# So, what do you think of the Dems VP choice?



## Raven67 (Apr 20, 2002)

I am thrilled Kerry went with Edwards. I think it presents an appealing, balanced ticket. Something for everyone. And, I can't wait to see Edwards debating Cheney. What a contrasting image that will be, beauty vs the beast.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I don't like Edwards.

and I want more info regarding his malpractice suits before I vote in November.


----------



## RachelGS (Sep 29, 2002)

I don't like Edwards that much, but I think it was a savvy political move.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy*
I don't like Edwards.

and I want more info regarding his malpractice suits before I vote in November.


ITA - he mostly represented clients with $. You can be sure he never helped the little guy.

However, as far as election politics goes, he balances the ticket very well. They are both fairly liberal; one from New England and the other from the South. If Bush keeps Cheney, the debates will be a hoot.


----------



## moma justice (Aug 16, 2003)

i am super happy about it being edwards
i think he is, in many ways, a great example of the "american dream".
growing poor in the rural south, son of a mill worker, worked his a$$ off and is now a politician that is goal oriented and ready to take on the age old political machine....
he has great positive energy and is a family man
plus, according to my poli-sci major hubby, he made most of his money winning malpractice suits against the corps that made those pool vacume filter things that sucked out childrens organs etc....(remember all that in the news?)
so anyway
that is not a really dishonest way to make millions..
compared to our current fearless leader who has been handed several million $ budgetted corps to ceo over only to drive them all into banckruptsy over and over again and then having his dad's oil cronies bail him out over and over again.....
and i don't think being a f*cked up coke head yale wanna be racist sexist looser counts for much either......
oh how i detest gw bush
lets start a prayer vigil for kerry*edwards and the future of our children's planet.....


----------



## RowansDad (Mar 27, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*
ITA - he mostly represented clients with $. You can be sure he never helped the little guy.

Wrong. Plaintiff attorneys in personal injury/medmal cases rarely represent clients with money. Good article on Edwards legal career, warts and all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/po...rint&position=


----------



## CerridwenLorelei (Aug 28, 2002)

I was following DK and Wesley so didn't pay a lot of attention to this guy


----------



## Raven67 (Apr 20, 2002)

and I want more info regarding his malpractice suits before I vote in November.[/QUOTE]

A bit of an aside: I don't know who John Edward's clients were, but I sure hope people are NOT automatically scared away by the words "trial lawyer." I am sure a significant part of the congress made their money as trial lawyers, too, it's not that unusual. We need to have a system of recourse for people who have been injured by products and professionals. I was seriously injured by a doctor, and won a lawsuit thanks to my trial lawyer, who was indeed slick, aggressive, and obnoxious, but that's what it takes to win. If you were injured, that's who you would want working for you. I thank God everyday for him. Please note that one study found only about 10% of people injured by the medical profession actually sue. I don't know if we have too many "frivilous" lawsuits or not, such suits are often thrown out by judges, or rejected by juries, anyway. I just hope people realize that not all lawsuits are frivilous and scandalous. Unfortunately, we need trial lawyers in our society.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

What Rowan's Dad said about trial lawyers.







I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing--who else is going to advocate for people against large corporations with huge legal staffs or incompetent doctors? I also think Edwards dealt with those issues very well during the primaries.

He's too conservative to float my boat, but I think he was a wise political pick, and I'll happily vote for the ticket.


----------



## Joyce in the mts. (Jan 12, 2003)

I am sick of the impression that Edwards was poor....his daddy was a foreman/supervisor in a textile mill and while that is CERTAINLY not the most money a person can make in the textile industry down south...and I used to live there, so I know whereof I speak... the foreman CERTAINLY makes significantly more than other workers under him on the line.

His "rap" during the primaries never changed even during the debates where all he ever seemed to repeat was that there were two Americas- with which I agree- and he grew up the son of a poor millworker, which is when my mind just turned off to him every time. Well, there is millwork and there is millwork. I hope he chooses to get beyond that point.

Also...that said, may I call to your attention that RNC had folders and folders on any of the possible VP choices...just in case...and have already revved up the "Mighty Wulitzer" to trash Edwards. And I see it on mixed boards where the conservatives are already promoting the trash talk about him.

You can go to RNC and read who they have identified Edwards to be and watch what conservatives are saying about him. Do these people EVER have a thought that is not in jackboot lockstep?

And I add, that they will make this about a trial lawyer vs. business at least in part.

Funny though- how when Bush "lawyered up" a month or so ago, he chose a trial lawyer...so they must be good for something, eh? I guess they are only good to a Repubican when a defense is needed against those who dare to question wrongful actions.

Oh well,...the more things change, the more they stay the same.

That's my .02 for whatever it may be worth...likely not much...I know.

Joyce in the mts.


----------



## ChasingPeace (Oct 19, 2003)

I like Edwards--I think he has enormous appeal, and while he's more conservative on some issues than I'd like (like gay marriage), I think he adds a lot to Kerry's chances.

Joyce, I saw something on him last night (can't remember which channel) that said when he was born, his parents were too poor to pay the $50 hospital bill. Maybe his dad eventually was a foreman, but did he start out as one? And even foremen don't make much more than line employees, in my experience (I'm a labor lawyer). But I'm really interested in learning more about his wife--does anyone know her story? I thought I heard she had twins at 48--did I hear right or did my sleep deprived brain invent that?


----------



## sntm (Jan 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
and I want more info regarding his malpractice suits before I vote in November.

A bit of an aside: I don't know who John Edward's clients were, but I sure hope people are automatically scared away by the words "trial lawyer." I am sure a significant part of the congress made their money as trial lawyers, too, it's not that unusual. We need to have a system of recourse for people who have been injured by products and professionals. I was seriously injured by a doctor, and won a lawsuit thanks to my trial lawyer, who was indeed slick, aggressive, and obnoxious, but that's what it takes to win. If you were injured, that's who you would want working for you. I thank God everyday for him. Please note that one study found only about 10% of people injured by the medical profession actually sue. I don't know if we have too many "frivilous" lawsuits or not, such suits are often thrown out by judges, or rejected by juries, anyway. I just hope people realize that not all lawsuits are frivilous and scandalous. Unfortunately, we need trial lawyers in our society.


The injured don't always sue, but there a lot of noninjured people that sue! A very small fraction of malpractice cases are based on a true incidence of negligence or medical malpractice. And very few states have laws that lead to elimination of the frivolous cases early on, before they cost $$$$$$ of money to all parties. Many insurance companies force docs to settle regardless of their culpability because it is cheaper than fighting it. That's led to insanely high malpractice insurance rates (OBs are often around $150,000 A YEAR) which leads to defensive medicine (like iffy C-sections) which leads to unnecessary risks/side effects and more health care expenditures.

I've seen both sides (my mom was a victim of malpractice, I'm a doc and know several docs who have been sued without cause and work with one who is an expert on malpractice law (does lectures, etc.))

Back to regularly scheduled thread.









Oh, FWIW, I am a dedicated Republican and will vote for GWB, but of all the dem candidates (about which I know little), I kind of liked Edwards. I don't know if y'all will see that as a good thing or a bad thing







but...


----------



## Nikki Christina (Mar 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joyce in the mts.*
I am sick of the impression that Edwards was poor....his daddy was a foreman/supervisor in a textile mill and while that is CERTAINLY not the most money a person can make in the textile industry down south...and I used to live there, so I know whereof I speak... the foreman CERTAINLY makes significantly more than other workers under him on the line.

.


I live in the south.. my cousin works as a supervisor at a cotten mill, he makes $7.10 a hour
sure the workers under him make about $.50 less an hour.. but just because there is someone poorer then you, dosent qualify you as rich

theres a wide range of textile mills.. some pay crappy & some pay great..
one mills top pay might be $9 an our.. when another mill 15 minutes away might pay $15 an hour for a similar job


----------



## Kam (Jun 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Raven67*
A bit of an aside: I don't know who John Edward's clients were, but I sure hope people are automatically scared away by the words "trial lawyer."

