Edwards opened up a huge can of Republican attack worms against him

[Tom Rinaldo]

And I don't just mean because he came out against the "Status Quo". There's always that, he was right about that, and I support and admire courage in the face of that. No, I'm talking about providing ready made ammunition to his enemies to attack him with, again. How many times did Edwards say that "It's Personal" regarding his stance on economic issues? How many times did he shift the emphasis away from exploring his actual policy positions onto instead his personal motivation to fight for economic justice? He made it about him, he made it about a personal history of personally fighting for economic fairness. He made it about why he and only he cared deeply enough about fighting for common Americans to make change happen, and he did that by repeatedly emphasizing that "It's personal" for him, so we should trust him to have the strength to do what is needed; because it is very personal to him.

That is virtually a free pass for Republicans to focus on what they will allege to be personal hypocrisy on Edward's part: Opening his campaign in New Orleans and then making hundreds of thousands of dollars from the hedge fund he worked for which foreclosed on hundreds of poor and working New Orleans home owners. Clear cutting acres to do fresh construction of a huge multi-million dollar housing complex. Charging over $20,000 to give a speech on poverty and then taking public financing for his campaign rather than put his own fortune at risk. The hair cut, the millions he just so happened to make while fighting those greedy corporations as a trial lawyer.

Edwards just made the personal political in his campaign. He invited it, he trumpeted it. He set himself off from the rest of the field by stressing his personal motivation and priority in life to fight for the interests of the middle class and poor. It's personal to John Edwards he says, that's why we should believe him when he says he will make the hard choices and pay the price necessary to fight for those who are economically disadvantaged.

Suddenly the comparisons to JFK and FDR having personal wealth also but fighting for poorer people lost a lot of potency. Those men inherited their wealth. Unlike Edwards, they did not come by their multi-millions because of the personal choices they made in life, and they never campaigned on the personal dimension of their commitment to economic justice. Edwards fought against huge corporations and Willie Sutton took money from banks. Willie said "That's where the money is" and any trial lawyer will tell you that the largest settlements come when you litigate against the deepest pockets. In America today that means corporations. Lawyers work on commissions and Edwards made millions fighting against those deep pocket corporations.

Edwards did nothing wrong in so doing. He helped his clients greatly, and no doubt he took deep satisfaction from winning those settlements for his deserving clients along with the large commissions they earned him. But I can see the Republican attack line that will be used against Edwards coming from ten miles away, and by stressing that poverty is so "personal" to him, Edwards essentially just gave up his political miranda rights. He just issued an invitation for them to search his personal premises.

[msongs]

1. or not nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Well, since we're STILL in the primaries I doubt we have to concern ourselves with the Repukes yet

There certainly will be plenty of time for that!!! And GOD they're SLIMY freaks!

[HeraldSquare212]

3. lack of judgement

He set himself up for this by working for a hedge fund and taking money (or knowing that a related 527 was taking money, sorry) from the heir of a robber baron. It just shows a failure to understand campaigning. The Reps could repeat those facts endlessly in commercials and it would be enough to shut him down.

[Jim Sagle]

14. Hogwash.

[Cleita]

4. Whatever they try to do to him, it will only make

him stronger in going up against them. I'd rather this than some scandalous revelations about his past personal pecadilloes.

[sjdnb]

5. And showing themselves for the scumbags they are?

Go JE!!! You're the only one out there willing to fight for the average American.

Let them 'bring it on', it will be exposed for the sleaze it is.

[lisainmilo]

7. exactly!

[kurth]

6. You don't have to have cancer to wage a "personal" fight against cancer

You don't have to be poor to wage a "personal" fight against poverty.

[sjdnb]

12. No, but having experienced suffering - no matter the circumstances

Does provide knowledge that someone who's never gone through similar situations (i.e., poverty, homelessness, health care struggles, struggling to find money to send your kids to college while contributing to your retirement, etc.) will never be able to empathize with as well.

