Say what you will about John Edwards

[WyLoochka]

He was dead right about health insurers and lobbyists

"I hear people say you can sit at a table with these people, negotiate with them, and they will volunteer their power away," Edwards said. "That is a complete fantasy. You can't ‘nice’ these people to death."

Special interests "will never give their power away," Edwards said.

12/2007

[Captain Hilts]

1. I agree and that is why I wish he had stayed in the race longer. nt

[Raster]

3. I also wish he would have stayed in the race longer.

I, for one, don't care who he schluppped--or didn't.

[Owl]

9. I agree.

[Captain Hilts]

10. We needed someone to pull the debates further to the left. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. +1

:thumbsup:

[question everything]

181. At the time I wished this, too. However

as we've discussed here many times, it was not a private matter, not when he kept it a secret. Had he done with the affair before he decided to run - with or without Elizabeth divorcing him - and presented himself as what he'd done, it would then have been up to us to decide what was more important. After all, McCain and Newt and many other Republicans cheated on their wives.

But had he been the nominee and then the affair were disclosed, we would be doomed. There would be now - shudder - President McCain with a slimmer majority, if at all, in Congress. And, of course, more Thomases and Scalias in the Supreme Court.

[Demoiselle]

19. Obama ran "Harry and Louise" type ads against Edwards in one of the

primary states...Can't remember which one, but Krugman was all over Obama's case
for his weak health care reform plans. I liked Edwards for his policies, and I don't care
about his personal life. Hillary came in second for me because she was stronger than Obama
on health care. There is much I admire about our President, but I'm very very
worried we won't get anything decent in the way of reform. And I worried about it from the beginning
of primary season.
So here we are.
Sigh.

[INdemo]

66. The Health insurance industry has billions to spend if they have to

to keep their power...They aren't about to give that up..The same goes for the drug companies..We are stuck with this high priced health care.

[DaLittle Kitty]

84. Kick & Recommend and Then COPY &^ PASTE... Elsewhere!

We are in bad shape!

[earcandle]

90. Take the focus off the money, put it into authentic action.

money is too hot, too charged, find meaning in simplicity.  
that is my mantra.  make things happen, not the story, but the
reality.

when people can buy an election, means the candidates are
screwy anyway.
dump this group and let us find another.  Let us shape our own
and ignore these. 
Would that work?  Leaders are sucky these days. 

Hey I have a song floating around about leaders and their
problems. 
I am shameless in my excitement for numbers games and math 
and sharing our new songs with you.  Stop and give a listen.
One of the players was
in Ali Akbar's band and a student for a time in the nineties. 
It won't hurt your ears,
although the end is powerful. 

Glad Burris was not found guilty in his purgery indictment. 

[defendandprotect]

136. Let's b e clear, Democrats are limiting our choices of candidates to those who will fail . . .

and after the candidate "pre-selection" then we still have the question

of election steals . . . about which Democrats have still done nothing.

While the corporate-press is playing a continuing strong role in the election steals.

[Beartracks]

74. That's why campaigns should be about...

issues of public importance (like health care) and not private issues (like infidelity).

[DaLittle Kitty]

81. That Is Why John Russell Endorsed Edwards... He Was The ONLY One Who "Knew HOW To Defeat Them!"

John Russell knew that Edwards was the one candidate who would stand his ground and stand up for our right to quality, universally accessible health care.... Russell speaks constantly about the lobbyists checkbook. Russell debating right wing neuro-surgeon yesterday on community radio in Tampa... http://sound.wmnf.org/sound/wmnf_090618_130500_radioactivityr_191.MP3 Nice job John!

The lobbyist check book is the symbol of Corporate Control over our political system. In 2006 Russell was offered the opportunity to "sell out" to the pharmaceutical industry in return for buuukuu campaign ca$h...and he turned it down.:think:

Baucus, Dodd, Kent Conrad... They ARE the problem and will be to blame... and let's not forget Bill Nelson Republicrat of Florida. We are in rough shape!

John Russell,MS/ARNP,MBA Health Systems Management on Health Care from is website.

http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=35

*
The Problem for Health Care Consumers
*
The Solution for Health Care Consumers
*
Excerpts: The 2008 Health Care Plan of Presidential Candidate John Edwards:)
*
Health Care Key Points
*
Problems with Medicare
*
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
*
Health Care

[DissedByBush]

85. Someone who made millions in medical malpractice suits

Should probably not be talking about the cost of health care.

[JDPriestly]

91. Few know more about the insurance racket than med-mal attorneys.

I personally don't like the idea of suing doctors, but suing insurance companies is a great idea.

[DissedByBush]

146. He sued doctors

The cases I've seen don't look like ones where insurance companies withheld care.

[JDPriestly]

176. The doctors were insured by insurance companies. He dealt with

insurance companies -- the doctors' insurers.

[spooky3]

126. He would not have won had he been unable to prove bad behavior

in each case he won. This part of the blame for the high cost of health care should be placed squarely on the incompetent provider, not on the victim and the people ensuring that the victim is fairly compensated for injuries or death.

If you or a member of your family were harmed by an incompetent, careless provider, I have no doubt that you would be running to find a John Edwards to get justice, and fair compensation, for you.

[Johonny]

135. IT's also like not a major cost in the industry

which is why Bushes amazing plan to limit lawsuits did nothing to help consumers get insurance it just hurt average Americans legally.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

116. Why

So he wins the nomination and during the presidental campaign the affair comes out and he loses the general and we have President McCain?

[Lasher]

144. And the Republicans surely would have found out.

It's hard to forgive him for being so careless with the future of the entire Democratic party like that, and for that matter the welfare of the whole country. Edwards has redeeming value but nothing that rises above this mindless negligence.

There was a time when politicians like Ike and Kennedy could get by with such a thing but those days are gone.

[itsrobert]

137. I wish he would of stayed in his Pants longer

Too bad that harlot took him for a free ride.

[SmileyRose]

160. I agree too and that's why I wish he'd kept his car in his own garage.

his fling or whatever it was is his own business, his, his wife's and his baby mama. But he really screwed up his ability to be a public part of the political debate, right when he's needed the most. Now instead of putting some energy into winning over America he's got to put it all into winning back the woman he already had.

[XOKCowboy]

2. I still think he'd made a great President

If we weren't such a prudish nation. I don't give a damn about his personal life. He had some great ideas and plans. He was a true Progressive candidate.

[JDPriestly]

21. I'm with you. No one understands the deviousness of the corporate

mind than a plaintiff's attorney. He was the only candidate who could have handled Wall Street in this crises. I know people criticize him for having worked for a hedge fund. I think it was a smart thing to do. Know thy enemy.

[cali]

110. johny hedgefund was out for little johny hedgefund. fucking asshole phony of the worst kind

i could care less who he fucked too. I care that he was one of the biggest dem cheerleaders for the IWR, that he voted twice for Yucca Mountain, that he made money off the backs of Katrina victims, that he voted for a bad bankruptcy bill, that he worked for one of the sleaziest hedge funds under the pretext of learning about poverty.

JE was NEVER a progressive. He was and is a self-involved little twit.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. I'm just guessing here that you didn't support Edwards in the primaries.

[sellitman]

150. It had nothing to do with being prudish

His wife is dying of cancer. If he couldn't find a better way of supporting her at her time of need what makes you think he would give a shit about you or me?

Fuck him no matter what his politics are. He doesn't deserve to be President.

[saracat]

4. Absolutely right on. And if we really cared about "issues" and not "morality" or

or the candidate, someone might have listened.But we would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Actually, it's public morality that's important. And our health care system is immoral

Although I found Senator Edwards' marital behavior disappointing to say the least, it's really none of my damn business.

[saracat]

8. Good point. It seems what the definition of rea lmorality is doesn't resonate

with the American public. For most "morality " has to do with perceptions about sexual behavior, whereas the immorality of killing and poverty escapes them. I , too was disappointed by Edwards fling, butI don't think it negated the validity of his ideas.And i was really angry about it at the time but it really isn't my business.

[tsuki]

98. You must not have been on DU when it came out. I hid over 100

posts of extremely self-righteous "How could he" BS posts.

[The Wizard]

118. And everyone in Congress who

votes for legislation that puts profits ahead of people is immoral. This bribery shit has to stop.

[DaLittle Kitty]

83. AGREED 1000%

Edwards Told 'em Where They Lived On National Tv Then they started going out of their way to keep him OFF SCREEN, OUT OF THE DEBATE, OFF TO THE SIDE... Just like Kucinich! It was CORPORATE MEDIA MANIP AT ITS FINEST!

[TahitiNut]

5. That's why I supported him as my 2nd choice after Kucinich.

No, I was never deluded into thinking that he was consistent or dedicated to the stances he was taking as a Presidential candidate, but I regard it as VERY important that those candidates who VOICE positions with which I agree deserve my support. It has to do with 'renting' time on the bully pulpit of candidacy ... and isn't about betting on the 'winning horse' even if the jockey is a murderer and the horse is owned by Saudi royalty.

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

12. That's the whole point of the primary process. So I opposed the effort to get the 'minor' candidate

s out of the debates. We needed Kucinich, and Edwards, in the debates longer.

[Zodiak]

100. Yup...that was me

I didn't think Edwards was 100% sincere (he was in the DLC, after all), but he had chosen to give voice to populist positions, so he deserved my vote. That is, until he dropped out in a hurry and left me choosing between "DLC" and "DLC?".

I'm beginning to think I should have stuck with Kucinich.

[ChiciB1]

159. Edwards "WAS" DLC Once, But I Think He Came To See The Writing On The Wall...

As time went by, he sounded more and more like a man "for the people" and the powers that be needed to put a "cap" on it!

To this day, I have YET to see MANY, MANY of our own Democrats working for "we the people!" I might be able to name 10, but not sure. I'm still wondering WHERE THE HELL THEIR SPINES ARE!!!

Won the WH. won the House, won the Senate... and, and, and... who's really winning EVEN TODAY??

NOT "we the people" as I see it!! Even here I see many bashing KO, Rachel Maddow and others who went out on a limb to "speak out" against corruption when it was BFEE, but now when they open up about some of the VERY SAME issues that went on back then, it's THEM who are the enemy! Oh well, I've had to decide that "what will be, will be" and try as I have for so many many years that it's time to let the chips fall where they may!

JMHO!!

John Edwards WAS NOT perfect nor would he or could he have done all he stated, but there was something about him that made me "like" him... and it wasn't his looks!!

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Yup. And he was criticizing Obama specifically

This is what Paul Krugman wrote about it back then in a column called "Big Table Fantasies"

This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a “big table” that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

snip..

Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.

Big Table Fantasies

[Bette Noir]

88. I'd just as soon the health insurance companies were put out of business entirely.

The whole concept of gambling on people's health, in order to make money, is obscene. That they cheat, by collecting premiums and then refusing to pay benefits, is unconscionable.

[chimpymustgo]

134. Krugman's a truth-teller - not allowed around here! (But boy didn't he - and Edwards - call that one

[ChiciB1]

161. Yep, You Hit The Nail On The Head With That One! Krugman & Edwards Have

really been raked over the coals, but THEY DID HAVE IT CORRECT!!

And what cabinet post was Tom Daschel (sp) supposed to have been appointed to??? Does that tell ANYONE anything?? If I live to be 100 (I hope I won't) I don't think I will ever understand what DEMOCRACY stands for anymore!

Everything is bought and sold and it ALL comes down to MONEY!!! Of which I have less and less!

[inna]

147. thanks for this quote.

amazing how Obama didn't change; it's just people's perceptions about him that changed...

[Jim Sagle]

11. What can I say? The avatar I have now was not my first choice.

[Captain Hilts]

13. I started out as a Clarkie. nt

[PSzymeczek]

68. Me, too,

and I was disappointed when he came out for DLC Hillary.

[Captain Hilts]

168. He and Hillary are tight. And both Hillary and Obama are very DLC. nt

[Kalyke]

14. No, but if you're Edwards, you can fake phony populism.

:eyes:

Never could stand that guy. He always seemed so full of shit to me.

[frazzled]

15. Sigh

Words are cheap, and John Edwards's words, meant to lure in left-base voters in the wake of his short career of rightist-Democratic politics, were probably cheaper than most.

John Edwards would not have had any easier a time of putting through a comprehensive health-insurance and health cost reform bill than an Obama or a Clinton. Probably less so than either of those--and if he had managed to get the nomination (fat chance, but just say), you would have seen him lurch so far to the center it would make your head spin. But y'all sure do love youse some honey coated words, dontcha.

[JDPriestly]

22. John Edwards knows better than any of the other candidates how

tor wrestle money and concessions from big corporations. That's what he did for a living. A little experience representing plaintiff's in personal injury cases against corporations makes you a very capable negotiator. Edwards would have gotten at least the public option. Obama has yet to do that. Edwards would not have been afraid to twist arms.

As for the Edwards' looks and polish, he was raised in a mill supervisor's family, went to a state university and learned to present himself in public. Compare that resume with the Ivy League credentials of most of the other candidates.

I'd like to see how any DUer with Edwards' family background attain the success in the courtroom that Edwards did. Edwards is not as slick as let's say a Mitt Romney who grew up in wealth and power, not as nonchalant as Obama who lived in a variety of environments as a child, nor as well established in D.C. as Hillary Clinton. No, he was as close to a genuine country boy as could run for the presidency today -- a country boy who made a lot of money in a tough profession and never forgot where he came from. The only other country kid in the race was maybe Mike Huckabee and I'm not sure whether he was anywhere near as genuine as Edwards.

Edwards would be able to handle the healthcare negotiations. We shall see how Obama fares.

[rvablue]

24. IF Edwards were president right now, the only thing he would be handling would be spin control

and trying to save his presidency from a complete meltdown due to another sex scandal.

And as far as Edward's grand omnipotence re:health care negotiations, just take a look back at the Clinton administration, when the White House task force headed by Hillary tried to go it alone and delivered a package to Congress that they wanted passed. It failed, because Congress (at that point a DEMOCRATIC Congress) didn't like being bossed around, not because it wasn't workable as the spinmeisters would have us now believe.

Read the NYT mag peice called "The Insiders" from 2 or 3 weeks ago, and you'll get schooled on how and why the Obama administration is handling the drafting of the bill from the Hill and not the White House this go-around.

[JDPriestly]

60. Edwards has, I'm sure, negotiated many a deal much more difficult

than a public option for insurance coverage.

What did Obama ever negotiate that was really difficult? I haven't heard of it if he ever did anything of that sort. I think he has always been kind of a second wheel in the jobs he fulfilled, at least everything following law school.

Yes, Edwards would be preoccupied with spin control -- as Ensign is today. That's unfortunate. May the American people should change their focus from what mistakes a candidate makes in the privacy of hotel bedrooms (assuming that is where the objectionable behavior occurred) to what really counts -- the ability to get policy enacted that will benefit America.

Edwards' platform was stronger in every respect -- the environment, trade policy, the economy, healthcare, even LGBT issues (after a moment of reckoning with some of his closest aides), and Edwards has a record of fighting. Obama is not enough of a fighter.

Compare Obama's willingness to fight with that of Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins hands down. Obama runs from a fight. I guess that is what we get for electing a basketball player. Basketball is not a contact sport, not even to the extent that baseball is. Obama needs to get down and start fighting for the American people. He just is not attacking enough. He is too much on the defensive.

[SusanaMontana41]

75. "If Edwards were president right now"

There's the rub.

Edwards was my choice from the beginning. But if he had been the nominee, we'd be talking about President McCain today. And probably bomb bomb bombing Iran.

[ChiciB1]

158. Thank You So Much For Your Defense Of John Edwards!!! He ALWAYS

polled highest here at DU BEFORE everything! It was said over and over in D.C. that he was "hated" and perhaps this is just ONE reason why!

I heard this AM on C-Span that MANY Democrats have taken MANY donations from Big Pharma & Insurance Companies, so "we the people" are really only going to get a "certain" type & amount of a Health Care Plan For All!

While I don't condone what Edwards fell for, or how he handled the WHOLE situation... just stop and THINK for a minute!!! We've seen many elected officials involved in affairs and other questionable actions, but for me I was always amazed at how much VENOM was heaped upon John Edwards. David Vitter got re-elected if I'm correct and HE confessed... now Ensign and where's the outcry?

I could go on and on, but one thing is for sure... John Edwards DID know his business when it came to insurance companies and how they operated over and over again! Some called him an ambulance chaser which was nothing but CRUEL, but then too many never got past his looks and simply judged "this" book by it's cover.

Oh, I KNOW what so many will reply to anyone defending Edwards, but even now I don't care. What he caused in his personal life most certainly caused great pain, but having been one to live through something similar (although not public) I know it's NEVER ONLY ONE PERSON'S fault! And please don't take that as anything negative about Elizabeth, she's still high on my chart too! It was what it was, and HE WASN'T the first nor will he be the last on a very long list of those who stray!

Why then did so many FORGIVE Bill Clinton?? While I can't find links, I KNOW I heard it often enough how those on the HILL & around The Beltway wanted John Edwards to go away and stay away!! Better that we have Obama than a Repuke, but I'm one of those who have begun to wonder who he really is anymore!

So give him time I guess, we will see... so far though much of what I heard on the campaign trail seems so long ago!

Thanks again for giving Edwards his due. I'm STILL in his corner and probably always will be!!! And I also think Elizabeth would want me to be!!

I'm glad to see something positive about him again, but sad all over again!

[Auggie]

31. Yep... the words were alluring

[JVS]

103. His lurch to the center wouldn't have even helped. He would have lost because of his affair.

Edwards was never going to be president, and even if he had become president his credibility while talking tough is severely limited by a track record of capitulation to the right. Playing the game of what could have been with him takes a enormous willingness to ignore reality.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Which is why he was run off.

x(

[Cleita]

17. Yep. He knew the enemy and wasn't afraid to speak up about them.

I suspect insurance company hit men, followed him and got those pictures the tabloids published to ruin him and get him out of the way. I suspect they did the same to Dennis Kucinich, another single payer health care reformer, by making sure he was shut out of the debates, keeping him from getting his message out and making him seem irrelevant.

[rvablue]

26. Too bad he voluntarily provided more than enough fodder for those clandestine corporate

spies, of which you speak, to take pictures of.

Yes, it was all an evil plan. :sarcasm:

I myself am thankful Democrats avoided another sex scandal.

If we had had to deal with that, health care reform wouldn't even be on the table.

[Cleita]

30. I have to agree with you about the Democratic scandals that get way

blown up and talked about forever, unlike the Republican scandals that barely get mentioned or are even applauded (Sarah Palin parading her unwed pregnant daughter at the Convention for instance) or are even made to look like everything is fine.

[Raineyb]

44. I wouldn't call what's on the table health care reform

It looks as though they're planning to give us a public option which will end up being the insurer of last resort for the sick, old and otherwise "uninsureable" while the insurance companies continue to rape the country with their profiteering while people die for lack of health care. This bipartisan big table crap is going to get the rest of us killed. But our representatives have their health insurance for life so to hell with the rest of us.

[Horse with no Name]

58. just a redistribution of the same old shit. n/t

[clear eye]

78. And there'll be more & more uninsurables that the private plans dump on the public option

as soon as they get sick, until the public option blows up w/ such unsustainable costs that it's cut back 'til it doesn't cover anything expensive, not matter how necessary, and the # of insured are higher than now.

Even worse, the public option's failure will be taken to prove that U.S. gov't can't run a health insurance program, and poison the public against single payer.

[unc70]

61. Edwards fall was aided by others; without affair, would still have had scandal

Whether through incompetence or malice, those around Edwards failed to do their jobs. Someone like Hunter is too much a risk to be allowed near any candidate.

When I first heard that Rielle Hunter was Lisa Druck, AKA "Allison Poole", I remember thinking "Oh NO!! Not with HER?!". I did not need to Google anything about her, Lisa Druck was notorious -- the sexually voracious party girl whose life was the basis for her ex-boyfriend's novel in the unflattering character "Allison Poole". But there is one detail that makes this hard to forget: Druck's father, a prominent attorney, had hired a mob hitman to kill Lisa's horse so he could collect $150,000 in insurace. Her father had died by the time the DA brought indictments against a number of others involving other horse killings.

Most campaigns routinely do background checks on senior staff, contractors, donors, and others who are with the candidate and senior advisors every day. The most minimal vetting used by employers would have found the other names and possibly a lot more; a Google search at that time probably would not have made the connection, but a search on "lisa druck" would have found revealed her past.

Even without an actual affair, just having Hunter traveling with and being filmed with Edwards would have caused a lot of problems once the MSM started running stories about Hunter's past. The media would have made it a scandal if someone had fed them the information, and it would have been new revelations every day to keep it in the news (e.g. Hunter's father-in-law was DA in JonBenet Ramsay case).

Even if Edwards himself had been the one pushing for Hunter to be hired by the campaign, someone watching his back should have stopped it from happening.

If reports are true that the webisode idea had initially been presented to campaign staffers by producer Cary Woods, with them then setting up the Edwards/Hunter meeting in NY, then there are a lot of troubling questions that need to be asked.

[comrade snarky]

62. Please...

Edwards affair, cover up and lies were no ones fault but his own.

There were no people who should have kept watch over his dick to make sure it stayed out of trouble. "Those around" him didn't fail, he did. Sure, we should live in a world where marital infidelities don't matter but the fact is we do and he knew it. Then he did it anyway.

I don't care if Republican operatives had laid her out naked, in his hotel room, spread eagle with an "Open for Business" sign pointing at her groin. The error was his.

[Cleita]

63. Shouldn't this standard apply to all politicians, not just the Democratic ones? n/t

[comrade snarky]

65. Where did I say it shouldn't? :-)

Frankly I agree that an affair should not disqualify a person from office. Reality is it probably would and lying to the public about it definitely would.

Cheating on your cancer ridden, possibly dying wife puts you in another category though. It's a small group... but both Edwards and Newt are in it.

:Edited fro typo

[unc70]

121. Affair was his fault. Allowing Hunter near the campaign was shared with others

Consider a scenario much like what happened but where Edwards had acted above reproach. Juust allowing Hunter near the campaign would still tarnish it and could have produced a scandal based on mere proximity and Hunter's past. That is why I said that others had failed to do their job.

[glitch]

133. Wow, wheels within wheels. Edwards should have been smarter --

he knew who he was up against -- and far more caring to his own family, obviously.

But this background does make the whole sordid affair much more interesting politically.

[inna]

152. i don't understand! are you saying that Hunter's real name is Lisa Druck??

i haven't heard/read ANYTHING about this connection.

[inna]

155. omg, i just googled all that! absolutely astounding, what a

sordid soap opera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rielle_Hunter

[ChiciB1]

170. Thanks For The Link!!! What An Insight!! Wouldn't Be Surprised To Hear

that Rei-Ell was in fact a Repuke! I live in Florida & used to live VERY VERY close to Ocala & the HORSE FARMS! Very Repuke country!

But who knows? I'm a LIBERAL and I live in one of the reddest counties in Florida myself!

Seems from the link that Edwards DID want a DNA test, which was disputed by her sister, but supported by another sister! What a tangled web this one was!

Still, D.C. & "The Elites" were after him from the get-go, those words came out of some high profile reporters covering the campaign back then. One big one was Chuck Todd! He stated it on Hardball with Christ Matthews once! Sure wish I could find that clip! Chris asked him "who" he was talking about and Todd said "YOU know who I'm talking about!" Very revealing if you were listening, and I WAS!!

[unc70]

189. Disturbing connections between media and Hunter make the risk much greater

Searching with Google in 2006-2007 on Rielle Hunter would not have given any connection to Lisa Druck. When her name first surfaced with the connection to Edwards, there was a lot of discussion online the first few days about this, many speculating that the web had been scrubbed somehow of Rielle Hunter. I suspect it more likely that was mostly because of the limits on which data cab be accessed freely on the web, versus what is available for a fee from specialized vendors.

I don't know who first reported the Hunter/Druck connection nor whether they had done a background check or had known all along. A lot of high-profile MSM and bloggers apparently knew of the affair almost as soon as it began; they certainly knew about Hunter and her past. Why wouldn't they? Many of them moved within many of the same circles, its nexus where wealth, drugs, sex, rock-and-roll and films and publishing, celebrity, power, media, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists publicists, pundits, politicians - Oh my! - all converge and connect.

We know about Lisa Druck's growing up on the horse farm in Florida, her wealthy father an attorney who mostly represented insurance companies commiting insurance fraud by having Lisa's horse killed for $150,000 in insurance.

We know a lot about her "Sex in the City" days in NYC and the Hamptons, literally, part of the same "scene" as its author Candace Bushnell; we, at least I, know much less after Lisa marries attorney Kip Hunter, son of the Boulder DA in the JonBenet Ramsey case, and they move to Beverly Hills and become part of the Hollywood scene.

When Lisa and Kip divorced, she rented a room in their house from investigative reporter Ann Louise Bardach and her actor husband Bobby Lesser, a high-profile couple in the center of the nexus. Bardach is at the core of the nexus, in amazing ways. For example, she wrote the Vanity Fair in 1997 that established the TPs for media coverage of the JonBenet murder and several followups. I have not found where anyone has previously noted the connections from Bardach the reporter through her friend and tenant Lisa/Rielle Hunter to Boulder DA Alex Hunter.

Bardach seems to be in the middle of every story that we have discussed at DU, certainly those entering the mainstream. Her CV on her own site bardachreports is just a fraction of her efforts. When I start looking at the interplay between Bardach and her friends like Ariana, I start get this unsettling feeling. Here is a link about one party at Ariana's home which makes an interesting starting point, then follow the links to longer articles with pictures of Bardach, Mickey Kaus, and many others included.

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/11/first_thing_thursday_1117.php

It appears that the HuffPost and Slate were somewhat earlier than the NE on the Edwards affair, but a bit coy about things.

As I have said, I have enough to make a good conspiracy, ready to pitch it to Oliver Stone. And what do you know? There is Bardach critizing Stone for being too soft on Castro, even doing an interview with him.

[JDPriestly]

92. Obama smokes, but as an op-ed in the L.A. Times pointed out the other day,

we don't see the pictures of it. A lot of Americans would think less of Obama if we saw him with a cigarette in his mouth every few weeks.

Even Americans who smoke would be uncomfortable with pictures of the president smoking. It just isn't presidential. So, the media controls what we see of politicians. We see their bad habits, their moral failings when the media allows us to see them. I seriously doubt that President Obama drinks too much, but many of us questioned whether Bush had one too many a couple of times even though he made much of the fact that he was staying sober. Again, we see what the media wants us to see.

As long as the media did not want the public to see Edwards' relationship, it was hushed up. Only when the media wanted to undercut Edwards' support, was his relationship put on the front page. And of course, the media is not just one entity. The National Enquirer which was owned by a friend of the Clintons as I understand it pushed the story about the Edwards scandal. That was a particularly dastardly act since Edwards was, I believe, on the Clinton defense team so to speak during the impeachment of Clinton.

Here is what Edwards did that helped Bill Clinton:

In 1998, in his first bid for public office, Edwards defeated incumbent Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C., a leading advocate for impeachment of President Clinton.

Edwards began building support for his first presidential bid shortly after arriving in the Senate. He quickly made a name for himself in Congress, using his legal background to help Democratic colleagues navigate the impeachment hearings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16377918/

This Politico article was published in October 2007:

The political world has been holding its nose for the last twenty-four hours while peering at the weekly tabloid National Enquirer, which published a story yesterday alleging that presidential candidate John Edwards had an extra-marital affair.

. . . .

What the tabloid's readers, in politics and out, may not know is that a key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary.

The investment boutique which Altman founded and chairs, Evercore Partners, bought a controlling stake in American Media, which publishes the Enquirer, in 1999, which it still holds with a partner. Evercore's president, Austin Beutner, sits on American Media's Board of Directors, according to Evercore's website.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/The_Clintonite_who_owns_National_Enquirer.html

That's how the Clintons reward those who help them out.

[GreenArrow]

164. correction.

Edwards was not a single payer candidate, preferring the same sort of mandated converage that Obama is pushing. His health care plan was essentially the same as those of his two opponents. Kucinich was the - only - candidate advocating a single payer system (unless you want to count Gravel).

He's a sweet talker, but so's Obama, and all that sweet talk isn't going anywhere; it's simply to lure in the suckers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. "A good man but a bad boy."

I preferred Edwards over Obama on most issues. His stance on Health Care overrode his naughtiness.

[lame54]

23. a great way to put it...

i was for Edwards as well

he framed the debate and Barack and Hillary took up his positions

I made this after seeing him speak in Atlanta

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxOYF9ZAe0

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Thanks for sharing that. Missed opportunities.

:-(

[zalinda]

32. Yes, he framed the debate

and Barack and Hillary took up his positions, and then dropped them like hot potatoes, when Edwards left the race. So much crap has been written about him in the media that was untrue, it was amazing. But, then again, they had something to gain from it.

Obama is a negotiator and so is Edwards, the difference is that Edwards always started from a position of strength, and Obama starts from some where in the middle. If you ask for a $100,000 salary when you want $50,000, you might get $75,000, but when you ask for $50,000 to start, they'll offer you $35,000, and you'll maybe settle at $40,000. I think America is in big trouble.

zalinda

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. Everything you wrote is true, especially this part...

Yes, he framed the debate and Barack and Hillary took up his positions, and then dropped them like hot potatoes, when Edwards left the race.

[JDPriestly]

93. Thanks. This is exactly the point. You start negotiations by demanding

more than you think you can get. That is basic, and Obama does not seem to understand it. I doubt that he has ever negotiated a settlement or much of a deal of any kind for that matter. This stuff is elementary. It is embarrassing to even have to mention it.

[Inspired]

106. That video is one of my faves. I can't compliment you enough on it.

It made me feel empowered and bold during the campaign.

[ChiciB1]

162. OMG! How I Remember That & NOW I'm Crying All Over Again!!!

As I stated earlier... there were far too many in D.C. who wanted Edwards out of the way and they didn't care how it was done. True, he helped, but then I always wondered why a man who had been called out about his affairs with women BEFORE he became POTUS, actually thought he could get away with it when he WAS POTUS!!

Uh, his name was Bill Clinton! And even today, he's LOVED!!

Yeah, a BIG dirty dump WAS DONE on John Edwards!!!

[sellitman]

151. Good man?

Cheating on a wife who is fighting cancer isn't my idea of a good man.

[redqueen]

27. Yep.

[Horse with no Name]

28. He would have survived his sex scandal if he had been a republican

and nothing pisses me off more than our side not going after their indiscretions like they go after ours.
We want to act all grown up--when we aren't the ones that preach family values.

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. Ain't that the truth.

x(

[tritsofme]

33. You're probably right.

But Republicans are just generally more accepting of phonyism and hypocrisy.

[StrongBad]

34. He always knew the right thing to say to feel liked.

Inauthentic.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. Sounds like Obama too me.

:shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

37. Edwards was a centrist southern senator

who was head cheerleader for the Iraq war and milquetoast first time presidential candidate. He just changes himself to get elected.

[Horse with no Name]

39. Head cheerleader?

Link please...because I remember a JUNIOR Senator from North Carolina that went along to get along. Who, unlike MANY, apologized for his vote. But I do NOT recall him being HEAD CHEERLEADER...so I need some proof of that please.

[CTLawGuy]

42. as you wish

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074

"In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually "a grave and growing threat," and Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Claiming that U.S. national security "requires" that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ..."

The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards' arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website." (Bolding mine)

[Horse with no Name]

46. Hmm and then there is THIS

What part of THEY WERE ALL LIED TO do you not understand? I rarely believe hit pieces from blogs--and the blog you provided appears to be anti-Kerry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html
I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
>>>snip
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
>>>snip
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

[CTLawGuy]

47. more than a few senators voted the right way despite being "lied to"

unless you are insinuating people like Ted Kennedy don't want to protect our country?

[Horse with no Name]

50. Project much?

NO, I am just stating a simple fact that a JUNIOR one-term Senator from NC did NOT have any political pull to make or break a decision of that magnitude. He had, one vote. He didn't influence anyone else's vote, did he? What kind of political capital did he have cause from where I am sitting--he had none.
Show me ONE article that says HE did anything except write an alleged op-ed--like co-sponsor or co-author the bill--THEN you can assume he was a "head cheerleader".
Because I honestly do NOT recall him EVER sitting on any Sunday morning shows being interviewed about his war stance or headlines stating what a JUNIOR Senator was espousing.
Perhaps you do not know what CHEERLEADING is?

[CTLawGuy]

52. I'd say writing an oped supporting the other party's position using the other party's talking points

that gets put on the STATE DEPT WEBSITE is cheerleading.

[Horse with no Name]

54. OHHH he had enough pull to put it on a STATE website?

:sarcasm:

[CTLawGuy]

55. the State Department

not a state. Read it, he bought the Bush talking points hook, line and sinker and then he gave the president a complete blank check to go to war.

[Horse with no Name]

57. He was lied to.

He bought the snake oil. As did many others.
He apologized. He was ONE vote. One bad vote...but he was lied to. By the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Move on already. John Edwards has no political career left. People like yourself made sure of that.
You have nobody to turn against him anymore--are you still getting paychecks or what?

[XemaSab]

122. "People like yourself made sure of that?"

Um, John Edwards made sure he has no political career left, not someone posting on DU.

[CTLawGuy]

182. this wasn't a vote to name a post office after Ronald Reagan

thousands of people died because of this war. I believe he and Kerry lost because they had supported Bush on the war and could not therefore make their campaign about the morality of the war, but instead it had to be about who could "run the war better"

[Garbo 2004]

79. Edwards was a co-sponsor on Lieberman's Senate IWR bill. House version became the vehicle & passed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P:

[inna]

156. sorry, but that was cheerleading, pure and simple. very disappointing.

:(

[JDPriestly]

94. Edwards stated very clearly that he had been wrong about the

Iraq War. He made that very, very clear. I really liked how he handled that. And I understood why he had supported the war originally because I had made the same mistake. I admire the fact that he could admit he was wrong. I wish that Kerry had been as honest in 2004. The fate of the country would have been quite different.

