Awww! Play of the Day: Distracted Edwards

[babylonsister]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POLITICAL_PLAY_OF_THE_DAY?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Play of the Day: Distracted Edwards


MANCHESTER, Iowa (AP) -- It was a family affair for the Edwards clan on Friday.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was taking questions from more than 100 people packed into a small bar, when his wife, Elizabeth, showed up just as a woman was asking about poverty.

Edwards momentarily lost his focus, then smiled as he explained: "I noticed my wife standing behind you and I got distracted."

"Thank you, sweetie," Elizabeth Edwards replied.

She said she had been doing some Christmas shopping and that it was difficult to find toys not made in China. There have been numerous recalls in recent months on products from that country.

"We were trying to buy a wide variety of toys for a wide variety of ages, and it is extraordinarily difficult," she said. "Maybe if we had a president who led on this, there would be an impetus" for businesses to try and stock U.S.-made toys and boost that industry.

Edwards added that the United States should have country of origin labeling and must get tougher on its trade partners.

"It's going to stop when America and the president of the United States stops cow-towing to these people," he said. "I mean, what we need to be doing is being much tougher on people like the Chinese, (who are) sending millions of dangerous Chinese toys into America."

Edwards was joined on the trip by family members, and at the start of the event in Manchester introduced his young children Jack and Emma Claire to the crowd.

[glowing]

1. I love that name.. Emma Claire.. Its very pretty.

[waiting for hope]

24. My daughter, born three

years ago, is Emma Catherine - kinda like the similarity. :)

[Beaverhausen]

2. I can't wait till the Edwards family is in the White House

[liberalla]

18. That sounds so good, doesn't it?

Please let it be so!

I'm a real Elizabeth fan. She'll be wonderful as First Lady.

[laureloak]

3. Edwards' big house will be a great presidential retreat. n/t

[babylonsister]

4. Yawn. nt

[IndyOp]

6. Did you mean this sincerely or were you poking fun at the big house?

The big house that John earned by defending American citizens who had been victimized by nasty corporations?

:shrug:

[Catchawave]

12. I'm not sure, but I know how Bush's ranch was built....

From the money he made selling his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team. His payout was so much, the team had to trade Sammy Sosa.

Bush, thinking of the fans as he would think of the U.S. Citizens in future years!

[LittleClarkie]

13. This thread does not seem to be about that particular topic

Perhaps if you'd like to discuss that topic, you could start your own thread instead of hijacking this one, hmmm?

[mzmolly]

15. Which candidate has a small enough house?

:shrug:

[a kennedy]

19. Dennis Kucinich

has lived in the same house for years.....and it's very small. :patriot:

[mzmolly]

21. LOL, that's what I thought. I sure hope he doesn't win the lottery.

;)

[IndyOp]

5. IF ANYONE FROM THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN IS READING THIS...

What you should do is have American-made toy manufacturers put together a little show of their merchandise in Iowa or New Hampshire or SC -- have Elizabeth and John and kids ooohhh and aaahhh over the merchandise --- and get the media to cover the event and have the video put online.

MILLIONS of American parents are afraid of what they are getting when they buy toys from China - lead? Rape drugs? And MILLIONS more Americans are hurting for jobs and want to see American manufacturing bolstered.

The Edwards family is the perfect candidate family to do this -- the Obama campaign is too high-powered to have an American Toy show...

Think on it... Old-fashioned American made toys - that'll pull on some heart-strings big time.

[cali]

7. huh? why is the Edwards campaign too "highpowered"

to do this?

[IndyOp]

8. I accused the Obama campaign of being too high-powered...

I am not meaning to start a fight here - I will work for and vote for Obama if he wins the primary, but I am rooting for Edwards right now...

The Edwards campaign, living within the budget of someone running on public funding, would be just right to do this - especially because Elizabeth brought up the issue.

[cali]

9. Can't say I agree. The Edwards are very, very wealthy people

The obamas are worth approximately one tenth of the what the Edwards are worth.

[IndyOp]

10. Fair enough. Campaign-chest-wise Obama is wealthier. (n/t)

[asdjrocky]

20. I think your idea is wonderful! nt

[surfermaw]

16. By the sweat of his brow, Edwards, is now a wealthy man

What is wrong with that?

[cali]

17. nothing wrong with that. And of course, I didn't say that

there was. All this insinuation that I must dislike Edwards because of his money, and have some sort of envy thing is absurd, given my own background.

[Andy823]

28. Compared to most Americans

The Obama's are "very" wealthy people. :eyes:

[GreenArrow]

11. a lot of those dangerous Chinese toys

are being made for good ol' American companies like Mattel. And didn't Edwards vote for the China trade agreement?

