Lawyers Still Bankrolling John Edwards

[red states rule]

It seems some people do not mind flushing their money down the toilet


Deep-Pocketed Lawyers Still Bankrolling John Edwards
Wednesday, August 01, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C. — In his time off between presidential bids, Democrat John Edwards courted Wall Street financial gurus and Main Street labor leaders.

But when it comes to the money backing his second campaign, the wallets of wealthy attorneys who propelled the former trial lawyer's first run for the White House still open more than most. More than half of the Edwards donors who listed their occupations said they are attorneys, and they have given seven times more than any other profession, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance data.

By comparison, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — Edwards' top Democratic rivals, who both have histories in the courtroom — have raised about 15 percent and 18 percent of their individual donations from attorneys, among those who list their occupation on campaign finance reports.

• Get the latest campaign news in FOXNews.com's You Decide 2008 Center, learn about the candidates in the Eye on the Issues Center and read the daily Update '08 newsletter

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama exchanged barbs over foreign policy, Wednesday, amping up the once-cordial rhetoric between the two camps.

"If you aren't drawing new contributors, the chances are you're not drawing new voters," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. "To the degree that Edwards' base remains very refined and coming from one part of the community, he'll probably find the election ahead very challenging."

PHOTO ESSAYS: 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates

Edwards advisers have long played down the money chase. They have consistently noted the campaign is well on its way to raising the $35 million they say is necessary to compete in the early primary states, including Iowa, where Edwards has consistently placed at the tops of the polls.

In the first six months of the year, Edwards raised $23 million. But without the roughly $7 million collected from donors identified as attorneys, his numbers would fall closer to that of lower-tier candidates, such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd. Edwards already trails Clinton and Obama by $35 million to $40 million in total funds raised.

"John Edwards dedicated his life to fighting for people whose voices aren't always heard, and we're proud his former colleagues in the legal community recognize his willingness to fight the tough fights and consistently win," said Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray.

Edwards, who made millions as a personal injury trial lawyer, isn't alone in tapping a core constituency for campaign cash. Republican Rudy Giuliani is getting strong financial support from his home state of New York, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is drawing many contributions from the Mormon community.

Of the more than 25,000 individual donations to the Edwards campaign accounted for in finance reports — many small donors aren't individually recorded — 8,400 didn't name their occupation. About 6,400 identified themselves as attorneys.

Jim Finberg, an attorney with San Francisco-based Altshuler Berzon LLP, said he supports Edwards for his ideas, not his resume, citing the candidate's policies on health care, Iraq and the environment. He also said Edwards' message has matured in the past four years.

"If he were a school teacher and had the same views, I'd support him just as much," said Finberg, who gave Edwards the maximum — $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Attorneys like Finberg helped keep Edwards' campaign viable in 2004, when the first-term North Carolina senator with little political experience failed to win the nomination but earned a spot on Sen. John Kerry's presidential ticket. In that election, he raised roughly $9.3 million from attorneys, who made up about 55 percent of individuals who listed their occupation on finance reports.

"It's not a secret that John Edwards was a trial lawyer and gets a lot of money from trial lawyers," said Matt Bennett, a Democratic strategist who co-founded Third Way, a Washington-based think tank. "He's moved beyond that as the identifying figure. He's worked hard to create an identity that includes lawyers, but is also much broader than that."

Bennett said Edwards has struggled to pick up new cash because Clinton and Obama have locked up so many donors. He also said Edwards' primary campaign theme of poverty has a relatively small voting constituency with even fewer donors.

The Edwards' campaign has repeatedly pointed to the small donations it has collected from shallow-pocket voters and $15 fundraising events dubbed "Small Change for Big Change." In announcing their updated fundraising numbers at the beginning of July, Edwards' campaign advisers said more than 100,000 individuals had donated in the first six months of 2007 and that 93 percent of all donations were less than $100.

About three-fifths of Clinton's primary donations, on the other hand, came from maxed-out contributors. Obama's campaign counted 258,000 individual donors.

"We're far more concerned about receiving grass-roots support from people who actually want to change America for the better than from federal lobbyists who are very happy with the status quo," Murray said. "That's why John Edwards is the only candidate in this race who hasn't taken a dime of money from PACs or lobbyists."

Obama has vowed to refuse such money for his presidential bid. Clinton has not.

The premier names on Edwards' fundraising reports are almost identical to those from his first presidential campaign. Many benefactors list some of the nation's largest law firms as their employers, including several donations from his former law partners at Kirby & Holt.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291671,00.html

[Abbey Marie]

Lawyers supporting a trial attorney for office? Shocking!

[JohnDoe]

Yes, there logically, is no reason why trial Lawyers would NOT support another trial Lawyer! This is not news to the most of us, it would be expected, imo!

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, there logically, is no reason why Lawyers would NOT support another Lawyer! This is not news to the most of us, it would be expected, imo!


And especially so in the case of plaintiffs' lawyers like Edwards, who stand to lose oodles of money if tort reform ever happens in this country.

[nevadamedic]

And especially so in the case of plaintiffs' lawyers like Edwards, who stand to lose oodles of money if tort reform ever happens in this country.

What does it matter, Lawyers are all EVIL!

[red states rule]

Yes, there logically, is no reason why trial Lawyers would NOT support another trial Lawyer! This is not news to the most of us, it would be expected, imo!

When the Pretty Boy loses, will the lawyers sue?

[red states rule]

And especially so in the case of plaintiffs' lawyers like Edwards, who stand to lose oodles of money if tort reform ever happens in this country.

He lied, and used false science to rip off insurance companies and he put alot of Doctors out of business

[Yurt]

What does it matter, Lawyers are all EVIL!

:fu:

[Yurt]

Of course they are supporting him. They also know it is a gamble, but the payoff is that Edwards likely will move to roll back tort reforms and also stop any new ones from forming.

