My major Problem with Edwards as an '08 candidate

[joeprogressive]

I know this will infuriate many people here but it is no different than pointing out that Hillary would be a mistaken choice because she would lose in the general election.

I was recently speaking to a liberal physician about '08 and when I brought up Edwards and how much I liked him as a candidate, he told me he would never support him because he got rich at the expense of doctors. I originally thought this was typical anti-lawyer sentiment with a physician bias to compopund it until I did some research.

It appears now that physicians are rarely to blame for cases of cerebral palsy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005361

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-delivering_justice.htm

The article talks about how Edwards and many lawyers knew this but only saw dollar signs. I have a major problem with this. I doubt every one of Edwards clients were the rare case when the doctor may have been negligent. It appears he preyed upon jury emotion to get the verdicts to go his way despite medical evidence to the contrary. It is no different than Bush's past unethical business dealings.

It disappoints me to have to write this because personally I like the guy and think he would make a fine president; but he got greedy. If you need another excuse, he voted for the IWR and that was also poor decision making. If you don't agree, please show me evidence to the contrary because I would like to support him. I had already forgiven him for the IWR because he has owned up to the mistake and I believe many were misled.

[Radical Activist]

1. I can't see that being a big issue.

He does a great job defending his career as a lawyer. Every candidate has a negative like this and we can't let fear of attacks stop us from choosing a good candidate. Sooner or later we have to pick someone who is good at responding to attacks instead of searching for the mythical candidate with a perfect past. Bill Clinton is a great example of someone with an imperfect past who was effective at defending himself.

[joeprogressive]

7. I agree with you but here is the big difference for me.

What Bill did in his private life did not affect anybody outside his family. This was Edwards career and happens to be a small part of what is wrong with our broken health care system. To me we do have other choices. What do they have on Gore or Clark? Nothing that I have heard. That's why they resorted to the ridiculous such as honing in on the internet statement, etc. I think putting a trial lawyer front center when the majority of Americans think they are scum is a problem.

[spooky3]

54. Please provide a link to evidence that

supports your statement "the majority of Americans think (trial lawyers) are scum."

[jen4clark]

57. I thought trial lawyers were scum

until I had a horrible accident and hired one. LOL!! He literally saved my life which was changed forever by the accident. Turned out the e-bike I was riding had a defective design that the manufacturer knew about! Now I think differently about trial lawyers.

I think it's the same as the statistic that says the majority thinks members of Congress are corrupt -- but when asked about their own Senator or Rep., they love them.

[spooky3]

59. maybe, but I don't even believe that most people

dislike trial lawyers. I haven't seen any respectable polls suggesting that they do.

[benny05]

31. Ignorance about Personal Injury Cases

I don't understand why helping people who turned to Edwards and the Legal system to help them pay for health insurance costs and other services for children who developed their diseases or were harmed by doctors, insurance companies, and manufacturing companies who had faulty products. In most of Edwards' cases, and sounds like the poster may not have read Four Trials, Edwards took the case after doing some preliminary research, not to see if the doctor had big pockets, but rather, had the doctor been negligent in care more than once. Often, it was a lower-class couple who was shafted via poor care that would not happen to a wealthy couple.

Edwards has said more than once that lawyers need to police each other when there are ambulance chasers (my words not his). But to refute tort reform all together: well, when you need a lawyer, I think you might change your mind. I've spoken with quite a few folks in which the doctor goofed with a diagnosis that made the patient sicker, but they didn't know why at the time. No one would talk, so in these cases that Edwards made some money because it was high risk, meaning he bore all of the burden for the cost and time involved, it took some very detailed work to examine records, get testimony from witnesses, etc.

If you are saying that his trial lawyer skills are unethical, think again. Try businessmen like GWB who have no respect for the law and who aren't particularly persuasive. As far I am concerned, there aren't many who hold a candle to John Edwards. He used the law to seek justice for his clients, not rewrite it, or bend the rules.

In terms of IWR vote, suggest you re-read Edwards Op-Ed in WaPo on that one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html
It was on the Greatest Page for 2 days on the DU.

He also has been married to same woman for 29.5 years, had 4 children (one was killed in a car accident), and has never taken a vacation without one of his kids with him. He's solid in his family values. Read Elizabeth Edwards' book, Saving Graces, about their first date. Very humble considering the times when they were in law school.

I cannot fault anyone who made a fortune, then decided to promote causes that bother him so, such as poverty, people wanting jobs, fairness, a hand-up. Howard Dean made a fortune and decided to go into public service. Thus, I think we should be thankful for these men instead.

[Clark2008]

2. My major problem with him is that he seems less than geniune

and he doesn't have a clue about foreign policy or how to deal with the Middle Eastern region (hell, he wouldn't even deal with Middle Eastern people in his own state after 9/11 when they pleaded for a meeting with him to set the record straight regarding what Muslims think).

[Bucky]

86. I don't see his big appeal either. I like that he talks about helping the poor.

But he comes off a little slick. The thing is, he probably is quite genuine. The Edwards you see on stage or TV is the real deal. Trial lawyers are all ham; I've known quite a bunch and all the best ones are decent people, excellent communicators of ideas, and trained to put their personality out there for show. For me, that's a turn off. He can sell a jury; but it's a jury of his own selection. I worry about what that would mean in a general election.

[LittleClarkie]

95. I saw a speech he gave as a lawyer, before he ran for prez

There was none of that "aw shucks" air about him. He was quite serious. I liked him better that way.

[Ian David]

3. My only problem is that people may confuse him with John Edward

And people will mistake him for The Biggest Douche In The Universe

[Schema Thing]

4. HE is appealing. His Profile, sucks, His Resume bites.

[Impashund Ubique]

16. His profile sucks? Really? How so? n/t

[demnan]

5. Perhaps we need to do some research independently

on this issue. I won't let a single person's opinion persuade me, and I would also recommend this to you as you seem to be a very thoughtful person. Wickapedia would be a good place to start on researching, but also plug into some medical resources on the web and let's see what we can find out before you totally give up on Edwards.

