It's got to be Edwards for VP and Clark for Sec. of State

[trumad]

I'll tell you why. Number one: In 2012, Edwards will still be young and vibrant enough to extend the Dem's stay in the White House until 2020.

Number two: Several months ago I read a piece that Wes Clark wrote that absolutely floored me. It made me realize that this guy gets it. He may not have the stump speech flair that Edwards has, but this Rhodes Scholar is a certifiable Genius who's knowledge of history has molded his vision to what it will take for International Diplomacy.. After reading that I said goodbye to Dean and backed Wes.

Jump ahead and now we are anxiously awaiting the VP nomination. When Kerry wins the White House he's going to step into some major shit left by Bush. I have confidence that Kerry can overcome the Domestic disaster that Bush has left but he's going to need help on cleaning up our mess overseas. So...would a guy like Clark be more effective as a VP or would he be more effective as Secretary of State? I say Sec. of State. Here's the piece that came out today:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

Like I said, this guy gets it and I think he can fix it.

MHOP

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

1. I couldn't agree with you more...

Wes Clark is an honorable man, - and would be able to quickly restore our relationships around the world...

respected by the military, a patriot, a proven leader

[Rosco T.]

2. Dead on Target..

altho either Clark or Edwards would be a fine VP choice, In 2012 Edwards would have 8 years of 'OJT' and help keep the White House.

Clark for Sec of State is a no brainer also..

Now, let's really scare the hell out of the 'pugs..

Howard Dean for Attorney General ...

[NewJeffCT]

7. Edwards for Attorney General

Clark, Richardson or Cleland for VP
Bill Clinton for Sec of State

[Claire Beth]

113. Edwards would be a great attorney general....

and Clark would be a great VP. Of course, I'll be happy with Edwards as VP and Clark as Secretary of State. Clark is brilliant in foreign affairs for sure.

[TheDebbieDee]

14. Howard Dean for Surgeon General..........

or Health and Human Services. Actually, I think Howard could get more done at Health and Human Services. Start a national health care plan, maybe........

[BurnInHellFoxNews]

95. Dean would be awful.

Granted, I'll defend Dean to the death and I'm very thankful for what he brought to this race, but I would just prefer an attorney general who, I don't know, has been to law school.

[KittyWampus]

3. Edwards Is An Insipid, Near Empty Suit, Rather Like Reagan

things are so totally fucked up right now that Edwards lack of pertinent experience should dissuade Kerry from going for him.

Edwards has NOTHING in his resume that recommends him and neither does he has any talent other than appearing to be "charming" to some people.

However, I bet Shrum would LOVE Edwards and is pushing for him. The perfect vessel for Shrum's rhetoric.

By the way, I am NOT ACTIVELY PUSHING CLARK AS VP.

[okieinpain]

13. well I'm pushing for clark as vp, but sos is a damn good ideal also

I just hopes that kerry, doesn't try for some kind of a gimmick pick. like a minority or female, I'm a black male and would love to see a black or hispanic picked for vp.

but I just feel we have too much riding on this one election to try anything to distracting. I say we go with the standard, and after kerry puts in a couple of supreme court justices, we can try something different.

[loathesomeshrub]

44. Damn straight - I would love to see Hillary as VP just to be able

to make the repukes insane with fury when they won; but you are right, there is too much riding on this for any deviation from the way its always been. Did Mondale make a mistake picking Ferraro? I think he might have lost anyway, but that probably helped.

[DjTj]

47. Edwards is far more clear in his convictions than Reagan ever was...

...everything in Edwards' platform can be explained with his life. He grew up among working people in the South, worked his way through college, and spent his career fighting corporations in the courtroom.

Reagan spent his life in the fake world of Hollywood but Edwards spent his life in the real world, helping people who were in the worst crises of their lives.

Reagan used his fame through Hollywood to run for President 3 times before he won the nomination and then beat Carter. Edwards never had any advantages like that, and every ounce of popularity was earned with Edwards' own words and action.

Although there are people on DU trying to paint Edwards as some sort of political opportunist, he never even considered running for office until his oldest son died in a car accident.

If you find nothing in his resume to recommend him, perhaps you should realize that people aren't created on paper. Dig a little deeper into his life then give him an interview, and I bet you'll like what you see.

[incapsulated]

4. Well...

I'm on the fence as far as VP goes but I've wanted Clark as Sec. of State since the day he dropped out. Desperately, even, heh.

I would be lightheaded with joy if I knew that would be his job. :)

[Adelante]

74. You and me both

And I wish Skinner would ban all VP threads. They are the Devil. :evilfrown:

[incapsulated]

84. From your lips...

To God's, I mean Skinner's, ears. ;-)

[atre]

96. I agree

They do nothing but get my blood boiling.

[Not Me]

5. I see your point, but...

I still say, Clark for VP, Edwards for AG.
The morass in Iraq demands his smarts.

(edit for typo)

[atre]

48. Unless we adopt the Bush model for government

as VP Clark would not have any say over how we get out of the Iraq quagmire. The Bush II Administration is the ONLY one in which the VP has had a significant foreign policy role.