[red states rule]

Of course they are supporting him. They also know it is a gamble, but the payoff is that Edwards likely will move to roll back tort reforms and also stop any new ones from forming.

A gamble? Try a sucker bet

The odds are better on a bet that Bill Clinton will stay faithful to Hillary for the next 6 months

[Yurt]

A gamble? Try a sucker bet

The odds are better on a bet that Bill Clinton will stay faithful to Hillary for the next 6 months

Here is my bet (http://www.cigar.com/cigars/images.asp?brandid=171&order=1&type=brand&size=large)

[red states rule]

Here is my bet (http://www.cigar.com/cigars/images.asp?brandid=171&order=1&type=brand&size=large)

Good one

How does Clinton practice safe sex?

He doesn't light the cigar.

[Hugh Lincoln]

The trial lawyers have a game of legal robbery going on. If Edwards is President, they know they'll be safe for a while longer.

[Yurt]

The trial lawyers have a game of legal robbery going on. If Edwards is President, they know they'll be safe for a while longer.

You did not bet. Penalty = one stogie for me....


*waits*

[red states rule]

Edwards Turns Left, and Finds Howard Dean
By Blake D. Dvorak

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had it out last week, John Edwards was the forgotten man. Even though the Politico's veteran reporter Roger Simon gave the June 23 CNN/YouTube debate to Edwards, it wasn't Edwards who enjoyed a week of headlines and cable-news stardom.

The week in fact seemed to define Edwards' entire second run for the White House: A solid candidate who inspires the base but can't escape the Clinton-Obama shadow. No matter how many times Edwards flanks the two frontrunners on their left, he can't gain traction.

Could this explain the noticeable shift in Edwards' rhetoric recently? As Democratic strategist David Sirota said in an interview, what we're hearing from Edwards these days is a "full-throated populism."

For instance, aside from the Obama-Clinton flap, the next most significant moment in the YouTube debate came when Edwards said:

"Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change. I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington - big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies - they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

The obvious shot at Clinton seemed to be the culmination of several small hits on the front-runner - ironically, many coming from Elizabeth Edwards and not her husband. In any case, the shift is detected in how Edwards defined the enemy as the "powerful." Clinton herself perhaps wasn't a part of what Edwards was referring to, but her brand of governing certainly wasn't going to solve the problem. Subtle, but a marked contrast to Edwards a month earlier.

Of course the Edwards who entered the 2008 campaign always planned on being different than the Edwards who lost the 2004 campaign. Some themes indeed carried over, like the "Two Americas" and the "son of a mill worker" shtick. But then blue-collar populism has always been Edwards' message. The 2008 campaign was to be a purer, non-apologetic populism, except that instead of Howard Dean's anger, Edwards' would soften his message with charm and optimism.

In short, Edwards hoped to be Obama before Obama was in the race.

But by the time Edwards finished his RFK-inspired poverty tour just before the CNN/YouTube debate, it was clear to many in the media and on the left that it just wasn't working. After being at an April high of 17.8% in the RCP Average, Edwards had sunk to just over 10%. He had received almost no bounce from his heavily covered poverty tour, which in any case had been forgotten the day after the debate. It was enough to make Newsweek's Jonathan Darman lament: "There is something tragic about Edwards' failure to break through."

And so following the debate in which Edwards focused on the "powerful in Washington," his campaign put up on its YouTube page a video of him talking to a small gathering in Creston, Iowa. Although his regular, calm self, what Edwards said was anything but:

"They want to shut me up. That's what this is about. Let's distract from people who don't have health-care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children. Let's distract from people who can't pay for their medicine. Let's talk about this silly, frivolous, nothing stuff, so America won't pay attention. They will never silence me."

Where did that come from? Set aside the veiled paranoia, it sounded desperate, almost whiney. But why then was the campaign promoting it? We learned why a few days later, when Edwards appeared on the Ed Schultz radio show:

"We have to fight back against these people. We can't let them do this kind of stuff to us ... They want to shut all of us up, Ed. That's what this is all about. I'm amazed you're still able to talk on the radio ... [W]e're going to stand up and fight and we together, all of us, we will not be silenced."

Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray said that "they" in both instances refers to "special interests, PACs, and lobbyists which have taken control of Washington." In contrast to the optimistic charm of Obama and the establishment power of Clinton, Edwards was aiming for Sirota's "full-throated populism."

As Sirota explained, the "Edwards' critique has broadened into a more systemic critique, rather than an issue-by-issue critique ... about Washington, about how power works." In fact, Sirota added, it's like Obama in reverse.

If Edwards can't be Obama, he might just try to be Dean - but maybe without all the shouting. Dean, you'll recall, also used an "us vs. them" style. On the stump he would chant, "You have the power!" His fans ate it up; it carried him to the top of the polls; and it was ultimately his undoing.

But Edwards doesn't do angry all that well, so there's a limit to how far he can skew toward the Dean model - just as he is limited by how much farther he can move to the left. And it might also be a major miscalculation. After all, if anger and "full-throated populism" were the qualities of a Democratic frontrunner, then why aren't Obama and Clinton exhibiting much of either?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/edwards_turns_left_and_finds_h.html

[red states rule]

It looks like Pretty Boy is a dead man walking



August 03, 2007
Does Edwards Need an Ivy Education?
By Steven Stark

John Edwards's campaign seems to have hit a roadblock that could seriously hurt his chances of securing the Democratic nomination. And it has nothing to do with any of his perceived screw-ups that have gotten their share of media attention, including his $400 haircut, his new compound in North Carolina, and his hedge-fund experiences.

There's no doubt that Edwards made a mistake with the haircut, and that wealthy populist candidates are not easily forgiven for reminding people that they have money. But most candidates on the trail spend a lot on personal appearances -- it's part of the game. As for the value of Edwards's house, it's probably comparable to that of the Clintons or a lot of other Democratic candidates, including former Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry. And the hedge fund? Please show me a major candidate whose family hasn't raked in some cash from a few major investments or consulting. Most are pretty well-off.

