Edwards: Hillary On Detour Through "Deep Canyon Of Corporate Lobbyists"
A speech in New Hampshire today by John Edwards is a full-scale assault against Hillary Clinton, tying her in with corporate interests, social injustice, and just about everything else where America has fallen short of what it can truly be.
"Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington," Edwards says, "and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses."
The full speech, from the prepared remarks, is available after the jump.
The Moral Test of Our GenerationOct 29, 2007
St. Anselm's College, Manchester, N.H.Many of you know that I am the son of a mill worker — that I rose from modest means and have been blessed in so many ways in life. Elizabeth and I have so much to be grateful for.
And all of you know about some of the challenges we have faced in my family. But there came a time, a few months ago, when Elizabeth and I had to decide, in the quiet of a hospital room, after many hours of tests and getting pretty bad news — what we were going to do with our lives.
And we made our decision. That we were not going to go quietly into the night — that we were going to stand and fight for what we believe in.
As Elizabeth and I have campaigned across America, I've come to a better understanding of what that decision really meant — and why we made it.
Earlier this year, I spoke at Riverside Church in New York, where, forty years ago, Martin Luther King gave a historic speech. I talked about that speech then, and I want to talk about it today. Dr. King was tormented by the way he had kept silent for two years about the Vietnam War.
He was told that if he spoke out he would hurt the civil rights movement and all that he had worked for — but he could not take it any more — instead of decrying the silence of others — he spoke the truth about himself.
"Over the past two years" he said, "I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silence and speak from the burning of my own heart."
I am not holier than thou. I am not perfect by any means. But there are events in life that you learn from, and which remind you what this is really all about. Maybe I have been freed from the system and the fear that holds back politicians because I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul.
Especially right now, when our country requires so much more of us, and needs to hear the truth from its leaders.
And, although I have spent my entire life taking on the big powerful interests and winning — which is why I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or political action committees — I too have been guilty of my own silence — but no more.
It's time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.
As I look across the political landscape of both parties today — what I see are politicians too afraid to tell the truth — good people caught in a bad system that overwhelms their good intentions and requires them to chase millions of dollars in campaign contributions in order to perpetuate their careers and continue their climb to higher office.
This presidential campaign is a perfect example of how our politics is awash with money. I have raised more money up to this point than any Democratic candidate raised last time in the presidential campaign — $30 million. And, I did it without taking a dime from any Washington lobbyist or any special interest PAC.
I saw the chase for campaign money at any cost by the frontrunner in this race — and I did not join it — because the cost to our nation and our children is not worth the hollow victory of any candidate. Being called president while powerful interests really run things is not the same as being free to lead this nation as president of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If protecting the current established structure in Washington is in your interest, then I am not your candidate. I ran for president four years ago — yes, in part out of personal ambition — but also with a deep desire to stand for working people like my father and mother — who no matter how hard things were for our family, always worked even harder to make things better for us.
But the more Elizabeth and I campaigned this year, the more we talked to the American people, the more we met people just like my father, and hard working people like James Lowe. James is a decent and honest man who had to live for 50 years with no voice in the richest country in the world because he didn't have health care. The more people like him that I met, the more I realized something much bigger was stirring in the American people. And it has stirred in each of us for far too long.
Last month Ken Burns — who made the great Civil War documentary — launched his newest epic on World War II on PBS — and what a story it tells.
At the cost of great suffering, blood and enormous sacrifice, within four years after Pearl Harbor it is incredible what this nation achieved. America built the arsenal of democracy worthy of our great history. We launched the greatest invasion armada in the history of warfare against Hitler's fortress Europe, and, with our allies, we freed a continent of suffering humanity.
At the same time on the other side of the globe we crossed 10,000 miles of ocean and liberated another hemisphere of humanity — islands and nations freed from the grip of Japanese militarists. While at the same time succeeding in the greatest scientific endeavor ever undertaken — the Manhattan project — and topped it off with building the Pentagon, one of the largest buildings in the world in a little over a year.