[gfnrob]

6. Opinion journal? Wall Street Journal ?

Pretty big business (insurance companies) oriented, don't ya think???:shrug: :nopity:

[joeprogressive]

10. I know, but they do source the ACOG study which was peer reviewed.

I really do want to know the truth on this. It may be a case that theydid not have all the facts when they tried the cases. This was similar to the breast implant cases.

[gfnrob]

12. Should we reopen

all the cases where the information then differs from what we have today?

[joeprogressive]

30. Actually you bring up a good point.

That's actually exactly what we do in criminal cases now that we have DNA science. Are you suggesting it is a waste of time to open criminal cases and let people go free when we discover DNA evidence that exonerates them?

[gfnrob]

76. OOOKAAAY

But the problem is, even if a jury made an award, the amount paid was more than likely result of a post trial settlement. Settlement, both sides agree. No "Re-Do". Why does everyone like to hate lawyers? They do UNTIL they need one.

[spooky3]

58. in what prestigious, independent peer-reviewed journal

did the study appear? That is the gold standard for judging whether research is of high quality. And even then, mistakes are made.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw no mention of any journal in the links you included. The ACOG has a significant self-interest in producing findings that suggest their members are not to blame. They can line up all the organizations to side with them that they want, but until the research is rigorously reviewed in a journal like the New England Journal of Medicine, scientists know better than to trust the findings.

[alfredo]

96. The money a lawyer gets from a case gets divided up

between the lawyer, his researchers, clerical staff, taxes, and other overhead. A case may take months or years to complete.

So a lawyer's cut of a $1 million payday may not be that great after you consider what it cost the lawyer to present the case. He still gets a good payday, but not as good as people think.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. What shocking non-sequiturs. Your preoccupation with the money

that John Edwards earns for his work is not a very compelling argument in your favour. You think he should have worked pro bono on those cases, do you?

And assuming the 3-year report released in 2003 and cited in the second link is correct, how was he to anticipate its findings?

Worst of all, do you really think the tort reform the Bushites envisaged would have been confined to cases of cerebral palsy? It sounds to me as if your heart is aching for those "deepest pockets" you allude to. Period.

[joeprogressive]

14. Yeah night, you found me out.

Why don't you do some research and find out for yourself.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. Another non sequitur! I wasn't questioning the findings of the

survey. But why let that get in the way of your polemic, eh?

[joeprogressive]

22. I think the point was there was not much thought into

the selection of cases. They didn't really care about the truth.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Ask you doctor friend about this: Why do they allow this?

National Medical Malpractice Statistics

1. Fewer than one-half of 1% of the nation’s doctors face any serious state sanctions each year. 2,696 total serious disciplinary actions a year, the number state medical boards took in 1999, is a pittance compared to the volume of injury and death of patients caused by negligence of doctors. A recent study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that as many as 98,000 patients may be killed each year in hospitals alone as a result of medical errors.Earlier studies also found that this was a serious national problem.

2. Harvard researchers found that 1% of a representative sample of patients treated in New York state hospitals in 1984 were injured, and one-quarter of those died, because of medical negligence.Nationwide, that would have translated into 234,000 injuries and 80,000 deaths in 1988 from negligence in American hospitals. Most of this involves physicians. There is no clear evidence that there has been significant improvement since then.

3. A similar study conducted in California in 1974 found that 0.8% of hospital patients had either been injured by negligence in the hospital or had been hospitalized because of negligent care. Extrapolation of those findings would have yielded an estimate of 249,000 injuries and deaths from negligent medical practice in 1988.

4. In 1976 the HEW Malpractice Commission estimated similarly that one-half of 1% of all patients entering hospitals are injured there due to negligence. That estimate would have indicated 156,000 injuries and deaths resulting from doctor negligence in 1988.

12. Just 5.1 percent of doctors account for 54.2 percent of the malpractice payouts, according to data from the National Practitioner Data Bank. Of the 35,000 doctors who have had two or more malpractice payouts since 1990, only 7.6 percent of them have been disciplined. And only 13 percent of doctors with five medical malpractice payouts have been disciplined.


http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm

[joeprogressive]

27. We both know those statistics but they also don't account for all the

bogus lawsuits that are filed every year. As I said he is very liberal and I believe he is even against the tort reform that occured in our state.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. Take his advice. He sounds a wise man.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. Don't blame the victims because the doctors refuse to police their own.

I don't know of all the bogus lawsuits filed every year, except by corporate lawyers against another corporation.

Don't try to take away our access to the courts.

If he doesn't support Edwards, that's fine. But to smear him based on falsehoods is crappy.

As I said down thread, Edwards isn't my #1 choice for 08. But I think he's a decent guy, and what you are attempting isn't exactly decent.

[GreenArrow]

84. well, I think that given the time that he spent involved

in the legal profession, and given his current posturing on poverty issues, that he might have found to time to do some pro bono work. Funny, he never appears to have done so.

[Digit]

9. Edwards is not greedy by any means

Check out http://www.oneamericacommittee.com

[John Q. Citizen]

11. You might have included this information that you recieved already, You

can edit your original post to update it. You appear to actually be doing what you are wrongly accusing Edwards of doing. That is, ignoring information that hurts your case. Edwards, of course didn't do that, but you did.

Here is where the reply to what you first posted is. Are you trying to keep this from the jury?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2961897&mesg_id=2962121



This column from FindLaw.com (posted on CNN) gives a credible defense:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html

...Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science."

In fact, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.

Now -- many years later, in light of additional evidence and science -- it seems that the defendants seem to have a much better case than previously believed. But all that proves about Edwards is that he couldn't see into the future. No one can, which is why we have trials, not oracles.

