Edwards Mailer In Iowa Touts His Trial Lawyer Representation Of Injured Girl

Comments (52)

jsamuel wrote on December 21, 2007 12:36 PM:

He isn't for consensus building with these interests because they already have all the power.

However, he is perfectly willing to work with congress to get things done.

NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 12:44 PM:

He's also tackling the "trial lawyers are the scum of the earth and the source of all evil" theme that the Republicans have been pushing for the last thirty years.

yesterday is gone wrote on December 21, 2007 12:48 PM:

jsamuel: He [edwards] isn't for consensus building with these interests because they already have all the power. However, he is perfectly willing to work with congress to get things done.

jonathan alter:

When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/2

Michael wrote on December 21, 2007 12:49 PM:

The analogy is appealing, but ultimately shallow. In court, there are rules about what is and is not allowed as evidence. If you believe Ron Dworkin, there is also an objectively right answer to every question that comes to trial. There is a jury of peers to decide the case, each side is given equal opportunity to make its argument, and an impartial (at least in theory) judge to moderate the argument.

None of those situations hold on the hill. There are no rules about what is and is not allowed as evidence, there is no objectively "right" answer (as much as Paul Krugman might want there to be one), there is no jury of peers, nor impartial judge to moderate, nor are both sides given ample time.

The notion that you can "freeze out" big business by not inviting them to negotiations is ridiculous; their influence is broad and deep, their money in the pockets of lobbyists and senators for both parties.

The word "naive" has been bandied about a lot in the primary, mainly directed as Sen. Obama, but the only thing naive is the idea that a lot of anger and yelling and hammering on the bully pulpit will do anything but make you feel better about "sticking it to 'em", or that you can accomplish major institution-building without first correcting or subverting the barriers to progressive change already in place. Those are the visions offered by Edwards and Clinton, respectively, and both are lacking.

DonnaG wrote on December 21, 2007 1:02 PM:

A long time ago, I read about that case, and the fact that came out that the company had already known of other children injured by the faulty drain and did nothing about correcting the drain, in fact tried to hide the previous instances. I think John Edwards is a real hero for what he did for this family.

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 1:10 PM:

Too bad that, when fightin' John's opinions actually could be translated into Senate votes, he wouldn't "fight" the Charlotte-based banking interests (for some reason) and was the ONLY Democrat (along with every Senate Republican), who voted "NO" on both Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.

John Edwards - the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do "progressive populist."

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 1:15 PM:

I had a divorce lawyer similar in reputation to John Edwards. My life was upside down until I interviewed my divorce attorney. In Less than an hour he summed up my case, was dictating letters to the court, and totally took control of my case.
My life instantly was back in my control. That Attorney won me %100 custody of my 2 Sons, 1/2 of my home and property, %100 of my retirement, and a clause that I could move anywhere in the US for my Career. Great results for a Dad. Expensive divorce attorney worth every penny.
John Edwards - Priceless!!!

Goldspinner wrote on December 21, 2007 1:18 PM:

Having the Lakey family campaign in Iowa while the Minnesota and national press cover the Abigail Taylor surgery underscores why Edwards terrifies the tort reform crowd. At least one presidential candidate cares enough about justice to fight for it.

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 1:22 PM:

As a Senator - John Edwards had complex commitments to the people that got him elected. Now he is free from that and

I totally believe that John Edwards WILL live up to his populist agenda and be as great as FDR.

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on December 21, 2007 1:27 PM:

I'm an Obama man, through and through. I agree 100% that Edwards did not vote as he speaks. I'm not certain how much of his message he believes, and, in contrast to the steady work and focus of Obama (e.g. his work on Political Financing goes back to his State Legislature days), I'm disconcerted by the way Edwards jumps tracks.

And yet, I think Edwards just won Iowa. Talk like this is what really pushes the personal/political axis that wins elections. Dropping it at the last minute, just before the holidays, is a brilliant piece of work.

My props to the Edwards team, and, if I'm sadly correct, we'll see you in New Hampshire!

yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 1:29 PM:

Goldspinner : underscores why Edwards terrifies the tort reform crowd.

senator edwards voted to protect pharmaceutical industry from vaccine lawsuits. he voted for "tort reform."

bob wrote on December 21, 2007 1:31 PM:

I like John Edwards, and I think he has every right to be proud of accomplishments like winning this case for this poor girls.

