Did you also see the end of C-Span, where he Declined to take a Picture with a supporter? That's a sure fire vote getter. A direct No, was EDwards response!!!!

Video of John Edwards on Charlie Rose(about 19:00)

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/video-john-edwards-on-charlie-rose-agrees-with-obama-on-corporations-voices-should-be-heard/
---------------
BRINGING CORPORATIONS TO THE TABLE
THAT WAS THEN...

FEBRUARY 2007: Edwards Said That Should Try To Bring Everyone To The Table Including Corporations To Make Sure The Health Care System Works For Everyone. Edwards was asked whether he would bring in "both corporations and labor and healthcare groups and doctors" into the health care debate. Edwards said, "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation, you want to make the system work for everybody. I think there's a difference between a healthcare plan that builds on the existing system but deals with some of its deficiencies and problems as opposed to a complete new way of doing healthcare in America. The latter will engender huge opposition. And it will engender a lot of just plain political opposition. If on the other hand you're taking the system that exists, dealing with the problems with it, making sure everybody gets covered, it's just much more likely to be achievable." [MYDD, 2/7/07]

THIS IS NOW

Edwards Said That You Can't Talk To Insurance And Drug Companies And Get Universal Health Care. Edwards said in his rural DVD, "If you think we can have universal health care by talking with the insurance companies and the drug companies--it will never happen. These people have billions of dollars at stake. There's one way to take their power away from them. That's to beat 'em. Take them on head on and beat 'em." [Edwards Rural DVD, Youtube, 12/19/07]




FIGHTING CORPORATIONS

THAT WAS THEN...

FORTUNE Forum: Edwards Told CEO's That They Can't Be Blamed For Taking Advantage Of Tax Loopholes. Edwards said to a group of CEO's at the Fortune Global Forum, "No one here can be blamed for taking aggressive advantage of legal holes in our tax law. Doing the most you can under the law to create profit for your shareholders is your job. But Washington can be blamed for failing to fix a tax code that encourages companies to use shelters, shift jobs overseas, and add to the deficit in the process." [FORTUNE Global Forum, 11/12/02]

THIS IS NOW

Edwards Said He's Going To Take On Big Corporations And Their Greed. Edwards said, "It's time to tell the truth. These big corporations and their greed, they are stealing your children's future. We will never change this country unless we're willing to take those people on." [Edwards Time For Truth Ad, 12/26/07]




Re: 527, He called on GWB to stop the 527 attacks. Now 2 of his campaign workers left and headed straight to start 527's.

Edwards has been fighting and winning all his life. In the court room, growing up and paying for school (as I am doing now), growing up and having to work for everything and fight for everything.

I want a fighter and Ill take a man who worked for everything he has to someone who went to harvard yard and learned from those old and tired hacks.

John Edwards' " fight, fight, fight" attitude is just a domestic version of George Bush's belligerent "bring 'em on" line about Iraq. Just what we need, a domestic economic/class war which we are bound to loose at great cost. This brand of macho bluster will solve nothing. Let's elect a leader who could bring all parties to the table and tackle problems maturely,  to solve the problems. Let's be grown up here. Only Barack Obama can do this. He is the only candidate who has a proven track record of bringing opposing sides together and creating real change.

Edwards is for the people. We need to wake up as a nation. If pharmacuetical, insurance, and oil company CEO's were not making billions of dollars a year maybe gas, medications, and health care would be cheaper. Does one person really deservere to make this much money while others struggle to afford health care and the medications they need? John Edwards says no! He will FIGHT for the common people of this country. Listen to his message. Obama and Clinton will not touch this. Maybe because they are already taking money from special intrest groups to finance their campainge. Who will they owe favors to if they get to the White House. John Edwards does not take lobbyist money. He is the canidate who will help America during its time of great need!

Former supporters take aim at Edwards
by Christi Parsons 12/28/07

Democrat John Edwards has been critical of the involvement of outside organizations that spend money to influence voters.

But some former supporters are questioning how committed Edwards is to that idea, as union leaders who support him are now doing exactly that on his behalf.

"He said he would change Washington, and we believed him," says a new letter from some 2004 Edwards supporters. "Times have changed, and so has John Edwards."

