Did anybody else catch the "Today" show this morning? First chance I got to see Sen. Edwards and listen to some of his thoughts and positions.
He is very good looking for sure. He kind of had that typical Southern dare I say it Clinton-esque charm. Alot of his positions sounded more moderate to me. For a strong anti-terrorist stand, for fiscal responsibility, which I always like. Matt Lauer asked him about Iraq and North Korea also. What I would have liked to have heard more of was the clear distinction between the Dems, and Bush, more on what he would do to get the economy going, and does anybody know his stands on issues concerning us as gay brothers and sisters? So far I am more impressed with Howard Dean who is really, really talking the issues, and setting the tone as far as what Bush should be doing and what he is not doing. I will leave my opions open with Edwards, as I want to hear more, but so far I am with Dean.

He looked like a hottie to me! I like that nicely groomed suit & tie look !

As far as Senator Edwards' stance on gay and lesbian issues, there doesn't seem to be a lot out there, but he did vote in favor of expanding hate-crime legislation to include sexual orientation back in 2000. I believe he is very supportive of gay and lesbian issues, although they are not his "hot-button" issues. So far his stongest stances have to do with public education, mental health, women's health, the economy, internet security/privacy issues, and national security.

I find it funny that there are some here in NC who are quick to criticize Senator Edwards for not paying enough attention to issues affecting North Carolinians and spending too much time on more national and global items. I can't say that I really recall Senator Helms doing much of note specifically for North Carolinians as of late either--seems he's always been busy making a ruckus on the Foreign Relations Committee. No matter which party one belongs to, you can always find a way to bend a story in your favor.

His Senate site has a lot of recent information: Senator John Edwards of North Carolina

...and his political action committee's site: New American Optimists

BTW, Dean and Edwards are my personal picks at this time. This week an NC paper wrote that Gov. Dean was one of several "considering" a run...I had to write them and point out that he already is. I'm glad to report they've made the change.

For what it's worth: reports are that Clinton (whose political sense is second to none, in my opinion) is backing Edwards, though I think Edwards is running this time to become known to a national audience and will--as the Democratic front runner--run in 2008. At present, he is not well-known outside NC & hasn't spent much time in Iowa or NH. Even Clinton was better known when he announced for '92, having given the keynote at the '88 convention, been governor twice, and cultivated the Dems in DC (including people at Pamela Harriman's salon.) Edwards just hasn't done that yet.


On a lighter note, I hope Evan Bayh now throws his hat in the ring, just to see the number of reports that compare Bayh's and Edwards' looks.

~Adam

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Adam ]

This according to the AP on December 30, 2002:

"In the past two years, Edwards, D-N.C., has flown to Iowa eight times, more than any Democratic presidential prospect save one.

He has spent three weekends in New Hampshire, which will hold the first presidential primary in 2004 a week after Iowa's first caucus.

Earlier this month, he visited Arizona for the second time this year and has made four trips to South Carolina. Both states are expected to vote one week after New Hampshire."

John has definitely been making the rounds, and it has been a sore spot with some North Carolinians. So I'd have to respectfully disagree with the "hasn't spent much time" part, Adam

And it looks like some of that time spent is starting to show some benefits. (And all this is before his official announcement). A CNN/Time poll from Dec. 17 and 18 yielded the following: If the election for a Democratic Presidential nominee were held today, who would you vote for?
(The first number is with Hillary in the mix, the second is without her)

Hillary Clinton 30 n/a
John Kerry 13 16
Joseph Lieberman 13 16
Dick Gephardt 9 10
Tom Daschle 7 9
John Edwards 4 8
Wesley Clark 3 5
Howard Dean 2 2
Al Sharpton 2 4
Joe Biden 2 3
Chris Dodd 1 3
Not sure 14 24

In months prior, John's numbers were around 1-3%. Perhaps the most interesting part of the stats here, is that without Hillary in the mix, John picked up more percentage points than any of the other candidates.

I'm not endorsing John for Prez yet, but as a North Carolinian who voted for him back in 1998, I guess I gotta promote our hometown boy a bit.