[K Gardner]

8. Go John Go !!! Glad you appreciate the work he did for the little people !

[cali]

36. "the little people". God, how I hate that phrase! nt

[terisan]

9. I will take a rich man who is for me over a rich man who is not for me any day.

I champion Warren Buffet for the same reason.

[terisan]

10. What would you want that hairdresser to get paid? An independent contractor who has to pay his own

social security, taxes, materials, supplies, possibly travel expenses to accomodate a candidate's schedule.

It is not what Edward's spent that bothers them. It is what the haurdresser earned that bothered them.
Compare it to the cost of one Halliburton contractor in Iraq, or one days salary for that CEO who denied the girl's liver transplant.

If we can't deal with the garbage accusations of Republicans we deserve to lose.

[sojourner]

29. right on!

[Truth2Tell]

11. Nonsense.

Watch some of the YouTube testimonials by Edwards former clients. If you don't end up with a hanky in hand I'd be surprised.

If Edwards makes it to the GE, he'll take all this "rich trial lawyer" crap head on and crush it.

The Edwards camp can also see this line of attack coming from miles away - it's not just you. But I get a strong sense that they are ready for it- that they relish it. One might even call it a well laid trap.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I believe Edwards will fight for the poor

I know that Republicans will come after any Democrat and use whatever hammer they find handy to do so. Every Democrat can be attacked from some angle, even if they make no misteps at all. I just think this latest campaign emphasis, if Edwards keeps strongly stressing how "personal" it all is to him, happens to make it easier for them.

[sojourner]

32. he can not, no candidate can, avoid being "vulnerable" - he's appealing to US by letting us know

he has the fire in his belly and he will absolutely NOT GIVE UP THE FIGHT. if sending that message also attracts republican attacks - well, that is the price of running a fearless campaign (and it's about damn time someone did).

[Jim Sagle]

13. Thank you for your concern.

[OHdem10]

15. I think we might be happier and more effective if we stopped

being overly concerned about the GOP. The American People have
their number. Have enough confidence as JE does to say what you
mean and mean what you say. Expect the GOP to come after you.

Most people now have reached a point they do not even listen--it is
just politics they tell themselves.

Honey, they searched his personal life when he ran for VP. They
search your personal life as soon as you say you are running.

I will be willing to be very few people have not had their personal
lives searched.

The Democratic Party has been losing by always being so controlled
and cautious. Leaders take risks. You risk having your personal
life searched if something is important enough.

As soon as Clinton (Bill) announced he was running back in 91.
RMelon Scaiffe put a huge chunk of money--Professional Investigators
and political types were employed and assigned to research in Arkansaa.

You cannot let it paralyze you. If they put out an ad, you have
to be smart enough to guage whether it will hurt. If necessary
go up with response and go on TV immediately to explain your side.

[patrice]

16. Horse-puckey! You think they haven't already taken the attack to him personally?

You think they wouldn't if he had never said that?

:rofl:

[burythehatchet]

18. Which campaign are you with?

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Which one are you with? Or are you just asking who I am now supporting?

I'm not "with" any campaign. I'm now supporting Clinton, but not without reservations. I can list three Democrats who thought about running who didn't who I would have supported instead of her, and I wavored between her and Biden from the recent full field of candidates. But I am comfortable backing her from the current set of choices. I think any of our candidates will make good Presidents and I will not only vote for but work for any of them in the General Election.

[murielm99]

19. I thought he was preempting all that by saying what he did.

They can call his actions into question, but he is not doing what he does for any of the usual reasons. He is doing it because of what he feels inside, because it is personal.

I am not an Edwards supporter, but I think he did a great job tonight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I agree with your bottom line

It didn't strike me as a possible problem the first time Edwards made an elequent reference to his personal convictions. But when he repeatedly referenced that, virtually saying that he differed from all the other Democrats on that stage in TRULY caring about fighting poverty BECAUSE of his personal life story, a yellow light started blinking for me. Once for me was spontaneous and effective. The passionate aspect of his comments was positive to my ear. It's the repeated reference to his own life experience setting him apart from other Democratic candidates in how deeply he cared that started getting to me.