But Edwards has said that, while he wishes the outside groups wouldn't run those ads, he can't control what an independent organization chooses to do.

And officials of the Service Employees International Union today spoke out in defense of their Alliance for a New America, which they set up to advocate for union issues.

The alliance "enables working people to pool their resources to gain a voice on the key issues facing America as the country heads into the 2008 elections," Dave Regan, SEIU District 1199 president, said in a written statement today.

The letter writers are behind Democrat Barack Obama this time around, and it was Obama's campaign that released their letter today.


"(T)his time, we support Barack Obama for President," the letter says. "He is the ONLY candidate in this race who’s not getting any help in Iowa from Washington lobbyists, special interest PACs, or the Washington-based organizations known as 527s. We can trust Barack Obama to change Washington , to tell us the truth, and most importantly – to win in 2008."

The writers signed their names this way:

Frank Best, Columbus City, former Louisa County Edwards Chair

Thom Determan, Dubuque, precinct captain for Edwards in 2004.

Katie Determan, Dubuque, precinct captain for Edwards in 2004.

Judy Jones, Ames

James Cox, Cedar Rapids

Eileen Lundberg, Runnells

Dan Lundberg, Runnells

Ryan Sewell, Council Bluffs

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/former_supporters_take_aim_at.html

IF EWARDS WAS A FIGHTER HE WOULD BRING UP THE CLINTON SCANDALS, PARDONS, BILL S COCAINE USE FOR 8 YEARS BUT HE IS A PRETTY BOY CHICKEN.  oR MAYBE HE READ OF THE 61 PEOPLE THAT MYSTERIOUSLY DIED ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLINTONS.

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 talks against 527s, but when he can't raise as much money as his rivals, he sends out his lieutenants 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.

With respect to the VoteHope group that is supporting Obama, that is completely different. Obama has nothing to do with them. They started up independently and he has asked them repeatedly to contribute to his campaign DIRECTLY rather than doing so through an independent group where he has no control over the message (there is past media coverage to prove this). It’s one thing if some totally separate group sets up a 527 – it’s quite another if, like Edwards, you bash 527 groups while at the same time your campaign has a history of having your staff leave 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. It’s hypocrisy.

Funny. He looks & acts more like a p-ssy.

John Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind. Voted against funding NO Child. Now he wants to fix it?
He voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -3 times.
He voted against the estate tax.
He voted for the Bankruptcy Ripoff bill.
He voted for bankruptcy reform which has hurt many lower income families in this country.
Edwards voted for the Packer Ban and the Right to Work bill.
He voted against restricting consolidation of Big Meat Packing..
He voted against public financing -2 times.
He vowed not to take public financing and now he has conveniently changed his tune and the party will carry this burden. There is no legitimate plan after Iowa.
He voted against the Wellstone VA funding amendment.  
He voted for free trade in China.
He acted like he was critical of offshore tax shelters for the wealthy in 2004, and then in 2005 he worked as a consultant for the Fortress Investment Group whose hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands. They foreclosed on homes in LA and even Iowa.
Edwards voted for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (which IMO Nevadans will not appreciate).
John Edwards has the worst environmental record according to the League of Conservation voters ratings? '59 for JRE----- 96 for Barack Obama'.

Edwards CO-SPONSORED  and promoted(in videotaped speeches) Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq.  KYL-LIEBERMAN comes to mind. The more I look into John Edwards' record, the more troubling it is. Because the support for the war has gone down, are these hawks trying to play both sides of the fence? He didn't read the NIE report and lied and said he had at one point.
In the 2004 VP debate, Dick Cheney brought up John Edwards' senate record, John Edwards clammed up. In this past CNN debate, when Hillary Clinton brought up his record , John Edwards sat down and clammed up, again.
So-called electability gave us John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004(Edwards never brought a single southern state to that ticket).  John Edwards lost his home state(even lost his own district to GWB). He is not a terrible person, he is just not a winning ticket. There is a devastating interview with George Stephanopolous where he seems to apologize for every bad vote while he was a senator.
He referred to the war on terror this campaign season as a bumper sticker(will not help in the GE).
Bad judgments over and over again should not give him the keys to the White House. Good judgment matters. Being a serial apologizer is not good enough.

To Rick.....The person at the rally on C-SPAN asked him if had a picture of himself and Edwards said no. Lots of people had their picture taken with Edwards at this rally.

John Edwards is too Shifty!!!

Edward's message is just to divisive for me.  It will be tough in the general to get independents and republicans to vote for you, if you've spend the primary blaming them for everything.  This is the problem Edward's has, he is see as too far left wing for the general.

john d, we are in a class war.
bushco and company wants a 3rd world america.
i see you agree

You know I was always taught it takes a bigger person to walk away from a fight...to always find a better way to settle things. Edwards can take his "Coward of the County" crap and stick it. We've seen the kind of fights Edward's thinks are worth it...WE'RE STILL IN ONE!!!! The man can't even carry his own state people. WE DON'T TRUST HIM!!! IOWA....CAUCUS FOR BARACK!!!!

BARACK THE VOTE!!!!!!!

This "fight" business would make for what kind of presidency?  It would be the endless campaign with the president constantly grandstanding and strutting and puffing himself about how he's fighting.  IOW, even more annoying than Bush.

Edwards is a fine candidate except for the fact with public finacing he doesn't have the $ to win, either the primary or the general. Obama is the only candiate with resources to beat Hillary. Realistically this is a two person race between clinton and obama and people who have a preference bewteen these two should vote that. With her high negatives, Hillary is a very risky candidate to run in the general and would also have difficulty accomplishing anything if she does manage get elected. Obama has convinced me of his intelligence, integrity and abiltiy to win with a governing majority. Also based on an article in WAPO today, I think Bloomburg is less likely to jump in the race if Obama is the nominee.

Edwards' rhetoric now doesn't match his record.  Joe in Iowa, what you are basing your judgment on that Edwards is for the people?  Is that why he voted for the Bankruptcy bill, invested and consulted in a hedge fund that used the Cayman Islands for tax shelters and foreclosed on homes?  The list goes on and on.  Please point to one thing he did as a senator that supposedly helped the people?  There is a reason why he is the 2nd richest candidate running from the D & R.  

Obama is too tentative. HRC is too establishment.  Edwards is just right and knows how to bring people along, which is what trial lawyers have to do to win cases.

Of course every one of them, along with Richardson, Biden and Dodd would be better than any of the Republicans. Edwards and Obama both can be counted on to surround themselves with the best.  Kucinich is right where he belongs; in congress.  He  wants the right things, for the most part, but has no leadership abilities that are at all apparent.  

Presidents can't make law.  They can't just impose what they want. They have to lead, cajole, charm, pressure, threaten, arm twist and game their way to what they want.  Bush (or whoever has been the boss) did it with his pet Republican congress, the fear card he has played endlessly to justify unprecedented secrecy and trashing of all constitutional rights ever since 9/11 happened on his watch and turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to the guy since he was installed via bloodless coup.  He was headed toward being another single term cipher, just like his father, before 9/11 "changed everything", including the Dems ability to find their spines.

I like what Edwards wants and like his chances of making some progress toward getting it.

Edwards is not a fighter; he's an opportunist!

He's fought to sue doctors in NC, not for good will, but for $$$.

Just two years in the Senate, w/no other political experience, he has the cajones to run for Prez.

So another four years and now he has enough experience?  What is his experience?

-voted for Iraq War
-voted (as well as drafted) the Patriot Act
-voted for No Child Left Behind

What has he done for the poor?  What has he done in the community?

Hedge fund consultant, 28,000 square foot house and $400 hair cuts...this guy's ego is bigger than his house.

Only Barack Obama can do this. He is the only candidate who has a proven track record of bringing opposing sides together and creating real change.
John D. Moore, Denver, Colorado


Huh?  Do tell where is Obama's "proven track record" for bringing opposing sides together?  I live in Chicago, and Obama's stint in the state senate was simply as a liberal supporter of a very liberal, anti-war district.  When has he EVER (in public office) even worked with opposing sides; let alone led the way?  Like never?

I see a lot of nervous OBAMA supporters going after Edwards among these comments. NERVOUS! Nervous! Stop eating your own babies!!!! Chew your damn nails instead.

Hmmmm...I don't see Edwards painting his face Black to get the Afri-American vote. But i hear Obama recently taking lines from the "populist message" of Edwards...why? Cause 'sweet talkin' don't stand up to the CORPORATE PROFITEERS.

Dear Christi Parsons:

Look a bit closer at the fine print in your BIG comments. Thousands of hard-working Americans wouldn't classify union and labor organizations as BIG-MONEY LOBBYISTS or OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS---ie CORPORATE PROFITEERS. Who do you work for? Why are you muddying up the facts?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?


"Democrat John Edwards has been critical of the involvement of outside organizations that spend money to influence voters." (ie CORPORATE LOBBY-duh)

"But some former supporters are questioning how committed Edwards is to that idea, as union leaders who support him are now doing exactly that on his behalf."---Christi Parsons

Good job, Christi. Ever think of selling some snake oil for a different company???

I have tried to find substantial Obama "proven track record(s)." The only factual one is his talk and that isn't proven(unless you take seriously his ineffective push by chatters/supporters!?!). He was in the Senate for two years when he spoke in 2004. Never heard of him before and little afterwards until he announced his run. I am with Biden who made a comment in Obama's regard and then had to unnecessarily defend himself at the last debate(the ugly race card phobia)for just telling it like it is. As far as Edwards goes...don't get me started. He says I am a fighter? Quote: "Cute Denny" in response to Kusinich when pressed why he was not fighting now for fair labor in China. Not interested in a "slick talker" with no back up or someone who thinks everything is "cute"(unless it's himself..lol). Everyone needs to have dreams, goals, and wake up to challenges. However, be careful of who you wish for or think will deliver those same attributes for yourself. President Bill Clinton was correct in saying, "it is a chance or a roll of the dice." I will take a risk and climb out on a limb, but equally, I want to know what the possible circumstance of my decision will be after the roll.
It comes down to Hillary Rodham Clinton...period.

HRC in '08

sure seems like there are a lot of Obama campaign people on this comment thread. All their Edwards counter ops typed and ready to go...

To me, Obama comes across as arrogant and inexperienced...

Re the post upthread about Edwards then and now, it seems to me he hasn't changed his mind, he's just gotten tougher in his stances... I think it's refreshing for a politician to stiffen their stances when they get more information... as in, now he believes he must take the power from corporate health purveyors, cus they won't give it up voluntarily.

Absolutely true...  this country needs someone to FIGHT for the middle class.

I think his voting record is less important, at this point, than his willingness to take on the corporatocracy... at least that's how I see it.  It seems he's seen the light.

The thing with Edwards is either you buy his schtick or you don't. Personally I'm not buying it. He's a walking talking hypocrite who believes he's the most electable by being the white alternative to Obama. I find that pretty insulting actually and he's starting to turn me off with his rhetoric. For heaven's sake, the guy doesn't even have the money to compete! Unfortunately there are enough Iowan's who can't see past his schtick that they're willing to ignore the fact that he can't win and would rather vote for him and lose the primary to Hilary than to vote for Obama who they know damn well has the right intentions for their needs. Iowa be smart this time, 4 years ago you dated Dean and married Kerry. Well guess what? YOU MARRIED THE WRONG GUY! Don't screw it up this time vote with your heart and not out of fear.

I believe that, based on Barack Obama's self-written books 'Dreams from MY Father' and 'Audacity of Hope'/
his work throughout the years to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the hopeless(poor and union-workers)/ his speeches etc, he is a better candidate. He did not just happen upon Democratic principles in this campaign, he gave up hundreds of job offers over 20+ years ago to go work for about $12,000/yr in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. He graduated Magna Cum Laude/became head of Harvard Law Review/Civil Rights Attorney/taught constitutional law for over 10 years etc.  Obama went to work with churches that organized job training and other programs for residents of a massive housing project in Chicago. He persuaded the city to provide summer jobs, remove asbestos, repair toilets, pipes and ceilings. He went door to door, offering help for three years, then went to Harvard Law School. After law school, he registered 150,000 new voters in Chicago. He was finally able to pay off his college debt using proceeds from his first bestselling book.
Obama helped to deliver the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies (NYT, 7/30/07).  Here in Chicago, Obama worked as lead organizer for the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by south-side Catholic churches to counteract the dislocation and massive unemployment caused by the closing and downsizing of southeast Chicago steel plants. (ChicagoReader 12/8/95)   As a Chicago community organizer, Obama notched accomplishments ranging from job-training programs to a successful attempt to improve city services at the Altgeld Gardens housing project, chaired a voter-registration drive that helped carry Illinois for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992 and led an effort to acquire state money for a dropout prevention program that still operates today.
--

"As a state legislator, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting successful legislation on ethics and health care reform. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care. He expanded healthcare to include 154.000 people in Illinois(including 70,000 children).  Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited him with having been "immensely helpful in working with police organizations" on death penalty reform." During his last two years in the majority, he sponsored 780 bills, 280 of which became law.

While in the US Senate Obama has passed Lugar-Obama, a bill that expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. He has also passed the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. In addition to those two he has also gotten through the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," which had his name on it as the first sponsor. He also introduced the first bill, that soon became law, to fund and address pandemic flu preparedness.

He also worked with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in strengthening restrictions on travel in corporate jets to S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. And then Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accounting Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs. He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry, and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to prevent nuclear terrorism. He also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.
As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama is committed to helping the heroes who defend our nation today and the veterans who fought in years past.

In January 2007, Senator Obama reintroduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future.
---
He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually.
---
Part of the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act, which Senator Obama reintroduced in January 2007, would help veterans transition from the DOD health system to the VA system by extending the window in which new veterans can get mental health care from two years to five years.
READ MORE AT:
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/veterans/

UPDATE OF 12/20/07:  Washington, DC – Today, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. The Senate passed the omnibus appropriations bill last night and the House approved the same bill today. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law.


Barack Obama is on the following committees in the US senate:

Senate Foreign Relations Commitee
Senate Commitee on Veterans' Affairs
Senate Commitee on Health, Education, Labor, Pensions
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

----------Barack Obama-----
EDUCATION

Harvard Law School, J.D. 1991, Magna Cum Laude.
President, Harvard Law Review
Executive Board, Black Law Students' Association
Columbia University, Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1983


Illinois State Senator - 13th Legislative District, Chicago, 1996 - 2004
Minority Spokesperson for the Public Health & Welfare Committee, Member of the Judiciary and Revenue Committees, Co-Chair of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
Areas of legislative interest include welfare reform; public school funding and accountability; tax accountability and tax fairness; campaign finance and ethics reform; job training and workforce preparation; economic development and technology access; and juvenile justice issues.

University of Chicago Law School
Senior Lecturer, 1993 -

Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
Of Counsel, 1996 -  
Specializing in civil rights and voting rights litigation, employment law, and the representation of not-for-profit and community development corporations in urban redevelopment activities.
Associate, 1993 - 1996
Litigated voting rights and employment cases, wrote appellate briefs and argued appeals in the United States Court of Appeals, helped to structure and finance efforts to construct mixed-income housing to replace public housing in and around Cabrini Green, served as general counsel to community health clinics, social service agencies, and charter schools throughout Chicago.

Illinois Project Vote
Director, April 1992 - November 1992
Organized and directed a voter registration and education campaign targeted at minority and low-income voters in Cook County. Recruited and managed 10 paid staff and 700 volunteers; helped raise $200,000 for the project; coordinated a companion multi-media campaign; established office and reporting systems. Resulted in approximately 150,000 newly registered voters in the 1992 Presidential election.

Developing Communities Project
Director, June 1985 - June 1988
Organized and directed a not-for-profit community development program in low-income areas of Chicago's Far South Side. With a membership of over twenty churches and civic groups, the organization trained local leaders to formulate and execute a range of community development projects, including job training programs for area unemployed, college prep programs for low-income students, parent initiatives to reform public schools, and campaigns to clean up hazardous waste sites.

Business International Corporation
Writer/Financial Analyst, January 1984 - January 1985
Researched, wrote and edited articles, reports, and how-to manuals on international business and finance for multinational corporations.

Honors

Outstanding Legislator Awards from Campaign for Better Health Care and Illinois Primary Health Care Association, 1998

Best Freshman Legislator Award from Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organizations, 1997

Legal Eagle Award for litigation leading to Illinois' compliance with national "Motor Voter" Legislation, 1995

Monarch Award for Outstanding Public Service, 1994

Crain's Chicago Business "40 Under 40" Award, 1993
---------------------------------------
Ensuring that the Voting Section Protects the Right to Vote:

Barack Obama has been a life-long defender of voting rights. After law school, he registered 150,000 new voters in Chicago. As a civil rights lawyer, he defended minority voters who challenged redistricting plans that diluted their vote. As a constitutional law lecturer, he taught classes on voting rights. And in the US Senate, he has led the fight to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, to oppose discriminatory photo-ID laws and improve our election machinery. His " Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act", which has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary Committee, will enable investigations into deceptive and fraudulent practices.  It establishes significant, harsh penalties for those who have engaged in fraud, and it provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.

Why Krugman Is Wrong
Why Obama's approach to health care isn't naive.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 10:41 AM ET Dec 19, 2007
Paul Krugman is a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist for The New York Times who was far ahead of the pack in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. His clarity in explaining what academics call "political economy" is without peer. But his attack on Barack Obama on December 17 was wrong on history, wrong on politics and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea.

Krugman calls Obama "naïve" and an "anti-change candidate" because he favors bringing all of the players in the health care debate around a "big table" and rejects the populist message of John Edwards, who is apparently Krugman's choice for president. "Anyone who thinks the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world," Krugman writes, endorsing Edwards's view that the insurance and drug industries should be excluded from any talks on health care reform because they stand to lose profits.

The columnist and his candidate both believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded by being a polarizing figure. I studied FDR for four years while writing a book about him, and this is simply untrue. It's also untrue of other successful Democratic presidents and for a simple reason: "Bitter confrontation" simply doesn't work in policy-making.

Bear with me for a brief history lesson: The so-called "First New Deal" of 1933-34 came after Roosevelt won a landslide victory over Herbert Hoover in 1932 in a campaign devoid of any populist message despite an unemployment rate of at least 25 percent. First, FDR worked with Hoover treasury officials from the other party to rescue the banks under a conservative plan that included steep budget cuts. The rest of his famous "100 days" agenda-which included unprecedented jobs programs, agricultural reform, labor rights, and regulation of financial markets—was achieved with much more compromise than Krugman recognizes. Social Security came in 1935 after a big Democratic mandate in midterm elections and was enacted piecemeal and cooperatively (to the disappointment of many New Deal liberals) with everyone at the table.

During and after his 1936 reelection campaign, FDR—angry at the ingratitude of the rich Americans whose fortunes he had saved—adopted class-based politics. In 1937, with a big victory under his belt, he tried confrontation with his court-packing scheme. It failed badly. So did his effort to "purge" the opposition in 1938. The rest of his second-term was far less productive legislatively than his first. By the end of it, he turned to foreign policy. FDR's third-term success, dominated by World II, was dependent on his unifying the country.
Similarly, Woodrow Wilson's big legislative triumphs over entrenched interests in 1913 (for example, an income tax), Lyndon Johnson's in 1965 (Medicare and the Voting Rights Act) and Bill Clinton's in 1993 (painful tax increases) were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message.

Krugman is a populist. He writes that if nominated, Obama would win, "but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform." This is facile and ahistorical. How many 20th Century American presidents have been elected on a populist platform?  That would be zero, Paul. You could even include Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. Instead of exploiting the peace and prosperity of the 1990s, Gore ran on a "people vs. the powerful" message. It never ignited.

Krugman says that pundits like me who reject sharp anti-corporate rhetoric and prefer cooperation are "projecting their own desires onto the public." We'll see. But last time I checked, millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser politically. It works sometimes in Democratic primaries with a heavy labor vote (though not for Dick Gephardt). But not in general elections. The last two Democrats elected president-Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992-also campaigned during recessions. Both were smart enough to reject populism in favor of a responsive but upbeat message.

Krugman is an economist and I trust his forecast that things are going to get even worse for working-class Americans in the months ahead. The middle-class squeeze is real. Predatory lenders and CEO greedheads should be called out. So should insurance and drug companies. But it needs to be done in a way that produces results, not just spleen-venting.
How? Just after Clinton was elected, he convened a meeting of economists, CEOs, labor leaders and many others in Little Rock. The purpose of the meeting was to argue out what should be done about the ailing economy, with many of the ideas expressed there later becoming part of Clinton's successful 1993 economic recovery package. The whole thing was on television.