No, Edwards's problem is different, and it's not even about his politics. It's about a piece of paper that hangs -- or doesn't hang -- on the wall of his office.

Edwards, you see, didn't go to Harvard or Yale.

In the Democratic landscape of 2007, that doesn't seem as if it should be a problem. But you'd have to go back to 1984 to find a Democratic nominee (Walter Mondale) who didn't attend one of those elite universities for either college or graduate school. Before that, a number of Democratic also-rans, including Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Jerry Brown, were also graduates of either Harvard or Yale. And the pattern will continue in 2008 if either Hillary Clinton (Yale Law) or Barack Obama (Harvard Law) wins the nomination.

It's a trend that hearkens back to the old country, where it's assumed all leaders belonged to the same debating club at Oxford. Even other Ivy League schools -- such as Columbia, Princeton, and Penn -- don't seem to be good enough for the Democrats, much less the Atlantic Coast Conference schools of Clemson, North Carolina State, and the University of North Carolina, at which Edwards received his education.

How the Democrats arrived at this state of affairs tells you a lot about the present state of the party, and why Edwards -- a candidate who has been widely praised in everything from The Economist to the Wall Street Journal for setting the substantive agenda for the whole Democratic field; whose campaign appearances have been sharp; who's been impressive in debates; and whose wife, Elizabeth, has been a formidable asset -- is having more than his share of problems.

The Democrats used to be "the party of the people," and still aspire to that title. But fundraising (particularly now that all serious candidates spurn public funding) and primary politics have been taken over by the well-educated elites for whom Harvard and Yale are the Holy Grails.

These voters and donors all dream of having their kids attend the best Ivies, especially now that the upward path to mobility in America is no longer membership in a labor union -- once the backbone of Democratic politics -- but is admission to a selective college.

Meanwhile, the elite press is now dominated by former classmates of the candidates. That's a marked change from a generation or two ago, when the best reporters often didn't finish college, but instead worked their way up from the police to the political beat.

To these people, Edwards doesn't pass muster. It's not that he's not smart -- he clearly has an impressive intellect. It's much more subtle and insidious: if there's one unstated lesson these select schools teach you, regardless of how much money your family actually has, it's how to act like a member of the upper class.

The rules are clear: you should fluently appear to have money, but not appear to make money (which is why an entrepreneur like Michael Bloomberg would never go anywhere in a Democratic primary). And you should never flaunt it. Thus you can own an inherited family palace or a nice vacation house on Nantucket, but building your own ostentatious abode is utterly out of the question. The overriding lesson is to make it all seem effortless -- to never seem too ambitious or grasping.

Perhaps Edwards does strive a little too hard; kids who grew up without a lot of money often do. That puts him in the same straits as Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson -- two other Southern Democratic politicians who didn't grow up in a wealthy family and never attended an Ivy. Though both won the presidency -- albeit in different political eras -- both felt that Northeastern political and journalistic elites destroyed them. They had a point.

In the same vein, Ivy grads know that your intellectual compass must always point toward New England, even if you live somewhere else. The putative cabinets of many Democratic candidates and nominees are chock full of Yale and Harvard profs -- which is probably why Cambridge and New Haven have so many wannabe Secretaries of State, but few real ones.

Similarly, in this circle of privilege, you can go into corporate law or academia, but how many Harvard and Yale law grads become plaintiffs' lawyers or, as their critics call them, "ambulance chasers," as Edwards did? That's what the simple folk do.

Because it's all so subtle, Edwards probably won't be able to resolve easily this perceived shortcoming. He could point out to Democratic voters that nominating Ivy elites doesn't tend to be a winning strategy. (Although now even the GOP has gone for these sorts of candidates with the two Bushes. Of course, look where it got them.) The populist Edwards could even run against Harvard and Yale specifically, in the same way that Carter once boasted that he wasn't a lawyer. At a minimum, it might make things interesting.

Unfortunately, it's an argument likely to fall on deaf ears in a Democratic universe that worships at the altar of Stanley Kaplan.

Edwards does have one consolation, however. His daughter is a student at Harvard Law. So maybe one day she can be the Democratic nominee.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/does_edwards_need_an_ivy_educa.html

[red states rule]

Scarborough: Edwards 'in Hannity's Lap' Till Deciding Slamming Fox Sells
By Mark Finkelstein | August 3, 2007 - 06:47 ET
Here's a bold prediction: Joe Scarborough won't be switching registration to vote for John Edwards in the Florida primary. The Pensacola-area Republican congressman-turned-MSNBC-host unloaded on the Dem contender on today's "Morning Joe," accusing Edwards of opportunistic flip-flopping when it comes to dealing with Fox News.

"MORNING JOE" HOST JOE SCARBOROUGH: John Edwards, demanding that Hillary Clinton return money she got from News Corp. [the Rupert-Murdoch controlled company that is Fox News' parent] because News Corp. is such a corrupt, terrible outfit. Of course John Edwards got $1,000 from News Corp. himself, so it's sort of like being half-pregnant. You can't be half-pregnant. You either take the money from the corrupt source or you don't. And of course this is the same John Edwards who won't go on Fox News, but before he decided this would resonate with primary voters, you couldn't keep the guy off of Fox News. I mean, he was up on Sean Hannity's every other night. Now, he is shocked and stunned. Shocked and stunned! -- that anybody would go on Fox News. Here's a guy who wants to take on the Taliban and he can't even handle [Fox News president] Roger Ailes. How sad, how sad.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/03/scarborough-edwards-hannitys-lap-till-deciding-slamming-fox-sells

[red states rule]

John Edwards Says Don't Take Murdoch Money -- But He Took 800 Grand?
By Tim Graham | August 3, 2007 - 07:49 ET
In Friday's Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that the new John Edwards campaign against any Democrat accepting Rupert Murdoch contributions has a slight flaw:

"John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money," said a statement e-mailed to supporters. Not so fast, Murdoch's people say. His publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Edwards a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 in expenses -- for his 2006 book "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

"We assume the senator is going to give back the money from his advance," News Corp. spokesman Brian Lewis said.