Consider the 1979 case critics often mention, in which Edwards won $6.5 million for a young girl named Jennifer Campbell who had been born with cerebral palsy in a rural part of North Carolina. The Campbells claimed that, given Jennifer's position in the womb, the doctor should have recommended a Caesarean section -- especially during the birth, once there was evidence of fetal distress.

At the time, even some defense experts seemed to agree. North Carolina operated under something called the "locality rule," which meant that reasonable care in medicine was defined by the standard of care of the local doctors. As Edwards tells it in his book, Four Trials, the defendant's North Carolina expert admitted in deposition that he would have elected for a Caesarean section at the outset -- and that, given his reading of the heart rate monitor records, he would have recognized fetal distress over an hour earlier than the defendant doctor did.

As noted, it now turns out that the causal link between physician malpractice and cerebral palsy is much less certain than was once believed. Furthermore, fetal heart monitoring--which was adopted by many hospitals in the '70's and '80's as a defense against claims of medical malpractice -- may not be as accurate a tool to measure fetal distress as previously hoped.

With the benefit of hindsight, many medical experts now feel the monitors produce too many false alarms, and thus too many unnecessary Caesarean sections -- resulting perhaps in too many erroneous findings of liability.

In 1979, however, none of this was clear. And therefore, the supposed "character" issue for Edwards is no issue at all.

[joeprogressive]

25. Like I said, I want to know the truth but regardless, I think we need to

consider the perception. Why would we select someone that will be hammered by the right and lose many independents because of their hatred towards trial lawyers? We can't win in '08 with these types of flaws. If they can trash the character of a decorated war hero like Kerry, they will have a field day with Edwards.

[Impashund Ubique]

28. Majority of Americans

said (in a poll in 2004) that Edwards' experience as a lawyer helps instead of hurting. Edwards is at his best defending his legal career. He did not let the repubs define him - instead he put together his own image as a champion of the underdog, son of the millworker guy. That is what politics is about. He has such great favorability ratings and goodwill left over from 2004 because of this. This is not an area of concern for Edwards - he knows how to tackle this issue.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. With friends like you, that's for sure. If you post known falsehoods, what can i

say?

You apparently can't be trusted to post, except propaganda.

Edwards isn't even my number one choice for 08. Still, I don't like to see any one of our candidates subjected to false smear tactics.

[OhioBlue]

38. The right will attack

any candidate we put up. Our candidate needs to define themselves before the right does and we need to frame the debate. Quit being so afraid of what the right might do. We already know what they will do. We can put up the cleanest candidate ever - they will just make stuff up.

[Impashund Ubique]

13. Some fact-checking

You are basing this on people's opinions. If opinions are all we want, then you can also check Edwards' own book about his legal career, Four Trials, and hear his side too.

Secondly:

The consensus in the medical community about Cerebral Palsy was not reached until after Edwards quit practicing. When he was a lawyer, the statutes in most states called for the doctor to do a c-section in cases of medical complications that lead to Cerebral Palsy. The cases he tried revolved around doctors who did not abide by their state statutes. That is why it was malpractice, and the fact that such cases were tried is what made the Medical community sit up and take the cases of CP seriously. The research then initiated due to the kind of cases Edwards tried led to what you refer to as the current consensus in the medical community. But that doesn't change the fact that the doctors, such as the one in one of the cases Edwards profiles in his book (Four Trials), were being negligent.

I hope you'd do further research about what exactly were the kind of cases Edwards tried. His image might be redeemed in your opinion, then.

[Alexander]

15. That's bunk. I'm against Edwards because he was a 1-term Senator.

He doesn't have near the experience or credentials necessary to be president. Even Bush had been elected more times than Edwards, albeit to a ceremonial position.

He'd make a good Attorney General, and I voted for him for VP. But president? No way.

Keep in mind Bill Clinton was an Attorney General and a Governor for over a decade before he ran. And the most convincing argument you'll find for Edwards is that he has the same "charm" Bill Clinton had.

I don't mind candidates with the beer factor, but not at the expense of experience, please.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Tell you what. I bet old Joe Liebermannikin's experienced enough

for you.

[Alexander]

92. Totally uncalled for.

If you bother to read anything I've posted, you'd learn I'm no Joe supporter.

Can you reasonably debate my statement, or are you reduced to snide remarks and witless repartee?

[Cha]

93. Experienced

corporate, warmongeringwhore.

[gfnrob]

18. As a campaign issue...

Let the Republicans bring out all of those poor mistreated doctors :nopity:
We'll bring out Edwards' "clients" :cry: :cry: :cry:

[stansnark]

19. no. 1 reason not to like edwards

he is bilderberger-approved.DLC on steroids.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. And a hearty welcome to DU!

[benny05]

40. And your proof is? but Welcome to the DU eom

[Catchawave]

41. What does that mean? Link?

Welcome to DU :toast:

[ultraist]

23. Edwards fought for regular Americans

Edwards fought for regular Americans against big corps (hospitals and for profit companies) and while Edwards did do medical malpractice cases, his biggest case was the Lakey case where a small child had her intestines sucked out by a pool pump that lacked a 2 cent part. Yes, a 2 cent part. As a result, this young girl, could only take nutrition by feeding tube. She nearly died due to the greed of the big corp pool company.

Moreover, the pro corporate Republicans like to use the talking point that medical malpractice cases are to blame for our "broken healthcare" system but that is a blatant lie. The fact is, big pharmaceutical companies and big corp hospitals who are seeing record profits are to blame. Medical malpractice suits are a miniscule portion of costs.

BTW, John Edwards is for Universal Health coverage for all Amercians.

[lisa58]

26. My husband has been in medical malpractice...

... for over 30 years (defending doctors)and he tells me all the time that he has never had a case where there was a frivoulous case filed. They - the plaintiff may believe there was malpractice when there wasn't - but an injury had occurred.

I don't know if Edwards, when he was an attorney was seeking awards when none were warrented, but since the death of his son - his whole world changed.

[surfermaw]

34. This sound fishy to me, are you a Wes Clark supporter?

[Auntie Bush]

51. As a Clark supporter...I object to that question.

Clark supporters aren't that devious. If we don't prefer Edwards...there's a legitimate well researched reason.

[justinaforjustice]

35. Dubious Sources Evidence

Whether or not John Edwards was ethical or unethical in the representation of clients incurring medical injuries cannot be ascertained from anti-personal injury lawyer editorials in the Wall Street Journal, the original source of the article you cite at www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005361, nor is it likely to be found in a similarly biased opinion article in the right wing Manhattan Institute's article.

Neither the Wall Street Journal editorial page nor the Manhattan Institute are known for their concern for those injured by medical malpractice, but both are known for their attempt to prevent such victims from obtaining legal representation by supporting legislation to put ridiculously low caps on medical malpractice awards and attorneys fees.

The insurance companies who represent doctors in medical malpractice suits have the funds to hire the top medical experts in their fields to convince juries that the doctors are not responsible for injuries such as cerebral palsy. This is one of the reason that so few juries bring back verdicts in favor of the injured plaintiffs. Where a jury does bring back a large verdict in favor of the injured, you can be sure that there was serious medical evidence to convince that jury that their award was justified.

Most jurors are honest individuals who follow the law as presented by the judge. They don't give massive "gifts" to injured plaintiffs when the evidence does not compel such verdicts.

Jurors are admonished by judges not to decide on a verdict before hearing all of the evidence from both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. I suggest that you not conclude that John Edwards was unethical in bringing medical malpractice cases for those suffering from cerebral palsy without learning all the facts of each individual case.

[Catchawave]

36. "Should Doctors Vote Against John Edwards? "

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/sebok/20040726.html

[Heewack]

37. I didn't read the articles, but

Edwards has gotten rich off of steering women's and childrens health in the wrong direction. He went after doctors not because science backed up his assertions, but for greed. His impact on the nations healthcare is a pall on our society.

[VOX]

39. You say Edwards is "greedy," and that Clark doesn't have the military on his side...

and that Gore "overstates the facts on global warming." You have just posted these statements.

Can you back up your claims with references to published documents from reliable sources? If not, you are reciting nothing but right-wing talking points on these individuals.

[Heewack]

50. Clarke has had a long standing problem with the military

It was well documented after his "firing" after Kosovo. As far as Gore goes, yes, he has overstated the facts and many respectable scientists on the side of global warming have said so, publically many times. I guess the terms "misleading" but basically right don't mean much to you. In that Gore thread there was one person who posted something about the sea levels in 50 years claiming much of our coastlines. Are you aware that the newest best estimates are anywhere from 500-1000 years?

"The movie shows coastal areas flooded because of the melting polar and Greenland ice caps. When will this happen?

WALT: Coastal flooding is not something that will happen right away. Initially, scientists estimated that it would take at least 1,000 years for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to melt, with the East Antarctic ice sheet taking much longer. However, the melt has increased in recent years much more quickly than scientists initially expected. Now, a rough estimate might be 500 years for Greenland and West Antarctica to melt completely; it's much less likely that East Antarctica would melt. However, well before they melt completely, the ongoing melting of these massive ice sheets will slowly increase sea level. That, in turn, will lead to damaging tides and storm surges.

It’s also important to note that even though the full impact of that gradual melting won’t be for 500 years or so, we are reaching a point where we can’t turn back. The system is slow to change, but the change is somewhat unstoppable once it gets going. Unless we quickly reduce the present rate of carbon dioxide increase and subsequent temperature rise, we will be committing ourselves and our planet to that melting, and to the rise in sea level that will follow."

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060706_goremoviefaq.html

[NYCGirl]

63. Did you actually READ that link? It RECOMMENDS the film.

As a scientist who studies the climate, what do you think of the movie?

TED: I think An Inconvenient Truth does an excellent job of outlining the science behind global warming and the challenges society faces in the coming century because of it.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Referencing your comment about Wes Clark.....

Do some homework BEFORE you have an opinion.....

Wes Clark has no "problem" with the military. He had a problem with two Military personnel (Sec. Cohen and Gen. Shelton....both whom resented the fact that as NATO Allied Commander, Clark called the shots in the NATO Kosovo intervention and that he reported to them as a 4 star General, but Reported directly to Bill Clinton as NATO Supreme Allied Commander).

Wes Clark was retired early, something which was done behind his and Bill Clinton's back by Cohen and Shelton because he did what was right. Their problem is that he had insisted that high altitude bombing, their plan, wouldn't get the job done that was needed beyond killing more civilians than were required. He called for low flying Apache helicopters and boots on the ground (as his motto was "If it ain't worth dying for, it ain't worth fighting for). Cohen and Shelton didn't want to do this because they were afraid of U.S. Casualties, and after Somalia, didn't want to "chance" anything of that and therefore were for dropping bombs from high up. It is, however, a known fact that what got Molosovic to retreat was Clark's threat of boots on the ground and The apaches....not the gradual bombing plan. The civilian casualty numbers for Kosovo hover around 500. It could have been a lessor number had it not been for Shelton and Cohen.

Clark was right and did too good a job, and so as far as Cohen and Shelton were concerned....he had to go!

Here's news articles from the era as my back up. By the way, Gen. Shelton is a friend and advisor of John Edwards, and an asshole as well. He's the one that attempted to attack Clark's character during the '04 campaign......and later recanted that it was "just Politics".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true ("The Unappreciated General" --5/2/00)
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure3.htm (Reprint of WAPO's Dana Priest article 8/4/99 - "Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately")
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure.htm (Reprint of "Washington's Long Knives" 8/03/99)
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure4.htm (Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO - 8/6/99)

http://www.slate.com/id/2089014/ (The Shelton Smear)
More.... http://www.texasforclark.com/departure3.htm -

But in terms of the military, the other Generals have no problems with him...although certainly there is some jealousy out there, as some Generals will attest:

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...


