What separates JRE from the other candidates?

[lisainmilo]

The difference is the Healthcare, Energy Plan, and he does not take any money from the lobbyist. But, it is also more than that, I believe. John Edwards gets to the ROOT of the problems our country faces. He knows, as the corporations continue to make RECORD profits, including the war profiteers, yet they also continue leaving the United States for cheaper labor destroying industrial,textile, and manufacturing jobs here. John Edwards will hold these corporations accountable and do what is necessary to promote job growth and the and promote the middle class. He has not taken a dime from these guys and owes them nothing, unlike his opponents. This allows him to TRULY make the changes necessary for the middle class with no purse strings attached.
The others can talk about change, but in accepting lobbying (corporate monies) they now are doing the bidding for the corporations and not the people. They may try to negotiate with them, but since they are financed by them, the ground work for change is just a bandaid. We don't need a bandaid right now, we need REAL CHANGE, as the headlines tell us today, we are in a recession. The housing market will continue to drop. Unemployment continues to rise. The value of the dollar continues to be at risk. Gasoline/Oil prices continue to soar. That is why we need John Edwards for real solutions, he not the glitz, he is not the old school politician. John Edwards is the right man for the right time.....

[KennedyGuy]

1. Then why won't he mention the "O" word.Obama?

[lisainmilo]

2. Kennedy....not sure that has anything to do with OP

Did you read it?

[redqueen]

16. I don't think the force is with that one. (nt)

[nancyharris]

3. What will John Edwards do

to prevent corporations from making "record" profits? How much profit does he think corporations should be able to make? What will he do to create manufacturing jobs in the United States?

[Luminous Animal]

10. You could go to Edwards web site to get answers...

But I think the better question is, what will we do as citizens, voters, and progressives to fight with Edwards to roll back corporate hegemony?

[nancyharris]

49. There is nothing on the Edwards' site that explains HOW

he will prevent corporations from making "record" profits or how much profit does he think corporations should be able to make or what will he do to create manufacturing jobs in the United States.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Presumably we live in a democracy.

Certainly we can put limits on fictional entities. There are already laws that restrict "windfall" profits and war profiteering. Unfortunately, they've been weakened and are rarely enforced. Strengthening laws that protect worker's rights and modifying or repealing laws that weaken collective labor rights will help to retain manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

Some of John's ideas are here: (I'm at work or I'd have the time to link to more.)
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071026-corporate-responsibility/

[nancyharris]

82. Actually, we live in a representative republic

not a democracy.

There are no laws on "windfall profits" or "war profiteering". If you think there are, I would love to see them.

You say: "Strengthening laws that protect worker's rights and modifying or repealing laws that weaken collective labor rights will help to retain manufacturing jobs in the U.S. "

I agree. But What laws is Edwards going to strengthen and what laws will he repeal? Is he going to require a Union workforce for all American employers? Is he going to require all workers to join a union? How will strong Unions create manufacturing jobs??????

[lisainmilo]

11. he wants a strong middle class...his plan....

This is how he plans to do that

"I believe we cannot go on as Two Americas—one favored, the other forgotten—if we plan to stay productive, competitive and secure. I want to live in an America where we value work as well as wealth. I know that together we can build One America – a place where everyone has a fair shot at the American Dream." -- John Edwards

In America today, families are working harder to get by. Over the last 20 years, American incomes have grown apart: 40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top 1 percent. The top 300,000 individuals now make more than the bottom 150 million. Thirty-seven million Americans—including more than 9.3 million of working-age—live in poverty. The result is Two Americas, one struggling to get by and another that has everything it could want.

John Edwards believes we have to build One American Economy—where everyone has the opportunity to work hard and build a better life. He will restore respect for work to our tax code and cut taxes for working families. He will overhaul our weak labor laws to give workers a real right to organize.

Strengthen Labor Laws: Unions made manufacturing jobs the foundation of our middle class, and they can do the same for our service economy. That's why Edwards has helped more than 20 national unions organize thousands of workers over the last few years. Union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security. Federal law promises workers the right to choose a union, but the law is poorly enforced, full of loopholes, and routinely violated by employers. Edwards supports the Employee Free Choice Act to give workers a real choice in whether to form a union, and making penalties for breaking labor laws tougher and faster, so unions can compete on a level playing field and the right to join a union means something. Edwards also supports banning the permanent replacement of strikers so unions can negotiate fairly.

Enact Smarter Trade Policies: Trade deals need to make sense for American workers, not just corporations. Edwards will make sure any new trade agreements include strong labor and environmental standards and will vigorously enforce American workers' rights in existing agreements. He will also expand trade adjustment assistance to do much more for the workers and communities that are hurt by global competition and reform our international tax code to remove incentives for companies to move overseas.
Make Work Pay: Edwards will increase the reward for working by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2012, tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children and cutting the EITC marriage penalty. In 2001, a $1 increase in the minimum wage alone would have lifted an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty.

Protect Prevailing Wages: Edwards pledges to protect the Davis Bacon Act, which ensures that workers on federal construction projects receive the local prevailing wage. The Act prevents contractors from slashing wages in order to win federal contracts with low-ball bids. It was shocking when President Bush intervened to keep workers from earning a decent wage after Hurricane Katrina, but we must be vigilant every day against abuses.

Help Families Save and Get Ahead: Half of American families say they are living paycheck to paycheck, and three out of 10 American workers have not been able to save a dime for their retirement. Edwards will crack down on abusive lenders by creating a new Families Savings and Credit Commission to protect families and with strong national laws against abusive and predatory credit cards, payday loans and mortgages. Edwards will create Work Bonds to help families save and invest, providing financial safety nets for hard times. Work Bonds, a new tax credit of up to $500, would help low and moderate-income, working Americans save for the future.

More about the issues and how John Edwards stands:http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

[nancyharris]

50. EVERONE wants a strong middle class

None of what you have written answers my original questions to the OP. What will John Edwards' do to prevent corporations from making "record" profits? How much profit does he think corporations should be able to make? What will he do to create manufacturing jobs in the United States? These are things the OP said John Edwards was for. I am asking how will he do these things.

[lisainmilo]

76. Sorry, had to leave for a short time

I thought I had answered your questions...John Edwards is not taking any corporate monies, THEREFORE, his purse strings do not belong to the corporations, his purse strings are from the people ONLY (private donations) and he will be able to make the necessary changes needed for the people. The plan is posted in the first answer I gave you, (see above)

Hillary or Obama their presidency is tied to corporations and set them up as a negotiater much like a union leader may do the bidding between the corporation and the union. The changes needed are simply negotiated and may or may not FULLY be for the benefit of the people. That is why Trippi and Edwards continues to tell people if negotiating was going to work, it would have already worked.

John Edwards is NOT doing away with corporations, if that is your question. He will be able to make the necessary changes in law for the benefit of the people he represents....and that is the American People.

Leaving the corporations in control as they have been, has given them absolute power, they run our government, media, wars, prices, jobs, pensions....all of this has not been for the bemefit of the average worker or consumer. The laws necessary to get some "reins" on these greedy corporation s are most necessary. They are necessary because they are causing a collapse in our society economically and leaving us with holding the empty bag. Look at Enron and all the people affected. That is one example of a huge problem. It's the greed at the average workers expense.

I hope I answered your question. :)

[nancyharris]

80. You have not answered the question in the least

I know Edwards is not "tied" to corporate funding - but that doesn't answer the question. How is he going to prevent (as the OP has stated) "record" profits?

You say: "He will be able to make the necessary changes in law for the benefit of the people he represents....and that is the American People." - Wonderful! But HOW??? - Is that an unreasonable question? Is he going to place a cap on corporate profits? if so, how much? Is he going to tax corporations for earnings above a certain percent? - If so, how much? Is he going to make laws that require corporations to sell their products at a certain price? - pay their employees a certain wage? - Just what is it he is going to do?

You say: "Leaving the corporations in control as they have been, has given them absolute power, they run our government, media, wars, prices, jobs, pensions" - I agree. But what is John Edwards going to do? Is he going to remove control of the media from private enterprise? - Is he going to control wages? Is he going to control the hiring and firing of private enterprise employees? Is he going to nationalize all of the private pension funds? Just what is it he is going to DO?

I like Edwards - but I see nothing here except populist rhetoric.

[stickernation]

78. It's called REGULATION.

1. "What will John Edwards do to prevent corporations from making 'record' profits?"

Edwards is being misquoted by your question. MY corporation will make record profits under an Edwards administration, because I sell custom stickers and I believe millions of people will buy them from me over the next eight years. John Edwards is not going to prevent that in the least. So please don't sound this shrill when characterizing my candidate.