[Scoopie]

83. Yes, but the Veep role has been changing since Gore

Gore tackled over-spending and mismanagement in government spending and contracts.
Cheney tackled ruling the world.
I think the Veep role has been expanding and Clark's could be to tackle Iraq, foreign policy and diplomacy while Kerry stays home to fix the economy, health care and social issues.
This country is too big and involved in the world for just one person. I think that a pro-active Veep on a major issue is a necessity.

[Justice]

6. Agree - Said the Same thing to some at work today

Clark would be a fabulous SOS. Edwards would be a fabulous VP (or AG) but VP allows us to plan for the future.

[AgentLadyBug]

8. lol - i for one would rather......

have a diplomat as secretary of state, rather than a warrior.... we're not gonna make friends in the near-future by showing our warring prowess, i don't think....

i'd also rather see actual democrats appointed to key positions.... i'm not convinced that clark isn't just blowing sunshine up dems asses.....

[incapsulated]

10. .

.

Everything old is new again! :)

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

16. LOL...Yes Clark is working his ass off setting up a PAC and speaking

for John Kerry so that in the end he can what??? I've heard this tripe since Clark entered the race, and I find myself disgusted that it is still echoed in DU. Clark is as eloquent a diplomat as a warrior. He worked with 19 world leaders to command NATO. I'd say his resume and brains are a superb fit for VP or SOS.

[AgentLadyBug]

29. sorry for the tripe......

..... but i'm just not convinced that clark is a democrat.... an intelligent, educated, experienced 60-odd year old military general shouldn't need to take several weeks out to decide which party to join - not today when the differences are so pronounced. my conclusion was/is that he is an opportunist, whose true feelings on issues is completely hidden from the public, who is attempting to make up for lack of political experience by hopping on the most convenient bandwagon available, and using his gee-whiz-military-aura in order to gain power. for what end? hell if i know - that's why i have zero trust of him.

who needs a few weeks to decide if they're repub or dem? gimme a break

didn't he vote for bush for prez a few years back?

most peeps around here are pretty high on clark - i'm ok with there simply being a disagreement on the matter - tho i confess, i can't for the life of me figure out why peeps here like him, unless it's just the banal issue of dems are scared of being called war-wusses by repubs, so they'll take a general-no-matter-what-he-thinks.......

[Spazito]

30. Even I, as a Canadian, knows that Clark couldn't register for a party...

in Arkansas nor could anyone else, repub or democrat, until recently and he registered as democrat once he retired from the armed forces.

[Qutzupalotl]

33. Didn't he vote for Clinton, Clinton and Gore?

Read the article and you'll get an idea of why we like him. Read his resume and you'll see why people are impressed. Read the stories of his heroism and you'll see why we trust him. Read his platform from his candidacy and you'll see why we want him in office. Listen to his stump speeches and you'll understand why Republicans went out of their way to keep him out of the media.

[incapsulated]

34. Ha!

Bam! KO!

Nice post. :thumbsup:

[AgentLadyBug]

46. fair enuff..... now help me get over the hump.....

.... am i making shit up in my head when i seem to recall hearing that he voted for repub president? (it's totally possible - i'm not known for my sharp memory)

and then lastly, this was not addressed in the responses to my thought: am i misremembering, or did clark take a few weeks to "decide" what party to join?

[Qutzupalotl]

63. Clark was courted by both parties

but there was never really any doubt in his mind. The Democratic platform was what he believed in.

Earlier on, yes, he voted for Reagan and Bush I (once). Those votes were based on national security emphasis, not on ideology. After all, he was a career soldier. Over time, he realized that the Republicans didn't stand for what they said they did. He later used that experience on the stump, turning their "family values" mantra on its head: Why don't they value families?

[Adelante]

77. Do you have a link to the Bush I vote?

The reason I ask is that I have read that, many times, but never as a quote from him. He has freely said he voted for Reagan and Ford. But I've never been able to track down the Bush I vote in his own words. Just curious. Thanks.

[Qutzupalotl]

91. I don't have a link, and I could be wrong about that.

I thought I heard him on TV say that, but I could be mistaken. My understanding is that he voted Dem in the last 12 years, so in '88 I would assume he went with Bush I.

[Adelante]

94. FactCheck.org checked into his voting record

The most they say about Bush I is that Clark "hasn't denied" voting for Bush I. He's been so clear on Reagan and Ford, it strikes me as odd that this one is so murky. It wouldn't surprise me if he did, given Bush I's foreign policy focus, but I'd like to know for sure one of these days.

[Sopianae]

35. He voted for Clinton twice, then for Gore

He's been voting for Democrats for the last 12 years. Why is that so difficult to understand?

He risked his life for others more than once and he risked his career for his principles. I don't know how you can be more trustworthy than that.

[FreeSpeechCrusader]

45. Why don't you actually read his platform and stances

on the issues, and then you might understand why others supported him and still strongly support him here. Read his stance on the issues. On the issues, Clark had an overall platform that was to the left of most all the candidates besides Dennis. Clark lived the American dream. He was a poor child who lost his father early. He excelled throughout his entire life from academics to sports to becoming a Rhodes scholar and one of the greatest military minds of our time. He is a great man and will make a great VP, SOS, or whatever other position JK decides to put him in for the betterment of our nation.

[Adelante]

76. Do some research before you spout off

I don't care if you trust him or not, but do not lie about Wes Clark.

1-He voted for Gore a few years back.