I hope Edwards keeps that passion in his campaign, but does not continue to emphasize how his concern is so uniquely "personal" to him, for the reasons I stated.

[pauldg0]

21. I disagree....

with your assumtion.

EDWARDS 08

[maximusveritas]

22. I didn't think about that

You may be right, but I think they'd attack him with that no matter what. This will probably fade from memory soon.

[countmyvote4real]

24. America doesn't pay attention.

Hell, even I was split between reruns (that I have not seen) of ANTM and the ABC NH debates. Edwards is my first choice. Obama will be a disgruntled choice that doesn't expect anything to happen. I don’t expect anything less from an Obama presidency. He will be blamed for not turning around the failure of the current GOP policies.

This is the position that all of our Democratic candidates will inherit. I’m just saying that some are better equipped than others to make it last.

My primary vote is still for Edwards.

[JDPriestly]

25. Edwards became wealthy by helping people who had no voice

receive what was due them. He is using his wealthy position as a springboard to help our nation. Saving the middle class is personal for Edwards. The Republicans can criticize him on this issue all they wish. They are all rich anyway. Virtually all of our presidents have to be wealthy.

You sound like yet another trial lawyer hater. Let me tell you, if your house gets blown away by a hurricane and the insurance company refuses to pay, if you have a car accident and the insurance company offers you a pittance for damages, if you buy a house and discover that the seller lied about the condition of the house, sooner or later very likely in your life, you just may need a trial lawyer. You have no idea how hard a trial lawyer like John Edwards works for his living.

Quite a few people noticed how much more energetic Edwards seemed than the other debaters tonight. He is used to working non-stop and keeping his head. He has trained his mind and body for endurance and it shows.

Of course, the Republicans will attack Edwards as a person. And it will backfire because people who vote for Edwards like him. His negatives are very low, and people will be angry at those who criticize him. Edwards' parents are right there with him, and they are clearly very ordinary middle class working Americans. Anybody who tries to make Edwards look like a phony will have to explain Edwards' parents away. Can't be done. Edwards is out front about his whole life.

I would be more concerned about Obama's private family life and varied career. I suspect there is a lot of fodder for the right-wingers that has not been brought out yet.

Remember, Edwards has already gone through a Senate campaign in N.C. (not an easy thing) and a presidential campaign (as vice presidential candidate). The Repubs know better than to pick on Edwards because he is very fair and honest about himself. He can laugh at his hair and his vanity and his haircut. It is so much water off his back. He just always brings the conversation back to the issues and what he will do for the country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. "You sound like yet another trial lawyer hater". No

I no more hate trial lawyers who make a lot of money doing what they do than I hate brain surgeons or large non-profit CEO's, or high profile politicians who get invited onto lucrative Corporate boards, who all make a lot of money doing what they do. If you sense a tinge of ambivelence in the comment I just made here, OK, I accept that, but I do not single out John Edwards and trial lawyers in that regard at all.

Al Gore probably helped spread the use of technologies benefitial to humanity by serving on Apple's Board. He also got very rich doing so AND I happen to admire Al Gore greatly regardless of my ambivelence about the obscene spread between how the richest and poorest Americans are compensated for their life's work. We live in a culture that acknoledges no shame in any individual accumulating an infinite degree of personal wealth while others are left to starve. I am uncomfortable with that reality but I accept that it is a pervasive reality. I am also a vegetarian and I would prefer it if no one ate meat, but I hold meat eating against no one and cheerfully dine along side very close friends while they are scarfing down a steak. It all is what it is.

