http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/she-was-shot.html

Proof that Bhutto was shot and that the Musharraf government is covering it up. So John, your pal Musharraf doesn't seem to be taking your advice. By the way, WHAT EXACTLY DID MUSHARRAF TELL YOU WHEN HE RETURNED YOUR CALL? You never said.

Gregg it's not.

The latest info coming out of the obama camp obviously indicates something going on in their internal polling. It appears that edwards is doing very well in iowa and taking votes from obama, which is playing into the clinton II playbook. Clinton II's campaign is eriely silent. Thursday will be very interesting.

Sure, I think the idea is to point out (in a characteristically subtle way) that Obama is not such a recent convert to working in the public interest as Edwards.

Can't those two play nice?

Edwards wasn't helping to save lives working as a trial lawyer. He was arguing cases to help his clients get money through the legal system. Some of these clients were no doubt deserving, and some no doubt weren't. In exchange, Edwards got a lot of money from the injured folks. That's not working in the public interest as it's traditionally defined, where lawyers are taking cases without regard to whether they're going to get a nice fat payout for themselves or not. The fact that Edwards got rich indicates that he took far more than he needed from his clients. Not a problem for a diehard capitalist, but hardly the stuff of a man of the people.

Tom,

I am offended that you equate being a civil rights lawyer with "playing the race card". That phrase always annoys me and now is no different. Also, I would love to know how Edwards was saving lives?? He was winning MONEY for families and making quite some money himself.

Obama started out as a community organizer after college working for $12,000 a year. He helped register 150,000 people to vote. Then he went to Harvard Law.

From the Boston Globe:
As the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama had his pick of top law firms. He chose Miner's Chicago civil rights firm, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries....

The firm of Miner Barnhill & Galland, many of whose members have Harvard and Yale law degrees, has a reputation that fits nicely into the resume of a future presidential candidate.

"It's a real do-good firm," says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. "Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway."

-----------------
Obama is the real deal and you can go back 20 years to see it. By contrast, Edwards' whole rhetoric about the poor is quite new.

If anyone cares, Anonymous at 2:46 was me.

Edwards is a phony and I am amazed that people can't see that. I don't think he is the worst guy in the world, but I think he sat around with some advisors and tried to figure out a platform that would fill a niche. Well he found it and people fell for it. What does he actually stand for? Who knows. I would be okay with that since sincerity is so hard to find in politics, except that again, union leaders and poor people and etc are supporting him even though there actually IS a person running that represents their interests and has done so all his professional life, which is Obama.

The point is that Edwards is a very skilled opportunist. He claimed a personal relationship with Musharraf enough to get a return call and then tooted his own horn saying that he gave the dictator advice about how to handle the situation. Its now obvious that Edward's advice was not heeded. Edwards also declined to state what Musharraf told him at the time -- which I found disconcerting -- as though he was somehow holding a confidence with this thug. Edwards used the tragedy of Bhuttos assination to create a spectacle around himself -- purely for political gain -- he had no real effect on the situation. But you are right Greg -- why post this here? Its not obvious that there is a direct connection from the Musharraf episode to trial lawyer to populist champion of the poor -- except when one notes that the common thread is the sheer theatricality and narcissism of it all. That is what Edwards is all about. He is an actor who plays a given role at a given time in service of his own needs -- and he is darn good at it. I don't doubt that he helped this family and had honorable intentions towards them -- but the man was not in it out of charity and has certainly exploited this high-profile case to the hilt. Edwards seeks to use his trial lawyer experience to claim he is an authentic champion of the poor -- but there was always a lot of monetary incentive involved. In contrast, Obama worked on the streets with the poor and his motive was not money. I think its valid to draw that distinction between the two men as it is valid to point out the theatricality and self-serving nature of Edwards' various stances, particularly as he constantly seeks to promote himself as hero rushing to the rescue time and again.

'This selfish pretty boy is going to ruin it for all of us just to satisfy his own ambition.'

Obama or Edwards?

/ZING!

Either way, both Obama and Edwards better toughen up.

The latest poll is in, from Insider Advantage:

Clinton 30%
Edwards 29%
Obama 22%

So I guess all the people on this blog today who have been saying a vote for Edwards is a vote for Clinton will now have to change their tune and say a vote for Obama is a vote for Clinton.

Don't hold your breath.

Seriously, I don't know whether to trust this poll or not. I think Edwards has momentum, and the fact that Joe Klein just wrote that Edwards has "jumped the shark" is a pretty good indicator that Edwards will win (lol). But I encourage you all to vote for whichever candidate will make the best president, and don't let anyone tell you it's a vote for someone else. It's the primaries, for pete's sake. You're SUPPOSED to vote your heart.

"It's the primaries, for pete's sake. You're SUPPOSED to vote your heart."

Agreed. Particularly in this early primary when it's hardly time to throw in the towel on any of the candidates.

Every time I see some supposed attack from Obama on his Democratic opponents I am underwhelmed. His comment about his choice of career paths was valid and honest. The shrill response from Edwards and his supporters really does make me wonder what the hell Edwards is all about. Obama continues to strike me as an honest, no-nonsense candidate: just the kind of guy I would like to see in the White House.

Just so people know, in the last Insider Advantage poll, the numbers switched around considerably when you moved from "likely voters" to "highly likely voters".

