Edwards has gone up against the huge resources of corporate interests before --AND WON!!

[Blackhatjack]

As a plaintiff's attorney, it does not take long to realize that you will always be 'outgunned' financially and resourcewise when it comes to taking on the defendant's insurance company. They almost always have at their disposal an unlimited cash reserve to call upon, access to high powered law firms and their resources, and can afford to bring in expert witnesses to testify on any issue they think will be to their benefit.

The plaintiff's attorney and his/her client have to trust the rightness of the cause, and trust one another to navigate together the difficult road to recovery of compensation for the client's injuries. Many do not ever reach that goal due to financial ruin, health deterioration, and an inability to survive the process that can take years to complete. The financial pressure of medical bills and loss of jobs often results in marital stress --and many times divorce.

John Edwards operated in this environment for many years, went up against the odds for his clients, and won. In fact he won so often that many insurance companies did settle rather than go to trial with him.

We need someone who has stood up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. We need someone who will fight for what is right. We need someone who will not run when they see the resources that have combined to oppose them.

We desperately need John Edwards to help us win this fight. Our future, and the future of our children, our grandchildren, and the well-being of the environment depend on us winning this fight.

We should pick our best fighter to lead us. WE NEED JOHN EDWARDS!!!

[ursi]

1. I agree!

Although I like Obama too. Edwards is a butt kicker.

[monmouth]

2. John has the right mindset for these obstacles, the voters will see it..n/t

[midnight]

3. There are so many just reasons to vote for John Edwards.

This is just another very important one. Insurance industry preys on us better than any other terrorist could.

[wildbilln864]

4. Go Edwards! n/t

[ginnyinWI]

5. I have a sincere question:

How does being a fighter qualify Edwards for becoming a good president? Is that enough? What about the ability to inspire and lead others? What about diplomatic skills like the ability to compromise, find middle ground? What about being able to represent American vision to the rest of the world? And being a creative thinker who is able to see all sides of a problem and analyze, contrast and compare input from many advisers to reach a solution to a problem?

Edwards is a good man, but how does being a great trial lawyer necessarily fit the job description for President? And is this what America needs for this time, this election? The job of rebuilding this nation is going to be a Herculean task.

[ladjf]

6. If Edwards is correct in his assertion that the big businesses

are the main problem for America, then his years as a trial lawyer are wonderful preparation for being President. If time in the Senate is good prep, his got that the same as the other two leading candidates.

What other experience did you have in mind?

Bush had four years experience as President when re-elected in 2004. It hasn't done him much good.
(Of course the fact that he is an idiot, criminal and traitor didn't help.)

[ginnyinWI]

7. ha--it's because * is a conservative idiot

No amount of experience would fix that--indeed it would make him worse! He's listened to some real old-timer conservatives like Kissinger which only made things worse!

It's not so much experience I'm worried about, thinking about JE. It's the skills I mentioned. The people skills, if you will. I don't know whether Edwards has enough of these. Hard to tell just watching him on tv. But I have to wonder, considering that he didn't do so well during the 2004 primaries, and hasn't done so well this time either. I would hate to have him get into office and then be another Jimmy Carter--good man but not so great at being President.

[ladjf]

14. Frankly, I don't trust many politicians, including Edwards. But, I

do prefer his stated positions. So, I hope that he is nominated.

[ihavenobias]

17. Hold on a minute

it's not like the ONLY skill you have as a (great) trial lawyer is being a fighter, right? Don't you have to *persuade and unify a diverse jury* for example?

Simply becoming a lawyer requires a lot of hard work and a large knowledge base. I think he clearly has a level of intellectual curiosity along with a powerful message. And honestly, a lot depends on how he'd surround himself with. Put a foreign policy expert like Biden in the cabinet along with someone like Richardson for all his experience together with the Edwards vision and platform for America and voila, good things happen.

People (myself included) often forget that it's about an entire, large administration, not just ONE person. That one person will NEVER be a subject matter expert or perfectly skilled in ALL possible areas. Some are better than others, yes, but you get the idea.

[ginnyinWI]

30. absolutely.

We aren't electing a king but a group of persons who will hopefully begin to undo the damage of the last two terms. How disastrous it would be to have another GOP administration with their faulty ideology! The differences between our Dem candidates are no comparison with those guys on the right who, thankfully, don't seem to have nearly the support our Dems are getting. We are out fund-raising them two -to-one.

