Why not Edwards?

[Skwmom]

Threads questioning the motives of people who think Edwards would hurt the Democratic ticket continue. Instead of questioning the motives of the people who think Edwards would be a MAJOR drag on the ticket, maybe you should ask why Bush supporters and the corporate media are salivating for your guy? When Edwards was on Imus last time even he (Edwards) wondered why an Imus coworker (a rabid Bush supporter) was cheering him on.

This is nothing about grade school antics where a person is mad about their candidate of choice not getting the nomination. This is about winning in November. I do not need to be reminded what is at stake in the next election. I am reminded of that fact on a daily basis (for reasons I do not care to discuss on a public board).

It doesn't matter whether you will vote for Kerry no matter who the VP choice is. What matters is that many people are on the fence about Kerry. A bad VP pick will bring disenchanted Bush supporters back into the Republican fold and tip undecided swing voters to Bush. When a candidate has an image problem (courtesy of the corporate media and distortion of Kerry’s record in ads to numerous to count), the dumbest thing to do would be to pick a VP that the Republicans can use to reinforce the negative image they are trying to attach to Kerry.

Edwards channeling of an unborn child is a matter of public record. As quoted in the NY Times from the trial transcripts: 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... This along with the fact that Edward’s commitment to his “I feel your pain, two Americas rhetoric” does not hold up to scrutiny (zero pro bono work to start with) and his lack of national defense credentials and knowledge of foreign affairs (Rabin who?), will enable the Republicans to very easily paint Edwards as a smarmy, opportunistic, snake oil salesmen who is unfit to be a heart beat away from the presidency (which we will be constantly reminded of due to Kerrys bout with cancer).
You can bash me (on this board and in private emails) until the cows come home. I will not remain silent while Rove and the republicans continue to manipulate the primary process.

As far as the above being RNC talking points, do you think they don’t read the NY Times and the other sources I have referenced in my posts?

Finally, these are very troubled times we live in. If a lightweight, personal injury attorney with a record like Edwards is the best the Democrats can come up with to balance out the ticket, God help us all.

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. I can see the Bush political ad already.

and it isn't pretty.

Edwards channeling of an unborn child is a matter of public record. As quoted in the NY Times from the trial transcripts: 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 ... This along with the fact that Edward’s commitment to his “I feel your pain, two Americas rhetoric” does not hold up to scrutiny (zero pro bono work to start with) and his lack of national defense credentials and knowledge of foreign affairs (Rabin who?), will enable the Republicans to very easily paint Edwards as a smarmy, opportunistic, snake oil salesmen who is unfit to be a heart beat away from the presidency (which we will be constantly reminded of due the Kerry’s bout with cancer).

Let us not forget that he also STILL believes we are doing the right thing in Iraq. Yikes!

I agree with everything you said.

[Skwmom]

5. You're right about Iraq.

The ad: Who doesn't agree with John Kerry's allegation that Bush should not have went to war against the terrorists in Iraq? His running mate, John Edwards (insert quote by Edwards).

[AP]

11. Still can't find a link for the Rabin lie, by the way.

As for GOP commercials, I think the last thing they're going to want to talk about is the way Edwards worked to help the victims of corporate negligence.

The facts of that "channeling" case are stunning, and I don't think Republicans will want to open the door to that evidence.

[Skwmom]

19. Rabin gaffe - easy google search.

Type in Edwards and Rabin. But here I'll provided it for you. Have to go. Have fun.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088902/

"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).

[AP]

22. Keep reading that article. (Ready to feel like an idiot?)

It says it was an anonymously sourced storyand nobody has stepped forward to put a name to the person who claims it was said.

Furthermore, quoting from your source, "Edwards has never been to an event that included Leah Rabin" so, um, how could it be true?

Christ on a bike!

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Stop posting facts, AP.

Posting factual rebuttals is like teaching a pig to sing, in this particular case: it's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.

The Edwards haters won't ever stop posting this sort of complete and utter bullshit.

[RafterMan]

46. The quote does not contradict the story

"Edwards was faced with a choice of several events he might attend..."

So I miss the "so, um"-worthy contradiction you seem to feel is there.

[AP]

47. It's an anonymous rumor.

Why can't anyone step forward and prove it. If anyone wanted to prove it, it would be easy to do so.

[RafterMan]

50. Sure it is

But you seemed to feel the fact that Edwards didn't go to the event meant it was some sort of logically impossibility.

You were incorrect.

[AP]

53. I'll repost my previous post:

It says it was an anonymously sourced storyand nobody has stepped forward to put a name to the person who claims it was said.

Furthermore, quoting from your source, "Edwards has never been to an event that included Leah Rabin" so, um, how could it be true?

Christ on a bike!

Look at the order of my complaints. First, and presumably therfore more weighty, was that it was an anonymous quote. Second was that it partly isn't corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

I just think it's ridiculous to use anonymous, uncorroborated evidence like this. However, if this is the BEST you have, go for it. I think it makes Edwards look good that people are trying to use shit like this to make arguments against him.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea that he was given a bunch of events from which to chose line wasn't added to the story to cover for the fact that it could have been proven false without that line.

[RafterMan]

56. You thought your strongest argument

was the one you boldfaced and added "how could it be true" to.

Christ may be on a bike, but he's backpedaling.

[AP]

57. You know why this is especially hypocritical:Clark gets criticized by Brit

general. Everyone knows the general's name. James Rubin is his friend. British general backs off from his criticism when asked to clarify. Clark defenders say, look, he's backed off from his criticism. Clark's OK.

Then they point to an anonmyous, unsupported allegation which one piece of evidence suggests the probability of it being true is reduced.

And, furthermore, Skwmom cites as proof of it being a true and article which makes pretty clear that it's an unsubstantiated rumour with an anonymous source.

Maybe we should get James Rubin working on this one.

[RafterMan]

58. Why is this about Clark?

All I said was your killer argument was incorrect, so maybe the original poster shouldn't "feel like such an idiot" when he read it.

[AP]

60. Because that makes the point beautifully that criticisms based on

anonymous sources are incredibly weak.

Oh, and I've noticed that skwmom has been avoiding this thread since that was posted,

[Skwmom]

81. Avoiding this thread?

I have the flu (and have a son sick with strep). Let me clue you in on something - the idiot comment, (and others like it that you have posted on other threads - for example, I'm a freeper) are not going to work. I'm not easily intimidated.

[RafterMan]

37. "victims of corporate negligence"

That's rich. Edwards made his money suing innocent obstetricians by hyping the thin link between cerebral palsey and birthing trouble.

[AP]

44. If he won the case, they were negligent. And he sued their employers.

And their insurance companies paid. And you know who has been making record profits these last 10-20 years? Insurance companies and the health care industry. So he probably didn't hurt them that much. And if they changed their procedures after losing a case to Edwards's clients, Edward's suit probably saved money and lives and prevented misery down the road.

And if you want to criticize the civil justice system in American, you should probably go over to Freerepublic where I'm sure you'll find a lot of people who'd agree with you.

[RafterMan]

51. If he won the case...

"If he won the case, they were negligent". Is that *really* what you meant to say? Damn those witches, I guess.

"And their insurance companies paid." And who paid them?

"Edward's suit probably saved money and lives" If by "saved money and lives", you mean "spawned an industry of cerebral palsy lawsuits" then I guess yes.

And you really scraped the bottom for that last line. I'll let you take it back.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[RafterMan]

55. Changing practices

"Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1084852800&en=cbe3dd7457326acd&ei=5070

Thanks, John!

[AP]

59. Now read the record in THIS case. Edwards won this case because the nurse

said that it was clear the baby was in distress, and all the expert evidence said the baby was in distress, and the baby was CLEARLY in distress.

And, again, it's better to go over to Freerepublic and argue that all civil trials should be put on hold until we have the last word from science about whatever technical matter is at issue.

And, by the way, BOTH sides had expert witnesses and access to the state of the art knowledge on fetal brain damage. Edwards won this case because a preponderance of the evidence showed that the hospital's negligence caused the damage, and no judge overturned the finding of negligence, which they would have done if there weren't any.

Furthermore, if you want to keep quoting from that article, you might as well quote the insurance industry lawyer who criticizes Edwards for not agreeing to impose the same kind of pooled damage award fund that we all criticized the Republicans for trying to pass for the asbestos cases because they wanted to Halliburton a favor.

That article was full of right wing spin, and I'm happy to see this is about the only article Edwards criticis seem to be able to trot out. It wears its biases on its sleeve, and I think any SENSIBLE LIBERAL would be able to figure that out.

[AP]

61. For emphasis: your quote says that the problem with FHM is

that they show distress when there isn't any (thus needless C-sections).

That was CLEARLY not the case here. The FHM showed there was distress, and there WAS IN FACT DISTRESS, EVIDENCED BY THE BRAIN DAMAGE.

It is evil for the NYT to stick this irrelevant point in this article to create a negative impression of Edwards which isn't even relevant to this case.

And, by the way, after this case, hospitals in NC changed policies to protect nurses from getting fired for pointing out obvious embarassing facts to doctors, like "hey, that FHM is showing the baby is in severe distress."

That probably saved a lot of babies from suffering brain damage, and if if it didn't, it probably saved way more nurses from retribution for applying their knowledge and experience in a way that is helpful to the doctor, hospital and especially the patient.

[AP]

62. I'm really looking forward to a response to these previous two posts.

[RafterMan]

64. Sigh

"The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy"

The corrective action is taken. The rate does not decrease. Therefore...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[AP]

66. Looking forward to a response to the post above.

[RafterMan]

67. I'll accept a check, in any installments you choose

http://library.uchc.edu/bhn/bhn95-97/cite95-97/nyt95-97/15fetal.txt

"Although abnormal heartbeats during fetal electronic monitoring are
linked with an increased risk of cerebral palsy, rates of false
positive findings are high. In this California study, cesarean
delivery in response to distress detected by fetal monitoring did
not lead to statistically fewer cases of cerebral palsy than
vaginal births. "

You can purchase the NEJM article here: http://content.nejm.org/content/vol334/issue10/index.shtml

IOW, the doctor is being blamed for failing to do something which would have had a statistically zero chance of succeeding. But hey, to you, that's just freeper talk.

[AP]

68. Go read Four Trials. The baby was born breach. The FHM suggested

that the baby wasn't getting oxygen. The doctor could feel the umbilical cord around the baby's neck but ignored it, and ignored the FHM.

Yes, Ceasareans in response ONLY to the distress measured by the FHM probably doesn't reduce cerebral palsy births.

But, clearly, it's a sign that you should do NOTHING.

Is that what you're saying? Take off the FHM? They're good for nothing?

In Edwards's case, the baby was strangled by the umbilical cord and the doctor should have known. The FHM and his own pelvic exam were the clues and he ignored both.

[AP]

69. In other words, THIS WASN'T A FALSE POSITIVE.

Reread teh first line you quoted above. Abnormal heartbeats are linked with CP.

The problem is all the false positives.

Edward's case clearly wasnt a false positive, and the Times should be ashamed of themselves.

[AP]

70. Interestingly, it's the NYT that reported this study back in '96. Hmm.

And guess what?

A study has cast doubt on the effectiveness of fetal monitors in preventing brain damage during childbirth, finding that 99.8 percent of all signs of such injuries turn out to be false alarms. ... Electronic fetal monitoring is routine in hospital delivery rooms. Some critics contend that monitoring often leads...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A15FC3D5D0C738DDDAA0894DE494D81

So you know why there isn't a statistical link? Because, if you're performing a C-section based on FHM distress, the distress isn't a false alarm only .2% of the time. So, obviously, relying only on the FHM isn't going to reduce brain damaged baby births. But that's if this is the ONLY think you're relying on.

This means that 99.8% of the time doctors are performing the C-section and the baby is born without brain damage even thought the FHM showed a sign of trouble.

But you know what? IT WASN'T A FALSE ALARM with Edwards's case. The baby was born breach, and brain damaged. So OBVIOUSLY in this case the doctor was being told something by the FHM that was important. It may not mean that he should have performed a C-section on that evidence alone, but it certainly meant that he should have figured out why there such persistent signs of trouble coming from that monitor.

But you know why this wouldn't have even been a C-section induced by info from the FHM? Because the physical exam (before they even started caring about the FHM, I beleive) revealed the breach position and the umbilical cord around the neck.

That the doctor didn't catch on to the problem and hooked up the FHM (and ingnored those signs of danger too) only happened because he ignored the results of his own physical exam. This wasn't even a case where the doctor should have been relying only on the FHM.

So, thanks for the link.

I think I keep proving my point here.

Do you want to keep pushing this?

[AP]

78. Something confusing about these conclusions...

...how can you say that babies born perfect after c-sections prove they aren't working? Perhaps they are working, and a false alarm is actually a sign of success?

And how do you do the control group in this study. If a doctor thinks a baby is going to be born brain damaged, are they really going to say, well, this is a study, and I'm going to ignore my instinct and let this baby come out vaginally to prove the theory.

It just seems to me that if a baby is born vaginally despite the bad FHM readings, the doctor is basing that decision on things that suggest the C-section is a greater risk, or isn't warranted (like, say, no umbilical cord problems and non-breach birth).

[AP]

71. Again, looking forward to responses...

[AP]

72. And here are the full texts of both studies...

I haven't read them yet, so I don't know whose argument they'll support, but I'm confident they're not going to make Edwards look as bad as the New York Times had hoped.

http://content.nejm.org/content/vol334/issue10/index.shtml

[AP]

73. The conclusion of the first study: too many false positives, so

risks might outweigh benefits. Well, it wasn't a false positive with Edwards's plaintiff.


Conclusions Specific abnormal findings on electronic monitoring of the fetal heart rate were associated with an increased risk of cerebral palsy. However, the false positive rate was extremely high. Since cesarean section is often performed when such abnormalities are noted and is associated with risk to the mother, our findings arouse concern that, if these indications were widely used, many cesarean sections would be performed without benefit and with the potential for harm.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/334/10/613

That certainly doesn't suggest that Edwards was relying on unscientific evidence of the cause of the CP. This wasn't a single blip that the doctor was right to ingore. (And Edwards didn't even argue that best practice was to do a C-section at the first blip. He argued that after hours of low numbers in addition to the pelvic exame (and a few other things) the doctor should have done something (and the nurse shouldn't have been so afraid of being fired that she didn't say anything).

For emphasis, the FHM showed a persitent low reading over a long period of time along with other signs that indicated the baby was suffocating, which is what, in fact, they saw when the baby came out.

This study is not relevant to anything that happened in that trial

Now on to the second article.

[AP]

74. The second study says this (Edwards still looking pretty good).

In other words, the abnormality of the fetal heart rate reflects a neurologic insult earlier in pregnancy and is not the result of intrapartum events. This view is strongly supported by Thacker et al.11 in their comprehensive review of the 12 randomized, controlled trials of electronic fetal monitoring and intermittent auscultation. The authors conclude that "the only clinically significant benefit from the routine use of EFM was in the reduction of neonatal seizures."11 The rates of intrapartum and neonatal death, short-term morbidity (with the exception of seizures), and long-term morbidity including cerebral palsy were similar whether the fetal heart rate had been monitored continuously or intermittently. Such knowledge is important both from a legal perspective and to the medical practitioner. It is of particular interest that in one trial involving only infants with birth weights of 1750 g or less, the incidence of cerebral palsy was higher in the group that underwent electronic fetal monitoring.12

Now listen closely: when the baby was born breach, blue, and with the umbilical cord around its neck, that was probably a pretty good sign that the FHM was revealing trauma occurring at brith and not earlier in the pregnancy.

Don't you think?

(I've lent out my copy of Four Trials, so I'm going on memory here, and I invite everyone to read that book and confirm my memory of the facts. But I'm very confident that I'm right, because if I'm wrong, that means that I'm more competent here doing this work for free than the hospital and insurance company's lawyers were when they were getting paid 100s of dollars an hour to come up with arguments like, some other trauma earlier in the pregnancy caused the CP.)

[AP]

75. More from the second study (and thank you again for these articles...

...I'm sure Skwmom will find them very useful to ignore in the future).

It is generally accepted that about 10 percent of cases of cerebral palsy are due to pathologic events that occur after birth. There is increasing evidence worldwide, particularly from Western Australia,15 from the East Coast of the United States,16 and from European centers,17 that in 10 to 20 percent of cases cerebral palsy may be related to intrapartum events. To determine the causes of the remaining 70 percent is the challenge facing obstetricians and pediatricians. Continuous electronic fetal monitoring promised much but has achieved little. Its premature acceptance highlights the need for appropriate testing of all new forms of technology before they are introduced into clinical practice. However, the introduction of electronic fetal monitoring has stimulated interest in intrauterine fetal physiology in general, and it is a reasonable hope that it will develop into a more useful technique.

Now, when a baby is born strangled by its umbilical cord, which had occurred for a long period of time (as suggested by the FHM) do you think that that case of CP occured (1) due to pathological events at birth or (2) due to itrapartum events, or (3) it's impossible to say?

Take your time.

Do you think this was a hard question for the jury to answer, given the facts of the case? (I'll give you time to read Four Trials).

Do you think the Times is full of shit for trying to use these studies to discredit Edwards's work on this case? I'll give you the answer to that one. It's, 'yes.'

[AP]

76. And the only thing they say about rates of CP holding steady is this:

Despite the "intensive obstetrics" of the past 25 years, with increasing attention directed to prenatal care, reduction of birth trauma, and greater use of cesarean section for high-risk deliveries, the frequency of cerebral palsy remains unchanged at about 2 cases per 1000 term infants. There is a pressing need to inform the public, as well as the medical and legal professions, that cerebral palsy is not often caused by events during labor and that the cause in most cases remains unknown.

So, you're not getting any check until we see the study to which they're referring. I still think I might be right about why those numbers are holding steady. They could be preventing more, but detecting more.

[RafterMan]

79. This is going nowhere

I would happily have posted all of your citations in support of my own case. All support the notion that the science of predicting this kind of tragedy is murky and inconclusive. The most daming bit of evidence -- the fact that the Edwards-advocated interventionist approach does not result in fewer CP cases -- you dismiss with an unsourced, unsupported claim of measurement error.

Though I have no intention of reading Edwards' self-congratulatory writings on the subject, I could be persuaded to investigate further if actual, objective and full trial transcripts were provided.

Until and unless any such new evidence presents itself, this juror finds the doctor not guilty.

[AP]

85. I know you would have done that happily. You still would have been wrong.

I'm going to repeat AGAIN: whether FHM can predict the CP in all its forms isn't the point.

The point is that in this case EVERYTHING indicated the baby was in trouble including the FHM and a pelvic exam, and the doctor did nothing, and the baby was born clearly after suffering hypoxia during delivery.

It doesn't matter if the science says that FHM indicate false positives 99.8% of the time, or that as low as 10% of CP births are caused by traumas at birth, or even that a quick C-section doesn't make a difference at the first sign of trouble.

What I bet you'll find the literarture saying is that when a baby has an umbilical cord wrapped around its neck for a long time and the doctor does nothing, that tends to lead to preventable hypoxia and brain damage. That's why the doctor was negligent in this case.

And you know what one of the most idiotic things you've said is? "Until then this juor finds the doctor not guilty.'

Um, a REAL jury which no doubt heard the argument by the hospital that the brain damage might have been caused by something else if it could have been made believed that the FHM and the doctor's own pelvic exam should have told the doctor what became apparent when the baby was born: it was suffering hypoxia from that umbilical cord wrapped around its neck.

It's amazing that you think that the less you know (you're not willing to find out more) the better informed juror you are. Actually, that sounds like the profile of people who don't like Edwards.

[AP]

86. Here's something interesting I just found:

 Comments

Ok, I have to pounce on this one. If for no other reason than I actually have CP.

From the CDC:
"Cerebral palsy is caused by brain damage that affects a child's ability to control his or her muscles. The part of the brain that is damaged determines what parts of the body are affected. There are many possible causes of the brain damage. Some causes affect how the child's brain develops during the first 6 months of pregnancy. These causes include genetic conditions and problems with the blood supply to the brain. Other causes of cerebral palsy happen after the brain has developed. These causes can occur during later pregnancy, delivery, or the first years of the child's life. They include bacterial meningitis and other infections, bleeding in the brain, lack of oxygen, severe jaundice, and head injury."

From the CP Foundation:
"Is cerebral palsy a disease or a genetic disorder?
Cerebral palsy is neither a disease nor a genetic disorder. Cerebral palsy is a condition with many possible causes, such as birth trauma or brain injury, but it is not contagious or inherited."

So, given that, I have a hard time swallowing, "every medical professional agrees that Cerebral Palsy is a genetic disorder and that nothing a doctor does during a pregnancy has anything to do with it."

In my particular case, the umbilical cord ended up wrapped around me for a period of time which deprived my brain of oxygen. No one knew I had CP until my walking development was way behind schedule, but once it was discovered, pinpointing the issue was easy for the doctors.

Edwards may be a sleazy two-bit ambulance chaser, but a quack quoting junk science he's not.

Posted by: zygote on January 27, 2004


Well, I won't argue with you. And since you have the condition, I won't even try to dispute your experience.

You should write something on this!

Posted by: Michael Demmons on January 27, 2004



I think I will. Look for the TB a little later when I'm able to focus on something for a little longer than 30 seconds at a time.

The more I read the article, the more it looks like a thinly-veiled slam on Edwards.

I don't even like Edwards but this thing's hideous on so many levels.


Posted by: zygote on January 27, 2004


http://www.discountblogger.com/archives/003001.html

You know what article zygote is talking about?

S/He's talking about your and skwmom's favorite NYT article.

[atre]

77. This is just silly

I don't think I have ever seen a political ad attacking a challenger's Vice Presidential nominee.

However, if you did, I certainly think video clips of Wesley Clark saying how great a job Bush and his crew are doing would do far more damage to the campaign than anything you guys can dream up about any of the other Veep possibilities. THAT you WILL see as an ad if Clark is tabbed for the No. 2.

Who suggested a moratorium on VP threads? I'm all for it.

[Hornito]

2. Simple, and as you've pointed out......

Lack of experience, background, and gravitas. Further, he supported placing nuclear waste in Nevada, right along with the Republicans, which is an issue that personally pissed me off.

What's really weird, is that Edwards has had a "fan club" here at DU for the last year or so. That "fan club" consists(ed) mostly of women, who expressed how "handsome" Edwards is. Make me hurl! Is this the criterion we should use to be picking our leaders now?

As far as Edwards' future in the Party goes, I think he made a strategic mistake when he resigned his seat in the Senate. If he really wanted to build a background strong enough to be considered for the highest office in the land, he should have bitten the bullet, and stayed in the Senate, and then perhaps made a run in 2012. But no. His ego caused him to think he actually had the "right stuff", right now, to be our president. Fortunately, the voters were not fooled by his "pretty face", and instead chose someone with a wealth of experience and background.

The Party has many fine candidates able to balance and add to a Kerry ticket, without picking a flyweight like Edwards.

[Doosh]

8. and how about the delusional and annoying cult of Clarkies

who overwhelmed this place, think he's some kind of savior and despise Edwards for rising above him in the eyes of the American people. or as another poster so brilliantly stated, for denying clark he entitled ascent. that's where there hate for Edwards comes from, and I expect it to grow once Kerry picks JRE to be vice president.

look at the primary results, look at every poll. The people want Edwards, Clark is the flyweight. clark was rejected outright during the primaries.

[Hornito]

18. YOU, are wrong. I've disliked Edwards long before Clark was

ever in the picture, for all the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

[Leilani]

35. We overwhelmed this place?

How long have you been here?

[AP]

40. It didn't take long for Clark to win all the DU polls.

In retrospect, it's interesting that DU leaned heavily towards Dean and then towards Clark, who came in third and fourth.

Great Conventional Wisdom, there.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. 'Flyweight'?

Not only is he not a flyweight, but he also has a verifiable record as a Democrat of long-standing.

[Darkamber]

32. As a woman...I get tired of this...

There seems to be almost a 'hate' directed at Edwards because he looks good. And some people seem to think he gets his votes just because of his looks.

I'd like to point out that his looks had nothing to do with it. I supported him long before I had any ideal what he looked like. Long before Clark even entered the race. Without knowing any of them I tended to support Gephardt and Kerry, just because they had been in office so long. But I heard Edwards on a radio interview and I was blown away. Every problem that was presented to him, he offered a solution and every solution was exactly what I thought should be done. For the first time there was a man who was really fighting for the middle class. Who understood how important Education was. Who had a logical plan to deal with the deficit. And had a cost effective plan for Health care. I put my backing behind him BEFORE I knew what he looked like.

As for his Senate seat, he resigned due to pressure from his own party in NC.

One of the reasons why Edwards appeals to Independents and Swing Republicans and my Republican friends only liked Edwards in the primaries, is that Edwards has not been part of the 'insider' club of the Democratic party. They see him as fresh and an moderate who offers some hope for bringing this country together instead of tearing it apart.

Please feel free to dislike Edwards if you must...but don't use the woman only like because of his looks argument. I supported him because of his issues and his looks were just secondary to the matter.

[spooky3]

33. that was EXACTLY my experience as well--also I read an article

he wrote that really impressed me--and didn't know for a long time afterward what he looked like.

People who believe that women voters like Edwards only for his looks are simply being sexist, and they are insulting both the voters and the candidate.

[Hornito]

3. Sorry, double post...

n/t

[Padraig18]

4. The 'channeling' thing is complete BULLSHIT!

I can call a duck a frog, but it doesn't make it a frog, God damnit! What Edwards did in that trial is what an GOOD trial lawyer does during his closing statement--- he engages in effective drama/theater. THAT'S ALL IT IS, AND THAT'S ALL IT EVER WILL BE!

I do question the motives of someone who consistently attacks via misrepresentation or outright lies ANY potential VP nominee. If the shoe fits, wear it!

:grr::nuke:

[AP]

7. An aside here (I've addressed the heart of this matter before)...

...Lawyers never object other lawyers' closing arguments. You can say whatever you want in a closing argument.

You can't appeal a point in a case which the other side didn't object to. If there were an error in a trial, and the appellant's lawyers didn't enter an objection on the record, that point can't form the basis of an appeal. I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, but that's the general rule.

I strongly suspect that the defendant's lawyer didn't object to Edwards's closing argument.

This was something a Republican judge did to protect a huge insurance company from a very large damage award, and it was because there was NOTHING else in that record to warrant such protection.

This is the kind of thing that should have been overturned on appeal to a higher court and should have woken up voters to the fact that if you elect Republicans to office, they appoint judges who protect the interests of large corporations and not of working and middle class people who might be their victims.

[Skwmom]

10. That's not all it will ever be.

Sorry but the defense that Edwards just engaged in effective drama/theater won't cut it. I can hear the comparisons to John Edward of Crossing Over fame and the debate question now:

Mr. Edwards, the NY Times has reported that you channeled an unborn child in your closing arguments to a jury by stating "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." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=139...

Do you really have the ability to channel unborn children (like John Edward 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?

[AP]

12. I would LOVE to have this election turn on Edwards's work as a lawyer.

[Padraig18]

23. Horseshit!

He didn't channel anyone, which has been made abundantly clear myriad times. The persistence in spreading this lie says more about the people who post it than it does about Sen. Edwards. Furthermore, the attacks have alredy been tried by the GOP when Sen. Edwards ran for his Seante seat, and they failed miserably, as they would again.

Only those who are truly bitter, illogical and irrationally vindictive towards Sen. Edwards would continue to post such unmitigated horseshit. I frankly question both their motives and their progressive values.

[Doosh]

6. how about Clark wanting to start World War 3

I think that's much worse than Edwards trying to win a case, do you even know how lawyers work inside the courtroom? this kind of stuff is said all the time.

no matter how the clarkies spin it, Edwards trounced Clark in the primaries. NO EXCUSES!

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. The British officer who made that statement

is a friend of Jamie Rubins and ADMITTED that he exaggerated what had happened on the airfield. If need be, Jamie will have him on the cable news shows to say so. It's a moot point. (WWIII)

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. The 'channeling' thing is also a vast distortion of the truth.

Don't you see how what REALLY happened in EITHER of their pasts can be distorted by people of bad faith?

[robbedvoter]

36. That was a direct quote from his closing statements. His own words.

[AP]

43. Um, no they weren't.

He said "She speaks to you through mel...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."

[Padraig18]

48. The *SPIN* isn't a 'direct quote'!

The spin is utter and complete HORSESHIT! It's a god-fucking-damned closing argument, and one that WON the case!

[AP]

63. Ah, yes. That's why we don't trust anonymous hearsay.

It's good to hold people accountable for their words, and it's really nice to be able to cross-examine them, eh?

[AP]

9. By the way, informed voters like Edwards

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

I'll take the candidate whom people like after you give them as much information as possible. They usually have the best chance of standing up to the misinformation.

[Skwmom]

13. Oh really?

I'm willing to bet that the information provided to the participants didn't include the items the Republicans are going to use to completely discredit Edwards.

[AP]

15. Are you channeling something we don't know?

Your NY Times article was published 11 days into the study, and it didn't seem to bother anyone.

What else do you have?

[Skwmom]

17. Like every one of the participants read the NY Times article?

Oh please. In addition, there's more than just the NY Times article.

[AP]

20. Despite your efforts, this story doesn't stick. People like the fact that

Edwars was out there working for people injured by rich corporations. People think he's a good person and that he worked hard for ordinary people.

Don't you see?

What he did for a living is an asset, and not a liability.

Talking about this stuff in the last week or two of his '98 race was the way he closed a ten point deficit.

This is how Edwards WINS.

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. The additional point being that none of it's NEW.

This stuff is ancient history, as you so correctly point out, AP.

[AP]

14. By the way, you promissed that you were going to spend a weekend

really researching this and building up a great argument.

This is the same old shit you've been trotting out at regular intervals, with no new facts or arguments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=390266

[Skwmom]

16. I've had other matters to attend to.

The way I look at it, no other items are really needed.

[AP]

21. Why don't you stop wasting your time rehashing BS, and get down to the...

...hard work of coming up with arguments that will stick.

You made a promise to us.

You said that you were going to do some research and come up with something new, intelligent and devestating.

I think you had the time, you just couldn't come up with anything.

[Padraig18]

24. Yes, she did.

She would rather post GOP opposition-research, fax-blast talking point, however.

[AP]

25. And it's HIGH-LARIOUS that after making that promise, all she did was

rewrite an introduction to the same old bullshit.

I think she thought that rewriting the introduction was enought to make it look like she was keeping her promise.

What is most interesting is why she even bothered to post anything at all, knowing that we'd all call her on her big promise.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. It was debunked YEARS ago.

That's why reposting it here is so fucking pathetic. :puke:

[tishaLA]

34. I think Edwards would be great on the ticket

as would Clark. Enough already.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 4:59:46PM EDT, Sunday, May 16, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
0 days,
7 hours,
0 minutes, and
14 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.

[no name no slogan]

41. Man, this shit is TOO FUCKING FUNNY

Rarely does a presidential candidate tap one of his primary oppenents for the VP slot. So a lot of this pissfest is just a bunch of "mine's bigger" talk in a junior high boy's locker room.

Fucking hell, people GET OVER YOURSELVES ALREADY! The VP choice rarely makes any difference AT ALL in how the electorate votes. Its influence overall is miniscule.

How about we figure out how to give John Kerry a "vision transplant" instead? How about we make him DEFINE HIMSELF as something other than "not Bush". How about we encourage him to put forth a vision for REAL CHANGE in this country, one that is desperately needed after 20+ years of Repub/DLC benign neglect?

Oh, wait, that would be a little too "issues-oriented" wouldn't it?

[Hippo_Tron]

42. It's simple, he's not a long serving DINO who can take a Red state...

I'm not saying that should be the criteria for VP because Edwards would do a great job. The thing is that considering that Gore would've won the last election with any other state that had more than 3 electoral votes, it's so tempting to pick somebody who would guarantee a state that went to Bush last election. Then all Kerry would have to do is win the Gore states.

[AP]

45. It's also tempting to pick someone who'll definitely win in 2012, and that

will be Edwards with 8 years of being VP under his belt, and the most formidable campaigning skills I've seen in the US in my lieftime in his holster, and a biography America hasn't seen since Abe Lincoln on the gun rack in his pick-up.

[VOX]

49. Why not Edwards indeed? He would make an outstanding veep candidate...

As long as the "channeling" red herring comes up, I'm going to counter with the opposing viewpoint -- Edwards was **the** Democratic candidate that the * administration feared most from the outset. So much so that Edwards was the first Democratic candidate to take major propaganda hits from Republicans -- in early 2003 yet.

Is it not logical to assume that, if Edwards were such a lightweight, the White House wouldn't be worried about him at all????

BTW, my preference for VP is Clark, but if Edwards gets the nod, I'll back the ticket with enthusiasm.

://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54335-2003Feb10?language=printer

With Edwards, White House Shows First-Strike Capability
Tuesday, February 11, 2003; Page A19
Is President Bush afraid of John Edwards?
<snip>
But the White House and Bush's political arm, the Republican National Committee, seem preoccupied with Edwards, a first-term former trial lawyer. A month ago, when Edwards began his candidacy, the RNC put out a 10-page report a day later branding him "An Unaccomplished Liberal in Moderate Clothing and a Friend To His Fellow Personal Injury Trial Lawyers." At the time, the GOP had not issued similar takedowns of the other Democrats in the field.

A week later, on Jan. 14, a White House official told the Associated Press that Bush was delivering a speech on medical malpractice as part of a "whack John Edwards" day. When Bush called for limits on awards in medical malpractice suits last July, he spoke in North Carolina.
<snip>
A key Bush activist, Tom Rath, has joined the American Association of Health Plans, an adversary of Edwards, to help the HMO lobby's political efforts in New Hampshire. The group last week released a poll showing Edwards in fifth place in the state.

In private conversations, Republicans linked to the White House often talk of Edwards as the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates, because he is handsome and southern and "undefined" in the public imagination. That gives him the potential to create a populist challenge to Bush...
<snip>

[Skwmom]

83. I guess all of the Bush supporters

pushing for Edwards on tv and radio didn't get the memo.

[citizen snips]

52. I can tell the Edwards bias will never end.

If you post more of this right wing propaganda more people will be inclined to support Edwards.

[ngGale]

80. The same right wing that has run Kerry into...

the ground regarding his Purple Hearts and if was he wounded bad enough to deserve one. Good Lawd, FGS stop the hate. This administration has caused more hate. Seems everyone was happy while Clinton was lost in the Monica trap. Now we have real problems, an unjust war being a real bad problem. Death and destruction as far as the eye can see. And then we have those stupid stories for people to pass around.

[Skwmom]

82. Well they'll be joining an already crowded bandwagon.

It's already filled with Bush supporters that have been talking up Edwards on television and radio for months.

[Padraig18]

84. Prove your statement, Skwmom.

Prove that there are 'Bush supportersthat have been talking up Edwards on television and radio for months'. I won't expect more than crickets chirping, however, because there IS no proof.

[Moderator]

87. Locking......

Round and round we go...... :crazy:


Some personal attacks have been removed
and it appears that this conversation
is going nowhere.


DU Moderator