Low blow, not to mention traditional Republican talking point.

As a general comment, we need trial lawyers. They are the last defense people have against large corporations. Big businesses have lawyers on staff (who also get paid magnificently) to work against anyone who questions them.

I'm disappointed that Sen. Obama would
take this route, but he's been pretty disappointing over the past couple weeks anyway, so I guess I'm not really surprised. Some of his comments are going to fit beautifully into Republican ads against whomever wins the Democratic nomination.

Say what you will about Edwards, but he was a trial lawyer and did it well. He did not oversee the collapse of Harkin Oil. Obama is to be feted for his community service, but that is its own reward. There are few benchmarks for how well you do community service. And since when is community service a pre-requisite for being president? Does that particular brand of righteousness translate into progressive ideas or competent management as president?

I fail to see how Edwards' ability to create wealthy from negligent companies as the Lakey case demonstrates is to be derided. It would seem that Obama has managed to somehow create a compfortable life while "working in the streets with the poor and his motive was not money" as Donna L. has so pointedly remarked.

John Edwards has seen how evil certain portions of corporate America can be and has fought it. Obama has not. If meaningful change is to be made in this country, that fight needs to be made by the next president. One can argue that Obama is unsuited or unprepared or unwilling to do so.

But then again, to evalute Obama just on his public service instincts is as silly as evaluating Edwards only on his trial lawyer successes.

Yeesh, memories do run short, don't they? Dems fretted about the electability thing last go 'round, and can anyone here recall how that worked out for us?

Bueller?

Bueller?

I think it would be a more constructive dialogue if we talked up our faves rather than trying to tear down the other guy/gal. In the end, whoever comes out on top is who we all DAMN WELL better support, lest we be bowing down to President Romney (or whoever) as our country makes one final, farewell swirl down the crapper for good.

Obama's doing enough to piss off progressives, donna, without having you as a self-appointed spokesbot. Or are the Obamarama Brigade just sucking on the Ron Paul pipe?

Trial Lawyer!

So was John Adams and so in fact was Abraham Lincoln.

This is a Republican style attack not only because it's an assault on a profession that is a thorn in the side of the GOP base - the haves and have mores; but also to use that characterization to demonize an individual. Just like trashing the word liberal and labeling teacher's groups and nurse's groups as "special interests" insinuating the notion that those groups somehow represent a damaging center of overwhelming power.

Pathetic from this 'reconcilor.' If that's what he means by reconciliation then I want nothing to do with reconcilaition. At the cost of decency? NEVER.

About an hour ago John Edwards got another 100 from me.

As usual, the conflict-maximizing framing of this story by the press (and TPM) seems to be confusing some people.

Obama did not, of course, say it was inherently bad to be a trial lawyer. Rather, apparently he just included "trial lawyer" among the list of lucrative positions he could have taken after law school, but did not.

So let me get this straight: John Edwards is running around declaring that he will not negotiate with any Washington power brokers, and then he turns around and kisses up to the Military Dictator of Pakistan. Hmmmmm

Sounds like the usual, hair salon groomed, slick lawyer double speak!.

Edwards, the rich populist, who snuggles up to the ouster of the elected government, and the legitimate judiciary of Pakistan. Slick Slick, very Slick indeed: Here comes Slick Johnny.

I'm fully behind Edwards, but it seems silly to deride Obama's past as being somehow insufficiently progressive, as some of the commenters here have. He clearly had his heart in the right place. But I also don't think you can look at Edwards's record and make claims about him being a phony. The Two Americas rhetoric started in the 04 campaign, and he's been fairly consistent about it. And it appears consistent with the work he's done in the past.

For those of you comparing Edwards's Senate record with Obama's, I'd point out 2 things: 1) Edwards was representing NC, a much more conservative state than Illinois, which Obama is representing, and at some point you have to take into account that a US Senator is supposed to represent the interests of their constituents; and 2) a better measure of how "progressive" a Senator is is to compare that person to his/her other home state Senator. In Edwards's case, the measure was Jesse Helms, and clearly Edwards was much more liberal than Helms (but this is a useful point of comparison). In Obama's case, the counterpart is Dick Durbin, and it's also pretty clear that Durbin has been much more liberal (and aggressively liberal) than Obama.

Finally, it's pretty clear that the rhetoric emanating from Obama of late has been from the right. I don't know why he's doing it (my theory, aforementioned in other threads, is that he's too inexperienced in federal policy to have created his own policy positions on a *lot* of issues, and he's surrounded himself with DLC types who have fed him a Wall Street perspective on major policies; feel free to come up with your own in deciding why he's come up with the most Republican-esque health care plan, and attacked Edwards and Hillary's plans for having mandates; for swallowing the bogus "Social Security is in crisis" talking point, etc.), but that he's doing it is clear.

So I'll prefer to take the guy who may have a slightly less progressive personal history, but is saying the things I want to hear, rather than the things the DLC types want to hear, which incidentally have lost us the last couple of presidential elections.

I truly believe this election will be ridiculously ugly. The GOP will make 2004's swiftboating look like child's play, and Obama's approach seems way too similar to Kerry's and Gore's approaches of trying to appeal to the center.

