This is the kind of thing that bothers me about Edwards

[cali]

because it's damn close to an outright lie, and it's weasel words at best:

"December 31, 2007
Read More: John Edwards

Dept. of understatement

From the Early Show this morning:

Harry Smith: But here's what I don't understand, though, because this alliance for a new America, isn't it run by a former campaign operative of yours?

John Edwards: It’s my understanding that the guy who runs the organization worked for me years ago, yes, that is true.

Nick Baldick last got paid by the campaign in the second quarter of this year. Which does feel like a long time ago."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Dept_of_understatement.html#comments

Why couldn't he just say, "yes, Nick Baldick worked for my campaign, but he left to work with an independent union organization"?

People keep telling me what a straight shooter he is. I don't see it. Baldick is more than "some guy" who worked for him years ago, and more than an obscure campaign operative. He was JE's campaign manager in 2004, is by all reports, close to him, and worked for him up until 8 months ago.

[aquart]

1. John Edwards is a lawyer. A lawyer who WON a lot.

He's very very good at weasel words. And so must any president be. It's nice to fantasize about Abe Lincoln and George Washington...but I bet if you checked their records....

[chascarrillo]

45. "Vote for the weasel" - Great campaign tactic

That should go over well...

[coco77]

2. This is the kind of thing...

that if he gets the nomination will cause people to begin looking at him for what he really is a LIGHTWEIGHT. Just think about him in a debate, it will become harder and harder for him and he seems to never be asked any hard questions, especially about foreign policy.

[Clintonista2]

4. Why would we think about him in a debate? We can just go watch the tapes from 2004

When Darth beat the crap out of him in the VP debates.

[coco77]

13. Some need to be reminded of that...

[Omaha Steve]

17. Your wrong

All the right wing press could go after was that Edwards outed Darth's daughter in the debate. In a few days there was coverage of Darth talking about his daughters life style to a group long before. Then how she was open in her job at Coors etc... It became a non issue. Funny thing was Darth's party was making such a stink about gay marriage while attacking the perceived Edwards outing. Edwards gave them nothing else to attack! Look it up.

[cali]

19. they went after him, not because he "outed" her but because

he used dog whistle politics. It was unnecessary. I didn't like it then, and I still don't. And he did OK with Cheney- just OK.

[Joe Fields]

43. Don't forget Edwards had that "deer caught in the headlights" look,

after he debated Cheney in the vice presidential candidate debates four years ago.

Edwards was caught totally unprepared.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Yes, "the guy who runs the organization" reminds one of calling Monica "that woman"

[cali]

5. it's the same kind of obfuscating, and it would have been so easy

to answer in a more honest way.

[struggle4progress]

47. Slow news day? Not finding enough to stoke your outrage?

:eyes:

[cali]

48. try reading. there's no outrage in the OP

and I find this reflective of things about Edwards that keep me from supporting him. You, naturally, can't defend Edwards, so you attack the messenger. Pretty obvious.

[struggle4progress]

49. You complain "it's damn close to an outright lie" when Edwards (asked about some "Alliance for a new

America") says It’s my understanding that the guy who runs the organization worked for me.

Then you claim there's no outrage in the OP. I'll buy that: it's a phony attempt to drum up phony outrage based on a misrepresentation of a snippet of an interview

[cali]

51. lol.

it's clear you're the one outraged- over any criticism of Edwards. Get over it. He's not a saint, and he's gonna get criticized.

[struggle4progress]

52. Nope: I'm pissed you repeat wingnut noise from Reagan-worshipping Ben Smith as if

it were honest commentary

[here_is_to_hope]

6. Ya might stop thinking about Edwards...n/t

[cali]

10. ya might run around telling people who post thread after thread

about Clinton or Obama that they might stop think about those candidates- as long as you're so deeply concerned about these things.

[Tess99]

7. The man is a liar. I don't get the devotion to this phony.

[LSK]

8. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3898749

[cali]

9. I don't know that that's true. Yes, this bothers me

but he's been consistent about raising the issue of poverty since his first campaign. I don't know that he's phony but there are discrepencies between his actions and his rhetoric that I can't reconcile.

[Munch]

33. Never separate the life you live from the words you speak.

Paul Wellstone

(or do you think he was spouting RW talking points?)

[Froward69]

30. Thank you

[struggle4progress]

50. Ben Smith is a rightwing hack who used to "write" for the bogus New York Sun

[FrenchieCat]

11. Edwards has yet to have been vetted or tested by the media.....

and that will be the biggest part of our problem if he wins the nom.

They loved him 2 weeks prior to Iowa in 2004.
They loved him throughout the primaries after Iowa in 2004.
They lobbied for him to become Kerry's Veep pick in 2004.
We barely knew he was there during the '04 general election,
except for his so/so debate against Cheney
They only mentioned his hair and his wife until December of 2007.
and looking like a rerun, they are loving him 2 weeks prior to Iowa in 2007.

And so, thus far, the man has yet to be tested in the 5 years he's been running
in the way only the media tests Dem candidates.

Campaign financing limits is what now makes him attractive to the Corporate media and the GOP....
which is why we are getting so many "pleasant" reports on Edwards now....right in the nick of time for the caucuses.

Unfortunately, Edwards will be ready for his close up too late for a buyer's remorse warrantee to help us.

They will bury him....with the exact right-on-the money timing.....and as most of us know, money talks, and timing is everything! :(

[Tess99]

12. FrenchieCat, you are so right about timing...

There are all kinds of video and articles out there showing Edwards flip flopping like a dying fish. Earlier this year, he's on Charlie Rose talking about how we need to negotiate with corporations. Now, he's lying on live tv about these 527's. The info is there and the media refuse to call him on it. The best thing that happened to Edwards was that all the press he got, up until a month ago, was about his haircut. Seriously. He has not been called out as the flip flopper as he is, even as he sits there and lies like his name is William J. Clinton. It's mind boggling. We have a genuine person in this race with an actual record of bringing forth change, and it looks like Dems in Iowa are going for the phony. Unbelievable.

[flpoljunkie]

14. I have to agree with one of the comments here. A vote for Edwards in Iowa is a vote for Clinton.

Please Iowa, see through the baloney Edwards is spinning. He may have some good policy ideas, but he is exactly the wrong person for this country. And besides the fact that beyond Iowa, he has no shot at winning. A vote for Edwards in Iowa is a vote for Clinton. If that's what you want, go for it. Otherwise please reconsider.

Posted By: ar December 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Dept_of_understatement.html#comments

[EV_Ares]

15. Gosh, all this time being gone and I see you are still doing the John

Edwards bashing. Has become actually even really the funniest thing on here I think. Have a great New Year Cali and happy John Edwards bashing in 2008.

[Cameron27]

16. That's not bashing,

Edwards wasn't being upfront with his answer. There's no lie or smear in the OP.

[cali]

18. oh for pity's sake. learn the difference between bashing and

expressing reasoned criticism and doubts. Amd as I have a miserable head cold and I'm snowed in 6 ways from Sunday, I've had to cancel my plans for the evening. Nevertheless, Happy New Years to you, and here's hoping you manage to either grow a thicker skin or learn how to discern bashing from reasonable criticism.

[EV_Ares]

21. Hey Cali, didn't you even miss me. You know when I got back one of

the first things on this board I wanted to know was if you were still on J. Edwards.

Sorry about the head cold & being snowed in, and seriously, I wish the best for you in the new year as well.

Happy New Year cali.

[cali]

23. Thanks EV

I hate being sick- I so rarely am, and I really wanted to go skiing. Oh well, there's plenty of time for that. Actually, I post much more about other things- it's just few people pay attention to my posts on Kenya and Pakistan and such. And honestly, this sort of thing bugs me. It bugs me more about Edwards than Clinton, because I don't even like what she's saying, and I have no interest in her. With JE, it's that I really want to believe in him- and I just can't.

Hope you had a good time wherever you were and best wishes for a splendid New Year for you and yours.

To aulde lang syne, my friend...

:toast:

[denem]

20. Fortress: 'the relationship between financial markets and poverty'

That's what worries me too cali, these stupid, pointless deceptions where any reasonable interviewer or opponent has an immediate comeback.

Whaqt I like is that he has been hammering the Republicans, corruption, Big Business, special and entrenched interests, day after day, all last year. We haven't seen anything like this since the sixties on the Democratic side. The Republicans have been a different story.

[cali]

24. yes, you're absolutely right about that, my blood sucking friend

Edwards' rhetoric has been invaluable.

[denem]

28. I found this snippet of Edwards in Iowa, before the campaign

fascinating. Its at the end of a two minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDY1lHKyCU

"(on poverty) You just get involved. Get involved. Don't stand by and watch these things happen in front of you. It's your country and you can change it."

It's the gentle tone of a Dad explain something he cares about, and perhaps a glimpse of the man behind the mask.

I've mentioned it to WesDem too but I suspect she's had enough of John Edwards by now ;)

[Adelante]

22. Heh - somebody will be out to "explain" it

If I had a thousand dollars for every time this kind of double talk came from Edwards I'd be able to live on it for the next year.

[denem]

26. WesDem, i f you have the time,

(an infamous line) take a look at Edwards in Iowa 2006 when he was speaking in a less political context.

I was on the forclark boards in 03/04 and have vivid memories of john Edwards 'politics', but I was quite stuck by the gentle expression of his final words:

"(on poverty) You just get involved. Get involved. Don't stand by and watch these things happen in front of you.It's your country and you can change it. "

The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDY1lHKyCU

It's 2 minutes, although I will understand if you feel you have heard quite enough of John Edwards ;)

[Adelante]

29. Thanks, lamprey

I watched it because you asked. I'm sorry to say I just don't believe him. He's a trained actor, his craft honed in the courtroom, so he knows how to do it. I think that's what it is with John Edwards. Either you believe him or you don't.

[denem]

27. (self delete)

[Armstead]

25. Hard to find a politician who doesn't do that

I don't like it either, but to single Edwards out is mistaken, IMO. He's no worse than any of them in the use of waffle-words.

[tkmorris]

31. Name a candidate with a better record re: 527's

No? Then stop it.

Cali you don't like Edwards because of who he is and what he says. You can pretend that you have concerns that he isn't genuine all you want but your real concern is that he IS genuine. That he means what he says. That he will in fact take on the corporate owners of this nation.

And that disturbs you. A lot.

[cali]

34. No. tk. Don't put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that

don't exist except in YOUR mouth and YOUR mind. I take exception to that bullshit. It's Dishonest as hell.

I like what JE says- a lot. And if I didn't find that I have a hard time reconciling his words to his record and deeds, I'd be supporting him. In fact, I prefer him to Clinton because of his message.

You have a lot of cheap and sleazy gall.

Here's my New Year wish for you:

May you discover a dram of honesty in your soul.

Happy New Year.

[Munch]

36. (voice over) This has been a prepaid political announcement...

sponsored by the Joint Alliance of Service Employees, Barbers, Former Campaign Operatives and Hedge Fund Managers.

We now return you to our regular scheduled programming.

[Munch]

38. Sheesh.

Why do Edwards supporters sound like bots? Why parrot these campaign slogans and talking points, verbatim, unaware that you have lapsed into self-parody...

Is it like the Stepford wives -- or are the Body Snatchers reactivating their pods -- do these people listen to subliminal tapes 24/7 -- or is it that same seductive Kool Aid repackaged in a new container?

Dunno. I too wanted to support John Edwards, being as I'm one of the working poor on whose behalf he claims to speak. Until 2 weeks ago, I thought I had decided. Believed that there really was no other choice for an "electable Progressive."

Overworked rhetoric made me reconsider. Can we really blame ALL our problems on a single bogeyman: those Big Bad Corporations. How simplistic is that. And how seductive, a prepackaged populism that requires little if any original thought. Just repeat after me...

John Edwards will fight for us like he has fought for the little people all his life. The government is a giant courtroom, the president our own PI attorney. This is not an auction we're having here... it's a corporate lawsuit. Let's sue the bastards and make them pay.

Might it be a question not of honesty but intelligence, shrewd yet practical, that enables one to think on one's feet, understand the nuances of economic / social issues or international affairs, and communicate effectively while not overpromising or oversimplifying. The world is complex and difficult. Problems do not admit of easy solutions.

Behind the poor judgment, mediocre debate performance vis-a-vis Cheney and bad decisions -- from co-sponsoring the war in Iraq to building a humongous house, from accepting matching funds to fumbling questions like this one -- one senses that Edwards lacks the requisite political intelligence. (Don't blame it on his youth -- the guy is my age.)

Look. If you're running as a populist, don't flaunt your wealth. Want to slow global warming? Don't clear cut forest land and build a large expensive mansion on your denuded property. SUVs? Sacrifice? I don't even own a car. How many cold showers must one endure to underwrite the environmental cost of keeping that house air conditioned? Let's do the math: 28,200 sq ft of air flow vs. water flow in gallons per minute through my shower head...

Oy. The house or the presidency, John -- what made you think you could have BOTH.

So I wonder: is John Edwards smart enough to get elected and then deliver on his extravagant promises. Because it seems that he has overreached.

Listen to Obama speak -- then listen to Edwards. The gap between these men is one of intellect. Simple as that. And this time round, I want intelligence returned to the Oval Office.

[Jai4WKC08]

46. How about... all of them

What other candidate has a 527 behind them at all? Or ever has? Am I wrong? If so, educate me by all means.

In the mean time, go ahead deluding yourself that MANY people don't resist Edwards because they don't trust him. I hope he believes it, because he'll lose. But I have a hunch he's smarter than that.

[jpgray]

32. Like the Obama explanations of the "ex-gay" speaker? The Hillary explanations of Kyl-Lieberman?

The Biden explanations for the Bankruptcy Bill? You do apply an individual standard to Edwards that you refuse to apply to others. Why?

[cali]

35. Um, gee haven't all those things been roundly criticized here?

Do you think they shouldn't have been? For the record, bucko, I've criticized Clinton's vote and Obama's explanations about McClurkin. Nope, haven't criticized Biden. Do you think that YOUR candidate should get a pass? Look to yourself before you criticize others of hypocrisy.

[jpgray]

39. Did you start similar threads for McClurkin or Hillary during those scandals? If no, why not?

[cali]

40. Started one on Obama/McClurkin

I've started at least 10 threads criticizing Clinton on various things. Do a search. As I said, I'm not the hypocrite here....

[jpgray]

42. I've just gotten the impression your standards are higher for Edwards, that's all

Maybe you get the impression my defensive tendencies are higher for Edwards. :)

[depakid]

37. Talk about nitpicking

Sheesh.

[mdmc]

41. Dont be too bothered my friend

He is a rat worm politician. All they do is lie and distort the truth for their own benefit.

For the record, I doubt any top tier dem opposes gay marriage. They are just too rat wormy to say what they believe.

ain't no mainstream straight shooters.

[gene430]

44. Edwards in a nutshell

Here is the substance of John Edwards:

http://www.politibyte.com/modules.php?name=Video_Stream&page=watch&id=84&d=1

We can do much better