Did we learn ANYTHING from John Edwards?

[reddread]

I thought it was very instructive.
Candidates (more than one at the time, they ALL knew)
will ignore, or disregard the ultimate reality in pursuit of a selfish dream or cooperative effort meant to benefit something besides the common interest.

In spite of reality and the ultimate discovery of UNACCEPTABLE betrayals that will be played as cards before the election is over.

Is that the sort of election we should settle for?
John Edwards had one particular affiliate in that primary and those "debates"

It cant happen here. again.

How do you feel about a Clinton/Edwards ticket in 2016?

[CTyankee]

1. Edwards was one of the biggest political frauds in our modern day in this country.

And I fell for it for a short time during the 04 campaign and after. I had believed that he was honestly trying to represent the poor and when the rumors started coming out about his fraudulence I at first refused to believe them.

NEVER again. That experience was too painful...

[lame54]

8. he had a sex scandal...

doesn't mean his advocating for the poor and middle class was not sincere

[reddread]

10. let alone disowning a child

sincerity should never be in question.
Maybe it isnt his?

[CTyankee]

20. that, too, was a fraud, I found out later, much to my sorrow...

It wasn't the affair, per se, that made me so mad. It was the incredible hypocrisy of his posing as the loving husband to his gravely ill wife while cheating on her. I guess I hate hypocrisy more than just infidelity. Nobody forced him to take up with another woman. He is responsible for his actions.

[oberliner]

26. He was indicted for using campaign funds to cover up an affair

That's a little more serious than just a sex scandal.

[joshcryer]

31. Are you kidding me?

I caucused for him. The betrayal was enormous. Let's say he somehow won the nomination. He would've lost the election!

[karynnj]

35. Why did he vote for the awful bankruptcy bill in 2001?

This even though Elizabeth was a bankruptcy lawyer, who would have known the ramifications better than many others.

[VScott]

2. Yes... don't get caught.

Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.

[Hari Seldon]

3. that Democrats can't be unfaithful

without destroying their careers ( see Spitzer, Eliot )

while Republicans can usually claim weakness, ask forgiveness and move on (see Vitter, David )

[reddread]

4. Bill Clinton got by

I agree with your point, though.
Although comparing Edwards behavior to anyone else
would surely be a deadly insult.

[CTyankee]

21. Oh, god, now you've done it! Gotta bleach my brain...I can see him with those

black socks and nothing more on his white, pasty body...

[Renew Deal]

22. Eliot Spitzer was hiring prostitutes while Attorney General and governor.

That is illegal in NY. It wasn't just a cheating scandal.

[oberliner]

28. That is total BS

He was not just unfaithful to his wife. Edwards used campaign funds to cover up his affair.

I would also argue that Democrats are unfaithful frequently with no negative impact on their careers.

[karynnj]

36. Add in that Edwards' main asset was that he and Elizabeth were seen as nice

Spitzer and Clinton who were other examples had a record of achievement. Edwards' pluses were all based on his image --- and when that image was shattered, what reason was there to help him fix it?

[Frustratedlady]

5. No, plain and simply. eom

[wyldwolf]

6. What point are you trying to make?

[reddread]

9. English is the only language I really know

best I can do.

[wyldwolf]

11. seriously, what is your point?

Are you comparing Edwards to Hillary? If so, you've done piss-poor job of it.

[reddread]

12. im sorry

maybe you can walk me through the scenario where
no more bimbo eruptions threaten havoc with the process?

Is this remedial school where childish bullshit comes first?

[wyldwolf]

13. OH... ok.

1. Bill Clinton is the most popular politician in the world.
2. As 'progressives' are so fond of saying whenever the two are compared, Hillary isn't Bill.
3. A better political comparison might be Edwards / Warren. Like Edwards, Warren talks a good game (the language 'progressives' looooove) without ever actually doing anything meaningful and despite the company they formerly kept.
4. Your use of 'bimbo' says a lot about you.
5. I suppose by your reasoning RFK and Teddy should have never run for office.

[reddread]

15. opportunistic Cheepnis or intellectual vacuity?

1. thats damned faint praise.
2. She is tied to him, period. up IS up.
3. You still seem to lack any idea what the issue is. How disconcerting.
4. that is the lamest, sorriest effort I have personally experienced. congratulations,
5. is that as high as you can count?

[wyldwolf]

16. whatever you want to call it

If she's tied to him, she's tied to his popularity and the reasons for it.

It's pretty apparent your OP hasn't gotten the reaction here you hoped it would so you want to resort to childish replies. Yeah whatever. At least shit like yours will be deleted in a few months. Have fun while you can. The adults have an election to win.

[reddread]

32. lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala you cant hear me!

the same "adults" that got us here? Exactly the problem, isnt it?
your first sentence was so completely wrong,
dishonest or blind, its not worth going on.
peace out.

[wyldwolf]

33. apparently no one else can, either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. You shouldn't accuse anyone else of 'childish bullshit' when you reply like that

I now think your entire purpose for this thread was to talk childish bullshit. You appear to be attacking Hillary Clinton on the basis that John Edwards cheated on his wife and covered it up. That is childish bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

24. "You appear to be attacking Hillary Clinton..." Where have I done anything resembling that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I replied to reddread, not to you

Your posts are fine. Indeed, you have revealed the true colours of reddread.

[wyldwolf]

27. ah, apologies. Misread your reply.

[reddread]

37. with TIA, do you think there isnt a comprehensive file on Bill Clinton?

one that lacks similar stories to exploit?
and does all of that sound unrealistic when dealing with
Jeb and the Bush familia?

I seriously doubt they need to exploit that.
but others would.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. You don't deserve an answer (nt)

[Thor_MN]

19. I really didn't know what the OP was about either.

Sorry, but it was vague and wandering.

[tammywammy]

7. The guy that worked for a hedge fund to learn about poverty?

Just last week, we learned that Edwards received $55,000 to give a speech, "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America," at UC Davis. The poor students who attended were charged $17 a ticket. Earlier this month, it was reported that despite the fact he denounces "predatory lending" and sub-prime mortgages for the poor, Edwards made nearly $500,000 as a consultant to a hedge fund involved in that business.

The former senator defended his gig on the grounds that he took the job to learn how financial markets relate to poverty. This is a bit like saying you frequent brothels so you can learn where babies come from. But here's the hilarious part: Edwards said he didn't know the fund was involved in sub-prime lending. If he was there to learn about poverty and finance, how did he miss this salient fact? He must be a very slow learner. No wonder his former political consultant, Bob Shrum, calls him "a Clinton who hadn't read the books."

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg29may29-column.html

[Frank Cannon]

17. Um... riiiight...

[dawg]

18. I learned that some smart people are able to charge big bucks ...

for some pretty bad haircuts.

[gwheezie]

29. A Clinton Edwards ticket?

What on earth are you talking about? Why would hillary put Edwards on the ticket?

[karynnj]

30. Even before he met his mistress, he was a TERRIBLE VP nominee. Why would HRC pick him?

Not one of the Kerry people from 2004, who all knew Edwards well went to support or join his campaign when Senator Kerry decided against a 2008 run.

Part of the reason is that he was a very vain, dishonest man, who really did not do what the campaign asked him to do. He would tell the campaign that he would take on the Republicans or defend John Kerry -- then not do that and worse have the chutzpah to tell the media the campaign thought him "too valuable" to be an attack dog. Any idea that this charismatic former lawyer would use his skills for the ticket ignored that he was so self centered that he thought doing so could hurt him in a potential 2008 bid.

How many VPs can you think of that later referred to refusing to use the campaign's slogan "help is on the way" as if it were a profile in courage of standing up for what he believed in - which was "hope is on the way". Ignoring that at that point, hope should have been there -- not on the way, the bigger problem was that the campaign was criticized for the two similar slogans.

In addition, what we should have learned from Edwards, was not to fall for good looks combined with wide open eyes telling people something they wanted to hear --- that did not match what he ran on in 2004 or his Senate record which was similar to Evan Bayh's. The really sad thing is that there are STILL some pundits that argue that that message was true and important and who seem so lacking in history awareness that they don't see his words as derivative of those of Democrats from Cuomo, Humphrey, FDR and many others. In fact, I remember Prosense making a case that Edwards' 2008 words were great -- if his record had been that of John Kerry or Barack Obama.

The real lesson of Edwards is that a good campaign focus group can develop a set of positions that define a candidate. In 2008, with HRC sure to run, the only opening was on the left. Edwards, with a pretty conservative record, set out to fill that slot. The one thing he did not do - which I actually am surprised by - is that he did not even try to give a speech explaining what made him shift so drastically on the political spectrum. (It could be done -- imagine how Al Gore would have convincingly done just that.) I suspect from that that his team saw Edwards as the front man, the "lawyer" before the court of public opinion or the actor. Only the present "show" matters.

[reddread]

34. tongue in cheek flashback to 08

they were chummy under interesting circumstances. serious folks.
that she would have triangulated with Edwards (under better circumstances) seems plausible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2915855

if the candidate and campaign and supporters ARE UNPREPARED to deal with old business,

http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/tale-of-two-political-spouses.html

http://enikrising.blogspot.com/2012/04/edwards-and-clinton-experience.html

and factor those issues into realistic consideration
and not just blind ambition,

thats on them.

[CentralMass]

38. Absolutely not. IMO, Edwards has to reach up to touch the curb in the morning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. "How do you feel about a Clinton/Edwards ticket in 2016? "

It lacks balance.

[JI7]

41. Edwards joined a hedge fund to learn about poverty