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said his boss donated the book payments to charity and that the expense money went to staffers and vendors. Citing the announcement that prompted Edwards's e-mail -- Murdoch's $5 billion deal to buy Dow Jones -- Schultz said, "This is about whether or not Murdoch should expand his media empire and use the Wall Street Journal to further promote his right-wing agenda."

....While the Edwards mailing accused Fox of trying to "demonize the Democratic Party and call it 'news,' " he has boycotted the cable channel only since Jan. 23. Before that, Edwards appeared on Fox programs 33 times.


But Greg Pollowitz uncovered the real knee-slapping line out of Edwards: "The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media –- all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp."

If our liberal media were really "unbiased and fair," those co-presidential candidates John and Elizabeth Edwards would be in much worse shape in this campaign. There are two relatively new Elizabeth puff pieces this week, which don't mention hiring Christian-hating feminist bloggers, or Mrs. Edwards endorsing "rage," to mention two negative angles. There was the obligatory Dan Balz front-page press release in The Washington Post, and Liz Halloran's piece in U.S. News & World Report. (At least Halloran briefly featured a fine harrumph from Jonah Goldberg.)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2007/08/03/john-edwards-says-dont-take-murdoch-money-he-took-800-grand

[bluestatesrule]

I think you had better check the record of Freddie Boy Thompson. He has had a mighty close relationship with trial lawyers over years...heck he even plays an attorney on the air....oops! You know that damn liberal legal system we have to live with. Some conservatives are quitely beginning to question whether Thompson truely is a conservative. And be honest with me....are you really all that excited about group running for the G.O.P nomination....and how about that guy from New York...he will be lucky to win as many states as he has had wives....is he working on number four?

[red states rule]

I think you had better check the record of Freddie Boy Thompson. He has had a mighty close relationship with trial lawyers over years...heck he even plays an attorney on the air....oops! You know that damn liberal legal system we have to live with. Some conservatives are quitely beginning to question whether Thompson truely is a conservative. And be honest with me....are you really all that excited about group running for the G.O.P nomination....and how about that guy from New York...he will be lucky to win as many states as he has had wives....is he working on number four?

Rge thread is about Pretty Boy Edwards and you go after the Republican candidates

There are plenty pf threads on the board where you can talk about them - or could it be there is nothing much to talk about when it comes to Pretty Boy Edwards you have to change the subject?

[red states rule]

Are There Two John Edwards?
Ed Lasky
Are there two John Edwards? One who engages in precisely the type of behavior the other John Edwards condemns (works for a hedge fund and then condemns hedge fund abuses, sets up a poverty center that his other self uses as a place to warehouse campaign staffers, talks about poverty in America and the two America's and builds a 26,000 square foot house while the other John Edwards gets $400 haircuts) and on and on...the hypocrisy and the hubris and arrogance he displays thinking this history will be forgotten or never come to light.

The latest? He urges fellow Democrats to reject Rupert Murdoch money and refuse to cooperate with Fox News and states "John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money," said Edwards in a statement e-mailed to supporters."

This is barely a year after Murdoch's publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Edwards a $500,000 advance-and $300,000 in expenses-for his 2006 book "Home: The Blueprints of our Lives" (somewhat ironic given his 26,000 square foot home)

As Howard Kurts notes in his Washington Post column,

"While the Edwards mailing accused Fox of trying to "demonize the Democratic Party and call it 'news,' " he has boycotted the cable channel only since Jan. 23. Before that, Edwards appeared on Fox programs 33 times."

The demonization of Rupert-follows the demonization of Rove, Cheney, et al but not Bin Laden, Al-Zawahri, Ahmadinejad, Chavez...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/are_there_two_john_edwards.html

[PostmodernProphet]

heck he even plays an attorney on the air

well there you have it then.....on one hand a candidate who got rich leeching the system, on the other hand a candidate who got rich acting like somebody who got rich leeching the system.....you know the old saying, "Six of one, half a rat's ass nothing of the other"......

[red states rule]

well there you have it then.....on one hand a candidate who got rich leeching the system, on the other hand a candidate who got rich acting like somebody who got rich leeching the system.....you know the old saying, "Six of one, half a rat's ass nothing of the other"......

Blue states rules follows the DNC talking points to the letter

[PostmodernProphet]

so far it's been a disappointment....the way Red had hyped him, I was expecting some kind of AlphaLiberal.....

[red states rule]

so far it's been a disappointment....the way Red had hyped him, I was expecting some kind of AlphaLiberal.....

Me to

I am ready to post an apology thread

[Black Lance]

A gamble? Try a sucker bet

The odds are better on a bet that Bill Clinton will stay faithful to Hillary for the next 6 months

He also might be able to do much for the attorney lobby as VP, which seems more likely.

[red states rule]

He also might be able to do much for the attorney lobby as VP, which seems more likely.

Pretty Boy is toast

Much like McCain (or McDone as I call him) on the Repblican side

[bluestatesrule]

Postmodernprophet:

What are you implying when you mention....alphaliberal? If there is one thing I have learned in life....I only worry about meeting my expectations...no one elses....maybe you worry too much about what other people think.

[red states rule]

Postmodernprophet:

What are you implying when you mention....alphaliberal? If there is one thing I have learned in life....I only worry about meeting my expectations...no one elses....maybe you worry too much about what other people think.

