John Edwards - Trial Lawyers and Corporate Lobbyists?

[waiting for hope]

Run time: 00:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eBYnvF-Iv4   Posted on YouTube: January 22, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 25, 2008 By DU Member: waiting for hope Views on DU: 3939

 
Here is a narrative about Edwards' book, Four Trails:

The antidote to these repeated calls for "reform" has to be specific stories about lawsuits in which innocent people, through no fault of their own, became victims of the negligence or greed of profit making enterprises. It was into this environment of attacks on the very notion of seeking redress in the court of law that John Edwards came forward with his Four Trials, an account of his life and four of the heartbreaking lawsuits that helped define his career as a trial lawyer in North Carolina.

Each of the four stories Edwards tells serves as an affirmation of the need for unfettered access to the courts, and the foolishness of limiting "non-economic" damages, as Ohio has done. The first case, one of Edwards' first, was tried on behalf of an alcoholic who sought damages after being prescribed triple the recommended dosage of Antabuse by his doctor. The dosage put the patient into a coma and caused permanent brain damage. Another case involved a breech baby delivered vaginally--with umbilical cord impaction leading to cerebral palsy--to working class parents when C-section clearly should have been ordered.

The story of these clients' lives and their trials is compelling, as is the description Edwards provides of his legal strategy and argument in the cases. But what also emerges from Edwards' narrative is an understanding that there really isn't a level playing field between a patient and a large hospital when the patient is injured. That is to say, there isn't a level playing field without the courts and without the expertise of a qualified attorney like Edwards. In both of these cases, the clients were left with devastating, life long, and expensive care needs as a result of the mistakes their doctors made. Any ceiling for damages simply would not have allowed the victims to receive the compensation they needed for their care.

In a third case, Edwards tells the story of a young boy of 7 whose parents were killed by a truck driver on a North Carolina highway. Again, the story pits a working class family--in this case a grandmother and her grandchild--against a large corporation protecting profits and denying responsibility for the mistakes of one of its workers. In the aftermath of this courtroom victory, Edwards explains that North Carolina enacted a "reform" of its own, limiting the damages collected by a plaintiff for an action carried out by an employee of a company.

The final case Edwards describes led to Tucker Carlson callously calling him a "jacuzzi lawyer". The victim here was a young girl, Valerie Lakey, who was tragically and needlessly caught in a pool drain, the suction of which was powerful enough to eviscerate her, leaving her in need of colostemy and TPN for the rest of her life. An excerpt from the book's description of the accident:

"And apparently then at some point the suction broke because he had her in his arms... And that's when I saw there was--the water was really red with blood and there was tissue all around." ...

David (Valerie's father) later testified that "at that point i must have been hysterical because I just picked her up and held her. I laid down next to the pool and I just held on to her and I prayed until the ambulance got there... And David talked to her. Over and over again, "Daddy love you. Daddy loves you. Daddy loves you."...

"What happened?" gasped Sandy (Valerie's mother). "Did she drown?"

"Sandy," said (a friend's) mother in a quaking voice, "I'm holding her intestines in my hand."

The case is one of "joint and several liability," and it is worth noting that this kind of liability is a target of many tort reform efforts, including Ohio's, where this kind of liability has been severely limited by the law. It means that multiple parties can be held liable for the same act, and in this case, that referred to the country club where the incident occurred and the county which inspected the pool. Each party then, was considered to be liable, even though each party may have only had partial cause in tragedy. Settlements were reached with each party except the manufacturer of the drain cover, and this company became the defendants in the lawsuit.

As the case unfolded, it became clear that tragedies similar to Valerie's had occurred many times across the country, even leading to death in some instances. It also became clear that the manufacturer was aware of the problems with their drain cover, and ignored it, in spite of the fact that a 2 cent solution to the problem was clear to expert engineers who testified in the case. Furthermore, it became clear that the company's lawyers had instructed their product safety specialist to lie on the witness stand about his knowledge of the product's defects.

The jury gave the Lakey's a substantial award, as one might expect, to compensate Valerie's family for the lifelong medical needs she would endure, but also to punish the company for its egregious conduct.

