Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans with Corporate Democrats

A fairly beautiful piece.  

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches 20070823-hanover-speech

Of course I'm biased -  a very simple straightforward narrative.  Whether Democrats know it or not everyone is going to be running against Washington DC in 2008. Guess who's going to have the hardest time portraying themself as an "outsider"?

Anyhow here's a few excerpts:

The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.
It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.
A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.
A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.
Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.
It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.
It is the establishment elites versus the American people.

I particularly like the bold part.  See, the word "elite" has been messaged by Repbulicans to mean "northeastern Democrats" or "liberals" at the NY Times (that don't exist).  Here, Edwards reframes "elite" to mean the establishment - political and media - that work against "ordinary" Americans.

Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?
Will we face our future as individuals, each of us asking, "What's in it for me?" Or will we return to the central value that makes our nation great? That we are all in this together and each of has a responsibility to the common good.
The choices we make will determine not just the quality of life our children will inherit, but the fate of the world we leave behind.

Just today, I was watching a discussion on Tax Rates on CNBC, a real Economist was pointing out how during a slightly higher Tax rate in the 90s the economic recovery was much better than the one for today with a slighly lower tax rate - by any economic metric.  It didn't stop the club for growth guy to argue for more tax cuts for the rich.   What's in it for them?

But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken.

I like pointing out that the media IS part of the establishment that controls the game in their own interests.

Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.

Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.

And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.
The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.
The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

Was that aimed at the Clintons or all presidents?

Dependence on foreign oil is smothering our economy and choking our environment. Everybody knows it -- politicians from both parties have been calling for energy independence for 30 years. So what did the oilmen in the White House do? They handed the keys to the corridors of government over to the lobbyists for the big oil companies and let them literally write the energy bill. Now, gas prices are through the roof, carbon emissions are unchecked, and global warming is likely getting worse.

A direct connection between lobbyists and corruption.

Trade policy is all about corporate profits for big multinationals and not at all about lifting workers' wages or creating American jobs. The tax code provides breaks for hedge fund managers -- amazingly, even Democrats backed down from asking them to pay their fair share when Wall Street lobbyists put the pressure on. By the time a decade of corporate opposition to a minimal increase in the minimum wage is overcome, even its own supporters admit that the increase isn't enough -- so another decade of corporate opposition begins anew, and workers lose again.

It's time we put our economy back in line with our values. Let's restore fairness to our tax code by insisting on a simple principle -- nobody in the middle class should pay higher taxes on the money they make from hard work than the wealthiest pay on the money they make from their investments.

Edwards has proposed the harshest policies for hedge funds.  Does the media point that out? No.

But let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience -- you cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them.
We cannot triangulate our way to real change. We cannot compromise our way to real change. But we can lead to real change. And we can start today.

Nearly ten years ago, I made the decision that I would never take a dime from a Washington lobbyist -- I wasn't going to work for them, and I didn't want their money.
Because in the courtroom, when you present your case to the jury, you can offer facts and evidence, you can argue your heart out -- and I have -- but the one thing you can't do, is pay the jury. We call that a bribe. But in Washington when an oil lobbyist gives money to office holders to influence our energy policy, they call it politics. That's exactly what's wrong with this system

I love that way of describing why lobbying leads to corruption.  Very simple easy to understand analogy.

There are 60 lobbyists in Washington for every member of Congress. The big corporations don't need another president that looks out for them -- they've got all the power they need. I want to be the people's president.

If I remember correctly, Ned Lamont repeated this line a lot?

It's not about being ready to grab the reigns of establishment Washington and stand on the side of corporate elites. If it is, there are plenty who will do a better job than me at protecting the status quo, and preserving the policies and politics of the past.
It's about being ready to lift our country up, reform our party, and remake our government in line with the values of our people. It's about real change and a new vision that meets the challenges of the future and inspires the American people to work together for the common good.

SLAP.

We must end the game controlled by a privileged few and restore the promise that America owes to us all.
On that new path lies One America, where possibility is unbound and opportunity is the birthright of every American. Where the voices of the people are heard again in the halls of government, and government heeds their call. One America, where every individual takes responsibility for our common good, and the chance to reach one's God-given potential is every individual's common right.
I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards.
And I believe in the promise of America.

These are only excerpts and well worth a read.

I've always thought that the reason the media and GOP really have it in for Edwards is he is a living breathing example of undercutting the rationale for the status quo.

Edwards is not an "elite" , he did not go to private schools or Ivy league colleges.  He went to public schools paid for by the common good and rather than proposing tax cuts for himself once he got rich, he says the well-off need to help more.  It throws the whole media and GOP narrative out the window.  If only he were a republican advocating tax cuts for the rich the GOP would love Edwards.



Display:


Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (1.33 / 3)

Isn't Edwards a Fortress Corporate Guy?


by American1989 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 01:28:50 PM EST

The Game is Over! (none / 0)

The comment above typifies the corporatists fears.

Smearing won't work.

We want a Democratic Party that is the Party of the People, not the corporations.

I am proud to support John Edwards!


by TomP on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Game is Over! (none / 0)

Lincoln Bedrooms are an equal opportunity way to raise funds for both parties' previous presidents.  It is Washington and the establishment that Edwards is critcizing: the "game."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/ 0310-04.htm

Published on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 by the Associated Press  
Bush Fund-Raisers Among Overnight Guests in the Lincoln Bedroom  
by Sharon Theimer

WASHINGTON - President Bush opened the White House and Camp David to dozens of overnight guests last year, including foreign dignitaries, family friends and at least nine of his biggest campaign fund-raisers, documents show.

In all, Bush and first lady Laura Bush have invited at least 270 people to stay at the White House and at least the same number to overnight at the Camp David retreat since moving to Washington in January 2001, according to lists the White House provided The Associated Press.

Some guests spent a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, historic quarters that gained new fame in the Clinton administration amid allegations that Democrats rewarded major donors like Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand with accommodations there.


by TomP on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 05:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Game is Over! (none / 0)

You didn't answer the question...


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A clear choice for the voters of NH (3.00 / 1)

So while Edwards is in NH attacking the Democratic frontrunner, the Democratic frontrunner is in New Hampshire giving a speech on improving the quality of health care for American citzens.

Attack dog or problem solver? That is the choice.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:01:56 PM EST

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (3.00 / 6)

Edwards isn't attacking the Democratic front-runner, he's attacking DC lobbyists and those who feast from them, one of whom happens to be the Democratic front-runner.

I want both an attack dog and a problem solver, which describes Edwards perfectly.  He's had a comprehensive health care plan out for months while Hillary still doesn't.  Hillary can keep her polls, Edwards is the ideas front-runner.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (3.00 / 1)

BS: That speech is an all-out attack on the Democratic Party. It is one of the most negative political speeches I've ever read.

Again, contrast to a speech with specific proposals for improving the quality of health care for American families and working women.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please... (3.00 / 4)

are we having a Primary, or a tea party?  This is hardly a nasty attack (although you could argue, as Taylor Marsh does, about the Lincoln Bedroom line)...I think Hillary can handle it.  Something wrong with substative differences in candidates?


by rashomon on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please... (none / 0)

EDWARDS IS A PSUEDO POPULIST

and a corporate democrat


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is not ronald reagan (3.00 / 1)

reagan invoked that doctrine when he was the frontrunner of never taking on your fellow republican


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (3.00 / 3)

It's not "negative" as it is true.  Edwards said he isn't going to tell you what you want to hear.  He told it like it is.  

Hillary may talk about healthcare, but has yet to release her plan.  Could it be because she's been bought and paid for by the healthcare industry?  Hmmm...

I believe he is correct that Hillary is part of "politics as usual" and that she'll just be "better than Bush".  That bar is awfully low.  If you fly a plane over the country and parachute a chimp down to the ground and declare whoever that chimp grabs first as President, that person would be "better than Bush".  

I'm liking Edwards more and more.  


by dayspring on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (1.00 / 0)

MORE CONSPIRACY THEORY STUFF

I guess this is the "credible news on the progressive blogosphere" that Annefrank was talking about.

Also - the renting out of the lincoln bedroom is not TRUE - its RWNM Bullshit, and Edwards is eating it.

Shameful


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

No. The renting out of the bedroom WAS true.  It was just overhyped by the Right-Wing Noise Machine.  

I take issue with "MORE CONSPIRACY THEORY STUFF".  That shows an utter lack of understanding of the dysfunction of our government.  You do not think that when a lobby that gives lots of money to a candidate that candidate is then more inclined to vote for that lobby's interests?  Please.    I cannot even dignify that with a rebuttal.  


by dayspring on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

So apparently you think the Democratic Party has been just fine and dandy for the past, oh, 27 years?

Yeah! What we need is more corporate money and influence in the party!


by adamterando on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

so we might as well vote for Gravel-

Edwards takes just as much money (in percentage) than Obama and Hillary from special interests.

Edwards is just another corporate democrat.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:48:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

What are special interests?


by adamterando on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 09:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (3.00 / 2)

Yep!  Hillaries are perfectly content with Hillary TALKING about health care - while the working poor with NO health care continue paying her health care costs.
15 years - and no health care plan yet!
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

Ehem,  actually Hillary Clinton wrote an exhaustive plan for universal healthcare in 1993, over 1000 pages long.  How is that not specific enough for you?  

Its not her fault that Democrats like Ted Kennedy did not support it.  What makes you think that Edwards is not going to repeat her same mistakes?

Hillary has learned from her mistakes, and learned that healthcare reform must be done incrementally.  


Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:26:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (3.00 / 1)

I'll go with the attack dog over leftovers any day


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:24:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

Attempt to change the subject #1
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A clear choice for the voters of NH (none / 0)

dhooters- you should do this on ALL the diaries, and then you'll see that Edwards and Obama supporters do it as well


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 3)

Edwards lost a lot of points with me with that "Lincoln Bedroom" attack.  Totally classless.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:07:34 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (1.50 / 2)

It's going to get worse. Before it's over, Edwards will probably be borrowing some of John McCain's Janet Reno/Hillary Clinton lesbian jokes or demanding answers for Vince Foster's family.

Both Edwards and Obama surely believe that they have no choice but to go negative.

I will be very surprised if negative works in New Hampshire.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 0)

Frankly the Republicans could not have gone after Bill Clinton if he hadn't given them ammunition.

He did have sex with that woman.  And he did have big donors stay over in the Lincoln bedroom.  

Clinton caved in to the Republicans on all kinds of things.  The complaint was that there was a Republican congress.  Well George W. Bush has a Democratic congress and he still get everything he wants.  

I haven't heard Hillary speaking about the need to change the rigged system.  

Her health care plan is just another collection of details that won't go anywhere.  And she is trying hard to run the clock on not giving us any details.  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:52:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

she's releasing her plans well before the primaries begin.

Donors did stay, but they didnt rent the lincoln bedroom. Thats RWNM Bullshit and you dont seem to have a problem shoveling it when it suits you.

If Hillary's plan is "just another collection of details that wont go anywhere" what do you think of Edwards plan?

Answer: By your logic, its "just another collection of details that wont go anywhere"


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:52:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 3)

Are the comments false or are you saying you don't like hearing unsavory facts? Asked this of hwc below, but then after his disclosure recently that he is trying to also eat from the trough , I am curious how you stand?


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

The Lincoln Bedroom was just another trumped-up Republican scandal from the 90s, which Bob Somerby has debunked at length.

I'm very disappointed in Edwards for legitimizing a right-wing smear.  More of this from him and I may not call myself an Edwards supporter any longer.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 3)

How was it trumped up? See, here's the thing. I asked that recently of someone else- I believe dem dem or hwc, I can't remember. Did they or did they not give the bedroom regardless usage to major supporters? I don't care if others have done it. It's a simple enough question to answer. the rebuttal I've seen is that it happens with all administrations.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards guest bedroom (1.00 / 0)

Maybe we should ask for the list of Edwards' trial lawyer buddies who have spent the night in one of the guest bedrooms in his NC mansion? Hmmm?


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards guest bedroom (3.00 / 3)

do you think that's the same thing as someone using the WH bedroom? if you do, do you see no difference between public and private? and if you don't see the difference, what planet are you from? Look, if you are going to try to argue with me - at least try doing it with some amount of maturity. if you are going to play games, realize I give what I get.  It takes very little to indicate to me that you aren't able to argue the facts or not facts. So you resort to immature shit. nice try, but wrong guy.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards guest bedroom (none / 0)

they stayed but its not RENTED. The problem with his words is RENTED thats RWNM BULLSHIT


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:54:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards guest bedroom (1.00 / 0)

The operative word is "his".  The Clintons were merely renters and the American public, the owners, never agreed that they could sub-let it.


by Dee on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards guest bedroom (3.00 / 0)

they didnt-

all you edwards supporters dont seem to have a problem eating this RW BULLSHIT. its sickening.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Did some of Clinton's donors stay overnight in the White House?  Of course.  If you want details on how ridiculously overblown this "scandal" was, click here.

If you want to argue that there's a kernel of truth at the heart of the "scandal," I'm not going to get into it, but I'm telling you that I, as an Edwards supporter, am extremely pissed off to see this sort of thing.  


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 3)

its not overblown if it happened. your thesis before was that it didn't happened by labeling it as a 'right wing' smear. thats a tactic now being used to shut down legit conversations about what we want to be as a party. do we want donors to be stayin at the white house? yes or no. thats the question. now that i have caught you admitting that its actually true, you seek to change the debate to 'well but its not as bad as the other side.' gee- thanks. that should go over well with the american public in terms of contrast. 'well i am not as bad as the other guy.'


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

You haven't "caught me admitting" anything.  I said it was a trumped-up scandal and it was.  The reason Edwards is able to make a passing allusion to it, and everyone knows what he means, is that the right-wing noise machine made a huge deal out of this, way out of proportion to what was actually involved, and without any pushback people got the idea that it actually was a huge deal.

Do I have a problem with donors spending the night at the White House?  No, absolutely not.  It's a meaningless perk, and focusing on this sort of thing is EXACTLY the kind of symbolic gesture that gets in the way of addressing the very real problems with the influence of corporate money on our government.

But that's beside the point.  The point is that your desire to avoid "the appearance of impropriety" is noble, but completely hopeless if you let the right-wing noise machine determine what appears to be improper.  It's the Lincoln Bedroom, it's the size of John Edwards' house, it's Nancy Pelosi wanting a military plane.  The Republicans are always going to employ attacks like this; the problem with trying to avoid "the appearance of impropriety" by stopping whatever activity they point to is that the attacks never end.  

John Edwards may, in fact, have paid $400 for a haircut, but I'll be damned if I wouldn't get pissed at Hillary if she made a reference to it in a speech.  Yes, even though it's true, I think it's a cheap and unfair attack.  Try to wrap your mind around that.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

we disagree. you don't get its symptomatic. i do. what you think of as meaningless is a sign of a bigger problem. who gets to influence our leaders.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

The issue is not whether I'm right or wrong, but that I, an Edwards supporter, am seriously pissed off at him resurrecting right-wing smears against Hillary.  If you think it was a totally fair point and you like him all the more for saying it, that's great, but you're still only getting one vote.  I don't think Edwards can afford, at this stage in the game, to be alienating people like myself with cheap shots at the other candidates.

There is so much stuff he could say about Hillary and lobbyists that is completely fair; instead of pissing off people like me with cheap shots regarding something that is "a sign of a bigger problem," why not stick to talking about the bigger problem?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

your argument keeps changing. essentially now your argument is that because you are pissed off other maybe? well, first, you are only one person. i dont claim as you do to speak for more than myself.

second, differentiate means he is going to have to go after clinton on where clinton is vulnerable. you need to decide whether politics is right for you if you think telling the truth is a smear. it seems to at the very least distort the definition of the word.

what seems to be really pissing you off is the symbolism of somehow this is a right wing smear to point out something that the right may have used, but was nevertheless true. my response to that is tough. if you can't handle truth, a) don't pass that off as if you speak for more than yourself and b) we will remain inthe same mess in this society until you and others (if you represent more than you) decide whats important. edwards can only do so much. everytime he brings up truths about clinton, by the way, do you know what arguments already, george and others trot out? "its a right wing smear and how dare they."

negative definition works. clinton has been using it behind the scence, including i would wager with that hair cut story.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Why can't you get the following through your head?

1) I like Edwards.  If the primary were this morning, I would have voted for him.

2) I agree with virtually everything Edwards said in this speech, including the criticism of Hillary as too close to lobbyists and corporate interests.

3) THAT ONE THROWAWAY LINE STILL RUINED THE WHOLE SPEECH FOR ME.

Do I speak for more than just myself?  Well, gosh, Hillary has 80% favorables among Democrats.  The majority of Edwards supporters list Hillary as their second choice.  Yes, I think more people than just myself are needlessly pissed off and alienated from Edwards when he takes cheap shots.  And as his other, perfectly valid criticisms of Hillary in this speech demonstrate, he doesn't need to do it!