2-Please note date and party affiliation:

[Auntie Bush]

89. "Ladybug, Ladybug, fly away home!"

[Spazito]

19. Hmmmm, I think this could be classified as...

a "drive-by smear", with little context.

[LandOLincoln]

37. Clark is both

diplomat and warrior. He's the perfect model of the soldier/statesman/scholar it's been West Point's aim to produce since its founding in the early part of the 19th Century.

[Scoopie]

39. As opposed to

Oh, say, who?
Edwards? Voted for the Iraqi war, was on the committee that drafted the Patriot Act.
Kerry? Voted for the Iraqi war.
Lieberman? Too many faux pas on the Dem side to even list...
McCain - oh, wait - he IS a Republican - not a neo-con.
Dean? - Voted one of the NRA's most favorite.

This is really ridiculous, you know. If you'd pay attention to what Clark is doing and saying and writing, you'd know that he probably has a more liberal stance than most of the above-listed people.

When are we gonna come off this "party" prowess and just try to find the most intelligent people capable of doing the job. Clinton did and we had the best managed, best-loved America we've ever had.

[Auntie Bush]

80. I love to squash bugs...but I'm a lady! n/t

[damnraddem]

9. No, Clarke for Secretary of Defense.

Bill Clinton for Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton for first opening on SCOTUS.

Howard Dean for Secretary of HHS.

[incapsulated]

11. He can't be

He can't be Sec. of Defense, there is a 10 year waiting period after you leave the service.

[atre]

55. He said Clarke with an "e" at the end; perhaps he means Richard

nm

[cheezus]

12. no kidding. the world has just seen a us general become sec of state

and look what happened. for the sake of diplomacy, I think we'd do better with a civilian

[Sopianae]

15. Actually, whatever you think of Powell

(and I think he totally sold out) he is the only mitigating force in this Administration. The least hawkish and the most diplomatic. Chikenhawks are much worse.

[cheezus]

18. how hard is it to be better than bush?

anyway, I think Wes would be a great sec of state, it's just that having a general in that position, at this time, would be a mistake from a diplomatic standpoint

[StephNW4Clark]

20. No it wouldn't

Because he's not just a 4 star General.

He's a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander who worked towards a diplomatic solution in the Dayton Accords.

He's so much more different than any other general.

[incapsulated]

25. He also had the endorsement

Of dozens and dozens of diplomats during his run for the nomination. I can't remember exactly, but it was a list as long as my arm. He has the respect and appreciation of the diplomatic community, no question.

[incapsulated]

27. Here: Fifty-Five U.S. Ambassadors And Diplomats Endorse Clark

Little Rock - Fifty-five former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats, women and men who have served in some 36 countries during the last four administrations, believe that Wesley K. Clark is the right choice to lead America at this critical time in the world.

"Serving as representatives of the United States has allowed each of us to meet with world leaders and see what terrific leadership looks like," said Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to theNetherlands and co-chair of Ambassadors for Clark. "We know that the world is more interconnected than ever before, and so the impact of good and bad leadership impacts America and the world more than ever before. Wes Clark appreciates that and ambassadors understand the interconnectedness of the world and the critical need for a new leader to repair and strengthen our global ties."

"I am thrilled by the endorsement of those that have the respect of world leaders on every continent," Wesley Clark said. "They understand the importance of rebuilding America's alliances and restoring our country to a position of leadership based on cooperation and respect."


Ambassadors and Diplomats for Clark grew out of the unique phenomena of the Draft Wesley Clark movement. Not only did Wes Clark receive encouragement to run from thousands of individuals from across the U.S., the letters of support came from people, both U.S. citizens and citizens of many other nations, who understand that Wes Clark is the person we need to lead America at this crucial moment in history. The full list of ambassadors and diplomats is below.

Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
John Holum, Under Secretary of State
William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo VerificationMission
Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

http://clark04.com/press/release/221/

[incapsulated]

21. Clearly

You know very little about Clark past his 4 stars. I won't bother to educate you, I'm not doing that kind of time wasting activity anymore. Why don't you educate yourself.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html


Powell is a lapdog for the Bushes, always was. He still had a fine reputation, which he destroyed defending them. Clark was stabbed in the back for refusing to be a lapdog. Big difference in personalities, here.

[RafterMan]

24. And look what happened

when the chose General George Marshall to be Secretary of State.

It's always hard to (cough) generalize.

[Pepperbelly]

52. cheap shot baloney...

So was Marshall and look what he did.

:eyes:

[TheDebbieDee]

17. Hillary on the SCOTUS...........

I hadn't thought of that. She'd make a great Justice!

[Killarney]

22. I agree 100%.

[Sopianae]

23. I would like to see Clark as VP.

For some reason, I think that Sec of State is reserved for Halbrooke. He is a great diplomat and would be a good choice. I just don't want Clark to be left out. He's got so much to offer.

[Leilani]

106. I would love to see Wes at State

But I think you are right about Holbrooke, or at least another CAREER diplomat....Jamie Rubin comes to mind.

We need Wes as Veep to signal to all voters, former allies, etc. that John Kerry is serious about Iraq, he will have solutions, & FP/International Policy is crucial.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. no Clark for DOD and Clinton for Sect of State

[Bombtrack]

28. I want Edwards for AG, Clark for NSA, Fareed Zakaria for Sec of State

and Graham or Landrieu for vp.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Edwards VP. Clark NSA. Holbrooke SOS. Dean HHS.

We need Edwards on the ticket to bring energy, excitement, fresh ideas. John Edwards is great on the stump, and he will be a huge help in Senate and House races.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Darkamber]

32. Exactly how I feel...

I couldn't agree more. Clark would be wasted in the VP position. He needs to be Sec. of State or National Security Adviser. I listened to Clark in the primary and shined when he spoke of matter of international affairs or military matters. He needs to be given a job where he could put those skills to serious work instead of running around and doing fundraisers and messing with the Senate.

And the more I think about it, the less likely that I think Edwards would fit in the AG position. He has not practiced law for nearly 5 years. I don't think that is a field where you can just take several years off. Laws change all the time. New cased always changing things. I think I read that Kerry wants a AG who is currently practicing law.

However, Edwards fits all the things that are needed for VP.

If Kerry were to announce Edwards for VP with Clark there as his future Sec. of State, I think we could seriously win this in Nov.

[Scoopie]

40. But...

if Edwards is on the ticket... I'm not voting for it.
I'm tired of pretty boy, unlearned politicos who should be experiencing more rather than running for higher office all the time.

I'd love to see Clark as SoS, but I don't think Kerry could win without him. Bush is constantly trouncing Kerry on the "security" issues - Kerry needs Clark, an attack dog, not Edwards, a son of something, to win.

AND P.S.
NO! NO! NO! NO! and DOUBLE NO! To Clark as NSA. That's a piss-ant, politically appointed extension of the president's personal peccadillos. Clark needs Cabinet status.

[trumad]

41. Ah the principled reasoning of enabling Bush

always a blast to read..:eyes:

[Scoopie]

43. How is it enabling Bush

to NOT vote for another numbnut?

I love my country too much for that!

Too bad we don't have any REAL choices out there for the Independents of this country - like me.

[trumad]

49. Horseshit

SO you don't think every vote counts? Me thinks that by you sitting home on election day means that you don't give a shit about your country. If you really think that Kerry is no different than Bush then your're the "Numbnut"!

[Scoopie]

86. Kerry IS different than Bush

But Edwards isn't.

[atre]

100. Edwards no different than Bush? Horseshit!

Look at the voting record.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNC68243#Conservative

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNC68243#Liberal

I think that posting Republican propoganda should be grounds for tombstoning... You?

[Darkamber]

62. So are you saying you will only voter for Kerry/Clark?

If Kerry looks at all his options and decides that Edwards is his best option for VP and he does want Clark in a position like the SoS, you are stating you won't voter for Kerry?

You believe that we are better with Bush if you can't have Clark as VP?

For what it is worth, I believe that the future of this country is too important to be left in the hands of Bush for another 4 years. Look what has happened in the last 4 years of his watch.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a moderate Democrat and I could scream about what has happened. There will be no social security in our future as the way things stands.

And I will vote for Kerry no matter who he puts as VP even if my first choice is Edwards. Edwards does speak to a different group of voters then Clark. But I wouldn't hesitate to vote for Kerry if Clark was VP choice.

I'm not sure what you want Edwards to experience in life. He spent 20 years of his life in law practice and hit the top of his field. He opted to run for Senate based partly on a personal change in his life. Gore tapped him as a VP choice when he had just came to office.

He may not speak to the things that are important to you, but he does speak to the matters that are important to many Americans and he speaks well for Kerry.

[Scoopie]

85. Nope

I'd vote for Kerry and any running mate with a lick of foreign policy sense. This is the year the Democrats should use to take back that "security" issue from the Republicans.

I would not vote for Kerry/Edwards, Kerry/Gep, Kerry/that dude from Iowa (I can never remember how to spell his name, so I won't try).

I WOULD vote for Kerry/Graham, Kerry/Richardson, Kerry/Cleland or Kerry/Biden.

[Darkamber]

92. So Sec of Def and Sec of State mean nothing to you?

In other words, you don't care who Kerry puts in as Sec. of Def. and Sec. of State. If he doesn't put someone in who is top heavy in Foreign Policy, even if their internal research shows they could not win with that person, you would not vote for Kerry.

OK, it's your right to vote for who you choose, but I certainly hope that Clark does get Sec. of State where he can be fully used and I think where he would rather be.

[Scoopie]

36. Edwards is only

eight years younger than Clark.
:shrug:

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 4:01:41PM EDT, Tuesday, May 11, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
5 days,
7 hours,
58 minutes, and
19 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[MontecitoDem]

42. I fail to see what Edwards has to offer

Sorry, but I don't see what he adds. Another Senator with the same voting record. Yes youth and energy is good, but lots of folks see Edwards as all talk no substance.

I'd be willing to change my mind - anybody have a compelling reason?

[trumad]

51. Perhaps because he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth

and perhaps because he has a record of fighting for the little guy and perhaps you've never heard him in a townhall meeting. He's incredible.

[Skwmom]

65. Record of fighting for the little guy?

Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large.

"He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination."


"Some say that the biggest losers in litigation over brain-damaged babies are the parents of children whose cases are rejected by lawyers."

"For the one or two who got a substantial jury verdict," said George W. Miller Jr., a former state representative in North Carolina who practices law in Durham, "there were 99 that did not get anything, either because they were not able to finance litigation or their claim was questionable."

He said he planned to bring up the issue of compensation with a state commission that is studying medical malpractice. One approach would be to limit awards and create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly afflicted children.

This is not the first time Mr. Miller has championed the idea. In 1991, his legislation to create such a fund was defeated, in large part by the state's trial lawyers. Among those who spoke out against the bill was Mr. Edwards, who called it a baby tax.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ex=1390885200&partner=USERLAND

Wow what a guy.

[AP]

70. Just because you're the victim of awful corporate negligence doesn't make

you a big guy.

Edwards picked cases which his great talents could result in the most impact on the way corporations did business in NC and the US, ie, the big cases. How big they were had little to do with how big the victims were, but if you read Edwards's book, you see that his clients were working and middle class people. They were average Americans. The kind of people who rarely have anyone step forward to protect their interests any more.

[Darkamber]

71. You find this as bad point?

The fact is that he had to pick and choose as he was in great demand.

He defense lawyers were terrified of him. Associates only had to threated to bring Edwards in and they would settle. Anything to avoid having Edwards get in front of a Jury.

I might remind you that as VP, we are his client. He's fighting for us. Why is that such a bad thing? If anyone is scared it might be the Republicans who don't want to have Edwards get in front of that Jury...ie...the American people.

The fact is that Edwards has the exact skills that we need in a VP and someone going out on the road for Kerry and winning votes.

[trumad]

72. Quoting the New York Times...now that's funny...

[Cuban_Liberal]

81. Didn't you get the memo about everything in the NYT being true?

The Old Gray Whore would never print ANYTHING of questionable veracity. Just ask Jason Blair... :eyes:

[atre]

97. You know you're quoting insurance defense lawyers and lobbyists

... and I know you know because it's been pointed out to you hundreds of times. Do you really think the insurance defense industry has the interests of the little guy close to their vest? If you do, the level of your cognitive dissonance is as even worse than I imagined.

I agree that the availability of civil justice to poor people is a terrible mess, and I have written at length on the Court's arcane limitation of "due process" to only criminal justice, but you might be surprised to learn that personal injury lawyers are the ONLY lawyers that represent the bottom two-thirds of wage-earners on civil matters.

So, you can hate such lawyers all you want (you've shown your stripes), but don't pretend to be in favor of the interests of the little guy when you parrot the words of those whose lives are spent fighting against little guys.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skwmom]

50. Why are Bush supporters and the corporate media pushing

so hard for Edwards? Hmmm could it be:

1. The channeling of an unborn child. "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl. She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=139... .

They will argue that either Edwards is either another Democratic kook (like Dean) or another smarmy snake oil salesman who lied to a jury in closing arguments. I can hear the debate question now: Mr. Edwards, the NY Times has reported your ability to channel unborn children. In closing arguments you stated "She speaks to you through me. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." Do you really have the ability to channel unborn children (like John Edwards of Crossing Over ) or did you lie to the jury in making your closing arguments (which is reminiscent of a certain democratic president who lied under oath to a grand jury)? In addition, doesn't either answer to this question really raise serious doubt about whether you are fit to be a heartbeat away from assuming the highest office in this land?

This is on par with Deans moonie chanting.


2. Phony populist message. His two Americas I feel your pain speech (which is nothing more than recycled campaign rhetoric from other campaigns) does not hold up to scrutiny. The Republicans have long accused the Democrats of being phony defenders of the little guy. They will relish in discussing Edwards ZERO pro bono work and his record. "Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk."
…..Sometimes, the pamphlet contradicts Edwards’ reality. Example: "Some tax lawyers make millions through flimsy letters telling clients how to shelter their income. Edwards will stop these abuses," it claims. But in 1995, Edwards — already a multimillionaire — set up a professional corporation to shelter at least $10 million in legal earnings from having to pay Medicare taxes on them, saving himself some $290,000, according to the News and Observer, which quoted a top specialist from the American Institute of CPAs as labeling this trick "gaming the system." Populist hypocrisy?
(A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

3. Rabin who? "One evening while he was campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards was faced with a choice of several events he might attend. An advance man suggested, 'Maybe we ought to go to the reception for Leah Rabin.' Edwards responded, 'Who's she?' 'Yitzhak Rabin's widow,' replied the aide. 'Who was he?' asked Edwards" (Charles Peters, Washington Monthly, June 2003). (I can hear it know - The Democrats slammed Bush for not knowing the name of some obscure leader. Edwards didn't even know who Rabin was).

4. Campaign funding raising scandal. "Several newspapers have reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has begun a criminal investigation into donations to the Edwards campaign from an Arkansas personal injury law firm. Michelle Abu-Halmeh, a legal assistant at Turner & Associates, told The Washington Post last month that she expected to be reimbursed by her boss for her $2,000 contribution." http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx

5. His lack of national defense/foreign policy credentials.

On the surface Edwards looks like a great candidate. However, once you scratch the surface you realize why the Republicans are salivating for a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

[PopSixSquish]

75. Regarding the "Channeling" issue

Look, any lawyer worth his/her salt would stand on their head and whistle Dixie while drinking water from a glass slipper if they thought it would sway the jury.