However, what makes the Lakey case even more remarkable is that Edwards' son Wade was tragically killed in a car accident prior to the trial's commencement. Though out Four Trials, Edwards links elements of his own biography to the stories he tells about his clients, making connections between his world and theirs. The result is a masterful non-fiction narrative which is compelling and moving throughout. But nowhere is the connection between client and lawyer as clear as in this section of the book. Edwards confesses at the end that when he was fighting for Valerie, he was fighting for his own son Wade at the same time. When he spoke to the jury about Sandy's love for her daughter, he was speaking at the same time about his wife Elizabeth's pain for her own lost son. Edwards speaks eloquently and without sentimentality about his own mourning and how his work helped him deal with his grief.

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/24679-brave-new-books-john-edwards-four-trials

This is the person I want to represent my voice in Washington, this is the person that will move this country forward and right the wrongs that we have endured. Who's with me?

[JDPriestly]

1. Putting together cases like these is an enormous job.

Interviewing your own witnesses, deposing the opposition witnesses, identifying and deposing experts, studying the law, keeping up on developments in the law, learning everything you can about the technology of the products or the procedures in medicine, issuing subpoenas for or demanding the production of documents, reviewing and cataloging documents, preparing pleadings for the court, drafting and submitting motions in limine (to exclude evidence), preparing and responding to jury instructions, participating in settlement negotiations, then trying the case are some of the things involved in one of these cases. It takes intelligence, willingness to learn, stamina, hard work, organization and excellent judgment, speaking ability, knowledge of human nature and persistence to win a case like the cases Edwards tried. These are the qualities we want in our next president. I'm voting for John Edwards. I like the fact that he is a trial lawyer.

[waiting for hope]

2. Me too -

and they way he has run his campaign, to his detailed policies and even his staff tells me that he is the one ready to lead on Day One.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

3. This is beautiful! "a struggle for justice"

Thank You, :patriot: John Edwards is the real deal :kick:


Martin Luther King III to John Edwards: "I challenge all candidates to follow your lead"
'…I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the
economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice.
And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election."

Edited due to tears-- Most definately,COUNT ME IN! :bounce:

[benny05]

4. Clinton and Obama also got money from trial lawyers

Next.

[waiting for hope]

5. I hear you -

People tend to forget that all three of them are lawyers!

[penguin7]

6. One reason people in general dislike lawyers is because access

to conflict resolution in this country is usually prohibitively expensive partially due to the extravagant compensation of men like John Edwards.

John Edwards excessive compensation is part of the problem not the solution.

[cbayer]

7. plaintiff's attorney

john edwards made his fortunes suing doctors based on junk science. he represents one of the reasons that the health care system in this country is sick, possibly beyond repair. if he would only stand up and admit that he made mistakes and take responsibility for his reprehensible behavior while working as a plaintiff's attorney, it would be a lot easier to put credence in what he now says.

[stickernation]

9. links ?

c'mon newbie, throw me some links that aren't freeper sites. where are you getting this idea? source it.

[cbayer]

10. everyone is a newbie at some point

how do you like the huffington post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/john-edwards-malpractice_b_44269.html

[cbayer]

12. the real data

and if you want to actually look at the cases and the outlandish judgements:
http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

[waiting for hope]

13. You know - I pray you may never

need the services of a lawyer like Edwards. Your argument is straight from Fox News and citing Huffington Post doesn't mean squat around here.

Should Doctors Vote Against John Edwards?
The Reasons Why Critiques of His Medical Malpractice Litigation Record Are Wrong

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040726.html

~Snip~

Detractors seem to fault Edwards for two basic reasons. First, they fault him because he was a trial lawyer - and in particular, a medical malpractice plaintiffs' laywer - and is supported by trial lawyers. Second, they fault him because, as a lawyer in private practice, he brought medical malpractice cases - and some of them, they believe, were, in retrospect, meritless.

In the end, however, neither of these arguments is persuasive.

What Doctors Are Really Complaining About Is Rising Malpractice Premiums

The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than two percent of all spending on health care in the United States. And medical malpractice litigation has been a part of American law for over 200 years. So how - in the view of medical professionals - can such litigation be a serious threat to medical care?