It is incredible what America has accomplished. Because no matter what extraordinary challenges we have been faced with, we did exactly what America has always done in our history — we rose to the challenge.
And, now, as I travel across America and listen to people, I hear real concern about what's going on. For the first time in our nation's history, people are worried that we're going to be the first generation of Americans not to pass on a better life to our children.
And it's not the fault of the American people. The American people have not changed. The American people are still the strong, courageous people they have always been. The problem is what our government has become. And, it is up to us to do something about it.
Because Washington may not see it, but we are facing a moral crisis as great as any that has ever challenged us. And, it is this test — this moral test — that I have come to understand is at the heart of this campaign.
Just look at what has happened in Iraq. What was the response of the American people to the challenge at hand? Our men and women in uniform have been heroes. They've done everything that's been asked of them and more. But what about our government? Four years after invading Iraq, we cannot even keep the lights on in Baghdad.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the American people were at their best. They donated their time and their money in record numbers. There was an outpouring of support. I took 700 college kids down to help — young people who gave up their spring break. But what about our government? Three years after hurricane Katrina thousands of our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters, are still housed in trailers waiting to go home.
There's no better example of the bravery and goodness of the American people than the response to the attacks of 9/11: firefighters and first responders risking and too often giving their lives to save others, charging up the stairs while everyone else was coming down; record bloodbank donations; and the list goes on. But what about our government? Six years after 9/11, at Ground Zero there sits only a black hole that tortures our conscience and scars our hearts.
In every instance we see an American people who are good, decent, compassionate and undeterred. And, American people who are better than the government that is supposed to serve and represent them.
And what has happened to the American "can do" spirit? I will tell you what has happened: all of this is the result of the bitter poisoned fruit of corruption and the bankruptcy of our political leadership.
It is not an accident that the government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people, because it is no longer our people's government — and we the people know it.
This corruption did not begin yesterday — and it did not even begin with George Bush — it has been building for decades — until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy.
While the American people personally rose to the occasion with an enormous outpouring of support and donations to both the victims of Katrina and 9/11 — we all saw our government's neglect. And we saw greed and incompetence at work. Out of more than 700 contracts valued at $500,000 or greater, at least half were given without full competition or, according to news sources, with vague or open ended terms, and many of these contracts went to companies with deep political connections such as a subsidiary of Haliburton, Bechtel Corp., and AshBritt Inc.
And in Iraq — while our nation's brave sons and daughters put their lives on the line for our country — we now have mercenaries under their own law while their bosses sit at home raking in millions.
We have squandered millions on building Olympic size swimming pools and buildings that have never been used. We have weapons and ammunition unaccounted for that may now be being used against our own soldiers. We literally have billions wasted or misspent — while our troops and their families continue to sacrifice. And the politically connected lobby for more. What's their great sacrifice — higher profits.
It goes on every minute of every day.
Corporate executives at United Airlines and US Airways receive millions in compensation for taking their companies into bankruptcy, while their employees are forced to take cuts in pay.
Companies like Wal-Mart lobby against inspecting containers entering our nation's ports, even though expert after expert agrees that the likeliest way for a dirty bomb to enter the United States is through a container, because they believe their profits are more important than our safety. What has become of America when America's largest company lobbies against protecting America?
Trade deals cost of millions of jobs. What do we get in return? Millions of dangerous Chinese toys in our children's cribs laden with lead. This is the price we are made to pay when trade agreements are decided based on how much they pad the profits for multinational corporations instead of what is best for America's workers or the safety of America's consumers.
We have even gotten to the point where our children's safety is potentially at risk because nearly half of the apple juice consumed by our children comes from apples grown in China. And Americans are kept in the dark because the corporate lobbyists have pushed back country of origin labeling laws again and again.
This is not the America I believe in.
