'em every time.

[saracat]

13. Hillary's a fighter but she hasn't actually "beaten them.She had no real opposition in her Senate

run and she didn't beat the "corporations" who are being referred to in that quote, she represented them! She did survive the white water investigations and Travelgate but I wouldn't call that "beating"them.But she does try, and won't back down, that is a fact.

[EFerrari]

14. She has been a good defender of her own interests.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. She's beena good defender

of the interests of hundreds of millions. And the interests of America are indeed, our interests.

[EFerrari]

19. Really? Who are those millions? Not the millions killed or displaced

in Iraq. Or the millions affected by the welfare "reform" she was so hot to be in on? Or, those without health care today in America that her corporate big Pharma contributors are trying to squeeze? Is she defending the public from Rupert Murdoch's partisan warping of our free press?

Who exactly has she defended except Hillary?

I'll be honest. If you post an answer, I won't read it but maybe someone else will.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

82. Please give examples..

... HRC hasn't done JACK SHIT to reign in corporations. Who do you think you are kidding?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

23. Rudy had cancer and Lazio was a punk nobody.Hillary has done some good stuff

and I am liking her better but don't exaggerate.

[MonkeyFunk]

81. Hillary was tied with Lazio a few months

before the election. Don't YOU fib.

[ellisonz]

106. Which just demonstrates her polarization affect on the vote...

She might not be able to overcome it nationally.

[martymar64]

87. Yeah, that Hillary Health plan is sure working out, isn't it?

Oh wait, It never got off the ground because she capitulated the moment she got resistance from Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

Her motto should be, "If you can't beat'em, join 'em". She sure has joined them successfully and how!

[bvar22]

98. Hillary fights?

Well, at least she has proved she can take a punch.
As far as "fighting", I hardly consider triangulating as fighting.

Can you name any VICTORIES where Hillary took a STAND, fought the Republicans, and WON?:shrug:

The essence of triangulation:
If you can't beat them, join them!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[earth mom]

107. Hillary's beaten no one! Hillary is an a$$ kisser. What a joke!

:rofl:

[Joe Chi Minh]

109. You mean like the health care thang....? Pass.

[OzarkDem]

132. She's fought so passionately in the Senate, filibustering, twisting arms

well, not exactly.

[Two Americas]

167. she hasn't identified them

Or at least the enemy she identifies is not the same as many of us would.

I don't want to attack Senator Clinton. We have two different approaches in Clinton and Edwards. I think Edwards approach is the more powerful, but a good case can be made for Senator Clinton and sooner or later Clinton supporters and Edwards supporters will be working together - I hope!

The Republicans well know where the battle lines are. They know who their enemies are. They know what the fight is about. They are consistent, they never waver, and their hands are free to attack us. They know for whom they work and they do not betray their constituency - the wealthy and powerful few.

The Democrats have failed at all of those. That is why the interests of a tiny minority of people have been consistently and effectively advanced at the expense of 99% of the population, and why the Democrats have been so ineffective at protecting the rest of us.

I do not think that most Democrats understand the nature of the battle, where the battle lines are drawn, what the fight means and who the enemy is. They all will, eventually, and I don't hold it against Senator Clinton for being slow to understand this, since that is also true for almost all Democrats, politicians and their supporters.

You can't fight a battle when you don't know where the battle lines are while your opponent does. You can't fight a battle when your enemy refuses to compromise, yet you do compromise. You can't fight a battle when you can't identify the enemy and cannot perceive where the threat is.

We have many good people in the party including Senator Clinton. All she needs to do is to acknowledge the true fight we are in, what is at stake, and where the battle field is, and then commit to our cause, and she becomes the perfect candidate - maybe better than my choice. But until and unless Democrats face this reality, they are not of much help to us no matter how talented or brilliant they may be.

I believe that Senator Clinton is a fighter. I know she is brilliant and talented. But I do not know exactly what or whom she is fighting for, and we can’t afford guesswork on that anymore.

The moment Clinton commits herself to the principles and ideals of the Democratic party as represented by FDR, and the program that has always brought the party the greatest success, I will consider supporting her candidacy. So long as Edwards is committed to the principles and ideals of the Democratic party as represented by FDR, and the program that has always brought the party the greatest success, I am unwavering in my support for him. It is just that simple.

[Hoof Hearted]

16. THIS is why I can't get behind him. His incidental experience as a trial lawyer can only serve to

work against him in the GE. Among the viable 3, Edwards is the one who would have to spend the most time running against himself. He would still win the Presidency, but it would weaken his credibility, greatly.

He has won some very popular cases. I lived in Raleigh during the wading pool trial. He has since made it out to be a David vs. Goliath thing but the fact is Barney Fife could have litigated that case and the defendants still would have won a VERY substantial award.

None of his cases has been FOR THE PEOPLE without any extra compensation. Not one single para gratis. No, John Edwards practiced in the infamous accident/injury category of law, where they field and screen their cases carefully and take on only those that they are SURE will pay. This does not qualify as charity. It is symbiotic enrichment at best, and predatory service at worst.

And tell me, how does he plan to destroy all the corporations? A trebuchet, perhaps?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. 25 years of experience is "incidental"?

It appears other have a different opinion of the case you referenced...

In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half and referenced his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."<14> The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.<12> The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment<11> that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. It costs over $100K to prepare for a huge case like that.

People don't know that. The lawyer has to put out his own money for expert witnesses, court reporters, transcripts, investigators, all sorts of stuff. He is gambling that his case has merit. And if he doesn't get that money back and then some in a verdict, then he's gonna be out of business real soon.

Good lawyers don't take lousy personal injury/wrongful death cases. If it is a dog case, the judge can grant a Motion for Summary Judgment by the defense, if there are no issues of law or fact.

People need to be educated around here. They have been scared into believing the BS about "tort reform" and "lawsuit abuse". I've worked in the legal profession my entire working life and I know what a solid case looks like, and what a dog case looks like. I worked hard for my money and it was so stressful that I got hypertension and burnout even before I became forty years old.

Ford insisted on litigating with the Pinto gas tank explosion cases. They were hard headed and refused to spend $5 to modify the gas tanks to make it safer. But they spent millions on defense lawyers and got millions of dollars in bad publicity, too. Chevy had a problem with their gas tanks on early 1960s Malibus and Novas, but they settled those cases.

[Hoof Hearted]

29. Uh-huh. And WHAT was the return on that investment and what was charged to the client?

get back to me with that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. The client paid NOTHING.

The client doesn't pay for anything.

A staff of ten or twenty or more people would have to put in hundreds of hours investigating and preparing a case like that. Some lawyers do work hard, contrary to your opinion. You have no concept how intense court can be, or how hard the work is. There are many people working on many threads.

After the award is made, the fees are reimbursed to the lawyer and then he gets his one-third out of the settlement which is separate from the fees. Go back and read it.

So you think that this company who made the filter cover for the swimming pool, and did not make it so that it was adequately screwed down, and KNEW IT was not designed properly, should not have had to pay for the horror of a little girl who was trapped by the suction, sitting on the cover, and had most of her intestines sucked out of her anus, and will always be severely disabled, not to mention incredibly, unbelieveably traumatized?? Or that if she had died, that her family should not have been compensated for her company in a wrongful death suit? How much do you think the loss of a healthy child is worth, whether it be through death or severe disability?

You think a corporation should not be held responsible for what they KNEW was wrong? When they could have fixed the problem for a few cents or a few dollars on each filter cover?

Disgusting.


:banghead:

[Hoof Hearted]

37. Are you claiming that the wading pool client paid nothing? I want to get you on record.

Give me the go light!

[asdjrocky]

160. Hi.

You're kidding right?

[JDPriestly]

141. Thanks for your post, Perragrande. People have no understanding

of what lawyers do or why legal representation is so expensive. They would not believe the amount of work involved in prosecuting (or defending) a lawsuit. It not only takes time and money, but it takes enormous courage.

[Hoof Hearted]

28. Incidental = incident related . . n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

30. dictionary.com

in·ci·den·tal (ns-dntl)
adj.
1. Occurring or likely to occur as an unpredictable or minor accompaniment: the snags incidental to a changeover in upper management. See Synonyms at accidental.
2. Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature: incidental expenses.
n.
A minor accompanying item or expense: a pocket in the suitcase for incidentals.

[Hoof Hearted]

34. You're right but AMBULANCE CHASER just seemed so offensive.

I guess my point was lost, but that's OK too.

The way I've seen and watched it for about 14 years now? Edwards did all of his "fighting" for an absurdly healthy profit margin, the little guy is a means to an end.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

38. He doesn't chase after clients, they come to him...

as quoted in my previous post (which you obviously didn't read)
"The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases."

[Hoof Hearted]

41. As I said, Barney Fife could have litigated that case, and OF COURSE they come to him now.

How on EARTH does that make the process of cherry-picking cases among the desperate and poor, and eliminating the contenders down to only those you are reasonably certain to win an award - noble?

[saracat]

43. I dunno but his clients are campaigning for him and yeah, they call him noble.

In fact the mother of one of his clients said she chose him because of his integrity and compassion.She said she wasn't just her daughter lawyer but he was her champion! She said her daughter owed her life to Edwards.And BTW, her daughter was there as well. But I am sure you would know better than they!

[saracat]

46. And . for your information . no one "wanted " this case.Only John .And he was considered the best

Plaintiffs Attorney in the nation.He did a 6 hour closing with no notes. Lawyers came from all over the nation to listen when John did a closing.You are reprehensible.