The answer, according to the professionals, is that medical malpractice awards and medical malpractice premiums began to rise steeply sometime around 1999, and are continuing to rise very fast--faster than inflation. If they continue to rise, serious damage to the medical profession, they say, may be done.

~Snip~

The "Character" Issue Is a Non-Issue: Edwards's Alleged Use of "Junk Science"

Now, let's go on to the more specific complaint about the cases Edwards himself brought as a plaintiffs' lawyer.

Throughout his career, Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. Indeed, he reportedly developed a reputation of being so fearsome that insurance companies settled as soon as they heard he was the plaintiff's lawyer. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science." (Click here to see a typical criticism.)

That's not true, however. Having reviewed the cases Edwards's critics have cited, I found that what they show is that at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.

~Snip~

If Anything, Edwards' Cases Show That He Values Personal Responsibility

In certain ways, Edwards's history as a medical malpractice lawyer ought to have a positive moral valence for Americans -- who are deeply attached to the idea of personal responsibility. By working within the system of American tort law, Edwards not only represented his client honestly, he also showed that he subscribes to mainstream American values - and that is an important thing in a Vice President.

Americans are also deeply attached to the idea of personal responsibility. Doctors sometimes cannot understand why lawyers urge juries to look for the person responsible for everything that goes wrong. Lawyers do this because in our culture injured people don't get any help unless they can blame their injuries on someone. For the most part, Americans do not think that someone's bad luck is anyone's business but their own.

However, the flip side of personal responsibility is that if someone wrongs another, then the wrongdoer is responsible for making things right. Once one has committed a wrong, one is responsible for repairing the injury, no matter how large it ends up being. So, while the little girl who has cerebral palsy through bad luck might get nothing (except perhaps Social Security), Jennifer Campbell has a right to get everything she lost back--if she can proved that she was wronged.

American tort law is anti-hierarchical and individualistic in way far more extreme than any other Western nation. In some ways, the values at the root of our culture are in tension with the values of rationalism and equality, which many physicians think should characterize a modern health care system. They may be right. But they should not hate John Edwards for applying to his clients' cases the values which are at the foundation of American tort law. Americans have complex, sometimes contradictory, feelings about justice and money. And John Edwards understands that--which is why he was a great lawyer and could be a good Vice President.

[cbayer]

18. And i pray you never need an obstetrician in North Carolina.

Do a little research on what cases like these have done to practicing physicians and how many OB/GYN's now refuse to practice OB at all. I don't get my info from FOX news and have formed this opinion all by my little self. The out of control malpractice litigation situation has created a system of defensive medicine that is well on it's way to destroying the entire system.

I don't care if the Huffington Post means squat around here or not. I was asked to provide a source that was not a freeper and I did. And I would certainly put a lot more credence in that site than the one that you cite, which is run by the very profession that has the most to gain by leaving things just like they are.

I just find Edward's "little guy" pleadings quite hypocritical in light of what he has done to some good and honest physicians. I guess they just don't count as "little guys".

[waiting for hope]

21. Gawd -

You are so ignorant. I live in NC, and I have given birth here. I had over 50 OB/GYN's to chose from and I don't live in a big city. The meme about obstetrician's you are spewing is pure garbage. As for the Huffington Post article, Huffington Post is 90% opinion and not every piece written is not always factually correct. And for the site I provided, it's the same one you provided in your second reply.

[cbayer]

22. You may disagree with me, but

ignorant, I am not. Must we resort to name calling? All I ask is that people be aware of this and that John Edwards take some responsibility for his role in it. You may want to talk to your obstetrician about this.

Facts from American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology, May 2006:

* Over 8% of ACOG Fellows have stopped practicing obstetrics because of the risk of liability claims.

* Changes made by ACOG Fellows because of the risk of liability claims or fear of being sued:
o Decreased the number of high-risk obstetric patients-33%
o Stopped offering/performing VBACs—33%
o Increased the number of cesarean deliveries—37%

Frequency of Claims

* 89% of ob-gyns reported having had at least one liability claim filed against them during their professional careers.
* Ob-gyns have an average of 2.6 claims filed against them during their careers.


