Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards needs to stay in the race, because he's the only one who says things like this:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:22 PM
Original message
Edwards needs to stay in the race, because he's the only one who says things like this:
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 09:23 PM by jpgray

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071026-social-compact/

The truth is our economy is only growing at the top. Forty percent of the economic growth over the past 20 years has gone to the top one percent of American families. Middle-class incomes have stagnated for the past seven years. Families are working longer hours, but finding it harder to get by. And for the 37 million Americans living in poverty, things are only getting worse.

But not everyone is struggling. In corporate America, where a broader sense of social responsibility once held sway, a culture of greed has taken over. Instead of treating their employees fairly, being accountable to their shareholders and contributing to America’s prosperity, CEOs are acting like their corporations exist primarily to build their own massive fortunes.

In 1960, the average CEO made 41 times what the average worker made. But in 2005, the average CEO made over 400 times the average worker salary. The share of corporate profits going to CEO pay has doubled since the 1990s. Meanwhile, the value of the minimum wage has plummeted 30 percent since 1979.


It's not as catchy as a string of platitudes, and it doesn't have the gravitas of touting one's "experience", but it's a fundamental truth about why our country is in serious danger, and it needs to be heard as often as possible by as many people as possible. It's great to see rhetoric that isn't so focused on candidate image marketing and PR, but rather a systemic problem that desperately needs to be exposed and publicly addressed.

Now you can fairly argue Edwards's Senate term doesn't reflect this rhetoric (it doesn't really), or that his platform isn't as economically revolutionary as a progressive might hope. That's reasonable enough. But even if you do doubt his sincerity, this is the sort of core issue that needs to be addressed. Obama and Hillary mostly speak to superficial symptoms of the problem--this is the heart of the cancer. Why don't they speak to it? I can't be sure, but I know it's not popular in the media, and it's not competitive in a massively money-fueled campaign system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. thats cause he is the only one you are listening to
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.- Barrak Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. "thats cause he is the only one you are listening to"
Bingo!

I respect Edwards choice of platforms this time (much better than 2004), but he's not the only candidate talking about these kinds of issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. You prove my point--Obama speaks to the symptoms
Has he called out corporate culture in any direct way? I've watched a lot of Obama speeches and read his statements, and I've never seen anything of the kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Thats just one example
he talks about it all the time. Like i said you just arent listening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ah, so he directly accuses corporate greed of causing the injustice in this country?
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 09:31 PM by jpgray
Or does he rattle off a series of symptoms, with no note of their causes? Show me to the quote! I'd be glad to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. heres more
"The reason that we're not getting things done is not because we don't have good plans or good policy prescriptions," Obama said. "The reason is because it's not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington - it's the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity."

Speaking at Roosevelt Middle School, Obama said that if he is elected, no one who worked in his administration will be allowed to lobby the White House after they leave - a ban affecting potentially thousands of workers.

Obama cited the school's namesake, Teddy Roosevelt, and the 26th president's activities in busting trusts and breaking up monopolies as he sought to prevent wealth from accumulating in too few hands.

"We can't settle for a second 'Gilded Age' in America," Obama said in a reference to an era in late-19th-century America when wealth was celebrated as never before. "Unfortunately, that's what we're seeing these days."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. But coporations aren't the only "special interest", right?
Hasn't he called the environmental movement, the labor movement, immigrant rights groups, gay rights groups, advocates for the elderly, poor, disabled, hasn't he called all of these groups "special" interests, as well, saying in effect that they deserve no less, but certainly no more "seat at the table" than corporate lobbies?

Plus, how often has he said things like the above quote? John Edwards has said them at EVERY debate, and at practically every stump speech. I don't hear Obama or Clinton going after it nearly as consistently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. First its only john says it now its ...
Obama doesnt say it enough. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
53. Sorry if I have confused you
When Edwards talks about the inappropriate influence that corporations have on public policy, he talks about the inappropriate influence that corporations have on public policy.

When Obama talks, he talks about the inappropriate influence that "special interests" have on public policy. IIRC, he includes, along with corporate interests, lots of other advocacy groups in addition to corporations.

He frames it differently, and there IS a big difference. Obama implies that, if you're going to talk to environmental groups, or labor groups, then you also need to talk to corporate lobbyists, because they are "all special interests."

Edwards does NOT agree, and this is a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between the two.

And that difference DOES "float my boat" and it should float the boat of anyone who cares about the outcome of this election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. He's no shameful pro-corporate slug. But do you see the difference from Edwards?
Or did you not read the entire speech I linked? The speech goes beyond the requisite four paragraphs:

We also need to ensure that corporations honor the pension promises they’ve made to workers. We can’t allow fundamentally healthy companies to go into bankruptcy just to avoid keeping their promises to employees, or to emerge from bankruptcy with millions for executives and nothing for workers. As president, I’ll give workers a claim for lost pensions, just like lost wages.

...

History has taught us that the best way to fix the unfair treatment of American workers is to strengthen organized labor. Throughout the last century, unions helped build America’s strong middle-class. But today, the right to organize is being routinely ignored by businesses who know they will face little or no penalty for doing so.

I believe that if a person can join the Republican or Democratic Party simply by signing his or her name to a card, then any worker in America ought to be able to join a union just as easily.

...

To start reforming America’s corporate culture, we should increase transparency so that the public can see what corporations are doing. As president, I will enact a new law requiring all businesses to disclose a wealth of new and important information in annual reports to their shareholders, the appropriate government regulator, and to the public. I will also give shareholders new rights and responsibilities so that they can call shareholder meetings, remove directors who are doing bad jobs, and have a say on executive pay.

Today, too many companies in America are putting far too much of their earnings into excessive CEO and executive pay, when this money could be going to increased worker salaries, better benefits, and investments in plant and equipment. As president, I will immediately cap untaxed deferred compensation for executives and strengthen shareholder rights to rein in excessive pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. I see that this is edwards issue
this is what he is running on and so its almost entirely what he talks about. He says good things There is no denying it but to pretend he is the only one saying these sort of things is pure spin.

I am quite sure that obama has made similar statements to this one I just don't have time to go looking for every single speech he has made on the subject. The point is Edwards is not the only one talking about this. I found two quotes from Obama on it in a couple of seconds.

I try to stay out of these Edwards threads as I really just don't have anything to say about him. I have made the decision already that I don't trust the guy and he is not for me. I like what he has to say but his time in the senate was so filled with poor judgment on important issues that I could never take the chance on him again. Thats purely my hang up and is in no way meant to take away from your belief in the guy. It is my own personal opinion of him.

I should just ignore the threads but sometimes they get under my skin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. That's true. I shouldn't be challenging people to "prove" Obama is anything
I'll take another look at Obama's record myself, and if I see evidence that disproves this thread I'll post it in a thread of its own. (And yes, I will actually do it. :P)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Right straight to Wall Street
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. How much cash has Wall Street given the "anti-corporate" Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. If only he had spoken that way from the start (and included "labor" and "unions" in the speech)
That's a good speech, though. And one I hadn't heard. Thanks. I do think it's different from Edwards insofar as he doesn't directly confront corporate power, but rather the symptoms of that power. It's unlikely, for example, that anyone will level the "class warfare" charge at Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Obama had always stood with unions
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/obama_walks_picket_in_chicago.html

You don't pay any attention to what Obama says. His record is ten times that of Edwards. If you truly gave a shit about what you're talking about, you'd take a few hours and scour Obama's speeches and records so you could make an informed decision.

No, nobody would level a charge of class warfare at Obama because he knows how to talk in a way that doesn't alienate rich or poor. If the rich accept their responsibility to help and the poor get the help to improve their finances, then we're all better off. What's to fight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Did you read the entire Edwards speech? Show me the Obama analogues to these comments:
As president, I will immediately cap untaxed deferred compensation for executives and strengthen shareholder rights to rein in excessive pay.

...

As president, I will enact a new law requiring all businesses to disclose a wealth of new and important information in annual reports to their shareholders, the appropriate government regulator, and to the public. I will also give shareholders new rights and responsibilities so that they can call shareholder meetings, remove directors who are doing bad jobs, and have a say on executive pay.

...

Throughout the last century, unions helped build America’s strong middle-class. But today, the right to organize is being routinely ignored by businesses who know they will face little or no penalty for doing so.

I believe that if a person can join the Republican or Democratic Party simply by signing his or her name to a card, then any worker in America ought to be able to join a union just as easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. Obama is doing the work
Tax Haven Abuse Act
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=269516

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois introduced a measure last month allowing public-company shareholders to hold an annual, non-binding vote on executive pay
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ag7gKucEzDFc&refer=politics
http://obama.senate.gov/news/070425-a_check_on_exec/

Obama’s union support
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/unions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. He isn't taking money from corporations
Obama is, lots of it.

Its easy to say things and make promises on the campaign trail, quite another to actually deliver.

Edwards is the one who is least compromised, who will be free to put words into action. I want a president who governs on his terms and our terms, not someone else's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Ahh the big edwards lie
Obama is taking money in exactly the same way Obama is. No pacs or lobbyist money. Just because Edwards isn't getting money from anyone in the amounts obama is doesn't mean he doesn't take it from the same people.

If you break down their money totals into percentages from industries it works out almost exactly the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
30. Only in Obamite "hope" world is $30 million the same as $100 million
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. only in Edwards denial world
does the fact that he cant raise cash become a pluss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. $30 million=can't raise cash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Funny-
He finally started talking about that, after Edwards had been saying it for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. LOL yea right
you Edwards guys are delusional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. You're an ass-
Please, I'm asking you not to come into my thread and ever presume to tell me I'm delusional. I've been to Iowa for caucus, I've been to Nevada for caucus. I've knocked on doors, I've made the calls, I've met my candidate and members of his family. I am maxed out on what I can give, and I've been there for every step of this campaign.

My activism is real, it's pertinent, and it's of value in this world, weather I fight against nukes, corporations, or the republican party. Where the hell were you in 99? I'd bet just about everything I have that you were not in Seattle. Have you ever be arrested for doing what is right? I didn't think so.

I'll whip your bony ass up and down this street on issues, and you damn well know that. If you didn't, why do you come at me with this lame ass one line quips that mean nothing. What a loser. Don't presume to tell me anything. And don't step on my thread.

But if you want to keep dancing, I got all night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. awww did I hurt your feelings?
Sorry you backed the big flopper. I didnt make you do it. Ill post anywhere I damn well like BTW what you going to do yell at me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Spoken like the true child you are.
Your very sweet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
39. Obama's Record
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Exactly right nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Besides he's pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. How well will those issues be represented when Clinton gets
the nomination as a result? Or when either her or, more likely, the GOP nominee takes over the WH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Edwards is unlikely to be a spoiler in the way you argue
Or rather, what evidence do you have that Obama would be the second choice of Edwards supporters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Well, the whole of my argument is much more centered around
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM by BullGooseLoony
a united front between Obama and Edwards. Edwards needs to publicly throw his support to Obama, and Obama needs to make it clear that Edwards will have a very significant role in his administration if he wins (I would go ahead with V.P., although others have objected because of 2004).

I think also think that Obama and Edwards like each other, understand each other, well. They would work well together. And if Edwards supporters began seeing that, if he showed them that, I think they would be willing to unite with Obama and put an end to this Bush/Clinton business, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. I caught Edwards on video in NH before the primary, he rips corporarions: "INFECTION"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
13. A junior senator was coached to play the game
At some point, he decided to something else.

Whatever his biography, Edwards has remained focused on this target like a laser beam for years now. I view it as a critical issue, because progress on a wide variety of fronts will require dealing with corporatist greed and corruption. Concentrations of wealth imply concentrations of power, and our Constitution is based on the assumption that power must be always checked and balanced. Until corporatism is checked and balanced, there can be no substantial improvement in the lives of Americans, no advancement towards economic justice, and absolutely zero chance of successfully confronting the mounting challenges of climate change and ecological calamity.

Only Edwards and Kucinich have talked about this matter intelligently and directly, and Edwards seems to have together the most completely thought out set of proposals.

I have been asked, "How can you trust Edwards?" I reply, "How can I trust someone who has not even proved willing to name the disease?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
62. Perfection. Thank you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBorders Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. I say things like that. Should I get IN to the race?
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. A little late now, wouldn't you say?
But, hey, if you can get the funding, great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBorders Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. How do you know I'm not worth BILLIONS!!!
hey, I could be. But then if I were, I probably wounldn't be saying the things Edwards is saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smokey nj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Mike Bloomberg, is that YOU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBorders Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Exposed!
You got me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
55. Maybe you could throw a little of your "billions" toward a donation for DU?
:evilgrin: You get all of this and a star! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Yes!! If you really MEAN things like that.
You've got a lot of work to do to catch up. But if you're a true populist, declare your candidacy!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
24. Well, you're right there's SOME things he says that no one else says --
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 09:54 PM by smalll
like "I joined a hedge fund to learn about poverty."
Or "Let me take two full minutes here to comb my hair. In front of cameras."
Or how about "Could you add a Recreation Barn to that?"

Or for a line from back in the day, "She's inside me and she's talking to you." - always so key when you're pretending to channel dead baby girls in front of juries.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
47. Who could forget these
Remember forced "care"?-
"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/wireStory?id=3551321

_________

“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,” Edwards said during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. “One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVS, he said, “Yes.”
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2007/08/john-not-always.html

__________
Edwards was asked during his appearance how he explained the contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he’s living in a 28,000-square-foot mansion.



He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.

“I have no apologies whatsoever for what I’ve done with my life,” he said to loud cheers. “My entire life has been about the same cause, which is making sure wherever you come from, whatever your family is, whatever the color of your skin, you get a real chance to do something great in this country.”

Huh. If you work hard and fight big corporations, you can warm the planet as much as you want with a huge house. But if you work hard for a big corporation, I guess you don’t deserve a big car.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Edwards' record
Tip of my hat to PurityOfEssence for his great job researching Edwards' record.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@ ...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd ... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?

(end of post)

The Bush Cartel is Shivering In Its Boots About John Edwards: This is An Actual North Carolina GOP Alert Sent to a BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Below is a copy of an actual GOP alert sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party.

It illustrates how frightened the GOP is of Edwards spoiling the Neo-Confederacy "Southern Strategy" that the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) depends upon to win presidential elections.

Sincerely,

Buzz

* * *

Dear XXXX,

Senator John Edwards' (D-NC) latest effort to package himself as a "mainstream North Carolinian" is entirely contradicted by a four-year voting record that consistently puts ultra-liberal special interests ahead of the people he represents.

CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you, lastly, about the political spectrum and where you are on it. You are often described as having a liberal voting record. The liberal groups tend to give you high ratings. The conservative groups give you low ratings. Are you a liberal Democrat?

John Edwards: "I'm a mainstream North Carolinian. I think my views and my values represent the values of most people in this country." (CNN's Inside Politics, January 2, 2003)

Bill Cobey, Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party had the following response: "Senator Edwards, your voting record does not lie. 'Mainstream North Carolinians' don't vote like Georgetown Liberals."

Edwards made similar assertions in 1998 when he promised the people of North Carolina that he would be a moderate voice in the U.S. Senate. Edwards' record, however, reveals the liberal truth:

Edwards' Voting Record Matches Those Of Senators Ted Kennedy And Hillary Clinton

From 1999-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Ted Kennedy 90% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 106th and 107th Congresses)

From 2001-2002, Edwards Voted With Senator Hillary Clinton 89% Of The Time. (CQ Vote Comparison, CQ Online Website, www.oncongresscq.com, 107th Congress)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Business/Job Growth

Edwards Received A 0% Rating From The Small Business Survival Committee For His Voting Record In 2001. (Small Business Survival Committee Website, www.sbsc.org, accessed Dec.1, 2002)

Edwards Received A 17% Rating From The National Federation Of Independent Business For His Voting Record In 2001. (National Federation Of Independent Business, www.nfib.com, accessed Dec. 1, 2002)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Education

Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of A Demonstration Public School Choice Voucher Program For Disadvantaged Children. (Amendment to S. 1, Roll Call #179: Rejected 41-58: R 38-11; D 3-46; I 0-1, June 12, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against The Creation Of Tax-Free Education Savings Accounts For Children To Be Used In The Payment Of Public Or Private School Tuition. (S. 1134, Roll Call #33: Passed 61-37: R 52-2; D 9-35, March 2, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Abortion

