So I have this feeling about John Edwards...

[Melodybe]

Way back when the Daily Show did a special edition in Washington DC, during the 2002 congressional races, one of the guests they had that week was John Edwards. I got a feeling that I'd being seeing a lot of him in my life time. Even though I was a big Dean supporter, I still had a feeling about Edwards. For some reason I firmly believe that Edwards will one day be President.

Do I think he will be Kerry's VP? I hope so. I personally think that he has the fire and is popular enough to help Kerry get elected.

I don't know, but does anyone else just have that feeling about Edwards?

[JHBowden]

1. I'm worried about the channeling stuff.

The Dems don't mention it, but the RNC will have a field day.

[callous taoboy]

6. Well,

I'm more freaked out about bush supposedly falling to his knees in prayer each morning. Is Edwards a crystal worshipper or something?

[chimpymustgo]

8. As opposed to hearing directly from God?

I don't think they need to go there.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Skwmom]

11. You think that will stop them.

Oh yeah they'll go there. Between the corporate media and paid ads they'll make sure that everyone knows about Edwards channeling.

[w4rma]

67. That's John Edward. Not John Edwards. (nt)

[Skwmom]

10. It will destroy the Democratic ticket.

If Edwards is the VP nominee I can hear the debate question now: Mr. Edwards, the NY Times has reported your ability to channel unborn children. In closing arguments you stated "She speaks to you through me. "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=139...

Do you really have the ability to channel unborn children (like John Edwards of Crossing Over ) or did you lie to the jury in making your closing arguments (which is reminiscent of a certain democratic president who lied under oath to a grand jury)? In addition, doesn't either answer to this question really raise serious doubt about whether you are fit to be a heartbeat away from assuming the highest office in this land?

They will also hammer Edwards for being a phony populist.

"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

[chimpymustgo]

15. Edwards will eviscerate them. He was representing a little dead girl.

He was her advocate. He was the person pleading for justice for her. The American people are not that hard-hearted. Only for people with an irrational dislike of Edwards and love of Bush will that argument carry any water.

Edwards has defended his work as a trial lawyer brilliantly in the past. And he'll do it again. Bottom line - he's on the side of the little guy - not the big corporations. It is such a winning issue for Dems.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Darkamber]

23. You're right...

This one case will not carry any water. Infact if that is the worst thing the GOP can come up with against Edwards then they will just look sad and pitiful.

Edwards defended victems. If you attack him then you have to becareful that you are not attacking the victems.

[Skwmom]

26. That really is the only thing that the Republicans

need to destroy Edwards and the Democratic ticket in the process. Of course there's plenty more which will just make their job that much easier.

[AP]

45. There's plenty more?

Like what?

[atre]

63. There's not "plenty more." If there was, she wouldn't repeat one thing

over and over.

[Skwmom]

25. You really think this argument is going to be successful?

Hardly. Edwards cherry picked his clients to make big bucks so please stop trying to portray it as if he was some great defender of the poor and injured. By the way how much pro bono work did Edwards do during his career?

[chimpymustgo]

30. Edwards slapped that argument down all the way to the Senate.

Please open your heart. Edwards will be great on the ticket. But at the very least, he is a strong member of the Democratic team, and doesn't deserve this slander and vitriol. Save some bitterness for Bush.

[Skwmom]

37. I don't want another four years of George Bush.

Edwards is a phony, smarmy personal injury attorney who cares about Edwards. The fact the some Democrats consider him a strong member of the Democratic team just demonstrates what lousy shape the democratic party is in.

I'll save my sympathy and heart for the poor people that are going to be screwed if Bush gets another 4 (which Edwards as VP would make more likely).

[chimpymustgo]

40. You have my sympathy. Kerry/Edwards '04.

And beyond...

Go Dems!

:dem:

:party:

[AP]

34. Edwards was able to pick the cases that would have the biggest impact on

the way business was conducted in NC. Every case he won resulted in changes in business practices which helped many more people than his clients.

He left the lucrative practice of the law so that he could continue to make more and more people's lives better. Becoming a Senator is an extension of those some, uhm "cherry picking" principles, and as was the case when he was practicing law, citizens of NC and the US were and will be fortunate that he has cherry picked all of us to be his client.

[Skwmom]

38. What a guy.

…."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

[AP]

43. We went over this. George Miller is a insurance industry lawyer and the

program that Edwards opposed was exactly the same sort of thing that Cheney is currently proposing for asbestos litigants: everybody gets a very little money so that Haliburton doesn't have to pay out on claims in proportion to their negligence and the damage they caused.

Are you telling me that you agree with Cheney on an issue like this?

Do we check our intellectual integrity at the door just to criticize Edwards?

[atre]

64. Cognitive dissonance

This poor woman has the worst case of it I've ever seen.

[AP]

33. If you want to know the truth about the "channeling" story...

...read Edwards's book.

He was the first to mention it. He uses it as an example of how biased the judiciary is in NC in favor of insurance companies.

Edwards won a large award for his client and the judge reduced it on the grounds that Edwards manipulated jury emotions by saying that interpreting the fetal heart monitor was how the jury could understand what the baby was trying to tell the doctor during delivery.

Edwards points out that the judge had no legitimate grounds for reducing the awards so he had to really stretch things and come up with this preposterous argument.

It's amazing how an argument about judicial bias has been turned into a story about 'channeling.' However, just like Bush bringing up Kerry's ribbons opens the door for a discussion about where Bush was in '71, I think that if Republicans really want to talk about 'channeling' then voters might learn something interesting about how important it is not to let Republicans appoint crappy, biased judges who subjvert the will of juries with lame-ass arguments.

[Skwmom]

39. Judicial bias reduced Edwards to such smarmy tactics?

Yeah right. I'm not buying your argument (can we say weak).

“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

People will feel really confident in having a guy like this a heart beat away from commander in chief.

[AP]

44. Needless to say, you intentionally have to get the logic backwards to ...

...formulate a smear.

Edwareds stated what he was doing in his closing argument. He said that the baby (who lived, by the way) couldn't speak to the doctor from the womb. Instead they had a fetal heart monitor which the nurse read and could see the baby in distress. She couldn't tell the doctor, she felt, because to contradict him would be to risk her job.

Edwards read through the fetal heart monitor printout and had an expert interpret what was going on. It turns out that the nurse at the delivery totally agreed with the expert and read the fetal heart monitor strip exactly the same way: baby in distress, c-section warranted.

All Edwards said was the obvious. The baby can't speak. She speaks through this strip. It is my job to present to you, the jury, what the baby was trying to say through this strip.

The negligence was so incredibly obvious, the jury gave a huge award to the family.

The Republican judge presiding over this trial was appointed to protect the interestes of NC's biggest businesses, including the insurance industry. Left with NOTHING to reduce the verdict, AFTER THE FACT OF EDWARDS'S closing argument, the judge found this tiny thing and built an entire argument for reducing the award around it.

Generally, you can't appeal anything in a trial unless the other side objected to it. Lawyers NEVER object to the other side's closing arguments. I have a suspicion that this appeal wasn't even based on a point to which the other side objected. It was just the judge trying to protect the insurance company all on his own.

That is why Edwards even bothers to bring this up in his book: because it's such an obvious miscarriage of justice by a biased judge.

It's amazing that people trot this out as a criticism of Edwards.

And to use George Miller to support the same argument (which should tell you something about the slant of the article you're citing)! And to do this on DEMOCRATIC Underground! It's like bizzaro world.

But if this is all you got...

[Skwmom]

57. Logic in the channeling of an unborn child??

Edwards statement is smarmy: "She speaks to you through me. "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=139 ...

Do you really think this explanation will work with the general public? Let me give you a hint - NO.

[PopSixSquish]

71. Have You Ever Listened to an Attorney Make a Closing Argument?

Believe me there is more than one case in this country be it criminal or civil which has been won on a closing argument.

I've seen plenty lawyers say "put yourself in my clients position" or "imagine how that person felt, knowing they were about to die"

Of course, you're playing to the emotions of the jury and any lawyer will tell you that. How do you think jury nullification happens? Or when a jury convicts on manslaughter when murder was the charge?

Does the phrase "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" ring a bell?

If you don't like John Edwards, fine, but this is trivial.

[JHBowden]

51. True or false, the Republicans will go here.

Edwards needs an explanation about two or three sentences long that can defuse the issue. Otherwise, it is all we're going to hear about.

[JPJones]

66. John Edwards speaks to you through me

And I have to tell you right now - I didn't plan to talk about this - right now I feel him. I feel his presence. He's inside me, and he's talking to you.

And what he is saying is that he really wants to be VP.

[ewagner]

2. Edwards brings a lot to the table

I have my own preferences but I wouldn't be upset if he got on the ticket.

btw: Something I like about Edwards? He has a great sense of humor and an "infectious" laugh.

[callous taoboy]

3. Kerry

would definitely benefit BIG time by having a southerner on the ticket, plus I think that he is the Elvis that Kerry desperately needs.

[Claire Beth]

4. same feelings here... and

if he isn't the VP, I think he'd be a great AG!

[chimpymustgo]

5. Yes. Edwards has an aura of destiny. Along with passion, likeability,

compassion, smarts, leadership - you know - the stuff that makes good Presidents.

I hope Kerry will kick off at least 16 years of peace and prosperity under Democratic leadership by naming John Reid Edwards at VEEP.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond.

[Melodybe]

13. Is it just that I like Edwards? It is so weird but of all the candidates

even Dean, Edwards does have that aura of destiny, even repugs here in MS like him and think that he is going places. A few here say that they would even vote for him.

I don't just think that it is because he is good looking, I just have that feeling that I got with Clinton.

An aura of destiny, you hit the nail on the head, Edwards most definitely has it.

[Darkamber]

24. that is great...

I believe that Edwards will someday be President. But I think it's great what you say about Repugs. It's the same feeling that I get from Repubs. They like Edwards.

Kerry will decide who will be the best to help him win and may or may not be Edwards, but I know that Edwards will do everything he can to help Kerry win.

He's even formed his own PAC...One America Committee to help him continue the cause to help Kerry win the white house and to help other Democrats take back the congress.

We are lucky to have him out there fighting for us.

[flpoljunkie]

7. The man does indeed have a wonderful infectious laugh.

And I really like his wife. She and Teresa are smart, straight talking, earthy women.
I admire Gert Clark and her spunk, too. Democratic men make smart choices.

[demnan]

9. I'd like to see Edwards as VP

he complements Kerry very well - his strengths would be great strengths for the ticket. Mostly I think we need a VP candidate who comes from the "ordinary people" so in that sense I'd pick Edwards or Gephardt, but I like Edwards more.

[sadiesworld]

12. Sorry, he doesn't impress me.

I thought he was TERRIBLE on Imus this a.m. His statement about the medal flap was good, but otherwise he came across like a giggling fool. I think the RW would have a field day with him. He's a lightweight, IMO. :o Fire away.

[Melodybe]

16. No way, Edwards has been hammering Diebold, the disenfranchised black

Florida voters, and dog gone it people like him.

Plus Bushco were almost as afraid of Edwards as they were of Dean. The media and Bushco knew that if people actually heard what Dean was saying they would like him, so the media slammed him. Edwards is just so damn likable, and actually southern (unlike Chimpy) that they feared he would be another Clinton.

Sorry you dislike Edwards but he is no lightweight.

[chimpymustgo]

18. Imus ADORED him. Edwards was laid-back. Made the points he

needed to make, when he needed to make them. And Imus and Charles, and even BERNIE were talking about how terrific he was long after Elvis had left the building.

[sadiesworld]

20. Yes, Laura Ingraham was also saying this am what a great VP he'd be.

Sorry, I am just a little suspicious of media whore endorsements.

[Skwmom]

29. The Democrats need more thinkers like you.

[Skwmom]

28. Hmmm wonder why big Bush supporters are praising Edwards?

Could it be because they are salivating for a Kerry/Edwards ticket so that Bush can get another 4. When are the Democrats ever going to wake up.

[spooky3]

31. All the Edwards bashing in the world will not produce what you are really

after. If Kerry wants to appoint Clark as VP, I am sure he will do so regardless of what you say here about Edwards.

[chimpymustgo]

32. Thanks spooky3! That's it in a nutshell. Kerry will pick whom he wants.

But this slander of Edwards is unnecessary, unproductive, and just plain mean.

[Skwmom]

42. With the Democrats

it seems like you really have to hammer home the obvious. No wonder they don't control the SC, the WH or Congress. This election is to important to screw up. Edwards will make the Democratic ticket a joke.

[Skwmom]

41. What I am really after is stopping a Bush landslide

which a Kerry/Edwards ticket would virtually guarantee.

[chimpymustgo]

49. Fortunately your position is a lonely one.

Hey, join the party. Edwards is fantastic, and your smears won't change that. I'm glad you're in such a distinct minority.

[cjbuchanan]

14. I like Edwards, but...

First, this is no way an attack on Edwards, just my thoughts.

Anyway, I like Edwards, but I'm very worried about him getting the nod for VP. My main reason is that the VP needs to be the attack dog for the ticket. Since a lot of Edwards charm is that he is the nice guy, I worry that he would not get out there and fight the way a VP nom needs to.

Also, I don't think Edwards will bring in much of the South as the VP nom, so the regional argument does not mean much to me.

I do think very highly of Edwards and think he should be in the administration (AG is the most logical pick). I do agree that he will be a face in the party for years to come.

There's my take on the Edwards VP thing.

[Melodybe]

19. The reason I disagree is that I think Edwards wants it most.

Edwards wants the White House, and he wants it bad. I think that as soon as Kerry picks him, Edwards will unleash on Bushco and he'll do it with a polite smile on his face.

[cjbuchanan]

21. Maybe

I guess I just have not seen that in him, yet.

[flpoljunkie]

22. I agree that Edwards is quite capable of aggressively taking on Cheney

[AP]

35. When has the VP been the attack dog?

Gore? Kemp? Dole? Bush? Quayle?

One thing Kerry does well is that he has a honed mean streak. Kerry's his own attack dog.

He could use a sunny optimist on the ticket.

[loftycity]

17. John Edwards would be a Kick A** Attorney General and I would

like to see Clark as VP. Edwards can after these draconian laws and appointee's and Clark can get us out of the Middle East Mess.

[JI7]

27. he can help get conservative leaning voters

as much as i can't stand the republican and conservative supporters of edwards who always trash kerry on the edwards blog, i still want kerry to win and he needs votes outside of his base and if edwards can bring some of them , especially in swing states then he would be a good pick.

[liarliartieonfire]

36. I have no doubt, Edwards WILL be Kerry's 1st VP pick.

John Edwards is the man.
Kerry/Edwards ticket will absolutely Win in November.

Stand the two beside george & dick and there should be NO further questions.

Well Educated, brilliant, powerful, committed to American Democracy and its citizens.

Edwards is an outstanding choice for the balance he brings.
Credentials, background, fought and won against conglomerates, family man, and his visibility has remained popular even after the dem campaign.
Kerry/Edwards is a good blend that supports a broad range of voters.

The VP choice will be John Edwards.

John & John.

george & dick look like sniveling low-lifers, damn near invisible next to these two brilliant and attractive leaders.

[Padraig18]

46. Yes.

I just feel it in my 'gut' that he's going to be the VP nominee. There are a multitude of good reasons for it, and damned few negative ones--- damned few.

[citizen snips]

48. Somebody always has to bring the baby channeling in.

Edwards has appealed to millions of people and this baby channeling will not stop us!

[Skwmom]

58. I don't think those millions know about

1. his channeling of an unborn child.
2. his doing no pro bono work. Wow what a defender of the little guy.
3. his phony populism.
4. or the fact that he didn't know who the heck Rabin was.

Of course, the Republicans and corporate media will be more than happy to inform them if Kerry is stupid enough to put Edwards on the ticket.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. He didn't 'channel' a child.

What is the purpose of continually repeating that lie here? Why? What he did is what any decent courtroom advocate does--- part theater, part law, part oratory. He no more 'channeled' that child when he made his jury argument than Gen. Clark 'channels' Kerry when he speaks on his behalf. What motivation is behind making such repeated, untrue statements, one must wonder?

[citizen snips]

72. Yes.

Because nobody cares about these lame ass conspirecy theories.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. No.

His pretty hair drives me nuts. That "thumbs-up" thing he does drives me nuts. His fake son-of-a-millworker schtick drove me nuts and that smile of his.....ack. And the mole.......:( No, I can't stand the man and he will not be president in my lifetime. Next prez (after Kerry)....Hillary.

[chimpymustgo]

50. Thanks for sharing the view from your crystal ball. Mine picks JRE.

Mine, and a whole bunch of others.

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. She asked, I gave my opinion.

Sorry if you didn't like it. My crystal ball and a whole bunch of others says he won't be VP and if he is, we lose in Nov.

[jaxwhitey]

52. Picking the wrong John

John Edwards was the way to go in hind sight. He is energetic and articulate and actually acts like a live person. He has ideas and conveys them to the public. Instead of getting on the runaway Kerry Train to no where maybe voters in the first few Caucauses and Primaries should have actually thought about who to vote for instead of getting caught up in the Kerry hype.

Maybe next time I guess

[DjTj]

56. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Don't worry jax, Johnny Reid's time will come...

[Cuban_Liberal]

54. It's gonna be Edwards.

Take it to the bank.

[LizW]

55. I agree with you, Melodybe

John Edwards has "it".

The channeling thing is something people get all freaked out over because they don't understand what he was doing. You have to understand what a closing argument in a death case in the south is. It's just something you have to see to believe.

There are certain really, really good plaintiff's trial lawyers who can literally tear the hearts out of jurors, using stuff that by any measure should be totally over the top, but they do it with such incredible talent and sincerity that it works. They are naturals who can read the jurors and know exactly how far they can push the melodrama without going over the edge. I've never seen John Edwards in the courtroom, but I understand that he is one of them.

I think Edwards is going to be the choice for VP. I've said before that I think the Democrats will look at him and see the next 8 years after Kerry.

[Skwmom]

59. Melodrama?

Melodrama to some - outright lying to others. How presidential.

[DjTj]

60. Skwmom, I asked in the other thread...

...if Edwards is chosen as VP, will you stop posting the same message over and over again?

[liarliartieonfire]

61. Geez Skwmom..Ease up OK..

So you'd rather Kerry choose someone else. No Problem. But You really don't need to be so vile. After all Edwards really IS well liked by many voters. The popularity of Edwards does have a reason behind it. He has impressed may.
I don't care for Gephart, by I'd never bash him as you do Edwards, because I sure as heck know that the alternative to Kerry and his VP is going to be george and dick.

I will respectfully vote for whomever Kerry chooses on his ticket, and be 100% behind both of them in Nov.
I don't know who you'd prefer but your tone is bordering on hateful, and the only place for hateful bashing toward any on the VP choices is in freepland. They'd love to lap up the nastiness you speak of one of the Dem contenders.

You may go there if you want to add fuel to there evil hateful fodder.
geez, I could even find something good to point out about Gephart, although I disagree with him as a choice.

Fair criticism of a Dem contender is quite acceptable, but ease up on the hate message.
Thanks

[ngGale]

62. Edwards--but I'll vote for anyone Kerry picks and back them...

100%. There is a media factor that talks about 'the look.' We use to pick our candidates without T.V. only by policy. Now, we have to present a picture like a package that sells. Even during the debates, I had to admit that Edwards complimented Kerry. When you look at their pics together, both shine. They have the 'it' factor.
Bush-Cheney must be terribly afraid of standing next to these two.
Edwards has Southern charm, and that is hard to explain. He can be forceful without looking like a complete attack dog. Knowing at the moment people are getting turned off by attack dog style. Edwards can make a point with a smile on his face and leave his debating parter stunned. Not really realizing if he had been attacked. Duh?
Another good asset is their wives. Get that family together, Edwards with the small children. Those two families make a great portrait together. This happened with Clinton-Gore. Clinton made Gore shine, they complimented each other. Now--put Bush-Cheney and families together and look at that picture. Imagine Kerry-Edwards with the little children running around. Which presents the best 'family picture.' The total complete image is perfect.

[SpartacusSC]

68. What ngGale said......

sums it up for me. He is a good choice strategically in terms of some key states. He is tele-genic, and a VP debate with Cheney would certainly underscore the callousness of the current malAdministration.

As for his bona fides as a populist, I think he means it. I suppose one could also criticize FDR's New Deal based on his background, but that would be a little tangential.

As for the "channeling" bit, it stuck me as a fine way to humanize the issue for the court. A recent President used to be very good at that... :)

[DaveSZ]

69. Edwards puts a smile on my face whenever he speaks.

I think if we were not at war he would have been the guy to nominate, however maybe he can help Kerry in the number 2 spot.

[Nashyra]

70. Edwards for AG

I don't want os see Edwards on the ticket, I want to see Clark on the ticket because I want to win. If the election comes down to the war in Iraq and National security Edwards does nothing for Kerry and brings on the headaches. I think that Edwards is a good guy but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what we think it is what the swing voter thinks and what the repukes will use against him. He was a malpractice lawyer and no matter how decent he was the public image will be about higher health cost, all the companies that want caps and the drug companies will donate in droves and if you think move on adds about the * are good just wait and see what the repuke 527 groups do to Edwards.