God I hope this guy gets the nod. This is just such a common sense way to highlight the health care issue.

Check this out:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/13/john-edwards-threatens-congresss-health -care-to-give-everyone-universal-health-care/

(link has short video clip --no transcript for this one yet.)

Basically, he's saying either solve the health care problem, by giving ordinary Americans the same health care congress gets, or give it up because if it's not good for everyone, it's not good for congress!

Sweet!

Ah. An ambulance chasing 'candidate of the people,' whilst living in a gargantuan mansion. His carbon footprint likely rivals that of most third world countries.

Talk about phoney.

Herb

Yes, yes. We should only vote for poor people for President. If only one would run!

You're the phony, Herrbocrite.

Find a new line, or google what he's doing to offset his personal footprint, which BTW, I'd like to see an indentation of on your butt.

And a corporate lawyer is SO much more reputable than one who works for victims.

Edwards is basically neck and neck in Iowa with Obama and Clinton. Don't write him off yet. There have been no votes yet, only media polls.

Andrew

He's a scrapper --and unburdened by holding an office right now. IMHO, that's a significant advantage.

I find it hilarious to see these kinds of "he lives big" wanna be negative points.

Essentially, there is nothing solid wrong with Edwards, so it's down to making non-issues as big as they can.

Apply that same kind of lame personal slam to the entire GOP field and you've got a field day! Turkey shoot, just a no brainer.

Won't fly Herb. The only ones listening to that kind of stuff are your fellow 23 percenters --and a few others running on auto-pilot.

IMHO, Edwards has done this a few times. Not always the best of stands, but I do like the leadership being projected. Rather than be reactive, he's often pro-active and that's something we need in a President HUGE.

He's also focused on issues relevant to ordinary Americans. I'm quite happy to have ideological issues see political discourse --after we have our house in order!

Holding people hostage over those issues is just dirty pool --GOP pool. No thanks.

Go Edwards!

(I'm putting my bumper sticker on today too.)

Don't forget to put the "Run Hillary Run" bumper sticker on your front bumper while you are at it.

Although I back Obama and see little chance I will change my position, I'd be okay with Edwards as the nominee. I'd prefer him before Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t354wbkXLM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl1qDKzwryQ

Herb

That's your evidence?!?

A couple of washed up former "comics"?!

Sorry, but that's pretty lame!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFvP_HZVqmY

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

That's nothing but a bunch of whining. It's the same kind of crap you would hear at the local ladies quilting session about Jane, who happens to not be there to call them on it.

Why don't you go and find some real exceptions Herb? You know, the kind of stuff that does not boil down to grade school level, "did you know that Dave has skid marks in his underwear?" crap.

Edwards would be a bad choice because of:

[insert some reasoned exceptions here].

See, a lot of the stuff he says makes very good sense. So, that's bad from a GOP point of view. However, most of what the GOP currently is about is worse, meaning that does not get talked about that much.

Edwards presents as a decent person. He actually presents as the kind of person a lot of ordinary people could relate to. This is bad too. Actually, it's really pretty bad for the GOP as their field, by and large, does not have this, OR SOLID ALIGNMENT WITH ORDINARY AMERICANS.

Since it's subjective, it's exactly the sort of thing the GOP will be all over! Easy to just put a bunch of stuff out there, outta context, lies, etc...

The idea being maybe he's not such a good guy, meaning we can ignore all the sense he is making and just focus on the skidmarks!

Make no mistake. This is powerful stuff! Just look at Fred Thompson. One single word just nails him! "Lazy" That's it! Unelectable.

Judy Ruilanni? Cross Dresser. Done! Cooked. (well, socially liberal people won't mind, but that's not gonna help the GOP that much will it?)

Romney: He's a little harder. Maybe just tag him as too rich. Trying to buy his way in, with lots of Mormon dollars. That's likely to cook him too.

With Obama, it's gonna be Black, or Naive. Not my view, as I'm not racist, but it's there enough to cook him, IMHO.

Hilary: Woman, Risky. (I do believe the latter, the former is actually a plus in my book right now.)

Edwards?

There just isn't all that much is there? Rich, yes, but does not appear to impact him the way it does Romney. It's self made dollars and everybody respects that at the end of the day. He's not buying his way in, so that's out.

Attorney? And a trial attorney too! Hard to make that look all that bad. Strong charisma, good family, loyal and solid wife. Given all the twisted legal stuff we've seen, somebody with a grasp of the law is not a bad thing.

That somebody focused on ordinary people? Excellent.

That's why this kind of crap is the only real solid exceptions we are seeing! He would make a good President period. He aligns well with most Americans on most of the issues that really matter.

On those few ugly and divisive ones, he's in solid shape. He could make a statement about guns to put some people at ease, but there isn't much else that's a big deal.

And this election is not gonna be decided on abortion. We've had two of those and look where we are. Most people are smarter than that and are quite tired of seeing important legislation that will impact their daily lives held hostage over stupid ideological matters.

Go and bring us something that really is an exception Herb --or admit you are trying to get people to vote on shallow, grade school, "skid marks" stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-miyu5YuJWQ

And the point of that was?

Go ahead. Please tell me why this should, in any way, diminish the appeal Edwards currently has. IMHO, he's an excellent candidate, not even in the lesser of evils camp. Hilary, for me, is there, but not Edwards.

At the least, it just means he is a little less good. Given the competition, not a worry.

He's got more than the entire GOP field, so really this is about how he would be worse than Hilary or Obama.

So, how would he be worse?

"So, how would he be worse?"

Oh, he could be a lot worse. A LOT worse. Hold up a picture of Stalin, Mao or Brezhnev.

The real question is 'how could he be more phoney?'

Herb

Actually, that's not the question.

Not worse than Stalin, Mao, etc... is just insane. Nuts, looney tunes, a coupla marbles short, etc...

You can't just go and restate the same "skid marks" grade school garbage. If he's gonna be a bad President, why?

Like, he would do X and Y would happen and Y would be something known bad.

Right now, he appears to be a really great potential President. The only thing you've really got is that maybe he won't be quite as great.

Bad is off the table, barring you actually put up something of substance.

He would be bad because he's intellectually dishonest.

He makes his money by suing physicians, lives in an extravagant mansion, then declares there's a health care problem...which as an attorney, he helped cause it to be more expensive.

If he cares so much for the poor, let's see a lifelong record of some pro bono work, not simply photo ops and $800 haircuts. I'm surprised you buy his garbage.

Doctors are not the problem. Phoney attorneys are.

Herb

"Although I back Obama and see little chance I will change my position, I'd be okay with Edwards as the nominee. I'd prefer him before Clinton."


That is why I think Rudy will win. I think Hillary will get the nomination from the dems, and Rudy will get the GOP nomination. Between the two of them, I think Rudy will be seen as the more centrist candidate.

And how is he dishonest. Spell it out.

He says X, means Y, and that means Z.

As for his law practice, we need attorneys to check doctors. Somebody has to do this. Having been on the wrong side of that whole issue, I can tell you this representation is both ethical and necessary.

The big expense on health care is the for-profit insurance system. Tort reform is a topic worth some discussion, but it is not the cause of our high health care costs, nor is it responsible for the current health care deficit.

One's bank account, or personal success has nothing to do with ones views. To want to help poor people be more successful, does not mean living poor by example!

That's silly.

In fact, to be able to make a difference and have an impact on the nation, means being successful! One has to have some money backing them, business acumen, charisma (and yes, that means looking good --we are a TV nation after all), etc...

If he were a phoney attorney, he would not have the nice home! Think that through man.

If you take this kind of crap and apply it to most people, you would get laughed at! I'm laughing right now, watching you sputter through, "but he's just bad! Really bad, trust me, scary bad!"

BTW, I know some really great attorneys. They do some pro-bono, but the majority of their cases are billable time. Why? Because they paid their dues and deserve a return on their personal investment. No real American would expect anything less! We are capitalists right?

(well, I am)

So far, it's not effective advocacy Herb. You need to dig deeper.

Missing, look who you are arguing with here... It's like talking to a wall.

Andrew

(not you, Shane.)

Totally!

Just curious to see if he had *anything* on Edwards at all. He doesn't, and that's good news, IMHO.

Shane, you mean Judy winning? If the GOP were smart, they would push forward with Huckabee over Judy. He's got no money backing him though...

"..we need attorneys to check doctors."

Go ahead and excuse ambulance-chasing attorneys who line their own pockets. It only makes your position look weak. And you'll get no sympathy by defending his opulent mansion, either.

Because he's your guy, he can do no wrong. You're just as partisan as those whom you attack. Thankfully, that kind of illogical desperation will only re-elect another republican.

And it doesn't get any easier from those within his own party:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chaz-proulx/john-edwards-has-stepped-_b_72429.html

And this:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/unions-balk--at-edwards-track-record-2007-11-15.html

The piling on has only begun. If a slippery attorney with low poll numbers is your guy, I actually hope he does win in the primary. He'd be a lot easier to beat in the general election...AGAIN...than Hillary, anyway.

Hand wring on.

Herb

Missing_kskd,
I don't understand the "Judy" comment. I think Rudy will win if it comes down to him vs. Hillary. That's all I was saying

I was poking fun at Rudy going in drag, AKA Judy! I'm socially liberal. Don't care about that really. Actually find it pretty funny. I do however believe it's a significant liability for many more conservative voters.

Being married to his second cousin isn't really all that good either. Makes me wonder about what other dirt there is to uncover. Bill Marr probably has the scoop on all of that.

Honestly, I don't know what to think of the guy against Hilary. Maybe. Have to balance 9/11 -vs- strong desire for change. For people like me, the GOP is off the table, so she's got a vote period, should we get there.

Hard to tell right now too. This is really pre-season stuff. Once people get the nod, then we get to see the real goods.

Hilary does pack a ton of money. Sadly, that's a pretty huge plus, particularly when general fund raising is down on the GOP side.

If it comes down to another divisive, who can smear who battle, the GOP being organized and lacking any real boundaries probably nicely balances the money, mostly because they can make the other side spend it!

Guess we will know more soon. Primaries are coming quick! (too quick)

Herb, Edwards can do plenty wrong. His biggest gaffe so far is lack of a sound statement on gun issues. He should just take that off the table. Plenty to do as President. No need to do anything with guns right now.

IMHO, that's one of those "get our house in order" things that shouldn't be election issues right now.

Way too many people still have their priorities hosed up. (gays, god and guns)

For me, the biggies are:

-health care

-taxes

-Iraq

-oil / energy

-jobs (outsourcing, tarrifs, free trade, etc...)

-balance of powers / legal / ethics matters.

On these things Edwards has expressed very favorable positions. In most of our daily lives, these things are extremely relevant. We could actually just leave the guns, flags, abortion, etc... at status quo, just work on the list above and really get things humming again and be way better off.

Then we have the luxury of debating those matters.

It's really the good he might do that is the real draw. Of all the candidates, he's the most focused on Joe and Jane American. That's gonna carry some weight after 8 years of divisive politics where we all mostly lose.

Doesn't Mike Huckabee live in a mansion too?

If Edwards would just step up and act like an ass, they wouldn't have all that "lives in a mansion, but wants to help the poor" stuff to use against him. Just take away the "help the poor" bit and it's a non-issue!

I'm all for calling both sides on hypocrisy.

That's why someone like a Huckabee or even a Richardson looks pretty darn good.

So many of the first-tier candidates have so many IOU's out there...They're already bought and sold by the special interests. I include big tobacco, HMO's, big labour, the NEA and all the rest.

Just give me a candidate that preaches what they actually practice themself. That's all.

Herb

" Just give me a candidate that preaches what they actually practice themself."

So are you even aware of the good that Edwards HAS done with his wealth? Or is it that he has money at ALL that takes him out of your running?

But it's not hypocracy to be successful and willing to help others be successful. It's just wanting to help others.

So, if one is all about helping the homeless, should one then just give up their home?

Sheesh.

IMHO, the GOP might do well with Huckabee. Won't run him though. They won't do it because he's not owned, and is highly likely NOT to continue the Project for a New American Century. That's the key right there.

Anybody moderate enough to actually consider solid solutions is not gonna get the nod. Ideologically, should any reasonable government based solution actually work, the idea that maybe government is not this bad thing will take root and undermine the rest and expose it for what it is.

Rubbish.

Government can work to keep the American people safe, employed and able to prosper. Those are all good things.

The idea that we need private interests to do this, for profit mind you, is just silly. Where exactly is the incentive for anybody to do well, when the stated goal is to deliver as much value to the shareholders as much of the time as is possible?

From what I've seen (and it's not much) Huckabee is the sort that actually thinks government can work. He's off the table for that alone.

Just watch.

You guys are simply turning a blind eye to Edwards, one of the most vacuous, two-faced hypocrites in the race.

Compared to Hillary, I hope Edwards runs...again. He's even more vulnerable now, than when he was beaten in 2004.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/johnson200407281254.asp

Herb

Shane, I don't think Rudy would have a chance against Hillary.

John Edwards can buy whatever kind of house he can afford. This is America after all. Herb, you sound like you're playing the class envy card.

" Just give me a candidate that preaches what they actually practice them self."

That's why I've hoping Obama wins. If he gets the nod, it's a guarantee he will win, no matter the GOP nominee. You heard it here first.

"Herb, you sound like you're playing the class envy card."

Not at all. The guy's a poseur and claims he's of the people. In actuality, he's a fat cat who has played the slimy two-faced attorney card, hiking medical costs for you and me.
Who do you think ends up paying the astronomical insurance costs incurred by physicians? YOU AND ME. I like doctors. Several have saved my life. There are a lot more shyster lawyers than there are bad physicians.

Herb

John Edwards is a self made man. That's more than you can say about George W. Bush.

John the Ambulance Chaser Edwards. A fake smile a country mile wide. My answer to him STAY OUT OF MY WALLET!!!! Classic tax man!

"I'm all for calling both sides on hypocrisy."

OK, I'm calling YOU on it, you fucking commie creep! (Yes, I'm using the F-word here because you've earned it!)

Could you possibly be any BIGGER of a first class Herrbocrite, Mr-Champion-Of-The-Pre-Born?

Do you see no irony in your hatred of and opposition to Edwards, seeing that his (Edwards) specialty was malpractice suits against doctors who f'ed up the pre-born? And he was good at it!

It seems to me that that your high and mighty moral outrage ends right about when birthing begins. You probably think, "well, the baby is approaching the vagina, so my work here is done. Who cares what happens next? Besides, vaginas are icky."

Herb said>>>
Hold up a picture of Stalin, Mao or Brezhnev.

And you would see DUHbya.

Radio921 writes:
John the Ambulance Chaser Edwards. A fake smile a country mile wide. My answer to him STAY OUT OF MY WALLET!!!! Classic tax man!

Right - and none of the other candidates have fake smiles??? It's called POLITICS. There's a lot of fakery involved, among all the candidates. Ron Paul may be the most sincere of all of them.

I don't know why people are shocked at the idea that taxes will go up (they ARE going to go up) after the bill we've been running up the last 8 years. Who did you think was going to pay the bill? Would you prefer we keep borrowing money from China? Why is borrowing from China better than raising taxes? What other choice do we have? Most of the federal budget goes to pay the military, medicare, and interest on the national debt (and plus we have this looming obligation to social security to start paying back, after decades of borrowing from it).

I would have preferred we not spend trillions of dollars on the Iraq and Afghanistan Occupations myself and NOT have to raise taxes coming up. Now that we've committed to spend that money, it's go to come from SOMEWHERE...

Andrew

Here's more for the 'ol-glass-house-stone-throwing Herrbocrite:

Candidates' Cribs

These presidential candidates would love to call the White House home. But their million-dollar digs will have to do for now.

By Sarah Max, Senior Cyberhomes Contributor


They say you can judge people by the company they keep. What about the places they call home?

Mitt Romney, whose fortune hovers around $200 million, calls the Boston suburb of Belmont home, but also has the option of jetting to his ski house in Park City, Utah or his $10 million estate in rural New Hampshire. John Edwards wants to improve the lives of middle class Americans, but his 28,000-square-foot spread in Chapel Hill, North Carolina is a long way from Middle America.

In fact, the frontrunners in the presidential campaign don't exactly lively modestly. Scroll through our gallery of candidates homes and you'll see that all of them live in million-dollar abodes.

Hillary Clinton, Democrat
Chappaqua, New York

In 1999, after living rent-free in the White House for eight years, Hillary Clinton and Former President Bill Clinton paid $1.7 million for a five-bedroom, four-bathroom circa 1889 house in Chappaqua, New York.. A years later, the couple paid $2.85 million for a second home, this one in the Washington, D.C. neighborhood Massachusetts Avenue Heights.

Neighborhood stats
Zip code: 10514
Average home value: $1,131,136
9-month appreciation: -2.8 percent



Barrack, Obama, Democrat

Chicago, Illinois

In 2005, Barrack Obama used money from a book advance to plunk down $1.65 million for a Georgian revival home in Kenwood, a well-to-do landmark district on Chicago’s South Side.

Neighborhood stats
Zip Code: 60615
Average home value: $310,315
9-month appreciation: 1 percent

John Edwards, Democrat

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In January 2007, John Edwards and his family moved into their $6 million North Carolina estate, which the local tax assessor’s office described as the most expensive in the county. No kidding. The 102-acre property includes a 10,400-square-foot main house and 15,600-square-foot recreation building, housing a basketball court, squash court, swimming pool and two stages. A third 2,200-square-foot structure connects the two buildings.

Neighborhood stats
Zip Code: 27516
Average home value: $365,347
9-month appreciation: 4.1 percent

Mitt Romney, Republican

Wolfeboro, New Hampshire

Mitt Romeny owns a few houses, including his main residence in the Boston suburb of Belmont and a ski house in Park City, Utah. But the address he seems to like most is a three-story contemporary house overlooking New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee. The 11-acre estate boasts a 5,400 square-foot six-bedroom house, a 2,700 square-foot boat house and 2,600-square-foot guest house. All told it’s worth more than $10 million.

Neighborhood stats
Zip Code: 03894
Average home value: NA
9-month appreciation: NA

John McCain, Republican

Phoenix, Arizona

A couple years ago John and Cindy McCain put their 11,000 square-foot Phoenix home on the market and downsized (sort of) to a new luxury condo building near Biltmore Fashion Park in Phoenix. Cindy McCain, who is heiress to the John Hensley liquor empire, paid $3 million for two units, which the couple combined for 6,000 square feet of fine living.

Neighborhood stats
Zip Code: 85016
Average value: $428,802
9-month appreciation: -1.6 percent

Rudy Giuliani, Republican

New York, New York

The former mayor of New York calls one of most expensive stretches of real estate in the country home. About five years ago he and his wife, Judith, paid $5.25 million for a nine-room co-op on the Upper East Side. Of course, every New Yorker needs an escape. In the case of the Giuliani’s it’s a $4 million house in the Hamptons.

