General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy JE must be discredited at all costs.
Real grassroots must never be allowed to happen. Why has O never found his comfortable shoes for Wisconsin? Why was this trial ever held in the first place? How much money has been spent to discredit Occupy? Why JE and not KKKarl Rove after 5 trips to the Grand Jury? Why JE and not The Iraqi Group in the White House? Why JE and not Yoo? Why JE and not Sanford, who pillow talked with a foreigner. Why, Why, indeed.
This was Kansas, August 8, 2004. JE came back for an unscheduled rally. If it could happen here once, it could happen again.
JE had a message that resonated. In Kansas. Whether he runs for office or not, he can do good work in the future. Let he who is without sin cast the first ...
For that one moment of hope so long ago, I wish him and his family well.
Meanwhile...
enjoy the stir fry that the MEdia had whipped up for you
Edwards 'flirty' alternate denies it
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76951.html
John Edwards trial jurors: ‘The evidence wasn’t there’
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47643304/ns/today-today_news/t/john-edwards-trial-jurors-evidence-wasnt-there/
John Edwards trial: Jurors say gov’t had no case
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76950.html#ixzz1wY2ue8jL
/rant off.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
the other one
(1,499 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)When you've purged all of the other "cheaters" from public office AND discounted EVERYTHING they have said or stood tall for, get back to me. In the meantime:
Meh.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)how important it was that the democratic party take the presidency.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)but since that time I have seen the corporate control of our "democracy" grow to outrageous proportions. It has gotten to the point that the corporations have choked even the illusion of "democracy" out of our country. The Occupy movement was just the beginning of the reaction to that fact.
John Edwards dared to point out the truth -- about corporations, about the closing of factories, about the economic injustice in our country. He was the only candidate; he is one of very few politicians to speak out on those issues. Whether he meant what he said, we cannot now determine because he was not put to the test. He was not elected.
I suspect you could find campaign finance violations and personal, moral and financial (especially financial) indiscretions and scandals in the lives of many of our prominent leaders including a number of politicians.
The corporate scandal-mongers, the corporate-owned news media and the political parties distract us with sex scandals and other titillating gossip to distract us from the real issues -- which include economic injustice.
John Edwards spoke to these real issues. I hope we will hear his voice again. I'd rather a flawed but courageous man (and I will agree Edwards has serious personal issues) speak truth to power than see cowardly men compromise with cynical, inhuman corporations that place their profits over the interests of my grandchildren and the rest of mankind.
When I was quite young, I became fascinated by the Book of Job in the Bible. John Edwards' story reminds me very much of the story of Job. The similarities between the myth of Job and the life of John Edwards are quite incredible. I hope that we will continue to hear from John Edwards. I'm sure the experiences he has had including this trial have awakened him even more to the need to speak out on economic and social injustice.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)campaign, being little help as kerry, dean, oh... the other one that ran that was military, busted their asses out on the campaign trail for a kerry win. worse thing kerry did was pick up edwards. that man barely lifted a finger. then after the election and kerry calls it he stands up and says.... we should have fought. he should have been fighting well before the election was called. instead i heard petty coming from his direction.
the asshole did little to nothing. and then disses kerry.
even that i put aside to be willing to support him in 2008.
he is a self absorbed egomaniac tht has a pretty smile and uses it.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)He's from NC, and so am I: his story resonated with me. He was good looking, articulate, and had a remarkable wife who he really seemed to love. I also liked his single-payer proposal.
One thing I'll always remember is how early Kerry/Edwards decided not to contest North Carolina. Very early. We never had any resources, and had to do it on our own. We did do it, and increased turnout here in Durham by over 20%, but it was not nearly enough.
I don't think it's necessary to dislike him personally, but he's not particularly skilled politically, despite his good looks, lawyerly command of language, and all the rest. His is a story of hubris. I don't think he did anything illegal, and this is a witch hunt, but it is a shame that he threw it all away for nothing.
Here was a man who left-abandoned would be better- his wife for a woman whose come-on was "You're so hot." I don't hate him, but this seems unforgivably banal.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That is why I am not so tough on him as many others.
As an older person, I have seen many an arrogant act cause misery and be sorely regretted once it is too late to really make good.
I think a lot of what people ultimately decide about Edwards will depend on what he does from now on. And he is going to have to make some very tough choices in his personal life. Clearly, his daughter stands by his side. I do not know how well he gets along with the rest of his children. His parents seem to stand with him.
Rielle Hunter -- How will Edwards deal with her? That will be a big test. In a sense, his handling of her allure and then her demand for support caused a lot of Edwards' problems.
I don't know what kind of person Rielle Hunter is, so it will be interesting to see what happens now.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)Most of the folks who supported him in the past are now the most vocal critics, because we now look at horror at what would have happened had he won the nomination.
Still, for a rich, famous, talented and articulate person such as Edwards, there can be some sort of future after this. Perhaps he will turn to philanthropy and issue advocacy, or perhaps return to the courtroom as a lawyer rather than a defendant.
At any rate, it is a victory for the rule of law that he was acquitted of the only charge the jury could reach agreement upon. As has been continually pointed out, this was a very novel prosecution, and just a bridge too far.
dadchef
(31 posts)I find that my advanced age can/does make me, and others, a true defeatist when viewing our new politicians. I sometimes try to forget my own personal experiences. I tend to not listen to the words a candidate speaks, because in reality if they are saying what I agree with, I have come to the conclusion that I really want to put the speech-writer in the office, not the reader. Then I discovered that most words that end up in speeches are poll tested phrases. WHAT?
In reality what I have proven time and again is that the only things I can really trust is that a person is the accumulation of what that person has actually done in his or her own life for real. However, nothing has changed since the days of the old fashioned smokey back rooms where the good old boys, picked the candidate. It is still happening in-spite of what we think. What happens now, is that the GOOD OLE BOYS are statisticians, screenwriters, smut-mongers, and big money lobbyists.. NOW they are looking for someone that has a well scrubbed past, or even worst, someone without real past experiences, someone that they can develop into a great story, with little or nothing to contradict their wonderfully contrived story..
What the packaging pros are really seeking are good looks and great speaking voices, and beautiful families, but no controversial achievements that cannot be explained away with a few well chosen clever quips.. PRETTY, EMPTY SUITS, or TRUE CON-MEN. The real leaders will not give up their hard earned, well paid, achievements that can be destroyed by well placed media journalist..
I grew up in the real Democratic political machines, Mayor Daley's Chicago 11th ward. I got to see a true leader, a man that knew his city and held the bull by the horns, and his constituencies benefited. He knew the realistic possibilities for compromises that were fair for everyone. I recall a news conference, when a young journalist asked him a what he thought was a gotcha question that stunned the room. Had the Mayor given his oldest son the insider info to win a great contract for the insurance on all city autos and equipment, (I don't remember exactly what it was) but it was a huge contract.
The Mayor, who wasn't pretty or charismatic, looked at the reporter and answered without hesitation, and said YES he had given his boy the lowest bid information, and said that the city got the best, lowest price imaginable. Because he had not been a great father because he dedicated his personal life for his loyal Chicago citizens, and it was the least he could do as a father, and a fiscally prudent Mayor.. The oxygen left the room, then suddenly burst into applause.. NEXT QUESTION.. HA!
cali
(114,904 posts)He is someone who benefited from corporations and banksters- including working for a hedge fund and putting his dollars in places that preyed on the poor- and it's not as if rich people can't invest ethically. He did not.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He worked at a hedge fund for a time and then quit. He warned people about what was happening in the economy. What better education could you get on the state of the economy than from the inside of a hedge fund?
I don't think that the fact that he is/was wealthy is necessarily a sign that he was evil or corrupt. He earned his money defending plaintiffs. He sued a fair share of big corporations and wealthy people. That was his profession. If he could join a hedge fund, it was because he was an extremely successful lawyer -- brilliant, a good story-teller who could handle facts, the law and the jury. Takes a lot of skill and natural talent to do what he did. He was not in essence a hedge-fund person, not at all.
cali
(114,904 posts)seriously? And he made money via Fortress from foreclosures on houses in NO following the hurricane. He later repudiated that (what else could he do) but c'mon. And what the fuck is the crap about a hedge fund being the best place to get an education on the economy? really? that's just ridiculous.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Your hate for him is FAR too personal. The kind vitriol you are displaying speaks more about you than it does him.
He has owned his bad behavior, which is WAY more than dozens of other pols from both sides of the aisle. The man made a human mistake, one made by countless others. It must be tough to remain so perfect, morally superior, and without human error to be able to pick and choose which persons actions warrant ostracizing them from society completely and which don't, FOR THE VERY SAME "SIN".
Would it be enough to rate your forgiveness if Edwards was to be castrated and then put to death for his offense?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)whatevah....
he is a loser. root for a loser.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. when they have no legitimate response, assigns thoughts to others they never stated.
I don't bother with such types. Now, you actually are "dismissed."
Have a nice day.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Here's some words. Please tell me what THEY are/WERE worth...... "The DAY I take office, I'll end this illeagal war. And you can take that to the bank!" Just words, Right? Nothing phony about them, Right?
I've never betrayed my marriage vows - but I have committed theft many years ago. So my wife should disown me??? She should not believe anything I say???
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Who said that?
yellowcanine
(35,702 posts)The story was written in a breathless gossipy way to start with.....as in, "She giggles, he blushes." I wondered whether the writer was not playing into "sleazy politician, attractive young woman" stereotypes and reading way more than what was there. It seems to me that if there had been something really obvious going on the judge would have admonished the juror and also Edwards.
dmr
(28,349 posts)That sleaze was written to demean, and I think to use against the court process if Edwards were to be found not guilty.
yellowcanine
(35,702 posts)women on juries if the defendant is a handsome man. They won't be able to help themselves.
dmr
(28,349 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)his populist rhetoric was a pose, imho.
So to me it looks like they are going after him because he is a Democrat, not because he is a threat to the system.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Edwards has been swallowed by the whale and thrown out on our shores. We shall see what he does with the rest of his life, assuming he does not face a time- and money wasting retrial ending in an unjust conviction.
Volaris
(10,275 posts)I saw his apology after the trial, and while I take it with a VERY cynical grain of salt, it sounded like a sincere, and very REAL apology (not one of the fake non-apology apologies). While it will take a lot of good deeds on his part, I am not counting him out yet.
We ALL posses the ability to learn from our mistakes, and most of us DO grow up eventually. He was found not guilty on the most serious legal charges he faced, and I will not pre-judge him in his ability to learn from and correct his MORAL failings as well. As to him actually putting in the effort to accomplish that goal, only time will tell. That having been said, I feel it is not my place to tell those who DO feel utterly betrayed by this man that they should withhold their judgement, for only they can know how deeply hurt they must feel.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)to spend millions to fight him?
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)That's a awfully useful commodity and a lot of good solid democrats, including some outstanding progressives, could use a big dose of it.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Greybnk48
(10,177 posts)What a shame.
dakota_democrat
(374 posts)I saw him when he came to North Dakota in 2004 after becoming the VP candidate, and liked his message to the point where I really wanted him to be our guy in 2008. Times sure do change.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)If these statements were true he should have been acquitted.
Maybe having an affair and fathering a child which you then deny is yours is a reason to lose some credibility. Just maybe.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The prosecution's star witness was deemed untrustworthy by at least some members of the jury -- and that was the crux of the evidence. In addition, the jury foreman said that the law was just too murky -- which is why I thought that Edwards would not be convicted. The FEC, I think, had already determined there was no violation of campaign laws. So the charges should not have been brought in the first place.
See my posts above. I see Edwards as a kind of Job-type -- the loss of his son, his wife, elections, Rielle Hunter coming into his life (I have a lot of questions about her), and now very likely being in a state of complete loss about what to do next, what the meaning of his life is, where did he go.
And yes, if you read the story of Job, you will see that Job's arrogance is key to his ultimate suffering and repentance.
If you are not religious, you can read the story of Job as a myth, as a myth that describes an experience or experiences in life that are not just imaginary, a myth that describes a sort of human prototype. I find the story of Job to be, as religious people would phrase it, the story of true redemption. To interpret the story in secular language, it is the story of a powerful, perhaps arrogant man defeated by events coming to realize his humble place in the universe.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The four paragraph rule prohibits me from making my point more clearly.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%201:8&version=KJV
^snip^
Job 1
King James Version (KJV)
8) And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9) Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
12) And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.
22) In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.
You see Edwards as a Job type? You might want to reread that book. Basically Job did nothing wrong and simply suffered so God could prove a point to Satan. Edwards did wrong.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Chapters 38-41.
It is not until Job, who was viewed as such a great man, admits how powerless and helpless he is and recognizes the vastly greater power of God and makes a sacrifice that Job is able to redeem himself and reclaim his life.
That is the point of the allegory to me -- that one who appears to have it all but is arrogant must recognize his own inadequacy.
John Edwards' affair was, in my view, due to arrogance. He thought he could have immediate pleasure and get by without paying a price. That is a common error. We often make it.
Because of his error, he caused enormous pain to his family. But whether he violated a campaign finance law is uncertain (partly because the law itself was unclear on this issue). And you can't convict someone of a crime if the law and the facts are uncertain.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)God himself said he was perfect.
Edwards sinned without provocation. Job was driven to it.
If anything, Edwards is the anti-Job.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)or before the devastating news that Elizabeth had cancer. Remember, by 2004 Edwards had already suffered a number of great disappointments in his life.
I don't see how you can make the assertions you are making. I think you are judging Edwards unfairly.
I see that his affair was arrogant because he did not choose to put the feelings of his wife and children over his immediate pleasure. That is, in my view, why it was wrong. But I have no reason to think that Edwards was particularly arrogant before his son died or before he lost the 2004 election or before Elizabeth was diagnosed with cancer.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant John Edwards, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
I don't see how you can make the assumptions you are making. You are making judgments without fact also.
All I have done is assume that he isn't like Job. I think that is a pretty easy assumption to make.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)who would never acquit any Democratic politican of any charge ever.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)Not too many Republicans there. The Edwards' defense team said they were very satisfied with the jury before the actual trial began.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)All it would take would be one person to insist on guilt for a jury to be hung.
Here's some better conjecture by Alan Dershowitz, who argues, more plausibly, that the prosecution's case was too difficult to understand.
http://www.sentinelsource.com/opinion/columnists/guest/the-john-edwards-jury-got-it-right-by-alan-dershowitz/article_396950af-a6a1-5cae-8069-6cd071a134d6.html
The bigger point, of course, is why this case was ever brought. The best explanation is that someone thought they could make a career out of bagging John Edwards.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)Dershowitz is correct, the case was impossible to understand from a legal standpoint. This type of case had never been brought before against anyone.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Is that a serious response or am I once again sarcasm impared?
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)I'm from North Carolina, and I live in North Carolina. The prosecution of John Edwards is an extremely innovative use of campaign finance law in the first instance, one that, when you compare it to the Republican crimes that have gone unprosecuted over the years, might lead you to the conclusion that a Democrat will be convicted of things a Republican never would.
There are plenty of folks here who hate liberals, and some of them are even Democrats. All it would take for a mistrial would be for one of them to insist on guilt.
Kaleva
(36,361 posts)His cheating on his terminally ill wife pretty much finished him off.
asjr
(10,479 posts)there would never have been a trial. He was a lousy husband and got himself in trouble with his family but he is too smart an attorney to have used campaign money for himself. This was too far down on the list of things wrong with our country. We all have become a collective version of the Hatfields and McCoys. It's us against them. I wish we could sue the media for throwing BS at us 24/7.
99 Percent Sure
(404 posts)since 2004, when I thought he should have been the dem nominee and Kerry 2nd on the ticket. "I was for him, before I was against him" but only because his personal behaviors were the tools used to force him out of the race. As the media appointed heir apparent, HRC got on my nerves and I was still unimpressed with Obama until much later when Michelle rallied at UCLA with Maria and O! Side-kicking.
When JE held his first rally in the Hills of Beverly, I was there standing less than 20 feet from him as he spoke, not at the Obama rally being held at the same time in another tented restaurant directly across the street..
But then the National Enquirer blazed his secret across the nation, it was my humble opinion that he had pissed off/on some powerful people, and they weren't having him around anymo'.
Interesting that it was BHO to whom John Kerry threw all his support from the time Obama spoke at the Dem conventiom, JE made big time enemies in a short span of time, and not only repubs. IMHO.
He tried to brazen it out by meeting with BHO for the US Attorney General spot--a move I wish Obama could have made because JE would have been a humdinger of a USAG and since Holder is making me cock-eyed giving him the side-eye even if I get that Ashcroft stacked the deck against us--but, alas, this could not be.
I wish Mr. Edwards and his family peace and well-being.
cali
(114,904 posts)and now it's even more unfathomable to me.
First of all, he was already done in politics long before the indictment. Long before.
This is a man who actually had the gall to say that he went to work for a very slimy hedge fund "to learn about poverty". I mean wtf?
This is a man who preached about the environment but was very gung ho on Yucca while in the Senate and who not only built a monstrosity of a house while preaching at others but clear cut the land.
This is a man who when he knew he was done, shut down the scholarship and poverty programs he's set up- with the exception of the UNC center which he's had nothing to do with for years.
There's a sucker born every minute.
madmom
(9,681 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)The USCoC stated that any progressive candidate in 2008 would feel their wrath and that Edwards was the candidate they most feared.
ananda
(28,885 posts)I liked him for that.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)plus in the MSNBC interview, the jurors said the campaign laws are too murky. Of course, they were dealing with pre-Citizens-United campaign laws. We are pretty close to no campaign finance laws at this time.
From Politico:
News reports that the jurors generally leaned in favor of acquitting Edwards are likely to confirm the Justice Department’s inclinations not to try the case again. NBC reported Friday morning that jurors split 8-4 for Edwards on the unresolved campaign finance charges and that only one juror favored convicting Edwards on a charge that he caused the filing of false reports with the Federal Election Commission.
Jurors listened during the trial to a star government witness who struggled under cross-examination, to confusing campaign finance rules and to murky instructions about how to decide whether Edwards ran afoul of the law.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/76942.html
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)...and every day he stays on the front pages is a favor to them, going into November. He discredited himself.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)our society, he will serve us. It's those who are allowing the corporations, those inhuman, solely profit-driven mechanisms to decide our policy, who serve the Republicans and the conservative Democrats.
cali
(114,904 posts)he is the preying rich.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Just like Clinton. I am not happy about either, and because Elizabeth was so ill that case bothers me more.
But neither one of those men was remotely as bad as ANY Republican when it comes to actively working to destroy the little guy.
99 Percent Sure
(404 posts)
barbtries
(28,815 posts)he has paid for his misdeeds.
and why? a witch hunt on the part of the right imo.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)This man was a snake oil salesman from day one. I never understood, back from before 2004, how anyone ever fell for his insincere son-of-a-millworker, two-americas, caring about the poor shtick. All he ever did was to enrich himself, and when he had enough money, tried to enrich himself through power--shifting any way the winds swept him (whether as a founding member of the Senate DLC and Democratic co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution or the suddenly antiwar defender of the poor).
For me, it always brought up that defunct but still-potent reaction: "gag me with a spoon."
The segment of the left that fell for all of this should feel chastened and contrite, and should be learning its lessons. Instead, people are doubling down. Blechhh.
(Rant concluded. But this kind of hagiography needs to be tempered with an equal dose of venom.)
cali
(114,904 posts)you are exactly right. I too saw through him in 2004. And then when he went to work for Fortress to, in his own words, "learn about poverty", I was even more repulsed.
It's odd how so many people here still swallow his koolaid.
99 Percent Sure
(404 posts)must have at least a cunning, if not ruthless, streak in them. On both sides of the aisle. There is an ambitious drive for power, and I believe a struggle between the will to win and the desire to crush an opponent.
Dems have the capacity for cunning cut-throat tactics against each other. We may never know, but I believe it was powerful Democrats in the ilk of the Harrimans, the people who are the puppeteers and the king makers behind the scenes, who helped pols take down JE, not that he didn't do wrong thereby giving them the ammo.
Really, I envision a power struggle within the party around that time, candidates and their close party supporters jockeying for position. It was relatively brief and down and dirty. Just like Billy Jeff, JE loaded the gold gun with the silver bullets and handed it to 'em to shoot him with.
What I'm saying is, it isn't always a right wing conspiracy, it's sometimes intra-party too, and sometimes both, politics making strange bedfellows and all that.
Whatever his failings as a husband, as a man, his message resonated with millions of people, however briefly.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)They would like for this to be a party of one I guess.
cali
(114,904 posts)there goes you're silly theory.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)you do not constitute the entire set of "some folks". You're just the center of the world, not the entire world.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If he had become the Dem nominee, and this came out in Oct 2008, we'd have had McCain / Palin running the country.
Its not his cheating, its his judgement.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...he or she should have told him to take his good luck and good fortune and get out of the limelight. Let the people absorb what has happened. Perhaps they will be more generous in their forgiveness? This is no time to stand in front of cameras and microphones and try to explain anything. It takes time.
TBF
(32,111 posts)and he was brought down (and I am not convinced it was Rove paying the bill either).
I have no problem admitting that he's a slimeball (most notably because he fell for it), but I also think he was definitely set up when it came to Rielle. He was too much of a challenge to the status quo.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)just like he pretended to be a good husband, just like he pretended to be a man of the people while building himself a recreation barn and working for a hedge fund.
The bastard co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution and supported "right to work" legislation, then ran on Russ Feingold's record in 2008.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
quaker bill
(8,225 posts)You just keep it in your pants. Anyone running for office has to know that this sort of thing, if it comes into the light, will be used against you. Personally, as with Clinton, I could care less, but most people will care, and most people are needed to win elections.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)And I was a major admirer/got his autograph.