[ihavenobias]

32. On that we totally agree! n/t

[Blackhatjack]

12. A Plaintiff's Trial Lawyer has to have all of these abilities to be successful...especially creative

Edwards has the rare set of abilities to do each of these things you discussed, and at the time refuse to let the special interests/ultra wealthy/corporate interests stand between the needs of the people and the change that is needed.

A Presidential candidate who only intends to 'negotiate' with those standing in the way will not succeed because he/she has no leverage to exact a change in their behavior.

You must be willing to fight them with everything you have in the way of resources(ie. investigation, regulation, new legislation, etc) in order to get their attention, and use that to effect 'real change.'

There is not going to be any 'real change' on the behalf of those corporate interests who are 'skimming' millions off the top of healthcare delivery today if they know all that is going to happen is the new President is going to 'ask them nicely to come to the table and negotiate' against their own profit preservation interests.

You have to be willing and able to fight in order to effect negotiation which leads to real change.

Hope this helps.

[OneGrassRoot]

13. I understand your question ...

I can only speak for myself, of course.

I admire Obama's message of working together to create a better world, inspiring his audiences in the process. And I believe he is genuine.

I admire Edwards' message of fighting the "powers that be" to create a better world, and I believe he is also genuine.

Indeed, his message of empowering those of us who have felt powerless for so long IS VERY INSPIRING TO ME.

If we were in a neutral situation in our country, rather than it becoming a feudal state where 98% are losing influence, money, health, etc., and the other 2% are gaining everything at our expense, Obama would be my #1 candidate.

I simply happen to believe that the situation is so dire right now, with big corporations controlling Washington and with the CEOs receiving outrageous salaries and bonuses while tens of thousands are people are laid off because these CEOs didn't do their jobs. We've gradually felt more and more defeated and as though the fate of our individual lives, let alone that of our country, is out of our hands. Well, I have anyway. Even the election process is widely viewed as corrupt or potentially corrupt, and even this harkens back to influence and agendas of Corporate America.

So, to answer your question, John's passion about empowering the citizenry once again is indeed inspiring to me. I also have no doubt that compromise and working together are part of his skill set when that is required, and he certainly realizes - as do they all - that at some level everyone MUST work together. He simply wants to get the corporate puppeteers out of the equation (though no doubt it will take time) so democracy can take hold once again and the true spirit of our democracy and democratic leadership can flourish.

[Ninga]

22. I would like to offer ginninWI an answer too.

First of all, hello from snowy NE OHIO :hi:


Edwards put his mind to work during his 20 years of practical, real life work.

In order to win, Edwards had to be able to direct his paralegals, and other attorneys to do research on many areas. His team had to deliver the goods, they had to provide accurate information, and work within the scope of the law. Edwards had to be able to execute his strategy in a real time, real environment, making adjustments and countering opponents arguments.

These are valuable and real skills applied to real life situations, taking on big guns.

Edwards and his law parter were small compared to the huge corporate law firms they went up against. Edwards ability to plan, stragegize and execute are stellar qualities of leadership.

His senate term was enough experience to season him to the ways of DC.

Just think about this primary election season.

Obama and Clinton have made this the most historic race ever....in all of history....and while Edwards has been outspent by gargantuan proportions, his message and his vision have kept him in the race.

That alone makes me sit up and take notice.

Thanks.

[ginnyinWI]

31. good points. n/t

[EVDebs]

8. Unfortunately the DLC and Big$ corporo-crats don't want him

The continuing income redistribution upwards to the top 1% is destined to kill off the middle class and make us even more polarized between the Marie Antoinettes and the Les Miserables.

We're not at the barricades yet but with the upcoming faltering economy we'll be there soon. It's funny but FDR saved capitalism in America. John Edwards could do the same but the corporate/globalist interests don't realize that and instead FEAR HIM the most of all the Democratic candidates.

The irony of it all. Assuming Obama or HRC win you'll merely see more of the same corporatism. To succeed, both will have to adopt JE's ideas, not more 'invitiations to the table' bs.

[electropop]

23. Corporations are already "at the table" and eating our food.

Greedy bastards.

[EVDebs]

28. and Bloomberg is an adviser to Obama apparently (Nov 29 meeting)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4072844&mesg_id=4073102

[The Stranger]

9. We cannot make it without him.

[slipslidingaway]

10. One should remember that he also gained financially by doing

so, not saying there is anything wrong with that, it was his job and source of income. The big money would be made by suing corporations.

But it is very different to stand up to the corporations when there is no personal financial gain and possible financial loss IMO.

Edwards said in a 1998 Senate race ad that he would work for the people, but many of his votes in the Senate do not reflect that position.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. Are you aware that if he didn't win the case, he got zero money?