However, none of those tactics will convince a single GOP Senator to vote for reform, and you need to have 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

That's exactly what this whole decision comes down to. Which candidate can pass progressive legislation, despite the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate.

Otherwise, we will have 8 years of woulda, coulda, shoulda, much like we have today when talking about the accomplishments of the Dems in Congress (and they definitely have some, even though we would have all liked more).

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 1:54 PM:

Pick you BS example -
But if you look at other examples -
Looks like Edwards was Liberal enough for me!!!

ttp://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/12/19/22149/854/40#c40

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial
Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights
Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws
Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway
Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway
Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"
Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada
Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination
Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act
Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.
Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.
Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.

Goldspinner wrote on December 21, 2007 2:00 PM:

Yesterday gone, get your facts straight. Edwards voted to strengthen the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, not weaken it. You also left out some critical context: Edwards served in Congress during the anthrax mailings that directly affected thousands of federal employees. In case you've forgotten, people died in DC.

Edwards, a plaintiff's attorney who co-wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights while an ATLA member, is no friend of Big Pharma and you know it.

yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 2:12 PM:

goldspinner, the clause giving big pharma protection from vaccination lawsuits was slipped into the "homeland security act" vote. media found out about it beforehand and warned people the fast one bush and republicans were trying to pull. edwards voted for it anyways. only 9 democrats voted against.

yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 2:20 PM:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00249

make that 8 democrats, 1 independent: jeffords.

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 2:21 PM:

Here are the comparisons for the times when Hillary and Edwards disagreed on their votes when they were in the Senate together. Please read and come back and say again who's the "Republican-Lite" candidate most like George Bush.

Although they mostly voted together in concert with most other Democrats, there were some times that they disagreed on certain issues – especially some issues related to helping working families, education, and campaign reform. Let’s look at nearly all of those times – sorry this makes for a long post.

From the Senate voting record:

Senator Edwards voted YES on the 2000 Bankruptcy Act (along with the Republican majority). Senator Hillary Clinton had not been elected yet, but it’s a bill that Bill Clinton vetoed as being “too harsh on America’s poor and middle class families.” It was a precursor to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act (that Edwards also voted YES on).

On the Wellstone Amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have exempted those made bankrupt due to excessive medical bills, Senator Edwards voted NO along with all Senate Republicans. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and, of course, Wellstone.

On Paul Wellstone’s Amendment to 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have recalculated the definition of monthly income to the advantage of poor and middle class families, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone.

On Paul Wellstone’s 2001 campaign reform Amendment closing the loopholes for allowing for 527 group political TV ads. Ironically, since passage would have prevented the Swift Boaters in 2004, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES on this Amendment.

On Senator Kerry’s amendment that would have provided 2:1 matching funds to Senate campaigns of up to $200, encouraging small donors like most of us are and increasing our contribution power, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES.

Senator Bingaman offered an amendment that would have banned phony negative “attack ads” by requiring that vehicles that ran such ads would have to allow response time. Senator Edwards voted to table this amendment along with nearly every Republican. Senator Clinton voted along with most other liberal Democrats to further this amendment. (It was tabled, that is, killed).

On the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal DemocratsOn the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.

On Senator Bob Graham’s amendment to this tax cut bill which would have decreased the lower marginal rates for poor and middle class taxpayers, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and 29 other Democrats.

Senator Feinstein motioned to send the tax cut bill back to the Finance Committee with orders to spread the Estate Tax exemption cuts more fairly. Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, and Wellstone.

Senator Wellstone presented an Amendment to No Child Left Behind to prevent it from being an “unfunded mandate.” Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with 30 other liberal Democrats.

Of course we know the famous Iraq War authorization vote where both Hillary and John agreed with and voted with the Republicans (and many other Democrats for that matter). I just thought you might be interested in a few of the votes where they disagreed on the record – not just from the sidelines where Edwards likes to sit and carp.

The cliché is that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. These are the facts from the Senate voting records.

John Edwards and his supporters claim that he is the progressive and that Hillary represents the status quo or is just a milder version of a Republican. Read these facts about their head-to-head voting records and be enlightened as to who stood most often with the Republicans and who voted most often with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s really no contest. Hillary has a 95%-plus lifetime record of voting with the progressive Democrats (the 12th most liberal in the Senate), while Edwards lifetime liberal voting record stands at 78%.

