John Edwards tells the DNC: "There's a wall around Washington and we need to take it down"

[jsamuel]

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071130-dnc-remarks/

"There's a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy. That wall didn't build itself or appear overnight. For decades, politicians without convictions and powerful interests gathered their bricks and their stones and their mortar, and they went to work. They went to work to protect their interests, to block the voice of the American people, and to stop our country's progress. They went to work to protect, defend, and maintain the status quo.

"That wall around Washington, it protects a system that's rigged and guess who struggles as a result? Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles pay-now and pay-later; when they watch the factory door shut for the last time; when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter's face when there's no money to pay for college. Every single day they see that wall when they have to use the emergency room as a doctor's office for their son because they can't afford to pay for health care. This is not okay. That wall has to come down.

…

"That's why America needs a fighter, Democrats. We need one to break down that wall so that we can see Our America—imagine Our America—and build one America.

…

"This is bigger than politics. Bigger than any candidate or political party. Because the truth is that it's not just Republicans who built this wall. Democrats helped too. Too many politicians from both parties are choosing self-preservation over principle, compromise over convictions.

"You have a choice in this election. You have to decide what kind of person you want as your next president. Do you want someone who is going to pretend that wall around Washington isn't there, or defend the people who helped build it? Or do you want someone who is going to lead with conviction and tell you the truth, and have a little backbone? Do you want someone who is going to hope that the people who spent millions of dollars and decades building that wall, and have billions more invested in keeping it up, are going to be willing to compromise, to take it down voluntarily? Or do you want someone who is going to stand up to those people and fight for your interests, when the chips are down, when your backs are against the wall, every single day?

"We have a choice in this election. We can keep trying to shout over that wall. We can keep trying to knock out a chink here and there, to punch little holes in it and hope our voices get through. We can settle for baby steps, half-measures and incremental change, and try to inch our way over that wall and toward a better future. Or we can be bold and knock it down. …

"This is going to be the fight of our lives. I know because I've spent my whole life fighting the powerful on behalf of hard-working people, and I can tell you this: they are not going to give up their power easily. But I can also tell you this: if you fight them – and you are right – you can win.

…

"Democrats, America needs a fighter because this campaign is about something much bigger than celebrity politics, who's up and who's down. It's about a great moral test of our time. Twenty generations of Americans have passed this simple but profound test: Can our generation leave this country better for our children than it was when our parents gave it to us? In the best of times and the worst of times, in the middle of wars and droughts and depressions like we've never seen, they found a way to leave the country better than it was given to them. But, now, let's be honest with ourselves. We – this generation sitting here today – may be the very first generation of Americans since the founding of our republic to fail this test

…

"We have to fight for our future—for our America. Because when we look our children in the eye, what will we tell them? Will we be forced to say that we left this mess to them, because the challenges were just too great? Or will we be able to look at them and say that in the face of great challenges, we changed our country. We rose to the day. We fixed a broken system and made our country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before. This is our moment."

[frogmarch]

1. Thanks for posting this, jsamuel

No forked tongue on John Edwards! He tells it like it is.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Listening now. He's what we need. nt

nt

[jsamuel]

48. VIDEO HERE!

John Edwards Address at the DNC, 11/30/07 - Pt. 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x73024

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6_RBXw6NSw

Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=vB4CVHTzzvw

Part 3: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NpxMHcqqxgg

[blm]

3. Leaving Washington certainly improved Edwards' views and loosened his tongue.

A vast improvement over his more cautious self.

I have been pushing Open Government as THE issue for years now - glad to hear a candidate talking about it now. I guess we're far enough away from 9-11 and far enough into Bush's dictatorship that people can FINALLY get the point.

Edwards going for broke on this issue would definitely sell, imo.

[Ninga]

4. These are the words of a focused, commited and passionate advocate for the people.

Need I say more?


:patriot:

[waiting for hope]

5. He's my President!

Kick and Rec! Thanks Jsamuel!

[cali]

6. For 6 years Edwards was part of the "they" that

he's now criticizing.


"This is going to be the fight of our lives. I know because I've spent my whole life fighting the powerful on behalf of hard-working people, and I can tell you this: they are not going to give up their power easily. But I can also tell you this: if you fight them – and you are right – you can win."

It's a wee bit hypocritical to claim he's spent his whole life fighting the powerful. He sure didn't do that in his Senate career. And taking 500,000 bucks for his part time work for a disreputable hedge fund less than 2 years ago also belies his claims.

[Ninga]

7. sorry for the dupe - but gee wiz enough already - don't vote him then.

[Ninga]

8. good bye

[Ninga]

10. sorry for the second dupe - but you will see what you chose to see, and so will I.

[Ninga]

11. sorry for the second dupe - but you will see what you chose to see, and so will I.

[Ninga]

9. good bye

[LSK]

12. so Edwards quit a multi-million dollar law career

Where he was a top 20 lawyer in the country, so he could be a sellout making $150,000 a year in the Senate????

Or maybe he really wants to change the system?

Regarding the hedge fund, if you are going to fight poverty, wouldn't it be smart to learn how big money works? I don't know if you ever tried to solve a problem in your life, but don't you want to learn about whats causing it?

[1corona4u]

13. You're right...

perhaps JE learned his lesson, and thank god, it was well before the campaigning started;
http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john_edwards.htm

I'm glad he has won the trust of so many...

[LSK]

15. A Biden supporter bringing up bankruptcy bill votes???

PRICELESS!!!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Biden (D-DE), Yea

[1corona4u]

17. What separates the 2 are the reasons for their votes...

Biden, for women and children, Edwards....?

[LSK]

21. uhhh, he didnt vote because he was not in the Senate then?

Senate.gov is lying maybe?

:shrug:

[1corona4u]

26. We're talking about when he was in the senate.

Edited to add, this reform bill was in the making for 10 years.

[LSK]

22. Biden because MBNA is headquartered in his State

[1corona4u]

23. No...

here is what he said;
I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence.

I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system.

There may be other aspects of this legislation that we can debate: the balance between creditors and debtors, between different kinds of creditors, or between different kinds of debtors. But on the question of child support and alimony, there should be no dispute.

Because this bill strengthens the collection of alimony. Period.

What else happens under current law? When dad's bill collectors show up in bankruptcy court, mom has to fight with them over dad's assets. There's a good chance that mom not only needs her payments started again, but she is due past support--support payments dad never made last month, last year. She needs him to pay her back for all the payments he failed to make.

And in asserting her claim, she is not the “Number 1" collector in line. Under current law, she is Number 7. That's right – Not So Lucky Number 7. The current Code permits other bill collectors to beat her in the race to get at dad's assets. The current law handicaps her at the starting line. She is forced to wage a fight to make sure she and the kids receive their due.

And what happens after she fights it out with the bill collectors? Well, under the current system, she might be lucky and get every dollar due. But, she may only get a portion of what is due or she may not get one red cent.

That's not right. If a bankrupt household is a sinking ship, then women and children should be protected first. This is what the current law fails to do, but it is what this bill does: it puts women and children first.

[1corona4u]

20. Oh, and by the way...

the most interesting part of that article, to me anyway, wasn't even about the BK part of it....more towards the bottom...

[LSK]

24. I am sure I have money in companies involved in the foreclosure mess

And a lot of people do. They are called mutual funds. I don't sit there all day checking every company in the mutual funds of my 401k.

[1corona4u]

25. Actually, they're called hedge funds...

A private investment partnership, owned by wealthy individuals and institutions, which is allowed to use aggressive strategies that are unavailable to mutual funds, including short-selling, leverage, program trading, swaps, arbitrage and derivatives. ...

[JDPriestly]

50. I have a little money in cash in a 401K account, and the company

that holds the 401K account has invested its cash reserves in a number of companies involved in the sub-prime lending crisis including Countrywide and some a French bank with the name Parabas. So, you may be "invested" in these companies in spite of yourselves.

[cali]

16. I don't know why he quit his career to become a Senator

but plenty of wealthy men do. He says it was because of his son, and I'll take his word on that. But my point still stands: He was part of the power structure he's now railing against, and he consistently went along with the corporate line- not all the time, but a lot of it.

He may very well want to change the system, and I'm in a quandary because I like what he says, but I can't ignore his history.

And no you don't need to go consult with a hedge fund to fight poverty. At all.

[1corona4u]

18. Thank you.

[rinsd]

36. So how did John Edwards learn how hedge funds work?

He seemed to be completely unaware of what Fortress was doing besides filling his own and his campaign's coffers.

[JDPriestly]

51. John Edwards explains why he worked for the hedge fund.

He explained in his interview with Charlie Rose last night. Great interview. It's on Charlie Rose's website. He says he wanted a job and he wanted to learn how hedge funds work. That seems reasonable. He also said that he was the first to speak out and state that he believes that hedge fund employees should pay income tax on their earnings and not get special treatment, but that Congress has refused to enact the laws that would require hedge fund employee/managers to pay income tax on their earnings.

[JDPriestly]

49. Edwards explains why he worked for the hedge fund in

his interview with Charlie Rose last night. Charlie asked tough questions, and Edwards answered them all, clearly and without flinching. You have to try hard not to trust Edwards. He is the real thing.

[blm]

14. Most politicians need to get out into the country and live amongst the people

and listen to them. They become better candidates like that.

Look at the difference in Howard Dean from a centrist governor to a populist Dem.

At Dennis Kucinich - staunch pro-life voter to supporter of reproductive rights once he got out into the country and started listening to ALL sorts of American stories.

Traveling the country campaigning makes for better candidates. Edwards has had the freedom to do that - though I wished he would have brought that back to the senate after 2004.

But, he's saying these things now - and the matter of open government IS a priority for me.

[cali]

19. Howard Dean changed very little from his years as guv

here to where he was in 2004. He never claimed to be what so many people saw him as. And a centrist governor in Vermont is a raging liberal most other places.

[blm]

28. He did change his view of NAFTA and became more pro-labor than he was as gov.

Yes, he was distorted by some of his followers, but I do give credit to many of them for opening his mind and bringing him further in line with their views.

[venable]

46. your whining has grown powerfully annoying and pointless

do you care to ever say anything of substance, rather than do your normal ad hominem attack? fine, you don;t like the guy. we get it. but you have not once, not ever, not in the slightest way had anything to say about his message... you just keep telling us what a slime ball you think the messenger is. Well, most people don't give a flying anything about your personal distaste for him. this place, when it is not adolescent, is substantive and deals in actual policy and practical approaches.

that cali doesn't like john edwards means nothing, so restating it looks just sillier and sillier every time you pollute threads about him. I think if you had any idea how you sound, you'd try a new approach.

[Seabiscuit]

55. Thank our lucky stars for the ignore button.

I haven't been able to view the offensive posts in this subthread that his ticked so many of you off.

[mac2]

59. To be fair about Edwards...

See post below. Sorry.

[asdjrocky]

27. Well hello everyone,

Looks like it's getting pretty heated in here.

All of a sudden we're talking BK right?

That just really cracks me up. It's bad enough they try to tag him with the big house claim, the senate voting record, (who has a good one in the senate?), I haven't heard them knock his dog yet. I do imagine that's on the way.

This was a positive thread, with some great quotes, by a man that a lot of us here believe is a good man.

I know ya'all have issues. Why don't we all run posts on things we have issues for?

That way we're not just pissing all over someone else's dream. What do you say guys? In the end, ain't we all on the same side?

[1corona4u]

30. If only all of the JE...

supporters felt the way you did, I would never have mentioned this. But, that's just not the reality. A couple of JE supporters chose to piss on my dream.

Sorry, and you have been more than nice to all of us, but it's not right that some can speak out, and others are not suppose to.

I don't care if JE becomes the pres, I really don't. But I don't appreciate hypocrisy from his supporters.

Truce.

[venable]

47. revisit some of your own posts, and tell us you don't care if he becomes pres.

and then decide, in the privacy of your own thoughts, who is being hypocritical, JE supporters, or the post this is a response to. no need to answer.

[cuke]

52. I'll pick "JE supporters" for $1000

I dont know, but starting a thread claiming that everyone else is afraid of Edwards seems to be a bit hypocritical from the guy who said:

"Why don't we all run posts on things we have issues for? That way we're not just pissing all over someone else's dream. What do you say guys? In the end, ain't we all on the same side?"

[venable]

58. doesn't seem at all hypocritical, frankly.

anyway, this conversation/subthread is kind of irrelevant, I'd guess you'd agree. so, here's to a good saturday.

[cuke]

62. Cheers

and a kick for Edwards

[Seabiscuit]

56. So if you're not a JE supporter what are you doing in this thread?

Pissing on JE supporters' dreams, that's what.

Talk about "hypocrisy".

I would be the last person to go into a Biden supporters' thread and piss on his supporters. And not just because I like Biden, too. I try limit my criticism to those who enter JE supporters' threads just to piss on JE and his supporters.

[cali]

31. You go into Clinton threads with a photo of Clinton juxtaposed

against one of bushco and the little phrase "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and you're lecturing about pissing in other people's happy threads. Oh well, as a great man once said: "only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy". Still, it's worth pointing out that you do that shit all the time.


Who has a good Senate record: Both of my Senators. Of course Bernie's only been there for 10 months, but Pat's been there for 33 years. And you won't find too many egregiously bad votes in that 33 years. Certainly no votes to authorize wars of aggression. Feingold and Boxer and Harkin and quite a few others who served while Edwards did have very good records indeed. Hey, even Bingaman of NM voted against IWR.

[asdjrocky]

32. I might be wrong, my friend Cali,

But I do believe I've not gone into a positive Clinton post, and posted my favorite little Clinton/Bush picture. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

If I have done that, I tender my apology to you, and all other Clinton supporters here. I do hope it is accepted.

As far as senate records, just like there is no such thing as a 'more perfect union', I stopped my search for the 'more perfect senator' a long time ago. Some are better than others, none are perfect.

As far as a war of aggression. Man, you are 100% right about that. BIG mistake. Lot's of people were 100% wrong.

I've found in my life, I've had to apologize for a lot of things, and I thank the powers that be, when those apologies are accepted.

But there are always people that don't have the capacity to forgive. I know those people are just a valid as anyone else, but for me, people that don't have the capacity for understanding, don't stay friends of mine for long.

Hope I answered your question. Er, if there was a question.

[cali]

33. I believe you have, but I'll accept your apology even though

far from being a Clinton supporter, she's my last choice, even beneath Edwards.

I do understand that you're purposely calling me a Clinton supporter even though you know perfectly well that I'm not, and I find that just a teensy bit dishonest as well.

Yes, forgiveness is a good quality. And you were sooo forgiving when I apologized to Edwards supporters the other day. It really warmed the cockles of my heart.

And yes, there are no perfect Senators, but let's face it: Leahy's Senate record between 1998 and 2004 is head and shoulder's above Edwards. Not even in the same ball park.

[asdjrocky]

34. Really, actually,

I was not "purposely calling" you a Clinton supporter.


Again, gosh, I guess I find my self apologizing to you once more. I honestly did not mean to infer that you were a Clinton supporter.

You're tough, I respect that.

[cuke]

53. No, just pointing out the hypocrisy

of someone saying "Why don't we all run posts on things we have issues for? That way we're not just pissing all over someone else's dream. What do you say guys? In the end, ain't we all on the same side?" after starting a thread claiming that everyone is afraid of Edwards

[polichick]

29. This is very important to me:

"Can our generation leave this country better for our children than it was when our parents gave it to us?"

I'm so glad he's putting it out there.

[Kurovski]

35. K&R. (nt)

[frogmarch]

37. Excellent. It's why I like Edwards so much

K&R Thanks for posting this!

[superkia]

38. Thats very impressive to see that from a candidate.

I cant believe he actually siad this
"There's a wall around Washington and we need to take it down. The American people are on the outside. And on the other side, on the inside, are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy. That wall didn't build itself or appear overnight. For decades, politicians without convictions and powerful interests gathered their bricks and their stones and their mortar, and they went to work. They went to work to protect their interests, to block the voice of the American people, and to stop our country's progress. They went to work to protect, defend, and maintain the status quo.

"That wall around Washington, it protects a system that's rigged and guess who struggles as a result? Every single day, working men and women see that wall when they have to split their bills into two piles pay-now and pay-later; when they watch the factory door shut for the last time; when they see the disappointment on their son or daughter's face when there's no money to pay for college. Every single day they see that wall when they have to use the emergency room as a doctor's office for their son because they can't afford to pay for health care. This is not okay. That wall has to come down.





I am a Kucinich supporter but to see him call it like it is like that, is impressive. John Edwards has been to the Bilderberg meetings once, the year he ran as VP. So I'm sure hes has some great incite to what is going on in the world. I may have to throw my support to Edwards if he keeps this up. I remember in one of the debates he was talking about how the system is corrupt and I was impressed then too. Nice job Edwards!

[Nutmegger]

39. R&K [n\t]

[asdjrocky]

40. kick

[Ninga]

41. 'ya beat me to it.......and if I get a chance, I will watch his speech again when C-Span's replays

the conference.


:hi:

[PATRICK]

42. And the wall

of organizational Dems pre-selected by party rules who will go for Hillary- for now- must be broken down as well. This seems addressed to them if Edwards gets his pseech endorsed by enough early state voters.
Otherwise he can join DK as the outside prophets. many of them, I believe are ready to do just that IF Edwards can rally the voters. They would want the coattails more than they would want the Clintons favor.

[asdjrocky]

43. Just watched it again.

Did anyone see a man here with his hands in his pockets?

No. He's ready.

[jamess]

44. Edwards Interview on Charlie Rose

Edwards Interview on Charlie Rose was excellent, too!

Edwards sure has a command of the issues
and sounds like a leader and the champion of the People,
when given the time and opportunity
to ACTUALLY SPEAK!

It was about time!

Charlie Rose interview:

http://www.vsocial.com/ups/18c1f26df6fd7ebc85f98acec5eb4116

http://www.vsocial.com/ups/181da1feb9953612bfcd100637f59cfe


thanks jsamuel for your diary

[deacon]

45. WTG John, this is the stuff I want to here. n/t

[Seabiscuit]

54. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

I've been very depressed this morning after reading the Naomi Wolf thread and the Randi Rhodes interview with John Turley thread. I've been entertaining thoughts again about expatriating to protect my 3-year old son's future.

Then I read this thread, and I'm feeling at least a ray of hope somewhere beyond all the dark clouds.

If this speech were all I knew about John Edwards, I'd vote for him in a New York minute.

But of course that's not possible.

I'll just have to wait for the California primary in February, and keep my fingers crossed that I can do the same in the general election next November.

Meanwhile, I'm going to begin donating to his campaign as soon as I click the "post message" button.

[rateyes]

57. Using the metaphor of a "wall" separating the Washington D.C.

rigged system from the people (another way to speak of the "two Americas") and weaving that metaphor throughout his speech was pure genius. This is one of the best pieces of oratory I've heard from any of the candidates. And, when you think about knocking down such a strong wall, you come away with the impression that it will require a lot of work on all of our parts.

Edwards was calling the Democratic party to action, and volunteering to lead the way, while inspiring confidence that it can be done.

I'm still undecided, but that speech, delivered with honest conviction, pushes me closer to wanting to vote for him.

[mac2]

60. To be fair about Edwards....

Edwards spent a bundle running for VP with Kerry. Kerry conceded the 2004 election without him. Pelosi and Tubbs Jones announced Bush won. No Florida fraud investigation, recounts, first counts, etc. before doing it. They promised us they would fight for the election this time but did not.

Remember Edward's wife had just been diagnosed with Cancer so he left Congress.

Edwards got rich with his practice as a lawyer. Cheney who is giving Halliburton no bid contracts (our tax dollars) profits off his public service. Most the Neo Cons profited on us or were given money for votes (book deals, directorships on boards, promised big deals when leaving office, etc.).

I agree that Edward's politics regarding approving the Shock & Awe of Iraq was immoral. Globalism with trade deals also lacked insight.

We have big problems in this country which neither party can seem to address properly. People are really in a quandary about it. Polls show our dissatisfaction.

"We the people" (who control government not the other way around) by a large margin want the following:

-Return of our rule of law and Constitution. Negate the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. It is war against democracy not keeping us secure. Warrants can be used as by previous law. Stop spying on Americans just for fear and political gain.

-Get out of the ME (including the bases and financial foreign aid and weapons which fan it). It was illegal and a lie to start with. How can we justify destroying and killing so many?

-We need our National Guard and equipment home to protect us.

-Re-open our bases to protect us from invasion and disaster.

-No nuclear weapon or biological weapon use in the area or around the world. We might not survive as a species.

-Two state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Not PNAC with a Middle East Union which is part of the World Government(undemocratic and Fascist).

-Get out of the WTO which has been a disaster for us. We are worse off and in a huge trade deficit. Our markets, patents, and technology stolen from us. We can trade like we always did in the past. As seen recently imported products without oversight and controls could kill us.

-The President has illegal powers of trade under our Constitution. The dangers of this power is to make deals behind closed doors not in our best interest. Get rid of these "secret meetings and agreements" in our name.

-Citizens want more choices of media and discussion. Freedom of speech and the ability to be heard has been silenced (at least for 50% of Americans who are not of the ruling elite party). Our entertainment has been watered down and is just plain bad. We want our rights back not negated for political gain.

-We want our immigration laws enforced and our ports, airports, and borders protected. We want criminals and illegals returned. We can't take in the whole world. Fact is our foreign policy by the elite few (corporate greed) are the reason for much of the problems in today's world. We are not encouraging democracy and prosperity for everyone. The elite few get it all.

-Americans want our politicians and government out of their religious organizations (polls show it for a long time). What is going on today is "religious cronyism" not charity to any of the needy. It corrupts democracy. They don't trust religious leaders to represent their best political interests.

-We want accountability. The last election was all about that. It has not happened.

Is there a candidate out there who will even support our Constitution and best interest? Every foreign country seems to have more consideration. I see a little of it in each candidate but none of it in just one candidate. We had Presidents in the past who would be impeached if just one issue in this list was abused.

[Jackpine Radical]

61. If that Sumbitch Edwards keeps talking like this

I may have no choice but to support him.

[ChiciB1]

63. Edwards Knows What He's Talking About Too! I've Commented On

this very same thing several times. Well known journalist have stated outright that the D.C. Elites hate Edwards and will do anything to keep him down.

So if these journalists are willing to say it on National TV, I don't see why it's so hard to believe. I've heard it at least 4 times myself and I find it REPULSIVE! John Edwards is the MAN that will upset THEIR Applecart, ero... kick him and keep him down!

Disgusting to me, but what is even more infuriating is that many here just jump up and down and berate Edwards as either ANGRY or PANDERING! I guess it's just the flavor of kool-aid that's different now!

[Stop Cornyn]

64. Excellent