And there are plenty lawyers in this country who have done just that for their clients. And some have even gotten murders off.

Have you ever seen a trial or watched a lawyer give a closing arguement?

And I'll bet $5 that if that question is put to Edwards in a debate, he'll handle it just fine.

[tishaLA]

110. Please chill with this channeling stuff

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for a number of candidates; I prefer Clark for VP, but I understand how some don't. But to resort to the same kinds of smears as the Clark/Haiti/man tits is not legitimate IMHO.

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. I disagree.

Not now. THIS election is too important to NOT have Wes Clark as VP. He has the foreign policy experience that is a MUST in this election. Iraq WILL be THE issue in Nov. Edwards brings NOTHING to that table. Wes Clark is the only contender who does. U.S. Supreme Allied Commander. Dayton Peace Accord. He knows MANY leaders of MANY countries and they LIKE him and more importantly, RESPECT him. No, Wes Clark is, for 2004 election, the overall best choice.....if we want to win. With Clark on the ticket, it's a shoe-in to the WH.

Edwards would be a good AG. Not a good VP. Hell! The man AGREES with the shrub on the damn war! He STILL says we did the right thing! NO, no, no.....Edwards is not a good choice for VP.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

54. Has Anyone Read...

"What John Kerry Needs: The Estrogen Factor" by Lakshmi Chaudhry on Alternet?

It may open some eyes on what Edwards has to offer the ticket.

Here's the link:

Alternet

[in_cog_ni_to]

56. As a FEMALE,

I find it insulting that people think we vote for people just because they have...so-called "nice hair, a pretty face and a sweet smile." :grr: As a female, John Edwards does absolutely NOTHING for me. HE "thinks" he's good looking and THAT turns me off. I would never vote in this very important election basing my vote on looks. That's disgusting and sad if women actually do that. Pathetic, actually. I can see nothing else that he brings to the ticket besides his looks and NO ONE should be voted for on that alone. 2004 is just too damn important.

[DjTj]

57. Did you read the article?

The secret of Edwards' estrogen appeal goes far beyond his pretty face. Unlike NASCAR dads, women voters tend not to be too impressed with the kind of masculine appeal that involves swaggering across an aircraft carrier with a bulging crotch, a la George Bush. They tend to favor a more subtle kind of power – the kind that fuses strength with compassion and charisma. It's why Meredith, a pretty photographer with little enthusiasm for politics or politicians, makes an exception for Edwards. "He is the only candidate who seemed human," she says. "I felt like he actually cared for real human beings, instead of talking about them as policy issues or talking points."


And that ability to connect is exactly why Edwards would make a perfect running mate for John Kerry. He supplies the two resources Kerry needs most: charisma and vision.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. Yes, I did.

And as Betsy, a young digital artist from San Francisco points out, the fact that Edwards "looks seriously hot" while he's making his pitch doesn't hurt either.

If John Kerry knows what's good for him, he'll get off the goddamn snowboard and ride Edwards' estrogen love train all the way to the White House.

:eyes:

[Scoopie]

87. Vision??

What vision?

He's an EMPTY SUIT and THIS WOMAN - FROM THE SOUTH - will not vote for an empty suit. There's too many of them about, now, as it is.

The only vision I see out of Edwards is the fact that he eyes the White House with some sort of slouthy-faced lust.

[LandOLincoln]

58. Besides, Wes is

better looking than Edwards anyway. :evilgrin:

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. Well,

THAT goes without saying! :smoke:

Go Wes!

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

61. That's not the point

The fact that you don't pick your candidate by looks is great.

That wasn't the point of that article. I thought that the goal was to try and win in November. This article is saying that Edwards appeals to women...not just on looks but in substance. We have to convince others to vote out Georgie Boy and to me, whatever works. We are preaching to the converted here. We need to give these women a reason to vote. If Edwards works, then we need to use it. That is my point with that article. Butch doesn't work with women. That is what the article was saying: women are a MAJOR voting block, often ignored and women relate well to Edwards.

There are a lot of voters out there who vote for the guy they like. Pathetic as it may seem to people who actually pay attention, it is a reality. Edwards is like-able. You may disagree and that's fine but, the fact remains that many DO like him, including me.

Don't get me wrong, I like Clark too. I have a special affection for the man, he reminds me a lot of my father. But the fact is, Edwards tests particularly well with women, and we (women) can swing this election away from Bush & Co. And that is the goal, isn't it?

[Skwmom]

66. How likeable do you think Edwards will be after

Rove and the corporate media are through with him? I know people who voted for Edwards (based on the media hype about him). Once they found out more guess what? They think he is a smarmy smuck unfit to be on the ticket. If Edwards, a smarmy personal injury attorney, is the best the Democrats have to offer God help us.

[AP]

69. They probably won't have much more success than you've had.

In other words, 'none.'

[Andromeda]

109. How you ever got to be here long...

enough to post over 1000 times amazes me. Somebody just hasn't been paying enough attention I guess.

[Leilani]

67. Kerry needs male voters

he already has a lead among women.

And Wes Clark will appeal to men, because he is decidedly MALE.

The Dems are called soft by many people..they are the Mommy party.
John Edwards appeals to the Mommy party.

We need some cajones, people.

And of everyone running for Prez this year, Clark has the cajones!

Sorry to be so blunt, but I am tired of hearing about vague personality differences.

We are at war, & it is time to forget about CUTE! War ain t cute!

We need a real man with strength & gravitas. The country is in peril & we are not voting for the new American Idol. We are picking the stand-in for the Leader of the Free World!!!

Sorry for the rant, but I feel better now.

[AP]

68. Yet, the sort of experience Clark has, so few women have, that it's

practically an argument for restricting the ticket to only white men.

The closest any woman comes to satisfying the bar Clark supporters have set for the VP is Madeline Albright, and she's doesn't even come all that close.

There just aren't that many women who could meet that standard.

Do you think that that makes sense -- that no woman is qualified to be VP this year because there isn't a single one who was a four star general who led NATO forces in Europe, came in first in his class at WP and went to Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship (which only started accepting women in the early 70s).

People aren't saying that Edwards's looks qualify him to be president. It's the entire package, and the looks are only part of it. Sure he looks like a guy who lives right and doesn't have a troubled conscience. That's a bad thing?

[Scoopie]

90. I give up

If the Democrats want to wallow in mediocracy - let them.

You guys seriously looked a gift-horse in the mouth when you let Wes go. He could have taken this party back to the FDR days.

Now, you push for a "good-looking" (in the eyes of some beholders, not this one) smile-alot with a precious little between his ears outside of his own back yard.

As an Independent, I was hoping the Democrats would come around this year and fight, damnit, for, not only our economic security, but also our national security.

It doesn't look like you're interested.

If it's Kerry/Edwards, this swing voter in a swing state is writing in someone (won't be the first time since great people never seem to make it) else in.

For your information, Edwards was just below Kerry on my list when my journey started to oust Bush. When Clark came along, I spent an entire Sunday researching his positions before signing up with the draft. However, Edwards constantly failed to impress me. His "aw shucks" attitude was patronizing to me as a Southerner, his lack of detail to his "platform" paled in comparison to Clark, and even Kerry, and the final straw wasn't even Shelton for me - it was his defense of the Patriot Act and his belief that going to war in Iraq was actually fighting terrorism.

The only thing I can remember good about Edwards from my first days in researching him and throughout the primaries was the debate in which he got after Dean on the Confederate Flag issue, saying, in effect, that it was not only racist (which I never thought Dean meant), but that Dean assumed we Southerners all clung to that piece of trivia, which was not true. Edwards did well pointing out that fact; however, I didn't see much else from him other than standard politico lines.

For example, I grew weary of the Fox debate where Clark wasn't asked a single issue-related question and where Edwards had a highly inappropriate response to questions surrounding Muslim countries (I am somewhat of an expert on the Arab/Muslim culture - there are people on this blog who can back me up on this statement). Trust me, from my experiences, Edwards blew it.

Edwards has some brains, but he's unlearned. I wish he had not given up his Senate seat and been a beacon of learning from the Democratic South - but he didn't and I lost tons of respect for him there. Graham earned his retirement, Edwards hasn't.

Believe me, as someone from the moderate South, Edwards is NOT popular here. His alleged charm stems from the media and not from his mouth. There are whole factions of people who adore Clark, but who voted for Kerry or Edwards because that's what the media expected of them - they were TOLD Kerry or Edwards would win and buckled to the pressure. You don't have to like this statement, but, from the bottom of my heart and from my life experiences, I know this is true.

Dems - for the sake of our country - get your act together. Please.

[in_cog_ni_to]

93. Don't give up, scoopie!

Keep on fighting for Wes! GREAT post, BTW. :yourock:

[AP]

104. Edwards's Real Solutions had more detail and came out earlier than

any other candidate's outline of positions, and it was so good that the other candidates stole from it. (Clark even stole the title!)

I think it's enough to site this study, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html , to rebut your claims about swing staters and independents. By the way, what state are you from. If people around you don't like Edwards, my first guess would be that the primaries weren't or won't be competitive when they reach your state. As the study noted, the more people learned about Edwards, the more they liked him, and he made his greatest progress in the last three days before primaries. If I sat down with your friends, I bet I could get them thinking about Edwards in a more useful way.


I thought the answer to the question about Islam was brilliant. He was asked a national security question, because there was a presumption that he and democrats were weak on the issue. He turned it around into a statement about public education and the danger of turning education over to religious organizations (sound familiar, like something Bush is doing in the US?) and talked about the value of investment in infrastructure and how even abroad it makes Americans safer, and he talked about how the US deals with the royal family in Saudi Arabia, which gets us in trouble, and that maybe it's time to reach down to the citizens of these countries and help them with their lives (again, reaching down to, and flowing power to working lower class people).

If you couldn't find a treasure trove a democratic principles and REAL SOLUTIONS to America's foreign policy problems, than I can only say that I understand why you don't like Edwards.

And, to get back to that study, ideas like this (which have a common thread that runs through every single policy position in Real Solutions -- the idea that America needs to reverse the 30 year trend of flowing power up the power ladder to a few, very wealthy and powerful people) are the ones to which the informed voters in that study were responding, and they are the ideas to which I responded.