It was very astute of Edwards to use a captive, five minute national audience to make his announcement without it costing him a cent. He seemed to stake out a very centrist, middle-of-the-road path in his interview. I think that's going to be the fascinating aspect to the Democratic race in '04: can they be successful by taking moderate positions that really differ very little from those of Bush, or is the answer for them to move closer to their traditional, more-left, message that highlights some rather profound differences with our current Administration? Only time will tell, of course, but it'll be fascinating to see what verdict the electorate delivers next year.

PS - so far he definitely leads the Best Hair category, but the evening gown competition and the Miss Congeniality votes are yet to be tabulated.

[ January 04, 2003: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Edwards alert!! He is the main guest on George Stephanopoulas' "This Week" this morning. I will be watchin.

(For those who'd like to get a little local flavor on John Edwards.)
Edwards in the local Sunday news and weekend editorials:

Greensboro News & Record
News & Record Editorial
Raleigh News & ObserverWinston-Salem Journal
Charlotte Observer
Durham Herald
Asheville Citizen-Times Editorial
Wilmington Star-News Editorial

[ January 05, 2003: Message edited by: JTnCarolina ]

Edwards is handsome, smart, very rich, and in the middle leaning left among the Democratic contenders. Dean is the most progressive and definitely has provided the best policy prospectus, Kerry has gravitas, wealth and that war-hero background, and Joseph Lieberman is the conservative choice, with some key backers behind him. I think the rest (Gephardt, Daschle, Dodd, etc.) should hang it up, though Al Sharpton, if he really does jump into it, will provide comic relief (or horror, which is to say, lots of snapshots for the Republicans to run amok with).

BTW, Edwards is up for Senate re-election in 2004, right? If he's shaky in North Carolina, could that bode ill for both campaigns?

I came away very impressed by Edwards this morning. You can tell he has received alot of coaching from Clinton. Good deal. He answered the qeustions, layed out his plans and drew sharp lines in the sand between him and Shrub!! Its about time. I like Edwards...alot, but still leaning towards Dean, at this point. Edwards though sure has the charm.

I came away very impressed by Edwards this morning. You can tell he has received alot of coaching from Clinton. Good deal. He answered the qeustions, layed out his plans and drew sharp lines in the sand between him and Shrub!! Its about time. I like Edwards...alot, but still leaning towards Dean, at this point. Edwards though sure has the charm.
What killed me though was later in the show they interviewed Newt Ginrich. He has never sounded so Democratic in what he thinks the countrys' needs are. Health Care reform Newt?? Like are you sure you are feeling ok?

Okay, is Treebeard really "Ari Fleischer"? Come on, now, admit it, Ari. I don't think you're "evil": I think you're working on the "deb'lish" side, to quote Michael Jackson (who is certainly evil).

John Edwards "evil"??? Are you kidding?

Ronald Reagan is evil. Kim Jong Il is evil. Woodrow Wilson was evil. William Howard Taft wasn't evil, he was just very fat.

John Edwards is a pretty, fairly-young thing with some smarts and some ideas and hell, he'd be a breath of fresh air--along with that big-haired rich patrician war-hero Yale grad John Kerry-- after the hateful, environment-destroying, war-mongering, privacy-destroying retread maniacs occupying the office right now. (I'm not saying they're "evil" though, but Cheney and Condi and Rummy are definitely on the "nefarious" line.)

[quote]Originally posted by Treebeard:
He's prettier than most of them but also far more evil. I will not vote for a trial lawyer. And Clinton's "coaching" of him should set off alarm bells for everybody here.

---

Though I don't like the word evil and would never eliminate a class of people based on occupation, your view has the ring of truth.

Edwards has the looks that most people like (does nothing for me though), trial lawyers can be oportunistic (i.e. ambulance chasers), and though Clinton's policies were mostly brilliant he was a political animal who would scrifice important principle for personal political gain at the drop of a hat IMO (a kind of political triage).

Edwards seems to be avoiding facing the hard-hitters--Russert, "Crossfire," etc--oting to stay with the softball throwers (Lauer, Stephanopolus, etc) for the time being which may be a good thing considering how green he seems. CSPAN carried one of his events at a high school where a student stumped him by asking about the finances of his (admittedly noble) goal of ensuring college education for all who wish to attend. Edwards offered no details on how he would fund such a plan, instead talking about the importance of education coupled with a short discourse on the deficit.

Since such a grandiose plan--providing college educations to all who want them--could rally the troops, he should be able to provide financial details whenever asked; without them, the program sounds like nothing but smoke & mirrors--and that alienates the very people he needs to motivate.

~Adam

I can't believe these words are coming out of my mouth, but the older I get the less black and white things become.

I don't think you can group an entire class of people based on their profession. I'm a CPA. Do you base your opinion of me and my fellow CPA's on the events that have occurred over the past year? I hope not. Let's also hope that people don't judge all gay people based on the behavior of a few.

There are certainly some opportunistic trail attorneys that are truly scum. However, there are also some opportunistic defendants that are scum as well.

I can't remember where I read this, I think the Parade magazine, but the clients he represented had some legitmate issues.

I think seeing things less as always in black or white is a sign of maturity and wisdom. That's usually why it happens to you later in life.

Wow did this thread take off again...well, let me provide a little more local insights...
[quote] He's prettier than most of them but also far more evil. I will not vote for a trial lawyer.

---

Well, I would have to say that most Carolinians who know of his work as a trial lawyer would not describe him as an ambulance chaser. In fact, his most noteworthy case actually earned him a lot of public support...yes, they were high profile, and the vast majority of people agreed the familiy and child involved deserved their day in court. It's not like John made his money from poor clients who were forced into frivolous cases that went nowhere...he focused on more legit cases that went before judges and won them...I think that's an important difference.
[quote] and though Clinton's policies were mostly brilliant he was a political animal who would scrifice important principle for personal political gain at the drop of a hat IMO

---

John has built his image on integrity, so I would highly doubt he'd go down the Clinton road.
[quote] CSPAN carried one of his events at a high school where a student stumped him by asking about the finances of his (admittedly noble) goal of ensuring college education for all who wish to attend. Edwards offered no details on how he would fund such a plan, instead talking about the importance of education coupled with a short discourse on the deficit.

---

I'm surprised at this, because I had read something just the other day where John had a clear outline of where he thought the money for this came from...I'll have to see if I can track it down.
[quote] I don't think you can group an entire class of people based on their profession.

---

Amen to that! I think it's a sad day for America when people choose to believe that no one within a given profession can be noble and forthright in their work.

Looks as if his career as a trial lawyer will get dealt with soon enough. It was a headline topic in the Raleigh paper this morning:
Courtroom past a tricky prologue for Edwards' run
It was a topic during his Senate campaign as well, but it did not hinder him much then, and I doubt it will hinder him much now.
You can also find links to previous stories the paper has re-printed regarding two or three high profile malpractice cases if you'd like to familiarize yourself with them.

No it isn't fair, but if John Edwards is the nominee he will surely be ground to dust by the media over this. It didn't hurt him too much during his run for Senate in 1998, though Lauch Faircloth tried to make an issue of it, but what he faced in N.C. is nothing like the wolves he will face in the national media. He will be the butt of one-liners on every talk show in America; the pundits & spinmeisters & media manipulators will see to that. "John Edwards, fighting for the regular folks . . . for a third of the take."

[ January 15, 2003: Message edited by: Billy ]

I for one will be voting for Edwards come the Dem Primary. Though that actually means Ill become a Democrat in Texas's voting laws. But Ill take that sacrifice since hes a good guy and would make a good President.
And all this worry over him making his money from being a lawyer, why does it matter anyway? Arent most politicians lawyers? Doesnt knowing the law help make the law? Thats what I always thought. A lawyer is a lawyer, no matter what kind of law he practices.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
He will be the butt of one-liners on every talk show in America; the pundits & spinmeisters & media manipulators will see to that. "John Edwards, fighting for the regular folks . . . for a third of the take."

[ January 15, 2003: Message edited by: Billy ]

---

What the hell is he supposed to do, represent them for free? At least John Edwards used his own smarts, persuasiveness and hard work to get rich AND help citizens who had been wronged, like Bush pulling on his family name and his daddy's friends with Arbusto, or government tax dollars with the Texas Rangers, or Harvard's endowment with his financial misdeeds at Harken, or like Cheney with his government contacts and accounting flimflam at Halliburton! He's clean by a mile compared to these crooks!

Don't get me wrong about that post, because I like Edwards & would definitely vote for him if he is the Democratic nominee. He appears to be a left-leaning moderate who has a good strategy for making the Democrats competitive in the South. I was just saying what I think will happen--the right-wing media will take his populist pitch & throw it right back at him. They'll try to scare the seniors, by blaming lawyers for skyrocketing health care costs, much as W. already does. I bet John Stossel is licking his chops already. There is a stereotype regarding ambulance-chasers & the right will take full advantage of it. And it could well resonate with the public, because lots of people have had bad experiences with lawyers, myself included.

Oops . . . double post.

[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Billy ]

Hi Billy, my vehemence wasn't meant for you.

Some trial lawyers are shysters, but many do a very good job representing clients who have been wronged by corporations, local governments, or other entities that have the wherewithal to provide adequate compensation. We don't condemn all police because some are crooked; we don't condemn all business executives because some are more venal than common thieves; we don't condemn all pharmacists though some are operating as semi-legitimate drug dealers. Yet we have people on here claiming that *all* trial lawyers are "evil." This is outrageous.

Should people NOT be allowed the maximum compensation possible when they are hurt or injured seriously, or killed, or some member of their family is injured, maimed, or killed, and a business or government entity is at fault? Should they just, as people often were wont to do in the past, accept and suffer? Or hope and pray and trust that corporations, for example, will all do the right thing ethically and morally, be altruistic and just, as opposed to doing whatever it takes to maximize their own profits? I think not. It would be best if we lived in a less litigious society, but at the same time, it is wonderful that Americans, in most cases, have our courts as a possible recourse when we have been wronged or believe we've been wronged.

Add my voice to those who say not all personal injury, too often mislabeled as "trial," lawyers are bad or greedy folks. (Any lawyer who tries cases is a trial lawyer, specifically, a litigator of one sort or another.) There are all kinds in our profession, some good, some bad; many smart, some just crafty and clever. But to paint with so broad a brush as to tar the whole lot of us is stereotyping and inaccurate.

Before I joined the AG's office, I practiced plaintiff's personal injury law for over a decade, and handled several high profile gay rights cases. During this period, I had several 6 figure settlements, one in a gay rights case, and I can honestly say that greed had nothing to do with my motivation in taking these cases. Two were referred to me by colleagues unfamiliar with admiralty law, and the other came to me from a gay client whose prior lawyer WAS a flake and had fallen down on the case professionally. Thus, I could hardly be described as an ambulance chaser; indeed, I was something of a legal paramedic who rescued the cases from peril and rightly earned the fee - substantially reduced in the gay rights case, BTW - I collected upon conclusion of the matters.

On the other hand, there are lawyers, often publicly financed through one of the so-called legal aid or pro bono groups, who go around making a practice of filing bogus claims on behalf on inmates, trumped up false advertising, vehicular and class action claims, and meritless medical malpractice suits such as President Bush addressed today. While some legislation has discouraged these sorts of suits, some courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals here in SF, go out of their way to evade legislation and carve out exceptions to the laws enacted to curb these abuses. Every now and then the US Supreme Court reigns them in, but the sheeer volume of its own caseload prevents it from doing so as much as it should.

So my advice is not to trash Edwards just for being a lawyer, but to look at his specific record. It's all a matter of public record and not at all that hard to research. If you're comfortable with the kind of cases he's handled and how he resolved them, and you're a Democrat, vote for him. If neither of the above is true, consider supporting someone else!