I like your thought process, Marshall. The things that are published maligning Edwards are all smear as best I can tell. Unfortunately, all you have to say is that he is a rich trial lawyer and has built a huge house, and some will not listen to a word he has to say.

Carol,
There are some of us who remember what Edwards did (not) do for our state while serving as our Senator. THAT is what I base my opinions on, not his wealth.

"Edwards wants to build a better United States"

He's got a pretty good start on it up in Orange county. Wonder when he'll start on mine?

"He wants to address the growing division in America where only the wealthy are thriving."

Thanks for the laugh!

I had a personal experience with Edwards. As a state senator, he completely let me down and led me in the wrong direction for my personal issue. Then left me high and dry. I won't vote for him for that reason alone! His record with me is tarnished!

Carol, it's not simply that Edwards is wealthy, I applaud that, especially because he made it on his own. It's the hypocrisy of his Two Americas platform. Edwards, the saviour of the impoverished, builds a 6 million dollar house. Think he coulda done 3 mil instead and donated the rest to charity? I don't doubt he wants to help the poor, but with mine and your money instead.

It's the same principle as the global warming policiticans flying around the world in private jets to preach their message.

Limosine liberals. Do as I say, not as I do.

Carol,

What is being said about Edwards that is a smear and isn't true?

"There are some of us who remember what Edwards did (not) do for our state while serving as our Senator."

What, exactly, was that?

Great post, Dan.

When it comes right down to it, personal action like building that exhorbitant mansion shows that he is one of the wealthy who is thriving but does it truly show his concern for the "other America".

Reminds me of some of the charismatic evangelists who beseech old ladies to give and give so they can continue building their own personal fortune.

Edwards is a clown. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he's just not serious. He's a haircut plus poll-tested verbiage plus a humongous house. As with Bozo, one simply chuckles at him and moves on.

You're right on target, Dan. We should not begrudge Senator Edwards his fine, new home. Heck, he should build a beach house and a mountain chalet to go with it, if he so chooses.

Mr. Woodward, I can't tell if you are putting us on, or if you are really serious. Surely, you are having a little joke, right? But if you ARE in earnest, give us a little credit for having a modicum of common sense here. I seriously doubt that Senator Edwards has lost a minute's sleep agonizing over the plight of the less fortunate. I suspect that in his mind the “poor” are merely stepping stones to greater personal aggrandizement and power.

He compares quite naturally to Senator Kennedy and his great, bombastic caterwauling over the distressing situation of the "working man." How in the world people can keep a straight face when THAT buffoonery is being spewed across the Senate floor is beyond me.

As a matter of fact, Senators Edwards and Kennedy had the strikingly similar voting records when Mr. Edwards was still a Senator, as recorded by both the ADA and the ACU, leading liberal and conservative organizations, respectively. Interesting that ADA and ACU should be in agreement on this, eh?

Thanks for the comments Nit & Jack. As I say, more power to Edwards and his wealth, no class envy on my part. But Edwards having a platform of "Two Americas" and then making himself a poster boy of the wealthiest of the wealthiest is stupid at best, hypocritical at worst.

Agreed Jack, Edwards sees the downtrodden as a voting block nothing more. Mother Teresa he isn't.

Too bad Edwards is busy running, this would have been a great case for him:

WHITE PLAINS, New York (AP) -- A man who was fired by IBM for visiting an adult chat room at work is suing the company for $5 million, claiming he is an Internet addict who deserves treatment and sympathy rather than dismissal.

James Pacenza, 58, of Montgomery, says he visits chat rooms to treat traumatic stress incurred in 1969 when he saw his best friend killed during an Army patrol in Vietnam.

In papers filed in federal court in White Plains, Pacenza said the stress caused him to become "a sex addict, and with the development of the Internet, an Internet addict." He claimed protection under the American with Disabilities Act.

His lawyer, Michael Diederich, says Pacenza never visited pornographic sites at work, violated no written IBM rule and did not surf the Internet any more or any differently than other employees. He also says age discrimination contributed to IBM's actions. Pacenza, 55 at the time, had been with the company for 19 years and says he could have retired in a year.

International Business Machines Corp. has asked Judge Stephen Robinson for a summary judgment, saying its policy against surfing sexual Web sites is clear. It also claims Pacenza was told he could lose his job after an incident four months earlier, which Pacenza denies.

"Plaintiff was discharged by IBM because he visited an Internet chat room for a sexual experience during work after he had been previously warned," the company said.

IBM also said sexual behavior disorders are specifically excluded from the ADA and denied any age discrimination.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/18/chat.room.lawsuit.ap/

Any attorney who would take a case like this deserves to burn in hell. I'm so sick of idiots filing lawsuits like this and scumbag attorneys willing to represent them. Burn in hell all of them.

This is what Ewards brings to the table:
*No foreign affairs experience
*No military experience
*No elective experience (except NC Senate seat, which was his first election)
*No budgetary experience
*No crisis management experience
*No leadership experience
*No lawmaking experience
*No business leadership experience.

So why does anyone think Edwards has the qualifications to be the leader of the Free World?

cackbar, you might want to revise your list just a bit, sugar. There's a couple of inaccuracies there. I'll let you figure out which they are.

"So why does anyone think Edwards has the qualifications to be the leader of the Free World?"

He's a rich lawyer who can schmooze with the poor and make it look genuine.

"Limosine liberals. Do as I say, not as I do."

That's original Dan. Did you get that from the book, “Do as I say, not as I do"? You are such a parrot. Get a thought!

"He's a rich lawyer who can schmooze with the poor and make it look genuine."

In other words, a politician!

Stevie, I notice all you do to counter my argument is criticize a sentence and offer no substance of your own.

If you want to explain why Edwards is such an excellent presidential candidate then let's hear it. Get a thought please!

I have in fact read the book "Do as I Say Not as I Do" and recommend it for you. That statement aptly describes John Edwards so I see no need to use anything different.

I wrote: "There are some of us who remember what Edwards did (not) do for our state while serving as our Senator."

Denzien wote: "What, exactly, was that?"

Denzien, this is like asking me to prove a negative, isn't it? How can I list what he didn't do? I guess I could say that he didn't put a new Jaguar in my driveway. And he didn't pay my mortgage off. Or Edwards didn't see to it that I had free health care. I could go on and on!

Wait, you were joking, right?

Bunny, what did Edwards NOT do? How about showing up for work to represent us?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595078450,00.html

I'm still waiting to hear what is so great about this guy and no one has stepped up to the plate. Anyone?

BTW, I don't need Bush bashing, what he has done/not done, etc. We are talking '08 and Bush isn't running.

Question again plain and simple. What is so great about John Edwards to make him qualified to be the president?

Having worked for the courts in Moore County, I know every lawyer there. Most of them know John Edwards personally. Most are Republicans and every one of them had good things to say about him during the last presidential election. They disagree with his politics but find him to be an honorable man. But then again, they are just scumbag lawyers right? They all need to burn in Hell according to you.

Funny how you rich redneck types (those who constantly brag about their money) hate lawyers until you need one. Funny too how you hate the welfare state until you get sick, go broke and need a disability check. Why don’t you forward your blog response to your lawyer? If you don’t have a lawyer, I guess you aren’t as rich as you would like us to think.

You don’t offer arguments about Edwards based on any true knowledge of the man or trial lawyers in general. You only repeat smears like a dumb-ass automaton. Every malpractice case he won had merit and that is why he won. Malpractice cases are very risky for law firms. North Carolina juries generally don’t give big awards in these cases. I sat in on a trial that cost over 1 million dollars (the biggest cost being expert witnesses). The plaintiff was represented pro bono. If that firm had lost the case, they would have lost big money. This is the reality of malpractice cases that you guys don’t want to hear. Most law firms don’t take these cases unless there is overwhelming evidence of malpractice. Your arguments are nothing more than thoughtless repetition of half-truths and smears. Again I say, get a thought!

I know you get off on throwing out questions and claiming that no one is willing to answer you. That seems to be one of your trademarks. I personally would rather see Al Gore run for President than Hillary, Obama or Edwards. Now why don’t you give some informed reasons as to what is so bad about Edwards. Come on! Step up to the plate! I doubt you can now that your trial lawyer smear has been discredited.

Correction: The case I mentioned was not pro bono. However, the plaintiff did not have the means to pay if the firm had lost the case.

"Funny how you rich redneck types (those who constantly brag about their money) hate lawyers until you need one."

I was born in Ohio to a Catholic family, am UNC-CH educated, owner of a successful business, pilot and aircraft owner, travelled to dozens of countries, speak French fluently, that makes me a redneck? Is that your definition of a redneck? BTW, my house doesn't have wheels and I'm not rich.

DD has been very respectful of late, actually a joy. You pickin up de slack? Ooops, a bit of redneck there :0

So Edwards was a successful trial lawyer and other trial lawyers like him. Thanks for the news flash!!

Still dodging the question, what makes Edwards presidential material? Try again..........

"Most law firms don’t take these cases unless there is overwhelming evidence of malpractice."

Yeah, just like the poor porn addict who sued IBM for losing his job for looking at porn at work and claiming it an addiction under ADA after he had already been reprimanded. See above 1:08 pm post.

I'm perfectly sure lawyers are only in it for the common good of their fellow man/woman. Got some swamp land for sale in Asheville if you are interested.

I did need a lawyer once, went through a divorce. She was a scumbag, didn't care a rats ass about helping me, just wanted my money. I called once to ask a question, was on the phone for two minutes, and was rewarded with an invoice for $50!

I never said all of them are scumbags, just a majority.

http://www.overlawyered.com/

More about the IBM case.

Dan,

Oh sorry, my bad. Make that "yankee, rich wannabees" instead of "rich redneck types". I stand corrected. Your views are so narcissistic Dan, I just have to go off sometimes. The arrogance and lack of empathy you display on a host of issues, tends to bring out the worst in me. It bothers me more when good people like you display this divisive narrow-minded mentality.

I mean, you whine about meanness but don't see your own. Don't complain about my lack of respect when you are in here talking about lawyers who should go to Hell.

"Still dodging the question, what makes Edwards presidential material? Try again.........."

You're not the boss of me! ;-) And, I did answer your question. As usual, you can't see that. I don't think any of the bozos put before me from either party have qualified for President in my lifetime. I have always been forced to accept the lesser of two evils. Is that clear enough? Now it’s your turn.

"I mean, you whine about meanness but don't see your own. Don't complain about my lack of respect when you are in here talking about lawyers who should go to Hell"

I said lawyers who take cases like the IBM case should burn in hell. Not all lawyers.

Not quite a Yank either, I've lived in NC since 1970 when I was six years old (except my stint abroad in college) so I'm basically a Southern boy, yet I still say "you guys" instead of ya'll. Try again.

Rich wannabee. Nah, I make a very good living and work my arse off to do so, but, saving a winning lotto ticket which I rarely buy, I'll never be rich. Don't care though. I have a roof over my head, two beautiful healthy children, and a loving wife so I consider myself rich in that regard.

Just because I'm don't subscribe to the BS of trial lawyers caring about their fellow man and do not support govt. taking care of every persons needs and desires does not make me arrogant or mean. Proud perhaps that I can support myself and my family without the govt. doing it for me, but not arrogant or mean. My mamma thinks I'm a nice guy :)

You did answer my question, you don't favor Edwards and do favor Mr. Global Warming. Makes me feel warm and cozy all over.

I read the link Dan. I agree this country has too many lawyers. It’s not a new idea. This view is widely held among the population, regardless of political affiliation. The problem is not the argument but how and when you are using it. Using links like this to discredit Edwards in a blog is the problem, not the substance of the argument. You bring it up as a diversion, a smear.

The site you posted also says that currently 59 of 100 senators were lawyers. Are they all deserving of this scrutiny? Maybe they are. Though I seriously doubt you would entertain the criticism with such vigor if the candidate in question were a Republican lawyer.

“You did answer my question, you don't favor Edwards and do favor Mr. Global Warming. Makes me feel warm and cozy all over.”

Glad to hear it. If Gore ran with Hillary as VP, I think they would win for sure. Too bad he has announced that he won’t run. Even Pat Robertson is changing his tune on global warming. I guess Gore’s work is paying off and he is truly too busy at the time. Maybe Gore and nutty groups like NASA will be able to convince you some day.

"Wait, you were joking, right?"

No, bunny, I wasn't joking (for once!)

You said, "There are some of us who remember what Edwards did (not) do for our state while serving as our Senator."

And I asked what made you feel that way. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question. Lemme try again:

Hey bunny- you seem to have a strong opinion about Edwards, one based on remembering what Edwards did. Can you please explain just what irked you so much?

Denzien,
You wrote: "And I asked what made you feel that way. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question."

Please scroll up and look at your question again. You never asked me what made me feel the way I feel. You asked me to tell you what John Edwards did not do for this state while serving as our senator. (Dan is right... he very often did NOT attend sessions to cast a vote on issues.) What irked me so much? IMHO, he clearly used the position as a stepping stone to advance his political career, and that was his sole reason for holding the office. Since you seem to think yourself an expert, please enlighten me and tell me what Edwards DID do for this state while representing us. Seriously, I know of nothing. Maybe you do, and I would love to hear it!

"The site you posted also says that currently 59 of 100 senators were lawyers. Are they all deserving of this scrutiny?"

That is a problem with our govt., most of the people who run it are lawyers.

One thing I give algore credit for, he decided not to run. I think he is even smart enough to know a one topic candidate cannot win the presidency. Just tell algore to stay off the private jets.

I'll ask this question again and maybe SOMEBODY can explain it to me. Why do people spell Al Gore like algore?

Bunny, don't hold your breath.

Stevie D and Denzien are using two tried and true tactics.

Stevie D: If you can't answer a question to support why you disagree with someone, then attack the person who asked the question. Question their integrity, call them a redneck and demonize them in any other way that you can.

Denz: If you can't present evidence to counter what someone has said, then ask them to explain themselves further or prove it through link or something. Either way, if you don't (because you have better things to do or whatever), then it makes you look like you can't back up what you said. If you do, then you're either wasting your time or providing ammunition for the next attack.

Not that you guys are the only one's who do this. Happens all the time. Just funny to observe.

"You asked me to tell you what John Edwards did not do for this state while serving as our senator....Since you seem to think yourself an expert...."

Bunny- I quoted you saying "did (not) do". I do not proclaim myself to be any sort of expert on the subject, I'm ONLY ASKING FOR YOUR OPINION. Keep up with the persecution complex if you like.

Thanks, though, for half-assedly answering my question- it seems your beef with the guy is that he was more interested in his career than his responisbilities to the state. And that's a valid complaint.

nitpicker: "Denz: If you can't present evidence to counter what someone has said, then ask them to explain themselves further"

Somebody says they hate the guy. I ask why. WTF is up with you people?

Newsflash: I'm no fan of Edwards.

"WTF is up with you people"

What do you mean by 'you people'?

Damn racist......

:)

Denz,

You've been asking a lot of questions lately, some that SEEM more like bait than a genuine interest in the other's opinion. Didn't mean to nitpick you, though.

Funny how the righties have now resorted to what they said they abhorred when they were in control of all three branches of the federal government-----class envy.

"This is what Ewards brings to the table:
*No foreign affairs experience
*No military experience
*No elective experience (except NC Senate seat, which was his first election)
*No budgetary experience
*No crisis management experience
*No leadership experience
*No lawmaking experience
*No business leadership experience."

Could have fooled me! I thought you were talking about Dubya!

algore? why?

Nit,
Rush Limbaugh once did a parody where he compared Al Gore to the Frankenstein's sidekick 'Egor'. In his parody, he changed 'Egor' to 'algore' and Slick Willie was Frankenstein.

Or maybe it was 'Count Taxula' and his sidekick, 'algore'. Something along those lines anyway.

For all of you who want to jabber about Edward's lack of experience I ask, why did you not hold Bush to the same standards you expect of Edwards?

I can think of absolutely NO ONE who was less qualified to be president than Bush. At least Edwards is not a panty-waisted, spoiled rotten, egotistical, stupid son of former president who used daddy's political clout to gain his position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

Anyway, Edwards sucks. Experience or no experience.

Oh, yeah, John Edwards is a real pip. Here's that latest from him.......

The following is from a column by Peter Bart posted at variety.com:

"There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."

Whew! Glad we've got that straight. Israel is the greatest threat to world peace - not the kook in Iran who denies the holocaust and says Israel has no right to exist?; not the terrorists who blow up marketplaces?; not even Iraq if the U.S. pulls out and the place is a battleground for Syria, Iran, the Turks, and whoever else?; not even al-Qaeda? Nope! Israel!!!

Yvonne: "For all of you who want to jabber about Edward's lack of experience I ask, why did you not hold Bush to the same standards you expect of Edwards?"

Newsflash, Edwards is running for president, Bush isn't.