Insurance companies. Credit card companies. Oil companies. Pharmaceutical companies. Military-industrial complex companies. Weapons companies. Monopolists of all kinds. These are the companies that will be prevented, THROUGH REGULATION AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED (most of the laws are already on the books), from making 'record' profits.

If you aren't furious about these companies, I wouldn't really call you that Democratic.

They are CRIMINAL SYNDICATES, not just "corporations".



2. "How much profit does he think corporations should be able to make?"

When BAD things happen, like wars in Iraq, companies like Halliburton make MORE money.

This is a smoking gun pointing directly out of Dick Cheney's hand, right?

Halliburton should have every last cent of its profit stripped away from it, and its executives sent directly to Guantanamo.

Is that enough profit for you?

How about credit card companies? These executives, too, should be shipped to Guantanamo.

You catch my drift.

CRIMINAL SYNDICATES SHOULD BE TRUST-BUSTED.


3. "What will he do to create manufacturing jobs in the United States?"

In my opinion, the "giant sucking sound" evoked by Ross Perot has come to pass.

Jobs have left the United States due to outright surreal trade policy over the last twenty years.

John Edwards will do his level best to end these arrangements with newly-global, once-American companies whose executives get bonuses for shutting down factories and shipping jobs to the Third World.

He will also be able to END this ridiculous war in Iraq, which is burdening SMALL BUSINESSES DISPROPORTIONATELY ON A TAX BASIS.

Finally, he will RESCUE our schools with the Federal money that is saved through ending the war. He will create tax CREDITS for small businesses. He will redouble the Federal investment in clean energy. AND WE WILL HAVE AN ENERGY BREAKTHROUGH WITHIN TWO YEARS WHICH WILL RENDER OIL OBSOLETE, THUS UNSHACKLING OUR ECONOMY FROM THE FEUDAL SAUDIS AND THEIR OPEC MINIONS ONCE AND FOR ALL.




Here's the final point:
it isn't just "money" that is the problem in this country.
it is EVIL.
EVIL is EVERYWHERE and money is just a tool it uses.
In my opinion, JRE has the guts to call evil by its proper name.
This is the unquenchable fire behind my own support of Edwards, because I HATE EVIL.

-s

[nancyharris]

81. You still have not answered the question

You say: "Edwards is being misquoted by your question"

The OP made the remark that Edwards would stop "record profits". I asked how he was going to do this

You say: "These are the companies that will be prevented, THROUGH REGULATION AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED (most of the laws are already on the books), from making 'record' profits."

You are grossly mistaken if you believe that there are laws "on the books" that prevent corporations from earning profit. Quite the opposite! Do you think John Edward is going to somehow enact a law that prevents CitiBank or Bank America to earn a certain profit? Do you think Edwards will tell Northrup Grommond that they can only make a certain profit on the submarines they build or General Electric that they cannot earn a certain profit on the guidance systems they develop for the F-15 fighter? Just what anti-corporate laws doe he intend to create? Do you want the government to control the amount of profit your business can make - the wages you pay your employees? Or is it just other peoples businesses that should be targeted?

You say: "Halliburton should have every last cent of its profit stripped away from it, and its executives sent directly to Guantanamo" - Is this what John Edwards is suggesting? I don't seem to be able to find that anywhere on his web site. Do you want all corporations and their executives that hold government contracts for the military to to have their profits taken away from them by the government and their executives placed in jail? - or just Halliburton? Do you think that if profits should be taken away from a company because the government contracted them to do work for them?

You say: "John Edwards will do his level best to end these arrangements with newly-global, once-American companies whose executives get bonuses for shutting down factories and shipping jobs to the Third World."

Has John Edwards proposed that we withdraw from NAFTA or WTO? If he has, I can't find that on his web site. What is he going to do? Is he going to pass a law that says all good and/or services purchased in America must be made/or serviced in America - by Americans???? Is he going to place tariffs of imported goods? These are questions supporters should be asking of a populist. Without specifics, this is nothing but empty rhetoric.

[waiting for hope]

40. His Green Jobs Initiative I think is the

best plan in this area:
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070713-green-collar-jobs/
http://www.manufacturing.net/Edwards.aspx

[Egnever]

4. Votes?

[AlertLurker]

5. Hot Air. Edwards is a liar.

Are all Edwards' supporters thinking like minded? He constantly says one thing while doing another. He says he is anti-corporate, yet, while I do admit he has had some high profile class-action cases, he has spent a lot of time working for corporate interests also.