I don't care that you think it was the most fair and true and accurate thing anyone ever said.  There are not enough Hillary-haters in the Democratic Party to build a winning primary campaign around them.  He has to be smarter in the way he criticizes Hillary, period.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

I thought it was a low blow, especially given that it was trumped up by the RWNM.  

That said, Steve, you are correct in that the line was a throwaway.  

You and bruh arguing about that line is analogous to the media going on and on about his $400 haircut.  

You know, I even heard a CNN morning guy mention in passing on the air something like "All that money and fighting for the poor.  Right."  

Why can't Edwards be wealthy but fight for the poor?  The media is buying into that Right Wing frame.  

Ugh.  It's very frustrating sometimes.  

Anyway, I digress.  Point is, who the frak cares about that line?  Let's focus on the substance of what he's talking about.  


by dayspring on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

i agree we are arguing a minor point. i just dont want edwards to hold back for going for the jugular, which is what has been missing. both he and obama have been giving clinton a lot of passes. we cant expect the press to do it. thats the candidates job to provide the real contrast.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

I'm happy to focus on the substance, but the thing is that I think I already agree with you 100% on the substance.

I can't help but pay attention to the way people campaign, though, and when I see someone make what I consider to be an unfair attack, it's a mark against them.  I feel the same way whether it's Clinton or Obama or whoever, I just don't like to see anything cheap.  And I think a lot of mainstream Democrats react the same way.

I sympathize with the position Edwards is in, in terms of attracting more attention for his message.  I just think he needs to find headline-grabbers that aren't repeats of right-wing attacks from the 90s.  Believe me, I was just as unhappy when Obama's campaign trotted out the Lincoln Bedroom earlier in the campaign.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

a) your liking edwards is irrelevnt to whether I agree with what you are saying here. I don't. So I argue based on that.

b)if you agree with the criticism then you are arguing with form over substance. my argument regarding the form is that regardless of he words it, if your argument is to believed, it would stil lhear "right wing smear." it makes your point moot.

c) If what you say is true as to clinton,t hen edwards may as well back his bag now. anytime he give anything approaching criticism will memorably real bite the arguments you are suing will be used to shut it down.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

You cannot build a winning primary coalition around anti-Hillary sentiment.

I'm pretty sure Edwards can find millions of ways to distinguish himself from Hillary without repeating right-wing arguments from the 90s.  He's a smart guy.

I'll still count myself in the Edwards camp, but someday when you look around and the only people left are the Hillary-haters, don't say I didn't try to warn you.  And you've done Edwards no favors in this thread by insisting on defending a cheap shot to the death.  Tell me, if Edwards had said that Hillary has poor judgment because she trusted Bill not to cheat on her, would you still be like "but it's true, therefore it can't be a cheap shot"?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

you keep listing limitations,a nd then say you hope edwards will win. you do understand negative campaigning is a part of politics? not to be ass, but the construction use, the minute he goes really negative- "oh dont do that because peoplelike her." yeah, that's a given, the point is to give them reasons not to like her. and overall my thesis isn't this particular comment- its the right of edwards to go negative. if he stays positive as the underdog he loses. that plays into clinton's we all the same and look at the pretty pretty polls routine.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:19:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

steve you are talking to a brick wall


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

if by brick wall you mean i didn't lose touch with reality just to support my candidate. you are damn straight. i support a candidate, not a messiah.


by bruh21 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 06:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

You know you maybe right , Overall I thought it was a good speech i.e. an edwards speech . But the lincoln Bedroom stuff sounded very childish and petty to me , diminished the effectiveness of the speech.

Reminded me of how the attack on Hillary in the AFL - CIO fell flat , You will never see me on the front page of Fortune stuff , that attack fell flat just like this one.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Actually, I liked them both.


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fundraising e-mail (none / 0)

I read on the Internets that Edwards just sent a fundraising e-mail using the right-wing noise machine Lincoln Bedroom smear.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundraising e-mail (3.00 / 1)

once again- the truth isn't a smear.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundraising e-mail (none / 0)

And once again, this wasn't the truth. Just because you are so blinded by your own preferences that you'll buy into republican smears without critique doesn't make them any closer to the truth.

I thought we were above partisanship trumping reality.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

and by the way- you like the other poster once again confuse public and private. i never do.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Having said what I said above, I do agree in part that it's a cheap shot because he doesn't say her name.  While I didn't like Senator Clinton's attack on Senator Obama, calling him naive and irresponsible, I at the very least respected that she she criticized him directly.  I think John Edward's criticism is valid, but he loses points for being indirect and when asked, refused to call her out by name eventhough we all know who he's talking about.


by Dee on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

in fairness, my read is that he wasn't just referencing clinton. thats why he didn't call out anyone by name. its the practice as symbolism that he seemed to be getting at. we have added the clinton only part due to our center of perspectives. he was discussing establishment versus change, and this was in my mind a symbolic example regardless of party.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Bush has had even more stay in the Lincoln bedroom.

And why did Clinton react so quickly.  Perhaps if it is examined again it becomes clear that it is the truth.  

The problem I had in defending Bill Clinton was that the charges were often true, but should not have led to impeachment.  That gave him sympathy, but he was not guilt free.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

A yeah, right they did kill vince foster, I forgot...

And lets not forget travelgate were they didn't fire the staff for being incompetent but for personal gain.

You do know that in that "Lincoln bedroom" scandal they charged that Chelsea's birthday sleepovers counted as bribes?

I'm so sick of Democrats claiming that all those republicans had a point while they keep forgetting what it was that the republicans were really saying.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:05:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

I didn't say that all the accusations etc were legitimate.  I defended the Clintons all the time.  Nonetheless it was disconcerting to have some of the "lies" not be lies.  Are all our Congresscritters blemish free?  Some are corrupt, some are tainted, some are honorable and some just should not be in charge of things.  

The Clintons are with the corporate crowd.  They are willing to help the average person but not fight the corporatists and now they owe them.  Doesn't sit well with me.  They had their time.  I don't want them in power again.  And yes it still is two for one.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

They didn't kill Vince Foster, they didn't make money on whitewater. The papers that got found exonerated them. They didn't sell the lincoln bedroom for 100,000 a night. Etc. etc. etc.

The only thing that turned out to be true was his womanizing. 70 million later, dozens of scandals, and the only accusation that survived was that Bill Clinton had affairs.

I didn't say that all the accusations etc were legitimate is an understatement. I became active because I just couldn't take all the republican moronic attacks anymore. It's like people are forgetting how insane the republican charges were. And to see people take one of the more ridiculous claims and run with it as if it was true is seriously bugging me out.

Nobody has to like Clinton and there are legitimate concerns about her and while I probably have a different view on the corporatists and their like then you, it's a discussion that we can honestly discuss. But Edwards using a republican meme like that was disappointing but it could be he meant it differently instead endorsing a republican sleaze attack from the '90. but that so many people here not only think it was a good move, but that those republican charges were true and want him to do more is just beyond me.

It's a betrayal for everything the Netroots has been fighting for.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:11:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

by the way- slapping right wing smear on it doesn't change the question being asked or its fairness. I am not playing my team versus theirs. I am playing did this or did this not happen? If you can say that factually it didn't happen. Fine. Then its a smear. But if it happened,and the real argument is but its our team. then edwards is right as to why this is bad.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

It didn't happen, they didn't rent out the lincoln bedroom. There was no Quid pro quo involving the lincoln bedroom and fundraising.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:07:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Shit. He sure uses his mouth real pretty. I just hope he's not all hot air.


by Pope Jeremy on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:17:28 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 2)

well its better than sounding pretty about how we all just get along.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

If you insist on acting immature- I am game.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Jesus. I'm actually considering supporting your candidate and still all you can do is hurl insults.

Please, do me a favor and never respond to any comment or diary I write again.


by Pope Jeremy on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

i dont care what you are considering if your support comes with a lot of bs. apparently many of you have an over inflated sense of importance on this blog. i dont, and neitehr should you.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

yet another "high horse" edwards supporter.

You and Annefrank need to start the "holier than thou high horse edwards supporter club"


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:02:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Attempt to change the subject #2
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

despicable (3.00 / 1)

This is the most despicable attack speech. He sure is sinking fast.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:25:05 PM EST

Re: despicable (none / 0)

We'll see about the sinking.  Good luck in Iowa.


by Rooktoven on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: despicable (none / 0)

Complete lack of evidence qualifies this as change of subject #3. (polls instead of content)
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: despicable (3.00 / 1)

Your disapproval just proves it's effective!