God, you anti-Obama people are sensitive. Claiming that working as a community organizer is more selfless and less financially lucrative should be a no-brainer. Leave it to you (and Sargent, and the WaPo) to translate it into "all trial lawyers are bad." One does not necessarily follow the other.

from IMO
"The man has 50 Million dollars.. 50 million. He made a killing with all those law suits, and his hedgefund investments. Good for him, but I think Obama's history of helping poor people in Chicago makes him more of a populist.
"

Excuse me IMO but your criterea is WAY off the mark. Apparently you haven't bothered to examine the policy papers of either of these candidates. If we're going to get into a pissing match about which candidate is most 'populist' I'd suggest that you read then speak.

And about Edward's wealth. Bear in mind the base of that wealth was EARNED defending ordinary people against neglegent corporations, etc.

So far as wealth is concerned it should be recognized by now that almost everyone running for president is wealthy. That's the way it's been and that's the way it will continue to be.

Abraham Lincoln was a rich trial/corporate lawyer, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy were the privileged children of very wealthy families.

And tell me IMO just how many 'poor people' do you think that Obama helped in his community organizing efforts. Have you ever inquired about the nature of those efforts? What tradeoffs was he willing to make and who was hurt/helped by those tradeoffs?

No IMO Obama loses this one big time.

In one of his standard riffs, Obama asserts that his career choices -- community organizer, civil rights lawyer, elected official -- underscores his commitment to public service and to bringing about political and social change. He always mentions the lucrative job offers he turned down, but today he added a new line.

"That's why I didn't become a trial lawyer," Obama told the Newton audience -- a clear dig at Edwards, who made millions in the courtroom.

So Obama mentions about how he turned down lucrative job offers, including trial lawyer positions, and the Edwards camp gets their tender feelings hurt.

I suppose it must be because they know that those Edwards trial lawyer gigs were very lucrative and made him super wealth. Obama chose a different path, and the supporters of Edwards, their super wealth Populist,(There is any oxymoron for you)are all bent out of shape because Senator Obama exposed the contrasting life choices between him and Edwards.

It is the truth, and it looks like the Edwards choir can not handle the Truth.

"Finally, it's pretty clear that the rhetoric emanating from Obama of late has been from the right."

Only to someone who is rabidly anti-Obama. That's all right, keep spreading the lie that he is a closet rightwinger. It will only help him in the general election.

I don't see why this isn't a valid distinction. Edwards chose a decade of very lucrative work in personal injury law. Obama chose a decade of much less lucrative work in civil rights law.

It's illustrative to read these two articles:

In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark

and

Obama got start in civil rights practice

Some useful excerpts:

The firm of Miner Barnhill & Galland, many of whose members have Harvard and Yale law degrees, has a reputation that fits nicely into the resume of a future presidential candidate.

"It's a real do-good firm," says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. "Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway."

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

(snip)

Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

When you're opposing state legislation to help brain-damaged children because it might slow the brain-damaged children money train, isn't there something to the criticisms mounted against Edwards?

Shouldn't a progressive stop and think about that just a moment?

Jenna L,

Obama doesn't need your $200. Here is better use of your money

http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1

Let's see . . . Pompus, snarky and taken straight from Republican whining points . . . Yep. Obama is the new Clinton.

I've worked as both an organizer and trial attorney at different times in my life. Being an organizer is definitely taking the step of putting others first. You make next to nothing. So Obama pointing out his own life choices is entirely valid. It's not a slam at trial attorneys. It's simply pointing out a reality. He's always been committed to working for change, even when it required taking a less lucrative job. I was at one of the events where he made this comment and, in context, it was more than fair. I'm glad Iowans will get to vote Thursday and not those who want to parse statements for a small comment. Obama all the way baby. He's the only one out there that offers real hope for change.

Hello? Is this thing on?

Obama approvingly said "...substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution."

Do any of you know who he chose as his mentor in the Senate? That's right, Holy Joe.

If that assclown is the nominee I will not vote Sheepocrat in 2008.

And about Edward's wealth. Bear in mind the base of that wealth was EARNED defending ordinary people against neglegent corporations, etc.

This is a totally bizarre argument to me...tantamount to CEOs "earning" eight- and nine-figure salaries.

Edwards took a third of the loot in these multi-million dollar cases. He could've took expenses and labor equivalent to most high-skilled union workers. He could've worked pro bono, like many civil rights attorneys do in profile cases. The margin decided upon was at his discretion.

The stories that Edwards enthusiasts are selling themselves on tort law practice are reminiscent of how they've sold themselves on Fortress Investments. Look, hedge funds can be reasonable, or they can be slimy. Fortress is one of the slimiest of the bunch, and Edwards lapped up that cash as a senior adviser and personal investor like it was formula in a bottle.

Between their hedge fund and private equity divisions, Fortress specializes in distressed assets: bad loans, subprime mortgages, failing companies. They are a notorious locust fund that encourages downsizing companies, encourages layoffs, mortgage foreclosures, evictions in low-income housing complexes they own are are a primary stakeholder in. Whatever turns the profit. When subprime proved a bad bet, they shifted into casinos and horse racing.

The fact that progressives haven't even bothered to look into what Edwards did for two years with these guys, and where he sunked 40% of his wealth, astonishes me.