It's smoke and mirrors, period. He says he takes no money from lobbyists...You KNOW how this works, folks!!! He has taken over $5 million from law firms, who are basically just lobbying for corporate clients. He takes money from Insurance Companies, Financial Services Sector, the Pharmaceutical Industry, HealthCare Providers (like HMOs), Oil and Energy Interests, etc. He is every bit as big a whore as the other main candidates.

Anyone believing that Edwards is anti-corporate probably also believes that he had no idea that the hedge fund management firm he invested $16 million into (and worked for for 14 months!) specialized in leveraging sub-prime lenders...

He's a liar, plain and simple.

[Luminous Animal]

9. You need a reality check...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

The only information that comes close to supporting your screed is the claim that he takes a lot of money from law firms. Unfortunately for you, Hillary takes more and Edwards and Obama are in a statistical dead heat.

[lisainmilo]

29. Monies recieved from lawyers are individuals...They are not PAID LOBBYIST INFLUENCING LAW

Huge Difference

[penguin7]

46. What about this link?

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=320

Sure are a bunch of lawyers here and on Dailykos supporting John Edwards.

[lisainmilo]

77. It still does not matter, individual donations whatever they happen to be.

I am a nurse, my donations are either counted under other or healthcare. My individual donation goes toward that industry. Those lawyers are not LOBBYIST, who influence law! There is a HUGE difference.

[PATRICK]

12. Politicians are not simply liars

and any return to a people oriented policy, like ward pols in the past who may have done other despicable things, is a move in the right direction. it is the movement and the overall better morality, life work and sincerity of the man that adds up to far better than the usual flavored hot air. We have pols all over the top who are more specifically placating the corporate quo and promising good feelings and relative stagnation and not upsetting people with looming catastrophes which should be the serious substance of governance. And avoiding like the whole vast top of the nation the specific small disease of a rogue administration that will continue to harm us forever unless held to account.

Kucinich makes excellent points and is the best case for this poster. He critiques the others far better than the frustrated name calling here. Yes, we knew most of Bill Clinton's flaws too as the national blindness forced us into fatal and unrewarded compromises. I could give a better, more specific list of Edward's shortfalls and issue shortcomings, marveling at myself, not about WHY I still support him, but how his person and positions compare more favorably and with better electoral potential than many people in the past. Kucinich is dead right on most policy needs, Obama is right on in the center approach to whipping up the nation, Edwards is the most committed to get it done and actually accomplish or move toward accomplishing what the others cannot or will not. One usually rewards politicians who offer to lead even if their character and record is spotty. Winning and direction used to count for everything even though underneath we grumble...they are all effin liars. Suddenly this magnificent high bar with absolute divine unforgiveness is put there... as it has been manufactured for Hillary, by righteous posters on DU.

Guess what? Our frustrations won't end in November. I see that in the crystal ball no matter how good we might- theoretically- feel on election day. Obama has much farther to go from his obstinate, though timely and rewarded center high road skills, to even begin to get toward what Edwards is staking his candidacy on. And not coincidentally, the left with all its impotence is splintered with emotional prejudice, thereby in effect leaving it behind the potential of the RW religious nut groups who CAN sacrifice their souls themselves to get their act together for raw, people oppressing power. With Edwards we can at least include slapping the madness silly and starting to wake people up and THEN smashing forward. If Blackbeard the Pirate could do that he would be the best choice.

[lisainmilo]

14. John Edwards has not taken any lobbying money....

I am not sure how many times this will get posted, but here it is AGAIN!

Individual contributions
$30,121,494
99%

PAC contributions
$20
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$207,638
1%

More from opensecrets.org:http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=2008

[redqueen]

21. Why do most of your posts seem ANTI-Edwards?

It strikes me as odd that someone who doesn't have a favorite would be so vitriolic only about ONE of the top tier candidates.

Suspicious, it is.

[asdjrocky]

47. Guess we all got a job to do... I've noticed this as well. n/t

[redqueen]

57. It is rather hard to miss!

:hi:

[AlertLurker]

52. Probably because I AM anti-Edwards, but I'm just guessing.

I am just pretty much anti-LIAR, actually.