But being a liberal, your standards are so damn low

just try and care - and BINGO - you have accomplished so much to other libs

and of you don't care if you are liked BSR, - you sure came to the right place

[Black Lance]

Pretty Boy is toast

Much like McCain (or McDone as I call him) on the Repblican side

As a Presidential candidate, yes, he's done, but as a Vice Presidential candidate, I'm not so sure. The guy is such a shameless hypocrite that it's laughable, but nonetheless Edwards maintains much support among Democrats, and he can bring in funds from the aforementioned attorney lobby.

[actsnoblemartin]

hahahah. rats supporting rats



It seems some people do not mind flushing their money down the toilet


Deep-Pocketed Lawyers Still Bankrolling John Edwards
Wednesday, August 01, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C. — In his time off between presidential bids, Democrat John Edwards courted Wall Street financial gurus and Main Street labor leaders.

But when it comes to the money backing his second campaign, the wallets of wealthy attorneys who propelled the former trial lawyer's first run for the White House still open more than most. More than half of the Edwards donors who listed their occupations said they are attorneys, and they have given seven times more than any other profession, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance data.

By comparison, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — Edwards' top Democratic rivals, who both have histories in the courtroom — have raised about 15 percent and 18 percent of their individual donations from attorneys, among those who list their occupation on campaign finance reports.

• Get the latest campaign news in FOXNews.com's You Decide 2008 Center, learn about the candidates in the Eye on the Issues Center and read the daily Update '08 newsletter

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama exchanged barbs over foreign policy, Wednesday, amping up the once-cordial rhetoric between the two camps.

"If you aren't drawing new contributors, the chances are you're not drawing new voters," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. "To the degree that Edwards' base remains very refined and coming from one part of the community, he'll probably find the election ahead very challenging."

PHOTO ESSAYS: 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates

Edwards advisers have long played down the money chase. They have consistently noted the campaign is well on its way to raising the $35 million they say is necessary to compete in the early primary states, including Iowa, where Edwards has consistently placed at the tops of the polls.

In the first six months of the year, Edwards raised $23 million. But without the roughly $7 million collected from donors identified as attorneys, his numbers would fall closer to that of lower-tier candidates, such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd. Edwards already trails Clinton and Obama by $35 million to $40 million in total funds raised.

"John Edwards dedicated his life to fighting for people whose voices aren't always heard, and we're proud his former colleagues in the legal community recognize his willingness to fight the tough fights and consistently win," said Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray.

Edwards, who made millions as a personal injury trial lawyer, isn't alone in tapping a core constituency for campaign cash. Republican Rudy Giuliani is getting strong financial support from his home state of New York, while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is drawing many contributions from the Mormon community.

Of the more than 25,000 individual donations to the Edwards campaign accounted for in finance reports — many small donors aren't individually recorded — 8,400 didn't name their occupation. About 6,400 identified themselves as attorneys.

Jim Finberg, an attorney with San Francisco-based Altshuler Berzon LLP, said he supports Edwards for his ideas, not his resume, citing the candidate's policies on health care, Iraq and the environment. He also said Edwards' message has matured in the past four years.

"If he were a school teacher and had the same views, I'd support him just as much," said Finberg, who gave Edwards the maximum — $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Attorneys like Finberg helped keep Edwards' campaign viable in 2004, when the first-term North Carolina senator with little political experience failed to win the nomination but earned a spot on Sen. John Kerry's presidential ticket. In that election, he raised roughly $9.3 million from attorneys, who made up about 55 percent of individuals who listed their occupation on finance reports.

"It's not a secret that John Edwards was a trial lawyer and gets a lot of money from trial lawyers," said Matt Bennett, a Democratic strategist who co-founded Third Way, a Washington-based think tank. "He's moved beyond that as the identifying figure. He's worked hard to create an identity that includes lawyers, but is also much broader than that."

Bennett said Edwards has struggled to pick up new cash because Clinton and Obama have locked up so many donors. He also said Edwards' primary campaign theme of poverty has a relatively small voting constituency with even fewer donors.

The Edwards' campaign has repeatedly pointed to the small donations it has collected from shallow-pocket voters and $15 fundraising events dubbed "Small Change for Big Change." In announcing their updated fundraising numbers at the beginning of July, Edwards' campaign advisers said more than 100,000 individuals had donated in the first six months of 2007 and that 93 percent of all donations were less than $100.

About three-fifths of Clinton's primary donations, on the other hand, came from maxed-out contributors. Obama's campaign counted 258,000 individual donors.

"We're far more concerned about receiving grass-roots support from people who actually want to change America for the better than from federal lobbyists who are very happy with the status quo," Murray said. "That's why John Edwards is the only candidate in this race who hasn't taken a dime of money from PACs or lobbyists."

Obama has vowed to refuse such money for his presidential bid. Clinton has not.

The premier names on Edwards' fundraising reports are almost identical to those from his first presidential campaign. Many benefactors list some of the nation's largest law firms as their employers, including several donations from his former law partners at Kirby & Holt.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291671,00.html

[red states rule]

As a Presidential candidate, yes, he's done, but as a Vice Presidential candidate, I'm not so sure. The guy is such a shameless hypocrite that it's laughable, but nonetheless Edwards maintains much support among Democrats, and he can bring in funds from the aforementioned attorney lobby.

are you talking about Pretty Boy or McDone?

[red states rule]

hahahah. rats supporting rats

It is more like sharks supporting sharks

[PostmodernProphet]

What are you implying when you mention....alphaliberal?

well....when Red introduced you he sort of gave the impression that you would be quite a challenge.....I was sort of expecting....oh, I don't know.....maybe somebody who posted now and then?....maybe somebody with something new and interesting to tear apart?......

of course, that was before I found out how easy Red was......:poke: (I DO like that icon, yes I do)

[Yurt]

It is more like sharks supporting sharks

are you talking about ALL attorneys like NM did?

[red states rule]

are you talking about ALL attorneys like NM did?

Trial lawyers

[Yurt]

Trial lawyers

There are many trials. Which do you refer to?

[red states rule]

There are many trials. Which do you refer to?

sue happy ambulance chasers

[Yurt]

sue happy ambulance chasers

sue what is your problem with them?

[red states rule]

sue what is your problem with them?


they cost all of his tons of money

and don't call me sue

[Yurt]

they cost all of his tons of money

and don't call me sue

Wasn't, was saying "sue/so" .......... :)


Are you sure that they cost you tons of money? What about people who have been injured by a truly negligent/intentional driver? Should they get nothing?


If you are talking tort reform, different subject. But, there are people that deserve to get sued. Or are you saying that no one should be liable in court?

[red states rule]

Wasn't, was saying "sue/so" .......... :)


Are you sure that they cost you tons of money? What about people who have been injured by a truly negligent/intentional driver? Should they get nothing?


If you are talking tort reform, different subject. But, there are people that deserve to get sued. Or are you saying that no one should be liable in court?

I am thinking of cases like the McDonalds coffee gal.

or lawyers like this -

Suit ‘winner’ nets pocket change
Lawyers’ fees, expenses reimbursements leave her feeling cheated
By Michael Beebe NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: 06/24/07 7:16 AM

When Justine Thompson was forced to retire from her state job after 28 years because of a nasty fall she took in an icy parking lot, she figured she had protected herself by hiring a personal injury attorney.

That was before the accounting of the $35,000 settlement arrived in the mail from Cellino & Barnes. The lawyer’s share was $10,000.

The law firm repaid itself another $3,600 in expenses.

New York took $21,000 to repay workers’ compensation. Justine Thompson’s share? A check for $6.60.

It’s not the kind of settlement that television ads for The Barnes Firm boast about, claiming $150 million for auto injury clients alone over the last few years.

“That’s not even enough to buy a Happy Meal,” says Thompson, who found nothing at all happy about the experience.

Neither do two attorneys, one from Rochester, another from Syracuse, who filed a malpractice suit on her behalf against Cellino & Barnes, its successor, The Barnes Firm, and Michael J. Cooper, the Barnes Firm lawyer who represented Thompson. “This lady is the poster girl for what’s wrong with this profession,” said S. Robert Williams, the Syracuse lawyer who filed the suit with Patrick J. Burke of Rochester.

More than just an example of a woman whose case they allege was mishandled, they say, this is a clash of philosophy on how to attract and satisfy clients in the controversial field of personal injury law.


http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/105328.html

[Yurt]

One:

McDonalds is a totally different story. Have you actually read the true facts of the case? If you do, it is actually quite appalling. But the media ran with that case because it was a "burn." She actually suffered 3rd degree burns and mickedees was warned about the temp of their coffee quite a few times before they served it to her. Let's not rehash the issues, but, lets leave at that is not the case to use.

Two:

As to the other event, sure, in every profession there exists unscrupoulous people. But to bash an entire profession is IMO over the top.

[red states rule]

One:

McDonalds is a totally different story. Have you actually read the true facts of the case? If you do, it is actually quite appalling. But the media ran with that case because it was a "burn." She actually suffered 3rd degree burns and mickedees was warned about the temp of their coffee quite a few times before they served it to her. Let's not rehash the issues, but, lets leave at that is not the case to use.

Two:

As to the other event, sure, in every profession there exists unscrupoulous people. But to bash an entire profession is IMO over the top.

Anyone dumb enough to put a hot drink between their legs while driving deserves what they get

There are many lawyers who are out to make a quick buck regardless of the case

Loser pays is the way to wean these sharks out of the legal system and reduce the case loads of the courts

[Black Lance]

are you talking about Pretty Boy or McDone?

Edwards.

[red states rule]

Edwards.

Thank you

Your discription fit both of them

[red states rule]

Wasn't, was saying "sue/so" .......... :)


Are you sure that they cost you tons of money? What about people who have been injured by a truly negligent/intentional driver? Should they get nothing?


If you are talking tort reform, different subject. But, there are people that deserve to get sued. Or are you saying that no one should be liable in court?

or lawyers who take cases like this one



Reckless Driving Results In Reckless Lawsuit.

Stupid Lawsuit: A 21-year-old New Haven, Connecticut man, who last summer led Hamden police on a high-speed chase in his all-terrain vehicle before crashing into a utility pole, now wants the town to pay his medical bills.

Britt Martin claims that five officers were responsible for his injuries because they violated a Police Department policy to discontinue high-speed pursuits when the risk exceeds the need for immediate apprehension.

Martin's lawsuit states that continuing the police pursuit was "reckless, unnecessary, and unwarranted." Hey, how about your reckless, unnecessary and unwarranted driving style, Britt baby?

Making sure he had all his lawsuit bases covered, the Police Chief is also named in the complaint for failing to order the termination of the police chase.

Martin reportedly fractured his right leg, right foot, left arm, and left elbow, and received numerous other cuts and bruises in the accident. He demands compensation for an unspecified cost of medical treatment.

The police report stated that the primary officer charged in the lawsuit responded to a complaint that a man was driving a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle at excessive speed and in a reckless manner on city streets.

The officer reportedly observed the suspect on Wintergreen Avenue and engaged in pursuit. Martin's ATV drove into New Haven, through the parking lot of an elderly housing complex, and back into Hamden.

While ole Britt was crusing around town, the officer observed him running through red lights, making illegal turns and driving well in excess of the speed limit during the chase.

The officer's report said he broke off the pursuit of the speeding off-road vehicle twice, finally apprehending Martin at the accident scene.

Martin was charged with reckless driving, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, driving an uninsured motor vehicle and driving without a license.


Source: The Hamden Journal (Connecticut), "Cops blamed for ATV crash," December 29, 2004

[red states rule]

Why I see John Edwards as a big phony
By BRAD WARTHEN - Editorial Page Editor

MONTHS ago, I observed on my blog that I think John Edwards is a phony — a make-believe Man of The People.