Neighborhood stats
Zip Code: 10021
Average value: $1,527,997
9-month appreciation: - 4.7 percent

The White House Washington, D.C.

The next president of the United States will have plenty of perks, but one notable honor is four years of free rent in the White House, a 55,000 square-foot Georgian-style mansion that encompasses 132 rooms and 32 bathrooms. Amenities include a tennis court, bowling alley, movie theater, swimming pool, and oodles of history.

The White House was originally built in the late 1700s at a cost of $230,000 – or about $3.5 million in today's dollars. That building was burned down by soldiers in 1814 and rebuilt by the same architect. The old house has obviously gone through a few changes over the years. Electricity, plumbing and central heat are just a few of the upgrades needed to make life comfortable for the President and his family. Moreover, the addition of the West Wing and East Wing moved the staff out of the presidential quarters and into adjacent buildings. That said, the White House hasn't changed drastically since the early 1950s when President Truman renovated the house and added two sub-basements, says William Bushong, staff historian for the White House Historical Association.

While the White House may be one of the most famous residences in America, most experts would be hard pressed to put a value on it. "The White House is priceless," says Jonathan Taylor, managing partner of Tutt, Taylor & Rankin real estate in Washington D.C. But if he had to take a wild guess he'd say it's worth well over $100 million.. "Our biggest sale in town to date was a $25 million sale for a 29,000 square-foot house with 2 acres of land in Georgetown," says Taylor. "The White House dwarfs that place."

Zip Code: 20006
http://realestate.aol.com/article/_a/presidential-pads-these-presidential/200710 16112409990001


Here's more info from the AP and USA Today on the cars they drive...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/05/hybrids_strike_.html

...And the last fictional book they read, and more importantly (to me), their pets:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/05/dogs_rule_in_ca.html

Andrew 2 said>>>
Would you prefer we keep borrowing money from China?

In bed with the Red... The EXTREME RIGHT loves commies. Pinko Commies!

Judy's Ruliani's recent read, that he even ADMITS to: The Beach House by James Patterson. Ewwwww!

Oh, Good Lord, that's right up there with "My Pet Goat"...

After watching last night's debate, I'm less impressed with Edwards. I hope he doesn't win the nomination.

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Dodd (why isn't this guy doing better??)

I thought both Obama and Biden did pretty well. I agree with you that Edwards wasn't so impressive Thursday night.

Andrew

Richardson was the only half-honest one up there.

Herb

Which means so much coming from you.

Most lefties never met a liberal they didn't like, so consider the source.

Herbert M.

Clinton, on the other hand, was reported to have shined.

I thought Hillary did fine - but I didn't see the part in the beginning where she hit back at Obama and Edwards (I heard it later on the radio). I think she did well by not doing badly. Edwards just seemed a little off his game, like someone desperately behind and not a top-tier candidate. Obama seemed resolute but occasionally stumbled in his answers - although to me what he said made sense; I felt I knew exactly what he was talking about.

Wolf Blitzer was terrible - his questions were often stupid ("national security or human rights, which is more important?"), and I admired Obama's ability to explain his position on immigration reform instead of having to answer a meaningless yes/no question about driver's licenses that misses the larger issue.

Joe Biden was really good - he seemed like by far the smartest person up there. There was nothing wishy-washy about him. But perhaps his time has simply passed. I hope that he gets a spot in the next administration if the Democrats take the White House in 2008. If he could stand having to answer to someone else...

Andrew

Edwards really turned me off last night and my opinion of him has plummeted as a result. I still see him as used goods from the failed 2004 effort anyway.

And, although I can't say I know a whole lot about Wolf Blitzer, I thought he came off as a dick.

Vitalogy wrote:
And, although I can't say I know a whole lot about Wolf Blitzer, I thought he came off as a dick.

Major league asshole. Yeah, big time!

Andrew

No wonder HerrB likes him and posts links to him here.

One craps on everything and the other is just full of crap.