I literally cannot believe that anyone with a functioning brain would invest $16 million (literally HALF his net worth) into something he knows nothing about (hedge funds/subprime lending). Either he was lying, or he is a moron, or both. If you believe there is a grey area here, you are simply mistaken. He worked for them for 14 months, refused to discuss what he worked on or why (oh ya - he wanted to "learn about the industry." Sounds like something you get paid $459,000 for, doesn't it?), and came out of the deal half a million dollars richer with $150,000 in political contributions. If you want to believe Edwards' explanation that he had no idea that Fortress's focus as a hedge fund management firm was leveraging sub-prime lenders, however, be my guest. There seem to be many here who are like-minded.

And for those of you that actually believe that law firms depositing large sums of money into a candidate's coffers are not lobbying on someone else's behalf, go put your heads back into the sand...this is what lawyers and legal firms have done from time immemorial. He can (oh so honestly) then say he has not taken lobbyists' money this way...Once again, he is every bit as big a whore as the other two main candidates - just seemingly more dishonest about it.


I obviously don't like Hillary or Obama much, either, but they are distasteful to me for (many) other reasons.

I like Dennis Kucinich the most of any of them, I suppose. I respect his integrity, plain and simple. He is literally the only candidate that can (and HAS) walked his talk. He does what he says he is going to do, and is the only candidate with an integral voting record that stands scrutiny. I liked Gravel and Dodd, in many ways, too. Not so much Biden, though.

[truebrit71]

53. So it must have really tweaked your nips when the Kooch went from pro-life to pro-choice...

...did that make him a flip-flopper or just an outright liar?

[AlertLurker]

58. I just didn't give a shit, actually.

You can call him whatever you like - he's explained it many times, quite reasonably, WITHOUT LYING.

And nobody except my hubby "tweaks my nips." I'd call you a sexist pervert but for the forum rules, truetwit....

[redqueen]

62. Am I just going to have to search for your Clinton is a LIAR posts?

I don't know that Obama's lied, actually... but I'm sure if he had, that you'd be ranting about it, right? Which of his faults have you ranted about?

[truebrit71]

65. Ahh I see, so he went from supporting one position, to one diammetrically opposed to it..

...and he's not flip=flopping or lying....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Truetwit... :rofl:

Never heard that before.... :eyes:

[AlertLurker]

74. I'm sure you hear it all the time, actually...

I believe Dennis had a genuine change of heart, arrived at after a very long time and some serious consideration. I believe this because I had a similar apotheosis a few years back. I hate the idea of abortions, but believe reproductive choice is just that.

The reason that this issue does not matter so much to me is that it is Dennis Kucinich that changed his mind, not some other politician. This sounds somewhat unfair to others and self-serving to DK, but my reasoning is thus:

a) He believes the same as I - that the government has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens.
b) He is a pretty strict constitutionalist, so the fact that the SC has already decided Roe v. Wade must be the last word - it is simply a job for the judicial branch, rather than executive or legislative.
c) I accept his explanation: "I don't believe in abortions, few do. I do, however, believe in choice."
d) I believe Dennis Kucinich is a man of integrity and that his change of heart was as genuine as mine.

You have every right to call it what you will, however.

[redqueen]

54. Please point me to one of your numerous rants about what a LIAR

either of the other top tier candidates is, please.

I know you've done probably dozens on Edwards, so it shouldn't be hard for you to link me up with five or six for each of the other two top candidates.

Thanks! :D

[AlertLurker]

64. Did I not just say that I was against Edwards?

I don't like the other two very much, but I have yet to catch either in such an obvious lie as Edwards. I have posted some negative stuff about Clinton and Biden (look for it yourself), but I don't believe I have ever posted anything negative about Obama. Got any juicy tidbits?

I suppose I am so vitriolic because I just can't get over some of the pro-Edwards sentiment here at DU. The sun does not shine from his ass! The fact that so much of his progressive talking points have been so obviously stolen from Dennis Kucinich does not sit well with me, either. I simply find Edwards so obviously FALSE that it just really grates on my nerves that some others (even in light of the facts) overlook it.

Don't get me COMPLETELY wrong, though - I think he has a better chance that either Clinton or Obama of gaining the nomination because of his race, sex and religious affiliation (especially in the South and Southwest), but this just tends to upset me even more.

Tell you what. I will try my darndest not to post anything as nasty about Edwards as I have posted today, UNLESS I LEARN SOMETHING NEW about him. In the meantime, if I find stuff about the other two that is as obviously false as I believe Edwards is, I will post it right away.