Type of Claims

* Obstetric claims accounted for 62% of claims against ob-gyns; 38% were gynecologic claims.

Resolution of Claims

* Almost 70% (67.4%) of claims against ob-gyns are dropped by plaintiffs' attorneys, dismissed, or settled without payment.
* Closed claim resolution experience:
o No payout—67%
+ Dropped by plaintiff—37%
+ Dismissed by court—13%
+ Settled without payment—17%

[Dustlawyer]

23. Do you think that there should be no recovery for Edward's clients?

90% of medical malpractice is committed by only 6% of the doctors. They need to police themselves better to protect patients and their own malpractice premiums. Excessive judgments get remitted by the trial Judges, you just do not hear about it. You probably still believe the McDonald's coffee case was "frivolous" as the tort reformers intended you to.

[cbayer]

27. I agree with much of what you say

There is no doubt that this is a three legged stool with physicians, insurance carriers and trial lawyers all carrying some of the responsibility. And I agree that physicians must do a better job of policing themselves and that the vast majority of malpractice is committed by a small percentage of doctors.
But the problem is, if 6% of the doctors are truly liable, why have 89% of OB-GYN's had a suit filed against them. The costs associated with defense is these cases just adds to the whole problem
And yes, I think there should be recovery for those actually harmed. Just not uncapped non-economic damages. Excessive judgments are not always remitted or remitted adequately. That's how John Edwards made his millions and you know it.
Despite what you think, I am not a patsy of the tort reformers. I care about what has happened to health care and physicians in this country. And all i want is for John Edwards to take some responsibility for his role in this mess.

[avaistheone1]

24. Typical right-wing fear tactics.

The right has been spewing these lies about the OB-GYNs for the last 40 years. Having worked in the health care field, I assure you it is a pack of lies. 0B-GYNs are readily accessible and available.

[cbayer]

26. ACOG is a right-wing fear mongering organization?

I don't think so. Show me your data. I showed you mine.

[mirrera]

17. This is a book review. Have you read Four Trials?

If you haven't read the book, I do not know why you would want to post. Did you read the entire review? It is a very interesting review. Jumping in with opinion is your right, but it would be much more helpful to tell us what you are basing your beliefs on. I read the book and i can say that the review is accurate. No "junk science". None.

People like John are not what is corrupting our health care system. When our health care system fails and you are mistreated by it, I only hope you have someone on your side like him.

[cbayer]

19. I'm only allowed to comment on the book review?

I have read parts of the book and I have read other accounts of these trials and I have formed my own opinion.

I support everyone's right to seek redress when they have been damaged by negligence, including malpractice. What I do not support is the outrageous awards for non-punitive damages in these cases. And these OB cases were based on beliefs about cause and effect which were not backed by data at the time and are now known to be unfounded. And in response to these kinds of cases, the rates of c-section went up dramatically. And they went up because doctors were afraid of being sued. C-sections have much higher rates of immediate and long-term complications. Do you really want physicians to make decisions about your health care based on their fears of being sued?

I also hope that I have access to good attorneys and the legal system if i am ever mistreated by any system. But if i had to choose between a system with no doctors and one with no trial lawyers, well.... which would you want?

[mirrera]

29. Actually you are right about c-sections. I had both my boys at home...

so believe me when I read about that trial I was not an Edwards supporter. I had completely bought into the frivolous lawsuits, phony meme put out by the media. When I read the book and he actually went in to the symptoms that this pregnant mom was experiencing, it was actually shocking. I am usually the last person to be for the kind of interference that OB doctors want to run — often to protect themselves. In fact I asked my midwife what would cause her to send me to a hospital, and one of the things on her list was, if I was over two weeks late. I immediately made her advance my due date by one week to accommodate a longer cycle. Good thing, I was still 13 days late and had a perfect birth. Believe me, I have friends that are mid-wives, lactation specialists, etc. What Edwards was finally able to discover, because of this trial, was that the nurses were afraid to contradict this older doctor. I have an older doctor that has dealt with my boys since they were babies. I am so glad his son-in-law has taken over. He is burnt out after great service. I suspect this doctor was the same. Still this young family should not pay the price for that.

I am glad you have read parts of the book. It is very hard to have a real discussion with someone when there are such different frames of reference. I don't mind disagreeing on the issue, or if you read something that you KNOW is false. I do not know if you read the whole trial, but even with my bias toward natural birth and a love for doctors that lean that way, I thought John did everything right.
He convinced 12 people and that was no easy task considering that the hospital was a major employer of the area, and every juror had at least one connection to it.

Peace...

[cbayer]

30. Thank you

for your kind and thoughtful response. Obviously I have some very strong feelings about this and I enjoy the discussion/debate. I certainly do not like being called ignorant and blown off because I hold a different opinion. I want to like Edwards but this one point has led me to a deep distrust of him. Of course he outlined in his book a case that appears to have merit. However, he filed at least 20 additional suits in similar cases based on "evidence" that is now not felt to be valid. And the harm this does to the physicians involved is unspeakable and the public is not always aware. Certain attorneys in this country have gone to great lengths to portray doctors as greedy and careless, and I think that has caused a lot of damage. Edwards is strongly supported by this group and it is highly unlikely that he will make any attempt to change it. But if he is the nominee, I will vote for him.
As a newbie participant on DU, I have been blown away by the amount of infighting in these forums. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Peace back at you.

[mirrera]

31. I would be very interested in your info.

I posted in another post, that we all are a product of our sources. I only know what I have either sought out, or what has dropped in my lap. We are all riding the brain we created for the day—just watched the dvd "What the Bleep do we Know". I am so... what is a good word to discribe the anguish and horror and depression of 7 years of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc.? I am that word. I am sorry you have had to experience DU at this time. I was lucky because when I joined it was not during a primary. I also have been shocked by the hostility. Like Edwards, who enjoys talking policy, I would love to be able to swap info and sources, not insults and assumptions. None of us knows as much as we think we do.

I am really hoping that my hope for John Edwards is not misplaced. Reading his book really moved me, but I know very little about his other trials. I love Obama's books as well, and I have ordered Hillary's "Living History". I like to see who people think/hope they are.

[cbayer]

32. Look at my previous posts in this thread

There is a findlaw.com link that gives the basic information and a link to an article in the huffington post. someone else also cited an article that takes the opposing position but does not dispute the facts. if you google "john edwards malpractice", you will find a number of interesting sources. his relationship with the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is also well doumented on the web and his voting record while in the Senate was uniformly consistent with their policies. i absolutely agree with you about sources and have much more respect for those that share actual data and not just their personal experiences when taking a strong stand.
The three remaining candidates certainly have more in common than they do differences and I will gladly vote for any of them. But my choice in the primary is still quite unclear. I wish they would stop beating each other up and that people on this site would do the same.

[mirrera]

33. Thanks, I will check out those sources...n/t

[mirrera]

34. Ok This is from one of your links:

This is from the Findlaw link:
(http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.profile.html)

The "Character" Issue Is a Non-Issue: Edwards's Alleged Use of "Junk Science"

Now, let's go on to the more specific complaint about the cases Edwards himself brought as a plaintiffs' lawyer.

Throughout his career, Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. Indeed, he reportedly developed a reputation of being so fearsome that insurance companies settled as soon as they heard he was the plaintiff's lawyer. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science." (Click here to see a typical criticism.)

That's not true, however. Having reviewed the cases Edwards's critics have cited, I found that what they show is that at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.

It turns out that now -- many years later, in light of additional evidence and science -- it seems that the defendants had the better of the debate. But all that proves about Edwards is that he couldn't see into the future. No one can, which is why we have trials, not oracles.

One of the cases the critics dwell on occurred in 1979. In that case, Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Edwards won $6.5 million for a young girl named Jennifer Campbell who had been born with cerebral palsy in a rural part of North Carolina. The Campbells claimed (among other points) that, given Jennifer's position in the womb, the doctor should have recommended a Caesarean section, especially during the birth, once there was evidence of fetal distress.