General Barry McCaffrey :"(He) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."

McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918...
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/proj...


Defense Secretary William Perry: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/proj...

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/proj...

Col. Douglas Macgregor: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/proj...

General Colin Powell on CNN - 9/28/03: "I've known Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me. And beyond that, I really feel it's appropriate for me to recuse myself from any further comment now that he is a political candidate."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/28/le.00.ht...

Major General George Pickett on the whispers...."No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point , which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor."
'All this book leanin' is unbecoming for an officer. The yankees got all the smart ones, and look where it got them."
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/008539.html

Admiral John Dalton, Former Secretary of the Navy, in a 2004 OP Ed--
"Wesley Clark is uniquely qualified to lead the nation - Today, America faces two fundamental challenges at home and abroad: keeping our country safe in a dangerous world, and restoring fiscal responsibility and prosperity for the working families of our nation. We must choose a President with experience and depth both for the domestic economy and the international arena. "

General Schwarkopf on CNBC News questioned about Clark and a particular whisper campaign....
BORGER: All right, General, I'm going to switch gears on you just for one last question, because we've been watching all of the Democrats react to the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. You made a little bit of news on our show on November 6th when you said of General Wesley Clark that he was not going to get your vote, that was for certain, because General Hugh Shelton had said that he was not a man of character and integrity. And you said, quote, "If that's the case, he's not the right man for president as far as I'm concerned." Have you changed your mind?
SCHWARZKOPF: Well, again, 'if that's the case' was a very, very important statement. You know, I don't know to this date--there's never been any attempt to explore with Hugh Shelton what he meant by that.

....I don't know what lack of character caused Hugh Shelton to say that, I don't know what lack of integrity caused Hugh Shelton to say that, and I'd like to hear more about it. And basically I just don't think that that's been addressed that much. And obviously to a lot of people that's not an issue at all."
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/8/191653/0022

The fizzling whisper campaign was brought to a halt when General Shelton was called on the carpet by Hague prosecutors who were trying Milosovic. Milosovic repeated what Gen. Shelton had whispered about General Clark, after Clark testified against Milosovic. Unfortunately for General Gossip, he had to call his unfortunate comments assailing Wes Clark's character "just politics".
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm#LA%20Meetup%20...

Col. David Hackworth: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...

Andrew Young: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullC...

[benny05]

42. And your proof is?

Do you read MSM or FP media?

[Heewack]

49. Do some homework.

Having experience in the field makes a little easier I guess. Edwards and many other attorney's like him helped increase healthcare costs in this country by a good margin by winning lawsuits that now make doctors use completely uncessesary procedures, all because they convinced unknowledgable juries. It's also led the the large numbers of OB/GYn's getting out of the preofession, which has only hurt women's health.

[benny05]

55. I heard that somewhere

but I also don't know for a fact that many doctors, despite lawsuits against them, quit their practices altogether; they have moved, but perhaps they were concerned with being caught with bad practices, which is what Edwards went against: the repeat offenders.

[Catchawave]

46. the Op's articles from the WSJ in 2004 ?

Dare I say you should read them, then the one in my #36. thanks :hi:

[venable]

60. read the article

then. Because you are way, way off-base.

[tkmorris]

70. Fantastic!! Well Done Sir!!

Now THIS is a smear. Accusing your victim of not just some random nefarious act, but of taking advantage of women and children. Ouch! And all for greed. Nice one. Then going on to claim he negatively impacted the health care of the entire nation. That's just bloody brilliant!

And not a word of it backed by even the flimsiest of evidence. That leaves nothing the victim can refute. Awesome stuff, just amazing. You should consider a career in lobbying.

[hijinx87]

43. what about the fact that he lost?

and not only didn't carry his home state, but didn't
even carry his home county?

can we please get beyond the people on the last ticket?

[benny05]

44. You mean the fact that Edwards wasn't given funds...

to campaign more heavily in his state, despite fundraisers for kerry? I voted for Kerry, but his strategy team was misguided about where to place Edwards, which was not in his home state and in Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, and blue NE states.

[hijinx87]

47. you shouldn't HAVE to give a candidate funds . .

in his home state. that's the whole freaking point. a running mate
BRINGS you something.

[benny05]

45. and would have carried it if he had control where to campaign? N/t

[hijinx87]

48. well, that IS a good point.

the kerry campaign mysteriously BURIED him . . .

not what you want to do for a guy that was selected on
the basis of his charisma.

[oasis]

52. "he got greedy". I'll take a greedy Dem over a greedy Rethuglican any day.

But thanks for your 2 cents on Edwards.

[spooky3]

53. Why don't you read his book, Four Trials?

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Trials-John-Edwards/dp/0743244974

It contains quite a bit of factual information that you would do well to read before drawing the conclusions that you seem to be leaning toward, if you aren't already there.

[spooky3]

56. "The Manhattan Institute is a conservative 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute

Quoted from that site:

In its publication Buying a Movement, People for the American Way describes the Manhattan Institute's agenda as "The Institute '...advocates privitization of sanitation services and infrastructure maintenance, deregulation in the area of environmental and consumer protection, school vouchers and cuts in governmental spending on social welfare programs; it is a preferred source of information for New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.'" <2>

[question everything]

61. Perhaps I have been watching too many David Kelley's legal dramas

but we have to remember that the job of a lawyer is to win his case. You cannot hold against Edwards his winning - if was legally right - any more than you can hold it against criminal lawyers who get murderers acquitted, no matter how distasteful we find it.

[JamesJoyce]

62. Edwards smeared Clark with Hugh Shelton

I have always detected sulfur under his proud image.