[karynnj]

178. Your comparison to Kerry is ridiculous

Edwards was not only voted for the IWR and co-sponsored it, but he was for going to war itself - for well over 6 months after we were there.

Kerry voted for the IWR, but even before the war started kept his promise to speak out if Bush did not do the things he said in going to war only as a last resort. Kerry was one of the few Democrats who publicly criticized the invasion when it happened - saying that more diplomacy should have been done. In 2004, Kerry said MANY TIMES A DAY "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and - even at the time in Edwards was still saying the war was right (in late 2003), Kerry was saying it was not a war of last resort - which means it was not a just war. Kerry had a long list of things not done before going to war that should have been done.

In addition Kerry said the IWR vote was wrong BEFORE Edwards did.

Make your comparison of the two AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME.

Here, I'll do it for you

In late 2002 - Edwards was convinced that war was needed - Kerry was hopeful that war could be avoided (Both voted for the IWR)

In 2003, Edwards was booed at some Democratic events because he was pro-war; Kerry was labeled as anti-war by the media for the first half of 2003 and was criticized by people like David Frum in the National Review, who singled out Kerry (with France and Germany) as calling for not rushing to war.

(2004 I covered above)

In 2005, Kerry admitted that he was wrong in voting to trust Bush to go to war as a last resort. Kerry explained this in a speech describing his "the path forward". He was able to convince the majority of Americans that we should not be doing the policing and search and destroy in Iraq. He worked with Feingold, Levin, Kennedy on the Democratic position. After Kerry's renouncing of his vote, Edwards said "he was wrong" in a WP op-ed.

In 2006, Kerry and Feingold developed what became the Democratic exit plan. Edwards did not back this in summer 2006 when Kerry was vilified for it. His own plan was less aggressive.

Kerry is a FAR BETTER person with a far better record who has done far more for this country than Edwards ever will.

[earth mom]

38. I believed in John Edwards because of Elizabeth Edwards.

The loss of their son also made me believe Edwards when he spoke out as he did because I think both he and Elizabeth were reaching for higher ideals because of their loss.

We'll never know what Edwards would have done if elected, but one thing for DAMN sure:

Every doubt I had about Obama is being proven true.

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. Yep!

We'll never know what Edwards would have done if elected, but one thing for DAMN sure:


Every doubt I had about Obama is being proven true.


Gotta agree with you there.

[JDPriestly]

95. Actually, Obama is worse than I imagined. I am extremely disappointed.

He needs to call members of Congress who are not with him on the public option and imposing the same requirements on private insurers as on the public option with regard to accepting all applicants and not excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions and twist their arms. He has all kinds of leverage if he will just use it. Defense contracts that benefit certain states and districts are of great importance. So is the promise to campaign for a specific candidate. Obama has all sorts of power that he can use to embarrass members of Congress who don't support him on key issues. He has to be willing to play the bad guy once in a while. Don't worry. People will respect him for it as long as he is using his power to get what will benefit the people.

As for balancing the budget, he needs to tax those who outsource at a higher rate. He also needs to enforce laws against certain practices having to do with offshore accounts. If he enforces those laws against a few prominent personalities and makes a few headlines a lot of money will come back into the U.S.

[Imagevision]

40. Edwards ever do the DNA thing to prove he's not the dad?

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. Who cares?

:shrug:

[rvablue]

45. That little girl. Can be pretty tough growing up with your father denying your existence. n/t

[cornermouse]

51. Last I heard, her mother was the one who was refusing to do the DNA thing. n/t

[Quantess]

87. I believe it was Rielle Hunter who wanted the paternity test.

The baby looks just like John Edwards. It's pretty obvious who daddy is.

[ChiciB1]

171. Check Link In #155 Above.... n/t

[waiting for hope]

48. Here's a good vid of what he was saying

about corporations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvumTKOSYaI

He was dead on. K&R.

[JDPriestly]

96. Wow! Now that was powerful.

Edwards spoke directly. Obama hems and haws around whatever it is he is trying to say. Edwards -- direct. Obama -- evasive. Edwards = courage and strength. Obama = fear and acquiescence.

Obama has to prove he can come through for the American people on one significant issue. So far he has compromised everything. It's really disappointing. He has the political capital to do more. He is not using it.

[waiting for hope]

175. That political capital is going to dry up

and soon - the opportunity to really direct some change is now - instead we are being bogged down with more war mongering and Bush style policies. I believe it was Edwards direct approach that prompted this:

Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates

Until the corporate stronghold over DC is overthrown, we may never hear a voice like Edwards again.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Kicked and recommended for a wise observation.

Thanks for the thread, WyLoochka.:thumbsup:

[liskddksil]

53. Thank you for a positive Edwards thread!

I have no doubts he and Elizabeth would be fighting for a strong public option right now. Also he explicitly said that he believed congress should give up there healthcare if they could not get a bill passed within 9 months.

[Edith Ann]

56. John Edwards and Health Care

Maybe it's time to quit beating this man up. He looks pretty whipped anyway. If he would keep his head down and work hard for health care and poverty he could still make a difference. He needs to stay out of politics. If John Ensign can screw his friends' wife, maybe picking up a woman on the street who says "your so hot" can be forgiven. BTW, I wonder how many men she said that to until JE came along. He isn't crazy or evil, just stupid when it comes to women you pick up on the street. Anyway, maybe he's learned his lesson.

If the kid is his, he will eventually pay for her, if he isn't already. But maybe he was being blackmailed too. Let him take care of his own personal problems, but, maybe giving him a job to do wouldn't be so bad.

He was right, these people won't give up their power. You have to take it away.

[DaLittle Kitty]

107. John Edwards Archived Site Health Care... "We Have To Defeat Them!"

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/

[paulsby]

59. nor will government

or ANYBODY/entity with power.

duh

[WonderGrunion]

64. Nice-ing people to death

John Edwards is definitely an expert on dead people. I saw him once on his "Crossing Over" show and he knew everything about this woman's dead aunt....

What?

Not that John Edwards?

Nevermind. :silly:


Edited because I can't spell "knew" tonight.

[HughMoran]

67. He's right and if you're implication is that Obama won't play hardball,

...you may be in for a big surprise.

[eridani]

69. But will he play hardball for the benefit of the shitstain insurance companies?

Or will it be for the public?

[HughMoran]

71. That's not even worth answering

If you don't know the answer...

[eridani]

77. So, no comment on Baucus whoring with the insurance people this weekend?

Like they'll catch any fish.

[HughMoran]

86. Fuck Baucus

He's an ass hole - Dems have lots of ass holes. It's the majority that rules, no matter what this one dick head says - even if he is the leader.

[ChiciB1]

163. WHAT MAJORITY??? I Have Yet To See Any REAL Majority Working

all that hard!! Democrats have SPLINTERS & CRACKS all over the place, and even the Repukes... you know the Party of NO, seem to be getting under their skins!!!

Obama should be using the BULLY PULPIT and saying THE BUCK STOPS HERE! Not seeing it, he wants Bi-Partisanship, which just AIN'T gonna happen! That's how I'm seeing it!

Show me, show me, show me and then "git 'er done!"

[Kingofalldems]

70. Unfortunately they post right here on DU

[Butch350]

72. Anyone who'd cheat on his wife - would cheat on his country!

[mntleo2]

125. Would you say that about JFK? LBJ? Clinton? G Washington?

...I am *not* advocating for cheating husbands (or wives) mind you, but I do not think any of these men betrayed their country just because they had a wandering eye. And just because we did not "know" about some of these, does not mean it did not happen. So DID they betray our country too?

They say G Washington truly WAS "the father of our country" in more ways than one. He had many children by his slaves. I wonder how Martha felt about it, especially as one who never had children herself ... As a slaveholder I would say he was not our greatest president because I would also assume that not only was he a slaveholder and he let his eye wander, but he was a serial rapist as well. But really if the only standard one has for who had sex outside their marriages as a criteria for who betrayed us, I have to ask: Did G Washington betray our country too?

JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe while in the White House ~ as well as his other dabbling with women that he was known about. I wonder how Jackie lived with it ...but did JFK betray our country?

LBJ fathered a child outside of marriage and he was also know for loving the girls and I am sure his "extra curricular activities" was an embarrassment to Ladybird and his daughters ... but did LBJ betray our country too?

There were rumors about other presidents as well ... Sometimes as outright facts, such as Thomas Jefferson, who wasn't married but fathered several children by his slave-wife Sally Hemmings, one child being born while IN the White House. Did Jefferson betray our country?

Before he married, it is recorded that Abraham Lincoln lived with a male friend for many years and they shared the same bed. Was he gay? Let's face it his wife was a kook and she was a shopoholic, so she had something going on about her own longings that weren't answered, and who knows what other dallying he had, but did Abraham Lincoln betray our country?

What is it about these men who did that and one might ask what they had in common? All of them high powered men who had drive and leadership skills...something tells me that if you want such a person in power, especially during crisis and important historical times, and perhaps their sexual appetite is a trait that is part of that.



However, I am mad as hell at Edwards as he was the clearest and had the most intelligent things to say about health care as well as with the work he did on poverty. Whether he had one the nomination or not, he put those issues back several decades as he could have been a spokes person on those important issues, this is true. And I love his wife who I thought should have been the one running anyway (she was why I was a supporter to be honest). It is a shame. A damn shame ...

Just sayin' ... :eyes:

Cat In Seattle

[SammyWinstonJack]

138. FDR?

:eyes:

[ChiciB1]

165. Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton!!! Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy...

Eisenhower, Eisenhower, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Roosevelt! These are just FOUR previous POTUS's!

Tell me more Oh Great One!!!!!

And ya know, the guys above weren't half bad FOR THE COUNTRY!!!!

[LWolf]

73. He was correct.

And the rush to point out his own many failings doesn't change that fact.

[Umbral]

76. At least he knew what to say.

It's a good thing Republicans thoroughly and utterly suck, otherwise...

[pam4water]

80. He was my second choise after Kucinich

[GeorgeGist]

82. But specials interests will eagerly give money away ...

in return for generous profits.

[elleng]

89. OK, I will:

I never cared for him.

[SkyDaddy7]

97. To bad John Edwards was not dedicated to this cause...

The only thing I think about when I hear his name is his poor suffering wife who John was not dedicated to either. He may have said many nice things about health care but he also promised his wife he would be by her side through sickness and in health and we all know what that promise was worth.

[saltpoint]

99. If someone is interested in politics and pointedly pro-labor, John Edwards

was an extraordinarily attractive candidate.

No debt is owed to the smarmy no-dick opportunists at the National Enquirer for exposing Edwards' affair, and even more to the point, it is no one else's business to begin with. The media did not seem anywhere NEAR as interested in pursuing the multiple visits made by Jeff Gannon to the Bush White House.

It is disheartening that a sex-negative society in effect eclipsed a pro-labor presidential campaign.

[DaLittle Kitty]

108. GANNON IS A VERY GOOD POINT! Media Is Arm Of BIG Business!!!!

:think:

[Bluenorthwest]

109. That defense is the one that really sets me off

it is purest of driven bull shit to pretend that John Edwards and his wife were some form of Free Love advocates, turned out by a prudish population. A 'sex negative' society gets the blame for the actions of a bigoted moralizing hypocrite of the first division. That makes sense.

This man you wish to paint as some hero of sexual freedom stood behind microphones across America, betrayed wife nodding along in agreement as he preached about his Baptist values being the reason that he could not manage to support marriage equality. Here is you Sexual Hero explaining his bigotry against my family on national TV:

"Because I’m 53 years old, and I grew up in a small town in the rural South. I was raised in a the Southern Baptist church, and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It’s part of who I am. I can’t make it disappear." That is one of the nicer quotes.

So what about that? Not exactly the Philosophy of the Woodstock Nation. Baptist values that disappear only when he wants to get some action, but are freely and verbally enforced against others? And you wish to paint him as some form of sexual rebel? His own words make that impossible to hold.
Yeah. That John Edwards, he's the David Bowie of politics, the sexual avant guard!

[saltpoint]

111. Good god. Try to focus on a fact or two, just for the sheer novelty of it.

I re-read my post.

I could re-type it or copy and paste it for you, but why bother?

You missed the red side of a green barn on someone else's property.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. So somehow Edwards own words are of no meaning?

It is bad that I think adulterers should not trash good marriages of others to cover up their own issues?
Why would he deliver that whole 'I am to holy to back gay marrigae' line, over and over again?

You are the one missing the point. Your personal attack is without any response to the points made. Similar to the Edwards method.
He lied about his affair, using good gay families as cover for the truth of his own life. Baptist values, just a part of him, "my Daddy was a Deacon" and all of that crap.
A person who lives like John and still judges others according to the rules he sets, then breaks at will, is a hypocrite and a liar.
Neither of them has said a thing about that either. My partner of 17 years is not allowed to share my health insurance, because of those 'Baptist values' he was pushing. An apology from these rich speakers of bile would go a long way. Just an word spoken that says 'that was hypocrisy and we should not have said that over and over across America, knowing it was not true."

You were saying I missed a barn? But we are talking about hypocrites who bash gay rights while having affairs and preaching 'traditional Baptist values'. Is that Barn where John keeps his ethics? T

[saltpoint]

114. This argument has blazed brightly on DU's boards prior to today and

I haven't changed my opinion.

Someone else's relationship or marriage belongs to the two people who inhabit it and comprise it. It isn't any of your fucking business and it isn't any of my fucking business.

The public may comment on a public relationship and certainly will do so when infidelity is involved but ultimately it remains the emotional landscape of the two people in that relationship and all other commentary is beside the point and ultimately inadmissable.

Also to be "outraged" at others' infidelity in relationships not our own suggests a logistical problem. Are we to be as outraged at infidelity by Jack Kennedy as we are in John Edwards, or does sheer chronology suggest that we should be MORE outraged at Edwards than JFK? Also if we are to be "outraged" by Jack Kennedy's sexual goings-on, should we not have demonstrable proof of his bonking Marilyn Monroe and/or others? Proof could be hard to come by, it seems to me, rendering our "outrage" moot.

You want a really dependenable, inspirational, faithful marriage or relationship with somebody? Good. I applaud you. Sounds like a good plan. I'm all for it. I'm all for everyone to have the same, in fact, but there is a hard pragmatism to being a human which necessarily includes the difficult and complex truth that human beings are frequently unfaithful.

If you had begun your response with a comment on pro-labor politicians, you might have understood the point I was making. You missed the whole thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. He is as pro-labor as his words

And his words contained many lies.
I do not give a shit what anyone does in their private lives. But Edwards made all of that an issue. It is John that kept speaking out against equality on the basis of his faith and traditional view of marriage. No one but John make that choice.
If he left my business alone, I would not care if he and Liz keep an orgy room stocked with the finest vintage toys and lubes. I would not care if he had many lovers.
I am not outraged at his infidelity, I am pointing out that he is typical of the politicians, like Ensign, who grandstand about their own piousness, hold others up for judgement, and shout "God" when in fact they are simply human beings living a life.
My 'plan' for a good relationship is 17 years in. I'm not saying I expect others to live like I do- that is what John said. He said 'because of my religion, Bluenorthwest's relationship is not equal to my own.' He said 'one man, one woman.' Those words.

I do not give a shit what others do. But those others best return the favor. It is Edwards who is doing the moralizing, the judgment of other's private lives. Not me. What I judge is his public attacks on marriage equality, his public reasons for doing so, coupled with what we know to be the truth.
Pretending he's being attacked for his sexuality is really twisted. He is the one that attacked millions for their sexuality. While he lied about his own.

[saltpoint]

119. If Edwards were demonstrated to be the only human who ever

tried to cover up infidelity, I would understand why you are so upset.

As it happens, he isn't the only one. Also he is not the last. More are still to come.

You can point out that someone has fibbed about marital unfaithfulness but a point rapidly coalesces around your having no ground to stand on. Christ defends the woman in the death pit from the moral outrage of her fellow villagers who stand with cocked hands to stone her. He does so not to be disputatious with the village consensus, but to suggest that none of those with stones in their angry hands has any fucking right whatsoever to judge that one woman.

I think there is in that narrative an intended lesson.

Your suggestoin that Edwards was anything but fiercely pro-labor is baseless.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. Try to read what is written- I don't care if he wants to fuck around

but I do care that he spoke against my family's rights by claiming that HE cared about fucking around. HE promoted his 'traditional Baptist values around marriage' when he wanted to speak out against civil rights issues. HE did that.
He said he cares who I live with, who I love, and that his religious values are so deeply engrained that he must 'defend marriage as between one man and one woman'.
He did not have to make those arguments. He did so by choice. He set up his 'Baptist values' as the metric to follow, not just for him, but for all GLBT Americans. While in fact he knew his values did not alter his own behavior a bit.
The issue is lying about others, lying about himself, claiming a set of religious values he expects others to fill, while he himself is not filling them.
He's John Ensign. He's Larry Craig. By his own choice. A hypocritical shouter of religious values against people whose sexuality does not meet the approval of John Edwards.
He's the one declaring his hang ups and judgmental attitudes towards others must be enshrined in the law. He's the one passing judgement.
Pretending I am judging his affair and not his lies and religious hypocrisy, his chosen double standard for himself and for others, is just a tactic. A transparent tactic. I'd vote for a transexual in a troika wearing butless chaps if I liked their politics and they did not hold others to standards they themselves refuse to keep. What his or any other set of genitals does matters not to me. Edwards declared over and over that such things do matter to him. In other people. Just not in his own life.
When a person who preaches Veganism to others is found eating a burger, it is not the eating of the burger that pisses off other ominvours, it is the hypocrisy of telling others not to eat what you yourself eat. I do not have to be a Vegan to expect Vegans to live by their own values if they are going to preach about mine. See? No sex involved, same principle.

Practice what you preach or simply do not preach it. Easy as pie.

[saltpoint]

124. You keep missing it. You are asking not only John Edwards but

every single human ever to be angels.

Good luck on that project.

Edwards was pro-labor, and fiercely so. Jeff Gannon was a call-boy. Gannon's mysterious visits to the White House under the Bush administration went all but unnoticed and certainly unpursued by the same tabloid media which relentlessly pursued Edwards and Ms. Hunter. I assert that a sex-negative society puts its nose in other people's crotches while invoking moral platitudes to condemn those others.

And if the unfaithful are Democrats, so much the better, since the mainstream media ALSO ignored Gannon's role, whatever the hell that role might have been.

Nothing is simple. You seem to feel everything is. But in fact nothing is.

The Far Right did its level best to tear Bill Clinton to pieces over his sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. I am not a Clinton Democrat. I've never liked the Clintons much as Democrats and I found plenty to bellyache about when he was president. But I fiercely defended him against his detractors who sought to bring down his presidency over a blowjob.

I stand by John Edwards because (as others in this thread have accurately and necessarily pointed out) he drove the debate toward the left side of the ledger generally and on pro-labor matters especially. That was the heart of his campaign, really, and the reason why it was important. A man or woman is not disqualified from public service over private dalliance, even when it expressly involves infidelity, even when it expressly involves basting wieners through stall holes in an airport men's room. Quite a damn few extraordinarily effective public figures commit sexual infidelities and it does not disqualify their public virtues and it does not give you or me or anyone else the right to pretend we're any better.

[Bluenorthwest]

129. You are not paying attention. Angels? Where do you get that?!

I expect people to not be hypocrites. He did not have to paint himself as superior to all gay people, while stating his opposition to civil rights. He claimed values he did not live. I am not in any way asking him to live differently. I am asking him to shut the fuck up about how others should live differently. He's the one promoting a hypocritical religionist lie to oppress good people. He did that by choice.
He pretended to be what he was not, using other people's families as a cover. I have not once said that a person is disqualified from anything because of their private lives. I have said that those who preach one standard for others, while living without regard to that standard are hypocrites. No one made John paint himself as the righteous Deacon's son protecting marriage. He did that by choice. And it was a lie. He lied. He's a liar, who will also freely point at others to move the blame to them, and off of himself.
He's the one preaching that he's better than my family, not the reverse. He did so knowing the facts. He did so in order to server his agenda.
He and his wife are free to apologize for that set of slanders and lies at any time. Baptist values would say that they should do so, by the way, and also make amends in any way that they can. The equality movement could use some of their vast wealth to counter the poison he helped spread. The slanders against good people for being outside of John's idea of what is moral.
A person's private life does not matter to me- but according to John, his faith values mean my private life matters to him. He said so dozens of times while also doing his own thing.
Hypocrites are always bad people. Public speaking against 'them' for being what you yourself in fact are is a vile and horrid thing to do.
Had he not spoken so loudly and religiously against GLBT people, his affair would be of zero interest to me. Zero. Of no meaning. The hypocrisy makes it otherwise, like it or not. He gay bashed to make himself look holy. He's John Ensign. Only richer and shorter.
Is it fine with you that Ensign attacked Bill Clinton for doing what Ensign also does? Is it ok that Ensign spoke about his moral high values about marriage to promote DOMA, while he lives none of those values himself? Or is all of that only cool for Johnny boy? It is the same thing. Exact same thing.
Who cares who they fuck. I do care who they slander to cover it up. Especially when it is my family, so guess what? I'm not going to be saying it is ok to trash my spouse to cover up how you treat your own.
They are also free to announce their open marriage, if that is the case. I'd rush to support them. But they claim to be Traditional Baptists.
Whatever. He's Haggard, he's Vitter, he's any of them, just the same.
But you will never read what I'm writing, only pretend I am saying what I am not. Thankfully, others can read with an free eye. They can see that I have not judged John's actions, just his judgement of my life and my self and my family.

[saltpoint]

130. Your virulent bias against Edwards deflects your chances for a

fair assessment.

Downthread I post Paul Krugman's piece from the New York TIMES' Feb. 9, 2007 edition on the national debate on health care ( http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1&hp ) in response to the OP's point on the issue, which is still very current and very urgent.

I included it as well in support of the OP's very good aim on the urgency. Not a small point in a large maze of contradictory viewpoints which will eventually lead to (as Left as possible) a reformed health care initiative.

Your posts in this thread don't do a whole lot to advance insight and understanding of Edwards' position on health care and in fact you are evidently oblivious to the fact that Krugman was not the only source of praise for Edwards' proposal. Krugman's column, by the way, came in a month in which Hilary Clinton solidly led the Democratic pack in early polling, significant because hers was the health plan initiative all 4 wheels flew off of under her husband's administration.

Regarding your claim that Edwards was insufficiently pro-labor, or insincerely so, or whatever it is you mean, the claim is baseless.

As for Ensign, I would not have voted for him no matter how angelic he behaved. I disagreed with virtually everything he stood for on ideological grounds long prior to revelations of his affair. I hope it is not your assertion that I have to oppose him on grounds of hypocrisy and only then following its public exposure. I hated him from the start. And it had nothing to do with his wiener.

Your claim that Edwards wounded you is not very persuasive. You don't care for his position on lesbian and gay rights. There'd be many among us who would agree with you on that issue but quite a few others who felt his health care plan and pro-labor focus clearly drove the public debate leftward in the 2008 primary campaign.

[ChiciB1]

173. Oh & BTW... Newtie Is Back... Affairs, Book Deals & All... Gee What

don't YOU get??? Double Standard for sure!!! Edwards is twenty times the man Newt Gingrich ever was or could be!!

And "they" say he may RUN FOR POTUS in 2012!!

[zalinda]

113. Please get some facts

Edwards said on (I think it was Jay Leno), that he was struggling with the gay marriage issue, but Elizabeth was all for it, which actually surprised him. He said he was working on his attitude towards it. It is sometimes difficult to change viewpoints from what you've been brought up with. But, Elizabeth would have worked him and every other representative to have gay marriage the legal law of the land within 6 months to a year.

As for standing behind some microphone, he was the ONLY ONE who stood up to the corporations and was an advocate for the poor. He helped unions all across this country, by helping form them and marching with them. Even now he is traveling the world to help the poor get better housing.

With John Edwards, there was no flowery speeches, there was no way you could misunderstand what he stood for. With Obama, many times people went away from his speeches not knowing what he said. So, now people are having a difficult time holding his feet to the fire. With Edwards, you would have been able to just open his platform booklet (that a fifth grader could read), and say to him, you are not doing what you promised, not so with Obama.

I am not angry that he was in the primary or stayed in the primary, or that I gave him money that I could ill afford. He spoke FOR ME, none of the other candidates did.

zalinda

[Bluenorthwest]

115. He spoke against equal rights

on the basis of his high blown marriage values. Not just on Leno, either. Many times, on TV, radio, and in live speeches. While Liz claimed to take a differing view, it was her alone that allowed him to continue speaking about his deep Baptist values about marriage while she knew the truth. He said I should not have rights, my partner should have not Insurance, because he's a Baptist, yet he was sleeping around at the time, Liz knew it.
Sorry. Hypocrites telling lies to support their bigoted views is just not a good thing. The rest of his 'values' can only be trusted as far as those, which means not at all.
I supported him. I spoke with his office on 4 different occasions about what he was saying about marriage equality. They promoted the idea that he was religious, and very conservative about sex and marriage and all. That he was not 'really' a bigot, just a Baptist. I supported him until the truth came out, in spite of his stance against my family, his wide Ensign like stance.
Sorry kid, but this is my family they claimed was not up to their standards, when their standards involve not 'one man and one woman' as John actually said, but one man and whomever else John wanted. But gay couples, well, we have to defend against that. Defend. One man and one woman. At a time. One man, one woman, and the wife. But gay people, oh clutch my Deacon's son pearls and run for the alter! Smelling salts! I'm too holy to even think about such an offense to the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage! God! Jesus and my mistress agree, gays must not marry!
They should apologize for that pushing that shit against a community deep in a fight for equality.

[ChiciB1]

172. Can You Say BILL CLINTON??? Not Knocking Him... But Stop & Think About

ALL THE REPUKES and how THEY seem to get away with the SOS!!!

[DailyGrind51]

101. Both John and Elizabeth would have been dynamite against the insurance lobby!

Too bad his social conscience was mutually exclusive.

[Honeycombe8]

102. Unfortunately, we now know that Edwards was all about Edwards, and was a lier and a false

prophet.

Best to stick with people with character, when quoting for posterity.

[cornermouse]

104. We probably want to go back and

impeach after death, Roosevelt, Kennedy, erase all mention in history books, take down all statues, museums, memorials dedicated to them and to Martin Luther King because, based on your criteria, they were not pure enough to be considered as having character.

[SammyWinstonJack]

139. +1

:applause:

[Butch350]

105. Yeah they are always right until elected to office...

Edwards is just another slick politician who has done nothing in the past
to lead one to believe that he would wage some big war against the health care industry.

With all money held hostage by the health industry just what in the heck would edwards do - stand face to face
with lobbyists and health care industry and DO WHAT?!

Anyone who stands in the way of the big money makers will just get rolled over. Shit,,,half of congress is in
bed with big biz one way or the other.

Who in the hell would put faith in someone who can't even manage to keep his d**k in pants or in his own wife.

THERE ARE NO MORE HEROES IN THE WORLD PEOPLE - DON'T EXPECT OFFICER RIGGS TO BUST THROUGH THE DOOR ANY TIME SOON!

Now go back to blowing smoke up edwards ass.

[WestSeattle2]

131. Your assessment is spot on...

governing is a totally different ballgame than campaigning. I remember when Clinton first became prez, he was incensed that Wall Street called so many shots. OK, that was naive, but it underscores the power of money. We have a systemic problem that only campaign finance reform will resolve. That won't happen because Congress enjoys the power that the current system affords them. They can lavish tax breaks and perks on campaign donors, while making life miserable for non-donors. To some this is extortion and should be illegal, to most of the world it's called "American-style democracy".

Big money rules, pure and simple. Always has, always will. Were it otherwise, human greed would have to take a backseat.

Not gonna happen.

[The Backlash Cometh]

127. Well, there was a reason I was sold on him, hook, line and sinker.

We got a problem which only he seemed to understand.

[saltpoint]

128. Krugman: NYT, 2/9/07 -- Edwards Gets It Right

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1&hp

[jmowreader]

132. Why do you think we know he had an affair?

Health insurance companies are fuckin' ruthless, man; if Edwards would have become president or VP--and he could have; an Edwards-Obama ticket was one of the favorite pairings on DU and in the broader world before America found out about the affair--the health insurance companies would have been completely screwed. Hence, they HAD to destroy the man...and in Puritan America, sexual transgressions are an immediate career ender.

[SammyWinstonJack]

140. Exactly!

:thumbsup:

[spooked911]

143. yep

you nailed it

[cali]

166. codswallop. no way would Obama have picked johny hedgefund

he couldn't even carry his home state in 2004. And no, it wasn't considered a possibility outside of DU. johny hedgefund was never a threat to the insurance companies. he would have fucked over his supporters in no time flat. he was a pro-corporate Senator and he only took on his anti-corporate crusade as an angle to capture the anti-hillary vote.

Johny hedgefund Edwards. Biggest asshole phony ever.

[Inspired]

167. It doesn't really look like Obama is much of a threat either.

I guess time will tell.

[jmowreader]

174. NO Democrat could have carried this state in 2004!

Come to think of it, the one that took NC in 2008 only did it by fourteen thousand votes!

[Inspired]

187. No shit. Kerry/Edwards didn't even win Iowa in 2004.

And that wasn't because Iowa found Edwards a drag on the ticket. More the other way around. John Edwards had quite a following in Iowa.

[geek tragedy]

185. He refuses to acknowledge his own child

He's a lying pig.

[spooked911]

141. this is probably why he was set-up to be exposed (they all mess around in some way)

he was too effective at taking on the special interests, so the PTB took him down.

[cali]

154. little johny hedgefund was hardly effective at running for prez and

he had a small following. he wasn't set up. he fucked a trashy woman and got her pregnant. not surprising from that major sleaze artist.

[karynnj]

179. Edwards only won one primary in 2004 and none in 2008

That was before the affair was an issue. It hadn't happened in 2004 and it was not widely heard of and not verified in 2008 before he dropped out because he was polling badly and after Iowa did poorly everywhere.

The reason he was exposed was because the NE knew it was a salacious story and they had reason to believe it true - so they followed him. He was already out before it was exposed. Are you saying he was brought down so he couldn't run a third time?

[TankLV]

142. Just what we needed - another fucking HYPOCRIT in the White House - NO THANKS!

Edwards was among the FIRST to lecture Clinton on MORALITY and FIDELITY!

He was a fucking IDIOT then, and he's STILL a FUCKING idiot...

[tomm2thumbs]

157. I can only judge from what I saw in his Nightline Interview and he was just in CYA mode

And when people only worry about Covering their A**, they are not interested in anything else or anyone else. I lost any interest in this particular politician on that very interview. And that was supposed to be his shining chance to redeem himself.

[onehandle]

145. He was #1 at DU even weeks after he dropped out for a reason. nt

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inspired]

188. Let's not get too personal, OK?

I guess you could consider me one of those stupid people. I'm not a fan of John Edwards anymore but I don't apologize for believing in him when I was a supporter.

[grahamhgreen]

148. I wounder if he would have changed his stripes as president, too....

[femrap]

149. John had some

'special interests' as well....and damned if he was going to give his ability to do what he wanted away.

[conspirator]

153. When you threaten the Chamber of Commerce you will not be elected nt

[geek tragedy]

184. When you're a narcissitstic phony without the skill

or discipline to hide it, you won't get elected either.

[RollWithIt]

169. While I agree with your original premise (healthcare) I now have serious issues with Edwards...

He took my $500 and paid it to his mistress so he could continue his ego train. Part of what I always admired about him was his family. His sense of loss and rebirth. What he did was very wrong. On many levels.

[Ohio Joe]

177. I think John Edwards is a great man

He was my first choice until he dropped out. As with anyone, I do not agree with him 100%. I was dis-appointed with his personal issues being aired, I do not approve but I also feel it is between him and his wife. I think he would have made an excellent President.

I feel no shame in either the time or the money I spent in his effort to become president.

After he dropped out, I put my money and time behind President Obama and I still feel damn good.

[Dem_4_Life]

180. I agree with you 100%

That's why I was so upset when I heard about the affair. I was thinking "Great! Now what are we going to do?" He was the only one that really knew how to fight them and how to create a true universal healthcare system.

[geek tragedy]

183. Edwards sucked off the teat of a hedge fund while claiming

to be a populist anti-poverty activist.

He also claimed to be a good husband.

Screw John Edwards.

Even his hair isn't authentic.

World class phony.

[dionysus]

190. spaketh smoove johnny, while raking in hedge fund cash. the guy was a total phoney...

:shrug:

[Adelante]

191. Edwards Baby-Daddy Stand-In Writing Tell-All Book

From today's Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-21/john-edwards-baby-daddy-to-tell-all/?cid=bsa:featureline

Young submitted a 20-page proposal and began a round of visits to New York publishers the week of June 15.Included in the proposal are photos of Edwards with the alleged love child. Under pressure, Edwards admitted to having an affair with Hunter but has denied paternity;it was originally reported that Hunter would submit baby Frances to a DNA test to determine her paternity, but she quickly rescinded that offer. The space for “father” on Frances Hunter’s birth certificate was left blank.

According to editors who saw the proposal, Young went along with the plan—for an undisclosed sum of money—and took Hunter in for eight months. Aided by the late Fred Baron—the Texas lawyer who was an unofficial “uncle” to Edwards and who admitted paying to move the Youngs-plus-Hunter to Santa Barbara, California—Young wanted to help his friend, he says. But the situation became too much for Edwards, Young’s proposal alleges, when the National Enquirer outed the senator for his affair with Hunter, and when Elizabeth Edwards became aware of the financial arrangement. But when Young voiced his concerns to Edwards, he was cut off by the candidate, and has had virtually no contact with him or his family since. (Young could not be reached. David McCormick declined to comment on the project.)

When initial reports of Young-as-baby-daddy surfaced, he was portrayed as a clean-cut campaign worker, but in the intervening year, reporters found a history of arrests (for check forgery and burglary) and convictions (for driving while intoxicated). Young told editors he has met with that he feels his reputation is in tatters, and that he wants to “set the record straight.” He sees himself as a victim of the press and of the Edwardses, whom he once thought of as among his closest, personal friends.