The (non)response so far from a few Edwards supporters who have attempted to “refute the facts” (as Sean Hannity might put it), is that these were meaningless votes by a do-nothing Congress that would have been vetoed anyway, or the like. Sorry – not a good non-answer-answer. If this legislation was “meaningless,” the question gets even bigger, that is, why did Edwards consistently vote with the Republicans against Hillary and the rest of the liberal Democrats on all of these progressive proposals?

Again, now that John Edwards stands safely outside the Senate record, he finds it easy to take potshots at Senator Hillary. Oh well, that’s not really so hard to understand - seeing how he opposed her (and most other liberal progressive Dems) quite often when he was the Senator from North Carolina.

yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 2:24 PM:

Edwards, a plaintiff's attorney who co-wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights

this did nothing to extend coverage to people who lacked insurance.

yesterday gone wrote on December 21, 2007 2:31 PM:

nice compilation, colon.

Bryant wrote on December 21, 2007 2:36 PM:

> Hillary has a 95%-plus lifetime record of voting with the progressive Democrats (the 12th most liberal in the Senate), while Edwards lifetime liberal voting record stands at 78%.

that doesn't mean anything. a senator is representing the people of the state from which she is elected. edwards' 78% liberal record is most impressive considering he's from a red state. as a presidential candidate, and as a president, he can advance his own real message, and that is what he is doing now.

lawyer boy wrote on December 21, 2007 2:45 PM:

My name is John Edwards

If you can afford me I'll represent you

if you can't - then buzz off

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 2:47 PM:

Bryant:

So it was the PEOPLE of North Carolina who opposed the two Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.

Don't make me laugh.

We have an opportunity to compare these two candidates side to side on populist, progressive, liberal issues. Edwards didn't even run for a second term, so he WAS free to vote his conscience.

His "conscience" appears to me to have benn in the pocket of the Charlotte banking interests that we needed for support for his ambitions to higher office.

You?

framecop wrote on December 21, 2007 2:47 PM:

So, when is Hillary Clinton going to release her CORPORATE LAWYER mailer telling Iowans how she fought "AGAINST" community activist group "ACORN" in court, or how she fought "FOR" Tyson Foods against the interests of regular Americans?

I'm at the last straw now.

If the Democratic Party nominates a corporate lawyer like Hillary Clinton, who is the top recipient of defense contractor and health insurance company money, the Democratic Party can rot in hell. They'll never get my vote again.

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 2:53 PM:

Obama supporters, answer this for me:

WHY DID OBAMA VOTE FOR Dick Cheney's "ENERGY" bill?

Why did Barack Obama get to the Senate in 2005 and see that Iraq was already a mess, and vote to give Bush every dime -- JUST LIKE HILLARY CLINTON -- that he wanted until Spring 2007 when they both realized that it would kill them in the Presidential campaign?

Why did Barack Obama say, when asked about the Iraq War Resolution, say back when he first started running for the Senate, that he was "UNSURE" whether or not he would have voted against the resolution that he now criticizes others for voting for?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/its-time-for-sen-obama-_b_76361.html

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 2:54 PM:

framecop:

I understand that Nader is looking at possibly taking time off from managing his stock portfolio online and maybe making another run at it. I hear that there are openings in his campaign.

So, don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us progressive, liberal democrats will be inside raising a toast to the first woman President in the history of our glorious country.

framecop wrote on December 21, 2007 3:03 PM:

I understand that Nader is looking at possibly taking time off from managing his stock portfolio online and maybe making another run at it. I hear that there are openings in his campaign.

So, don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us progressive, liberal democrats will be inside raising a toast to the first woman President in the history of our glorious country.

If the Democratic Party chooses to NOMINATE A CORPORATE LAWYER, instead of one that actually fought for families and regular Americans, they will choose to be the second wing of the Republican Party.

If they can't find someone OTHER THAN A CORPORATE LAWYER to nominate, then either they are STUPID or corrupt.

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 3:10 PM:

framecop:

Too funny. Are you really going after Clinton because she's a "corporate lawyer?"

Did you ever hear of Fortress Investments? Do you consider them to be a corporation?

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with corporate lawyers. They have been defined as "persons" under the law and are entitled to legal representation.

That, and I'm not a blind hater.

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 3:21 PM:

Oops.

I meant, of course, that corporations are considered persons under the law.

Corporate lawyers are considered persons by all except framecop.

Lisa wrote on December 21, 2007 4:08 PM:

Does any one know about Edwards and the offshore hedge fund?

I was told these were hidden investments in bad subprime loans.

I guess you'd have to be a lawyer to keep track of it.

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 4:10 PM:

colonpowwow: yes as a matter of fact it was the PEOPLE of North Carolina who opposed the two Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.

Yes - the people of North Carolina were feed the BS from fox that it is time the freeloaders need to pay their bills and not be able to go bankrupt - little did the people know that most bankruptcies are the cause of a medical disaster. Which John Edwards will fix if elected the President of united States!!!

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 4:12 PM:

colonpowwow: yes as a matter of fact it was the PEOPLE of North Carolina who opposed the two Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.

Yes - the people of North Carolina were feed the BS from fox that it is time the freeloaders need to pay their bills and not be able to go bankrupt - little did the people know that most bankruptcies are the cause of a medical disaster. Which John Edwards will fix if elected the President of united States!!!

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 4:18 PM:

Does any one know about Lisa having sex with Donkeys?

I was told these were hidden Videos with bad Donkey Sex.

I guess you'd have to be a Porn Freak to keep track of it.

Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 4:27 PM:

I don't think its a good idea for edwards to play on the fact that he was a pi lawyer. That has to cut against him. PI lawyers are right down there with used car salespersons.

Lisa wrote on December 21, 2007 4:31 PM:

It was good Donkey sex

Margaret wrote on December 21, 2007 4:40 PM:

John Edwards will take on the corporate lobbyists who've funded Obama's and Hillary's political careers!
Go Edwards!

Goldspinner wrote on December 21, 2007 4:41 PM:

So where was HRC this week when Biden needed support for his filibuster?

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 5:02 PM:

It was Dodd's Filibuster

nogo war wrote on December 21, 2007 5:06 PM:

Jist askin'?
Anyone here tried to take on your HMO over insurance you thought you had?
Anyone who supports Clinton confident that she will take on the HMO's?

(note..I do believe that Obama would when he sits down "at the table" be a force)

I believe that this lit...demonstrates the little guy/gal message of Edwards. This is not to say Obama would not.
But Edwards, not Obama has made this the fiery core of his campaign.
Edwards learned in 2003-04 that expert handlers do not know best...and will muzzle the real person...I believe Obama has yet to learn this...
As for you folks who believe Clinton II is the inspiration needed to help the United States rise above 8 years of Cheney/Rove/Bush? Cool...

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 11:46 PM:

It's either Edwards or McKinney for me.

Applechill, NC wrote on December 22, 2007 3:34 AM:

Sorry, but Johnny Boy is just unelectable.

framecop wrote on December 22, 2007 7:38 AM:

framecop:

Too funny. Are you really going after Clinton because she's a "corporate lawyer?"

Did you ever hear of Fortress Investments? Do you consider them to be a corporation?

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with corporate lawyers. They have been defined as "persons" under the law and are entitled to legal representation.

That, and I'm not a blind hater.

Yes, I have heard of Fortress Investments WHICH HAS GIVEN MONEY TO EDWARDS, CLINTON, OBAMA, AND DODD, as well as the DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN.

Yes, I have heard of them.

It still doesn't change the fact that when Hillary Clinton had a CHOICE of what job to take back in Arkansas, she chose to go work for the sleazy Rose Law Firm, and fight for corporate profits against the interests of regular Americans.

If the Democratic Party nominates a corporate lawyer, they're either stupid or corrupt.

Fortress Investments donates money to the Democratic Party. No investment group is going to be 100% pure, but it's not like John Edwards was in charge of their subprime operations. He was a "Global Advisor," and as such, the company, WHICH DONATES TO DEMOCRATS, paid for several trips for him to go overseas and meet with leaders over there and give speeches.