One of the chief tools that Edwards used -- the fetal heart rate monitor reading -- is now hotly debated. In the late '70's, when Edwards first started trying these sorts of cases, many obstetricians felt that increased used of fetal heart rate monitors would lead to safer deliveries. Furthermore, lawyers like Edwards thought that, since the monitors produced a permanent record, it would be easier to prove whether a doctor ignored certain warning signs after the fact.

Indeed, at the time, even the defense expert seems to have operated under these assumptions. North Carolina operated under something called the "locality rule," which meant that reasonable care in medicine was defined by the standard of care of the local doctors. And as Edwards tells it in his book, Four Trials, even the defense expert hired by the obstetrician admitted in deposition that he would have elected for a Caesarean section at the outset. He also admitted that, given his reading of the heart rate monitor records, he would have recognized fetal distress over an hour earlier than the defendant.

Now, it turns out that the causal link between physician malpractice and cerebral palsy is much less certain than was once believed. Furthermore, fetal heart monitoring--which was adopted by many hospitals in the '70's and '80's as a defense against claims of medical malpractice--may itself be the culprit. With the benefit of hindsight, many medical experts now feel that the monitors produce too many false alarms that have led to too many unnecessary Caesarean sections -- and perhaps to too many erroneous findings of liability.

In 1979, however, none of this was clear. And therefore, the supposed "character" issue for Edwards is no issue at all. There might be lawyers who use junk science--theories that he or she knows have no acceptance among the scientific community. There is no reason to assume that only plaintiffs lawyer are guilty of this (when lawyers for Big Tobacco presented scientists who denied that smoking is addictive or causes cancer, what were they thinking?). But in the cerebral palsy cases argued by Edwards the jury had to choose between two plausible theories--and they chose the one presented by Edwards.

A close reading of the Campbell case reveals that the hospital may have given the jury a few reasons to pick Edwards' theory over theirs. In the course of the trial, Edwards brought out that the hospital never offered to the Campbells the choice of opting for a Caesarean section. He pointed out that the Campbells weren't even asked to sign an "informed consent" form until after Jennifer was born - even though the form stated that they had been informed before the delivery of its various dangers. At the end of the trial, the jury found the hospital liable for failing to respect the Campbell's right to make decision based on informed consent.

The jury's anger that the parents were not given this option may have been a large reason for its multimillion dollar verdict. Certainly, it is plausible that, as Edwards says in his book, the case had a huge impact on how hospitals handled informed consent.

(more at: http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.profile.html)

[cbayer]

35. yep, i am aware of that

there is clearly diversity of opinion on this issue, and that's ok.

[mirrera]

16. He only took money after winning. His percentage was lower than

other lawyers in his area. Read his book then comment. The OP links to a book review. Most people who comment on a book review either know the reviewer and comment on them, or they read the book.
I have read the book. Excellent review.

[Triana]

8. That's my Edwards and that's why...

...I never had to think twice about supporting him. Not for senate. Not for VP. Not for President. If he's in there, he's got my support. Period.

[Krashkopf]

11. Edwards response to Hillary was SPOT ON.

Only a Corporate Lawyer like Clinton could equate "the Trial Lawyers" - who fight for the rights of individuals; with Corporate Lobbyists - who fight for giving Corporations the power to abuse individuals.

Sometimes the truth slips out. With her comment, Clinton PROVED that she is ON THE SIDE OF THE CORPORATOCRACY.

[penguin7]

14. Trial Lawyers are a special interest

The large mob of trial lawyers here are being dishonest by claiming that there are somehow better than the smelly system that they are in.

[7horses]

15. That's...

exactly why the corporate establishment/media are trying to kill John's message. They are afraid of him.
Afraid, because they know if people hear him... people will put him in the White House. Go, John go!!!

[DutchLiberal]

20. Edwards is bought and sold, like the other two.

Anybody believing anything else, is buying into the same old shit again.

[avaistheone1]

25. Bought and sold by whom?

This guy has dedicated his life to serving the American people, and that is the guy I want in the White House.

[DutchLiberal]

28. Yeah, I'm sure Mr Hedge Funds co-sponsoring IWR dedicates his life to the people...