Hey Raven, did you mean to say that you hope people are *not* scared away by those words? Just checking. And I'm sorry to hear you were injured. I'm glad to hear you won your case.

I was so uninterested in Edwards during the primaries, that I've got a lot of reading to do now.

warmly,
Kam, mamama! to Meg


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

From what I have heard Edwards has bad politics for us natural moms. I understand his money has come from his work as a trial injury lawyer specifically with birth injury suits.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I haven't had a chance to look into his past cases yet but yeah, that is what my concerns were about.

I don't think he would have a huge impact on the issue as V.P but it is a concern.


----------



## Clara (Feb 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amarasmom*
From what I have heard Edwards has bad politics for us natural moms. I understand his money has come from his work as a trial injury lawyer specifically with birth injury suits.

Yup. I remember when he was running in the primaries, reading this about him and shaking my head, not supporting him (I'm a Bradley instructor)







:

"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."

From the NY Times, January 31, 2004:
"In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark" :

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/po...76202c&ei=5070


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

big, fat YAWN. oooh, a white, straight, wealthy, male Senator. Gee, that's never been done before. What sweeping vision.


----------



## pamamidwife (May 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama ganoush*
big, fat YAWN. oooh, a white, straight, wealthy, male Senator. Gee, that's never been done before. What sweeping vision.









!

Yep, we do love those wealthy, white, Christian men to lead our country!

Still, anyone but Bush, ya know? I'm glad he didn't chose Gephardt. Really.


----------



## mama ganoush (Jul 8, 2004)

oh, I'm still a founding member of the A.B.B. club...


----------



## AmandasMom (Nov 19, 2001)

I'm not sure why, I don't know much about the guy, but I'm happy to see he has 2 small children. When was the last time we had small children in the White House?


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmandasMom*
I'm not sure why, I don't know much about the guy, but I'm happy to see he has 2 small children. When was the last time we had small children in the White House?

1976 - President James Earl Carter brought with him his seven year old daughter, Amy.

before that - 1961 President John R. Kennedy brought with him Caroline and John Jr., and Jackie m/c'd Patrick in August of 1963.

before that - 1923 - Calvin Coolidge, whose son died of blood poisoning while he was president.

However if he is elected VP, he will not be in the White House, he will be in another House, which I cannot remember its name...?


----------



## BoobyJuice (Jun 25, 2003)

While I'm certainly not happy with

Quote:

From what I have heard Edwards has bad politics for us natural moms. I understand his money has come from his work as a trial injury lawyer specifically with birth injury suits.
Could they have done better - maybe. But I really don't see him as someone I need to research now. There isn't a question for me. I would vote for my 3 year old before I'd vote for Bush.


----------



## Mama2ABCD (Jun 14, 2003)

this is for ChasingPeace Q about edwards little children. i saw an interview with edwards and his wife on 20/20 or something back in jan. his 16 year old son was killed in a car accident. they also have a 14 year old daughter. after his son died, his wife got pregnant and they had twins (she's definitely in her 40's).

but, they kept their family together during a very diificult time.


----------



## Clara (Feb 10, 2004)

Just to clarify--their daughter Cate is now 22 years old, Emma Claire is 6, Jack is 4--no twins. They did decide to have the younger ones once Wade (their first) passed away in a car accident in 1996 at the age of 16.

Elizabeth Edwards is 55 and John is 51--they both look much younger. Elizabeth was pregnant at 50! Here is a recent article on her from USA Today:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...izabethedwards

She met John in college. I do have much respect for Elizabeth--she seems very intelligent and down to earth.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

I like Edwards, but for a strange reason, I guess.

His son died. He was killed in an accident. While Edwards doesn't talk about that much (& I respect him for that), it clearly influenced him as a person (how could it not?) I am just in awe that someone could take the pain of having their child die and use that pain to inspire them to run for public office.

So, yes, I'm predisposed to like Edwards. And nothing I've read about him (as a lawyer or a Senator) has changed that.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

While Edwards doesn't talk about that much (& I respect him for that), it clearly influenced him as a person (how could it not?) I am just in awe that someone could take the pain of having their child die and use that pain to inspire them to run for public office.








I've heard that as a reason he decided to run this year instead of waiting for more experience--- he realized when his son died that life is short and you need to live it while you have the chance. He at least tries to make something postive out of tragedy.

(BTW they underwent infertility treatment w/their younger children).


----------



## aisling (Apr 26, 2004)

I find it interesting that during the primaries, Kerry spent much of his time telling us that Edwards is too young and inexperienced to be in the White House, and now Kerry has chosen him to be one beat away from being right there! I'm wondering what Kerry supporters think of that? Makes me a little uncomfortable.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least.

1) They were competing. Edwards *does* look young. You gotta focus on something.

2) He's not Bush.

3) 51 isn't really that young, IMO.

4) His father wasn't president. I *do* think he has at least some idea where most people are coming from. Not only because he started out poor, but because he got no hand ups in life based on his name--- he's earned them.

5) He has more experience than Bush did (being a Senator is a lot more work than a governor, esp in a state where the gov doesn't have much power) and look where that's got us. Wait, maybe that doesn't work







Seriously, though, he has at this point, experience in many different parts of govt.

6) He seems to actually *believe* the stuff he says... and it is even reasonable for him to do so. Even though I disagree on his death penalty stance, he wasn't willing to change it just to get on the ticket.

7) He's Edward Kennedy's protege







(just threw that one in because it makes *me* respect him a lot more)

8) He can speak coherently.

9) He is DRIVEN.

10) Did I mention... he's not Bush!!!


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

For me it's who do I like better, Cheney or Edwards.

There's just no question.

As for Edwards being a trial lawyer, how is this worse than heading a giant oil company?


----------



## Dov (Nov 21, 2001)

Kerry: Pro-war, faux liberal, anti-progressive, forgot-where-he-came-from privileged rich white guy
Edwards: pro-empire warrior, forgot-where-he-came-from, privileged rich white guy

Bush: psychotic, delusional, funkymentalist, doesn't-have-a-clue, monster, privileged rich white guy, who doesn't have to give a darn about anyone else but himself (because he's the President and he doesn't have to-- paraphrase of his own words)
Cheney: intelligent, psychotic, armchair-warrior, knows-where-he-came-from, rich white guy, who doesn't give a *flip* about anyone else but himself

Sounds like the two tickets are good mirrors of each other... the neocon ticket is more delusional than the other but both are still dangerous. Oh those differences are just soooo striking to me.... Oh, how innovative and exciting the Edwards pick is, indeed. I can't wait for November when Shrub'll just cheat again and Edwards will sue him and lose... all the flags waving, the bands playing and all the glorious prayers and choirs and oh the pink 1950's dresses and the crewcuts and the soldiers, oh my!


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

well, he reminds me & dh of a used-car saleman. is it just us? (i'm not comparing him to cheney, as i didn't think that was the point of the op. if as a libertarian i'm not considered qualified to comment about a democrat's vp nom, where does that put y'all's comments on cheney? so i'll just open my big mouth & say i don't like him, he gives me the willies. kerry scares me less, i hope if he wins he has good health.)

suse


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

I don't know much about Edwards. I *hear it was a savvy political move on Kerrys part but I don't think it's going to work as well as intended. I'm not buying into the whole *southern common man* stuff and I don't think many will. Why do politicians try to tell us that crap? I don't know anyone who likes Kerry anymore because he's on a ticket with Edwards. I think they hoped that Edwards would compliment Kerrys lackings. Kinda like Cheney compliments Bushs'? RIGHT! I think more people would vote dem if Edwards was on the ticket for president not VP. Maybe he's not totally crooked and corrupted yet.. Im anxiously waiting to hear what Bush decides to do about is VP. I'd like to see Cheney OUT. Never liked him anyway.


----------



## abranger (Dec 15, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *applejuice*

However if he is elected VP, he will not be in the White House, he will be in another House, which I cannot remember its name...?

The naval observatory


----------