Sure, there's lots of money to be had, but he didn't receive any unless he won. It's not as though his clients ever had him working on a retainer. There was a lot of risk for him; if he lost, he still had all of his expenses regarding said case, and those of his staff, with no reimbursement.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Yes that is part of the business, still there is a big difference

in fighting corporations when there is a possibility of financial gain and fighting corporations when there is absolutely NO chance of financial gain and even the possibility of ginancial loss.

Big difference IMO.

[Blackhatjack]

20. When you are willing to to take a chance of not being paid at all, that is a big risk he took...

When you are willing to take on a case which requires you to perform all the work in advance of payment possibly years later, and that payment is not certain .... that is a big risk you are taking on behalf of your client.

The argument that Edwards is somehow different from members of Congress who 'stand up corporations when there is no personal financial gain and possible financial loss' is TOTALLY FALSE.

DID those members of the HOUSE/SENATE return all their paychecks? refuse all their benefits? that they received while they were supposedly standing up for people 'where there is no personal financial gain'?

You are wrong about Edwards' time in the Senate. I live in NC. He represented me, and I know better.

[slipslidingaway]

24. We can disagree, trial lawyers know they will not win every case

just as a salesperson knows they will not make every sale, it is part of the business.

Why did Edwards vote with the corporations on the China Trade bill? This was opposed by labor unions, environmental and human rights groups. In fact more Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats. Just one example, he has admitted mistakes on several bills including this vote.

[Blackhatjack]

26. The "China Trade Bill" was actually a bill to bring China into the World Trade Organization(WTO) and

unless China was a member of the WTO they were under no obligation to comply with any standards of regulation trade agreed to by that group, including environmental, human rights, child labor, working conditions, wages, etc.

Edwards stated that bringing CHina into the WTO was designed to allow the United States through its President to enforce the rules of trade on CHina.... which Bush has totally abdicated.

People can disagree with Edwards decision, but they cannot show that circumstances with CHina would have been better if CHina had not been allowed to join the WTO.

[slipslidingaway]

29. The U.S. approving permanent normal trade relations with China

was not a requirement for joining the WTO from everything I've read.

Although it may have been a reason to gain votes for the bill.

:shrug:


"...People can disagree with Edwards decision, but they cannot show that circumstances with CHina would have been better if CHina had not been allowed to join the WTO."


You can agree with Edwards, I'll trust what Senator Wellstone and Congressman Kucinich said before the vote was taken. This was published months before the vote.


http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137

February 16, 2000 Issue Brief #137

"The High Cost of the China-WTO Deal
Administration's own analysis suggests spiraling deficits, job losses"



And from May 2007

Deficit Attention Syndrome

http://www.contraryinvestor.com/2007archives/momay07.htm

"...The 800 Pound Gorilla(s)..."
see link below for charts and more info


"...First, when we're talking about the US trade deficit, we're really talking about two issues of major importance - China and oil. Crazily enough, from a truly broad and long term perspective, what really are the most important forces on the planet that have the ability to materially influence forward global economic outcomes other than China and oil? From our perspective, not a heck of a lot. Anyway, a bit of perspective lies below.

The following are US imports from China. The numbers are not net, but gross nominal dollar imports. US exports to China run one-fifth to one-sixth these numbers, as China is certainly the country against which the US runs the largest deficit...

Outside of crude and China, it almost seems trade with the rest of the planet is an afterthought in terms of the overall US deficit specifically..."

[Triana]

11. 110% AGREED! This is yet another reason I support JRE (n/t)

[penguin7]

15. The mob of lawyers supporting Edwards on DU is exactly why he will not win

The American people do not really care for lawyers. A constitutional law professor or a DA has a good shot, but a guy that made a fortune as an "ambulance chaser" has no prayer. Edwards is the one guy the GOP can beat.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. None of his clients have viewed him as an ambulance chaser...

only people who don't like him or fear him for whatever reason. You can level many criticisms at him, as we can for all candidates, but this one is patently false.

[Blackhatjack]

21. Edwards is the one guy the GOP CANNOT BEAT.... and they know it! n/t

[ShadesOfGrey]

25. That's right...

Backfired big time on the GOP when they tried the "ambulance chaser" smear during Edwards run for NC senator.

[Blackhatjack]

27. When aggrieved people realize the system is working against them, they will seek a lawyer

And that is where we are today even though the MSM would never allow such a message to be broadcast.

[Kurovski]

33. K&R. (nt)

[GrayGoo]

34. He can do it again!

Go Edwards you have the world in your hand!