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: despicable (3.00 / 1)

To the Hillaryites, its "despicable". Anything that calls their candidate's attributes into question is "despicable".

To the populists, its "leadership".

Here, have a tissue.  Dry your eyes.  Things are going to get a lot rougher before its over, and I'll be very happy when they do.


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: despicable (none / 0)

if repeating RWNM bullshit is leadership, then Good Job Edwards.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't (3.00 / 4)

He is right...and all those old Clinton folks have spent the last 7 years working as lobbyists for the likes of tabacco and big oil - They all cashed out and now are tight with corporate America - all these experts she will bring back are the definition of dc insiders.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:27:04 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 3)

No - what we are saying is that both parties have done it -- and it has to stop right now -- its time to end the game -- and the Democratic Party is the party that must be the party of the people.  We believe that John Edwards can best lead that change.  The status quo and business as usual like the below has to go.

GEORGE W. BUSH: AT LEAST 270 SUPPORTERS AND "BIG" CONTRIBUTORS STAYED
OVERNIGHT AT WHITE HOUSE, SOME IN LINCOLN BEDROOM

2004: CNN Reported at Least 270 Bush Supporters, Including "Big"
Contributors, Spent the Night at the White House, Some Staying in the
Lincoln Bedroom. In March 2004, on CNN's "Inside Politics," Candy
Crowley said, "White House sleepovers. Remember the flap over all those
friends, including big donors, the Clintons invited to spend the night
when the White House was their house? Well, ditto for President Bush,
who has also had friends and donors spend the night. Our Bruce Morton
has the story." Bruce Morton: "Who slept here? Well, they were just
friends, of course, old pals from Texas, or maybe Yale. The Bushes have
invited at least 270 people to sleepovers during their three-plus years
in the building. Including some big contributors. And yes, some stayed
in the Lincoln bedroom." [CNN's "Inside Politics", 3/11/04]

Bush Hosted Guests in the Lincoln Bedroom. In March 2004, the AP
reported, "Colorado's governor is among those who have been entertained
at the White House, a new report says. Republican Gov. Bill Owens and
his wife, Frances, were among about 270 people who were invited to stay
at the White House since 2001, according to lists the White House
provided to The Associated Press. Owens is a Bush "ranger," a
designation for those who have raised at least $200,000 for the
president's 2004 campaign, officials said. The White House lists show
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush invited at least 270 people to
stay at the White House and at least the same number to overnight at the
Camp David retreat since January 2001. Some guests spent a night in the
Lincoln Bedroom, historic quarters that gained new fame in the Clinton
administration amid allegations that Democrats rewarded major donors
like Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand with
accommodations there. [AP, 3/10/04]


by Joe Trippi on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:50:40 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

The problem with our government is lobbyists getting to write the legislation.

The problem is industry insiders getting appointed to jobs where they supposedly "regulate" their own industry.

Big-money donors getting a meaningless perk like having their picture taken with the President, or spending a night in the White House, these things are the least of our worries.  In fact, I WANT the reward for making a big contribution to be something meaningless like this.

And bringing up the Lincoln Bedroom, in particular, is a completely disgusting allusion to a grossly trumped-up right wing smear from the 90s.  I didn't like it when Obama's people did it and I sure don't like it when my own candidate does it.  Edwards is going to lose my vote if he keeps going down that road, and there's plenty of legitimate ways to attack Hillary without reading Rush Limbaugh's scripts.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Guilty consciences? (3.00 / 1)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/ 0310-04.htm

Published on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 by the Associated Press  
Bush Fund-Raisers Among Overnight Guests in the Lincoln Bedroom  
by Sharon Theimer

WASHINGTON - President Bush opened the White House and Camp David to dozens of overnight guests last year, including foreign dignitaries, family friends and at least nine of his biggest campaign fund-raisers, documents show.

In all, Bush and first lady Laura Bush have invited at least 270 people to stay at the White House and at least the same number to overnight at the Camp David retreat since moving to Washington in January 2001, according to lists the White House provided The Associated Press.

Some guests spent a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, historic quarters that gained new fame in the Clinton administration amid allegations that Democrats rewarded major donors like Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand with accommodations there.


by TomP on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 2)

This is a campaign folks...each candidate has to stake out differences...Clinton is running on her experience have having the last name Clinton for a long time....her opponents have every right to challenge that..

Edwards and Obama have made clear their attitude toward Lobbyists...So has Clinton...

Dean's heading up the DNC...after fierce resistance from the Clinton wing of the Democratic...only demonstrated that it is not business as usual..
This issue..even more than Iraq is the heart and soul of our Party....


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:01:01 PM EST

Barbara Stresand? Oh my god! (1.00 / 0)

Wow. The Clintons invited Steven Spielberg and Barbara Streisand to visit them in the White House? OH MY GOD, THAT IS AWFUL. WE SHOULD APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECTOR TO INVESTIGATE!

Joe Trippi: tell your guy to talking about how Democrats will address the concerns of American families.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:01:47 PM EST

Re: Barbara Stresand? Oh my god! (3.00 / 1)

given your moral barrometer I can understand why you think its a smear to point oout that's not a good thing for a Pres to be doing. If for no other reasons than perceptions of inpropriety. Something that as lawyers, I would expect them to have  understood. Its not enough to meet the bare minimum standard, its also about perception of ethics as well.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barbara Stresand? Oh my god! (3.00 / 1)

he has.  or are you hearing impaired or illiterate?


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barbara Stresand? Oh my god! (3.00 / 1)

Haven't you been paying attention?  Obviously you haven't.

Talking about how he plans to help American families is almost ALL that John Edwards does.


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barbara Stresand? Oh my god! (none / 0)

uh yea - i think thats the point of his comment.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: (none / 0)

This is a campaign folks...each candidate has to stake out differences...Clinton is running on her experience have having the last name Clinton for a long time....her opponents have every right to challenge that..

Edwards and Obama have made clear their attitude toward Lobbyists...So has Clinton...

Dean's heading up the DNC...after fierce resistance from the Clinton wing of the Democratic...only demonstrated that it is not business as usual..
This issue..even more than Iraq is the heart and soul of our Party....


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:03:21 PM EST

he (1.50 / 2)

Edwards is exploding before our eyes. LOL.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:09:44 PM EST

Exploding before our eyes! (1.50 / 2)

I can appreciate the frustration that Trippi, Elizabeth, and Edwards must feel with their cratering campaign, but a Lincoln Bedroom smear on Bill Clinton is like a Republican candidate attacking Ronald Reagan.

This will provoke outright anger among mainstream Democrats.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GEORGE W BUSH has (none / 0)

used the Lincoln bedroom as a payoff much more often than the Clintons ever did, IF they did, as the news reports show--- so my guess is, Edwards was referring to BUSH.

Who are YOU to say that he wasn't?  

Since Bush is the one that has really made it a bigtime habit, I don't think your manufactured outrage on this will really fly far.


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GEORGE W BUSH has (none / 0)

oh dont be naive. That was a blatant attack on the Clintons


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he (2.00 / 3)

Change of subject #4 (again, no evidence presented -- pure ad hoc Rovism)
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He offers the voters a clear choice (none / 0)

between John Edwards and a straw man.

Seriously, he blows it out of proportion. There is almost no difference between the top Democratic candidates on the issues, and even less difference on the policies that they will be able to pass through congress.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:15:56 PM EST

Re: He offers the voters a clear choice (3.00 / 1)

clearly your post is false on its face because even here there is a difference between what some of us think, and what others think, and indeed on this issue there is a difference of what one thinks of as appropriate parties from whom to take money.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 3)

Whether or not the details of the Lincoln bedroom is correct or not is not his point.  His point is the DC lobbyists and big money interests have too much influence in government.  The bedroom thing is only a symptom not the cause and is only one example of how the American people are neglected for the special interests.  Whether or not every administration does this or not is meaningless.  It just goes to show how well the establishment is willing to lay in bed with corporate America.  I am glad Edwards has pointed this out.  


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:19:21 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Whether or not the details of the Lincoln bedroom is correct or not is not his point.

Correct. His point was to repeat right wing smear attacks against a very popular former Democratic President and the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.

Democratic voters are not going appreciate the attacks. We've had enough gotcha politics.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

I don't think he was purposely trying to spread right-wing smear.  He was trying draw a difference between how he would approach the lobbyists.  He is implying that wouldn't follow that practice.  The fact that Bill did the very same thing is meaningless.  He is only trying draw distinction from what the establishment does and what he would do.  I'm sorry but no Democrat is above scrutiny within their own party otherwise we will turn out like the Republican Party of cronyism.  


