Edwards' New Book "Four Trials"

[jmw25]

I just wanted to let everyone know that you can now go out and purchase Edwards' book called "Four Trials". The book details his life: growing up in a working class family, becoming a trial lawyer, the loss of his son, Wade, and four trials that embody how he has become the man he is today. If you are an Edwards supporter like I am, I'm sure you'll want to take a look. Here's a link to more reviews of his work....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743244974/qid=1068744708/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4561397-6298331?v=glance&s=books

[AP]

1. I just bought this book. Amazon sales rank: 1,119,049

Let's see how high that rank goes.

[AP]

2. Senator John McCain's Review:

" In Four Trials, John Edwards has written movingly of people who were terribly wronged, and whom he helped seek some measure of justice with great skill, determination, and genuine compassion. He shows a perceptive appreciation in these accounts for the strength of his clients' character. And, in the loving portrait of his son, Wade, and the deeply touching account of his loss, John reveals the strength of his own character and gives the reader a look beyond a political biography into the heart of a good man."

[DemDogs]

9. Fantastic reviews at Amazon

One says "Best political book I've ever read" and goes on to say "I've read my fair share of political books, and this one is far and away the best of the bunch. Not only does it draw you in immediately, it's not the usual "when I'm elected, I'll do X, Y, and Z" kind of book. "Four Trials" provides an insight into who Edwards is, what drives him to fight the tough fights, and why he'll make a great president." <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743244974/qid=1069217507/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9908431-8266329?v=glance&s=books>

[AP]

3. Update -- Amazon.com Sales Rank: 8,651

Who else is buying this book?

[cbua34]

4. Count me in

I just bought a copy, was glad to see the publishing date was pushed up from January 2004. Should be a great read from our future President.

[AP]

5. Amazon.com Sales Rank: 7,124

Clark has a book in the 1,000-2,000 range.

[AP]

6. Amazon.com Sales Rank: 4,691

[AP]

7. A Repubican writes on Amazon review:

This Guy Is Running For President?, November 13, 2003

Reviewer: jon370 from Bloomington, IN

I have to admit that I expected the regular political junk from this book, but this guy really can write. It's not a "morning in america " kind of thing -- there's no boring politics. It's just a plain old good roaring read. More like Baldacci or other legal thrillers than "man from hope" self-serving junk. I'm not so sure about this guy's politics (I'm a republican myself) but it doesn't matter.

If you expect an overview of the Clean Air act or something, you can forget it. The stories in this book really hooked me. I'm still amazed that they are real.

[DemDogs]

8. Read it. It's incredible

If you want to know about the character of Edwards, just like McCain says, read this book. The best thing is that it's not one of those typical political biographies. It's a great read.

[yaledem]

10. I got mine by donating $35 to the campaign

If you give $35 online, you get a copy. Seemed like a good deal to me, and I can't wait for it to arrive!

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/fourtrials/

[AP]

11. Amazon.com Sales Rank: 880

That's pretty high.

[DemDogs]

12. Interview on radio in NY

Someone just said Edwards did an interview on this book on a call in show in NYC. Did anyone hear it?
Some book, some hostile questions. Heard he was great.

[JohnKleeb]

13. Ive decided to get it for XMas

Seems like a good book. Gonna get that book and the Kucinich one and of course some other stuff.

[AP]

14. It's a great book. Post here after you read it. I want to know...

...what people think of it who don't have him at the very top of their lists.

[Jerseycoa]

15. I read it

I liked it very much. It's interesting how he views trial lawyering through a humanitarian lens. I like him and his book, in fact.

[JohnKleeb]

16. Well I dont have an offical list

but lets say John is in my top 2-5.

[pruner]

17. although the majority of candidates have books out now or forthcoming…

my understanding is that Edwards is the only candidate using his book as a means to raise funds for his campaign.

there was an article about this sometime last week… I think it was in the Washington Post.

[Jerseycoa]

18. Well then

I guess I contributed to the Edwards Campaign. Not that I mind.

[pruner]

19. I didn't intend my comment as a dig at Edwards…

I don't think there's anything wrong with using the book to raise funds.

whatever works…

:)

[Jerseycoa]

20. I didn't take it that way

I'm for Clark. :loveya:

[pruner]

21. I didn't think you did…

my comment was intended as "pre-emptive self-defense".

;)

[Jerseycoa]

22. I have to laugh

That little angry blue man of yours. Pre-emptive self-defense sounds like a plan. :yourock:

[AP]

24. It's actually the only book that's probably good enough that you could

use it to raise funds.

And by "raising funds" that means, if you donate $35 to his campaign, you get the book for free.

If you buy the book in a bookstore, you're money isn't going to the campaign (I don't think).

[pruner]

25. yeah… that's what I meant by "raising funds"

:)

[DemDogs]

26. Money from sales from bookstores goes to charity

According to the NYTimes (I think) the money from the book that Edwards would get goes to a charity in his son's name.

The book is a premium for a contribution, just like public radio premiums and tee-shirts or whatever campaigns do. Hillary's book was a premium too, I think, for her PAC. Does anyone know?

Whatever, the book is great, and the only problem with the fundraiser is that people who buy in the bookstore will read it, be converted to Edwards too late to get it as a premium -- so they'll have to settle for the tee-shirt, or another book to give as present.

[pruner]

27. the article I read on this subject indicated that…

Edwards' campaign had bought several thousand copies from the publisher at bulk rate.

I was not aware that copies sold in bookstores would be benefitting Edwards' charity… that's cool.

[burr]

23. so....

does Edwards finally present us with his long awaited National Healthcare Plan in this book, or is he still running as Liebermanlite? :shrug:

Any proposals to abolish the Selectoral College in the book, or should we just let them vote for us incompetents?

[sandnsea]

28. Voting for Lyndon?

Who is for abolishing the electoral college? Of those with a chance of winning, who has a national healthcare plan?

What's the purpose of this mudslinging post?

[burr]

30. and I love you too!

Can't a pretty boy ask some basic questions without having his face slapped? :cry:

[sandnsea]

32. Well what's the purpose?

This book is about Edwards, the man. Focus, baby, focus!

[burr]

35. his life story...

it might be worth a fraction of a vote :thumbsup:

[DemDogs]

29. Policy proposals in Real Solutions; passion in Four Trials

His health care policy (which predates Lieberman's and Clark's, both of which are take-offs of his, particularly Clark's which is barely different at all) is in the Real Solutions booklet you can write for or download from the website


Edwards and Lieberman don't exactly seem like chums to me. Lieberman stays clear of Edwards who many people say should have been the VP nominee in 2000 and then we might have won enough states that Katherine Harris wouldn't have gotten to decide the election.

[burr]

36. But real solutions doesn't lay out any plan for universal healthcare...

or even universal access. I call him Liebermanlite because even Lieberman's healthcare proposal goes further in achieving this objective than does Edward's..which doesn't say much! :thumbsdown:

[AP]

37. Edwards has a plan that will get passed.

Start with 100 pc insurance for kids.

Doesn't anyone remember Clinton's health care plan? The health care industry is even bigger and richer than it was then.

And, at least Edwards's plan acknowledges how it got so big and rich and says no more subsidized proft for health care.

[sandnsea]

38. I missed that

No more profit for health care? Where does his plan take profit of health care? That has my attention, even if it is done incrementally.

[burr]

39. yes great...

it starts with healthcare for kids...and this is where it ends.

I would hardly call the Lieberman plan anything like the Clinton plan. There are no employer mandates, no additional cigarette taxes, or no manditory benefits. But like the Dean and Kerry plans...people are allowed to buy into something like the FEHBP, and while paying a community rated primium. So why doesn't Edwards support this kind of proposal, does he think the uninsured just don't matter? :shrug:

Plenty of my friends and relatives are uninsured..if Edwards crosses them off his list, then we'll cross him off our list in November!

[DemDogs]

40. Plan more extensive

Do you post FOR any candidate or just against Edwards? Months and months now. It wouldn't matter if Edwards covered everyone, you have crossed him off.

The truth is that Edwards does start with children because that is where the greatest proportion of uninsured are and because that will be the part that can pass right away. But he also includes parents of children in the program, people between jobs (who can't afford COBRA), people over fifty-five, and assistance to small business to help with health care costs. And he is the only candidate who really attacks costs, and he has a strong record here. He assists doctors with malpractice insurance so they don't pass those costs on. He has fought for lower prescription drug costs on lots of fronts. He is for getting rid on an anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.

By the way, have you read Four Trials yet? I challenge you to read it, and see if your hardened stance against Edwards doesn't break down a little.

[burr]

41. I have been lied to, too often by politicians I thought were Democrats.

I will support the true democrat, but only when I know that I'm not electing another lame backstabber. I would rather not vote at all, than to be used to elect another Zell Miller or Nathan Deal...both of whom claimed to be strong Democrats in the 80's and 90's.

Those healthcare provisions will provide little comfort to those with medical problems and those who are uninsured...people who have little time for Edwards and his incremental fixes. I am angry, and I grow even more enraged at all candidates who see fit to abandon the Democratic Party's long held position on this critical issue.

A poisoned half-loaf is not better than an unpoisoned full loaf.

[AP]

42. Burr, remember the Clinton years? The thing stopping universal health

insurance isn't politicians with the will to ask for it. It's the fact that the health care industry is the largest industry in America with the biggest profit margins of any industry in the history of America. No matter what anyone tries to do it's doomed to fail. However, Edwards is the only canidate I've heard who has said that he wants public financing of federal elections and free TV time. He also doesn't take an PAC or DC lobbyist money.

[burr]

43. I know precisely what stopped it!

First this stupid push to pass NAFTA and the Crime Bill, this consumed much of Congress's time. Then after passing these, finally the healthcare bill was put at the top of the agenda. But it was bad planning which killed this bill! Clinton first introduced it with a speech that boosted a huge level of public support for the measure..then he went back to NAFTA, and then to the budget, then to the crime bill. By the time Congress finally got around to considering Clinton's healthcare legislation, all public support for the measure had evaporated. The insurance companies were running their television ads, and the GOP felt comfortable in filibustering the measure as time began to run out in Congress. Finally, Mitchell and Gephardt decided to adjorn the session with nothing passed...leading up to the GOP takeover in 1994! :thumbsdown:

But why bringup this bad memory? It wasn't Clinton's bill which was bad...again, it was the lack of legislative planning which killed this measure.

[AP]

44. I fear that no good health care bill will pass until the money is taken...

...out of politics. This is one of those issues where you have to do it in increments to do it right.

First, cover all children and people over 50. We justify so much COSERVATIVE BS on the grounds that we're doing it for the kids. Well, now it's time to do something liberal on the grounds that we're doing it for the kids.

Next, take the money out of politics. Edwards is loud and proud on that issue.

Then, pass a health care bill which can't be hijacked by the biggest, wealthiest industry in the history of the US.

[burr]

45. First..both Dean and Kucinich have ideas on campaign finance reform.

In addition, please remember how many uninsured people will be sharing the tax burden for Edwards healthcare plan, which most of them will not be eligable for. This is wrong IMHO, they have suffered enough with their pre-existing conditions and expensive medical care. Those who are close to me are being destroyed by this burden!

Incremental is one thing...which is why I am all in favor of the Kerry approach, the Dean approach, or even the Cooper-Grandy approach. But lame is unexceptable when it comes to heathcare reform, and I have expected so much more from this outspoken advocate of the Patients' Bill of Rights! It is an enormous disappointment...but one I can learn to deal with.

Strange how my views have changed little over the years...but in the 1980's most who knew my views considered me a conservative Sam Nunn Democrat, in the 1990's I was seen by most of my friends as a moderate or a Clinton/Gore Democrat, and now I am perceived by most as this flaming intolerant radical liberal..

But all I have been doing is sticking to what I have always believed in, while the rest of the nation shifts rightward. In the words of Caesar.."I am as constant as the Northern Star!" It is only the perception of liberalism which changes...

[AP]

46. All the plans incur a tax burden...

...and if you're worried about tax burdens, stay away from Dean, because at least Edwards argues that the tax burden should be born progressively. Dean doesn't want to give the middle class a break.

I'm not sure how you're connecting the liberalism of your politics to where the candidates stand on health care. I don't see how single-payer plans which either won't see the light of day, or will see the light of day so long as they guarantee profits for the health care industry are more liberal than a plan which is going to get passed, and a long term plan which is no longer a subsidy to the health care industry.

Health care for all is, in and of itself, not a guage of liberalism. The UK has had national health -- under labour and tories. Slave plantations had health care plans.

What we need in America is a society which doesn't transfer wealth up the wealth ladder, whether or not we have a national health care program. And health care can't be simply this thing which lets the wage slaves stay healthy enough to work for crappy wages, and ensure the profitability of the health care industry.

Dean is totally blurring this distinction. Edwards has his priorities in order.

[burr]

47. most voters don't give a flying shit about wealth transfer!!!

:hurts:

What they care about is security...

Security that they'll have health care, security that they and their children will have an improving standard of living, and security that they live in a safer nation.

You mention that all healthcare plans incur a tax burden, but what you do not mention is that most uninsured working people will be paying for Edwards' plan..but will not be eligible for this coverage. This is wrong, at least under the Dean, Kerry, or the Clark plans uninsured taxpayers are eligible to buy into something like the FEBHP. And under the Kucinich plan, everyone who pays taxes is eligible for Medicare. With Edwards they're left holding the bag, which is even worse if they don't even have kids!!!