Yeah, I'm sure he did all that work for free, right? Come on, I've seen photos of the Edwards house... http://migop.blogs.com/blog/images/2007/04/22/edwards_house_jpeg.jpg

However, it is beyond weak to constantly trumpet that as the Obama supporters are doing here. He did it a long time ago and it doesn't buy nearly as much cred as Obama's supporters want it to - especially in view of his newfound propensity to echo Republican talking points such as the anti-trial lawyer theme.

He did it in the 90s. Unless you're in the 16-25 demo, which you may indeed be in, that wasn't all that long ago. And what Clinton and Edwards did in the 90s is at least half of what we're judging them on as well.

And I'm tired of this insanity about "framing" and "talking points". Enough with trying to sell off half the English language to one party or another. It's just a new form of nostalgia for PC language enforcement.

Since when did the phrases a person uses weigh more than their deeds?

If this is the bill of goods that Edwards supporters are selling us, that rhetoric counts more than deeds, then count me out. The spin zone just doesn't stop.

"Jenna L wrote on December 31, 2007 3:43 PM:
Mudge,

Also, again, if Edwards saw the evil side of corporations, he did nothing to stop it while he was in the Senate. He seems more an opportunist than anything else."

Jenna L,

And what did you expect John Edwards to do in the Senate, since Democrats held a one seat majority for one and a half of his six years in the Senate?

Don't you know how things work?

For those who feel that Edward's personal wealth somehow means that he's insincere about a sensible liberal agenda I'd suggest that you're buying into the mainstream media line about such matters. Buying into Maureen Dowd's screeds is buying into the inauthentic. Listen to these people and we'll get another George W. Bush.

After what the mainstream media did to Al Gore in the 2000 election I'm amazed to read comments from Democrats buying into the MSM/GOP inspired assaults on Edwards.

Hearing these attacks, I'm also reminded of similar attacks on JFK in 1960. Republicans liked to sidle up to you and say 'he won't do you any good, he's a rich kid'

Obama the uniter is more and more of a right-wing douchebag. This is the "new generation"?

dajafi wrote, On foreign policy, I suspect he'll prove to be slightly to her left--again, in large part because he won't be terrified that someone, somewhere will label him "weak" because he doesn't loudly support some imperialist war.

Baloney.

Glenn Greenwald has a post on Bloomberg with lots of juicy Bloomberg quotes that make him look pretty neocon on foreign policy.

(Not that I think Hillary is great on middle east stuff or anything.)

I also forgot about when Obama appropriated the RNC talking points about "saving" social security. This is an issue that should ring true to readers of this blog-- Josh Marshall played and instrumental role in keeping the Pukes from "saving" social security. This is an outrage for Pete's sake! Obama is an admitted Liebercrat.

Here's an excellent takedown of Obama by Taylor Marsh-- read it and weep:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/barack-obamas-progressiv_b_75933.html

" he's (Obama) surrounded himself with DLC types who have fed him a Wall Street perspective on major policies"

Good grief -- how quickly they forget -- or maybe the poster is deliberately trying to falsely link Obama to a group that is actively working against him! Remember, Edwards was the hand-picked new Bubba in 2004. His top policy advisors at the time RAN the DLC -- they crafted his policies and help formulate his two americas speech. I know these folks personally and they are politically obliged to support Hillary this time -- so Edwards was orphaned and had to find another niche. This is why there are many people who question the authenticity of Edwards' populism. Obama has more of a populist history -- but he doesn't use the traditional language of populism. His appeal to some conservatives is his apparent honesty and civil temperament. His policies are unabashedly liberal and any attempt to link him to them "evil corporations" or DLC centrism is pure political bullshit. I will concede that Edwards may in the end deliver on his current promises if he is elected. But I am not sure that people fundamentally change -- in John Edwards case the underlying motive is self-promotion. If populism works then he will be a populist. If the reality of the general election demands he moves to the center -- he will do that. Just like Bill Clinton.

donna L.: Obama has more of a populist history -- but he doesn't use the traditional language of populism. His appeal to some conservatives is his apparent honesty and civil temperament.

I think you must mean his appeal to some conservatives is his apparent desire to dismantle Social Security.

I read a lot of people saying Edwards did this (fees equal to 30% of awards) or that (opposed legislation to prevent brain injuries in children) or the other thing (ran the DLC) but nowhere is there any substantiation. Please post links to accusations, so that they can be verified, or shut up,because if you don't you sound just like a bunch of Red State right wingers piling on a Democrat. Also, please be sure to be equally careful about documenting Obama's past, because then you are really making an argument, not just blowing hot air.

Contingency fees of 30% are the norm in personal injury and other civil lawsuits. Suggesting that Edwards is somehow shafting his clients by taking these sort of fees is quite simply ridiculous. Like it or not, the contingency fee system is how the American legal system enables clients who might not have the money to pay for legal representation to bring their cases to court. If you find it offensive, go lobby your state legislature for legal aid for civil cases (and good luck with that!), but don't suggest that Edwards is doing anything improper.

Wow, long thread.

Doesn't it make sense that a trial lawyer like Edwards might be the only profession that has a chance of effectively changing the way things are done in DC? A trial lawyer seems like the only person who could do battle against insider gov't lawyers. Heck, that's what they're doing when trial lawyers go against the EPA and the like.

A trial lawyer would be the best person for the job.

Wait a minute, are people actually suggesting that trial lawyers are more corrupt than politicians?

Here is the Speech from Des Moines Iowa that the speech to Newton Iowa was taken from. TPM ran this story as a remark from other newspaper sources that it has been the best speech from the campaign. The Newton, IA speech was br9oadcast on C-SPAN last night, it might be in their archives. If Obama did use the term trial lawyer in Newton, I don't see why he cannot distinguish himself further from other candidates.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Our Moment Is Now
Des Moines, IA | December 27, 2007
Ten months ago, I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and began an unlikely journey to change America.

I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. I chose to run in this election - at this moment - because of what Dr. King called "the fierce urgency of now." Because we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. Our health care system is broken, our economy is out of balance, our education system fails too many of our children, and our retirement system is in tatters.

At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.

I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans; a politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin.

Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change in this country - because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain that if we could just mobilize our voices to challenge the special interests that dominate Washington and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there was no problem we couldn't solve - no destiny we couldn't fulfill.

Ten months later, Iowa, you have vindicated that faith. You've come out in the blistering heat and the bitter cold not just to cheer, but to challenge - to ask the tough questions; to lift the hood and kick the tires; to serve as one place in America where someone who hasn't spent their life in the Washington spotlight can get a fair hearing.

You've earned the role you play in our democracy because no one takes it more seriously. And I believe that's true this year more than ever because, like me, you feel that same sense of urgency.

All across this state, you've shared with me your stories. And all too often they've been stories of struggle and hardship.

I've heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can't afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.

I've met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.

I've spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.

Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy. She spoke not with self-pity but with determination, and wonders why the government isn't doing more to help her afford the education that will allow her to live out her dreams.

I've spoken to veterans who talk with pride about what they've accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, but who nevertheless think of those they've left behind and question the wisdom of our mission in Iraq; the mothers weeping in my arms over the memories of their sons; the disabled or homeless vets who wonder why their service has been forgotten.

And I've spoken to Americans in every corner of the state, patriots all, who wonder why we have allowed our standing in the world to decline so badly, so quickly. They know this has not made us safer. They know that we must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends. They are ashamed of Abu Graib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture. They love their country and want its cherished values and ideals restored.

It is precisely because you've experience these frustrations, and seen the cost of inaction in your own lives, that you understand why we can't afford to settle for the same old politics. You know that we can't afford to allow the insurance lobbyists to kill health care reform one more time, and the oil lobbyists to keep us addicted to fossil fuels because no one stood up and took their power away when they had the chance.

You know that we can't afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that's about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that's about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up.

We can't afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act, and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies.

We can't afford to be so worried about losing the next election that we lose the battles we owe to the next generation.

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that's a risk we can't take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.

In this election, it is time to turn the page. In seven days, it is time to stand for change.

This has been our message since the beginning of this campaign. It was our message when we were down, and our message when we were up. And it must be catching on, because in these last few weeks, everyone is talking about change.

But you can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America.

The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton's in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead.

My experience is rooted in the lives of the men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I fought for as an organizer when the local steel plant closed. It's rooted in the lives of the people I stood up for as a civil rights lawyer when they were denied opportunity on the job or justice at the voting booth because of what they looked like or where they came from. It's rooted in an understanding of how the world sees America that I gained from living, traveling, and having family beyond our shores - an understanding that led me to oppose this war in Iraq from the start. It's experience rooted in the real lives of real people, and it's the kind of experience Washington needs right now.

There are others in this race who say that this kind of change sounds good, but that I'm not angry or confrontational enough to get it done.

Well, let me tell you something, Iowa. I don't need any lectures on how to bring about change, because I haven't just talked about it on the campaign trail. I've fought for change all my life.

I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago.

I turned down the big money law firms to win justice for the powerless as a civil rights lawyer.

I took on the lobbyists in Illinois and brought Democrats and Republicans together to expand health care to 150,000 people and pass the first major campaign finance reform in twenty-five years; and I did the same thing in Washington when we passed the toughest lobbying reform since Watergate. I'm the only candidate in this race who hasn't just talked about taking power away from lobbyists, I've actually done it. So if you want to know what kind of choices we'll make as President, you should take a look at the choices we made when we had the chance to bring about change that wasn't easy or convenient.

That's the kind of change that's more than just rhetoric - that's change you can believe in.

It's change that won't just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There's no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don't need more heat. We need more light. I've learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That's the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who've lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again - who desperately want something new.

We can change the electoral math that's been all about division and make it about addition - about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States. That's how I won some of the reddest, most Republican counties in Illinois. That's why the polls show that I do best against the Republicans running for President - because we're attracting more support from Independents and Republicans than any other candidate. That's how we'll win in November and that's how we'll change this country over the next four years.

In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It's about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.

But that's not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know - I've been on the streets, I've been in the courts. I've watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren't fortified by political will, and I've watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.

But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it's what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it's what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a President to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it's what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it's what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause. That's the power of hope - to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before.

That's the change we seek. And that's the change you can stand for in seven days.

We've already beaten odds that the cynics said couldn't be beaten. When we started ten months ago, they said we couldn't run a different kind of campaign.

They said we couldn't compete without taking money from Washington lobbyists. But you proved them wrong when we raised more small donations from more Americans than any other campaign in history.
They said we couldn't be successful if we didn't have the full support of the establishment in Washington. But you proved them wrong when we built a grassroots movement that could forever change the face of American politics.

They said we wouldn't have a chance in this campaign unless we resorted to the same old negative attacks. But we resisted, even when we were written off, and ran a positive campaign that pointed out real differences and rejected the politics of slash and burn.

And now, in seven days, you have a chance once again to prove the cynics wrong. In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. And that's why in these last weeks, Washington is fighting back with everything it has -- with attack ads and insults; with distractions and dishonesty; with millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors to try and block our path.

We've seen this script many times before. But I know that this time can be different.

Because I know that when the American people believe in something, it happens.

If you believe, then we can tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.

If you believe, then we can stop making promises to America's workers and start delivering - jobs that pay, health care that's affordable, pensions you can count on, and a tax cut for working Americans instead of the companies who send their jobs overseas .

If you believe, we can offer a world-class education to every child, and pay our teachers more, and make college dreams a reality for every American.

If you believe, we can save this planet and end our dependence on foreign oil.

If you believe, we can end this war, close Guantanamo, restore our standing, renew our diplomacy, and once again respect the Constitution of the United States of America .

That's the future within our reach. That's what hope is - that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us around the corner. But only if we're willing to work for it and fight for it. To shed our fears and our doubts and our cynicism. To glory in the task before us of remaking this country block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state.

There is a moment in the life of every generation when, if we are to make our mark on history, this spirit must break through

This is the moment.

This is our time.

And if you will stand with me in seven days - if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you'll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you're ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win this caucus, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and the real journey - to heal a nation and repair the world - will have truly begun.

Thank you.

Hate trial lawyers? Get used to them with the budget cuts in the regulatory agencies. Not to mention the cronyism demonstrated by this the Bush crime family. First came the budget cuts, then came the push for tort "reform", what's phase three?

Edwards two America's populist platform was not invented by the DLC. It was and is his from the start of his own 2004 campaign. He had to tone it down to run with Kerry but his platform has always been to fight for the little guy.

Obama was a community organizer from 1985-88 before he went to law school.
He was a full-time "civil-rights" attorney from 1993-96. Obama's has spent more time as a politician than as community organizer and civil rights attorney combined.

Personal injury attorneys receive a third of the jury award on cases they win. If you lose the case you get zero. Didn't any of you see "A Civil Action."

In reference to the Edwards strawman about "how dare he make money". I don't think this is really an issue. He made money -- a lot of it -- good for him.

The question for me is more about character and consistency, and whether being a personal injury lawyer is the best kind of preparation for public service.

I would certainly be a lot more comfortable with Edwards if he walked the walk for a time and was actually involved in real public advocacy (e.g. he would have really put his money where his mouth is if he had spent $35 million of his $50 million fortune directed towards true public advocacy work -- his family would have needed to get by on a measly $15 million yes. But this would have demonstrated to me a real seriousness about fighting for the public interest).

There's nothing wrong with making money, but I don't exactly see the profit motive as a virtue either -- especially not in the case of a public servant -- other values need to take priority.

Yawn. Yet another Republican talking point from "Democrat" Barack Obama.

Both men are lawyers by training, one a trial lawyer the other a law professor.

Hardly. Barack Obama is a Senior Lecturer, not a professor--a huge difference in academia. Lecturers are appointed to teach without the other commitments of regular faculty.

I like this quote from Donna L:

His appeal to some conservatives is his apparent honesty and civil temperament.

Why is that, I wonder?

How is Kerry's performance in the south a meaningful response to Edwards' polling data showing him outperforming Repubs in head-to-head matchups? The idea that people cross party lines to vote for VP candidates is pretty thoroughly discredited -- you could put Grassley on as a VP and I still wouldn't vote Republican.

Incidentally, Biden lecturing other candidates about electability is pretty rich. Thanks for the laugh!

Obama is the Dem candidate that the Republicans love most.

They can't wait to call upon the country's racism to handily defeat the guy. When it comes to racism and the vote, people will NOT answer honestly. Their racism will fully take place when they enter the voting booth.

Result: another 8 years of Republican presidencies...!!

Even should a miracle occur and americans dump their 500 years of racism for Obama's sake, the Republicans won't feel too badly: after all he is THE GREAT COMPROMISER...by his own words!!

The most challenge to the Republicans right-wing agenda he will offer is to NEGOTIATE with them.

If you like these results, vote for him!!

Because Oprah says so...!!!

So what if Edwards's usual contingency fee was 30%? One-third of the settlement is the norm in tort suits that are taken on contingency. You would prefer that people wanting to sue large corporations had to pay fee-for-service out of their own pockets, whether they win or lose? That would limit access to the process for an awful lot of people who could not afford that sort of risk, especially on top of losses they may already have suffered from having been done a wrong in the first place. And it would pressure others to settle for far less than they might deserve just because they cannot readily afford to lose.

The case for contingency fees was nicely laid out in this letter to the editor a number of years ago.

As the writer of the letter points out, contingency fees serve to pay both the considerable costs of preparing the case (and the types of cases Edwards litigated are especially expensive to prepare) and compensation to the attorney for assuming the risks associated with losing. The money to litigate cases that are ultimately unsuccessful has to come from somewhere, and where is that going to be except from fees from the ones that are litigated successfully?

It's interesting that Edwards is being criticized here for charging his clients unreasonably high fees at the same time he is being accused of being underhanded because he underbid the competition! Maybe that makes sense in Obama-world...

roo_P: Enter Riesz Fischer and Dumbest Argument of the Day:

Obama approvingly said "...substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution."

Obama said this when explaining how Democrats should approach issues of faith and break the conservatives' assumed monopoly on religion. I cannot believe I actually need to say it but that line was given as a fact. Basically, this is what we have to contend with. In the same speech he approvingly speaks of non-theist morality.

I cannot believe I actually need to say it but we don't need to pander to the flat earthers to win this time. Why is it that people like roo_P, Obama and his mentor Lieberman always try to entice the uneducated country bumpkins over to our side even when we don't need their votes?

Anyway, there is already a party that would welcome people like roo_P, Obama and Holy Joe: the Republican party.

Richard L. Adlof wrote:

"Let's see . . . Pompus, snarky and taken straight from Republican whining points . . . Yep. Obama is the new Clinton."

Clinton hasn't used Republican talking points against her fellow candidates. Get your facts straight Richard.

"Yikes" is right, CalD! OMG!

Still, I don't think the Democratic candidates actually have to come out and pander to the flat-earthers, because only the most die-hard flat-earthers vote on that issue. I'm confident we can win with a real Democrat, don't you? I mean, look at the other team for Pete's sake!

I don't get the whole "Edwards is phony" mantra. We'll see how phony he is one way or the other, but I bet if he doesn't get elected he keeps doing anti-poverty work. And I bet if he does get elected he'll keep his word on trying to level the economic playing field in this country. People have such little sense of history - thank you for the Adams and Lincoln analogies regarding trial lawyering. Edwards is not a patrician who inherited wealth and standing like FDR and JFK/RFK - though some folks doubted their commitment to the lower classes at the time. Not many do anymore. My understanding is that Edwards went into politics to do something beyond what he had been doing in honor of his son. That doesn't sound like opportunism to me. The sad part is, I really like Obama and can see the case that now is the right historical moment for him. I hate to have to choose, but if it still matters when it gets to my state, I'll vote for Edwards.

Why don't some of you Obama supporters contact this child's parents? See if Obama will rep them pro bono.

http://www.startribune.com/12624766.html

This country boy stood up to some of the insurance companies best and won. I like that. I like that he knows how venal the insurance companies can be. IMO he is the man who actually understands them and I think he will be less likely to back down. And I really like that.

Edipus,

Just to be absolutely clear, I agree it is entirely possible Edwards is being sincere. The only thing I'd add is that regardless of the truth of the matter, it would be bad for his electoral chances if the American people ended up questioning his sincerity. And one problem with the primary process so far is that with respect to issues such as Edwards' Iraq War vote, most of the major Democratic candidates are not exactly going to be eager to hammer on the point.

DTM, which viable candidate (unless you consider Ron Paul viable) doesn't have some significant faction along the liberal or conservative spectrum questioning their sincerity? Lots of folks here question Obama for being willing to slide to the middle and use "Republican talking points." Clearly lots of folks question Sen. Clinton's willingness to move on issues. ON the Republican side, do you think Mitt Romney is going to be able to get any traction for criticizing Edwards on authenticity or consistency? Lots of conservatives doubt McCain when he claims to be the heir to Reagan. Huckabee? Maybe he's consistent, but plenty of Republicans don't see him as conservative. So KFJ, I think you're wrong that Edwards is "just PERFECT for swiftboating." That won't fly anymore, and Edwards will fight back in a way Kerry didn't. By the way, who are you supporting, DTM?

Edwards could not handle Dick Cheney in the 2004 debate, but now we are supposed to believe, after he has done nothing for the last four years, that he is going to dictate to the entire ruling class, and change Washington for ever.
Do you believe in fairy tales!

The problem with Obama's use of the term "trial lawyer" is that it's a Republican code-phrase that goes hand in hand with "tort reform." It means, stop those nasty hoi polloi from stealing (a fraction of) corporate profits from those who really deserve them. As noshrub pointed out, many public interest lawyers also litigate, so the distinction makes no sense other than as a wink to the right. What bothers me is that he seems to be playing a game of sending out coded signals to the right, like "trial lawyers" and "Social Security crisis," and the Donnie McClurkin thing, that seem designed to reassure them that he's not really as liberal as his left-wing supporters believe. Can an Obama supporter please explain why he's doing that? He doesn't really believe thinWhy does a candidate for the Democratic nomination need to be sending out code words to Republicans, while at the same time not actually articulating principled arguments in favor of conservative positions?

There are roughly 40 senators and 123 representatives who are millionaires + in the congress. Yet John Edwards is the only person who has to explain his wealth and his large house. Apparently all the other rich guys live in tiny houses and know a barber who still charges $5 for a haircut.
When will it end.

I've lived in Raleigh for 30 years. I've watched Edwards career. On the day Edwards gave the closing argument for the Lakey case every lawyer who could get free crowded into the courtroom, standing room only and listened to Edwards give his argument. I can't think of a better compliment that that for any attorney around.