[1932]

64. Shelton's quote was reported in a free bi-weekly newspaper that's mostly

advertisements. Nobody else in the media picked up on the story for weeks. When Shelton was asked to clarify he had no comment. But if you want to know what motivated him, you only need to read Clark's Waging Modern War. He explains his conflict with Shelton in great detail in that book.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Sorry, WRONG!

Frag Officer
Hugh Shelton smears Wes Clark.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, at 6:20 PM ET

I have a problem with Wesley Clark's former boss and current bad-mouther, Gen. Hugh Shelton. The problem has to do with Shelton's integrity and character. Let's just say that if Shelton runs for office, he won't get my vote.

A couple of weeks ago, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a forum in California, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?" Shelton replied, "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

Shelton's remarks appeared in the Los Altos Town Crier on Sept. 23. On Sept. 24, the Republican National Committee disseminated them in an e-mail alert. The New York Times sought clarification from Shelton but reported that he "could not be reached for comment." Since then, the remarks have reappeared in numerous wire stories, TV broadcasts, and newspaper articles. The New York Post trumpeted "the revelation that says Clark lacks the character to be president" and suggested it was one of several "hints that maybe Clark isn't all that." A Post op-ed added, "It makes you suspect that knows whereof he speaks when he says Clark's forced early retirement as head of NATO 'had to do with integrity and character issues.' " On CNBC, former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., asked, "What do we know about ? He supported Bush. He said nice things about Condi Rice. Gen. Shelton says that there's issues of character and integrity that need to be discussed." On Fox News, Tony Snow said Clark "didn't run the military. He was run out of the military. … says Clark was, in effect, fired as the supreme allied commander for reasons of integrity and character."

I've searched news databases and found only one person who's pointed out that Shelton has a duty to clarify his accusation. Last Friday, my colleague, Chris Suellentrop, appeared on the Fox News show The Big Story With John Gibson. Gibson recited Shelton's quotes, posited that Shelton "had to have a good reason" to fire Clark, and concluded, "Integrity—that means, does the guy lie? Does he tell the truth to his bosses?" Suellentrop argued that Shelton "should say more of what he means by that. What character issues? What integrity issues?" But Gibson persisted:
Why do you think it is that none of the other nine candidates in this debate yesterday didn't turn around and say, Gen. Clark, what integrity issues, what character issues, why were you fired? No one said a word about this. Is somebody covering something up or are they just … Is there a khaki wall that is going to close around Clark and we are not going to find out what it was that Hugh Shelton and evidently more people at that level felt about him? … Could it be because these issues, the words "integrity and character," are so large that if fried Clark now they may not have somebody that they want to run with ? The Democrats cannot attack this guy or find out what these issues were because it's too bad, they may need him?
Whoa. We don't know that Clark lied. We don't know that the grounds on which Shelton got rid of him were valid. We don't know that when Shelton challenges Clark's integrity, Shelton knows whereof he speaks. We don't know that "more people" at Shelton's level doubted Clark's integrity. All we know is that some military honchos have criticized Clark's style anonymously and that Shelton has challenged Clark's integrity. We don't know whether these two sets of allegations are related, or whether other military leaders who have issues with Clark would characterize them as issues of integrity.

While he's at it, Shelton ought to explain why, if sneaking around your boss to go to the media is a grave character issue, sneaking around your former subordinate to go to the media with an unfalsifiable insinuation about him isn't. Clark says Shelton never came to him directly: "I have never heard anything about these integrity and character issues." Clark also says he has "no idea" what they are. Until Shelton clarifies the charge, Clark can't rebut it. He's presumed guilty of something serious. That's why Gibson's complaint is upside-down. If somebody is covering up what Shelton is talking about, that somebody is Shelton. And the cover-up isn't helping Clark; it's hurting him.

A wise friend once told me you can learn more about somebody from what he says about others than from what others say about him. Given what I've heard so far from Clark and Shelton, if I had to vote for one of them based on integrity and character, I'd go with Clark.

http://www.slate.com/id/2089014/

------------
The conflict was not one of Character or integrity, it was a professional disagreement about military tactics....and Clark, as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe had every right to demand to fight a NATO War (so Cohen and Shelton should have been on the perifery not in the middle of it) the way he saw fit....but Cohen and Shelton wouldn't have it.

[1932]

69. You and Saletan should do better research. Event: 9/12. Published: 9/17

Republicans pick up on it 9/24, according to you. Where did I get this info? From the Los Altos Town Crier: http://www.latc.com/2003/10/01/news/news03.html

I can only imagine Shelton and Edwards' consternation while they waited and waited wondering if anyone was going to pick up on Shelton's integrity bomb. Do you really think that this was calculated? Don't you think that, if it were, they would have come up with a better way to disseminate this than to talk about it at an event which had one reporter on a half-month deadline?

And please tell me that you have read Clark's Waging Modern War. Can you honestly say that you can't imagine why Shelton didn't like Clark after Clark himself explains all the incidents over which they conflicted?

[FrenchieCat]

73. Clark and Shelton don't have to "like" each other.....

that's not the fucking point. The point is that Shelton smeared Clark in the press. Period.

The technicality of the date used doesn't matter, the words said do.

I question Shelton's integrity in what he did. I also questioned Shelton's Character in how he conspired to get Clark retired early behind Clinton's back. So I have many questions about Shelton, Friend and advisor to Mr. Innocent Little boy Scout John Edwards.


Plus, the disagreement had been well documented BEFORE Clark ever wrote his book.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true ("The Unappreciated General" --5/2/00)
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure3.htm (Reprint of WAPO's Dana Priest article 8/4/99 - "Clark's Exit Was Leaked Deliberately")
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure.htm (Reprint of "Washington's Long Knives" 8/03/99)
http://www.texasforclark.com/departure4.htm (Why Wesley Clark Got the Ax at NATO - 8/6/99)

[1932]

71. Hey, do you think Saletan knew the actual date but was lying in order to create

a more interesting story, because he knew that actual dates made it seem like it was inadvertent and not at all intended to be a national media story?