You're Welcome!

[redqueen]

66. Clinton lied about being instrumental in the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Now... GO!

[AlertLurker]

68. Ah. Just noticed your sig for the fist time.

k.

[redqueen]

69. Well I wasn't decided before today... but you helped inspire me!

Thanks! :hi:

[AlertLurker]

71. Having false friends is worse than having no friends at all.

[redqueen]

72. A stich in time saves nine!

A penny saved is a penny earned!

Don't pee on the electric fence!

:rofl:

[AlertLurker]

73. My personal favorite is from my father:

I'm not really what you could call good looking, but my hubby is drop-dead georgeous - my father had a somewhat aphoric explanation of our conjugal happiness:

"You don't stare at the mantlepiece when you're poking the fire."

Not strictly PC, but funny (or so I thought, at the time)!

[redqueen]

75. !

:rofl:

[grantcart]

31. Edwards is not anti corporate

He is against corporate greed and the corporate monopoly that has now evolved on key policy issues. A difference with an important distinction.

[Luminous Animal]

6. This is why I lean Edwards...

I honestly do not think that Obama has the strength of will it is going to take to lead us to fight these people.

Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates
AP
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story?coll=la-home-center

“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.
The group indicates it will spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it put out in the last presidential cycle.

>>>

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.

Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.

[truebrit71]

7. His silky smooth hair.....??

:hide: :evilgrin:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. Bytecode?

(Sorry, this was for the programming nerds ou there.)

[Nederland]

38. Thank you

Ironically I was just in the process of downloading JDK 6 Update 3...

[FrenchieCat]

13. His co-sponsorship on the IWR,

and being able to make everyone forget about his 4 year old senate votes that are the opposite of how he says he will fight for us? :shrug:

[Dawgs]

17. Hey FrenchieCat,

Didn't you hear that we're not allowed to talk about Edwards record as a Senator? :sarcasm:

[laureloak]

24. At least he had to courage to vote, unlike Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Why shouldn't Edwards not vote for the Bill he Co-sponsored?

That would make him even more foolish than already was.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Yes.....I've gotten that message......

Ancient history and shit.

[robbedvoter]

48. I didn't see your post! In all fairness - he shares that with McCain

Got to give them all their props!

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Can we stop telling some of these lies?

"he does not take any money from the lobbyist"

vs

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008


He has not taken a dime from these guys and owes them nothing, unlike his opponents.

vs

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01


The fact is John Edwards has taken money from EXACTLY the same sources as the other candidates, but to a lesser extent, because he has raised LESS MONEY. When you at it in proportion, it paints the real picturre. John Edwards is as in bed with these people as anyone.


Obama has raised 80 million. Edwards only 30 million.

Let's look at the industries. (all numbers from opensecrets.org)


Health Care

Barack Obama (D) 1.6% of his total
$1,330,743

John Edwards (D) 1.4 % of his total
$419,326


Insurance Industry

Barack Obama (D)
$390,513 .4% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$129,600 .4% of his total


Lobbyists

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859 .09% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$18,900 .06% of his total


Banks

Barack Obama (D)
$865,856 1% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$153,650 .5% of his total.

[redqueen]

18. I read that Obama has taken more money than anyone even REPUKES

from big pharma.

Is that also a lie?

Sorry, but healthcare is very important to me.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Here are the numbers in proportion... from open secrets.

Barack Obama (D) 0.3% of his TOTAL
$261,784


John Edwards (D) 0.05% of his total
$15,000

[redqueen]

27. I read he had taken more than even the repuke candidates. Not Edwards.

I know damn well he's taken more than Edwards. :)

[Milo_Bloom]

33. In proportion, not even close. Dodd wins that.

Obama is quite far down on the list in actuality.

Christopher J. Dodd (D) 6.2% of his total
$84,400

Mitt Romney (R) 4.2% of his total
$260,535

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) 2.9% of his total
$138,850




Barack Obama (D) 0.3% of his total
$261,784

[redqueen]

36. WTF is it with the nonsense that people let fly with here.

Thanks.

It's not something that sways me personally, but it's nice to know some people around here actually give a shit about facts.

:hi:

[Dawgs]

20. Good luck getting that message out on this site.

According to some here, Edwards is perfect.

[redqueen]

22. No, just better than the other top-tier candidates.

Has Obama taken more money from big pharma than even any of the repuke candidates?

I'm very curious to know if it's also a "lie".

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Yes, it is a lie. Clinton has taken more.

[redqueen]

28. Good.

That reinforces my decision to support Edwards.

Thanks.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. In proportion, Obama is near the very bottom of the list.

[redqueen]

41. Thanks.

I wonder where the person who claimed that got their info from. I hope to god it wasn't straight outta their ass.

[Milo_Bloom]

60. Spin is an amazing tool.

People can do lots of things with numbers, but you have to always look at it in proportion to reality.

To say someone raised "The most money from X" may be true, but that doesn't mean that MOST OF THEIR MONEY CAME FROM X.

[redqueen]

61. Of course not...but at least they could actually have raised

the most from whatever industry the person said they did. Which this person was very clear that he had received more from big pharma than anyone, including repugs.

That's not spin that's just a flat-out lie.

[lisainmilo]

35. I donot believe JRE is perfect...I do believe he is the candidate for real change

for the reasons stated in OP

[robbedvoter]

51. Great post! Cleared this up for me.

[redqueen]

63. You might not want to take anything you see posted here

at face value. Unless it's sourced, and the source is credible.

Lots of people doing their utmost to worsen the signal to noise ratio.

[slipslidingaway]

55. Consider making this a separate post??? Thanks for the info. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Thank you. I made it a seperate post. nt

[stickernation]

79. Money money money money.

Everybody is obsessed with money today.

Who funded whom ? Oooh, scandal.

Karl Rove is cackling. He never had a problem with money like you folks have a problem with money.

Personally don't support Obama and Clinton, but it really isn't so much about the money they have received.

It is the fact that I feel that money would have an influence about their deeds and actions. I feel that way because Obama is so frustratingly VAGUE all the time, like he REALLY doesn't want to UPSET HIS LOBBYIST DONORS, and because Clinton, well, I think like husband like wife, and President Clinton sure was nice to the people with money during his era, what with NAFTA and all.

I have seen John Edwards many times recently speak words that must make the Status Quo wince. If big, evil money handed him some loot, I doubt they're seeing the return on investment they were maybe expecting.

I want to see those words of Edwards - those punishing, righteous paragraphs against the CRIMINAL SYNDICATES masquerading as oil/pharma/war/credit/insurance companies - come to pass.

This election is not about MONEY - it is about EVIL.

You can point at evil fingers handing Edwards money just as you can Clinton and Obama.

Karl Rove is cackling. If the MONEY of EVIL is all that is needed to keep a Democrat out of the White House, then we never really had a chance, and he is secure in his retirement, knowing about how he has RUINED ALL THREE LONG BEFORE THEY STARTED.

And by spinning about money, over and over again, you do Karl Rove's work.

And if nobody is good enough for you because of the money except Dennis Kucinich, then he has succeeded in making you KUCYNICAL.

And Karl Rove's money has won again. (Because it's ALL Karl Rove's money, secretly, isn't it?)

[Thrill]

19. Edwards had a chance to fight six yrs in the Senate

And then he had chance as the VP candidate. And did nothing both times. I live here in NC, and he has done nothing for us. He's all talk. Much like Romney, he will say anything to be elected.

[Catchawave]

32. He took risks, if you don't make mistakes, there are no lessons learned. n/t

[laureloak]

23. Optomism, vision, direction, oratory, to name a few.

[redqueen]

30. Also "plan".

[robbedvoter]

37. Sponsoring a war -IWR- no one else did it - except McCain on the other side

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

[redqueen]

42. "Sponsoring a war"

That's hilarious.

You DID mean for that to come off as comedy, right?

[robbedvoter]

44. A war bill - is that more serious? or should I mention the number of dead?

Unless you think that an apology for the vote only somehow resurrected them.

[redqueen]

56. It would be serious if you used serious language...

and didn't use it only for dramatic effect.

Co-sponsoring the IWR would have been serious.

And you're STILL doing it... "Unless you think that an apology for the vote only somehow resurrected them."

I'm as anti-war as any if not more so, but that kind of crap is just stupid.

[Jai4WKC08]

39. About 10 to 20 points

Depending on which poll you read.

[SaveElmer]

59. He has flip flopped more than any of the other Democratic candidates...nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

83. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - authenticity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[onehandle]

84. kick. nt