So as long as they're lobbying for certain interests, it's ok.  But if Edwards doesn't like what they're lobbying for, they're out.

What a joke.

Maybe he'll allow homeowners associated with hair-cutters(The barbers and Stylists must have a union), mansion-builders, and hedge funds.
He's not a bad guy, I just wish he would stop pretending to be the rich champion of the poor.   Does he contribute any of his own money to those causes?

Another empty promise from the well coiffed Edwards. It seems that we really can't count on his words. Just look at his promises and stand four years ago and how different they are from now. What a phony.....

Jim- If you can't see any difference between lobbying for the public interest and lobbying to further line the pockets of greedy men who are already rich, you are blind to the reality of politics in Washington, D.C.

RE: Edwards pulling a fast one with 527s

Read the research the DailyKos did on Edwards’ 527.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/28/151249/52

(1)A 527 is supposed to advocate “issues” NOT candidates. The 527 ads supporting Edwards clearly advocate for him, so it’s not abiding by the law. When you advocate for a candidate, you’re supposed to set-up as a PAC.
(2)The donors of the 527 INCLUDE PACs (see link on DailyKos).
(3)The 527 is run by an Edwards campaign manager (Nick Baldick) who was on his payroll this past spring.
(4)This isn’t the first time Edwards has done this. Before the 2004 Iowa caucus, another Edwards aide, Jonathan Prince, left to form a 527 that spent money on advertising for Edwards in Iowa.

Edwards may be hiding behind a smokescreen of “legalese” but it is clear that he is exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws to get more advertising dollars spent on his behalf in Iowa. Also, since PACs are contributing to the 527, Edwards is benefiting from PAC money.

He is playing a game of “the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing” – only they do. Edwards is playing a game of "legalese" with this 527 issue - he talks against them, but when he can't raise as much money as his rivals, he sends out his top brass to start/work with 527s to funnel advertising dollars into Iowa on his behalf, then claims that he is not "coordinating" with them and makes a false show of “asking them to stop”. Edwards is a phony. And it’s one thing if some totally separate group sets up a 527 – it’s quite another if your own people have a history of leaving your campaign before the Iowa caucus (in 2004, now in 2008) to work for a 527 which funnels advertising dollars into Iowa on your behalf.

I live in North Carolina and everybody here knows that Edwards didn't run for a second Senate term in NC because he knew he couldn't win. He is disliked here by Democrats as well as Republicans. He has a tin ear when it comes to perceptions. The 28,000 sq.ft. house and $400 haircut prove that. He is thought of here in NC as an opportunist and a phony. He and Kerry didn't even win NC in 2004 when he was his VP running-mate. I'm a Republican so maybe you won't believe me, but honestly, he is not liked here in his home state of NC by people on both sides of the aisle.  

Edward is such a hypocrite that can say anything to win power.  Is Edward suggesting that lobbying is a bad thing at all circumstances.  Most establishments hire public relation consultants that represent their interests at different public settings.  Lobbying is wrong if it’s purpose is for using inducement of sort to gain unfair advantage or to underhandedly influence government policies.  

Foreign governments hire indeginous persons who understand the mechanics of their home government.  Because these persons understand their home system, it makes bilateral relationships between countries much easier to pursue and less time consuming.  It makes disqualifying persons who serve as consultants or lobbyists to foreign government very irrational and illogical.  It makes sense to hire such persons in different specialties or areas they served foreign governments in their capacities as consultants or lobbyists.  

Edward is saying all these things, not out of principle but to appear sanctimonous more than he is in order to shortchange voters as honest broker but in reality it is a calculated means to gain power as he has done in the past as trial lawyer.  

He'll have the 527's hire lobbyists for him.  

I no longer trust him and believe he will say anything at this point in order to have a chance to win Iowa.  After Iowa, he doesn't have the money or the organization to go much further, so a vote for John Edwards is a vote for Hillary Clinton.  And a vote for Hillary Clinton means that the republicans will continue to reside in the White House for the next 8 years.

No Richard,
I'm not blind.  I'm just not a partisan.

I don't see corporations as all-evil and unions as all-good.  They're called special interest groups because they have the interest of their specific group in mind.  Sometimes that corresponds with the American public as a whole.  Other times it doesn't.

So the problem here has to do with the ethics of lobbyists working in an administration.  To Edwards though, it's just an excuse to pander to the extremes by taking shots at the rich.  He's clearly not serious about ethics or lobbying reform.

At least Edwards is talking about doing what's right for the country. He's walking the talk in terms of overall fundraising (no special interest money and accepting public financing--which everyone agrees is necessary to overhaul our broken system).  No other major candidate for the presidency is making attempts in their own campaign to do the right thing.  Everyone makes mistakes, but Edwards is at least making attempts to do the right thing.  That takes courage, something no other candidate is currently exhibiting.

Easy to say NOW - days  before the caucus.....what about all the money he has already taken? I hate it - the closer it gets, the more they pander! More hollow words from the faux "populist" candidate.

HILLARY '08

I like Edwards, he is my second choice but, he has special interest money working for him RIGHT NOW
in Iowa. Also, he is arguing several points now that run counter to what he DID while a senator.

1. Voted for the war in Iraq..now admits it was a mistake.

2. Supported a major Bankruptcy bill promoted by the
banking industry that does not favor individuals
but big business instead (Bank of America has MAJOR
operations in North Carolina)..now admits he was wrong
to support this bill too.

3. He is railing against trade agreements yet, he
voted for Favorite Nation Traded Status for China

4. He says No Child Left Behind should be dramaticaly
changed or abolished but, once again he voted for it

....the ACTIONS have fallen short of the DEEDS in several areas and he is becoming a lil shrill in his hatred of the corporation and his promise to FIGT.

He says he will not negotiate with the drug companies and other corporate interests but he has not yet explained HOW he will fight. If he is gonna fight them they will surely fight him and I don't see that being very successful. Besides, I am sick and tired of all the "fighting" in Washington and want to see something get DONE.

Edwards is such a breath of fresh air into the stale environment of corporation greed and fat cats that the vested interests continue to do their best to downplay his popularity with the people.

More disinformation from the Obama campaign from people like av above.

Obama will really pay in Iowa for all of his last-minute desperate attacks on unions and Edwards. This is the time when he should be making a positive case about himself and he spends his time attacking. Guess he knows which way the wind is blowing.

Edwards said "SORRY" for pretty much all major legislations that he voted yes during his only term in Senate: Iraq war, no child left behind, nafta, patriot act and so on. He never did ANYTHING in his whole life to reduce influence of money or special interest in politics. What he is talking now a days in campaign trail, he can not back them up with his positions or actions or achievements in past. These are bunch of empty rhetoric that might have appeal to certain segment of the democratic party in some part of the country. The people are tired of "fights". People want some common sense policies that work for all: people, private sectors, corporations, for all. Fairness in policies do not come by fighting with each other but by promoting common interest by working together. Sorry is a cheap word for politicians because support for wrong policies make a nation suffer for long time and sorry sounds nice but does not help. Edwards' positions are found at campaign trail based on what gets most clap from the audience but they are unreal as policies and he is a phony without any record to back his words. Most importantly, even if he wins in IOWA, where does he go next? He does not have money or organization to challenge Clinton effectively with a nationwide primary campaign strategy. He will not go too far beyond IOWA regardless the outcome of IOWA caucus. So a vote for Edwards in IOWA is a vote for Hillary. Vote Obama in IOWA and beyond in 08.

You Obama loving cry babies should stop trying to attack John Edwards.  Obama acts like he's had a tough life, but in reality he went to a posh high school in Hawaii and went to college at Harvard.  He is a tool of the rich and powerful, not an agent of change.  The 527s that support Edwards are being provided funding from Labor Unions that represent hard working Americans.  The Common Man's views are being advanced by these people, not those of Obama's prior corporate sponsors and Harvad elitists.  You sad fools believe because Obama is black that means he represents change or that Clinton is a woman indicates she represents change. You should not judge a book by its cover. I would rather have a man like Edwards who worked himself up from a mill town, through college and law school, and took down evil corporations who created faulty products that caused sever injuries to common folk.  When the voice of common folk speaks, it is the start of a revolution, a rising of common folk against the corparate elitists who support Obama and Clinton.  Edwards/Richardson 2008,

With the Iowa and New Hampshire votes mere days away Democratic voters have narrowed the conversation about their presidential nominee to a choice between an establishment candidate Hillary Clinton, a young inexperienced fresh face Barack Obama, or an economic Populist John Edwards. The contest for Iowa and New Hampshire has grown so unpredictable that no one knows what will happen on cuscus night.  Conversely what can be said with some assurance is that as we draw closer to actual votes being cast, there is one and only one Democratic candidate that if elected would really shake things up inside the beltway.  That candidate is John Edwards.  Edwards unlike other candidates comes from a  working class background that has given him a depth of economic Populist vision lacking in other candidates.

John Edwards, who is neither the establishment candidate nor the establishment media candidate means what he says about taking on the inside the beltway power establishment.  What voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond need to understand is this -- Clinton and Obama if elected will tinker around the edges of the Washington establishment and that translates to (business as usual).   John Edwards on the other hand  has formed the foundation of his campaign on the economic inequality affecting the lives and futures of middle-class and working-poor Americans.  It's not just stump-speech rhetoric about change from Edwards, he really means it.

The only question now before Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond, is whether to support the establishment, or to look at the alternative economic Populist John Edwards. It's not a complicated political decision.  You either vote for real change, or you vote for the establishment and or inexperience.  

Whatever happens in Iowa, and New Hampshire and beyond John Edwards is still the best candidate of our crop of Democratic candidates.  Middle-class, working poor and rural voters in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and beyond have an opportunity to vote for real change.  Or they can vote for maintenance of the status quo along with the distinct possibility of a loss in the general election.  The choice is theirs to make.

this is all legal and all the candidates under the present system pull some sort of baloney.. get the money out and the education in politics. Only half the people vote and half of them vote for some emotional reason  that may not benefit their livelihood. what's in your wallet

The man is not to be believed.

Ask somebody from NC if you want to talk John Edwards. The great divide between rich and poor is most evident on Edwards 100 acre, 30,000 sq. ft. compound. Across the street is a trailer park. Ask him if he ever visited and spoke with his neighbors. He was the worst senator in NC history. Simply an ambulance chaser. His fortune was made on the backs of the poor!

I think that John Edwards is the best one to win. Both Obama and clinton will be just what the republicans are dreaming of because of what they are.Sure Edwards is rich now but he was poor when he was young and worked hard for everything he has now. Isn<t that what america is all about a chance for someone in a poor family to better themselves.I have two children and both of them became teachers with master degrees by working hard to get where they are today because our family lived from pay check to pay check.This is no differt than what edwards did for himself and i admire him for this.Someone like that should be president because they know what it is like to have been poor and work to better yourself.as for how bhe became rich by helping people that where injured by doctors that didn't do there job right.I was one of those people that  became disabled because of what a doctor did to me. I which i had a John Edwards as my attorny.Again John Edwards is the best man to be president.  

Ask somebody from NC if you want to talk John Edwards. The great divide between rich and poor is most evident on Edwards 100 acre, 30,000 sq. ft. compound. Across the street is a trailer park. Ask him if he ever visited and spoke with his neighbors. He was the worst senator in NC history. Simply an ambulance chaser. His fortune was made on the backs of the poor!

RE: I'm a Republican so maybe you won't believe me, but honestly, he is not liked here in his home state of NC by people on both sides of the aisle.  
Emily, Greensboro, NC

There you go folks, that says is all. John Edwards is the Repukes worst nightmare! I live in Seneca SC where John was borned and his extended family still lives. In 2004 and again in this first in the South Jan 26th SC Democratic Primary we have many WNC Democrats crossing the state line to canvass for John Edwards for President. Emily should know that our neighboring state has a long tradition of one and two term US Senators. There are no more Strom Thurmonds and Jesse Helms and Thanks be unto God for it! America needs John Edwards, but the Repukes surely do not because they will stay in power if he is not the Democratic nominee! Mike Evatt/ SC        

Here is a list of the major cases Edwards has won over the years:

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

Most liability/personal injury cases are argued before a jury. Defendants, which are usually companies or corporations, have both the money and the hired legal talent to more than adequately present their cases.

Apparently I have a higher opinion of juries than you do, since I believe, in the vast majority of cases, a lawyer obtains a favorable verdict not by presenting lies, but by presenting the FACTS....

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

Legal career

Four Trials by John EdwardsAfter law school, he clerked for a Federal judge and in 1978 became an associate at the Nashville law firm of Dearborn & Ewing, doing primarily trial work, defending a Nashville bank and other corporate clients. The Edwards family returned to North Carolina in 1981, settling in the capital of Raleigh where he joined the firm of Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove.[11]

In 1984 Edwards was assigned to a perceived unwinnable medical malpractice lawsuit; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.[12] In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.[11]

In 1985, Edwards represented a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's award, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.[11] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[12]

After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least twenty similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"[11]

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.[11] The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl[13] who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured.

In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half and referenced his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."[14] The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.[12] The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment[11] that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.[11]

In December 2003, during his first presidential campaign, Edwards (with John Auchard) published Four Trials, a biographical book focusing on cases from his legal career. The success of the Sta-Rite case and his son's death (Edwards had hoped his son would eventually join him in private law practice) prompted Edwards to leave the legal profession and seek public office.

I am not seeing the ambulance chasing you people keep alluding to, Would you please give your sources that you are quoting?

I just have a question for the self proclaimed NC residents who say Edwards is despised there, if John Edwards is so hated in NC, why did the entire Democratic congressional delegation endorse him? Just wondering ...

For the Obama cultists out there, please get your facts straight. NAFTA was shoved down our throats way before Edwards became a US senator, so he didn't vote for it. Regarding the bankruptcy law, you're getting the candidates mixed up a bit. It was Obama who voted in favor of this in 2005, a year after Edwards left the senate. All you have to do is google the correct voting information if you are interested, but my guess is, you want to spread the misinformation about Edwards or any other candidate for that matter. Here's a hint, between Edwards and Obama, Obama is the one who is a free trade Democrat like the rest of his Democratic Leadership Council buddies such as Rahm Emmanuel and Harold Ford, Jr. He's not so different from none other than Hillary Clinton after all! They both were in favor of the expansion of NAFTA -- the Peru free trade agreement but didn't vote on it. Too bad there wasn't an option to vote 'present' like he did all those times in the IL state senate! Haven't you been watching?? Don't forget, Obama's mentor was none other than the infamous Joe Lieberman. Wonder why Obama didn't seek Holy Joe's endorsement? My guess is that he's trying to distance himself these days from a man who has become an embarrassment (to all but McCain).

Edwards- a trial lawer, made millions stealing from people who worked a lifetime to build businesses and medical practices. Edwards has the largest house (28,200 sq ft) in Orange county. Remember, after the Electrical Workers Union, the second largest PAC contributor to the Democrats is the Trial Lawyers Association. There is no bigger hypocrite than a Mercedes Marxist! A multimillionare lawyer who says he represents the interests of the middle class and working man is full of crap!

Vote Early and Vote Often!

Big Al

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):