Or maybe it was just an innocent mistake by Saletan.

[FrenchieCat]

74. I think that is irrelevant, this date issue....considering you said that it didn't really

go anywhere...when I documented where it went...and it was to quite a few places, in fact, the smear was discussed just about everyfuckingwhere. :eyes:

[1932]

77. I think it's very relevant to the assertion in post 62.

Do you really think Shelton was out to smear Clark by answering a question at an event where the only reporter was someone from the Los Altos Crier? Do you think Shelton was sitting around for 12 days waiting for someone to find out about what he was saying when the MSM would have gladly given him airtime like they were giving those asshole generals who were smearing Clark?

After reading Clark's book it seems to me that Shelton could honestly have the opinion that he shared with the audience on 9/12/03.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Please, name ONE general other than Shelton......

since you said "given him airtime like they were giving those asshole generals who were smearing Clark?"


Makes sure to give sources. Thanks!

[1932]

80. I know this isn't exactly the Los Altos Town Crier

However, here's a guy who didn't wait for a free weekly (bi-weekly?) to finally publish his answer to a question at an event lightly attended by the media: Lt Gen Paul Funk (Rtd.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1468300

Why do I remember things about your favorite candidate's campaign that you don't know or don't remember?

[FrenchieCat]

83. Actually that radio report is pretty good and interesting....cause I believe that

there were many more of high rank speaking well of Clark (Powell, Haig, Scales, Hackworth) and only one echoing Shelton's words.....and his main reason given was because Clark went around the pentagon......but as Allied Commander of NATO, Clark wasn't supposed to report to the Pentagon (I'm sure you know, cause you read the book), although he did as a 4 star General (That Complexity was handled well by Clark; the Pentagon brass had a real problem with it)....the NATO Commander, however, was to report directly to the heads of state involved in the NATO war--that would have been Clinton in the U.S.

Sure a couple of "unnamed" officers called him an opportunist--as the interview was done a few days after he had announced; with some probably being shocked that he came out as a Democrat (as many may be Republicans), and that he had decided to run for President.

But , as a 4 stars General Scales stated in that interview, Clark just wasn't a good old boy....and many were jealous of his intellect which bred resentment.
So I do thanks for that one, cause I believe that it is better that he wasn't loved by the military establishment universally....cause for me, that would be problematic; would have made him a good old boy.

retired General Walter Kross, a former four-star Air Force general under whom Clark served on the staff of the Joint Chiefs in the mid-1990s. For two years Kross worked with Clark from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night six days a week, and sometimes on Sundays. He disagrees strongly with Shelton and Cohen about Clark's abilities and character. When I asked him why Clark was disliked by some military officers, Kross replied,

"He's not the army general officer from central casting. He's the extra-ordinary senior officer who can do extra-ordinary work on the entire range of challenges senior officers have to face—including Kosovo and the Dayton Accords, on which he worked himself into exhaustion. No army officer from central casting can do that work, but Wes did. "
He added, "Some senior officers misinterpret drive, energy, and enthusiasm for overambition...he is outside the mold and that makes some other officers uncomfortable."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's like I realize that you may think that EVERYONE Loooooves John Edwards, although I'm sure I could find a small line up of attorneys who didn't, if that's what was required.

All in all, valuable information! Thanks!

[1932]

88. I don't think you're following my argument.

My argument is this: I think the idea that Shelton was plotting against Clark is a myth perpetuated to score political points against Edwards. I don't think it's supported at all by the facts and the time-line (which I've set out above). I offered the NPR story as a contrast. I think the one guy actually allowed to speak in that interview (who criticizes Clark) is a bit of an ass. But I also think he's a good contrast to Shelton (do you need me to highlight where they contrast?).

I think it's amusing that people perpetuate the Shelton myth and aim so much vitriol at him but ignore the people who clearly were smearing Clark intentionally, like this guy (and you didn't even think people like that existed -- you challenged me to cite one example of another general who criticized Clark!).

[FrenchieCat]

89. I understood your point completely....

and my point is that Shelton knew exactly what he was doing. He dropped the grenade and ran away, and others picked it up like a hot potatoe and tossed it around.

The press picked up the smear and ran with it.....which was the intended goal based on a planned maneuver to discredit General Clark.....

By the way, here's the Character and intergrity expert "LT. Gen. Paul Funk" making an ass out of himself coming up with excuses for our now disgraced former Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, in reference to when the soldier had asked Rummy why he had to rummage through garbage for parts to fit on his humvee. Remember that?

GORANI: A quick last question to Lieutenant General Funk. As a military man, what did you make of the answers that were given by the secretary of defense today to some of this pointed questions about lack of armored cars and antiquated equipment?

FUNK: Well, I have a certain amount of empathy for him there because those questions, tough ones, coming from soldiers who are in harms way, can't be answered very well by anybody.

The fact is, we're there. We've got to do the best we can. We can win this, but we are really, really stretching the force to do it, and those kids today that asked those questions are part of that stretching that's going on.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/08/i_ins.01.html

[1932]

91. Sure. A planned manouever. Right.

And, once again, I agree that Funk is an ass. What amuses me is that you needed to be reminded that he existed and, meanwhile, obsessive mythologies are built around Shelton even though the facts don't support them.

[FrenchieCat]

94. I'm relieved that I can "amuse" you so easily.

However, I am not amused that some would attempt to put into question the service that Wes Clark has made to this country which encapsulates most of his life. I don't find that funny at all. And for you to attempt to dismiss this as some kind of a non-naferious comment on the part of Shelton (first you implied that he was justified because of the fact that Wes Clark dared write a book which detailed his NATO experience including the players who got him "retired" early behind Clinton's back) is beyond me as to your motive (maybe).

