John Edwards is Fighting, Fighting, Fighting. . .

-

edwards iowa twn.jpg
If the speech I went to yesterday by Mike Huckabee presented the kinder gentler face of economic populism (with Republican characteristics), today’s Iowa City event with John Edwards offered the full-throated, full-throttle version.
By the time Edwards went on stage at the Holiday Inn this afternoon — the fog and mist these past few days has been playing havoc with travel schedules — the crowd, which seemed a fifty-fifty mix of the undecided and the already committed (including SEIU folks in purple T-shirts, UNITE in red and college students from New York, Michigan and Minnesota in for the final push) had been primed by the warm-up act of campaign workers and party and local elected officials for a red meat speech.
And, in a room that either by design or miscalculation was far too small for audience, John Edwards delivered. In case anyone who showed up wasn’t clear what the theme of the Edwards campaign is going into the final stretch, forty-five minutes of John Edwards later left little room for doubt or misunderstanding: John Edwards is fighting.
In fact, I literally lost count of the number of times Edwards talked about fighting – and fighting “epic fights” at that — but I can assure you that the quality of the message discipline was not lost on the crowd.
He is fighting against “corporate greed”. He is fighting against “CEOs making hundreds of millions a year.” Against “drug companies”. Against “insurance companies.” Against “multinational corporations”. Against “oil companies”. Against “power companies”. I could go on, as he did, but I suspect you get the idea.


And he is fighting against a more general “them”, too. As John Edwards paints the world to Iowa voters, “They are everywhere. They are. And they are literally destroying the American Middle Class.
They are not concerned about you. . .We have to take these people on. . .America doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to us. . . And they won’t voluntarily give away their power. . .They will only give it away when we take it away. . .”
Even though no conversation about Edwards in Iowa these days seems to be complete without a discussion of how many square feet, exactly, his house really is, no one doubts his sincerity or what side of the barricades John Edwards, son of a mill worker, is on.
And the Edwards pitch also makes clear that he is fighting against Clinton and, perhaps even more right now, Obama. Edwards doesn’t just “talk the talk”, according to his surrogates, and when he says that Democrats “need someone to send into the arena who is ready to fight” it creates a ripple in the crowd, as does the shot, talking about healthcare, at anyone who might suppose that an inclusive approach to problem solving, gathering all the stakeholders together at the table, might work. As Edwards has it, you simply “can’t sit at a table with them.”
Going after Obama seems to be a tactical necessity right now for Edwards. He has deep reserves of support and goodwill in Iowa after close to five years of constant campaigning here, and although he trails the two front-runners in most polls he is far from out of it in what is by all appearances a tight three-way race. (Disclosure: For whatever it is worth, I am one of the 600 LV in the linked poll.)
And it also appears that there is a sizable pocket of voters who are, still, yo-yoing between Edwards and Obama. Based on my own far from scientific or systematic discussions over the past few weeks with a fair number of folks leaning either to Edwards or Obama, it seems that there are an awful lot of folks who come January 3 will support one or the other — and not Clinton — but that neither has yet been able to close the sale.
A key issue for these as yet undecided caucus goers – an issue hit on by both the introductory speakers and Edwards himself — is the elusive question of “electability”. In fact, while waiting for Edwards to get to the event, the campaign workers and local elected officials doing the warm-up act opened the floor for questions. No one asked about Iraq or health care or the economy. The only question from the crowd had to do with the latest polling numbers, and how Edwards and the other Dems stacked up in the possible general election head-to-heads with leading Republican candidates.
Whatever else Iowa’s Democratic caucus–goers might do on January 3, they want to select someone who can clearly and unambiguously take the White House.
For those in the crowd who were already won over by Edwards — and for those not too far removed from the radical agrarian prairie populism of their grandparents and great-grandparents — Edwards’ pitch is pure political catnip. “If he goes to Washington he will give them hell!” one SEIU t-shirted campaign volunteer remarked to me, with clear and unbridled enthusiasm, after the speech wrapped up.
But for the rest of the crowd, it was a little more difficult to judge how effective Edwards was in winning them over. It seemed to me that an awful lot of the folks that walked into the room undecided walked out undecided, too. Which, I suppose, might be the bad news of the afternoon for Edwards. On the other hand, there are an awful lot of people that are still definitely listening to what he has to say. And with just twelve days to go and a large portion of the electorate just now deciding who to support that has got to be at least a cause for concern for Clinton.
— Michael Schiffer

Comments

31 comments on “John Edwards is Fighting, Fighting, Fighting. . .

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Paul: Iran attack on Israel, illusion
    Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:53:18
    GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul
    Maverick Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says the leaders of Israel are impelling the White House to wage war on Iran.
    “The government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran,” Paul said Sunday on MBC’s Meet the Press.
    The 10-term Texas lawmaker added that neoconservatives have also been pushing the administration into ‘bombing Iran’.
    When asked what he would do as the US president ‘if Iran invaded Israel’, Paul said the illusion of the Islamic Republic’s attack on Israel is like saying, “Iran is about to invade Mars.”
    The 72-year-old politician made the remarks as Israeli officials are stepping up their war rhetoric against Tehran, over its nuclear program despite the recent reports confirming the peaceful nature of the country’s activities.
    Ron Paul also made it clear that he would cut the ‘billions of dollars’ in annual aid Washington provides for Israel if elected President.
    http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=36337&sectionid=351020101

    Reply

  2. Robert Morrow says:

    After several years of opposition research on the Clintons, I think I have a pretty good slime detector. I think the National Enquirer is right on the money when it says John Edwards has a stacked up girlfriend while is wife is dying of cancer. Beware the tabloids – often they are spot on accurate. The Globe sure was right about Bill Clinton and his crack whore girlfriends Bobbie Ann Williams and friends. Ditto Gennifer Flowers and The Star. The National Enquirer sunk Gary Hart with Donna Rice in 1987.
    Seeing that Condi is probably a lesbo, I don’t think the tabloids were right about a Bush #43 affair with Condi.
    Having said that, beware the tabloids, often they are completely accurate. I think this plays in Obama’s favor over the next few weeks. If not in Iowa then certainly over the next month or so as the (large) anti-Hillary vote consolidates around Barack.

    Reply

  3. Robert Morrow says:

    After several years of opposition research on the Clintons, I think I have a pretty good slime detector. I think the National Enquirer is right on the money when it says John Edwards has a stacked up girlfriend while is wife is dying of cancer. Beware the tabloids – often they are spot on accurate. The Globe sure was right about Bill Clinton and his crack whore girlfriends Bobbie Ann Williams and friends. Ditto Gennifer Flowers and The Star. The National Enquirer sunk Gary Hart with Donna Rice in 1987.
    Seeing that Condi is probably a lesbo, I don’t think the tabloids were right about a Bush #43 affair with Condi.
    Having said that, beware the tabloids, often they are completely accurate. I think this plays in Obama’s favor over the next few weeks. If not in Iowa then certainly over the next month or so as the (large) anti-Hillary vote consolidates around Barack.

    Reply

  4. NVMojo says:

    Wow, it was fun to read the nasty comments here and smell the fear!
    Go John Edwards!

    Reply

  5. NVMojo says:

    Wow, it was fun to read the nasty comments here and smell the fear!
    Go John Edwards!

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Smearing Ron Paul
    Monday, December 24th, 2007 in News by Justin Raimondo| Comment |
    The Smear Bund never rests — not even on Christmas. Especially not on Christmas. And they’ve been really active lately, what with Ron Paul gaining in the polls and in the hearts and minds of a growing number of young people: we can’t have that! I’ve waded through the muck and mire, so you don’t have to — go here to read a full accounting.
    One would think that the sheer counterintuitiveness of the proposition that the country’s leading libertarian politician is a Nazi sympathizer would deter the Smear Brigade from trying to pull that one off — but no. From the left-leaning cyber-lair of “Orcinus,” where the professional “extremist”-hunter David Neiwert (a kind of low-budget John Roy Carlson) holds court, to the supposedly opposite end of the spectrum over at “Stormfront,” where the “Commander” of the American National Socialist Workers Party pontificates, the hue and cry is going up: Paul is a Nazi!
    This morning the New York Times took up this theme, with a vicious taunt coming out of the mouth of Virginia Heffernan, who repeats the laughable accusations of an admitted Nazi as indisputable fact. Paul “seems to have Nazi troubles, as in they’re saying he’s one of them,” she gloats — and hails a “vid-lash” against Ron Paul. Yeah, the Paul supporters have so far dominated Youtube and the internet in general, where their movement was born, but we’ll show them: Heffernan posts a video by one Mike Fluggenock, a shrill leftist propganda short that focuses not on Paul’s positions but on two or three individuals in a crowd of some 5,000 at a rally in Philadelphia.
    What’s interesting about Senor Fluggenock, however, isn’t his skills as a film-maker, or even as a propagandist, but the fact that he was one of six American “artists” to make contributions to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust cartoon contest. Here it is.
    Gee, I don’t wonder that Fluggenock’s entry didn’t place. That is kind of heavy-handed, even for the Iranians. After all, is the evil of the Holocaust really equivalent to the admittedly brutal Israeli occupation? I haven’t noticed the Israelis killing 6 million Palestinians in extermination chambers, but I’m sure this is just an oversight on my part. What I couldn’t help noticing, however, is that Fluggenock travels in some of the same circles as Bill White, the neo-Nazi “Commander” and source of the charge that Paul is a secret “white nationalist. DC Indymedia, where Fluggenock is part of of the “editorial collective, seems to have it’s own Nazi problem. DC Indymedia has also been promoting White’s story. Hmmmmm …..
    Ms. Hefferan, described herein as “a newly ubiqitous [sic] cultural critic,” apparently determined to follow in the footsteps of Judith Miller, isn’t too picky about her sources. Judy had Chalabi: Virginia has Bill White, the supreme “Commander” of the American National Socialist Workers Party, and Senor Fluggenock, a cartoonist with a cartoonish view of world politics.
    In her MediaBistro interview, the fresh-faced golden-haired Ms. Heffernan burbles on about her faaaaabulous career, from fact-checker [!] at Tina Brown’s New Yorker to her ascendance as A Newly Ubiquitous Cultural Critic:
    “I was disillusioned—not radically disillusioned, just a little disillusioned—with graduate school, and had decided to spend the summer in New York working at a bookstore—Chapter & Verse on St. Marks, which isn’t there anymore. My now-friend Rob Boynton came in while I was reading Janet Malcolm’s The Journalist and the Murderer, and struck up a conversation. I learned he was a journalist, and it was through him that I got the idea that it could be a profession.”
    She was disillusioned — and now I am. How in the name of all that’s holy could such an air-head possibly become A Newly Ubiquitous Cultural Critic? Yes, but air-heads have their uses, and the Smear Bund couldn’t function without them: smearing doesn’t take much talent. And it pays.

    Reply

  7. TILLAWI says:

    How Bad Is The Zionist
    Influence In America?
    By Hesham Tillawi, PhD
    12-24-7
    30 years ago, I was told that the liberation of Palestine must go through Washington. I understood that to mean that Washington has a say so in what has happened, and what is happening to the Palestinians. I was wrong; Washington turned out to be an Israeli occupied space just like Palestine.
    I spent the last Twenty-Seven years trying to explain to the American public that the Palestinians are not the bad guys, only to find out that they, the Americans, were in worse shape than the Palestinians. At least the Palestinians knew who the enemy was, they could see him, he is the one with the big gun and the big CAT and wearing the star of David. The Palestinians and the Americans share the same enemy, the Zionist agenda
    Palestinians are wasting their time in approaching issues dealing with Zionism. For decades, unintentionally, they made fighting Zionism an Arab exclusivity. For years, we visited churches and spoke at universities, showed films and documentaries, demonstrated in various American cities, and formed organizations … We always thought about what is good for Palestine and the Arabs, and neglected ­not by design- what is good for America…
    In Palestine, they are visible now, in America they used to be hidden, just like they were in Palestine, and when they became strong enough they took over the country, just like they did in Palestine. ” This is precisely the case today with regards to the Jewish supremacist agenda, wherein those who are the operatives have become so confident in their success that they no longer go to the painstaking lengths that they used to in insulating themselves from the light of day.” Mark Glenn in his book ‘No Beauty In The Beast’
    To me the fight is not in Palestine, but right here in America. It’s a fight between good and evil, a fight to keep the principles of freedom and democracy we as immigrants were attracted to, and our forefathers fought and died for. It’s a fight to keep America free and clear of any single entity’s control. It’s a fight for information and knowledge that the Constitution granted as a right. We must join in this battle for America. Don’t think you Muslims and Arabs are the only one in this fight; as a matter of fact you are yet to enter this fight. You have been fighting for your own communities’ issues and neglected America. There are thousands if not millions of “ordinary”-whatever that means- Americans who [would] like to see the Zionist influence in America diminish. Once that happens, solving your problems here, and there and everywhere will be a matter of choice.
    So how bad is the Zionist influence in America?
    Well, consider this: the Jewish population of America is about 5 million people, which is a little over one percent of the total population, and keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionists- many Jews are anti-Zionist- we end up with a percentage of less than one who actually control the government, the media, and the financial aspects of America.
    Let’s take a look at where some (few) of these people are: Paul Dundes Wolfowitz ­ not long ago was the Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense and now President of the World Bank, Richard Perle – Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, Ari Fleischer – was White House Press Secretary and a director of World Jewish Congress, Josh Bolten – Deputy Chief of Staff, Ken Melman – White House Political Director, Jay Lefkowitz – Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Daniel Fried – Special Assistant to President and Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs, David Frum ­ Speechwriter-wrote the axis of evil speech-, Brad Blakeman – White House Director of Scheduling( he decides who sees Bush and who doesn’t), Dov Zakheim – Undersecretary of Defense (Controller), decides where the money goes, I. Lewis Libby – Chief of Staff to the Vice President, should be tried for treason for exposing Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, Elliott Abrams , an Israeli- now Director of the National Security Council’s Office for Near East affairs, that’s the office overseeing the U.S. Middle East policy. Abrams’ appointment is viewed as “a gift from heaven” for ‘Israel.’ , Douglas Feith ­ an Israeli,was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and was responsible for making up the big lies about Iraq buying Uranium from Africa, very close to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Michael Chertoff ­ Homeland Security Secretary, Allen Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, a private firm that controls ALL financial aspects of the country, and many, many more. You can see some of them in this partial list. Add to that, most Ambassadors to Europe and to countries that count, plus most advisors on the National Security Council and other sensitive government positions. This gang and others were the ones who conned America into going to war against Iraq for Israel…
    Senator William Fullbright of Arkansas who served until 1975 said, ” Israel controls the United States Senate. Around 80 percent are completely in support of Israel; what Israel wants it gets. Jewish influence in the House of Representatives is even greater.” This was back in the Seventies, now they wield partial to total control over 95 Senators and all 435 members of the House except maybe 23. Listen to Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: ” I’ve never seen a President- I don’t care who he is- stand up to them. They always get what they want, If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.” Paul Findley, a US Congressman for 22 years noted on the subject that:
    “Israel is able to stifle free speech, control our Congress, and even dictate our foreign policy.”
    I would conclude by saying that the Zionists in America now are in the same position they were in back in 1948 in Palestine where they were in total control of the land but not the people. They were not interested in the people; they just wanted the land. In the case of America they are in total control of its people and resources, they are not interested in the land. They just want people to fight wars and the people’s money to finance their ambitions.
    <>http://heshamtillawi.wordpress.c…think-they-can/

    Reply

  8. Lurker says:

    I worked in gossip (not by choice, it was my first job) for a newspaper that all of you would know immediately if I typed out its name.
    After the series of lawsuits that it has been subjected to, I would trust the National Enquirer above the New York Times. The Enquirer knows that it will be slammed with lawsuits if it can’t back up what it prints, while all I can say about the New York Times (well, I could say a lot more but I don’t want to take up all of Steve’s bandwidth)is:
    “Aluminum tubes”
    That and Bill Keller working with the CIA on the interrogation tapes.
    Trust the Enquirer, it puts its economic safety on the line anytime it types a line, as opposed to the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.

    Reply

  9. Sandy says:

    Ha! Thank you, Marcus. You’ve said it for me!
    Typical dirty politics. As someone said, they must be running scared. Pathetic!
    Oh, and BTW, Merry Christmas all….and to John Edwards and his family who have been through so much. Not all of us think it’s okay to sink to that level.

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    Lang on Paul below….and from the little I have forced myself to wtach on the idiot tube talk shows…the two candidates the media and political establishment hate most are Paul and Edwards. The more the establishment pundits yack on their favorites the more I am determined to support “the other”.
    “Russert vs. Ron Paul
    It seems clear that the “pundits in chief” of American television have in mind to “guide” American voters to the election of a candidate who, in their collective “wisdom,” is appropriate to the office of president of the United States.
    It should be no secret that the “chattering classes” on the left and right coasts believe that they are far wiser than the peasantry residing in “fly over country” in between (or among) their citadels of exalted brooding.
    The various preferences of the media Machiavellians are pitifully obvious to those unfortunate enough to need to watch (endlessly).
    Christopher Matthews, (MSNBC) (when not abusing and bullying guests) makes it clear that his first choice would have been Giuliani (a man from the “civilized” northeast) but, (sigh) if that is not to be, then Obama will fulfill the civil rights yearnings of his soul. In pursuit of that goal, there is nothing that he will not say, endlessly, boringly, repetitively against the Clintons. God help anyone on his programs who disagrees with this “program.”
    And then, there is Tim Russert, host of “Meet the Press.” Tim holds forth there with an authority reminiscent of the doctrine of papal infallibility and a clear belief that none dare confront him.
    Today, his “guest” was Dr. Ron Paul, the previously obscure physician and congressman from coastal Texas. This man has the effrontery to insist that the US Constitution is still an effective document, that the federal government has too much power, spends too much money and that Abraham Lincoln might not have been as wise as the hagiolatry surrounding his name mandates as belief.
    Somehow, unbelievably, the masses huddled outside the major cities of America resonate to what Paul says. His message of minimalist government and foreign policy, civil rights for all and a return to balanced budgets appeals to many. To the consternation of the “professional pols” money floods into the Paul “campaign” over the internets. Thus far, this flow of small contributions is not reflected in polling, but, as my favorite political consultant (my wife) suggests, this may be the result of people being reluctant to tell pollsters that they will vote for Paul
    With regard to Paul’s various “heretical” opinions, Russert poured forth a continuous stream of questions at so rapid a rate that it became clear that the purpose was a hope that the “guest” would stumble over himself in attempting to answer. The purpose of this approach seemed to be destructive rather than constructive.
    Both Russert and Matthews are products of schooling that should have done better by them. pl
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/
    23 December 2007 in Politics | Permalink
    TrackBack

    Reply

  11. Carroll says:

    Posted by pauline at December 24, 2007 01:20 PM
    >>>>>>>>>
    Yea lawyers “fraternize” but it means nothing…you can be nice to your friend and still want to beat s*** out of him/her on the tennis court and win the game.
    I see Edwards as the best choice among the dem candidates…a field leveler…if he can be believed…and I think he can more so than the others in that regard.
    But who knows who will have to vote for..we will have to wait to see who is ‘selected” for us to vote on…and what Paul does if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination.
    I see Paul, Edwards and even Huckabee as the most non establishment entrenched candidates so far.
    Just give me anyone who isn’t totally immersed in the DC incest pool, otherwise I don’t think this election will make any fundemental difference to most Americans.

    Reply

  12. pauline says:

    Carroll,
    Yes, I’d be all for a trial lawyer as president that’s on the right side of most populist ideas. But the problem I see with Edwards is, just like any trial lawyer, on one issue he may be totally on “our” side, but the very next time he may be fighting for the real “enemy”. My legal brother-in-law says trial lawyers who battle each other hard in the courtroom many times end going to the bar or to dinner together at the end of the day.
    No doubt Edwards is smart enough and can think and talk on his two feet. Just how long it would take him to cave in to the big and many special corporate interests is the Edwards unknown.
    Oh, and if somehow after other legal battles that need to fought and won, he’d campaign to do just a little waterboarding to the guilty bush soft fascists, why I might seriously consider putting an Edwards bumper sticker on my leftside bumper. If not, the Ron Paul sticker is staying on the rightside bumper purely for constitutional reasons.

    Reply

  13. marcus says:

    Thank you Missy R for making my mind up….Now I am definitly going to not only vote for Edwards, but campaign as well.
    Where’s my checkbook….

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    What’s wrong with an epic fight?
    We need one, the bigger and bloodier the better.
    As Edwards said, the power elite and special interest who have bought up congress aren’t going to give up their power voluntarily, it has to be taken from them.
    The most impressive thing I ever saw in Edwards was his fight in the senate on the ERISA law….he was trying to reverse the section of ERISA that allows insurers to get away with denying treatment and precludes policy holders and patients from being able to use state laws against insurers to make the insurer perform. ERISA makes them have to go to Federal District Courts and be subjected to Federal law. In a Federal Court in order to win, the victim has to prove the insurer “deliberately” caused the harm or the patients death if that is the case. Patients or their families have to prove that the insurance company ‘wanted to kill” a policyholder and not just that the insurer withheld treatment approval and “let them die”. And to top it off ERISA make the victim pay the court and legal cost if they lose.
    The politicans claim this section of ERISA was a “unintended” consquence of ERISA…but they won’t change it so the deal here is obvious…a legal protection for insurers that makes it almost impossible for anyone sue them for damage.
    Interestingly, the morning of the big battle over this Hastert was given a fund raising breakfast by the insurance lobby.
    Edwards took ERISA apart, piece by piece..anyone listening to his speech on the floor, even if they knew nothing about this ERISA section, would have understood exactly how ERISA allows insurers to get away with murder and exactly why the politicans financed by the insurers refuse to change it.
    It’s time for a good trial lawyer who knows the law and how to use it for the public for a change.
    All this talk about”trial lawyers” is crap…people say they hate lawyers until they need one, then all of sudden they want the most agressive sob attorney they can find.
    Something interesting going on on this right now is the girl who died in Calif. because CIGNA kept denying approval for a liver transplant for the girl. Calif is the lone state that started ignoring the ERISA law on insurers about 10 years ago and Aetna and others have lost lawsuits there on cases like this. The DA there is considering filing criminal charges against CIGNA for the girl’s death.
    So I am all for a trial laywer..as long as he is on the right side. After 7 years of rampant lawlessness by the Bush adm it’s gonna take a shark to clean their clock

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Edwards is the only candidate with the fight to take back the constitution. That is the issue of the election.”
    Yeah, well, I guess you gotta be President to press for accountability, because he has done absolutely NOTHING thus far to demand accountability.

    Reply

  16. Don says:

    Interesting to see attacks on Edwards. It was unbelievable that Greenspan would attack him on a national talk show last week. It looks like the powerful in the country are getting scared.
    Edwards is the only candidate with the fight to take back the constitution. That is the issue of the election.

    Reply

  17. Desiderata says:

    As a trial lawyer, Edwards gravitated from wanting to be a corporate lawyer to wanting to sue the pants off them.
    He made a nice living representing the victims of those who traded humanity for greed.
    I have no doubt that President Edwards will remain a victim’s advocate in the White House as he has been in the courthouse.

    Reply

  18. Tony Foresta says:

    Bravo Edwards. Rhetoric aside, democrats must fight for any position and any hope for advancing any liberal policy in the government. Now, with a majority in the House, and an equal number of seats in the Senate, (Lieberman is republican no matter who he alledgedly caucuses with) democrats are impotent and powerless to affect any change, influence any policy, or defend or protect what little remains of our democracy. The fascists in the Bush government have reengineered America and commandeered almost total control of the government. There is no accountability, there is no transparency, there is no debate, and there is questioning or halting of the Bush governments total unfettered unrestrained, and unchecked domination of America.
    All the issues Edwards champions are critical battles that all democrats must fight and win to restore balance to America. The Bush governments “soft fascism” Ron Paul had the courage to admit and speak about today is a far greater danger to Americans freedom, rights, protections, and our way of life than any imagined threat by any jihadist freak.
    We either fight these battles in earnest to win, or go like sheep to our doom.
    The people currently have absolutely no voice, and no representation in this government, and must rely on champions with the will and the courage to fight these battles, defeat the fascist entrenched in our government, give real voice to the voiceless, and restore at least the semblance of democracy to America.
    “Live free, or die!”
    Deliver us from evil!”

    Reply

  19. Right Democrat says:

    John Edwards is definitely the best Democrat in the race. He is the only major candidate talking about the need to expand America’s prosperity beyond the top five percent. I don’t agree with Edwards on every issue but there are no perfect candidates.
    As for Mike Huckabee, I don’t think that he is even a populist by right-wing standards. I think that Pat Buchanan came much closer to getting Republican neo-populism right back in the 1996 GOP Presidential primaries. For one thing, Huckabee has proposed a national sales tax which would place the heaviest tax burden on the middle class. That doesn’t sound very populist to me.

    Reply

  20. JohnH says:

    Who cares about Edwards alleged adultery? Adultery is simply not a big issue with Democrats. It is an issue for Republicans who court evangelicals and must appear holier than thou. It is also an issue Republicans use to attack their opponents to avoid having to debate environmental and economic issues.
    Edwards may not walk the walk. Few of us do. But at least he talks the talk, which is a damn sight more than Hillary and the other leading Democrats do. And maybe he even believes his rhetoric, or, if he repeats it enough, he will come to believe it.
    If Edwards scores big in Iowa, you can bet Hillary and the other corporate Democrats will all of a sudden co-opt some of Edwards’ rhetoricn. And they will be very convincing, trying to bamboozle us into ignoring their hypocrisy.

    Reply

  21. Truthseeker says:

    I’m still lost on this “walking the walk” argument with Edwards.
    (1) He not only voted for the bill to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, he CO-SPONSORED it, and vigorously advocated for it on the floor of Congress.
    (2) While quietly supporting the McCain-Feingold legislation, Edwards otherwise fought for no substantive lobbyist reform during his one term in Congress. As the Wash Post said: “lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.”
    (3) He left after one term, we lost the seat to the Republicans, and he went to work for a notorious locust fund in Fortress, which is incorporated in the offshore tax shelter of the Cayman Islands, and which made its mint in buying up distressed assets like subprime loans and troubled companies they could downsize via employee layoffs. They foreclosed on Katrina victims, and when the subprime market went south, they transfered assets into casinos and horse racing. They are bar none one of the slimiest hedge funds on the street.
    (4) Edwards flew on more corporate jets than any other member of Congress during his one term, and then accepted $1.2 million for his ’04 campaign from the same corporations that flew him around the nation.
    (5) One day after claiming 527s have no legitimate role to play in the political process and should be done away with, Edwards accepts $750,000 in ads from a 527 run by his former campaign director. Asked to defend this, he essentially shrugs his shoulders and claims the law doesn’t give him any leeway to tell his former campaign manager to stop.
    Edwards talks a pretty, pretty talk. But I just don’t see the walk. I really don’t.

    Reply

  22. Foster says:

    So what about an Edwards-Hunter affair. Bill Clinton was a great president and nobody cares about this reporter’s garbage. John Edwards is for late-term abortion…sticking surgical scissors into the cerebellum of the newborn baby as it is delivered to kill it. I don’t think Edwards or his wife couldn’t find a solution to the “new problem”.

    Reply

  23. daniel says:

    Is Missy R a Republican operative?

    Reply

  24. Bill R. says:

    Thanks for the reporting on the Edwards campaign. Whether he wins or not, Edwards has been an important voice and an important candidate.
    As for the “trolling” here, the “National Enquirer” Geez.. what great sources!! Inquiring minds….. such intelligent exchange.

    Reply

  25. Missy R. says:

    Who is David Perel? John Edwards knows.
    Mr. Perel is the courageous man who is standing up to the lies and distortion of John Edwards and making the case that, at the very very very minumum, that the former coke head TOLD her FRIENDS that she BELIEVES that she is carrying JOHN EDWARD’s BABY. Whether it’s his or not is not the point.
    And, He ain’t backing Down!!! He stands by his story that John Edwards is a cheater and that his “love child” is on the way.
    In the hierarchy of American tabloids, The National Enquirer, based in Boca Raton, Fla., is considered the most respectable. It boasts the largest newspaper circulation in the country at nearly 3 million. Editor-in-chief David Perel majored in English at the University of Maryland, went to work for the Washington Post and took a year off to travel. He began his career with the Enquirer as a reporter 19 years ago. He is married, with three children and a rabbit.

    Reply

  26. susan says:

    Agree with you POA.
    I am personally sick and tired of “fighting.” I want the fighting to STOP, in Iraq, in Congress. what we need is truth and reconciliation, not some phoney limousine liberal talking up the hobgoblins of corporate plutocracy-with whom he will have to reconcile if he ends up the nominee.

    Reply

  27. Linda says:

    Thanks again for valuable insight from on the ground in Iowa. While I am for Obama, I would kinda like Edwards to come in first. He has been walking the walk and talking the talk for longer than any of the candidates. I’d like to see him in a Cabinet post in a Obama administration–also Howard Dean in one, perhaps HHS. There are many very caring, capable, committed and talented Democrats around. I just hope they don’t all “trash” each other too much in the next month and a half and can all come together and unite. Not sure about that.

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Geez, heres some jackass sputtering on about “adultery”. When my government is responsible for murdering a million or so Iraqis, torture, domestic spying, false flag terrorist attacks, disdain for the Constitution, reinstituted nuclear proliferation, unprecedented secrecy, the criminal manipulation of our electoral process, and shipping our livelyhoods overseas, does this clown really think we should be nattering a bunch of ignorant horseshit about “adultery”?

    Reply

  29. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The corporations cannot exercise undo influence on our nation’s course without the collusion and complicity of our so called “leaders” in Washington. If Edwards thinks he can base his campaign rhetoric on just one side of the equation, and be believable, he is sadly mistaken. You cannot separate the corporation’s looting of our nation from the corruption in Washington, nor can you halt one process without halting the other. I have not seen Edwards pressing for accountability for the crimes committed by this Administration, so I have to assume his stated intention to confront corporate abuse is just the usual campaign fluff that these lying pieces of crap smother us in every four years.
    When one of these shitheads campaigns for the restoration of the rule of law, EQUALLY DISPENSED, then perhaps we can believe periphery rhetoric that isn’t directed at the true elephant in the room, which is the criminal abuse of executive authority that has occurred these last seven years.

    Reply

  30. Martha says:

    Memo to John Edwards:
    You have a big problem, sir. The National Enquirer is not backing down on the story about your recent adultry. As Dick Morris, former Clinton buddy, found out from “THE STAR” tabloid, when the tabloids don’t back down then only two things could be true.
    Either, the National Enquirer is being totally fooled by a completely believable carload of factual-appearling evidence such as emails, witness statements, pictures, and other court-worthy stuff, OR, the National Enquirer is absolutely knowingly slandering you, Mr. Lawyer, and the now-pregnant former coke head, your supposed girlfriend.
    So, if this story by the Enquirer is just a big lie, then WHERE IS THE SLANDER LAWSUIT? Right, I guess the last question is the guts of the matter.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *