Edwards: Looming on the horizon, another “Hey Mabel” moment?

Skwmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Feb-23-04 10:14 PM
Original message

Edwards: Looming on the horizon, another “Hey Mabel” moment?

Edited on Mon Feb-23-04 10:58 PM by Skwmom

"In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.”

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The media and Rove will use this to destroy Edwards in the general election . They will argue that either:

1) Edwards is another Democratic nut (as they readily point to Howard Dean who even a fellow Democrat called a nut)

OR

2) Edwards is another Democratic fraud and liar who lied to a jury during his closing arguments (he didn’t feel her inside him, talking to you ). They will ask, “Doesn’t this remind you of the other Democratic fraud and liar who was so lacking in integrity that he lied to a federal grand jury?”

They will go on to say whether Edwards is a nut or just another fraud and liar, someone who channels an unborn child (for whatever reasons) is not presidential and is unfit to ascend to the highest office in this land. Is he fit to be president/is he presidential? is a meme the corporate media and republicans have been floating for quite some time. Bob Schaeffer on Imus described the moment when he determined that Howard Dean was unfit to be president as his “Hey Mabel” moment (Hey Mabel (Schaeffer’s wife), come look at this concession speech.) Can “Hey Mabel ,“come listen to the pundits discuss Edward’s channeling of an unborn child” be far behind (just don’t expect to hear it until the general election)? (on edit: removed formatting that hid some of this paragraph for some reason).

Furthermore, they will argue that if Edwards is just a convincing fraud and liar (and not just another Democratic kook) he must be lying about more than just channeling an unborn child. They will point out that Edwards has tried to paint himself as a man dedicated to uplifting the poor and downtrodden. However, they will inform the voting public, the truth is that “Edwards is just another snake oil salesmen, another Bill Clinton.” Will it be a challenge for the Republican party to define Edwards as a phony, as a smarmy personal injury attorney who only cares about lifting himself up to office of the presidency? In addition to the “channeling of an unborn child” consider, for example

“Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large. "He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

…."For the one or two who got a substantial jury verdict," said George W. Miller Jr., a former state representative in North Carolina who practices law in Durham, "there were 99 that did not get anything, either because they were not able to finance litigation or their claim was questionable." Mr. Edwards ……. opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
“ Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk.” (A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm

Some of you might think the Republicans wouldn’t dare attack John Edwards for supporting pro-corporate legislation (oh contraire, therein lies the beauty of separately funded groups and the funding of ads for third party candidates).

The media is now pushing Edwards hard and attacking Kerry. The media defends their actions by arguing that they “love a horserace.” Hmmm, I think what they love is the thought of four more years of George Bush (so he can continue to dole out the corporate goodies and push for further media consolidation) which is what the “channeling an unborn child” candidate will guarantee.

Even if John Edwards can’t overtake Kerry, the pundits argue he should be on the ticket (the same pundits who will later on insist that due to Kerry’s health concerns, a thorough scrutiny of VP Edward’s suitability to serve as president is certainly warranted).

If John Edwards is the nominee (or anywhere on the Democratic ticket) the republicans and the corporate controlled media will repeatedly ask: Is a candidate, who claims to have channeled an unborn child, fit to ascend to the highest office in the land? I think voters in the general election would answer a resounding NO. In addition, how many Democrats fighting to retain or win a congressional seat will want to be accompanied on the stump by the “channeling an unborn child” candidate?