The hubris of greed knows no bounds. Days after the homeland security bill passed, staffers from the homeland security department resigned and became homeland security consultants trying to cash in. And, where was the outrage? There was none, because that's how it works in Washington now. It is not a Republican revolving door or a Democratic revolving door — it is just the way it's done.
Someone called it a government reconnaissance mission to figure out how to get rich when you leave the government.
Recently, I was dismayed to see headlines in the Wall Street Journal stating that Senate Democrats were backing down to lobbyists for hedge funds who have opposed efforts to make millionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as every hard-working American. Now, tax loopholes the wealthy hedge fund managers do not need or deserve are not going to be closed, all because Democrats — our party — wanted their campaign money.
And a few weeks ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1,000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special "treat" — the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of the homeland security committee. That presidential candidate was Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington — and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.
When I asked Hillary Clinton to join me in not taking money from Washington lobbyists — she refused. Not only did she say that she would continue to take their money, she defended them.
Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party — more money than any Republican candidate.
She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.
She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined.
The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.
We have a duty — a duty to end this.
I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, and candidate who takes their money — Democrat or Republican — will lose this election.
For us to continue down this path all we have to do is suspend all that we believe in. As Democrats, we continue down this path only if we believe the party of the people is no more.
As Americans, we continue down this path only if we fail to heed Lincoln's warning to us all.
"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected," he asked, "if it ever reaches us it must spring up amongst us. It can not come from abroad. If destruction be our lot — we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we must live through all time or die by suicide."
America lives because 20 generations have honored the one moral commandment that makes us Americans.
To give our children a better future than we received.
I stand here today the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards. The father of Wade, Cate, Emma Claire and Jack — and I know, as well as you, that we must not be the first generation that fails to live up to our moral challenge and keep the promise of America.
That would be an abomination.
There is a dream that is America. It is what makes us American. And I will not stand by while that dream is at risk.
I am not perfect — far from it — but I do understand that this is not a political issue — it is the moral test of our generation.
Our nation's founders knew that this moment would come — that at some point the power of greed and its influence over officials in our government might strain and threaten the very America they hoped would last as an ideal in the minds of all people, and as a beacon of hope for all time.
That is why they made the people sovereign. And this is why it is your responsibility to redeem the promise of America for our children and their future.
It will not be easy — sacrifice will be required of us — but it was never easy for our ancestors, and their sacrifices were far greater than any that will fall on our shoulders.
Yet, the responsibility is ours.
We, you and I, are the guardians of what America is and what it will be.
The choice is ours.
Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.
It is the easier path. It is the path of the status quo. But, it is a path that perpetuates a corrupt system that has not only failed to deliver the change the American people demand, but has divided America into two — one America for the very greedy, and one America for everybody else.
And it is that divided America — the direct result of this corrupt system — which may very well lead to the suicide Lincoln warned us of — the poison that continues to seep into our system while none notice.
Or we can choose a different path. The path that generations of Americans command us to take. And be the guardians that kept the faith.
I run for president for my father who worked in a mill his entire life and never got to go to college the way I did.
I run for president for all those who worked in that mill with my father.
I run for president for all those who lost their jobs when that mil was shut down.
I run for president for all the women who have come up to Elizabeth and me and told us the like Elizabeth they had breast cancer — but unlike Elizabeth they did not have health care.
I run for president for twenty generations of Americans who made sure that their children had a better life than they did.
As Americans we are blessed — for our ancestors are not dead, they occupy the corridors of our conscience. And, as long we keep the faith — they live. And so too the America of idealism and hope that was their gift to us.
I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Like them, like you, I believe in people, hard work, and the sacred obligation of each generation to the next.
This is our time now. It falls to use to redeem our democracy, reclaim our government and relight the promise of America for our children.
Let us blaze a new path together, grounded in the values from which America was forged, still reaching toward the greatness of our ideals. We can do it. We can cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We can liberate our government from the shackles of corporate money that bind it to corporate will, and restore the voices of our people to its halls.
This is the cause of my life. This is the cause of our time. Join me. Together, we cannot fail.
We will keep faith with those who have gone before us, strong and proud in the knowledge that we too rose up to guard the promise of America in our day, and that, because we did, America's best days still lie ahead.
Comments (31)
kjoe wrote on October 29, 2007 3:49 PM:This is a good speech, with plenty of substance.
It is something he really believes, it is consistent with something Obama really believes, and it should be the issue which causes democrats to think twice about voting for Hillary.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 3:58 PM:Not that I disagree with him, but I do find it to be a sort of surprising move that he's going so hard after Hillary while it is still relatively early in the process, especially given how well his campaign did in 2004 on a more upbeat, hopeful platform (despite being completely dismissed by the MSM -- sound familiar?).
I wonder if he's going to play the role of Gephardt in 2004, taking down the frontrunner but damaging himself in the process?
kjoe wrote on October 29, 2007 4:11 PM:If Hillary is not taken down, he will not have any chance at all. The simple fact is, the democrats need to be divided enough to find out where their soul is.
Will they try and inspire and convince the country to move forward with a meaningful victory based on higher turnout of voters, or will they strategize methodically to just win?
Sometimes the prevent defense wins---sometimes an aggressive offense can bring victory.
David T. wrote on October 29, 2007 4:15 PM:WOW!! What a great speech. Mr. Edwards is our one great hope to restore this country from its moral and political decay.
EDWARDS 08!
anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 4:18 PM:If only Edwards got as much free press as Obama and Clinton, he'd have a shot.
Alas it is not to be. :(
Outside the beltway wrote on October 29, 2007 4:38 PM:Rumor has it Edwards has naked pictures of Bill and a new intern , If Edwards agrees to show them the press will cover it, otherwise they're not interested in global warming or health care and stuff
audit the polls wrote on October 29, 2007 4:53 PM:This is what an election is about. Not polls. Glad to see it. [Go Edwards]
pepkoka wrote on October 29, 2007 5:07 PM:Congratulations to John Edwards for an outstanding speech! I feel fortunate that he is running. My mind is not made up yet, but I hope others will follow his lead and provide ideas, substance, and a modicum of rhetorical style.
tom! wrote on October 29, 2007 5:08 PM:Hear, hear 4:18!
I wish the media would scrap the Pavlovian methodology and give Edwards more airtime.
The more I listen to him, the more sense he makes.
Ironically, he's the lading "white guy."
Could it be our fellow voters are exhausted by voting for white dudes or are they so love-blinded with the concept of having the first woman or non-white dude in the WH to pay closer attention to the substance of the candidates' policies?
Radio Free Thought wrote on October 29, 2007 5:10 PM:Hmmm...
Corporate interests hijacking our government?
It sounds...unreasonable. Almost like reason is being assaulted.
Any word yet on that Gore endorsement?
PS - Not that I'm adverse to reading, but a video is going to be posted somewhere on the Interwebs, right?
wigwam wrote on October 29, 2007 5:17 PM:Was a huge Edwards supporter in 04 but support Obama this time around. I must say that I still really respect Edwards though, especially after reading this speech. Bravo for him.
david mizner wrote on October 29, 2007 5:29 PM:Eric, are you trying to get a gig writing for Politico, tyring to impress them by focusing on the horse race?
"A speech in New Hampshire today by John Edwards is a full-scale assault against Hillary Clinton, tying her in with corporate interests, social injustice, and just about everything else where America has fallen short of what it can truly be."
No, it was a far-ranging populist-reforming critique that included a couple references to Clinton. He probably put them in there in part to get you and Mike Allen to cover it.
Stop sucking, please. Thanks.
hb wrote on October 29, 2007 5:30 PM:Very impressive speech.
I'm deeply depressed at the prospect of a 2008 election where the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Can't we do better?
dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 5:47 PM:I hate to rain on this parade but in addition to being way over the top, this speech is a sure sign that Edwards is beginning to come to term with his eventual fate. He will not be elected president of the United states and he now knows it. The guy is probably genuine but he does not look credible peddling this rant against lobbyists and corporations, and claiming to be on the side of the little guy. Is it the $400 haircut, the movie star good looks and practiced smile, the multi-million dollars estate? It is probably all of the above, but look at it this way: Even if Edwards were to be the nominee, he wouldn't be elected POTUS because he's already crippled himself by accepting public financing. I keep coming back to this point but that is the short of it. Even the netroots (dKos) began distancing themselves from him once we was forced to accept public dough (in fact, his stunt about trying to get his opponents to taking the "diveo into unilateral disarmament with him by claiming that he was doing it for cleaner politics and they should too, showed just what kind of slippery fellow he is).
Edwards is damaged good and a "dead man walking". He is finished and nothing would change that. The best he can hope for is a cabinet position in a Hillary Clinton administration, as the guy who would be in charge of effecting the most sweeping government reform is the history of the nation...
jonnybutter wrote on October 29, 2007 5:50 PM:If only Edwards got as much free press as Obama and Clinton, he'd have a shot.
Alas it is not to be. :(
Please don't just sit around being frustrated. Go caucus for Edwards in IA or vote for him in NH or volunteer for/contribute to the campaign. Just do it.
richarden wrote on October 29, 2007 5:59 PM:HE CAN WIN!
We need this guy in the oval office if we're ever going to turn back the tide of greed and corruption that is consuming our country.
You Only Have To Believe
so, START BELIEVING!
Does Fortress Investments meet Edwards' standard as a "corporate interest?" It's really interesting how he tiptoed around this by targeting only particular corporate interests - lobbying interests. Oh, and he's no saint, he says. Really? But Hillary's the corporate devil, you can believe me because I am the son of a mill worker.
Say, does Fortress Investments do any corporate lobbying in Washington? Just wondering.
Here's (as they say) the rest of the story:
1. Edwards campaigned in 2004 against offshore tax dodge hedge funds.
2. After losing in 2004, in 2005, he joined and worked for Fortress Investments, one of the nation's leading hedge fund offshore tax dodges, and was paid half a million dollars.
3. Individuals who list Fortress Investments as their employer have contributed $167,000 to Edwards 2008.
4. When confronted with the apparent hypocricy of working for a major US hedge fund, he first tried to say that he was unware of this part of Fortress's business. Not only are attorneys who file lawsuits very adept at uncovering business relationships, it's listed right on their homepage. Go google Fortress Investments and look.
5. When this laughable lie started to come back at him, he claimed that he joined them (and invested $16 million dollars with them), in order to explore the relationship between poverty and the investment community.
6. Then, about a year after this came out, the egg hadn't even dried on his face when it was discovered that he still held a considerable amount of stock options in Fortress, and that Fortress had foreclosed on 34 New Orleans poor, flooded-out homeowners.
7. He's not only a "hedger" (a nice way to say, you know). He's an incompetent lia . . . uh . . . I mean . . . hedger who is badly advised by his campaign staff. Didn't any of them ask him about his current connections (if any) with Fortress after the first snafu came out?
In lieu of the namecalling dodge (as opposed to tax dodge), why don't you point out where I've made any inaccurate statement here?
This is so typical of Edwards and his complete lack of personal committment to his Great American values for the rest of us. I wonder if in "the deep canyons of corporate lobbyists," there's another huge swath of virgin timber and animal habitat that he can clearcut and construct his 28,000 square foot gated estate using non-union labor.
Yes, he's the ultimate "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" $400 haircut populist. How can anyone still take this guy the least bit seriously anymore?
He deserves a bigger thrashing than he's about to receive.
Very well written speech.
He is dead on in his thesis, but '08 is not about changing the system, it's about stopping the bleeding.
If Edwards wins the nomination, he gets my vote. If Obama wins, he gets my vote. If Clinton wins the nomination, I will still vote for her over any Republican or 3rd party candidate.
Let's not repeat 2000 again in the name of grand change or idealism.
colonpowwow wrote on October 29, 2007 6:16 PM:Chris
I agree with you 100%. It's very important that the Republicans are out in 2008. As much as I dislike Edwards and if you think what I said won't make a nice campaign ad for Rudy, I'd work for him and vote for him if he wins.
He's not the first lying hypocrite I've supported as a lifelong, working class Democrat. Heck, I even learned to like Bill Clinton and voted for him twice.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 29, 2007 6:26 PM:Clinton's corporate-funded camp issued a statement thanking Edward's for alleviating the fears of her base. Corporate leaders everywhere breathed a sigh of relief having it confirmed that their fist-fulls of money have been well spent.
Thank you Edwards for being the first to speak the truth . . . again.
This last weekend, Edwards also pointed out what a crappy deal the potential trade deal with Peru is.
Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 6:45 PM:C-Span's Washington Journal had a question today about media bias.
Is Campaign '08 Coverage Slanted?
DonnaG wrote on October 29, 2007 8:23 PM:Really great speech, John Edwards!
Anyone else on the thread notice the by-now-predictable reactions of Clinton-campers to the speech? Instead of addressing the substantive message of the speech, they denigrate the messenger.
Swopa wrote on October 29, 2007 8:35 PM:I'd like to second the comment above about TPM Election Central's apparent belief that the only thing conceivably newsworthy in any speech by Obama or Edwards is any direct or indirect attack on Hillary Clinton.
It appears to be a conscious editorial choice, and it's a distressingly vapid one.
anonimouse wrote on October 29, 2007 8:57 PM:dcshungu,
I must say, I find your constant Hillary talking points tiresome. You seem to illustrate quite nicely precisely what it is so many find objectionable about the koolaid drinking squad of Hillaryists you belong to.
In this case, John Edwards was right on the mark and not a single point in his speech was anything other than true. Your vomiting up of idiotic and third grade level "your momma's ugly" taunting about a haircut is just like all the other pollution of cyberspace you engage in.
Just for a change of pace, please explain how Hillary's full time prostituting of herself to corporate interests and the wealthy serves regular citizens in this country. How does being beholden to corporate fat cats and the wealthy aid the citizens of the United States whose wages have been stagnant for the better part of 40 years as a result of the excessive influence of corporate interests. Try to address it like an adult instead of a spoiled brat grade schooler.
Edwards didn't make any of this up and whether or not he wins means little to me or, I suspect, to him. Not every candidate for office is willing--as yours is--to sell his or her soul for the sake of victory alone when the price of that victory represents an undermining of everything he or she professes to believe in and represent. That was his primary point today in my opinion. And frankly, it was good to see a Democrat being unafraid of pointing out that the reason our system isn't working for the people is because their elected officials are all working for the defense, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and other major industries instead. This isn't a desperate campaign move: it's the truth! Your candidate cannot possibly represent significant change from this problem because she embodies this problem.
Please further explain how electing a Democrat who is entirely beholden to the same corporate interests who George W. Bush serves now helps the average American family? How does it help their children's future?
And please just for once, stick to the point and spare us all the cackling wisecracks about how Hillary is winning and anything anyone else does or says is because they want to be the winner instead of her. That shallow garbage is nothing but static that is meant to prevent any sort of intelligent discussion and you needn't serve up anymore as I think everyone is now full of what you've been dishing up. It will serve you well to do so (be a little less filled with hubris) as I think it pretty clear after Obama finishes with her, she won't win anything, let alone the nomination for President and thank God for that. We Democrats need to elect a Democrat who is interested in the people he or she will serve instead of just interested in getting elected for one's own ego alone. And no, I don't support Obama. I just know that he's got about $35 million that says he's not going to allow her to attend a coronation and that's all to the good. I don't know who will win, but I can tell you this, as long as it isn't her the Democrats have a fighting chance of actually electing a Democrat in 08 to the White House.
colonpowwow wrote on October 29, 2007 9:50 PM:DonnaG
I'm sorry, but Edwards's sanctimonious attack on Hillary while claiming that HE doesn't take filthy lucre from lobbyists is a pantload. What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Isn't he attacking Hillary Clinton?
Mercy me, he's attacking John Edwards. I do believe I'm having an attack of the vapors. Call me colonpollyanna.
I mentioned (and I think this is on point) that he got $167,000 (per the Washington Post) from individual donors who all list their employer as Fortress Investments. How convenient.
Fortress Investments works with lobbying groups in Washington. For that matter, trial lawyers lobby in Washington. There is nothing wrong with lobbying. The Red Cross lobbies. Labor groups lobby. Sure corporations have undue influence in our electoral process the way that it runs in 2008, and how its run for a long time now.
He is slyly trying to imply that it's the money donated by lobbyists that is the problem (which he isn't taking and isn't being offered to the third place contender) - when everybody knows that the problem is corruption (see Duke Cunningham) - favors done in return for money.
No one has any reason to believe, much less has any kind of evidence, that Hillary or any of the Democrats now running are corrupt - but that's the sly inplication in his "noble" gesture forced on him by his dwindling campaign resources.
And do you think it's important to show a personal committment to the causes you say you believe in if your running as a populist like he is? For example, the building of his huge estate was a major construction project. Why didn't he insist that the contractor use only union labor, or even union labor when available?
Talk is cheap.
Yep, the colon is right there connected to the rectum, but don't blame the colon for doing its job. Digesting just isn't its primary role in life, but you can count on it to massage and excrete the smelly stuff.
colonpowwow wrote on October 29, 2007 11:45 PM:DonnaG
Classy.
elrapierwit wrote on October 29, 2007 11:51 PM:http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/10/29/mcclurkin.speech.cnn
Here's the link to Edwards speech.
This speech was great!!!
go get her Edwards
Tell the world.
dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 11:56 PM:Just for a change of pace, please explain how Hillary's full time prostituting of herself to corporate interests and the wealthy serves regular citizens in this country. How does being beholden to corporate fat cats and the wealthy aid the citizens of the United States whose wages have been stagnant for the better part of 40 years as a result of the excessive influence of corporate interests. Try to address it like an adult instead of a spoiled brat grade schooler.
Very well, all I have to do is dig into one of the earlier threads for comments that I can re-post, showing that I had already deal with the substance of what was to be in Edwards' screed:
I suppose "Larry" is referring to the oft heard canard about Clinton being beholden to corporations and lobbyists. I seldom pay attention to this constant rant because I presume that it is just sour grapes, as I simply cannot find any credible evidence of corruption. They all take money in order to be able to compete and to get their message out. To infer a quid pro quo from this fixture of American politics requires stronger proof, and I have not seen any. Get mandatory public financing passed into law or provide evidence of corruption, otherwise give it a rest.
What we have here is the spectacle of Edwards and Obama narrowly defining "corporations" and "lobbyists" in a way that allows them to continue raking in dough from the very same entities that they claim Clinton is in bed with, while attacking her over it. Just as with anything she has done, Clinton has been open and upfront about her contributors to the extent that she knew anything about their fund-raising practices. Edwards and Obama, on the other hand, have split hairs in such a way that they appear, IMHO, rather hypocritical. Check out this WaPo Fact Checker, "Obama, Edwards, and the Lobbying Industry", and see what I mean. How do you spell "double standards"?...
This reminds me of one blogger's view on Clinton and "Character", expressed in a different but relevant context:
You may not agree with Clinton all the time, because I sure don't. But when she's asked to put her name on the line she shows up and does so, then is willing to take the heat. That is character.
That is my take on it. The message might be fine but Edwards as the messenger is as credible and genuine as his practiced movie star smile...
dcshungu wrote on October 30, 2007 12:45 AM:Obama, Edwards and the Lobbying Industry
A WaPo Fact Checker Piece
The Facts Exhibit A in the drive by both Obama and Edwards to "clean up" Washington is their refusal to accept "a dime" from "Washington lobbyists." It distinguishes them clearly from their chief Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who has raked in more than $500,000 from the lobbying industry this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (website is opensecrets.org) But it turns out that both Edwards and Obama have adopted a narrow definition of the word lobbyist, which raises questions about the effectiveness of their campaign. # They still take money from state lobbyists. # They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research. # They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists. # As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.) # They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry. So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.) Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions." Nor does refusing to accept money from federal lobbyists prevent the Obama and Edwards campaigns from accepting in-kind contributions from registered lobbyists in the form of volunteer work. See this Roll Call article. My colleague, Matt Mosk, recently reported that the Obama campaign is hiring a top lobbyist, Moses Mercado, as a senior adviser. Mercado's accounts with the Ogilvy Government Relations lobbyist group included Pfizer, United Health Group, and the Blackstone Group, which paid millions of dollars to Ogilvy to defeat proposals for doubling taxes paid by private equity managers. Mercado has said he will take a "leave of absence" from Ogilvy in order to work for Obama. In the meantime, the Obama campaign returned a $250 contribution from a small-time federal lobbyist named Gigi Sohn, who works for a non-profit organization called Public Knowledge that advocates digital consumer rights. Sohn has, however, been permitted to help the campaign as a volunteer. In an interview with Roll Call, Sohn described Obama's position on lobbyists as "absurd." She said that the loopholes in the anti-lobbyist campaign were "big enough to drive a truck through."Jan wrote on October 30, 2007 7:34 AM:A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBott, said that "neither Mercado, nor any registered federal lobbyist, is a staff member of the Obama campaign." He declined to say whether Mercado would join the campaign at at later date or is an unpaid adviser. He said that the ban on accepting money from federal lobbyists was not "a perfect solution to the problem [of money in politics], and it isn't even a perfect symbol, but it does reflect that Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."
A spokesman for Edwards, Eric Schultz, said that there was a "clear distinction" between refusing to take money from lobbyists and taking money from the people who employ them. "Either you lobby the federal government or you don't. Either you are paid to influence legislation and the people who write it or you're not. The line is clear and only murky for those who are trying to blur it."
Obama gets points for acknowledging that the line he is attempting to draw is a vague one, and that all presidential candidates are tainted by their frantic efforts to raise money. "The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water [as the other candidates]," he told reporters in Iowa, back in August. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."
Hillary Clinton only goes after the guy whose job she wants -- George W. Bush.
Clinton's opponents -- R and D -- go after her.
That's why she's the frontrunner, and they're stuck in the back of the pack.
John Edwards and Barack Obama sound no different from Rudy Giulani and Mitt Romney right now. Does Edwards even have it in him to go after Bush and Cheney? He's in the best position, as he's already run against them... but, yeah, they beat him badly -- Cheney especially.
Does Obama have it in him to go after Bush and Cheney? No, he's having to defend something that is NOT in the democrats' soul -- gay bashing.
Obama didn't do well in the debates, yet his supporters whine that it's the msm's fault his support is dropping? Maybe he should do better in tonight's debate.
I'll repeat that I'm an Independent, not a Democrat.
Where does the following kind of thinking come from...? Or is the reputation of Democrats so blatently true (that Democrats have zero idea how to work together as a TEAM)?
kjoe wrote on October 29, 2007 4:11 PM:
"If Hillary is not taken down, he [Edwards] will not have any chance at all. The simple fact is, the democrats need to be divided enough to find out where their soul is."
Did the Red Sox need to be "divided" to find out where their soul was? Do the Patriots win by "dividing" themselves to find out where their "soul" is?
I thought the "soul" of the Democratic Party was written into the Party's platform?
Here's the statement of fact:
If Hillary is not "taken down" Edwards will "not have any chance at all."
And here's the advice:
Divide the Democratic Party so "we" (including us Independents???) can all try to find out where in the hell the Democratic Party's "soul" is.
Gag.