In June Of 2000, Edwards Voted Against Tabling An Amendment That Would Have Repealed The Ban On Privately Funded Abortions At Overseas Military Facilities. (Amendment to S. 2549, Roll Call #134: Passed 50-49: R 48-6; D 2-43, June 20, 2000)

In October Of 1999, Edwards Voted Against Passage Of A Bill To Ban Partial-Birth Abortions. (S. 1692, Roll Call #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31; I 1-0, October 21, 1999)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Health Care And Social Issues

Edwards Called For A Federal Prescription-Drug Benefit And Lamented Over The Lack Of Universal Health Insurance For Children. "Moving to health care, Edwards - his words being recorded by a National Public Radio reporter sitting near his feet - again called for a federal prescription-drug benefit and decried the lack of universal insurance coverage for children. 'In America,' he intoned, 'that's wrong, and we need to do something about it.'" (Eric Dyer, "Testing The Waters?" News & Record, June 23, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted To Table An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Use Of Public Funds For Needle Exchange Programs In The District Of Columbia. (Amendment to H.R. 2994, Roll Call #328: Motion To Table Passed 53-47: R 5-44; D 47-3; I 1-0, November 7, 2001)

Edwards' Liberal Record On Taxes/Fiscal Responsibility

Edwards Voted Against President Bush's Bipartisan Tax Relief Package. (H.R. 1836, Roll Call #170: Passed 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, May 26, 2001)

Edwards Voted Against Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. (H.R. 8, Roll Call #151: Failed 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-42, June 12, 2002)

In 2001, Edwards Voted Against A Capital Gains Tax Rate Reduction. (Amendment To H.R. 1836, Roll Call #115: Failed 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, May 21, 2001)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Bill That Would Have Reduced Taxes On Married Couples. (H.R. 4810, Roll Call #215: Adopted 61-38: R 53-1; D 8-37, July 18, 2000)

In 2000, Edwards Voted Against A Temporary Suspension Of The Gasoline Tax. (S. 2285, Roll Call #80: Failed 43-56: R 43-12; D 0-44, April 11, 2000)

Edwards' Liberal Record On The Environment

Edwards Argued That President Bush's New Source Review Plan "Defies Common Sense." 'It defies common sense to me,' said Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C." (Karen Masterson, "Port Arthur Activist Testifies Against Easing Clean Air Laws," The Houston Chronicle, July 17, 2002)

AT ODDS WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS

On Trade Promotion Authority

Edwards Disagrees With Kerry, Daschle And Lieberman On Trade Promotion Authority. Edwards voted against trade promotion authority, but Kerry, Daschle and Lieberman voted for it. (H.R. 3009, Roll Call #207: Passed 64-34: R 43-5; D 20-29; I 1-0, August 1, 2002)

On Common Sense Tort Reform

Edwards Disagrees With Lieberman On Tort Reform. Unlike his Senate colleague Lieberman, Edwards adamantly opposes liability limits and civil justice reform. (Jill Zuckman, "Medical Bill," Chicago Tribune, June 24, 2001; Senator Lieberman, Press Conference, July 15, 1999)

When Asked By Bob Novak, Edwards Could Not Recall A Single Conservative Position That He Has Taken On An Issue As Senator. "'I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it.' - Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, asked by columnist Robert D. Novak in...the American Spectator to recall any conservative position he's taken in the U.S. Senate ." (John McCaslin, "Dependably Liberal," The Washington Times, October 15, 2002)

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Edwards.html

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

(end of post)

Edwards's Record as A Freshman Senator
Lawmaker Labored on Issues Such as Health Care, Intelligence and Trade

-snip-

Edwards has little in the way of concrete legislative achievements, but he gained attention on issues ranging from health care to intelligence to environmental protection.

While aspiring to build a national profile, Edwards also labored on issues important to his home state, such as proposing amendments to help textile workers who were losing their jobs to lower-wage workers in other nations. In recent weeks, he increasingly has raised trade issues in trying to differentiate himself from Kerry.

-snip-

He voted to support abortion rights, authorize the war in Iraq, require criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows, block the confirmation of some of President Bush's most conservative judicial nominees, and prohibit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

-snip-

But it was the patients' bill of rights, which Edwards had championed in his 1998 Senate campaign, that proved to be his biggest accomplishment -- and disappointment.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators. "I think it's clear that Senator Kerry and I have very different records on trade," Edwards recently told reporters. On the same day, Kerry declared: "We have the same policy on trade -- exactly the same policy."

In discussing trade, Edwards focuses on the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, which was enacted with Kerry's support five years before Edwards entered the Senate. While his campaign statements assert that "Edwards has consistently opposed NAFTA," the North Carolina senator recently told New York Times editors that NAFTA "is an important part of our global economy," although he wants tougher protections for the environment and worker conditions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial

Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights

Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws

Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway

Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway

Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"

Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada

Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination

Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act

Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.

Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.

Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.

Edwards has a very good trade record. Let's compare him to St. Kerry, a prominent progressive who was in office the entire time Edwards was. Edwards is the closest thing to a protectionist that can get elected.

-snip-

Edwards voted against trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa, which Kerry supported. But he voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China, as did Kerry and most other senators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-20 ...

St. Kerry

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act NV
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act NV
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 Y
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill Y
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill Y
07/17/1997 Most Favored Nation Repeal Amendment N

Edwards

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill N

Edwards voted right on every trade bill except one and that one was Bill Clinton's baby. It also was not as clear cut as it appears in retrospect. Edwards explained why he voted for it and it was a perfectly reasonable belief to have, a belief most of his Democratic colleagues shared.

Edwards can seriously be attacked for once supporting the war but the Big Lie, which picked up steam in February of 2007 (what happened that month?), that he was not a populist until recently and especially that he sucked on trade is nonsensical.

Edwards' trade record is identical to Ted Kennedy's:

07/07/2003 U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
07/07/2003 U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act N
08/01/2002 Trade Act of 2002 N
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y
09/13/2000 China Nonproliferation Act Y
05/11/2000 Africa Free Trade bill N
11/03/1999 Africa Free Trade bill NV

Does he suck on trade too? I hear he is a big Rethuglican in sheep's clothing! What has he done for the poor? Probably nothing. He is rich too I hear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Good Post but I doubt that you will get a response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #40
58. Not by those who can't refute it, that is.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
49. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
46. Wonderful! You're right. That's why he's got to stay in the race! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
48. Tell it like it is Mr. Edwards. Greed is doing very well here in
America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
50. Excellent point... he directly addresses the cause... this is why the Chamber of Commerce
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 10:23 AM by redqueen
formally declared war on populist candidates. If it was only an easily ignored candidate like Kucinich, I doulbt they would've taken that step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nancyharris Donating Member (637 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
51. If you go to the Clinton and Obama websites
you will find that both of these candidates have spoken (quite forcefully) on this issue and have made numerous proposals to strengthen the poor and middle class. Edwards is not the only Democratic candidate that is working to improve the standard of living for Americans. Although he is the only candidate that seems to focus on little else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Edwards' plan was first, and the others followed suit.
Without his voice leading the debate, they might not stay on message.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
52. Edwards is staying in the race for Edwards.
He wants to be on the ticket. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already struck a deal with his good buddy Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
54. kick. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
56. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
59. True. But that's only since Kucinich dropped out n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
60. You said it better than I could
but that is exactly why I voted for Edwards in the California primary - Signed, sealed, and delivered (and hopefully counted).

"Now you can fairly argue Edwards's Senate term doesn't reflect this rhetoric (it doesn't really), or that his platform isn't as economically revolutionary as a progressive might hope. That's reasonable enough. But even if you do doubt his sincerity, this is the sort of core issue that needs to be addressed. Obama and Hillary mostly speak to superficial symptoms of the problem--this is the heart of the cancer. Why don't they speak to it? I can't be sure, but I know it's not popular in the media, and it's not competitive in a massively money-fueled campaign system."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
61. Edwards has guts AND he isn't bought and sold with corporate money...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC