Edwards Ad: "What Happened To The Democratic Party?"

Comments (13)

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:58 PM:

After last night, might be the answer

Edwards for President wrote on January 22, 2008 1:00 PM:

Right on.
Follow the money. Not just the campaign contribution, but the money advertisers give to CNN,NBC, FOX, and NYT.
Do you think a commercial for Boeing is trying to sell us a plane? They are influencing editorial policy and coverage. Too much talk of peace, or balanced budgets, and they will take their [previously our] money elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 1:10 PM:

Good question.

Eric wrote on January 22, 2008 1:20 PM:

Dude, that party hasn't been around for years and years. We've had Republican presidents since 1980 and essentially no party leadership of anybody people genuinely liked for very long.

Whit wrote on January 22, 2008 1:47 PM:

There's a notion Edwards promoted that the trial lawyers who are his financial mainstay are just good people who "look out for the little guy." That depends on an ignorance of the proportion of the large class-action suits (e.g. aesbestos) in which it's come out that the principal attorneys fabricated much of their evidence, in conjunction with crooked physicians. This isn't to say that trial lawyers have worse ethics than corporate officials; rather that they both come from the same ethical pool, with some really nasty cases on both sides.

So an Edwards victory would mean the honest trial lawyers would gain more ability to do good, and that the scheming ones would gain more latitude to do bad. That bad would include, as in the past, bankrupting major corporations, with loss of jobs and pensions for their hourly workers, even when the remedy is all out of proportion to any bad behavior. Even when many of the "victims" are out-and-out frauds.

Too bad Obama can't call him on this, what with attorneys being crucial to his funding too. Too bad the good attorneys won't disown the fraudulent ones.

alex wrote on January 22, 2008 1:48 PM:

*cough* Hedge Funds *cough*

gtash wrote on January 22, 2008 2:23 PM:

I think Whit is indulging in fantasy here.
It's the Reagan scare tactics of the 1980's re-written for modern tastes. It sounds very tactful to suggest lawyers are scum and intend to hurt everybody, individuals and corporations alike---but the failure of the logic is no alternative is proposed. If no trial lawyers are around, good or bad, to work with the little guys--then who's left standing?

Obama claims to be a Constitutional scholar in law. Maybe he sould call John his trial lawyer experience. I be interested in his Constitutional views on the role of trial law. If you think he'd suddenly become a free-market economist, I remind you he himself admits he'd be a terrible COO.

jeanruss wrote on January 22, 2008 2:53 PM:

If Edwards wasn't in the race no one would be talking about anything relating to the little guy. If he hadn't been in the debate it would have been a juvenile spat. It is very obvious who has done the work to help America pull out of this disaster this President and Congress(both sides) have gotten us into. He has specific details and plans. I know they might not all come to fruition, but at least his thinking is in the right direction. Martin Luther King III's letter to him was beautiful and pointed. Edwards has his support because he is for economic justice. I don't care where he's been, I care about where he's going, and it is definitely the right direction.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 4:14 PM:

JRE has balls asking what happened to the Democratic party. He and the other DLCers pretty much eviscerated it.

Here's a debate America needs to have: John Edwards 2008 Presidential Candidate versus Senator John Edwards 1999-2005.

Is there some reason for Democrats to take JRE's conversion to liberalism any more seriously than Mitt Romney's conversion to conservatism?

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 4:56 PM:

Whatever happened to the Democratic party?!?

I remember days when they would NEVER allow a woman or a black man to run for president. What has gotten into them?

Cough, cough, cough, cough, what I really meant to say is . . . something about money from corporate lobbyists and something else.

[Cut to crowd of disillusioned white folks. More white folks. And bring it down the homestretch with Edwards and a black man.]

Remember the good ole days folks?

colonpowwow wrote on January 22, 2008 4:58 PM:

Now, I know that John Edwards only takes campaign donations from dewy-eyed children who break open their piggybanks and send the coins to him so that he can help them realize their mill-workin' American Dream.

But, what's that $167,000 contribution from Fortress Investments (corporate and individuals) all about?

And isn't Fortress Investments one of those Big Corporations (BOO!) that hire K-Street lobbyists? As a matter of fact, don't labor unions and schoolteachers hire lobbyists?

It's not lobbyists that are bad - it's corruption (a felony BTW), that's bad (see Duke Cunningham).

So, is Saint Edwards implying through his well-parsed ads that Hillary is somehow corrupt?

If so, call the AG. If not, what's the damn point whether or not she gets money from different Big Corporations (BOO!) than Edwards does?

Just wondering.

Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 6:33 PM:

This is a very misleading holier-than-thou ad when directed at Obama.

Hillary takes money from federal lobbyists and PACs. She should not do so.

But just like Obama and Clinton, Edwards also takes money from people who work at any of the pharmaceutical companies or biotech drug companies, a sector that employs tons of people, many of whom are probably just as mad as the rest of us about drug prices. So all the ad is really pointing out is how much more successful other candidates have been in fundraising than he has.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 23, 2008 11:44 AM:

Yo! colonpowwow RE: Fortress Investments

Folk who actually worked WITH and KNOW the guy contributed cash to Edward's campaign . . . Please answer how getting green spluge on one's dress while giving a crap load of corporate hand jobs to the tune of $100,000,000 is not a crap load more shitty.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)