I am completely in favor of universal coverage for kids, but there are other candidates we can back with better plans to do this! Also his healthcare plan is called Kids First...but any medical professional will tell you that healthcare must be delivered to all based on need, not age or wealth.

One final point...I have much respect for Edwards' biography and his personal background. I think if he combined this with the right agenda, he would have an unbeatable combination! But Edwards does need to work on this agenda, because we all have interesting personal stories to tell. And voters will not support or oppose a candidate just because of their life story. Shrub was a former coke user, and draft dodger...but look at all the votes in the south he won!

[AP]

48. That's what the last 30 years of America is all about. Have you read

Wealth and Democracy?

Kevin Phillips suggests that one of the reasons Democrats lost in 2000 was because they weren't tapping into the essential truth of American society, wich is that it is organized around the principle of wealth transfer.

Gore talked about health care security in 2000. He ONLY talked about a prescription medicine program for seniors for the last two weeks fo the campaign. It was stupid.

He should have fit it within the bigger theme. Why are seniors subsidizing the profits of the health care industry? Because we live in a society which transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America.

Clinton won in 92 and 96 not because he promised "security." He won because he could tap into that basic anxiety about where your money is really going. "It's the economy, stupid." Remember that?

[AP]

49. I don't recognize Edwards's plan in your description.

Edeards has plans to make Medicaid and CHPS work better. He's going to have more employed Americans. He's going to make sure that middle and working class people retain more of their income and he's going to make sure that the taxpayers aren't guarantors of Health Industry profits. He's going to turn America's "we do it all for the kdis" into a movement to really do it all for the kids, in a progressive (rather than conservative) sense, and then he's going to platfrom that up to a sense that those rights shouldn't disappear when you turn 25 (which I think is the age at which that plan no longer covers people).

You know, it's alway hard to get rights. But it's almost impossible to take them away once you have them. (Of course Bush is trying to use fear and terrorism to make people happy with less, but we haven't seen if he's going to succeed.)

Think what will happen with Edwards's plan. All kids will be covered by an affordable plan that is regulated tightly, and there will be this public sentiment that, of course the insurance and health care industry are obligated to do this for kids, because they make so much money off of everyone else. The government will provide plans for people who slip through the cracks (and fewer people will slip through the cracks, because Edwards's economics, class and race politics are better than anyone's). Now, we'll have this new entitlement which will save a lot of money in other aspects of society. It will clearly work. Now, when all these kids with coverage turn 25 and realize that they have to switch to those other plans, then they're going to be part of political movement that says, wait, we wan't better than what this market offers. Since, by then, Edwards will have taken the money out of politics, those new activists will have a fighting chance vs the health care/insurance industry lobbyists.

Thanks to Edwards, we're going to get to a better tomorrow faster and smarter than anyone else offerring a plan.

From the Edwards Health Care page:

Our health system wastes billions of dollars and costs thousands of lives. We spend $1.4 trillion a year on health care, yet more than 41 million people go without heath insurance. Despite the massive spending, there are as many as 98,000 avoidable deaths each year. Drug companies, HMOs, and insurance companies profit handsomely from the status quo, but ordinary patients pay more for less. These problems can't be fixed by spending another trillion dollars or blaming doctors and nurses. The country needs new ideas—and a commitment to taking on the special interests and demanding change.

Nobody has a longer record of taking on the HMOs, the insurance companies, and the drug companies than John Edwards. In the Senate, he led the battle for the Patients' Bill of Rights with John McCain and Ted Kennedy; he co-authored bipartisan generic drug legislation that would save taxpayers $60 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office; and he led a floor fight to stop wasteful and misleading prescription drug advertisements. As President, Edwards will pursue seven strategies for lowering health costs:

Bring down skyrocketing prescription drug costs;
Stop the “paper chase” with information technology;
Empower doctors and patients to make better choices;
Stop frivolous lawsuits and reduce premiums for malpractice insurance;
Ensure consumers get a fair deal from HMOs and insurance companies;
Reduce fraud and abuse in government health care programs; and
Improve the health and quality of care for all Americans.

Experts have estimated that 30% of health spending in our system does not contribute to health. By cutting just 3 percent of federal spending on health care, the Edwards plan will save taxpayers at least $17 billion per year.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-costs.asp

[genius]

31. I picked up a copy

I haven't had time to read it yet. I do like Edwards. Though DK is my choice for Pres.

[DemDogs]

33. Maybe the book

will change your mind. ;>)

[JohnKleeb]

34. I doubt it will for me because I really like Kucinich but i also like John

Edwards. I also must say I dont mind when he talks about his millworker parents, it gives perspective and you know where hes comin from.