Interesting Foreign Perspective on Edwards and Big Business

nathaniel heidenheimer · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:06 pm

from the Guardian newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7217369

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:32 pm

from the article wrote:

. . .
Despite not winning the two state nominating contests completed so far, with 48 to go, Edwards insists he is in the race to stay. An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.

"The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards. "Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.

Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street. But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics.

One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business." Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
. . .

We better not hold our breaths waiting for any American MSM to publish or broadcast similar content.

shoeless · **Posted:** Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:42 pm

I did just see a short report on John Edwards on Keith Olberman. It was the most I have seen on him in a long time.

John Edwards is their greatest enemy.

Just One More Thing.... · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:47 am

I do not actually trust Edwards. I think I have stated this feeling before in another place at another time. I still remember him campaigning with Kerry during the last big election. What turned me off about him was his speech near the end of the campaign where he was suckholing to Israel. It was sickening to listen to actually. He was brazenly looking for Jewish or Christian Fundamentalists or Christian Zionists, or something along those lines. It just did not sit right with me somehow. There they were, both Kerry and Edwards saying how strong they were on defence re Iraq and supporting Israel. You might as well be s goddamn Republican to be spewing off that kind of nonsense. And, they lost because they were playing a game they could not win. Someone else already has that market covered. Any electronic ballot rigging notwithstanding of course.

The second thing is that the guy is an opportunist. He made millions suing companies so he knows what money is all about. He is going to say the right things at the right time just like Hillary does. Hillary is also an opportunist as anyone can plainly see. I do not know much about this Obama character except that he seems to have the better of Hillary at this time.

Edwards is dangerous because if the vote gets split between Obama and Hillary he is like a bridesmaid in waiting or something like that. I do not think he is a fool but he may be waiting for Hillary and Obama to kill themselves off. And, I am sure Edwards has been approved by the Zionists so I do not see any problem with him getting the nomination if they are looking for a pretty southern boy who knows how to play ball. Just my couple of pennies worth if anyone is interested.

And, Happy New Year to everyone since I have not been here for awhile.

shoeless · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:22 am

Just One More Thing.... wrote:

The second thing is that the guy is an opportunist. He made millions suing companies so he knows what money is all about.

This argument really bothers me. WTF! John Edwards made his money by defending individuals against multi-national corporations.

Go next door. Meet your neighbor.

These are the people John Edwards spent his life working for.

Edwards won't win, because no populist candidate has won since Franklin Roosevelt.

Why is that? Duh, it's because they have been telling us ever since FDR that a populist can't be elected.

Time to wake up and vote our populism.

If you haven't figured it out yet, on Feb. 5, I'm voting for John Edwards.

Just One More Thing.... · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:45 am

shoeless,

I must have hit a sore spot. I did not know you were so partial to Edwards. Actually, if you want the truth I think the whole lot of them are opportunists. Period. Except maybe Dennis the man Kucinich. He comes across as a straight shooter to me. If I was voting the would be my man.

I think it is clear that Hillary and Edwards are opportunists. I used the example of the speech he gave during the last election. And, I am standing by my argument. Kerry and Edwards lost the election. And, I believe they deserved to lose. I did actually want Kerry to win. I supported him. But, I did not like the way Edwards conducted himself. It was pure partisanship. It was not leadership at all. He was acting like a follower. Not very presidential at all. Kerry and Edwards should have been strongly against the war. Period. They would have come across as stronger and more honest. If the election was lost honestly I point to their conduct re the war. I still do not know if election rigging cost them the big prize.

Look at the conduct of Pelosi now and even Hillary. How can you support people like this who are clearly pro war? The people want this war over with, they don't want politicians messing with their will. I know that Edwards says he is against the war. but, is he? Can you trust him if he becomes president? I would not based on the speech he gave during the last election.

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:28 am

It is not a question of IF they are opportunists. By definition politician=opportunist. The question that should concern us, in what situation do they see opportunity? Is it always the path of least resistance or the path of considered ethical thought? There are many easier ways to make money as a lawyer than as a trial attorney taking on big corporations. Unlike what the NeoCons would have us believe this is not the lottery. It takes a lot of hard work and the facts on your side to prevail in this type of case. The corporations ALWAYS have deeper pockets and greater resources. By looking at their records, Kucinich and Edwards both appear to see public service as opportunity. Unlike most politicians that see the greatest opportunity in whatever will get them elected. Hillary like Bill starts out with the DLC as two strikes against her. I have never liked the fact Edwards was delivering what I consider a premature concession speech, but I have come to believe it was Kerry's decision and Kerry was just too chicken shit to deliver it. The position of Vice President running mate is actually pretty demeaning, your own views become subservient to the head of the ticket. People vote for president, not vice president—witness Dan Quayle. The fools that voted for Bush voted for him not Darth Cheney. I am naturally suspicious of someone who wants to be president, what sane person would want those responsibilities. Look at the war criminal shrub, he is so insane as not to be bothered by the disaster that is his term in office. I think it was Huxley that suggested that president be decided by reverse lottery, anyone that wanted the job was automatically disqualified, the 'loser' that was picked would then get the job.

Just One More Thing.... · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:44 am

Proud Liberal,

I agreel. What sane person would want to be president? An excelllent question and analysis indeed. The position involves a great deal of power, so we can surmize that the person who wants the job likes the idea of power. Period.

But, you also dwell on the idea of opportunity. You make it sound like there is more than one kind of opportunity, and I agree with you. There are the the opportunists, and there are those who take advantage of an opportunity. Perhaps being president can actually aid one is serving one's country for the benefit of the people. That would be a noble goal indeed. President Kennedy sounds the kind of person that would fit nicely into this category. I cannot think of any other contemporary president who had the will of the people in mind while maintaining the office of president of the United States. Except perhaps, Hillary trying to enact Health Care for the population while her husband was president. Most other recent presidents just seem to act in the interests of the money that put them there. And, the really callous types of these characters seem to be Republicans. I am thinking primarliy of Reagan and the current Bush presidency. I do not think anyone could even remotely envision anything these two people have done as president for the people of the nation.

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:58 am

shoeless wrote:

Edwards won't win, because no populist candidate has won since Franklin Roosevelt.

Far be from me to contradict my friend shoeless, but I think Jimmy Carter was a populist. He was elected without needing the established political machines. His was the last true grassroots successful candidacy. Granted a turnip could have beat Ford after the Nixon pardon, but the key was winning the Democratic nomination. Carter had two strikes against him however—intelligence and honesty, the rarest of combinations in a president. The Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, have the intelligence but I think the record shows they lack the same basic true honesty of Carter. Reagan and both Bushes lack(ed) both honesty and raw intelligence. They make up for it with pure ambition and puppet masters to get them elected.

shoeless · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:40 am

You just explained in a nutshell why a populist (like FDR) cannot get elected. That is just too bad. Anyone who ever sticks up for the working man is perceived as "an opportunist". The rich oligarchs are laughing their asses off when they hear us poor dumb serfs utter such nonsense.

Oh well, it is hopeless. Anyone who dares to speak out for the working class shouldn't be trusted, and is considered "an opportunist".

WTF. The rich assholes win. I give up. Now I see how they control us. GRRRRRR!

Edit: My apologies to shoeless. You answered a quote and somehow I managed to erase that quote. If you remember it, please edit it back in.

dori · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:31 am

shoeless wrote:

You just explained in a nutshell why a populist (like FDR) cannot get elected. That is just too bad. Anyone who ever sticks up for the working man is perceived as "an opportunist". The rich oligarchs are laughing their asses off when they hear us poor dumb serfs utter such nonsense.

Oh well, it is hopeless. Anyone who dares to speak out for the working class shouldn't be trusted, and is considered "an opportunist".

WTF. The rich assholes win. I give up. Now I see how they control us. GRRRRRR!

And that brings us to TVNL. We are controlled by the 'information' we get. How much information have we been getting about Edwards? Listening to 'news' makes it sound like a two way race between Obama and Clinton, both having taken large amounts of money from special interests.

Edwards vowed to not do that. He is taking matching funds from the Federal Presidential fund, and small donations. So far that sounds good to me.

He is almost preaching that our country has been taken over by deep pockets of big business and that isn't healthy for the American people, for our country, period. I like the message, but he is being pushed into the background by said big business. Anyone who thinks media isn't big business and isn't funded by big business is fooling him or herself.

Most of our candidates are big business candidates on both sides of the isle. Although Kucinich voted consistantly the right way on any and every issue, he also said he would like Ron Paul to run as his VP. That last part killed it for me--I am now an Edwards person.

Yes, it was Kerry who threw in the towel in '04, not Edwards. He is a fighter and I believe will fight for the people not business as usual.

Hope springs eternal. But first we have to get him on the ticket--with media blocking him in every way it can.

Just One More Thing.... · **Posted:** Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:38 pm

Yes indeed, I forgot about Carter. He comes across as a man of the people. And, he must be doing something right re the Middle East since he was demonized for his comments.

Interesting Foreign Perspective on Edwards and Big Business

Who is online