It’s not so much that he’s lying when he says he wants to help One America — the Deserving Poor, whom he wants to vote for him — get what it has coming to it from the Other America (that of the Really Rich, to which he disarmingly admits he belongs). I think he believes it. But I don’t, and here’s why:

Strike One: Sept. 16, 2003. The candidate was supposed to appear on a makeshift stage on Greene Street in front of the Russell House.

He was supposed to arrive at 4 p.m., but it was past 5 before he showed. When his appearance was imminent, his wife appeared on the stage and built expectation in a manner I found appealing and sincere. Then I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my left. None of the folks in the “good” seats could see him.

His face was impassive, slack, bored: Another crowd, another show. Nothing wrong with that — just a professional at work.

But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: As his introduction reached its climax, he straightened, and turned on a thousand-watt smile as easily and artificially as flipping a switch. He assumed the look of a man who had just, quite unexpectedly, run into a long-lost best friend. He stepped into view of the crowd at large, and worked his way, Bill Clinton-like, from the back of the crowd toward the stage — a man of the people, coming out from among the people — shaking hands with the humble, grateful enthusiasm of a poor soul who had just won the Irish Sweepstakes.

It was so well done, but so obviously a thing of art, that I was taken aback despite three decades of seeing politicians at work.

Not enough for you? OK.

Strike Two: Jan. 23, 2004. Seeking our support in the primary he would win 11 days later, he came to an interview with The State’s editorial board.

He was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie, beginning by swinging his salt-encrusted left snowboot onto the polished boardroom table, booming, “How do y’all like my boots?” He had not, it seemed, had time to change footwear since leaving New Hampshire.

The interview proceeded according to script, a lot of aw-shucking, smiling, showing of genuine concern, and warm expressions of determination to close the gap between the Two Americas. Then he left, and I didn’t think much more about it, until a week later.

On the 30th, Howard Dean came in to see us for the second time. Again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike his screamer image. I rode down on the elevator with him afterward, along with my administrative assistant and another staffer who was a real Dean fan (but, worse luck for Gov. Dean, not a member of our board). I paused to watch him take his time to greet everyone in our foyer — treating each person who wanted to shake his hand as every bit as important as any editorial board member, if not more so. I remarked upon it.

“Isn’t he a nice man?” said our copy editor (the fan). I agreed. Then came the revelation: “Unlike John Edwards,” observed the administrative assistant. What’s that? It seems that when she alone had met then-Sen. Edwards at the reception desk, she had been struck by the way he utterly ignored the folks in our customer service department and others who had hoped for a handshake or a word from the Great Man. He had saved all his amiability, all his professionally entertaining energy and talent, for the folks upstairs who would have a say in the paper’s endorsement.

At that moment, my impression acquired stony bulwarks of Gothic dimensions.

Strike Three: Sept. 22, 2004. I dropped by a reception held for then-vice-presidential nominee Edwards at the Capital City Club that afternoon. I had stuffed my press credentials into my pocket after arrival so as to mix freely with the high-rollers and hear what they had to say. (They knew who I was, but the stuffy types who want writers to stand like cattle behind barriers did not.) Good thing, too, because there was plenty of time to kill, and there’s no more informative way to slaughter it than with the sort of folks whom candidates want to meet at such receptions.

It was well past the candidate’s alleged time of arrival, but no one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable downtown neighborhood confided we’d be waiting even longer. We all knew the candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security detail, after the time that the MLK event was to have started.

As reported in The State the next day: “Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.”

We were cool at the club, drinking, schmoozing, snacking. So he’s late? What are these folks going to do — write checks for the Republicans?

But my impression had been reinforced with steel girders: John Edwards, Man of The People, is a phony. And until I see an awful lot of stunning evidence to the contrary, that impression is not likely to change.

http://www.thestate.com/editorial-columns/story/139273.html

[red states rule]

MSM Editorial Page Editor Observation of John Edwards as Phony Sparks Big Reaction
By P.J. Gladnick | August 8, 2007 - 06:48 ET
Most members of the Mainstream Media keep their opinions to themselves if they are uneasy about the character of any of the major Democrat candidates for president. One of the few who broke ranks in this area was Brad Warthen, the Editorial Page Editor of The State newspaper in South Carolina. Although Warthen's observations about Edwards originally appeared in his blog last February, it wasn't until it was written up yesterday as an editorial column, Why I see John Edwards as a big phony, that it sparked an angry reaction from the Edwards campaign. Warthen's view of Edwards as a phony comes from three personal encounters which he calls strikes against him. Strike One:

Sept. 16, 2003. The candidate was supposed to appear on a makeshift stage on Greene Street in front of the Russell House.

He was supposed to arrive at 4 p.m., but it was past 5 before he showed. When his appearance was imminent, his wife appeared on the stage and built expectation in a manner I found appealing and sincere. Then I saw Mr. Edwards step to an offstage position just behind the bleachers to my left. None of the folks in the “good” seats could see him.

His face was impassive, slack, bored: Another crowd, another show. Nothing wrong with that — just a professional at work.

But then, I saw the thing that stuck with me: As his introduction reached its climax, he straightened, and turned on a thousand-watt smile as easily and artificially as flipping a switch. He assumed the look of a man who had just, quite unexpectedly, run into a long-lost best friend. He stepped into view of the crowd at large, and worked his way, Bill Clinton-like, from the back of the crowd toward the stage — a man of the people, coming out from among the people — shaking hands with the humble, grateful enthusiasm of a poor soul who had just won the Irish Sweepstakes.

It was so well done, but so obviously a thing of art, that I was taken aback despite three decades of seeing politicians at work.


Strike Two:

Jan. 23, 2004. Seeking our support in the primary he would win 11 days later, he came to an interview with The State’s editorial board.

He was all ersatz-cracker bonhomie, beginning by swinging his salt-encrusted left snowboot onto the polished boardroom table, booming, “How do y’all like my boots?” He had not, it seemed, had time to change footwear since leaving New Hampshire.

The interview proceeded according to script, a lot of aw-shucking, smiling, showing of genuine concern, and warm expressions of determination to close the gap between the Two Americas. Then he left, and I didn’t think much more about it, until a week later.

On the 30th, Howard Dean came in to see us for the second time. Again, I was struck by how personable he was, so unlike his screamer image. I rode down on the elevator with him afterward, along with my administrative assistant and another staffer who was a real Dean fan (but, worse luck for Gov. Dean, not a member of our board). I paused to watch him take his time to greet everyone in our foyer — treating each person who wanted to shake his hand as every bit as important as any editorial board member, if not more so. I remarked upon it.

“Isn’t he a nice man?” said our copy editor (the fan). I agreed. Then came the revelation: “Unlike John Edwards,” observed the administrative assistant. What’s that? It seems that when she alone had met then-Sen. Edwards at the reception desk, she had been struck by the way he utterly ignored the folks in our customer service department and others who had hoped for a handshake or a word from the Great Man. He had saved all his amiability, all his professionally entertaining energy and talent, for the folks upstairs who would have a say in the paper’s endorsement.


Strike Three:

Sept. 22, 2004. I dropped by a reception held for then-vice-presidential nominee Edwards at the Capital City Club that afternoon. I had stuffed my press credentials into my pocket after arrival so as to mix freely with the high-rollers and hear what they had to say. (They knew who I was, but the stuffy types who want writers to stand like cattle behind barriers did not.) Good thing, too, because there was plenty of time to kill, and there’s no more informative way to slaughter it than with the sort of folks whom candidates want to meet at such receptions.

It was well past the candidate’s alleged time of arrival, but no one seemed to mind. Then a prominent Democrat who lives in a fashionable downtown neighborhood confided we’d be waiting even longer. We all knew the candidate had a more public appearance at Martin Luther King Park before this one, and no one begrudged him such face time with real voters. But this particular insider knew something else: He had bided his own time because he had seen Sen. Edwards go jogging in front of his house, along with his security detail, after the time that the MLK event was to have started.

As reported in The State the next day: “Edwards was running late, and the throng waiting to rally with him at Martin Luther King Jr. Park took notice. They sat for two hours in the sweltering heat inside the community center, a block off Five Points.”

We were cool at the club, drinking, schmoozing, snacking. So he’s late? What are these folks going to do — write checks for the Republicans?

But my impression had been reinforced with steel girders: John Edwards, Man of The People, is a phony. And until I see an awful lot of stunning evidence to the contrary, that impression is not likely to change.


These scathing observations of Edwards' personality caused an angry reaction from the candidate's campaign:

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz suggested the editorial is a farce and noted that columnist Brad Warthen of The State newspaper, based in Columbia, S.C., endorsed Joe Lieberman a day before the Connecticut senator dropped out of the Democratic primary race in 2004.


The reader reaction to Warthen's column caused a flood of over 1500 e-mails. Many of those e-mails were on the subject of John Edwards' phoniness. Reader Stephen Mayo had this interesting Edwards anecdote:

A very good friend of mine was a pilot, and among a very impressive list of people he has piloted for are many top politicians and former presidents. He flew Edwards once on the campaign trail and was absolutely startled at how he... switched on and off with the opening and closing of the cabin door... he'd fly into tirades, berate his wife, telling her she'd be riding on the bus next time etc...staffers would cower...

Chris Zarpas writes about a perceived Anger Management problem on the part of Edwards:
Thanks for calling a spade a spade. I have neighbors with in laws in Mr. Edwards former neighborhood. They told my neighbor that they were driving near their home one day and passed a little to close to Mr. Edwards while he was jogging. He very energetically flipped them off.

And finally this from attorney Rick Marsh of Charlotte, NC:
One time, when another member of the litigation team questioned whether one of Edwards' flamboyant approaches would work with the jury, Edwards' whirled on him and said, "My Eastern North Carolina juries believe that the moon landings were faked, and that WWF wrestling is real!"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/08/08/msm-editorial-page-editor-observation-john-edwards-phony-sparks-big-re

[red states rule]

I think you had better check the record of Freddie Boy Thompson. He has had a mighty close relationship with trial lawyers over years...heck he even plays an attorney on the air....oops! You know that damn liberal legal system we have to live with. Some conservatives are quitely beginning to question whether Thompson truely is a conservative. And be honest with me....are you really all that excited about group running for the G.O.P nomination....and how about that guy from New York...he will be lucky to win as many states as he has had wives....is he working on number four?

Charity starts at home
Jeff Dobbs

In his national comedy tour disguised as a presidential campaign, John Edwards has added a new joke to his act.


John Edwards, July 26:
"They want to shut me up"
Tom Maguire asked the natural follow up question:

But who is "they"? Not George Soros' Billionaire Boy's Club, surely. Not the Phoenix Group. Baffling.
Oh, well - file it under "Unsolved Mysteries".


Oh ye of little faith!


John Edwards, August 2:

WASHINGTON (AP) - John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right- wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.
...
"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.
John Edwards, August 3:

BLITZER: Well, because you took, what, half a million dollars in advance from Harper Collins, which is part of the News Corporation.

EDWARDS: Well, I had a book called "Home" that Harper Collins published. There was an advance from Harper Collins. Every dime of the money they gave to me has gone to charity, which I committed to do. And I met my commitment. It has gone to things like Habitat for Humanity, helping low-income kids go to college, the International Rescue Committee. So the money is all gone, not to me, but to important charitable causes.
Ben Smith from Politico.com on Edwards, August 12:

Left unmentioned by Edwards, however, was that Murdoch's HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to Edwards's daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.
Turns out the "they" Edwards was talking about wanting to shut him up most likely refers to his campaign staff and consultants and probably his wife.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/charity_starts_at_home.html