BUT, if you want to go back to lack of experience, Clinton was a governor of Arkansas. Same as Bush, governor of a state, albeit a smaller one. At least Clinton has a more vocal spouse :)

Edwards was a one term senator who spent the majority of his term preparing for a presidential run.

DD, no class envy here. I applaud Edwards success. I just find a problem with a guy hell bent on caring for the poor building a $6 million house. Again, no Mother Teresa here.

Denz,
I honestly don't know how you can expect me to answer what Edwards did not do for this state! It's like trying to prove a negative! If you want a list, I could build on the one I started and go for pages and pages. Did Edwards work toward securing more government funding for education? Did he work toward developing training/education programs for mothers on welfare to prepare them to hold a job? Did he do anything for our textile industry or tobacco industry? Did he try to secure federal money for transportation in our state? Did he get any money for any programs that would benefit our state? Perhaps the answers to these questions will tell what he did not do. Sorry you see my frustration over your request as a "persecution complex," and if you consider that "half assedly" answering, than so be it.

Now, since you can't seem to answer what Edwards did for our state, then how about telling me what he did not do for the state (since I can't seem to do it). Please, enlighten me.

neocon,

Thanks for answering that question. I've been wondering why it was for some time. Now I have the answer!

Too bad he isn't running. The comedians would have a field day.

"If you want a list, I could build on the one I started "

Yes, please, that would be great.

And, one more time, so your persecution complex can tone itself down a notch:

Somebody says they hate the guy. I ask why. WTF is up with you people?

Newsflash: I'm no fan of Edwards.

"You've been asking a lot of questions lately, some that SEEM more like bait than a genuine interest in the other's opinion."

In this case, I really haven't been paying any attention to anything Edwards says. He's just not interesting to me. What I don't quite understand, however, is the serious venom spewed his way. That's what I'm trying to get at here.

So when somebody says, "look at all he did and did not do to deserve our dislike", I'm interested in what those things are.

But whatever.

Dan,

The reason I chose the word "did" rather than the word "don't" is because "did" is referring to past tense in my sentence. As in "why did you not hold Bush to the same standards (in 2000 & 2004) as you expect of Edwards (now).

"I can think of absolutely NO ONE who was less qualified to be president than Bush. At least Edwards is not a panty-waisted, spoiled rotten, egotistical, stupid son of former president who used daddy's political clout to gain his position."

Damn! Yvonne, you speak my mind!

Denz:
Sorry you're unable to see my point about listing what Edwards did not do for this state. Again, you're asking me to prove a negative. There's no way I can document things he did not do for North Carolina. Can't you understand this? Basically, I feel he did not represent the people of North Carolina or work for the interests of our state. If you want an example, I reference his apparent lack of concern for the textile or furniture industry. I know of nothing he did to protect the NC interests in these areas.

You wrote:
"And, one more time, so your persecution complex can tone itself down a notch: Somebody says they hate the guy. I ask why."

I challenge you to show me where I've said I hate John Edwards! Or where I ever accused you of being a fan of Edwards! You can't do it because it never happened! You're reading things into my comments which were never there. Don't bother with an apology.

Persecution complex? No. Frustration over not being able to explain my point so someone can understand? Yes. Frustration over people who accuse me of things I never said? Yes!

algore doesn't have to be running to be good for some laughs. Just try to keep a straight face the next time you see him explain how 'global warming' will end life as we know it in 10 years...no wait, that was 1990...end life as we know it in 20 years...no wait...in 15,...no...

bunny- WTF is wrong with you?

"Again, you're asking me to prove a negative."

No, dipsh*t, I'm asking you to explain what you meant when you said, "what Edwards did (not) do". No more, no less.

"If you want an example, I reference his apparent lack of concern for the textile or furniture industry. I know of nothing he did to protect the NC interests in these areas."

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't know of anything, either. Then again, I think Edwards is a pompous assbag and thus don't really follow what he says or does from day to day. Lord knows I didn't vote for him.

"I challenge you to show me where I've said I hate John Edwards! Or where I ever accused you of being a fan of Edwards!"

Your tone from the onset of this thread is indicative of your feelings, and your invitations for me to defend Edwards are indicative of what -get this- you think I think.

In other words, I'm only asking for your opinion. And I agree with you on what you've voiced so far, but... again, WTF is wrong with you people?

Obviously, some people need an anger management class! lol

And some of you need remedial reading class.