Sound familiar? This is essentially what Obama is proposing for health care after he's elected. If Hillary Clinton had done this on health care in 1993—instead of convening a secret task force—she might have been able to build a stronger public case for reform.

Edwards and Krugman think that's naïve. They want the evil drug and insurance industries excluded from any of these conversations. Edwards surely knows better than this. The drug industry that he seeks to bar from a seat at the table is the same industry working to save his wife Elizabeth's life and that of anyone else with a serious disease, including me. The answer to price-gouging is to force these companies to negotiate drug prices with the government, a reform any Democratic president would quickly enact.

Ideally, health insurance companies should be eliminated altogether. But a single payer plan isn't viable politically, as Edwards readily admits. The only option is to curb their power and expand coverage through more regulation.

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?

Obama's idea is a better one: Get every special interest out in the open on television, where the new president can cross-examine them and expose their phony rationalizations for charging $100 a pill or denying coverage to sick people (and Edwards, the former trial attorney, would be especially good at this). Then, having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow. It is, indeed, a fantasy to think these interests will roll over entirely, but they will get a much worse deal.

The Edwards alternative-to simply overrun them-is unrealistic. Even a 1932-style mandate at the ballot box (highly unlikely) wouldn't make them capitulate. Look what happened when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, elected in 2006 with a huge mandate, tried to "steamroll" a bunch of hacks in Albany. He got his head handed to him.

To call Obama "anti-change," as Paul Krugman does, is anti-common sense. Leadership requires a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face. "They have to feel the heat to see the light," LBJ liked to say. That heat is best applied up close. In public. Across the big table.

 http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

Wow, the John Edwards bashers are out in full force. Maybe its that new MSN poll that is showing Edwards has taken the lead in Iowa. I would tell undecided voters to ask themselves what has Obama done? Can anyone really decipher what he is actually going to do besides talk slow and sound smart? And Clinton, well she takes credit for the good things her husband did. I would ask her about how much money she took from the pharmacuetical and insurance lobbyist after her social healthcare plan went down the drain in the 1990's. I am very secure in knowing John Edwards plans to help me and the middle class of America take back their country from big business and special intrest groups.

More like he paints himself into a corner. What has this guy ever fought for, other then him getting a big take as a sue lawyer?

Why you should vote a democrat into the Oval-Office.
 -To finally end this great long lasting economy.
 -To turn tax paying workers into unemployment  
   collectors.
 -Sell missile technology to China for election fund  
   donations(oh wait, Billary already did that).
 -While were at it might as well raise taxes.
 -Preach separation of church and state, then go to
   churches to be hypocrites and preach politics.
 -Last but not least, cut the military, bargain with  
   the terrorists & ask them to not hurt us in
   exchange for converting to Islam and obeying their
   Sharia law.

Look at their records.  Barack Obama used drugs religiously early in his life, hanging out on the beaches in Hawaii, and lived the good life in Harvard.  Hillary Clinton was fed with a sivler spoon throughout her life. Both she an Obama are elitists who went to the "right schools."  Harvard for Obama and Wellsely and Yale for Clinton.  These elitist are beholding to their corporate masters.  John Edwards worked his way through college (NC State) and law school (UNC) working in a mill.  He is a common man who raised himself from nothing.  Let the spoiled brats Obama and Clinton go back to their elitist friends.  Edwards is the only one who can shift the balance back to just plain folks.

What is with this? "no one deserves to make that much money" Are we really that far down the mountain? The ability for anyone ( including John Edwards) to make it, is what has made this country. Now he wants to limit how much someone can make? If this guy wins we will plunge into recession. The people with money will pick up their marbles and go home. Why risk what you have when there are limits on what you can make. We are not the only game in the world now. Huge amounts of money will leave our stock markets, private research on drugs will leave. People invest money to make money. Is that so hard to understand? Other countries are trending towards our system, Edwards wants to trend toward theirs. Also, why does he not condemn the 50% fee charged by him or any other trial attorney. I promise there is no oil company executive that takes 50% of their co. profits. The guy is whacked, playing on class envy to bring the huddled masses....

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