[amandabeech]

14. He says that he wants it enforced.

Which would be a good idea.

It was allowing China to attain "most favored nation" trading status so that China could get into the WTO. Edwards thought that China belonged in the WTO because of its huge population and even then impressive economy, but with obligations to get its trading rules and economy in sync with the rest of the world.

If China would live up to its agreements, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

I personally thought that the Chinese would just do what it pleased despite the agreement, and therefor opposed it, but I can see Edwards's point.

If he gets the Presidency we'll see if he will enforce the agreement, or try to pull out of it if China refuses. Which I think that they will do.

They are the Middle Kingdom still, and we are still the Barbarians.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Permanent MFN was not necessary...and we lost leverage

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1466#Other%20trade%20issues:%20Permanent%20MFN%20status%20for%20China

"...Permanent MFN was not necessary -- The WTO does not require that the U.S. grant China permanent MFN. In fact, the international trade agreement only requires that China receive MFN, but it does not specify that the award must be on a permanent basis. We could continue to review China's trading status on an annual basis and satisfy the WTO. So long as the U.S. does not allow the status to lapse, we would be in compliance with international trade obligations. There is no legal reason requiring Congress to give China permanent MFN status. This isn't just my legal opinion - it’s also that of the Secretary of Commerce during the last administration, William Daley. At a news conference on December 16, 1999, Secretary Daley admitted to a reporter for a Washington trade journal that permanent MFN is not legally necessary. However, the Administration "emphatically" wanted permanent status...

Conclusion -- There was no legal requirement to award China permanent MFN. Permanent MFN will be a drag on the U.S. economy and has cost us the best leverage we have to promote justice in China and throughout the world."

[amandabeech]

23. So?

I like Dennis, but he's not going to be President.

Edwards is the closest thing to Dennis who has a chance, IMHO.

Clinton and Obama are complete and utter tools of the capitalist pigs who have no memory of being trashed by those same pigs.

Both Dennis and John have memories, and I think John is in the process of recovering more of his.

[slipslidingaway]

25. So this statement of yours is wrong and it has nothing to do with

the other candidates, that was a link I had handy.

"It was allowing China to attain "most favored nation" trading status so that China could get into the WTO.'

That is not an excuse for voting for the bill. Labor unions, environmental organizations, human rights groups opposed the bill. Big corporations were in favor of the bill.

Dennis did vote no...for the people as he saw the potential harm.

[amandabeech]

26. So?

I made a mistake. Lots of people do it, and if Dennis is right, a lot of other people were wrong here as well.

I'm not voting for Kucinich because of it.

Like I say, I like the guy, but he's not going to be President, just like a lot of other deserving folks like John Conyers.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Anyone can make a mistake...is this the reason Edwards voted

for the bill? That we had to approve the Permanent Most Favored Nation bill in order for them to gain access to the WTO.

Not sure if this is your mistake or this is what Edwards actually said at the time?

I fear that traveling too far down "Mistake Road" can be dangerous for our country, at what point does someone say that the leader does not know where they are going?

:shrug:

[amandabeech]

29. It is entirely possible that people were mistaken.

I worked on the Hill for awhile. There is so much legislation that is so detailed, that good information on the contents of the bills can be hard to find, and can be hard to distinguish from the bad information.

IMHO, Reps and Senators need much larger, more experienced and better paid staff. Committee staff are usually better, but they can be wrong, too.

Congresscritters don't want to ask for the money to get and house decent staffs because the voting populace would take exception. What the public doesn't know, is that one reason things don't always go well is because there just aren't enough smart, experienced bodies on the payroll up there and that means that Congresscritters end up relying on very experienced, very well paid and ubiquitous lobbyists to analyze bills for them. We are getting what we pay for.

I agree with you on the "Mistake Road," and it does give me pause with Edwards. However, Dennis isn't going anywhere, much as he should, and I think his appearance and voice have a lot to do with it in this TV age. At least John admits his mistakes and seems capable of learning, which is more than I can say for the top two.

My state votes later in February, and I'll vote for whomever is not Clinton or Obama and still viable, if that's the case. If all is lost, I'll think about voting for Kucinich in protest because he has been right about so many things. You've persuaded me.

[slipslidingaway]

30. But the staff argument should apply to all members of Congress,

sure I realize the staff are not all equal, still some are better able see through the good vs. bad information more than others and the elected representative makes a different choice. There is something else???

I do not want to travel down Mistake or Excuse Road, they are lined with too may casualties :(

And thanks for noting your pause.