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:35:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

thats exactly the point. if one is not guilty of what he is talking about, one should have no problem with what he is saying. trying to paint this as smear simply because it implicates a democrat is bs.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

"trying to paint this as smear simply because it implicates a democrat is bs."

EXACTLY


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The heck he wasn't (none / 0)

...don't think he was purposely trying to spread right-wing smear.

Baloney. Rush Limbaugh talked about the Lincoln Bedroom for 100 straight days, right after 100 straight days on Chelsea's curly hair, and 100 straight days on Hillary and Janet Reno.

Elizabeth Edwards and Joe Trippi and the candidate knew EXACTLY what they they were doing with that line.

As a mainstream Democrat, I find the attack to be reprehensible.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The heck he wasn't (none / 0)

"Baloney. Rush Limbaugh talked about the Lincoln Bedroom for 100 straight days, right after 100 straight days on Chelsea's curly hair, and 100 straight days on Hillary and Janet Reno."

You just proved my point. 100 straight days yes is an attack and outright smear.  But Edwards merely IMPLIED it. That is a not an attack but what is called constructive argument.  I won't deny that they were probably taking a shot at Hillary, but the  whole point of his speech WAS NOT to attack Hillary. Again for 100th time he was only trying to show how he is different from the establishment.  


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The heck he wasn't (none / 0)

As opposed to Limbaugh who WAS attacking her


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The heck he wasn't (none / 0)

i cant believe people are justifying right wing smear.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:44:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The heck he wasn't (none / 0)

It's only an attack if Rush Limbaugh says it.

It's not an attack if Edwards validates that frame build by Rush Limbaugh. Then it is a constructive argument?

I'm sorry but that is spectacularly unconvincing argument.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:19:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

You're right, it's not the point.  And the larger point is completely valid.

But even Edwards supporters like myself can't help but pick out the cheap shot and get pissed over it.  It's bad form, and there's NO NEED to bring up the "symbolic point" when you're already in the process of making the far more important, much bigger point!

In my view, and probably the view of many other Edwards supporters who happen to like Hillary too, that one reference completely ruined an otherwise good speech.  The people who dislike Hillary will continue to shrug it off, but when you alienate your own supporters, it's never a good thing.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:35:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 2)

NO Democrat is above scruntiny within their own party in my opinion.  


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

You make me want to scream.

I never said Hillary was above scrutiny.

In fact, I've said, like a dozen times now, that Edwards' overall criticisms of Hillary and Democrats in general - that they're too tied to lobbyists and corporate interests - are completely fair!

Yet when I say "the Lincoln Bedroom is a cheap shot, don't go there" people act like I think Hillary should never be criticized at all.  God, is my position that hard to understand?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Sorry buddy I wasn't looking at the names just the responses.


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 2)

I am just so sick of coming on here and reading all the Hillary supporters responses acting like she is holier than thou. (by the way she is my 2nd choice)


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

It's cool.

A large number of the Hillary supporters on here make me want to tear my hair out.  Some of them don't even sound like they're Democrats at all.

I want Edwards to do well and the reason I get up in arms over this Lincoln Bedroom thing is that I don't want his campaign to wake up one day, realize that everyone has left except for the diehard Hillary-haters, and wonder what happened.

I think most mainstream Democrats want to see it kept above the belt.  There's still plenty of room for criticism above the belt.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

and as i say above- playing it your way is why he finds himself where he is.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Well, I hope it was just a lapse of judgment.  But if he's actually going to pursue a strategy of playing to the anti-Hillary "base," I hope you'll let me know how it turns out.

Seems to me you could dislike Hillary and still be objective enough to admit that this isn't a winning primary strategy.  She has 80% favorables among Democrats!  Sadly, most of those people won't come to this site to be persuaded by your cogent arguments as to why the Lincoln Bedroom isn't a cheap shot at all.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

I honestly at this point don't know to say to you. How do you think politics works exactly is the only question that comes to mind?


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:32:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Yes, but I believe it to be weak support. At least 15-20 percent. Now thats 55-60 percent of democrats.  
 But that statistic is meaningless because the real question should be: "Does attacking Hillary affect your opinion or support of another candidate?" Simply because she enjoys so much support in the party does not imply nor necessarily mean that Democrats would be turned off.  But I am sure like some have stated that it would turn them off. 80 percent just means there is more of a chance of having a lot of people pissed off at Edwards.
by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

the point is that I dont see where he has any choice, do you?


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (3.00 / 1)

I don't. I want to see the system crumpled up and thrown away in the garbage.  Politics never was clean and never will be. But Edwards (and even Obama) are very inspiring and want us to think outside the box. Away from the ways are thought "should be done" to the ways "things could be done better".  Hillary is just from the same old crop of corrupt politics. Whether or not she has truly evolved remains to be seen. But when a campaign is as bland as hers, that doesn't really give out any bold ideas or fresh faces and just goes on "I'm more experienced therefore I should win" it makes me and a lot of Democrats really wonder what her intentions are. We really are in a bind because we are being torn apart from nominating two people who don't really don't have the experience but have bold fresh new ideas, to someone who has the experience to win but none of the bold ideas and inspiration that this country so desperately needs.


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant speech... (none / 0)

But unfortunately, candidates like him never win.


by Namtrix on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:19:22 PM EST

Re: Brilliant speech... (none / 0)

I beg to differ. A reference point may be Theodore Roosevelt.  The country was in a very similar situation it is now.  Corporate America raping the middle class.  The wealth of the country very concentrated to the rich. I know it is a stretch to compare Edwards to him, but politically the public at large is ready for a president like Edwards. If only Americans weren't zombies glued to their TV and the MSM wasn't spreading so much misinformation (purposely or not)


by SocialDem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton response (3.00 / 2)

Clinton campaign response from the AP story:

"Angry attacks on other Democrats won't improve Senator Edwards' flagging campaign," said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. "Senator Clinton has the leadership and experience to make real change happen, and she has been fighting for American families for 35 years."


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:26:50 PM EST

that's the response from yesterday (none / 0)

unless they are recycling it


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton response (none / 0)

That's a good one- you know you're in trouble when the competition feels secure enough to flat-out say your campaign is flagging.

Look, this is Hedge Fund Edwards, everytime he starts talking about corporate interests, or "selling out," for most people, it goes in one ear and out the other.  This is a guy who had 16 million invested in a company that was foreclosing on Katrina Victim's homes.  No one trusts him on anything which is why he is sinking.  If it would come from someone people respect, it might resonate.  But this is John Edwards and the jig is up.


by reasonwarrior on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton response (none / 0)

Ad hoc change of subject #6
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton response (none / 0)

So do you agree with the substance of Edwards's speech or not?

Do you think the Democratic Party is to beholden to corporate interests or do you think it really is the party of the people and it works to ensure a better life for all Americans?


by adamterando on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton response (none / 0)

I don't think the Demoratic party is beholden to corporate interests but I also believe Hillary when she says  "I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest."

I also disagree with the speech because it is a false speech.  The candidate that Edwards says he is DOESN'T EXIST.  Do you really think it is a coincidence that he had all that money tied up in Fortress and their employees just happened to be one of the biggest contributors of his campaign? He BOUGHT those contributions.  He has harsh words for Hedge Funds but had no problem taking the $800,000 he earned from them.  He presents himself as a moral compass-  please tell me, what is the update about Edwards saying he has taken his money out like he said- has any evidence come that he has done that?  Please update me on the progress he had made personally calling the Katrina Victim's homes that were being foreclosed on and what exactly he did to help them?  With 29 million in assets, did he offer at all to give them money? It would not surprise me if the charged his campaign for the long-distance phone calls.  If he has not shown any proof for actually taking out that money- how much do you want to bet it won't be taken out if he loses the nomination?  Has he shown any proof at all that the money he got from News Corp, the $800,OOO he said went to charity that was suspicously a big pay-out for what his book actually was worth, about $2 dollars, and has he shown how that he did not benefit from any tax breaks from it?  He has the nerve to talk about "greed" when he went from one "sell-out" to another just to get money- and he had no morals at all about how he did it.  John Edwards has abused the system from DAY ONE- starting with a poverty center that conveniently picked up the tab for Iraq and Foreign Policy seminars and heading him to Iowa on their dime to clearly keep his name going before he has to announce his candidacy- a guy who has no problem taking the money out of the wallets of his supporters to pay for $1,000 hair-cuts, yet he is the one that is  going to fix it all?


by reasonwarrior on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:09:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton response (none / 0)

How much do you undrstand about K Street and how it works?


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You sound like a... (none / 0)

"low-information voter". You might want to brush upon your reading skills and go do some real  research on Edwards and stop listening to Fox news.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You sound like a... (none / 0)

Well, then, like I asked, please give me the link about the progress of taking the money out of Fortress and what he has done for the Katrina Victim's foreclosures of their homes- I remember specifically there were 4 of them, I would think something could have been done quite quickly- how long does it take for him to "look into it?"  Since I'm low-info, I must have missed how he rectified that.


by reasonwarrior on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 05:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BAH. (none / 0)

'No one trusts you' on anything, either.

LOL


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MSM (none / 0)

MSM is still slow to catch this on. Here's a little bit from Taylor Marsh...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-mar sh/edwards-jumps-the-shark_b_61570.html

Edwards Jumps the Shark.

It's getting ugly. First we had Obama talking about Clinton as "Bush-Cheney lite." Today we have a new twist and it isn't into presidential territory.

Who said this?

"Wake up America. The White House is not for sale; the Lincoln bedroom is not for sale.''
Republican Bob Dole said it in 1996.

How about this:

"I believe they have had moved that sign the buck stops here from the Oval Office desk to the buck stops here on the Lincoln Bedroom. And that's not good for the country."
George W. Bush spewed this crap in 2000. As most everyone knows, the Lincoln Bedroom smear became a Republican standard against the Clintons.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush sanctimoniously accused Clinton of "virtually renting out the Lincoln bedroom to big campaign donors." He condemned the use of the "hallowed" chamber for political payoffs.

Selling Lincoln bedroom disrespectful, by Helen Thomas

In 1997, Ann Lewis had to go on "The News Hour" to address the attack that became a continual talking point from wingnuts: For two straight days President Clinton denied there was any improper use of the Lincoln Bedroom and other White House functions in raising campaign funds for his 1996 re-election campaign. Jim Lehrer leads a discussion with Ann Lewis, assistant to the President, and White House Deputy Director of Communications, and three regional commentators who disagree with the President's view.

Fast forward. Now how about this beauty. Who said it?

"The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate."
Rudy Giuliani, right?

Nah, Mitt Romney, that's got to be it!

Wrong.

It's John Edwards in a speech he gave today in New Hampshire.

This is how an email from NBC First Read characterized the speech:

The Re-Launch: So is Edwards trying to re-launch his campaign? It depends on how one interprets a speech he's giving today in New Hampshire, where he attempts to re-frame the race in a way that makes him the real change agent in the Democratic race. "The choice for our party could not be more clear," Edwards will say, according to advance excerpts. "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." He also will say, "The choice we must make is as important as it is clear. It is a choice between looking back and looking forward. A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared. It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle. It is the establishment elites versus the American people." This, it seems, will be the argument that Edwards plans to use against Clinton for the rest of the campaign. At a minimum, consider this the new stump speech.
They just left out the Clinton money quote Edwards used today, which is straight out of the right-wing playbook. There are plenty of ways to come at Clinton on the issues, especially Iraq. But if this is the Edwards re-launch, I hope it makes a turn into better territory. Because between Obama's "Bush-Cheney lite" and Edwards talking about "The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," I've got to say that these guys sound positively desperate.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:27:55 PM EST

Link to AP story (none / 0)

http://apnews.myway.com//article/2007082 3/D8R6T2TO0.html

"The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.

Edwards said the past isn't going to solve today's problems or "a corrupt a corroded system."

"Those wed to the policies of the '70s, '80s or the '90s are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there," he said.

Clinton served as first lady during most of the 1990s.

Edwards later said he didn't mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech, but her campaign felt otherwise.

"Angry attacks on other Democrats won't improve Senator Edwards' flagging campaign," said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. "Senator Clinton has the leadership and experience to make real change happen, and she has been fighting for American families for 35 years."

BTW, I guess his reference to the 70's was an attempt to trash the other living Democratic former-President. What the hell, might as well go all the way!


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to AP story (3.00 / 1)

Yeah, Edwards was obviously taking a cheap shot at Jimmy Carter, since no one was more of a corporate stooge than him.

God, try to be at least somewhere close to reality.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I seem to remember (3.00 / 1)

Nixon and Ford through most of the 70s...


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to AP story (none / 0)

Carter hosted many of his large supporters in the White House. Half of Atlanta spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom. So what?


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to AP story (none / 0)

I'm confident Edwards was not trying to "trash" Jimmy Carter, and you look like a fool for saying he was.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hwc already (1.00 / 2)

looked like a fool.


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to AP story (none / 0)

Those journalists are lazy, they are still to find out the money quote 'Lincoln bedroom'.  It's probably going to be talked about among talking heads tomorrow based on this rate.

They haven't really kept a close eye on Edwards' campaign.

I sure hope they can pick out this money quote!! LOL.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I do also. The truth is (none / 0)

quite scary to "the inevitable one."

Don't you have a poll to peddle?

The word is getting out on Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic Party will not be the party of the corporations.  We reject them and their apologists, such as you.


by TomP on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do also. The truth is (none / 0)

Lets not go over board. Clinton isn't horrible, but she's also not our best choice this cyle.


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:59:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do also. The truth is (none / 0)

If this is where you stand, I'm surprised we've had such strong disagreements.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do also. The truth is (3.00 / 1)

i dont consider telling the truth about what someone has done going overboard. I do consider trying to turn them into a devil as going overboard. I voted for her for senate. I just dont think she is right for president. and yes, i do think having donors over at the WH is pretty bad. Just dont agree with the practice. we can not claim superioty to the GOP if the face of our party engages in exactly the same tactics, in other words, we cant claim better ideas if we then dont implement them


by bruh21 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I never said (3.00 / 1)

she was "horrible."  She just is part of the problem.  Is she better than Bush.  Sure.  But no real change from her because she is part of our corporate Democrats.


by TomP on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to AP story (3.00 / 1)

you're an idiot. and stop laughing out loud, no one gives a shit whether you are laughing or sighing or whatever other bullshit.


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Link to Truth (3.00 / 1)

Looks like Hillary is just feeling guilty.  Bush did it also:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/ 0310-04.htm

Published on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 by the Associated Press  
Bush Fund-Raisers Among Overnight Guests in the Lincoln Bedroom  
by Sharon Theimer

WASHINGTON - President Bush opened the White House and Camp David to dozens of overnight guests last year, including foreign dignitaries, family friends and at least nine of his biggest campaign fund-raisers, documents show.

In all, Bush and first lady Laura Bush have invited at least 270 people to stay at the White House and at least the same number to overnight at the Camp David retreat since moving to Washington in January 2001, according to lists the White House provided The Associated Press.

Some guests spent a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, historic quarters that gained new fame in the Clinton administration amid allegations that Democrats rewarded major donors like Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand with accommodations there.


by TomP on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to Truth (none / 0)

It was only the Clintons that got attacked over this practice. And it was only the Clinton who had the charge "renting out the lincoln bedroom" leveed against them.

The republicans lied about "renting out" which is excidently presicely the framing Edwards used. He didn't say "no more overnight guests staying in the lincoln bedroom" He copied an attack line made by republicans. So yeah it was specifically keyed towards the Clintons as they have been the only ones who ever had the false charge of renting out the lincoln bedroom hold against them.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:32:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to Truth (none / 0)

and because the clinton did a practice that we don't agree with we are supposed to shut up because why? because the GOP happened to have mentioned it? uhm- I am going to go no with that idea. Essentially this whole "right wing smear" retort is designed to shut down discussion that makes your candidate look bad. Tough.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:49:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to Truth (none / 0)

You are without the most dishonest and insulting commenter on this site. Worse then areyouready or any other. As soon as you don't agree with any poster you try to shut them down by attacking their integrity and honesty by claiming in various ways that they are spinning or lying in other ways.

Not once have I seen you deal with dissent any other way but attack the honor of the poster you disagreed with. I'm sick and tired of you doubting my honesty. You can't be bothered to assume good faith of the people you are arguing with, well then I can't be bothered to do the same for you.

Time and time again have I respectfully asked that you stop accusing me of spinning and lying. You never did. I'm sick and tired to discuss things with you as your contributions seen limited to trying to avoid discussions in favor of personal attacks.

And what practise? Do you even have any clue what the hell was meant with renting out the Lincoln bedroom? The republicans didn't just go after letting fundraisers and other political friends stay in the Lincoln bedroom as a political favor.

No they specifically charged that he sold access. That you could rent the Whitehouse. That $100.000 would get a guaranteed night in the bedroom as it was an hotel.