I fully accept that John Edwards accomplished an important social good on behalf of Americans who lack justice through his work as a trial lawyer. I will defend him for that now or later, whether or not he becomes our nominee. And I agree with you that he is a formidable human being who knows what political attacks will come his way, and who will fight back hard against them when they do. That doesn't negate my concern about the downside of aspects of the political tact that he took in this debate, as I have already expressed above. When political problems can be anticipated and mitigated against without compromising core principles or being untrue to oneself, it makes sense to use common sense caution rather than add fuel to potential political problems. That was my point.

If I have any beef (vegetarian pun intended) with Edwards over his comments about fighting corporations as a trial lawyer, it was not with his citing that as a positive contribution to furthering justice in America, or using that to show that he knows how to fight against entrenched special interests. All of that was absolutely appropriate in my opinion. My "beef" is in the pretty overt implication he made that his career path showed a greater committment to fighting against the status quo than Hillary Clinton's (and by extension career politicians also). His path was honorable in that regard, I grant that fully, but so was Bill Richardson's, and so was Hillary Clinton's. John Edwards got very rich in the 1980's while pursuing his work, much more so than do most career politicians. Hillary Clinton was a lawyer also, one who worked for non profits fighting for the rights and welfare of children in America, and they are about as powerless a group of people when it comes to defending themselves against injustice as any demographic group in America.

[JDPriestly]

52. Hillary was not a career politician.

She was a career corporate lawyer from 1977 to approximately 1992. Granted she did pro bono work while in that capacity. Working fewer hours than her partners at that firm, however, she was at the end of her career still paid $200,000 a year. That was not a huge amount for a partner at such a law firm even at that time. But considering she was not carrying her full load because of her other activities, she was not badly paid -- especially in and for Arkansas. Her public service career did not begin until she entered the Senate after Bill left the White House. Her public service career is just about as long as Edwards'. Edwards fought corporations. Hillary worked for them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I consider her efforts on behalf of Families and youth to qualify as public service

And I am not limiting that to her pro bono cases, I include the positions Clinton held with organizations promoting that cause also. Clinton also was substantively involved in Arkansas political task forces on specific public service issues. Her early career is well documented over at Wikipedia. I am including unpaid work as part of her public service career, but one could also go back and include her time as a legal counsel for a congressional committee involved in the Nixon impeachment also.

Agreed that she wasn't a career politician, in the sense of running for and holding elected offices prior to her first term in the Senate. But she was long involved in public service work akin to Obama being able to claim his community organizing days experience as public service - and I grant him that as well. By your seeming standard I have no public service career at all since I have never held elected office. But I have paid and unpaid work experience in community organizing, I have started and managed non-profit human service organizations - including a major effort to reach and help homeless youth in San Francisco, I worked extensively at the line service and management levels in community mental health, and I have been a grass roots political organizer since 1968. So none of that counts as public service? I think Bobby Kennedy's days of being JFK's closest advisor prior to him Attorney General appointment count as relevent political experience for him also. Community service does not begin and end with a salary and appropriate job title, and certainly not only an elected position.

Up thread you might notice that I said it was appropriate in my mind for John Edwards to claim his experience opposing entrenched special interests as a trial lawyer to be relevent in considering his ability to be President.

[amandabeech]

43. I couldn't have said it better. n/t

[Armstead]

27. I think it strengthened him

I liked his line "It's personal" because I think it does reinforce a committment. It SHOULD BE PERSONAL to be dedicated to a basic principle.

To me, that also connects the dots between his statements and his actions over the years.

A smart lawyer like Edwards could have made big bucks in any field. He could have taken a safer route to big bucks by joining the legal staff of a Corporation or a Corporate law firm. He could probably have made even bigger bucks that way without the uncertainty of having to depend on winning cases instead of wasting time and money on losses.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. It does strengthen him among core Democrats, absolutely

And it strengthens him among those who are currently disposed to trust John Edwards, and that includes tens of millions of voters. Anything that helps communicate to ordinary Americans one's personal deep committment to fighting on their behalf helps a political figure win support from ordinary Americans. His performance last night I believe was a plus for Edwards in the primaries. I do not discount Edward's sincerity because he received substantial compensation for his work. Like I wrote above, Al Gore was my strong second choice (behind Clark) to be President and Gore got multi millions as a result of joining Apple's Board of Directors when he did. That does not make him suspect in my mind (and Clark is out there making money for himself now also, I know that too).

I don't want to belabor my main point beyond all the words I already wrote in my OP. It is about a tactical consideration in anticipation of the General Election in which Edwards hopes to be our candidate for President. If he has any confidence that he can win the nomination than he needs to anticipate how his comments now will effect the election in November also, not just how they play to a Democratic primary crowd in New Hampshire today.

[Ninga]

28. A bit overreaching and re-framing.

[ElboRuum]

30. Why worry about Republican attacks?

Worrying about Republican attacks is like worrying that the sun will come up in the morning. No sense worrying about what WILL happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Why? To better prepare to win elections.

Of course Republican attacks will come, they always come. I konw the point that John Kerry was trying to make when he said "Actually I voted for that bill before I voted against it". It was a valid point about the Democratic version vs the Republican version, how both versions supported the troops as opposed to the lies that Republicans were peddling about how Kerry voted against our troops. Kerry was setting the record straight, or at least that was what he intended, but instead he handed Republicans a perfect weapon to beat him over the head with worse than the way they had been beating him up prior to that comment. Do you doubt for an instant that Kerry wishs he had better anticipated the fall out from that comment prior to uttering it?

[ElboRuum]

57. What I think is the slippery slope here...

...is the belief that one can be fully prepared in every case as to what the attacks will be, presumably to have that stinging quoteworthy retort ready. I guess it goes back to the idea that elections have become popularity contests in the truest sense, and it is the one who can perform a little verbal jujitsu who usually end up capturing the vote of the politically disinterested. No candidate will be immune to attack, after all, they are all politicians, and every one of them is guilty of some level of political expediency. What gets on my nerves is this idea that the person with the quickest and most glib response will be the one who will be perceived to win an argument. What I think Kerry wishes is that he was more able to speak extemporaneously to greater effect. It is a quality he lacked and to which his opponents exploited to great effect.

We have to keep in mind that it is the nature of modern politics to focus on one's opponent's negatives rather than one's own positives. All of the candidates have to keep in mind that not only will their record be on trial, but that the cross examiners will try to make it appear as though not only is their record poor, but that they're trying to hide it from them.

I think this is what makes it hard for Senators to 'graduate' to the Presidency. They all have their political expediencies on public record. Moreover, members of our legislature are called upon to make deals just to get whatever legislation they author passed. Think about it, who was the last Senator to be elected President? Recent history suggests that state Governors have a much better shot at the highest office in the land, and I believe that to be because their positions can be unitary, without a whole lot of discussion and cooperation. 20% of the people in this country believe that our current sitting President is doing a good job, and the only explanation I can find for this is that the President must simply appeal to the person for that loyalty. Their particular positions are immaterial, because you can always find someone who agrees with a position, no matter how outlandish that position is.

Getting off the point a little, so let me just make it. Right now, the candidates are playing in the friendliest sandbox they are going to find along the campaign trail. You can bet that once the nominations are made, the road is going to get a whole lot rockier. Do you have any reason to think that Kerry could have prepared for his Swift Boating? Assailing the one aspect of his character which, in my mind, would have been beyond cynical reproach was unexpected, so how do you prepare for that? The point is that modern politics doesn't even need proof to damage, and so long as the numbers come out in your favor when the dust clears, everything's a go, the concept of fairness is essentially tossed, and anything is fair game, even the stuff your opponents can make up.

The only thing you can do is stay on message, answer your critics with confidence and conviction, and just have the presence of mind to give yourself a few seconds to think about how your words are going to sound to a person who wants to believe that you aren't the right person for the job.

[patrice]

58. Absolutely Right!!

This IS part of our problem: our representatives dancing around trying to avoid becoming targets while they "stand-up" :sarcasm: for us. We need someone brave enough to take the hits for what MUST be said.

[DaLittle Kitty]

34. Let 'em Come After Him... Edwards will Eat 'em alive!

:)

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Good! And I'll help him if he's our nominee :)

[cali]

39. I've long said the same thing you said in your OP, Tom- though not

so well or in such a non-inflammatory way, but you got the same reception I did. The denial of the Edwardians on this thread is astounding. The ads against Edwards write themselves. And they would be devastating should he be the nominee. Thankfully, that's very, very unlikely.

[balantz]

37. They'll find a couple of trinkets to play with and it will play out.

Honestly, the repukes won't have much to tarnish Edwards, and after they spit he will come after them like a tiger on steroids.

[OneGrassRoot]

38. One of his consistent messages (which I don't believe I've heard other candidates say)...

is that he and Elizabeth have done VERY well for themselves.

He acknowledges up front that they are extremely wealthy, doesn't try to shy away from it.

He then says he wants other Americans to have the chance to do very well...the American Dream has fallen by the wayside in the last few decades. He wants to enable others to do just as well as he and Elizabeth.

As someone said upthread, I'd rather have a rich person fighting for me than a rich person who is fighting against me...or ignoring me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Yes, and that is both an honest and politically astute stance to take

That does show the type of anticipatory positive framing of a matter that an opponent might hope to use against him. I agree with his approach there. This is a good example of doing it right. And of course I agree with your bottom line.

[balantz]

40. People polled nationally seem to like his message more and more.

Today Rasmussen has him polling nationally at 23% up from 20% yesterday and up from months floating in the teens. Obama is 25% and Clinton is 36%. People across the nation are still interested in Edwards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. I agree. People like his passion for the economically disadvantaged

I have always praised Edwards for fighting to make this a national issue that does not get swept under the rug. But no Democrat in his right mind is going to go into full force head on attack mode against Edward's sincerity regarding it now, and Republicans are still mostly holding their fire against Democrats. Aside from some sniping on message boards like this that seldom reach the general public attacks alleging a Democrat's personal hypocrisy are below the radar for now. No one is really challenging Edwards message now and I hope no Democrat does, it is a good message. Actually Kucinich is coming closest right now to challenging Edwards on his real commitment, which could be because they both are in the hunt for the same profile primary voters.

[mzmolly]

41. I'm an Edwards supporter, but your point is a valid one.

:shrug: However, every candidate is going to be attacked for something, though it's good to be prepared.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. John just has to stay away from sounding "Holier than thou" on this

Like I said up thread, I agree that his open admission that he has been blessed financially and wants others to have the same opportunity is spot perfect in his circumstance. But proclaiming to care more deeply about the poor than other Democrats because of his personal life circumstances wanders into dangerous waters.

[OneGrassRoot]

46. I'm a little hesitant to go here, but I believe it may be pertinent

I've been flamed (though gently) before about this issue.

While John may not be coming out and saying it - knowing he'd be setting himself up for people accusing him of trying to get a sympathy vote - I believe part of his "it's personal" message has to do with the loss of their son, Wade.

One of the first things he and Elizabeth did after Wade's death was open a computer lab for lower-income children in Raleigh.

I'm not saying his passing made them choose a path they weren't already on, but I believe they wholeheartedly, undoubtedly committed to that path upon his passing. They have both spoken of the fact that that's how they dealt with the loss. Some people give up, some continue (outwardly) unchanged, others commit to a path in order to honor a loved one's memory. I have no judgment about anyone's choice after such a loss, I'm simply saying John and Elizabeth became very clear as to how they chose to honor Wade's memory and indeed all of their children. They committed even more than usual to helping others in the way they felt they could be most effective.

They are not perfect and John has stumbled along this path, just as we all stumble. But the overriding message and goal has remained intact, in my humble opinion, and how to achieve that goal has been a learning process.

So, in getting back to your concern that his "personal" message could open a can of worms and invite attacks of hypocrisy - and I absolutely hear you -I would encourage people to consider one of the underlying motives of his candidacy is to honor their son.

Joe Biden suffered great personal loss and I believe that led to his commitment to a life of service, and I honor that tremendously.

Neither of them want to speak of it too much for probably many reasons, not the least of which is that naysayers are apt to say, "Oh, boo-hoo...do you want us to feel sorry for you? You've made this mistake and that mistake and lied about this and that. You're just trying to get a sympathy vote."

I certainly don't believe people should support persons solely because of personal challenges and losses they've encountered. I do believe it is something to keep in the back of one's mind when considering their personal character.

That said, John is going to have to face the Fortress issue much more head on and much more clearly before Republicans start attacking that issue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I really appreciate this post

I am prepared to believe that, and as you note, it is very delicate to discuss head on how the loss of their son shifted their life priorities. Maybe it is time for them to connect those dots more for voters, or maybe not. Al Gore faced that with his sister (I think that is right) dying from lung cancer in a family that grew tobacco. Personal family loss is an issue that Joe Biden has been very guarded in discussing also. Of course these things have a powerful effect on caring and sensitive human beings.

But if John Edwards chooses to keeps reciting how personal his concern for the poor is but mostly only references his parents and his never quite poor early childhood, and/or his deserving clients who he earned very good money to fight on behalf of as examples, then he risks being intentionally misunderstood.

Thanks for a thoughtful post.

[mzmolly]

50. I agree. And, if he states that the Republican Party embraces wealth unless

it's a Democrat who has it, he might score a point or two? ;)

[KoKo]

51. Yes...it will be a "bloodbath" with "eyeballs rolling" until Last Man/Woman is Standing....

and Huckabee wins because our DEMS NEVER ADDRESSED VOTER FRAUD. Maybe they can use it to their ADVANTAGE...who knows?

BUT...OUR DEMS ...NEVER ADDRESSED VOTER FRAUD ...except for a few courageous folks like Russ Holt and Conyers Basement hearings. But, in retrospect...it was all SMOKE AND MIRRORS...and NOTHING EVER CAME OF IT.

Sad.......

[mzmolly]

53. Yes and 'progressives' killed the Holt bill.

However, there has been progress ...

What a difference two years makes.

Today, 27 states — including such large ones as California, New York, Illinois and Ohio — require electronic voting machines to produce a voter-verified paper trail. There is paper-trail legislation pending in a dozen more states.

And with the Democrats now in control, Congress appears poised to pass a strong federal law requiring electronic voting machines to produce paper records.

It is, of course, far too soon to celebrate the reform of our election system. Every election brings a flurry of disturbing stories about things going wrong at the polls, many of them involving electronic voting. In this year’s midterm elections, the big news was the widespread reports of “vote flipping.”

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/

[KoKo]

55. Yes...Progressives ATE EACH OTHER on this one...Purists vs. Pragmatists...

so nothing got done.

[mzmolly]

56. Yes, isn't it sad?

It's a shame we don't better anayize the word progressive before embracing the label. ;)

[Hieronymus]

47. Wow, you have lots of hate for Edwards, huh?

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Nope. n/t

[Orangepeel]

59. like Republicans need a "free pass"

The republicans are going to do what they are going to do... everything possible to slime our nominee and supress the vote, regardless of who our nominee is our what he/she says.

It's pointless to base a primary vote on that.

I'm going to vote for who *I* want and who *I* think will connect to voters better.

[Catchawave]

60. You think they're aren't stockpiling mud against

Hillary and Obama? It will be a bloodbath.

Republicans can't run attacks on hypocrisy. Otherwise, why didn't Cheney give his Halliburton bonuses to the troops, or GWB give his share of selling the Rangers so the team could keep Sammy Sosa?

Tom, look up his Senate campaign against a wildly popular incumbent Sen. Faircloth in a deeply red state. The trial lawyer attacks backfired, they won't go there again. I promise.