That was his primary role, so yes, I am aware of Fortress, but apparently you don't know any more about them than what you've been told.

yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 9:02 AM:

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 2:54 PM:

you got to admit the clinton administration wasn't progressive: nafta, trade with china, corporate deregulation, support for privatization, legislation barring gay marriage, the list goes on and on. hillary didn't oppose these policies at the time, she even supported the law barring gay marriage.

yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 9:05 AM:

Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 2:53 PM:
Obama supporters, answer this for me:WHY DID OBAMA VOTE FOR Dick Cheney's "ENERGY" bill?

obama's work on energy issues:

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/energy/

yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 9:08 AM:

skibumlee wrote on December 21, 2007 4:12 PM:
colonpowwow: yes as a matter of fact it was the PEOPLE of North Carolina who opposed the two Wellstone Amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill. Yes - the people of North Carolina were feed the BS from fox that it is time the freeloaders need to pay their bills and not be able to go bankrupt

edwards was smart enough to know better. he voted for the wrong things anyway. time and time again.

Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 9:12 AM:

Fortress Investments donates money to the Democratic Party. No investment group is going to be 100% pure, but it's not like John Edwards was in charge of their subprime operations.

edwards wasn't just an bystander recipient, he has invested millions into fortress.

yesterday gone wrote on December 22, 2007 9:18 AM:

from reuters:

Edwards, who earned a fortune as a trial lawyer, worked for Fortress as an adviser after he lost his vice presidential campaign in the 2004 election.
[...]
Edwards was paid $479,512 in 2006 for consulting work for Fortress and had $16 million invested with the firm.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1525411120070817

colonpowwow wrote on December 22, 2007 10:56 AM:

skibumlee:

The nasty tone of your uninformed view of who was and who should have been voting for the Wellstone Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act (Edwards voted against them - liberal progressive populists voted for them) - shows just why Edwards and his supporters come off as laughable phonies, and why his campaign pooped.

The first Wellstone Amendment would have allowed those hardworking, God-fearing, poor and middle class Americans who went belly-up because of a crush of medical bills (like, say, their spouse developed an incurable cancer that loaded $50,000 debt onto them) to be able to declare bankruptcy.

Which of the two Americas represented by the PEOPLE of North Carolina, was John Edwards supporting with his vote? say it's the America represented by those who own 28,000 square foot gated estates.

Also, my problem with Fortress Investments is that John Edwards spoke against offshore tax-dodge hedge funds in the 2004 campaign, then took a lucrative job with one immediately after his miserable loss. And he worked there in the capacity of being a corporate lawyer, however Clintonesque you phonies want to parse it.

colonpowwow wrote on December 22, 2007 11:11 AM:

Rereading my last post, I realize I tarred Edwards's supporters with too broad a brush.

Most Edwards supporters are certainly sincere. I meant to say some of them (like skibumlee), come off as phonies.

I apologize.

amberglow wrote on December 22, 2007 3:28 PM:

Fighting is absolutely what we need--and it's fighting for us, not just fighting to get power or to get elected.

Edwards is the only one who ever has done that.

colonpowwow wrote on December 23, 2007 11:43 AM:

amberglow wrote on December 22, 2007 3:28 PM:
"Fighting is absolutely what we need--and it's fighting for us, not just fighting to get power or to get elected.

Edwards is the only one who ever has done that."

Nonesense. When Edwards had the chance to fight for progressive causes in the Senate, he continually voted with the Republican majority and against the liberal Democrats like Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Clinton.

Clinton's record fighting for progressive, liberal legislation = 95% plus as rated by the ADA.

Edward's record on these SAME ISSUES - SAME VOTES (are any of you getting this?) = 78%.

This is not made up stuff - this is hoe they voted from the Senate Record from 2000 to 2004.

Facts are such sticky things to true believers locked in a cult of personality.

Michael A wrote on December 23, 2007 11:57 AM:

Morning Colonpowwow,

Great statement,

"Facts are such sticky things to true believers locked in a cult of personality."

I agree 1000%. Kind of strange coming from a clinton II person though, you gotta admit.

colonpowwow wrote on December 23, 2007 1:42 PM:

Michael A.

I support Clinton, but I don't think I ignore her shortcomings (and she has many of them like any human being, especially experienced politicians who have time in the public eye). I certainly don't base my support on a cult of personality, especially since I see her personality as not her strongest suit.

I've made it perfectly clear that I think she is the best qualified with the temperment, political connections, liberal, progressive voting record, and demonstrated work ethic that makes her the best candidate out of an outstanding group - and that I'll wholeheartedly support whomever my fellow Democrats choose.

Edwards's supporters, on the other hand, have some completely unfounded trust in someone whose voting record and personal behavior, including recent employment and investments, demonstrates the opposite of what they cling to with a blind faith Jesus would envy.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)