Riddle me this: Edwards and corporatism

[BelgianMadCow]

I gathered from DU that Edwards is one of the three main contenders.
I had also gathered that Edwards, like the other two, is friendly to corporations.

Listening to Edwards the past couple of days, noting his focus on the wall separating the many and the few and his apparent anti-corporatism, I cannot rhyme one with the other.

GD opinions would be most welcome!

on edit: for example where their campaign donations come from. Is Edwards consequent and not taking money from Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Defense etc?

bmc

[sam sarrha]

1. the system sucks but you cant fix it if you dont get elected and you wont without using the system

[BelgianMadCow]

6. So who is he taking money from, corporation-wise? Do you know?

thanks for the succinct analysis :-)

[Hieronymus]

8. These are the figures on donations from, opensecrets.org

Donations from Business:

Hillary 56%
Edwards 4%
>>>>>
Donations from Labor:

Edwards 52%
Hillary 11%

[BelgianMadCow]

12. Those figures say a LOT, thanks!

[Hieronymus]

18. You're welcome ... I agree, they say a lot. Health Care donates to Hillary, too.

[sam sarrha]

27. a lot of business gives him money "BECAUSE" he wants to end corp contributions, because it is way to

expensive for the smaller guys to afford the cost of bribes these days

[CoffeeCat]

2. Edwards is the only candidate addressing corporatism...

First off, I am still undecided, but I am leaning Edwards or Obama.

After I came out of denial about Gore entering the race, I began listening
to the candidates, and also researching them.

When Edwards was in DC, he wasn't a hard-core progressive, and I think he
kow towed to his share of corporations. All of them did, and most still
do. However, I think we can all agree that kow towing to corporations
a decade ago, and engaging in these activities today--are grossly different behaviors.
Politicians in DC have always catered to corporations. Now, these corporations
OWN the politicians, at the expense of the safety and interests of US citizens. Instead
of getting a few favors or more time with the politicians, these corporations
buy politicians and politicians give them everything they want.

Today's corporatism is not the corporatism in which Edwards and many others engaged
several years ago. I'm not saying the pre-Bush corporatism was right. However,
it was not the sickening version that it is today. Furthermore, Edwards denounces
today's corporatism and speaks out vociferously about our broken, corrupt system.
He campaigns on reforming and overhauling the entire system. The other candidates
barely mention these problems, let alone express a desire to change the system.

DC's political climate has changed quickly and dramatically. The DLC used to be
relatively rational. It is now a hive of neocon and corporatist Dems.
However, Al Gore helped found the DLC. Things have changed. Al Gore has come a
long way since his days in DC, and I believe Edwards has as well.

Edwards has refused lobbyist contributions, while Hillary continues to fight
any kind of lobbying reform, claiming that, "Lobbyists are people too."

Edwards is the only candidate who has clearly and loudly called out the politicians
in DC for their corruption. He routinely speaks about our broken, corrupt political
system. No other candidate is doing this, besides Kucinich and as we all know,
Hillary is a part of the problem.

I believe that Edwards was moved--as was Kerry--during their 04 campaigning. I believe
they looked Americans in the eye and really heard them. I believe Edwards is
running because he wants to make real change and he cares about the average American.

During his time away from DC--he must have decided that he didn't want to be a part
of the neocon, elite political players who have ravaged our system. He's speaking
out against them.

I have deep respect for Edwards, and many of our other candidates. I continue to
watch what all of them say and I continue to be impressed with Edwards courage when
he takes on the neocons and Washington corruption. In my mind the perverted state
of our government--led by the neocons--is the single most critical issue of the
campaign.

[BelgianMadCow]

3. "I have deep respect for Edwards, and many of our other candidates."

second that. And on edit - reading your post for the second time - thanks a lot for your insight.

[B Calm]

5. Excellent reply!

[Time for change]

4. I agree with you

I see little or no evidence that Edwards is a corporatist candidate. In fact, he's one of the least corporatist candidates we've ever had run for president. Corporatist candidates don't make the elimination of poverty the center of their campaign. Nor do they refuse to accept money from lobbyists. Furthermore, before entering politics Edwards made his career by representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against major corporations for gross negligence. He probably enjoyed more success in that effort than anyone previously ever has. I don't see how anyone can call him a corporatist candidate.

[BelgianMadCow]

7. So he refused to accept money from lobbyists? That is a good start

I suppose he does accept money from (people within) corporations directly or something then?

And I agree his trial lawyer's experience is very relevant. And he knows it :-).
Only a bit sad lawyers have gotten such a bad name in the US...here it would be a pure asset, in the US I think there is a certain visceral reaction to lawyers.

[Hieronymus]

9. Most of congress is made up of lawyers.

[BelgianMadCow]

11. which makes "lawyer" an even less positive thing

looking at the approval rating of Congress? Or what was your point? Sorry :-)

[bobbolink]

15. Would you rather elect a lawyer who worked for corporations and will probably be a lobbyist

upon leaving goverment service, or elect a trial lawyer who fought for people being screwed by corporations?

[BelgianMadCow]

19. A trial lawyer is THE BEST.

Let me be clear : I have NOTHING against lawyers. Just that I think the profession is not as well respected as over here.

[bobbolink]

22. that's EXACTLY why Edwards is being very *smart* in emphasizing his trial experience!