What you saw as superficial, I saw as many layered and sophisticated -- there was depth for me, and there were symbols for the people who were less sophisticated, but they could read them as easily as I could read the more complicated ideas. That's an incredible talent for a politician. That's a talent Clark might not have mastered. He's not running for president of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's running for president of the United States and you have to have a coherent message which all people, at all levels of sophistication can read.

And the beautiful thing about Edwards is he wasn't trying to bullshit the unsophisticated people. He was giving them the same message about class and opportunity that he gave the sophisticated people. (And, incidentally, I think that what he addressed is EXACTLY the problem with America -- it's best expressed here: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html)

And you know what really offended me about Clark, which is along these lines: when he claimed his tax plan was more progressive than Edwards's. Edwards's plan would have created two tiers for capital gains. Clark had just made 1 million bucks on the sale of some stock Goldman Sachs loaned him money to buy. Clark would have a higher tax burden under Edwards's plan. Clark's plan would give everyone rich and poor their first 50K of income tax free (correct me if I'm wrong) but wouldn't create the second tier for cap gains. Now, Clark is an economics professor, so he must understand that not only does Edwards's plan tax rich people more progressively because most rich people are able to arrange things so that they can get income through cap gains, as Clark was able to do through his rich buddies, but he must have known that there is a very important debate he was obfuscating about rewarding work vs rewarding capital and overburdening work in America. So, Clark was bullshitting America on a very important issue (taxes) to win points and didn't disclose his own personal tax situation and how 'progressively' his plan wouldn't tax his income. (And again, if I'm wrong about Clark's treatment of cap gains, let me know -- I believe he wanted to tax back the 2001 tax cuts, but he didn't want to touch the cap gains set in Clinton's second term, much less create two tiers, as Edwards proposed.)

So there you have, as I see it, being sophisticated and complicated and being misleading. On the other hand, you have Edwards, who is, through his tax proposals, telling ME (and other relatively sophisticated political nuts) very complicated things about the tax code, and valuing work, and shifting burdens, while presenting in honest terms so that people all across the spectrum of sophistication can understand.

Perhaps some people think 'difficult and complicated' is sophisticated because it is difficult to understand and complicated. But that doesn't get you very far in politics.

By the way, I just told you the way I read John Edwards (every element of his political persona and policies were about which direction power is flowing in America).

How did you read Clark? What was the common thread that ran through his policies?

[Scoopie]

107. You don't live here

Please... this is an argument that isn't floating.

[AP]

111. Where is here?

And where did these people live?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

And how does where I live have anything to do with this argument?

[JI7]

82. John Kerry won among female voters, and Edwards did well among male

in the primary, it was actually john kerry who won the female votes. it's one reason he did well and won in conservative leaning states like tennessee, georgia etc.

and Edwards did better than Kerry among conservative leaning male voters. this is one of the best reasons kerry can have for picking edwards. edwards can help with voters outside of kerry's base and those who may otherwise vote for bush.

[PeaceProgProsp]

64. Kerry + Edwards = 'Service with a Smile"

In fact, that's such a great slogan, I've put it on a tshirt (and a couple of other things) over at cafepress for sale to the general public.

http://www.cafeshops.com/freedomgear2004


But that's not my favorite. Here's my favorite:

[citizen snips]

73. nice tshirt.

:thumbsup:

[DaveSZ]

78. As long as Clark is in the Kerry cabinet or his Veep,

Kerry will get my vote.

:D

[Adelante]

79. I'm voting for Kerry no matter who his VP choice is

For the record.

[MontecitoDem]

88. ME too

And I still haven't heard a compelling reason to vote for Edwards. Physical appeal? Youth? Trial lawyer experience? Weak, imo.

I know some people dig him, but what they see as "charisma" I see as snake oil. Sorry.

Clark is the best VP pick to me given this month's situation. I guess the question is, will Iraq stay the issue of the moment til November? If not, Clark loses his strength somewhat. But, unfortunately, I can't imagine things in Iraq are going to get any easier over the next few months.

This week feels like things are changing, and we Democrats are going to see the poll numbers coming our way - from now on I hope.

[Auntie Bush]

99. My vote = Kerry / ?

[JI7]

103. which vps do you see as acceptable/unacceptable ?

which vp candidates would get you to not vote for him ?

and which ones will get you to vote for him ?

[Auntie Bush]

112. I will vote for Kerry no matter who is his running mate.

I will only be happy if they pick Clark. He's my man!

But I would vote for Kerry even if he ran with Elmer Fudd or Donald Duck. They are better than Bush and Cheney. And that's the truth!
I would never vote for Bush...no matter what! I will not stay home because that is a vote for Bush....so I will definitely Vote for Kerry no matter who he chooses ...but I will cry all the way through the process unless they pick Clark.

[Sparkly]

101. Same here

but I hope it's Clark.

[incapsulated]

102. I would vote for Kerry...

If his running mate was a dish of smelly cheese.

It's do or die, people. Jesus Christ himself as VP is no guarantee of a win against these criminals.

[Crunchy Frog]

108. Me too.

That doesn't mean that I don't have strong preferences, or that there aren't certain choices that would make me gag, but getting rid of Bush is the highest priority for me.

[Dr Fate]

105. Fine w/ me. But Clark needs to be high profile in the campaign...

It's a given that Clark will be involved...

...Clark has to be high profile in the campaign- he will certainly help Kerry counter the media perception that DEMS are weak on defense...