I have been an Edwards supporter for some time (true, you can't always tell from what a candidate says -- nobody would have been a less likely reformer than FDR the candidate of a "balanced budget" in 1932 -- but that's the way to bet); but until recently I have considered Obama at least a decent alternative. But the "First, we kill all the lawyers" has been the mark of the totalitarian-in-waiting always; and, combined with his other right-wing talking points, Obama is making me very uneasy (his followers are mostly nuts, of course, but that's pretty much always true).

What Obama did in that speech is called "contrasting". He is contrasting his record with that of John Edwards. Pointing out that he was a community organizer instead of a trial lawyer does not place him to the right of John Edwards, or Dick Cheney, or anyone else.

He pointed out a contrast. It's not illegal. It's not a Republican talking point. It's been done by every candidate in every race for every office ever held since the beginning of the republic.

Chill out.

OK. Now Obama is starting to scare me. The courtroom is about the only forum where the little guy has a chance, if just a slim one. Which is why the rich and powerful have been trying to slam the courtroom door ever since Magna Carta.

I become more disgusted with Obama with each post that I read. Its not the first time has spouted a repuglican talking point (the social security crisis comes to mind). Edwards could have made more money as a lawyer who defends corporations than one who sues them. He has long been a defender of those who have been pissed on by corporate America. While I too have wondered why he was less than bold while in the Senate, his current rhetoric strikes me as the real Edwards. The one who ran for the senate in a racist, backwards southern state was the one was pandering to get on the national stage. He also apparently continued his pandering in '04 by staying in the center. But, then Kerry did get nominated, didn't he. So, he can be forgiven for bad strategy. He is taking a pretty major chance this time around by taking on the power elite.

Obama has certainly been noble in his defense of the poor, but it seems pretty clear that everything he has ever done is part of his agenda for power. He has been trying to springboard himself in Washington for years—even ran against a longterm incumbent Dem congressman by pandering to white folks in the district who might prefer a less threatening black man. He also promised his constituents that he was not using the senate to seek higher office and would serve out his term. The man is indeed an opportunist (and apparently a dissembler, as well). BTW, Edwards is competitive in both IA and NH. So, don't rule him out. I have been leaning towards Hillary, mainly since I detest Obama and his sycophantic minions so much. But if Edwards has a shot by Feb. 5, when my state votes, I think I might throw him a bone. Fact is, whether he is phony or not, he has nailed the one issue which I have long thought was the core of our American problem: Corporations are not people and should not be treated as such.

Obama advocated raising the cap on the payroll tax, which would raise taxes for the top 6% of income-earners. This is a "Republican talking point"?

Actually, yes the cap at all is what's regressive. A higher cap, while admitedley making many wealthy individuals pay more payroll taxes makes the tax even more regressive. Only the ultra rich (and people who live on money they don't earn through work) are spared the tax, progressive taxation would be the opposite.

I am not sure I agree with your conclusion in the case where the payroll tax cap is raised but not eliminated.

DTM- Put down the Kool aid - just kidding, you're a smart dude and you make good points. Going a little further in the weeds on this, remember that the current (and any) cap is patently unfair to husband and wife dual earners vs single earner houses where both earn the same total money above the single earner cap. (this isn't even mentioning the myriad income tax accounting ploys avilable to those that can control their "type" of income to avoid payroll only taxes at any income level or people who were born with or sucessfully conjured up "unearned" income streams for their daily dallying.)

The "currently zero" tax rate point you make as "not changing under a raised cap" is exactly the more regressive point I was trying to make, but the regressivity apparently falls on a population you feel needs no advocacy.

Raising the cap increases taxation, not across the board, not on the wealthiest the most, but on an arbitrary group of citizens who while well off in their own right make less than many others whose taxes would go up less or stay the same.

I'm sure it's not lost on you that the benefits are very progressive. I've been lucky enough to make enough money over my 25 year working career to keep me hovering around the cap almost my whole working life. A look at my SS statement shows mine and my employers contributions totaling about $200K, which is considerably more than my contributions and other cash additions to all my other retirement savings vehicles combined. Through investment gains, those other retirement accounts will almost certainly dwarf the SS benefits I fully qualify for when I turn 67. (in twenty years)

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating for no SS or a flatter benefit structure, I want it to be the same right up the income ladder, smaller and smaller benefits acruing on the same rate of taxation.

The typical arguement against this is that it would make the program even more viscerally loathed by the wealthy than it already is, and therefore at greater risk of being scrapped altogether.

All I can say DTM is you show that by torturing the logic just a bit, the Leona Helmseley policy seems to have bi-partisan appeal - Taxes are for the little people.

I am incredibly amused by this comment thread, it is the best one I have read to date. I mean, gloves off and everything, the folks here seem incredibly human and passionate. Hats off to TPM, you guys have a zany community here.

Hyperlincoln ?! that is the NUTTIEST COMMENT i have ever read in my life. I just don't know what to say. I am totally amused. PLEASE CONTINUE WITH YOUR ZANINESS - ROCK ON !

john edwards rules !!!

Obama should have become a trial lawyer. What’s so bad about them? They keep the average American safe from irresponsible people and corporations.


Check out http://www.HelpMeSue.com and check out what kind of stuff people have to put up with on a daily basis. You’ll be appalled at some of the cases. Appreciate your trial lawyers. Without them, we Americans would have lost many of our rights years ago.