Instead of being a willing victim of the "swiftboat" mentality, he's out front trumpeting what he did as a trial lawyer, and how he helped people who were being stomped on by the corporations.

Shades of Erin Brokovitch! :hi:

And I think, eventually, that image will connect.

Brilliant move on his part.

[Hieronymus]

16. FDR was looked on as an enemy of business .. no one else, until Edwards,

has made it his passion.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/the-plot-agains.html

FDR made a wonderful speech about the corporate elite ... I can't locate it now. Thom Hartmann has played it numerous times.

[bobbolink]

10. Should Edwards get the nomination, you will see him attacked mercilessly by the corporations.

Then, you will be assured that he is definitely a threat to the corporations.

Actually, I do have some concern for his safety because he's been so outspoken against the corporate bosses.

[BelgianMadCow]

14. His being outspoken insired my OP

In speeches, he taking every chance to point out his fight against them being is the theme of his life. I was really impressed by the candor he displayed.

And even if his past political career may have tainted him, he is running NOW and statements like that cannot be retracted without severe political damage.

[bobbolink]

17. "even if his past political career may have tainted him"

A couple of years ago, I reread a biography of Bobby Kennedy.

Yanno, he wasn't such a nice guy when he was first serving in his brother's administration.

But, look what he became.

A total flip-flopper.

:rofl:

[BelgianMadCow]

20. My use of the word "may"

was based on another poster in this thread who said that was probable.

I'd rather have you assure me about his past in a more positive way.

I asked an honest question, and have NO intention of bashing Edwards (or anyone for that matter).

just sayin'

:hi:

[bobbolink]

23. "flip-flopper" was meant to be humorous...hence the rofl.

:hi:

[ChiciB1]

21. THIS Is One Of The MAIN Reasons They Are Working So Hard To Keep

him from getting elected! I too worry about him and how he'll be received, but I also worry that if we get more of the same, and can't move forward! It's not only unfortunate, but a sad statement that even many many Democrats in D.C. have sold their souls just to keep getting re-elected!

I'm sure Edwards knows he takes a LOT of unnecessary FLAK because he's gotten more an more outspoken about so many issues. Many here call him all kinds of names, say he's pandering or angry all the time. What he's really doing is "telling like it is" and let the chips fall where they may!

I do think he's matured and learned from past mistakes and is big enough to acknowledge these things, unlike others who remain STUBBORN and won't get off the dime! Like say The Idiot, Decider!!

[bobbolink]

24. I also believe it's why he's considered a threat, and kept from "light of day" as much as possible.

I also think he's considered a threat by Dem leadership.

That's what we've become.

[ChiciB1]

28. When You Think About The So-Called Dem Leadership We're A Ship That

has lost it's rudder! Perhaps you could see similarities when ROME ruled the world! And history has recorded what happened to them!! Getting DRUNK on power clouds the clarity of vision almost every time!

Until this past decade I tended to believe that politics was "cyclical" and that power usually switched by generational modes. I don't see that anymore because even those of the other party have become almost as distressed as we are. I actually believe that many are just as unhappy about what we've become as we are. The words of The Idiot who stated he was a Uniter NOT a Divider is akin to those "false Prophets" from the past. And I refuse to follow like a mouse behind a Pied Piper anymore, regardless of which party is leading!

I've always told my children... If you stand for nothing, you WILL fall for anything! Edwards seems to be trying to lead us in a different direction even when he knows he fell for the glitz and glamor when he became a Senator. I honestly believe he is being guided by a different light. It may just be a start down a better path and many are unable to grasp it, or are unwilling to relinquish THEIR power! The latter is probably more true, but regardless of the outcome I don't think I will ever regret having supported him at this time in our history as a nation.

And if my comments seem a bit "churchy" they ARE NOT! I left the Catholic religion many years ago and sought my own spiritual journey. To each his own.

[JDPriestly]

13. Edwards does not take money from corporate lobbyists.

That includes big pharma, big insurance, big corporation farming, etc. Edwards is complying with the guidelines for accepting government matching funds to finance his campaign. Edwards will accept donations from you, an individual, whether you work for a corporation or your own business or don't work at all. You have to put down your employer's name when you donate money to any political candidate.

John Edwards does not want to end the existence of corporations or the corporate form of doing business. He wants to end corporate dominance in our politics. When Edwards becomes president, he will not owe his election to big corporations.

Hillary accepts and receives many donations from corporate lobbyists. I do not know about the other candidates' conduct on this. I think Obama, like Edwards, does not accept money from corporate lobbyists although I am under the impression that Obama may have acepted donations from corporate lobbyists in the past, but I am not sure.

[ChiciB1]

25. I Like His Comments About Not Sitting Down To Dinner With The

Pharmaceutical Companies because they'll eat all the food! On this one, he hits the ball out of the park!

I'm sure he's has enough gray matter to realize that he can't rid America of corporations and the like, he just wants the playing field to level out and remember that the people who work for the "big guys" deserve to close the gap and earn a decent living. As it is now, most of the big guys make astronomical more money when compared to those they employ.

[saltpoint]

26. The Edwards campaign has fiercely aligned with unions, with wage-earners,

with the workin poor, and the impoverished.

Google the announcement of his presidential campaign -- from the 9th ward in New Orleans.

Not a casual selection. The incumbent president abandoned that city. John Edwards announced his run for the White House at the core of that abandonment.