The republicans used the words "renting out the Lincoln bedroom" because they literally meant you could rent it! It wasn't about the practise of letting people use it as a favor or as a reward. It was charged he sold nights in the Lincoln bedroom.

It was a complete fabrication. He did not sell the Lincoln bedroom, there was no quid pro quo. The republicans had completely made it up. And that attack was sold as:

Renting out the Lincoln bedroom.

No president ever did it. NO president. And there is only one president who was accused of this.

Yet you claim that although it uses the exact wording as that baseless attack of the republicans that it has an entirely different meaning. And that it never was targeted at the Clintons specifically although the wording only have been used against them and against nobody else. And that by protesting against the untruth I'm actually confirming it.

Renting out the Lincoln bedroom was about selling the bedroom for direct fundraising gain, something McCain-Feingold not about having

I'm sorry, but you are calling me dishonest?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to Truth (none / 0)

you continue to claim i am dishonest, and yet its you who continue to make shit up. look these events did happen. write as many diatribes as you want claiming that it didnt. i am not going to waste any more time respond to your inability to look shit up and deal with reality just because you don't like what it makes you feel about your candidate.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to Truth (none / 0)

Just to be clear, the practice that is reverenced to by the phrase "Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom" is selling it for $100.000 a night.

That did not happen.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Link to AP story (3.00 / 1)

Change of subject #7
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (3.00 / 1)

replicans said X a while ago. Dem says X now. Lynch the Dem.

maybe you need someone to read "my pet goat to you."


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (none / 0)

Republicans made up a completely false attack X to smear a democratic president. Democratic candidate now repeats completely false attack X and validates those lying Republicans in order to get closer to his own goal.

You are right, somebody is lynching a Dem here, but I think we disagree on who...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (none / 0)

you can't lynch someone with the truth. the more peo like you bitch the more I think he's hitting a nerve because reading that speech its clear he's talking about the practice itself, not simply who does it. democrat or republican. but in your mind he was just talking about clinton- says more about guilty mind than anything else.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:48:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (none / 0)

No it's clear he is repeating a republican smear word for word. That you could rent the Lincoln bedroom. Not that previous presidents let high influence politico's sleep there.

There has only one president ever been accused of renting out the lincoln. If he wanted to go after the practise of letting important people stay there Edwards shouldn't have copied the text of a baseless attack against Bill Clinton word for word.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (1.00 / 1)

whats clear is your lack of reading comprehension skills or research skills for that matter. who is the most recent person to misuse the WH? bush in terms of the exact same approach.w aht edwards was pointing out is factually correct. whats said is the level to which you lie to yourself here. you claim that the clinton's didn't use the WH to let contributors stay over- now thats just factually not true. you can claim its a smear becaus eyou dont like the fact its being brought up but to pretend it didn't happen is just you making shit up.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (none / 0)

Just to be clear, the practise that is reverenced to by the phrase "Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom" is selling it for $100.000 a night.

That did not happen.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM (none / 0)

Just to be clear, the practise that is reverenced to by the phrase "Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom" is selling it for $100.000 a night.

So yeah. campaigning against a non-existent practise, that only existed except in the feverish minds of Republicans.

Right...


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate (3.00 / 2)

Of course the corporate media is part of the Establishment - and Hillary is their corporate choice.
Interesting that Hillaries don't THINK - Hmmm...why doesn't the media air any of the current controversial issues about the Clintons that are posted on MyDD?  Oh wait - Progressive blogs have a habit of posting credible news that NEVER makes it to TV and the public.
Instead - Hillaries are just glad the media is ignoring any controversies about the Clintons and focused on more important issues like Edwards haircuts.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:40:30 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate (none / 0)

oh you mean like the "Rove and Clinton Campaign in Cahoots" conspiracy?

haha Annefrank you make me get side stitches some times with your posts they are Just SO FUNNY


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (none / 0)

Begala just commented on Edwards' desperate attacks. Paraphasing slightly from memory:

I was in the White House when the Republicans made the Lincoln bedroom attacks. Back the, John Edwards was one of Clinton's most outspoken defenders. I don't know what's made him change his mind. Maybe he's going after an endorsement from Kenneth Starr.

And the other thing. The last Gallup Poll I saw showed Bill Clinton with an 89% favorability among Democrats. So I don't understand what Edwards hopes to accomplish by attacking President Clinton. Who's he going after next? Mahatma Gandi?


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 05:33:00 PM EST

Re: Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (3.00 / 3)

Paul Begala who worked for Bill.

Listen guys, if your candidate can't handle a poke like this, maybe she isn't up for a fight in the general election.  

Look on the bright side.  You ain't seen anything like what will happen when John rips into the GOP in the general election.  He's fighting with only one hand now.


by Rooktoven on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (none / 0)

Ya gotta admit, "going after an endorsement from Kenneth Starr" is a pretty funny line.


by hwc on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

at least Edwards isn't (none / 0)

working on Scooter Libby's defense fund like Hill's people are.

nor is he using Lieberman's fundraiser who Hillary has also recently picked up


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (3.00 / 3)

Always the polls, never the content. Change of subject #8
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (none / 0)

I'll keep a track on these comments. Looks like he'll get something to explain.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (none / 0)

Oh, Bill Clinton = Mahatma Gandhi! Yeah, he's credible.  Or an establishment Democrat who doesn't like his meal ticket being threatened.  Either/or.


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paul Begala on CNN: Lincoln Bedroom (3.00 / 1)

Let's see,

Paul Begala = Clitonite, Part of Corporate Media, Part of Corporate America, friends with many lobbyists

Hmmm... no conflict of interest there! Perhaps Edwards's barbs hit a little too close to home and Begala and the whole rest of the corporate Dems had to look at themselves in the mirror for just a minute today and didn't like what they saw.

But more likely they just instinctively try to kill the messenger, again.

Comparing Bill Clinton to Ghandi was priceless though.


by adamterando on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Die Hard Obama Supporter To John Edwards: (3.00 / 1)

Tell it , Baby , TELL IT !


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 07:37:49 PM EST

Re: Die Hard Obama Supporter To John Edwards: (none / 0)

roflmao well.. come on obama. whatcha gonna do?


by Trey Rentz on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:36:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (3.00 / 1)

how close this cut to the bone.  They don't like it.  They don't like where the conversation appears to be going.

I really can't blame them.  If I were a Hillaryite, I wouldn't like where this was going, either.

I'm going to Email Edwards, and encourage him to keep the gloves off.  This is meat and drink to me, and I want more of it.


by John Poet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:10:17 PM EST

We've Heard it All Before (none / 0)

From the Republican Party.


by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

You should mail a thank you to the republican party, He's only stolen their lines.

And yes I don't like it when dems use republican attacks on other dems. there was a time when most Edward supports didn't as well.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (3.00 / 2)

So anything that's true that the GOP happened to use both as an attack on Clinton, and in fact while Bush was in office, is off limits? You people are amazing. Essentialy you don't want a primary, just coronation. That's not going to happen.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:46:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

If it was true, yes.

But it isn't. As for your other badmouthing of me. I've regularly voiced my doubt about Clinton and said that I was glad with the primary because that gave her the chance to address my doubts. I've made my doubt very public. But then again you regularly take liberty with what people say in order to let it fit in closed worldview of how people are if they argue against you. I'm done with your constant accusations about me and my motives. I've always been respectful towards you. But I'm sick of it, if you cant accord me the same curtsey I'm simply not going to reply to you anymore.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (3.00 / 1)

there's no if- we know for a fact that the clinton's did this. the only real argument being offered is -w ell but everyone does it, and therefore that makes it a smear to bring it up. hardly a defense worth even mentioning except that it allows for the claim of right wing smear by edwards when in fact edwards was directing his comment to everyone- who did this most recently? bush, its a statement abo ut the wasthington establishment. if clinton hadn't been involved you wouldn't care. and in fact would be applauding it.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

Just to be clear, the practice that is reverenced to by the phrase "Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom" is selling it for $100.000 a night.

That did not happen.

if clinton hadn't been involved you wouldn't care. and in fact would be applauding it.

You really don't know the first thing about me. For you to claim I'm a blinded partisan is laughable as I've faulted Clinton many, many times here.  


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 01:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (1.00 / 2)

ersnst the shit you are making up here is all i need to know. there is a certain kind of psyche that does this and its aint healthy political for this country. i am tired of people making excuses for our party, and id o mean all of our party, when they fuck up in public life, we need to call them on it rather than acting like its a virtue. its not.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

First, Don't insult me again. Second, both my statements are factual and can be verified unlike yours.

Your whole debunking consist of saying ne-uh! Insulting the honesty of the commenter who presents you with facts you have no answer for and Claiming you know better what the purpose of the comment was then the actual commenter.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

you know damn well it isnt true.

No matter how many times you say its true, doesnt actually make it true. shame on you, for using yet another Right wing (in this case Bush) tactic.

the apple doesnt fall far from the tree apparently


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

i know damn well it is ture. the only real issue if you your inability to deal with truth. please point to me where it didn't happen. every comment on teh subject is typically ' but its a smear because the right wing also said it. uhm, no, what it is is admonishment against the establishment, and the process by which it does things in public office. you cant really address that other than pretending its a smear or pretending it didn't happen. sad actually.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:19:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The shrillness of the Hillary-ites shows (none / 0)

Actually, what i think is sad is that you are so blindly following anything Edwards says that you cannot admit that this was a gaffe.

Yes, donors stayed in the WH. Yes, friends stayed. Yes, Chelsea had a slumber party.  All these people were included when Rush and co. attacked Clinton. They included a bunch of 11 year old girls in the list of people who stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom.

After they had a list of x amount of people, they then started smearing the Clinton's by saying that they were RENTING the Lincoln Bedroom.

RENTING is the operative word that makes this a right wing smear. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE SO BLIND TO SEE THAT IS SAD, DISGUSTING, AND PATHETIC.

Whats worse is that you are trying to pass it off as truth.

WHATS EVEN WORSE! is that Edwards is now resorting to these RWNM attacks, and sending out emails about the renting of the Lincoln Bedroom.

Edwards is articulate and he could have made his point without repeating right wing noise. The fact that he needs to use this noise is sad, and the fact that you are trying to pass it off as truth is pathetic.

Its RW noise because of the wording. Go look up rent, go look up room, and find hotels. The Clintons did not open a Hotel in the White House.

Like i said earlier, go shovel your BULLSHIT elsewhere.

If thats what Edwards is serving, i dont want any of it.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me get this straight... (3.00 / 1)

The Hillaryites are painting this non-attack as an attack. First of all, Bill Clinton (not Hillary) was President for the Lincoln bedroom sleep overs, and even the Clinton defenders admit that it was standard operating procedure by other Presidents. This is exactly what Edwards is talking about, that it was S.O.P. and should no longer be so. Why do the Hillaryites disagree with that? What has she got planned for when she takes the WH? Other than gleefully taking money from big pharma, et al.
by dhooters on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:56:22 PM EST

Speaking of Big Pharma (none / 0)

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS /stories/08/22/campaign.nader.reut/index .html

We've heard that attack too.


by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me get this straight... (none / 0)

Why should Presidents stop inviting friends and associates and generally interesting people to the White House? Just because the right wing smear machine (and John Edwards) says so?

Think about it. Presidents and their families can't really go visit their friends at their houses or go out to a movie or a dinner in a restaurant. Any of those things takes a massive security detail. They've got to figure out a way to have a social life, a little interesting conversation, and try to stay sane during eight years in the White House.

I mean, bit whoop. The Clintons had Howard Dean and his wife stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. Or Nancy Bekovac, the President of Scripps College and Yale Law School buddy of Hillary's. Or Steven Spielberg. I mean, come on. If you could, wouldn't you like to have Spielberg drop by and talk movies?

This is so much ado about absolutely nothing and Edwards is a sleeze for making the BS attack.


by hwc on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 03:55:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me get this straight... (none / 0)

You really are an amoral person.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:44:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let me get this straight... (none / 0)

I aspire to be amoral, polyamorous and semi-ethical.

I usually end up being moral, monogamous and completely un ethical.

>:)


by Trey Rentz on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

First He's Channelling Nader (none / 0)

Not it's Bob Dole!


by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 02:22:12 AM EST

Re: First He's Channelling Nader (none / 0)

lol I love how dole always referred to himself in the third person. "bob dole doesn't like this"
"bob dole isn't going to do that"
by Trey Rentz on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First He's Channelling Nader (none / 0)

It's rough in the big leagues, I know.


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of Edwards, Trial Lawyers, Hedgefunds, and Murdoch (none / 0)

Did Edwards happen to mention the $500,000 he made from working for a hedge fund?

Did he mention his campaign contributions from trial lawyers and the hedgefund industry?

Did he mention the $800,000 he was paid by Murdoch for his "book"?

Didn't think so.

Sigh.


by BigBoyBlue on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:35:06 AM EST

Re: Of Edwards, Trial Lawyers, Hedgefunds, (3.00 / 1)

say it with me- private sector, public sector. do you know the difference?


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 08:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Edwards, Trial Lawyers, Hedgefunds, (none / 0)

wait. I want to try that.

private sector.

public sector.

Damn. There IS a difference. Thanks man.


by Trey Rentz on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:33:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Edwards, Trial Lawyers, Hedgefunds, (none / 0)

I see we got another one. I know you are bored with the country going to shit and all, but please don't inflict the rest of us with the waste of space that you bring to the thread. And oh, thanks for pointing out that you do get you are just making shit up to avoid the real issue.


by bruh21 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Edwards, Trial Lawyers, Hedgefunds, (none / 0)

talk about a waste of space!


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Way to Go Edwards (3.00 / 1)

Alright anyone who knows me, knows that this message Edwards chose here just resonates with me like you would not believe. I have been wondering of Late about what K Street has been up to. Edwards is well spoken. + 10 points for him on this one!

IMHO  Edwards and Richardson will make this primary season  exciting. Mark my words.

Where the heck is Obama with messages like this? One would think he would try to take this sort of road being the head of the ethics committee (?)


by Trey Rentz on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 10:32:52 AM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

From todays WSJ
The figures show:

   * Hillary Clinton landed nearly $20,000 from FHC Health Systems, of Norfolk, Va., which manages mental-health services, among other things.
    * John McCain pulled in nearly $29,000 from TriWest Healthcare Alliance, which provides health care to the military and has its corporate HQ in McCain's home state of Arizona.
    * John Edwards, whose career as a plaintiff's lawyer, isn't highly regarded by some in the health-care world, received fewer donations from the sector than any of the other top candidates.
    * Aetna employees gave a lot -- mostly to Chris Dodd, senator from Connecticut, where Aetna is based.
    * Pfizer, among drug makers, gave the most, and the New York-based company spread its donations around. Interestingly, Clinton got $12,150, the most of any single candidate, compared to $8,600 for former New York Mayor Rudy Giulian"

*Notice ...." John Edwards, whose career as a plaintiff's lawyer, isn't highly regarded by some in the health-care world, received fewer donations from the sector than any of the other top candidates."

These folks know Edwards is not just posturing..

Whole thing Here

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/08/24/h ealth-sector-ponies-up-for-presidential- candidates/


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie
by DenverD on Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 06:01:24 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

Look, what about these corporate donations:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/23/1325 11/820#comment_form
Edwards seems to be saying that it's not ok to take from lobbyists but doesn't have a problem in taking from some of the same people these lobbyists represent.  It's kind of like saying "under no circumstances will I deal with the pimp, but I'll just work directly with the prostitute" (sorry if this is an ugly example, but just couldn't think of anything else.)  I admit that my candidate, Hillary, isn't perfect on this issue either, but I think it;s disingenious for Edwards to claim that he's against corporate lobbyists when he bypasses  them and takes directly from the trough like the rest of the candidates.
by silver spring on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:06:09 PM EST

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

sorry, messed up on link above.... here's the correct link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339. html
by silver spring on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: Don't replace Corporate Republicans w (none / 0)

From the article above:

"Four months later, (Edwards) began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders -- a hedge fund.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has raised at least $167,700 from individuals associated with Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based hedge fund that hired the former North Carolina senator as an adviser in the fall of 2005.

Edwards became a consultant for Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based firm known mainly for its hedge funds, just as the funds were gaining prominence in the financial world -- and in the public consciousness, where awe over their outsize returns has mixed with misgivings about a rarefied industry that is, on the whole, RUN BY AND FOR EXTREMELY WEALTHY people and operates largely in secrecy.

A midsize but growing player in the hedge fund industry with more than $30 billion in assets, Fortress was the first hedge fund manager to go public, thereby subjecting itself to far more scrutiny. But it was an unusual choice of employment for Edwards, who for years has decried offshore tax shelters as part of his broader campaign to reduce inequality. While Fortress was incorporated in Delaware, its hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, enabling its partners and foreign investors to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes...."


by silver spring on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 03:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.