John Edwards for President
The word that comes to mind is - honorable.
Whether we're talking about the candidate himself, his wife, family, supporters, or staff.
Honorable comes to mind, time and time again.
Changing the subject - honorable does not come to mind when discussing the easily led among us.
Here are some messages for the swiftboaters. Even if they don't get it.
h/t Danny
posted by kate @ 9:12 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
"She speaks to you through me," Edwards went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ei=5070&en=9d85b90918b917c1&ex=1195016400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1194876493-F38KHWbccg43UiJ94ZWdWg
I'd have to go with power and money hungry ambulance chaser.
Right. And I'm sure your choice for President is...who exactly?
Keep watching those Swift Boat for Kids ads. They were made for ya.
I'm not really an Edwards fan, but it seems to me those charges the article levels against him are particularly unique or indicative of anything other than a lawyer carving out his niche in a glutted market and giving his clients the best defense he can.
Underbidding is common in any sort of contractual business, particularly if the client can lead to bigger, better things or one is trying to "build their brand". Such is the nature of capitalist competition. It's hardly reprehensible or immoral.
Cherry picking expert witnesses is also just sound business practice. That's the nature of the "expert" witness: You can always find someone to say whatever you want them to say and, in order to provide your client with the best defense possible, you should do just that. It's upon the jury to weigh the expert testimony provided by the defense against countering expert testimony provided by the prosecution and decide which is more credible. You can hardly blame the lawyers for that.
The third charge I'm not familiar with, but, frankly, after the whole S-CHIP thing, calling out Edwards on this seems a little hollow and possibly hypocritical.
These charges against Edwards character seem incredibly trumped up, which is odd because there are plenty of actual things to make one not want to vote for him that need no massaging.
edwards=ambulance chaser.
oh and a man of the people
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
not. looks like mr. edwards lives in that other america hes always warning us poor folks about. give me a break. this guy is as slippery as they come...
Know what? The campaign of my dreams would be John Edwards v. Ron Paul.
Give the country a real choice between two honorable candidates who, although different, have a whole lot of love for this country.
Two candidates who represent the best of their parties. And aren't afraid to speak their minds.
That's a campaign I'd love witness.
For a goddamn change.
The campaign of my dreams would be Lyndon LaRouche v. Fred Thompson.
Two candidates who represent the best of their parties and aren't afraid to speak their minds (to borrow a phrase).
But, instead we're definately getting Mrs. Impeached One and probably either Guillani or Romney.
Oh, well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ugg. it makes me sad that ghouliani or mr. mormon could even be a nominee.
ugg. it makes me sad that ghouliani or mr. mormon could even be a nominee.
Post a Comment
<< Home