Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

But isn't tremendous HOPE required to believe Edwards has truly changed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:35 AM
Original message
But isn't tremendous HOPE required to believe Edwards has truly changed
into the populist he now claims to be? I notice that "hope" has become a dirty word on these boards, but Edwards' recent promises require the most hope/wishful thinking of all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't see Obama or Clinton as agents of change, because
both are heavily tied to corporate money. The $100 million for each didn't come from Aunt Harriet's piggy bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpeale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. exactly! $100 million in corporate money makes me NOT trust
they will work for me. they are beholden to big corporations & special interests not me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. a dishonest meme.
Doesn't matter how many times it's proven to be untrue, many DUers still parrot it mindlessly. I don't know about Clinton, but I do know that percentage wise, Obama's funds are no more corporate than Edwards.

But don't let me stop the dishonest crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Edwards says over and over and over and over and over again that
he will not allow corporate lobbyists or lobbyists for foreign governments into his White House. He won't even allow lobbyists for trial lawyers into his White House even though they have donated to him. I have never heard Obama say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Obama has said the opposite
Well, actually he's had it both ways, depending on when he's spoken on the issue....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Edwards gets money from the same places. In same percentages.
Edited on Fri Jan-11-08 10:54 AM by cryingshame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Trying to get me to switch from Edwards to Obama is futile. Edwards has
the central problem with America in mind and he is the one who is best equipped to fight it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. I don't think anybody cares if you switch or don't switch
Edwards takes the same money in similar percentages to Obama. That's all anybody has said.

Obama has raised 80 million. Edwards only 30 million.

28% of John Edwards Donors are “small donors”

25% of Barack Obama’s Donors are “small donors”

Let’s look at some industries.

Health Care

Barack Obama (D) 1.6% of his total
$1,330,743

John Edwards (D) 1.4 % of his total
$419,326

Insurance Industry

Barack Obama (D)
$390,513 0.4% of his total

John Edwards (D)
$129,600 0.4% of his total

Lobbyists

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859 0.09% of his total

John Edwards (D)
$18,900 0.06% of his total

Banks

Barack Obama (D)
$865,856 1% of his total

John Edwards (D)
$153,650 .5% of his total.

Pharma

Barack Obama (D) 0.3% of his TOTAL
$261,784

John Edwards (D) 0.05% of his total
$15,000


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3995573

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Those numbers don't indicate 'similar percentages,' though
Banks and PHARMA absolutely LEAP out at one. It's disingenuous to suggest that the percentages are similar--those two alone are WAY out of line. The others are also out of line, some less than others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. I think they are overall, in the main, similar
I should have phrased it more cautiously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. Fine, but it still doesn't make me like Obama or Clinton...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
41. Well, in my mind there's a considerable difference between
the rounded up Edwards numbers and the rounded down Obama numbers. And when you look at the total cash amounts, it's substantial. For example, fifteen grand is chickenfeed, two hundred and sixty grand is earnest money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
37. No, Edwards does not accept money from lobbyists and PACs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. I believe Edwards because his message is clearly in favor of WE the people, not the corporations.
If the other candidates can not make similiar statements I don't trust them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. That's simply not true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzy otter pop Donating Member (266 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. pathetic
you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Why?
Is Edwards above reproach? This shit gets said all the time here about Obama- with FAR less justification. His record is much better than Edwards. Clearly Edwards supporters have to hope that JE 2.0 is the one they're getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. So if it gets said about Obama it's shit...
but if it's said about Edwards that's okay, cause it's also done to Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Obama isn't running away from his record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. What the hell has that got to do with what I asked cali? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
38. Edwards couldn't vote present
Obama's record is as "bad" as Edwards but no one ever talks about it because Obama is the HOPE candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. I have never seen you call it shit when it gets thrown at Obama
and there's nothing untrue about the OP. Edwards supporters obviously hope they're getting the new Edwards not the old one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. You don't pay very close attention do you?
Whatever... continue with your broad-brushing... at least it won't be only "the Edwards supporters" anymore. Bright side, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. Riiight.
Gosh, with such a strong argument against Edwards, complete with detailed, sourced facts on which to base it, how can one do anything but fully agree with the concrete, clear and objective points the OP marches off so convincingly?

Or, it could just be more fecal flinging. :shrug: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. I just spoke with a life long Republicon who said his first choice was Edwards
Edwards is electable if we can just get the f$#$%# media to give him some exposure.

I was also speaking to my sister who has been staunch republicon for years and her husband both want Edwards. Yet the media is only going to let us see Clinton and Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last_texas_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
7. But isn't Edwards supposedly irrelevant
and no longer a factor in the race anyway? If so, why are supporters of other candidates still making posts bashing him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. My guess is that he holds a lot of power now, with that
17% or 20% of the vote, which both Obama and Clinton would kill to have - putting them in a clear lead. So there is a massive attempt to "convert" Edwards supporters to one or the other of those flimsy, mediocre candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
10. I love it. Thread-Lite: Only half the content and half the calories!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Yeah. I like to keep things short and sweet
:) This isn't flamebait though: I'm very serious and would like serious responses. Compare the records of JE and BO--MUCH MORE HOPE is required to believe JE has changed, whereas Obama has been progressive all along!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Perhaps you could have actually posted the comparisons yourself.
But that would have required effort, so nevermind.

:hi: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. I'll give you a short reply. Just my gut-level feeling, okay?
In 2004, I was a massive Clark supporter. At the time, I thought JE to be nothing more than a smooth-tongued, snake-oil salesman lawyer.

This year, I have watched closely and felt something different behind his rhetoric.

I believe, on a gut level, that he has been transformed, annealed, by his wife's brush with death. With perhaps only years or months left together, he has decided to still run for POTUS. Why? Is it extreme ambition? I do NOT think so. I think he has committed his life to beating the hell out of big money corps, after watching his father labor as a blue-collar worker. I believe he has seen the dark side of the health industry while watching his wife go through chemo, etc.

I think he has been transformed and wants nothing more than to fix this country. I really do. Maybe I am a chump, but I have never been easily fooled by people and I do not think I am now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. Edwards 2008 is very different than his senate record, I can admit that
even though I like him.

Regardless, it is a two person race now, and I don't believe Hillary will be anything other than a conservative Democratic president, no matter what she says.
I don't think she has a very good chance of winning the general election, so maybe I don't even need to worry about what kind of president she would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. It's kind of sad that the Clinton camp has turned hope into a dirty word
and reminds me of the same technique the RW has turned "liberal" into a dirty word.

The current state of American Democracy is sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goku2008 Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. change
obama is all about reform in ill. he past the most sweeping ethics reforms 25 years, he expanded healthcare to 100,000 ppl that didn't have it, he brought civil rights and law groups together to video tape confessions, in the u.s. senate he passed the most sweeping ethics reforms in the history of our country, harry reed backed him up on that yesterday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. On Harry Reid
Do you have a link to that? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goku2008 Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. hey
it was on cnn situation room, i don't have a link, he said he made obama the lead man, and he passed it, and he was shocked, he said he doesn't support anyone, but if ppl think obama has no experience they need to look at his record
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Thanks, I found it
BLITZER: Yeah, and Governor Richardson has dropped out. Here’s what Karl Rove wrote among other things wrote in the “Wall Street Journal” today. He said “Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate.” You’ve worked with him over the past few years since he has become a U.S. senator. Is Karl Rove right?

REID: No, he’s absolutely wrong. I’m neutral in this race, but the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in the history in our country was the first bill we took up and I assigned Obama to be the lead person on that. So Karl Rove, as usual, is wrong.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/10/sitroom.02.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
31. hope and wishful thinking are different things entirely
Of course Hope is helpful in believing in Edwards, just as it is in believing in Clinton or Obama. Personally, I don't have much hope for Hillary, I have hope for Obama but remain wary, and for John Edwards hope abounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
35. No. He was always a populist
Here is some truth about his record.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Thanks for posting that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Then why did he vote for bankruptcy "reform" so bad that Clinton
vetoed it? Why did he vote for Yucca Mtn. Amazing how you can't be fooled by slanted pieces when you know the facts. Spamming a bunch of nonsense about how JE backed 6 day mail delivery and other sense of the senate stuff is hardly convincing. Oh, and Senators say nice things about one another: Who knew?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. More truth on bankruptcy and more
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here are some things to think about

This is an exchange from earlier this month:

DODD: : Back in 2001 the congress passed I think one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time: the so called the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Senators Clinton, Biden, and Edwards voted for that bill, which drove a lot of people working class families into poverty, & made it very difficult for them to manage their lives & to get back on their feet again. John, you made a big issue of poverty, something you have dedicated your life to. So could you explain to me why you'd vote for a piece of legislation like that which did so much damage to so many families in our country?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I was wrong. I was wrong and you were right Chris. I should not have voted for that bankruptcy bill. It was a bad, bad piece of legislation. I think any of us who voted for it were wrong to have voted for it. I think there were some good provisions in it but I think on the whole when you look it at it actually did damage to low income families and working families in this country.

Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum Dec 1, 2007

Why did he vote for it? For one thing, it also included AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, something that has been a pet issue for him from the beginning.

I don't find any explanations from a quick web search, so even this is putting words in his mouth. Since I've already started to do so, I guess I'll continue.

The bill was novel in its means testing, which made it more difficult for people to completely wipe the slate clean if they had some ability to repay some of the debts. It didn't mean that people would be completely denied bankruptcy and made debt-slaves for the rest of their lives, just that they'd have to repay up to 25% of the debt if they could. The bill has been sweepingly mischaracterized as one that would deny ANY protection for individuals in a tight spot, and that's not the case.

It also tried to cap the homestead rules at $125K, so rich people in Texas and Florida couldn't play the time-honored game of the rich of piling up a huge mountain of debt by (among other things) buying a mansion and then welshing on their obligations and keeping the house. (Why do you think Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against it?)

Another big provision was the changing of rules on privacy brought in by Leahy. This actually gave a form of protection to those filing bankruptcy that they'd never had before. You may not be aware of it, but this is a big early cause of Edwards, with one of the two bills he sponsored being the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000".

Legislation is often a rearguard action against looming legislation that could be worse, and there was a great deal of tactical maneuvering done in the sculpting of S.420. In the end, it wasn't a good bill, but the idea that some accountability should be had by those seeking protection from their creditors is hardly complete submission to corporations.

There are also the less pleasant aspects to it: it was a bill with overwhelming support, so perhaps it wasn't a battle worth fighting, especially coming from a state with a huge banking industry. I don't like to think that this was a major reason, but it would be disingenuous to not point out such a thing as an influence.

Please do remember, though, that he repeatedly used the term "predatory lending" in his stump speeches in '03 and '04, so he certainly stuck out his neck in the face of the powerhouse industry back home.
PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?


I would welcome any comments he's made on the bill, but I couldn't find any.

Once again, he has come down very specifically on the side of the little guys with his current proposals, and that should be taken into account.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Why did Obama vote for Dick Cheney's energy bill?
Edited on Fri Jan-11-08 01:43 PM by jackson_dem
Why did he vote for tort reform? Why did Obama vote present on abortion numerous times? Why did he vote present 130 times? Why was he alone or one of only 6 to vote present 36 times? Need I go on? Obama is no God...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. were we discussing Obama or Edwards?
And Obama has a very progressive record in the Senate. Unlike Edwards record when he was there. Only Feingold and Leahy rate higher. His record is on par with Boxer's and Sanders.'


http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/110byranking.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-11-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. You didn't get my point. You can, as Edwards says, flyspeck any legislative record
Obama does have a good record in the (U.S.) Senate, as do Clinton and Edwards. The only beef I have with his legislative record is his 130 present votes in Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC