John Edwards shines

John has nailed it on the head! This man continues to gain my respect daily, and thus far, he has my vote.

He's the best!

I hope the fighting turns peoples heads to Edwards because the media is avoiding him like the plague!

They covered him on CNN much better than usual during and after the debates, but not much on the web sites. The bickering has to help him somewhat so let's hope South Carolina was watching last night. We need to get him some delegates.

Very Cool. I think he and Obama would make a good team.

Edwards is a good man with some great ideas however I feel that Clinton and Obama have the media in a frenzy and of course as a result have been ignoring him. I hope in the next few months Americans can here more from this man as I feel he'd make a good President.

Agreed, and from your lips . . .

It's time for Mr Edwards to take a bow and gracefully exit stage right.

why do you say that GunnarHeinrich?? You work for Fox Tv?

its about time that someone like Edwards has vocally articulated the current atmosphere of the campaign trail. it has taken me some time to narrow down the candidates that speak to me, it has been quite the challenge, esp. for a 23 year old college student, but that clip has definitely allowed me to see beyond the media's influence on the debates. my top three now would be Edwards, Obama, and believe it or not Stephen Colbert.

no thanks!

Edwards needs to stay the course.

Mr Edwards is the consummate manipulator.

He's done a splendid job of playing "poor me" at the debate.

Not a moment after he just finished saying that the race wasn't about individuals but people - he leads into " I have..."

As for the tiresome Clinton v. Obama spat - we can source a lot of that muck racking on the Clinton Team - after all they perfected it in the 1990s.

If there's a real hero in this political circus, it's Barack Obama.

If you bicker and fight about nonsense you don't have to explain your position on important issues. It looks like the media is going to try to continue to ignore John Edwards. We can't allow this. Let's see if we can't have a massive donation to allow him to buy TV time.

John Edwards, seems to be an magnificent person, however Edwards doesn't show alot of leadership. He has a very nice personable personality and accent and look that would make women and some men melt.

He seems to be on the fence on alot of issues and not really standing strong on most. For the debate last evening I think he was practically ignored due to the fact the Obama and Hiliary had the floor and it seems like America is more interested in the two front runner's more then Edward which chances seems pretty slim to win the nomination.

At the time of the last election, the War was already unpopular and the economy was slacking. A sock puppet should have been able to beat George Bush. Instead, the Democrats ran Kerry and the ambulance chasing Edwards and lost. Why John Edwards thinks he has a chance in hell is beyond me. The only thing that has kept him going is the money from other plaintiff's attorneys who want to make sure the "sue everyone for everything" mentality will continue. No one will be less missed than John Edwards once his shallow personality is gone from the scene (which it will be very soon: even the trial attorney money will dry up once they realize he's done for good.)

GunnarHeinrich: Indeed....and don't forget he's a multi-millionnaire (from junk science ambulance chasing legal cases), lives in a 15,000 sq ft home, gets $400 haircuts, has that GAWD-awful accent (ok, petty but still...as the leader of the free world?), puts his own ambitions before his wife's health (a wife who by the way has the Rolls Royce of Health Care plans)....and yet he's the "candidate for the working man?" Uh huh...and I have some swamp land for sale for ya in Florida.

GunnarHeinrich, Where do you get the "poor me?" I see it as feeling like poor we need someone on our side. Did you hear Obama give any answers to the questions on his positions? I didn't, he seemed to me to get sidetracked and failed to give any real answers. Not my idea of a hero. Clinton One and Two are for the status quo. It became obvious to me that her war votes were political, to show how strong she is on defense.

oh and I left out the questionable campaign contributions:
(from here http://www.realchange.org/edwards.htm)


Highly Suspicious Campaign Contributions
John Edwards, who is himself a lawyer, has received tons of campaign money from law firms. Nothing illegal or particularly wrong about that, however you may feel about lawyers.

But many of them show strong signs of being illegal contributions designed to evade limits on the amount of contributions, by having employees and spouses "contribute" money that a wealthy lawyer wanted to give. Other campaigns have used these practices; Bob Dole's national campaign co-chairman was convicted of the practice in 1996.

There are several cases described in "The Hill" (a magazine about Congress) where low-paid paralegals who had never contributed to campaigns before, and weren't registered to vote (or were even Republicans) gave the maximum $2,000 donation to Edwards. So did their spouse and several other people at the law firm where they work. Two had even filed bankruptcy recently.

We can't prove these people were helping their bosses give more than the $2,000 maximum. But, as Bill Allison of the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity said, ?It seems on the surface very suspicious. I think it is somewhat questionable that people who have never donated before would suddenly donate $2,000,? he said.

In one case there IS direct evidence that such an employee was illegally contributing for her boss. Michelle Abu-Halmeh, a legal assistant at Turner & Associates in Arkansas, told The Washington Post in April of 2003 that she expected to be reimbursed by her boss for her $2,000 contribution. The Department of Justice has begun a criminal investigation of the case.

BUT WAIT! There's MORE!


Sweetheart Real Estate Deal with Saudi Lobbyist
John Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose members have high security clearances, are privy to highly classified data and have been actively investigating links between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 terrorist attacks (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.)

Michael Petruzello is a lobbyist, registered foreign agent and the manager of Qorvis Communications. That firm was hired by Saudi Arabia on November 14, 2001 (just 2 months after 9-11) to counter criticism of the Arab kingdom.

On May 17, 2002, Petruzello offered to buy Edwards' Washington home -- which had been on the market for over a year -- for 3.52 million dollars. (Edwards paid 2.2 million for it in 1999.) The deal later fell through but Edwards still has the $100,000 deposit. He says he hasn't decided whether to keep it, and would only have to report the conflict of interest if he does so. The house eventually sold for $3 million, a full $500,000 less than the Saudi agent offered.

The Edwards claims he had no idea Petruzzello worked for the Saudis, but in the weeks before the offer Petruzzello visited Edwards home state of North Carolina with the Saudis as part of their publicity campaign, and he was widely quoted in Washington and national publications describing his work for the Saudis. His firm even ran pro-Saudi TV ads in 20 large markets including North Carolina (and other states from which Senate Intelligence Committee members came.)

Kent Cooper, the former head of the government's public disclosure office for federal candidates, said " The potential conflict of interest is readily apparent when a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence receives $100,000 in a real or sham business deal with a foreign agent or a person with extensive foreign contracts at teh same time the Senate is investigating possible lapses in national security."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Well, it didn't take long before the Republicans came out to attackJohn Edwards on this thread. Let's see: so far John Edwards is "evil" because he lives in a large home, has money, sued corporations that raped/harmed our fellows citizens and held them accountable for their crimes before a jury and -- ah yes -- he got an expensive haircut. Glad we're debating the pros and cons of his trade policies and healthcare plan! (FYI: do people realize that literally EVERY candidate for president is a millionaire and/or is or was a lawyer? No? Okay. Just reminding the Edwards-haters of that fact. None of these guys are collecting food stamps or have to take the bus to the debates).

crob80227 : I'm a registered Democrat....and wouldn't vote for Edwards if he was the only candidate on our ticket.

barkway, Please don't vote for him. He's particular about who he associates with.

Barkway -- Edwards went on at length in regards to his economic agenda for America. Specifically he discussed his plan for a National Predatory Lending Law as being needed because the state laws are insufficent and he discussed possibly assisting minority families in financial jeopardy by creating a "matching savings program" that would help create savings. Edwards also mentioned creating more financial learning and education assistance for minorities who seem to be (according to statistics) disproportionately sold subprime mortgages. An observation and then a question. My observation is that you totally ignored everything candidate Edwards said and instead remarked that you disliked him because he lives in a large house and got an expensive haircut. My question is do you disagree with Edwards discription of the financial jeopardy many Middle-Income Americans are facing and do you agree or disagree with any of candidate Edwards specific policy proposals to address those economic problems?

What an interesting game we play. why do we think the way we do? What causes us to form the feelings we so strongly urge others to feel? I like to take a step back. view the world through untainted observation. There is something wrong with all of them. when will we unite and support someone who is in it for the people. someone like kucinich. SOMEONE, find me some dirt on this guy. besides his young, tongue pierced wife. I know it's to late this time round, but please guys figure it out soon.

futurist, John Edwards has all the money he needs for the rest of his life. Why do you think he is in this? Because he wants to help people. He knows where he came from and that without hard work and help he wouldn't be where he is. He sincerely wants everyone to have the opportunities he had. He wants people to have jobs. I also wants those jobs to pay a fair wage. He doesn't want to see all our manufacturers move overseas. He wants a clean safe environment. He wants for us what we want for ourselves. Security.

I dont dissagree M, but can the same argument be made for them all? There is a stubborness in each of us that must be addressed. we all have something to say and we all stick to our guns. and if we agree to disagree, then we agree that this form of government doesnt work.

Getting back to Edwards specifically, it seems there is a kind of knee-jerk dislike of him that Bill Clinton experienced. During the Clinton years people wouldn't really argue the merits of NAFTA or any specific program he advocated -- they kept saying he was just a "liar." They would talk about how he personally killed Vince Foster and that was involved with Arkansas state troopers in some elaborate drug cartel and so forth and so on. As Edwards himself pointed out so eloquently in the clip of the debate (beginning at 45sec) -- "This is not about us personally. This is about what we are trying to do with this country." And then he went back to the issue of fiscal responsibility. So true. This isn't about haircuts or skin color. This is about specific policy. Not voting for someone because you don't agree with the majority of the policies is understandable. Not voting for someone because they have an accent or live in a big house? Hmmm.

Yes, crob, this is the same rhetoric we saw in the debate last night, and it solves nothing and isn't even worth being addressed. And there are things about John Edwards's stands on some issues I don't share. I don't think there is anyone I have ever entirely agreed with all the time... not even Al Gore while supporting him the last twenty years... however, the point of this is the FUTURE and the policies of the candidates for the FUTURE to get us back on track. I like his climate change platform and the fact he is against nuclear and liquid coal (which really proves he is against Washington lobbyists) though I do disagree about corn ethanol... But at least he is looking to move to cellulosic ethanol. I am against the death penalty, he is recorded as being for it, but he did fight against mandatory minimums for first time non violent offenders which I am for doing as well. He is pro-choice and supports the gay community unlike some "endorsers" of Barack Obama. His stance on eliminating poverty is the best, and I also like his economic stimulus plan that looks to green the economy to give us long term relief instead of a quick fix that will really fix nothing, and the fact that he has a plan whereby young people could attend their first year of college for free at a State university if they agree to work ten hours a week. His policies are specifically geared to uplifting the very groups who have been screwed over by the rich,( which includes his Predatory Lending Bill that I support) so I suppose some would take offense to that if they believe it threatens them. Probably why some don't want that discussion because it makes their candidate's policies not look so good, so they dwell on the past. That was the one thing about this debate regarding Obama I didn't like. He obfuscated way too much when it came to explaining where he was going to get the money to pay for his plans, which he never did divulge. Instead, he always go off into grandiose speechmaking instead of just answering the question. Not something I appreciate in any candidate regardless of their race or gender. I do know this however from my own research: John Edwards has been a great advocate for ending poverty for much of his life, and I for one appreciate that.

poor Edwards, he's like the "Jan" of the group, and Clinton & Obama are the "Marsha"s. Really, I think they are all very similiar in their stances and would make good presidents. No one candidate is perfect and has the secret to making this country solve all it's problems. I just really hope one of them wins the white house and not another republican.

Edwards beats McCain in the polls. Clinton and Obama don't. Looks like we are going to get either Edwards or McCain?

Edwards is really a lot different than Obama or Clinton. I believe he is our last best hope to have any left left. Clinton set back real health care reform at least 16 years (and will do so for another eight if elected), backed NAFTA, the conglomeration of our media and bombing away. Obama set back real health care reform here in Illinois (and will do so again if elected President), is extremely weak on protecting both Social Security and Medicare, talks a great talk (not Invading Iraq) but walks a very crooked walk (voting repeatedly to provide funding plus refusing to support immediate removal of our troops). Obama and Clinton are corporate controlled. Edwards is not.

I hope that he is voted into office. He seems like the only one who has any common sense and hasn't used any personal attacks to get the upper hand in the debate. I just hope that, if he's voted into office, he actually carries through with some of the things he touched on.

Watch the video again. This time watch Obama. Tell me if you see an angry man? Even Clinton laughs at the funny parts.

John Edwards has my vote. To me he is the candidate with the best ideas.

im all for Obama but Edwards really really gained much respect from me. he killed in the debate. The media will never focus on him though!!!!

John Edwards can beat the Republicans. Neither Obama nor Clinton can. I am a Republican and support Edwards. This bickering just gives more fodder or the other party. For shame.