[Hoof Hearted]

52. I was there sweets. There were plenty of lawyers ready to take it for "free"

You are uninformed. I am glad that the family chose Edwards.

[saracat]

55. And is the client also "uninformed" ?And you don't deny John's reputation do you?

[Hoof Hearted]

59. Yer not makin' a bit of sense. Which reputation would you like me to address?

Because some of them around Raleigh are less than flattering, but then again, I don't miss Raleigh that much.

what do you want?

[saracat]

63. The one he has as one of the best trail lawyers in the nation!

[Joe Chi Minh]

110. Silence came the stern reply. Why are they so inept when you take them to task?

[Binka]

53. Reprehensible Is Kind Sara n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

65. Why? I've repeated to the point of cyanosis that I admire Edwards work as a lawyer

I actually worked for the Raleigh News & Observer from be beginning of that horrific incident to the end. Almost anybody could have won a similar award because of the public sympathy starting form day one, when she went to the hospital and the whole community wondered if she would live. I guess you had to be there.

Searching to capitalize on it politically as an altruistic act? Seems wrong to me.

[Binka]

68. Is Your Thesaurus Stuck On Altruism? n/t

[Hoof Hearted]

70. You would do yourelf a better service by putting me on ignore again, you fickle thing. n/t

[Binka]

72. I'm An Enigma My Dear

Winds blow and Binka flows.

[Binka]

51. Jesus Now Edwards Is = To Barney Fife

:wtf: And the cherry picking meme is one that the RW loves to espouse. Your profile says you wish you had time for a hobby howz about going to the JC and taking a critical thinking class. Don't bother responding you and the Monkey are on ignore.

[Hoof Hearted]

58. Binka you're gong to need a thicker skin if you're goin' to make it out of middle school.

jus' sayin'.

When you get older you'll realize that there isn't anything WRONG with the FACT the accident and injury lawyers screen their cases. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. What is wrong, on the other hand, is pretending it is some kind of exercise in altruism.

[saracat]

61. Apparently you feel he should have worked for nothing? John has plenty of altruistic ventures that

he engaged in. His profession may not have been totally altruistic but neither is a doctors or anyone else's.No one, including John has ever said he practiced law as charity! But deserving people in need definitely benefited from his talents that otherwise would not have done so! And his clients are dedicated friends to this day. And having been raised in a family where everyone was a lawyer except me, I know that is not necessarily the norm, no matter how nice you are!

[Hoof Hearted]

67. No. I 'm going to boil it down to the simplest terms I can, and then go to bed.

I think JE is a fantastic lawyer, and that's a good thing.

I love lawyers, they are the backbone and the scapegoats of our society.

I'm very glad that JE got the wading pool case, but he wasn't by any means the only one wanting to take it on. It already had media exposure and sympathy. I'll admit, Barney Fife might have settled for a lower award.

I don't have a problem with JE making his due from the case.

I have a problem with JE supporters who espouse the idea that everything JE has done has been for the "little GUY" and the other candidates are just selfish, (in bed with the corporations) evil and bad. It's counterproductive.

Look beyond the speeches, the rhetoric, DU and the MSM. All three or our candidates are great. I'd be proud to support any of them.

[JDPriestly]

144. Hillary is also a lawyer -- a corporate lawyer

She sat on the Walmart board for many years During her tenure and after her tenure on that board (for which she was amply compensated, rest assured), Walmart discriminated against women in the workplace.

http://www.equalrights.org/professional/walmart.asp

Hillary did not help the women obtain justice. Plaintiff's attorneys are helping the women to get justice. So much for Hillary. She was not even concerned about the women working for Walmart when she sat on the board. Edwards was a people's lawyer Hillary was a corporate lawyer. 'Nuff said.

[Binka]

66. LOL I Took You Off Ignore Just To Read This Tripe

Both I repeat BOTH of my parents were lawyers. My mom didn't get into law until she was 49 but I grew up in a "lawyers club" if you will, my father was a JAG lawyer for over 30 years. Please stop with the bullshit about middle school as I am a grown woman and don't need that condescending crap. Who said anything about altruism? I will stick with the facts. Keep on your merry way my dear, Nebraska is quaint.

[Hoof Hearted]

69. You dichotomous creature you. A repeat post in your honor.

I think JE is a fantastic lawyer, and that's a good thing.

I love lawyers, they are the backbone and the scapegoats of our society.

I'm very glad that JE got the wading pool case, but he wasn't by any means the only one wanting to take it on. It already had media exposure and sympathy. I'll admit, Barney Fife might have settled for a lower award.

I don't have a problem with JE making his due from the case.

I have a problem with JE supporters who espouse the idea that everything JE has done has been for the "little GUY" and the other candidates are just selfish, (in bed with the corporations) evil and bad. It's counterproductive.

Look beyond the speeches, the rhetoric, DU and the MSM. All three or our candidates are great. I'd be proud to support any of them.

[Binka]

71. I Never Espoused The "Little Guy" Theory

I just support John over HRC and Obama. Good God I can not believe you are up at this hour, I am in CA and I should be in bed!

[Hoof Hearted]

73. Who the hell said I was in the states?

They don't actually tie us to the grain silos, ya know? Some of us hill folk make a break once in a while and escape the farm. Why some of us even travel the whole darn world, just like that Warren Buffet fellow.

[Binka]

74. Good God Damn Ya Travel Too

Can't fault you for that. I just came back to the States after 5 years abroad. 2 in the ME and 3 in Europe. What time zone are you in?

[Hoof Hearted]

75. As of now - I'm in the trazadone.

peace.

[Binka]

76. Know it well

Peace back at you.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

97. You have no idea how hard law school is, do you?

Or how hard plaintiff's lawyers work?

Law school is incredibly hard. My dad was an attorney and my mom typed for him. I grew up reading legal petitions and documents and advance sheets of new case law. And I worked at the courthouse and went to law school at night. And yet law school was still quite difficult and grim. It's 90 semester hours of HELL. I'd compare it to medical school in difficulty.

At least the one I went to was, and it it famous for cranking out excellent trial lawyers and judges. Students there have won so many trial and appellate debate contests, known as 'mock trial' and 'moot court', that the trophies have been retired and the contests stopped, because South Texas College of Law has won every year for many years. And there are about 170 law schools in the United States. South Texas started as a night school for working people, in the basement of the YMCA. Eventually they got their own building. They had a junior college that was a feeder school for the law school, because back in the old days (pre-1960s) you could go to law school with 60 hours of college under your belt and get a Bachelor of Laws. Then they changed it, that you had to have a bachelor's degree to get in, and they changed the degree to a Doctor of Jurisprudence. But it's always been 90 semester hours of HELL. My dad got a Bachelor of Laws there after WW II on the G.I. Bill. He worked and went to night school too. In fact he did rotating shift work at a stinkin' refinery and went to night school.

If you don't think he should be rewarded for his hard work, I have a problem with that. He could have had a cushy job working hourly for corporations as a defense lawyer. But he didn't want to do that. Nobody talks about the money the corporations spend on defense lawyers. Defense lawyers don't put thousands of dollars up front for research and discovery as a gamble on an award, like plaintiff's lawyers do.

I once was a party in a civil case where I had a dispute with an insurance company. We deposed the claims adjuster and he refused to define what a claims adjuster DOES, when he was asked in deposition. I was a defendant and a cross-plaintiff. My lawyer took the settlement and subtracted hourly fees for the defense part and took the fraction he got as a plaintiff's lawyer for me, and cut the plaintiff's fraction in half, so he wouldn't take so much of my settlement.

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. "All three or our candidates are great. I'd be proud to support any of them."

That has to be one of the most fatuous posts ever to appear on DU. Any Dem might feel obliged to vote for whoever wins the nomination, but if you say you'd actually be PROUD to support ANY of them, then the only reasonable conclusion is that you're sorely lacking in a sense of shame or indeed discrimination. Blanket approval, no matter what pole of the spectrum or none.

Such patronising twaddle beggars belief. Hillary is an unequivocal corporatist and Obama wants to make nice with people who scorn subpoenas, indeed, the rule of law, itself - and you'd be proud to vote for either of them! Or, indeed, for a man you have been trying so ineptly to disparage on here, whose priorities are squarely anti-corporatist; moreover, a man who knows you can't treat with people who have such a flagrant disregard for the law, as equals. They would be the OPPOSITION! Nasty word isn't it? But they don't think so. Just watch them.... Whatever the political conventions and social niceties, in politics and in war, opposition essentially means just that; not coaxing, not wheedling, not begging. Opposing.

And with such a discriminating brain, you expect us to believe you're a lawyer. If so, my deepest, deepest sympathies for your clients.

[JDPriestly]

145. It's not a matter of opinon. It is a fact that Hillary was a corporate

lawyer for a corporation that discriminated against women while Hillary sat on the company's board

http://www.equalrights.org/professional/walmart.asp

[Manifestor_of_Light]

39. The family and victim have NO OTHER WAY to make the responsible party pay for damages.

That is the only way to do it, to sue them and hit them in the bottom line. All that gets their attention is money, and being awarded lots of it by a jury of your peers. 12 people who believe the plaintiff is right by a preponderance of the evidence.

If Edwards was an ambulance chaser, he'd be broke, because he'd be shelling out for dog cases.

[Hoof Hearted]

49. You don't get it, and that's O.K.

I admire GREATLY the work Edwards has done as a lawyer and frankly I think that is his best avenue if he can't make Attorney General, I think he was born to fill that position and I hope he makes it.

It's offensive and simple-minded however to say that our other candidates don't care or that only JE has really "fought" for us. He's fought, but it was never a self sacrificing "for the people" kinda thing. It was at best, symbiotic. That doesn't make him a bad guy, until he starts to make himself out to be this poor mill boy who didn't have a dime in this world but FOUGHT FOR YOU, with nary a mention of his returns.

I think I'm done with this. Maybe you had to be there during the case. I cheered for that family when the award came in. I'm just going to leave it there.

[saracat]

Delete

[saracat]

Delete

[saracat]

57. Did you also Cheer for Hillary when she repped Walmart? Oh that right she only did contracts!

[Hoof Hearted]

60. I thought we were talking about Edwards? Are you pulling a Red Herring out of your fish basket?

Red Herring = Changing the subject. It's a fallacy of logic thing.

[saracat]

62. Sorry ,Saw your Hillary avatar and confused you with another poster!

[spooky3]

83. that's called POLITICS

Every candidate has to try to draw contrasts more sharply than you might prefer in order to get voters who aren't following the race extremely closely to see their differences. If you find that "offensive", then perhaps you are too sensitive. "Simple-minded?" Return to sentence 1. You're also over-stating what he has said. Clinton responded very effectively to what Edwards actually said about this during the debate, pointing out the ways she has worked for "the little guy." Of course the media jumped all over her in a sexist way following that response, but that's for another thread. Clinton's response is the right way to address Edwards' arguments--with facts rather than personal attack and RW spin about what Edwards does.

Your Barney Fife argument reminds me of a time back in the 70s when a group of mostly male co-workers and I were discussing the Indy 500 car race, over lunch. Janet Guthrie was the first woman driver of note. She didn't win but did reasonably well in the race. However, one guy said, "anyone else would have WON with that car. It was the best car in the field." My reply: "Are you honestly saying that (insert names of wealthy, successful male drivers here) would have permitted someone else to obtain "the best car"? How could she possibly have done that?"

It is simply untrue that there is "nary a mention of his returns." You've listened to all of his speeches, start to finish, have you? Well, I have not, but I have frequently heard him talk about how fortunate he has been that he has had opportunities to make a good living, and that he is working to try to get the same opportunities for everyone else. That is a key theme of his campaign.

I am amazed that someone had to explain to a (former?) reporter how contingency fees work, especially if you were actually in Raleigh at the time of this famous case. As for your inconsistent statements about your "admiration" for him as a lawyer vs. dissing the work he did and the claims you say he makes about it: anyone who knows anything about legal specializations knows that if someone with his abilities had wanted to maximize his income and have an easier life, he would have gone into any of a number of specializations representing corporations. With the same level of ability, those attorneys make far more money, with far less risk to themselves and far more assistance and perks, than a personal injury lawyer.

If you want to have the "last word", be my guest, but don't expect to persuade anyone with falsehoods and stretches.

[Hoof Hearted]

50. .

.

[Two Americas]

103. that is wonderful

I will gladly volunteer to be his "means to an end" if he can do for the poor in the country what he did for his clients. He has already done more just by speaking for the left behind than we have seen in a long while.

John Edwards - use me, please!

The ambulance chaser attack on Edwards is a right wing talking point, and can only hurt all of us. I can promise you that I will NEVER use right wing talking points to tear down any other Democrats. Will you join me in that promise?

[bpeale]

111. besides, a lot of so-called ambulance chasers (your terms not mine)

have gone on to become some of our finest judges. without lawyers, where would judges come from? judges have to know the law & have experience with the law.

[Two Americas]

165. yes

I thought someone else used that term in the thread - "ambulance chaser" - or I wouldn't have used it.

FDR worked for a high-powered law firm defending corporate and big business interests before his political career, and when he was first elected as a legislator in a very conservative district he was a reliable defender of the interests of his constituency. People change. If they didn't, there would be no point to politics. Politics is dynamic, it is not an exercise in shopping where we select our favorite product from off of the shelf. Politics is pragmatic, it is not a matter of adhering to doctrine and seeking a guru as though it were a religious exercise or personal spiritual seeking. Starting with a strong foundation of broad principles and ideals, we get our hands dirty and get to work. We don't sit back looking for the perfect candidate, nor do we sell out at every turn for the sake of winning.

Otherwise, we could just turn over the keys to the government to the wealthy and powerful and be done with all of the nonsense and stop making any pretense of democracy. This idea that we must choose between setting for the lesser of two evils and be practical OR be idealistic spells the death of creative thinking and inspiration as well as the death of any hope for practical success. Sometimes practicality is called for, sometimes idealism - both are needed and they do not contradict each other. Discerning which is which and when to do which is the art of effective and principled politics. The Republicans run circles around us on this.

In any case, it is not relevant what Edwards is - it is what he is doing that matters, and in politics what a politician says is the most important thing they do.

Most of the opposition within the party - relatively small, but disproportionately influential - relies upon a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of politics itself, not so much any meaningful opposition to Edwards.

"Choose your personal preference" has come to be the modern definition of democracy and politics, and that is no accident. The very way we look at politics limits our options and divides and alienates us, and marginalizes and suppresses the voice of the people. All Democrats should be interested in fighting against that, and be supportive of any efforts in that direction.

"Choose your personal preference" is a marketplace consumerist approach to life. Edwards will never measure up favorably as a personal preference choice, because that is not what his campaign is about.

"Support the powerful and growing team that promises to dramatically shift the entire political context, and help us in that effort" is the reason to support Edwards. Everything else is a distraction, and we have had enough distraction over the last 3 decades.

[bpeale]

166. wow! thank you so much for giving a voice to what i could not express

this is my reason for supporting Edwards.

[JDPriestly]

143. The lawyer who works on a contingency fee or on the promise of

a percentage of the judgment usually takes only a very small amount of money up front -- sort of earnest money, just to cover a few costs. In California, the client has to pay the costs, but if the case is handled on contingency, the attorney is uaually paid only if he or she wins. If the attorney loses, the attorney gets no pay whatsoever and is out the costs of the representation. It is a very risky business. You have to believe in what you are doing. I would suggest you read the book A Civil Action.

One of the saddest things about being a lawyer is that you work very, very hard to attain justice and then people like you, Hoof Hearted, show no appreciation. I hope you never need a lawyer. You are in for some surprises if you do.

Hillary sat for something like 10 years on the board of Walmart. During that time, Walmart discriminated against women and was a terrible employer.

Attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of female Walmart employees. Here is part of the New York Times' report at the beginning of the suit;

The lawsuit, filed in 2001 in federal court in San Francisco, focuses largely on one statistic compiled by plaintiffs' experts: in 2001, the suit claims, women made up 65 percent of Wal-Mart's hourly employees but only 33 percent of its managers.

The suit also claims wide disparities in pay. In a study released early this month, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University at Hayward hired by the plaintiffs' lawyers, found that full-time women hourly employees working at least 45 weeks at Wal-Mart made about $1,150 less per year than men in similar jobs, a 6.2 percent gap. Women store managers, he found, made an average of $89,280 a year, $16,400 less than men.

In another expert's report, William T. Bielby, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, found that women make up 89.5 percent of Wal-Mart's cashiers, 79 percent of department heads, 37.6 percent of its assistant store managers and 15.5 percent of its store managers. The lawsuit claims that among 20 other large retailers, 57 percent of the managers were women. Hourly jobs at Wal-Mart pay an average of about $18,000 a year, while the average managerial job pays $50,000. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEEDB103AF935A25751C0A9659C8B63


Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores

The Wal-Mart case casts a glaring light on two formidable barriers women still face in the workforce: the wage gap and the glass ceiling. This lawsuit has already brought important changes to Wal-Mart’s workers including women recently hired into senior staff positions, a new job posting systems for Manager in Training positions, and wide-scale pay structure adjustments.

The Wal-Mart case gives “wage disparity” a woman’s face and in so doing, helps other women, particularly low-wage women earners, to see themselves as potential victors for their rights in the workplace. In this time of a widening—not a shrinking—wage gap, and increasing rates of women’s poverty, this case is not just well-timed. It is essential.

On February 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision certifying a class consisting of all women employed at Wal-Mart’s U.S. facilities any time since December 26, 1998 to the present. The Ninth Circuit described the case as “the largest certified class in history.” In upholding San Francisco District Court Judge Martin Jenkins’ decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that plaintiffs “present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support Plaintiffs’ contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination.”

http://www.equalrights.org/professional/walmart.asp

What was Hillary doing for women on the WalMart board? Collecting money for herself for serving on that board? Why wasn't she speaking up for women while serving on that board? Why didn't she resign in protest at the terrible discrimination taht occurred on her watch?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Awesome Snip And Return Response.

Thanks for that. Makes ya feel proud of him, don't it?

[martymar64]

89. Hillary would've represented the pool drain makers in that case.

She would never have taken the case for the plaintiff, no money up front, ya know. She would've happily taken the case for the manufacturers.
She's a corporate lawyer through and through. Her work with Walmart is a prime example, it just shows that she will side with corporations even at the expense of people's lives.
Remember her line "Lobbyists are people too"?
Name one time that she has EVER stood up against the Corporate Establishment and won.

[mzmolly]

92. Abe Lincoln was a "trial lawyer."

Also, the plan is not to "destroy" corporations, thank goodness! It's to return the Government to the PEOPLE.

[bvar22]

99. "destroy all the corporations"

Typical.

Edwards has never said or implied that he will "destroy all corporations".

Unlike your conservative candidates, Edwards has acknowledged that Corporations have a strangle hold on our government, and has promised to fight this stranglehold.

He has also said that Corporations are not bad, the problem is "Corruption". He has promised to fight "Corporate Corruption". (also unlike your candidates).


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[OzarkDem]

128. GOP bashing of trial lawyers is so passe

it no longer resonates with ill informed voters. They could give a rats ass about medical malpractice reform this time around. Voters are interested in economic issues, jobs.

The med mal dog don't hunt no more.

[JDPriestly]

138. Hillary will bring out every right-wing fanatic, fundamentalist voter there is.

They absolutely despise Hillary. They do not dislike Edwards.

Edwards has a great rapport with rural America. He can draw disaffected Republicans. Hillary cannot.

Crazy as it may sound, lots of Americans actually believe that the Clintons killed a bunch of people. It is insane, but then think of the numbers of Americans who do not believe in evolution.

[cali]

18. He may fight, but he's not fighting smart

and he's losing, and he'll get beat in SC. If he manages to get 20%, he'll have done well. And he'll lose in NV as well. He'll go into Super Tuesday without a single win, and he'll emerge the next day in the same condition.

[saracat]

25. Do you really have nothing better to do than troll Edwards threads to attack?

[cali]

26. typical of you. I post in many different threads

your sainted candidate does not have special status to protect him from criticism here at DU. And considering the large number of posts by Edwards supporters criticizing my candidate, I have no problem making comments about Edwards.

[saracat]

31. The point being this thread and many that you jump in have nothing to do with Obama!

[cali]

32. so what?

you're not the thread police, dear. I'll post where I wish to, as will you.

[saracat]

33. Nah.I don't jump in Obama threads. Haven't the time!

[cali]

35. now, now. Don't forget the ENDLESS posts you made bashing

Clinton before you put on your halo.

[saracat]

40. Hey, still no fan of Hill but this isn't about Hill.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. Hillary was a corporate lawyer. BIG difference between the two.

She represented corporations and was on the board of Wal-Mart.

[saracat]

44. I agree absolutley.You make my agrument for me! Thanks!

[Seabiscuit]

77. It's pretty funny

seeing someone I admire and agree with (you) arguing with "ignored". LOL!

Several threads over the past week have given me golden opportunities to put dozens of such Obamazombies (you know, the trolls) on "ignore".

[bigtree]

84. yet, he's doing what we should expect from our candidates.

He's hanging in the race and giving voice to the issues he cares about. The token 'economic plan' that Clinton came forward with yesterday is a weak imitation of what Edwards has been proposing all along, but now that the economy is emerging as the major concern with voters, there will be an opportunity for Edwards to appeal to those voters and, perhaps, continue to pressure the others to begin to address these issues as well with the same intensity and commitment. That's what's gained by pressing forward, despite the polls, which really haven't been as reliable as you imply.

He's also, not really that far behind yet in the delegate count, with many states issuing them proportionally to the votes cast.

[AzDar]

45. Give 'em hell, John!

[saracat]

47. Go Edwards, the Peoples President!

[Nailzberg]

48. I love Edwards.

Edwards or Obama are the only real choices in this. I'm going Obama, because I've had more experience with him, but I think either one would bring some real change to the current political climate. I would love to see a ticket with both of them. Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards. Either way would be a drastic change in the right direction.

Even better than a VP spot, I'd love to see one as President, and the other as Attorney General, a post that can really make a difference. Both have qualities that shift the focus of the justice department to protecting the American people.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

56. Obama is too vague. Edwards is very specific.

Obama wants to sit down and talk with the other side and negotiate.

Edwards says "You can't make nice with these people. It doesn't work."

Obama does not understand the evil or else he's bought off by lobbyists, or both.

[bpeale]

112. what kind of lawyer was Obama anyway? anybody have anything on

his record as a lawyer?

[elizfeelinggreat]

133. I'm interested

in hearing this also.

I admire what John Edwards has done in his law career and would be interested in hearing what Obama has accomplished in this regard, also.

Thanks!

[bpeale]

161. SO WHERE ARE THE OBAMA FANS ON THIS QUESTION???

i'm sure a lot of people would like to know what kind of lawyer obama was. or didn't he ever practice and win a case? or didn't he pass the bar? enquiring minds want to know.

[Common Sense Party]

54. Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it

No one wants to be defeated

[and-justice-for-all]

64. "He wants to bring everybody together. The drug companies. The insurance companies. The oil companie

..." I thought it was US policy that we did not negotiate with terrorist?

[SammyWinstonJack]

86. ...

:thumbsup:

[deacon]

78. kick and highly recommend. n/t

[Triana]

79. I need a hero...

I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the end of the night
he's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast
and gotta be fresh from the fight ...


yea - corny - old Bonnie Tyler song.

[Pachamama]

85. We need a fighter for our causes....Edwards is in my opinion going to be the only one to do this!

I think he's right about Obama...and its not a knock on Obama, I like Obama and would happily vote for him and I personally hope to see an Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket.

But I think that Edwards is spot on about Obama and the "nice guy" and "conciliatoroy approach" of trying to bring everyone to the table. It sounds nice, it sounds all kumbaya, but the reality is that it won't work and they would eat Obama with their corporate wheaties.

I swear, the more I see the media pundits (take Lawrence O'Donnell and his "Edwards is a Loser" post on the Huffington Post) or see Tweety on Hardball or any of these other shills calling for Edwards to give it up or supporters of Edwards to move aside for Obama or Hillary, it just makes me more committed to Edwards and to donate to him.

Just in the last 10 minutes as I posted this and another couple of comments in threads about Edwards, I found myself with another urge to donate to him. I even got an email asking if I could help in the upcoming Nevada primary, and I think I will offer to do phone calls for him...I want John to take it all the way... :kick:

[robinlynne]

90. Votes are machine counted. I wager MCCain will win the Dem primary.

[krabigirl]

91. It's good that he's drawing a comparison between himself and Obama.

[DemGa]

96. We have a fighter right before our eyes

That which so many of us have asked for, and now he trails in the polls?

Something is wrong here, folks.

[Didereaux]

100. To win anything...he is going to HAVE to use the same anger on more issues than just one.

[Two Americas]

104. disagree

To win he needs to do exactly what he is doing - fight for a context of traditional and universal Democratic principles and ideals within which we can fight for all of the important causes.

It is the playing field that is skewed. On that playing field, all of our causes struggle. It is skewed because it has been manipulated and controlled by the few for their benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

It is time to stop the futile exercise of speaking truth to power, and instead to speak the truth to the powerless and together to take the power away from the few. We cannot advance any of the causes without power. We cannot restore the power to the people without being willing to do battle with those who have declared war on us and who have stolen power.

Power is not in the hands of the Republicans, it is in the hands of their employers. We cannot work for those same employers, nor support politicians who do, and have any hope of political progress. The evidence that this is true has accumulated over the last 30 years until it is a mountain, undeniable and unavoidable. Until and unless this fundamental problem of power - who has it and who does not - is addressed, we will be trapped in an endless cycle of failure and futility. Edwards is addressing it. That is a powerful start. We either rally to that call, or we let the opportunity slip away. Powerful forces are hoping that we will let it slip away.

[puebloknot]

119. Succinct and absolutely true.

We've seen the results of the Dems we elected in 2006 "making nice" with Bush, et al. They are selling us right down the river, to use a worn but useful cliche.

"It is time to stop the futile exercise of speaking truth to power, and instead to speak the truth to the powerless and together to take the power away from the few." If John Edwards isn't using this exact phrase, he should be. Power knows our truth already, and doesn't give a tinker's damn about anything but control of resources, and enriching the coffers of the few.

Welcome to DU. Great post.

[smokey nj]

114. K&R!!!

[butterfly77]

116. As I have said before...

I don't see it. I believe he is the weakest of the three.

[mother earth]

129. Is there really any more we need to know!???!!! What a man!

K & R

JOHN EDWARDS ALL THE WAY! RIGHT TO THE DNC FLOOR IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES!:yourock:

[avaistheone1]

130. Edwards makes me proud!

At least there's is one candidate that is making this campaign about the Ameican people.

And is willing to show real courage.

[Binka]

137. See My Thread Peyton & I Stumping For John Today In GD

I took my 6 year old and walked and talked John all day. I have been in sales all my life the thought of knocking on doors does not frighten ME!

[Nutmegger]

139. R&K!!!

Edwards 2008!!!

[B Calm]

140. Here's a man with a vision, how in the hell can you not support him!

[7horses]

147. Give em hell John...

I'm voting for a fighter... go John go!!!

[stravu9]

150. John WILL Win!

We Cannot survive if he doesn't.
GO, John, Go!
We LOVE you and Elizabeth!

[whatdoyouthink]

153. Stravu9

Welcome

Go Johnny Go

[helderheid]

164. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[Major Hogwash]

168. That should get you 5 minutes in the penalty box.

This forum has become like a hockey game - a fight was going on when a game broke out.

LoL

There's been a lot of high sticking and hooking going on here lately, too, I've noticed.

I'm going back to the bench.

[redqueen]

169. "He wants to bring everybody together. The drug companies. The insurance companies.

The oil companies. Bring them to the table. And make a deal," Edwards said. "I just don't think that works."

That's the way I see it, too.