You may want to play naive in reference to what Shelton's intents were when he said what he said, and certainly you, as an Edwards supporter would want to minimize Edwards' role due to Shelton's relationship to Edwards, but me....I wasn't born yesterday and so I'm not going to be fooled and steered to your take; judge those that picked up the grenade after it was thrown more harshly than the one who threw it because of the timing. Sorry, but that one doesn't wash. Too many knew Clark was going to announce.....by the time that Shelton said what he said, it was all just a matter as to where Clark would be making his announcement on the 17th....cause the 17th had already been established so this was likely a preemptive strike.....and then it was just a matter of emailing the original article around, and presto; smear someone's entire career, again.


But in reference to this in the article you linked....

"Gen. Shelton continues to disparage Gen. Wesley Clark," wrote in Valerie Sanford of Woodland Hills. "It is outrageous Hugh Shelton should be smearing Gen. Clark again, after Shelton and Defense Secretary William Cohen mischaracterized Clark to President Clinton - who discovered too late that the pair had acted together to lie about Clark. Shame on Shelton and Cohen for using their power in a very harmful way - and extra shame on Shelton for portraying himself as squeaky-clean. As for Shelton adding that he will not support Clark for president, that part is no surprise since he and Cohen are Republicans."

Why couldn't Edwards had found a "Democrat" to seek national security advise from? What was he thinking? :shrug:
Maybe that's why he was so gun ho on the whole Iraq War Debacle! Maybe that's why I ain't into electing Presidents who have to surround themselves with "advisors" in order to understand what might be going on.

[1932]

98. That post makes me wonder if you've read Waging Modern Wars.

Shelton's comment about Clark in the LATC article is consistent with Clark's own characterization of their relationship.

Buy, hey, don't let that get in the way of spinning out a good myth.

[Bucky]

87. It wasn't a smear; it was a political argument.

I'm a big ol' Clarkie and loathe the unfair shots he took. But the reality is that it's all part of the game and what Edwards did is considered fair play. If Clark can't take the relatively light criticism Edwards dished out, I'd doubt he could handle a Republican smear machine. The reality, tho, is that Clark can handle the smears and keep on truckin'.

I won't hold a grudge over such a minor argument.

[1932]

66. A couple weeks ago I read Edwards' book Four Trials. There was no question

of negligence in his cerebral palsy cases. In fact, it was so extreme that NC hospitals changed their policies to make sure that Doctors wouldn't repeat their negligence in similar cases.

Also, do you think the defense lawyers were in a coma throughout the trial? They had available all the same science, and as many (if not more) resources than Edwards had.

[FrenchieCat]

68. My main problem with Edwards is that he leads from the rear,

Co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR when he didn't have to, has no foreign policy foresight, is trying too hard for the JFK/Clinton mantle, and the media kisses his ass a little much, which always makes me suspicious (as to what they will hit him with when required). Apart from that, he's fine.

[blitzen]

72. Negligent maternity wards do sometimes cause CP

By "cause," I mean that, by not paying close attention to vital signs, they sometimes intervene too late--after an episode of severe oxygen loss which can cause CP. I know this from personal experience--although in our case we were lucky and chose not to file a lawsuit.

[loyalsister]

75. This bugs me for different reasons

These kinds of lawsuits seem to me to devalue people with disabilities.
I have heard him speak and he has a condescending (help the most needy) attitude toward people with disbilities. Now I know it's origin.
Most people with disabilities don't like to be considered "needy" or devalued.
Bummer that his experience takes him there.

[GreenArrow]

85. yeah,

but that sort of thing -- taking a presumed interest in the "needy" -- makes good P.R., and you just can't have too much good P.R.

[loyalsister]

90. I'm not sure of your meaning

And I'm not sure mine was clear.
I was just pointing out that I have heard Edwards use language that no matter how well intentioned makes me uncomfortable because it is clear that he has not begun to look at people with disabilities as anything other than the pity pawns.

Phrases like
"those least able to care for themselves"
"the most needy"

This is not how people with disabilities see themselves and definitely not how they want to be portrayed.
It does

[wishlist]

79. Medical negligence is a reality but Edwards condemns frivolous lawsuits

Edwards advocates review boards to screen out frivolous lawsuits and other limits and espouses that there must be a clear basis for bringing forward negligence lawsuits. From his writings and statements, he strikes me as having ethical considerations and good motives in pursuing settlements for victims of negligence rather than mere opportunistic greed.

Amazes me how doctors put all the blame on trial lawyers instead of the insurance companies. There is no question that the high price of malpractice insurance is very discouraging to doctors but there is evidence that insurance companies are unjustified in charging such high insurance premiums. The companies have exaggerated the true cost of malpractice settlements and unfairly placed all the blame on trial lawyers for the astronomical premiums. Elliott Spitzer as NY attorney general exposed several cases of massive insurance company premium ripoffs that were not justified.

I have reservations about Edwards, but not because of his success in pursuing cases of corporate and medical negligence.

I have seen several instances of serious complications and life threatening results from doctor and nurse errors/negligence where the patients did not even file complaints let alone lawsuits, but should have instead of paying the high medical bills that ensued. A relative of mine died from gross incompetency involving wrong meds and the hospital involved was shut down permanently when it was revealed that several other patients had died from neglect there too. But despite clearcut negligence, the resulting monetary settlements were paltry.

[GOPS Worst Fear]

81. Everyone Hates Trial Lawyers..

until they need one!

[savemefromdumbya]

82. There's danger of running again

I think people think it's stale running again. I think Edwards was no match for Cheney in the last Prez debate. Edwards is an ambitious politician and could do the job but....

[Bobbie Jo]

97. Bottom line for me....

About Edwards...is just the "gut" factor. He just doesn't hold my attention beyond the initial "he looks nice" kind of thing.

No offense...but he's just not an attention grabber.