Sen. Edwards on Hardball now - 7PM EST

[Vespasian]

Discussing the confederate flag issue right now.

[ShaneGR]

1. WOW!

He's doing great!

[chimpymustgo]

2. Tweety nodding his head, agreeing with everything.

He likes Edwards a lot. (hope that's not the kiss of death!)

[robsul82]

3. "Right at the top" of the field, John?

*horribly muffled giggle*

Later.

RJS

[ShaneGR]

4. So much for the whole "Tweety is too biased" thing

Yes, Tweety can be a bastard about Bush. But he was fair with his questions of Edwards, and Edwards knocked everything out of the park!

I want video of that.

[CWebster]

6. Please, Tweety lobbed him softballs compared

to the way he beat Kucinich with a bat.

And this scum, Edwards, needed to have the tar slapped out of him for his recent vain display of at the last debate. That was some destructive grandstanding from a desperate and resentful player. He knew exactly where Dean was coming from.

Tonight Tweety showed Dean's speech earlier in the year in front of the DNC -where he repeated the same phrase he has often repeated throughout the campaign, but Edwards claimed he never heard it before. Yeah right, Edwards, who took issue with Dean in the past on the subject of race, claims innocence? He just took the opening Sharpton gave him, like the rank opportunist he is.

A real nowhere man.

[mlawson]

8. You are calling Edwards, "scum"???????

There are no responses I can think of at the moment, that would not get me banned.....

[Pastiche423]

16. Hell, I've been calling Edwards

scum for a year on this board. He earned that title! Why not give it to him?

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Your pain does not give you the right to be above reproach

You perceive that he hates the handicapped because of one vote for a Judge. You do not know why he made that vote, and you absolutely disregard any other evidence of his decency. At the same time, you systematically gloss over any personal "quirks" of your hero Dean, and have no compunction about misrepresenting Edwards.

Your personal health issues do not grant you the status of privilege. I know this is hard for you to hear and for others to read, but your mind has slammed shut due to this, and you expect some kind of dispensation for your behavior on this count. That's aristocracy, and it has no place in a quasi-democracy.

This is a man who's risked political survival in his home state on many occasions to do what he considered right. Nobody was harder on Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings. Nobody.

You've claimed that you grew up among this kind of slick southern boy and see right through him. Well, here's some news: I grew up in New England, and I've seen many a cocksure, snotty prince of great wealth like Dean, and they're cut from whole cloth: he reminds me of Junior on many levels, and I'm not making that up. I don't trust Dean to the door, and I deeply dislike macho guys who can't admit mistakes. I've had enough of the rule of testosterone in this culture, and Dean is an Autocrat, not a Democrat.

Your experiences in life are not inherently superior to others'. At least you've been somewhat absent from the Edwards topic of late, but I guess that's over.

Edwards' platform on workers, the poor, regulation and a host of other issues put him more in keeping with progressivism than the "centrist" Dean; you have long since made up your mind to dismiss this.

[AP]

18. Sweet post.

Thanks.

[Pastiche423]

19. You wheel a year in my chair

THEN come back and talk to me about rights. The rights that that scum DENIED me and over 50 million other people in this country.

No, I do not know why he voted the way he did. BECAUSE HE WILL NOT RETURN ANYONE'S EMAIL, LETTER, FAX, OR PHONE CALL W/AN EXPLANATION!

I never asked for "status of privilege". I, along w/millions of other disabled people want only the rights the ADA 1st granted us. Is it asking too much to want to live a half ass normal life? The disabled are not asking for much, just to be able to get into banks, doctor offices, movie theaters, resturants, stores, business offices, buses or trains. Being abled to get a job wouldn't be too bad, either.

And btw, I don't give a flying fuck that he might risk his political survival. Hell, I hope he does!

Not only does Dean have a webpage devoted to the disabled, but has an e-group devoted to the disabled as well.

What does Johnny boy have? NADA! The only time he's been on the side of a disabled person, is when he could make a buck off of their misery!

The only person here showing superiority to others, is you!

[PurityOfEssence]

20. What rights has Edwards denied you?

He voted for an appointment of someone with a record you don't like. When has Edwards ever voted for a bill that would take services away from you? You continually claim this and it is absolutely false.

You have been confronted by this in the past and you still cannot point to anything he's denied you, yet you continually misrepresent this. That is unethical.

You've said this over and over and over. A casual reader would think that he'd campaigned actively against the rights of the disabled, and that simply isn't true.

You owe this board an apology for continually and deliberately misrepresenting him. Does truth mean nothing to you?

What gives you the undeniable right to have a candidate respond to you? Do you demand that everyone respond to your liking or risk your unrestrained wrath? There are over a quarter of a billion people in this country. The guy's trying to be a Senator while running for office.

[Pastiche423]

22. No, you owe me an apology

You have no idea what his vote has done. You don't care what his vote has done. You do not know how hard it has been or how hard disabled activists have worked to simply maintain the ADA in the form it was 1st passed.

IT IS ALL THAT WE HAVE!

What Edwards did by voting for a judge, that he KNEW wanted to water down the already watered down ADA, was to water it down even more.

Edwards knew all about D. Brooks Smith months before the vote. How many emails, letters, faxes and phone calls would it have taken to get through to him the damage his vote would do?

He knew! And he voted against the rights of the disabled.

He is not qualified, nor does he deserve to be president.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. No. You're incorrect and habitually misrepresent

Voting for someone to be appointed to the bench who has many views about many things is not equivalent to voting against the disabled. This is deliberately misleading on your part.

Why don't you answer my post about his website? You spat at us all that there was NOTHING about the disabled, yet there are vigorous programs in detail. In this, you are flagrantly incorrect. What you rage at in all caps is specifically inaccurate.

Dean is evasive on guns; does that make him a pro-gun bloodsoaked NRA nut? By your logic it would.

You constantly say that he voted against the disabled. He voted to seat someone, not to deliberately warehouse people. You are deliberately misleading, you know it, and you somehow feel entitled to do so on a very touchy topic because you've been somehow granted a "get out of reality" card that you exercise at your fancy. This is anti-social. It's deceptive. It's habitual. You are incorrect and you are vehemently unfair. You're acting like Dean: making flagrantly incorrect pronouncements and snorting with derision at being called on on them.

Once again, go to the search box on Edwards' website, type in "disabled" and hit "enter". Please read all of this stuff that doesn't exist, then go back, cobble together your next fulmination against this honorable man, and let's have another round of this ridiculousness.

Are you, like Dean, unable or unwilling to admit when you're wrong? Where does that fit in with the covenant of society?

[shance]

24. Get out of you self-consumed self for a minute "Purity"!

Unless you are the six million dollar man, we could all have the same thing happen to us, AND we would be experiencing the same betrayal of cheap words and lack of true follow through and commitment. And yes, this does hold John Edwards accountable, as anyone should be, if they portray themselves to be something that they are NOT.

The reality is ANY OF US could easily become disabled, with a car wreck or God forbid if we were called to the bogus war, or work incident, or disease, and all I can see is how you are more concerned with saving your candidates ass.

If this had been Dean voting on this disabled bill and had voted against it, I would take good note of that and realize that he really doesnt suit up and show up.

However, I would never support a candidate that just talks and does not follow through, and Edwards, as good as he is at the talking comes short when supporting disabled individuals who are living day by day with an affliction that limits them from doing things that many take for granted.

Our society has virtually ignored disabled and discriminated against those who have ailments that inhibit them from being able to live and work as easily as many of us. That is a American crime, flaw and defect in our society.

Who in the hell are you and I to lecture anyone if we (at this time) HAVE NO DISABILITLIES?

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Let me catch you up on this ongoing issue

This issue with Pastiche goes waaaay back.

Yes, it's easy to side with the disabled person against the hothead, but look just at this thread: she called him scum. Once again, she has injected herself into an Edwards thread with the shrieking emotionally-supercharged righteousness of the wronged. That's heady stuff even if it's based on truth, but this claim is radically misrepresented. She preys upon people's ignorance of the details to fulfill a personal quest to vilify Edwards. Does he not deserve a fair hearing? This is ridiculous.

Repeatedly over the months, she has said that Edwards "voted against the disabled" "is against the disabled" and any number of absolute distortions. Why he voted for D. Brooks Smith hasn't been explained, but the constant deceptive rhetoric that Edwards specifically voted and worked directly and specifically against the disabled is incorrect, and it has been mentioned constantly.

For the longest time, no Edwards thread could even make it past a handful of posts before she attacked brutally.

Her claim is simply not true.

Her attack was, once again, with vicious rhetoric. May we not respond to this? What kind of groupthink is that?

John Edwards is a sincere and decent person. I truly believe that he could be a true statesman for the ages and it's frustrating to see someone so beset from so many quarters. Pastiche has been called to defend her statements many times in the past, and constantly reverts to equivocation to translate a vote to seat someone with a bad record on this issue as Edwards' pathological and deliberate destruction of the disabled. It's been repeatedly brought up with the high outrage of the wronged, and it is very destructive. Edwards deserves to be heard; all of them do. Her repeated crushing pronouncements have turned off many, and out of fairness she should be called to account.

As for the Dean frustration, I have my issues there, but still have defended him on occasions where he's wrongly thumped on.

Am I less of a person just because I'm only partially disabled, have the use of my limbs and senses and am in reasonable shape? For this, am I bound by more than just fairplay, but must endure unfounded character assasination of a candidate in whom I believe without any redress because my hectoring rival is on some pedestal of physical irreproachability? That's horseshit.

This has gone on and on and on, and has now resurfaced with a vengeance.

I certainly do have my share of pomposity, but I play by the rules of equality, and this person refuses to. Do her afflictions give her a blank check to twist, distort and vigorously slander? People who hold the rest of the world ransom for their limitations are presuming that none of the rest of have anything to contend with, and are demanding some kind of aristocracy.

Let's just say that you've stumbled into something very old and well-trodden. Putting that aside, just read this thread from the top as if there was no history. I'll conclude with the appropriately childishness: she started it.

She should also read Edwards' website and see all of the information that she "knows" isn't there.

[Bombtrack]

32. And any of us could be disabled by getting shot, not that the NRA cares

And every year many many people are killed and maimed by guns that if regulated better wouldn't have been able to used to do those things.

Dean deserves just as much acountability for his long history of support for the largest right-wing interest group in the country as Edwards does for one vote for one judge.

Dean never authored a patients bill of rights and Dean didn't have a career of success fighting in court for people who have been hurt and disabled because of the negligence of the powerful.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Go to Edwards' website, and type "disabled" into the search box

AND GET AN EDUCATION.

I found ten entries, ranging from block grants to other issues. You are ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

If you have the slightest scrap of integrity, then I suggest you read these.

[AP]

26. Edwards has a professional hisory of winning a quarter billion dollars for

people injured by the negigence of large corporations, and many of those people had injuries which permanently disabled them or, in some cases, resulted in their early deaths.

Did you say that Dean had a website? How nice.

[AP]

29. Googling D.Brooks Smith and Edwards and the impression I get is that...

... there's no mention in the coverage of disability rights anywhere. I don't doubt that disability groups opposed him (however, I'm taking Pastiche's word -- yet, I do emphasize that in the dozen or so articles I read, there was NOTHING about the ADA or any disability rights group making an issue of this nomination). So, even if Smith had a problem with disability issues, it wasn't in the public conscience, and had anyone voted for or againt him on that issue, the public would have never percieved it as a vote for or against disability rights. It would be like, if a judge known for being againtst states rights also happened to think that asylum law should be expaned, and Democrats voted for him on the states rights issues, and then Pastiche used it as an example of Democrats' antipaty to the expansion of asylum law.

Nonetheless, the most popular criticism of Smith was by women's groups, and here's what they said:

Smith's critics accused him of a serious ethical lapse in the handling of one case and of espousing an overly narrow view of the powers of the federal government. They also said his decisions too often have sided with business against the interests of others.

But the strongest criticism of Smith centered on his membership in the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club, a fishing and hunting organization that excludes women. As part of his 1988 confirmation to the district court, Smith promised the Judiciary Committee that he would resign from the club ]if he failed to win a change in its bylaws to admit women. Smith resigned from the club, which remains closed to women, in 1999.

Laying out the Democratic case against Smith, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the judge had "flagrantly broken" his promise to the committee. He said that to elevate him now to an appeals court would send "a bad message." Leahy and others also cited Smith's failure to recuse himself immediately from a case involving a bank where his wife worked and in which he had a substantial financial interest.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0524-05.htm

I found a quote from Edwards saying that this creates concerns but wasn't enough to conclude that he wouldn't apply the law fairly. OK, that's reasonable. But why didn't Edwards just vote againt the guy, as did about 35 of his fellow Democrats?

Well, two other things become clear when you read the articles. One is that the Democrats really wanted to not be the boys who cried wolf on the judicial nominations. They control neither the senate nor the judicial committee, so the only way they can block a truly bad nomination is by fillibustering. Fillibustering comes at a particularly high price. They clearly weren't going to do it with Smith over a gun club membership (yikes). So, when they object to someone, they'll really object, and they need to retain their crediblity. Which is what happened when they fillibustered Gonzalez.

Now, the other thing that is clear when you Google is that the Pittsburgh papers were making a big deal about this nomination. They were criticizing Edwards for it before there was any vote because they presumed he was voting against it. Say what you will about political ethics, but everyone agrees that PA is a swing state next year, and will be very close, and if you want to be president of the USofA so that you can protect the rights of every American, including the disabled, whom you fought so hard for as a lawyer, and if you want to change the tax code a little bit so that you can level the playing field on which, today, corporations that control newspapers enjoy such a huge advantage, well, are you going to throw that opportunity to the wind over a judge just becasue of gun club membership?

Edwards seemed to be avoiding a public character assination from the Pittsburgh papers over something that wasn't going to carry much weight with people in the first place if he had voted against it.

Life in America sucks, and one of the many reasons it sucks is because Republicans who control newspapers in the second largest city in states which could DETERMINE the outcome of the next election get to have their way every once in a while.

Now, why would JRE care enough not to piss off those newspapers? Because he really wants to be president, not so that he can continue to lead American down the path which allows that sort of thing to happen. It's because he wants to change America so that it isn't like that anymore.

So wise up folks.

[CWebster]

28. You need to hang your head

and I think you know why.

I always admired your turn of the word, but that was cruel.

Anytime Edwards is ready to discuss the mistake he made in supporting Bunnypant's big adventure, and the promise that the Iraqis would be cheering in the streets- I will be all ears.

Until then, he is scum.

[Bombtrack]

33. that is a huge lie

find me one quote where Edwards says Iraqi's will be cheering in the streets.

I hope you can elaborate on you're reasoning because the way it reads now is that every one in America that isn't anti-war on Iraq is scum. So more than 2 thirds of Americans are scum according to you.

[CWebster]

34. I saw him say it on Tweety's show before the invasion

Look it up. Did you think I would forget? He probably wishes everyone would.

[Bombtrack]

35. you're the one making the claim, why don't you look it up?

And there were Iraqi's cheering in the streets when Baghdad fell anyway.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Do you think this is the Soviet Union? You need to back up an accusation

You don't just bark at people to look it up; it's your contention, you need to prove it. Who do you think you are?

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Oh please, don't be passive-aggressive about it

If you have an instance of my cruelty, bring it right up. I am engaged in dialogue with someone who demands the right to be above reproach, and constantly pulls the emotional heartstrings to justify her claim of it, doing so with hysterical and vicious shrillness.

When questioned about making such a big deal about his origins, Edwards has repeatedly said that for whatever reason and by whatever path, Kerry and Dean figured out what was good and fair. Edwards has been truly gentlemanly in the face of pretty scathing assaults.

What right does Pastiche have to come in and excoriate this man with deliberate misrepresentation? Do I not have the right to have hopes and dreams too, just because I have the misfortune to not be as disabled? Does this make her beyond reproach? I thought an overall acceptance of democracy, truth and fairplay were ground rules on this board.

I defy you to find a quote about us being greeted as liberators. A person of integrity would not throw up a bunch of flak and then change the subject; yes, I'm questioning your integrity here, so make no mistake about it.

Regardless of that, you're changing the subject and adopting a claim to moral high ground. That is UNDEMOCRATIC. I'm sorry Edwards called out your hero on some of his crap, but Dean is not above reproach either, and he provides a staggering amount of ammunition.

So go ahead: point out how I've been such a despicable cur; don't use passive-aggressive mealy-mouthed smear tactics. Point out the instances. Nothing I've said has been unwarranted or unprovoked, and all is easily within the bounds of decency.

I have the right to see my champion given at least some version of a fair hearing, and if you've dismissed me as "inferior" and "not deserving fairplay", then at least have some respect for the rest of the decent, inquisitive human beings on the board, and start to approximate fairness.

[ShaneGR]

9. 2 points... why you are wrong

Kucinich got browbeat because he isn't good in interviews. I've seen him do poorly on Crossfire and Hardball. I think Kucinich says a lot of things that need to be said, but he is not a pressure candidate.

Second off, is Howard Dean from the south? No. Is John Edwards from the south? Yes. So is John Edwards allowed to question Dean about his comments on the south? Yes.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[JNelson6563]

11. for credibility click HERE

Tonight Tweety showed Dean's speech earlier in the year in front of the DNC -where he repeated the same phrase he has often repeated throughout the campaign, but Edwards claimed he never heard it before. Yeah right, Edwards, who took issue with Dean in the past on the subject of race, claims innocence? He just took the opening Sharpton gave him, like the rank opportunist he is.

With your stick-that-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it attitude I was wondering if you would take a moment from your lofty heights to address the above slice of the post you addressed.

Personally I do not believe for a moment that Edwards is so out of the loop that he didn't know what ALL the candidates said at the DNC meeting. And if he IS that clueless then his staff is worthless.

Julie

[ShaneGR]

14. Hey, I like Edward

And I also like Dean. But I think Edwards has a right to question Dean on comments, particularly since Dean is from a very Northeastern state.

The poster I was replying to made a ridiculous remark, and called Edwards 'Scum'.

That's absolutely ridiculous, I pointed that out and told him to stick my answer in his pipe and smoke it. I stand by my comments.

BUT, they are not directed at all Dean supporters.

As for the whole, Edwards should know every single thing Dean has ever said. Probably, but this is politics. Dean plays it. Kerry plays it. Edwards plays it. Kucinich plays it. ALL OF THEM PLAY POLITICS.

[unfrigginreal]

13. I thought Southerners were Americans?

Since when did the South decide that only Southern candidates can address them. Seemed like Edwards wanted it both ways the other night, criticize Dean for reaching out to Confed flag supporters but embracing the segregation that the flag symbolizes.

[NashVegas]

27. "We Don't Need You To Come Down Here .."

bingo.

When I watched Edwards say that at the time, I was merely disappointed. The more time it has to sink in, the more bigoted the remark shows itself to be and I'm no longer disappointed but kicking myself for looking fondly on his 'aw shucks' act.

[AP]

30. If you don't like Dean, it really was pleasing to hear.

But I'm sure you know that.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. Your comments are outrageous

The Hardball show a few weeks ago had Matthews sandbagging and hammering Edwards.

Your boy Dean is precisely what John Edwards called him in the Boston Debate: "arrogant". How dare anyone question Dean? They do it because Dean is vicious, often incorrect, pompous and unrepentant out of some kind of self-proclaimed privilege. His followers turn a blind eye toward all of this and rail like victims when called to account.

Edwards is ethically head-and-shoulders above Dean as a human being. Following the thrust of this dynamic, I predict that if you respond to this at all, it'll be with the dudgeon of the persecuted, even though your post is rank vitriol conjured to enflame. Dean is not a god. He doesn't deserve some patrician blank check; his record isn't good enough to sustain that even if such a thing was consistent with democracy.

Dean attacks his fellow candidates on an extremely personal and moral level, and is so sold on his superiority that he can brook no resistance. He is so morally above the fray that mere "accuracy" or "fairness" aren't of any concern to him in his fantasy land. He's a smart-assed loudmouth, and he can't take it. If he's so damned brilliant, he should at least be able to get his facts straight on more than an occasional basis.

He's brought this upon himself with his attacks, and is proving himself deficient of character. Spare your energies in the enabling of his folly if you truly care about him, and work within his campaign to get him off his high horse.

[MidwestTransplant]

5. Here's what I don't understand about Edwards...

Why he isn't doing better in the polls. He is passionate and has good ideas but for some reason he never caught on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. He's Too Cute.... Too Young Looking...

Maybe that's why Clinton dyed his hair gray....

[ShaneGR]

10. Did JFK dye his hair gray?

not that I think Edwards is JFK, but he could be. I wish 'what they could be' on a lot of these candidates. For me, Edwards is #1 on what he could be.

[leetrisck]

12. Thought Edwards did well

but I still can't stand Tweety - never know when he's going to bash the daylights out of one of our candidates - he seemed to go easy on Edwards tonight but he didn't the last time - thought he was nasty as all H---.

[criticalwords]

31. About John Edwards...

...a post from a North Carolinian who posted this on John Edwards' blog months ago:

"As a person who has seen that Sen. John Edwards is dedicated to moving America forward, long before he decided to run for President; I needed his help with Social Security. I had been unable to work for 10 years due to mulitple disabilities. Several Doctors had suggested that I could not medically continue to work as a teacher in N.C., and suggested I seek SSI. After being turned down for 5 years my former Superintendent contacted Sen. Edwards office. I was about to lose everything I owned in this world, my self esteem and hope was gone. I was ready to give up. Sen. Edward's contacted me via letter, and phone and directed his staff to help me get through the SSI maze. He and his staff "saved my life" and my dignity. They followed my case and even helped me get the correct paper work to file for SSI. When Sen. Edwards says he cares about the regular working class people he is sincere. The people in N.C. will miss him but our loss will be a great step forward for America. He is an advocate for real people who need real leadership. Our country is now in need of a real person to solve real problems. We need Sen. Edwards in Washington, as our president."

Sincerely
John Evers, Lexington, N.C.

---------

Mr. Evers, you are exactly right. Let me tell you a little something about John Edwards that you never hear him talk about.

John Edwards said at 11 years old that he wanted to be a lawyer to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves. WHEN HE WAS ELEVEN!!! That is not opportunism, that is a goal and desire and he fulfilled it. He said he was inspired to be a lawyer at that time by the likes of Thurgood Marshall, and he saw them being heroes and a champion for people. You hear him saying it today and you all say that you don't buy it, but you don't know anything about the man, the person. HE HAS BEEN SAYING IT SINCE HE WAS A CHILD AND HE MEANS IT!

Also, after Hurricane Hugo, a long time before Edwards even got into politics, he was helping people. He rented a big truck and out of his own pocket bought a lot of supplies and personally delivered them to the victims of Hugo...BEFORE HE GOT INTO POLITICS HE WAS HELPING HIS NEIGHBOR!

John Edwards has opened up numerous afterschool programs to help keep children out of trouble during what is the most likely time for them to get into trouble. He has done something about these problems.

John Edwards diligently served on the boards of homeless shelters and worked hard to help these people.

John Edwards has gone out many Christmases and bought toys and dressed up like Santa Claus and handed them out while standing in the cold to children...IN THE PROJECTS OF ALL PLACES!

You all are misrepresenting a model american with your stupid attacks. John Edwards, when he says he cares, he means it! How do I know? Because he has lived it his entire life. A lot of these things were done before he even got into politics, but you never hear him talk about it. He believes that his policies are what matters the most in this race, and he has the best platform of anyone.

But...IGNORANT...people like some on this board prove that policies is not enough. You need to know about the person. Some I'm telling you all, to...GET A CLUE! You can attack Edwards on his platform, which you won't because you can't, but don't attack the man, the person, because you are proving just how ignorant you are because you obviously no nothing about him!

Someone who has exhibited the generousity that John Edwards has is the type of PERSON that we need in the White House. Someone who has the platform that John Edwards has is the type of politician we need in office.

John Edwards needs to be president...

[AP]

38. good post.

how do you know these things, by the way?

[criticalwords]

39. It's called research...

...I have searched all over to find out information on the Senator.

Mr. Evers made his post on the blog.

Mrs. Edwards made some of those statements that I did in her introduction of the Senator at his formal announcement on September 16th.

That's where I got the information...