Edwards In New NH, SC Ads: "I Was Born For" Fighting Big Corporations
John Edwards has a new ad in New Hampshire, apparently from the same taping session as another ad in Iowa, in which the candidate denounces corporate greed, and declares that he was "born for" the fight:
Another ad in South Carolina promotes Edwards' roots — he was born in the state — while also featuring the candidate's populist condemnation of big corporations:
Comments (12)
Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 10:27 AM:I just can't help it. He sounds so much like a Personal Injury lawyer making a pitch to a jury to give his client big bucks for a whiplash injury due to a car accident. I can't wait until the primaries are over.
hisgirlfriday wrote on December 28, 2007 10:36 AM:Oh John. Who are you kidding?
Maybe this is a fight you're born-AGAIN for after your embarrassing approval of those awful bankruptcy bills when you were in Washington actually holding office rather than just running for one?
Gus wrote on December 28, 2007 10:42 AM:Michael A,
Thats funny because to me, he's the only one who doesn't sound like an insurance company representative promising me that even though my authorization has been declined, everything's going to be alright because that doctor is probably wrong anyway.
hisgirlfriday wrote on December 28, 2007 10:49 AM:OMG Michael!
Why didn't I pick up on that before. It was so subtle I never could put my finger on why Edwards and his whole "I will fight for you" pitch never did anything for me but after you said that I got these flashbacks to all these awful ads with trial lawyers rolling up their sleeves promising to FIGHT for their clients.
But just to see the comparison I checked out some youtube clips of personal injury lawyer commercials and noticed how similar the language was...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yj2PPWFXFw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeE2Nxieruc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRQKW5T-c0k
Next thing you know Edwards will be saying "we don't get paid until you do" LOL.
No prob hisgirlfriday. Unfortunately, I have had to deal with many, many Personal Injury lawyers and the comparison is unmistakeable. Also, it goes back to his senate record which is 180 degrees from his current position and his iraq war vote for political reasons. There is not alot of backbone and there, there. It's just empty rhetoric. I wish he'd go back to North Carolina and try med mal cases so he doesn't take votes from the other potential candidates.
Ava wrote on December 28, 2007 11:01 AM:5 Reasons why NOT to vote for Edwards:
(1)Edwards takes public financing – He was the VP candidate 4 years ago. If he was such a strong candidate in the current race, there would be no need for public financing and, with so little money, he’ll find it difficult to compete for the nomination against his democratic opponents beyond the first few states, let alone fight the GOP in the general.
(2)Recent polls show Obama does much better at picking up independent and republican support in the general election, which is needed to secure a win by a more comfortable margin. Recent Zogby polling shows Obama beats all 5 GOP contenders, while Edwards loses to 2 out of the 5. Outside of Iowa, Edwards can barely crack 15% in polls against Obama and Hillary, which is a terrible showing, considering Obama is a virtual unknown and Hillary is probably the most detested woman in America.
(3)He added NOTHING to the 2004 Kerry/Edwards ticket. Edwards is a southerner, yet they didn’t win even ONE southern state – not even South Carolina (where he was BORN). There is NO EVIDENCE Edwards can put red states in play. Heck, the Kerry/Edwards ticket didn’t even win John’s home state of North Carolina (where he was a Senator)!
(4)Edwards is a phony – he has had to apologize for every major vote he ever took in the senate – Iraq, bankruptcy legislation, NAFTA, etc. All votes that showed his lack of judgment (Iraq) or that he doesn’t care as much for the average Joe as he’d like everyone to believe (bankruptcy legislation, NAFTA, etc.). He was an ambulance-chaser lawyer who got rich off of bilking the malpractice system.
(5)Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for 4 YEARS and he’s in 3rd place? He should OWN Iowa. That, his poor polling outside of Iowa, and his poor financing shows he’s not catching on with voters nationwide. Also, the polls don’t show any sort of Edwards “surge” over the last several weeks. The reporting about Edwards potentially being the “surprise” candidate in Iowa is based on the media wanting to report more of a “horserace” in Iowa.
Edwards is a weak candidate.
Micael A. & Ava,
'Rush' much?
I find it disturbing that the candidate advocating government of, by and for the people gathers such angry distractors . . .While the corporate conspiritor and Mr Chime-in-five-to-seven-days-later-and-towards-the-recessivist have such ardent worshipers.
Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 12:03 PM:Richard, my intent is not to be an angry detractor. I understand that you are an edwards supporter. It's just some observations. I'm not real hot about edwards, but I would take him over clinton II. I am just sick and tired of these politicians that say anything to get elected. I am a big actions speak louder than words type of person and his actions in the senate are diametrically opposed to what he is espousing today or did in 04. I have a problem with that.
Also, I am pissed about his iraq war vote. Shrum, one of his political advisors, discussed how edwards came to vote to go to war. Allegedly, he was against it, but his advisors told him that politically he had to vote for war, so he did. Is that backbone or conviction? Now, after all these dead and maimed americans and iraqis, it's like oops, I'm sorry. I got a problem with that.
His position though is marginally better than clinton II's, but not much. I do think if he would have jumped up and down and made a stink at the time and tried to stop it, he would have gotten as much traction as graham, which isn't much. However, clinton II jumping up and down and trying to mobilize senate opposition might have gained headlines and could have stopped the travesty. She clearly had more clout and name recognition and it would have been all over the press. The situation could have been different and many, many people would be alive and well today if she would have shown leadership.
Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 12:10 PM:Still with NAFTA? Zombie myths that never die. You are too funny Ava.
Ava wrote on December 28, 2007 1:01 PM:NAFTA shouldn't have been included in that list. It was a typo. The other vote "apologies" are correct.
colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 1:07 PM:Richard L. Adlof:
Two questions:
Didn't Edwards's 2004 stump speech include him blasting offshore hedge fund tax-dodges as an applause line? (Hint = It did.)
Didn't Edwards, after the first of his two miserable failures at attaining higher office was completed in 2004, go and work for an offshore hedge fund tax dodge? (Hint = He did.)
Oh, well. If you can't beat big corporations, join them, I guess.
Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 1:14 PM:Typo? You mistakenly typed the letters, N, A, F, T, A?
You slay me! Keep it coming!
