OR make some hedge fund comment - but of course Chelsea works for a hedge fund and more hedge fund donations BY FAR went to Clinton.

Edwards is building a slow steady narrative that Hillary is in the pocket of big business, multinationals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies...

... did I mention Hillary has not healthcare plan

Yeah Dems love Fox News, especially the activists who actually vote.

do you think lobbyists spend these billions of dollars for nothing in Return?

If not no need to debate further.

If they do expect something in return what does it say for Hillary to be the top recepient of health lobbyist dollars?

areyouready, areyouahillarycampaignoperative?

you know sometimes your posts are quite paranoid.

in the Times profile of Trippi, Elizabeth is quoted as  saying they know who was pushing the anti-Edwards haircut and poverty stories....

>>>partly because the media demonized him early and his inability to raise as much cash.

Thanks for admitting the corporate media retaliated against Edwards for his progressive plans and solutions. Makes me wonder why those who call themselves "progressive" aren't supporting him.

>>>>I say take as much money from Murdoch and co as you can.

That statement seems very naive. What would the cost be to Americans and what's left of our democracy?

pressure on a narrative.  Trying to avoid the Clinton/Obama style smackdowns.

it's pretty easy to imagine a bunch of micro-issues building into a large narrative that sharply contrasts Edwards with Clinton on domestic issues.

It's funny how major bloggers have complained and whined about the DLC and Centrists being obstacles to a Progressive agenda and frequently rail about getting rid of those damn Centrists in Congress!  But now that a DLC/Centrist prez candidate is ahead - and even in bed with another Progressive nemesis, Rupert Murdoch, they're silent.

>>>>Edwards seems to be the only person in the race who is truly sticking up for the Democratic brand.

Wow!  thanks for noticing. You're obviously very informed.

Only trouble? It's past trouble, it's the cliff edge now.

I am less and less confident that they can at least close the gap to Obama.

He will eventually attack/differentiate on:

1. Mark Penn
2.  Clinton NAFTA (which also pulls down Clinton stalking horse Richardson - the congressional NAFTA czar who worked with Newt Gingrich to pass NAFTA in congress)

3.  top recepient of healthcare lobbyist dollars

(edwards can pick one lobbyist group a week e.g. Pharma, insurance, defense contractors etc... and each week ask HIllary to give back the money)

4. no healthcare plan

this is obvious, it's just a matter of when and how

Desperate??  Edwards is exposing Hillary's centrist credentials - talking out of both sides of her mouth. That's what Centrists do and why Washington is broken.

Welcome!

I hope Clinton does just what her supporters say and lets Edwards do this without responding.

as a cyborg.

there's a big difference between philanthropic and political contributions...

hopefully you understand the difference and why some people want public financing of elections

Are you deaf or just lazy?  Elizabeth Edwards did not say that, this is what she said:

On the issues that are important to women, she has not ... well, healthcare, that's enormously important to women, all the polls say, and what she says now is, we're going to have a national conversation about healthcare. And then she describes some cost-saving things, which John also supports, but she acts like that's going to make healthcare affordable to everyone. And she knows it won't. She's not really talking about poverty, when the face of poverty is a woman's face, often a single mother. She gave that speech on abortion a few years ago [saying abortion should be "safe, legal and rare"].

Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I've heard. When she announced her candidacy she said, "I'm in it to win it." What is that? That's not a rationale. Same with Senator Obama -- I've yet to hear a rationale. John is extremely clear about what he can accomplish and why he's the one to do it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/0 7/17/elizabeth_edwards/index_np.html

So, tell me where Elizabeth Edwards said that Hillary Clinton was trying to act like a man you KNOW-NOTHING.

I get so sick and tired of people lazily lapping up every lie that the media tells them without ever fact-checking anything.

THAT is why I'm talking to you in this tone, because your mindset was taking this tone with Elizabeth Edwards even though you didn't have a clue what you were talking about.

i wouldn't call it a major policy discussion on nuclear weapons.  i'd call it a major posturing and obfuscating discussion where the goal seems to be to see who can take more remarks out of context.

a major policy debate on nuclear weapons would indeed be welcome.  this isn't it.

Clinton and Obama aren't playing anything.

They haven't said much of anything of any substance since the campaign started but they immediately soared to the top because the media coverage IMPLIED that's where they should be, and Democratic voters complied.

Anyone who doesn't believe that Clinton and Obama are the frontrunners because of the effect of GLOWING media coverage since before they even announced they were in the race, is LYING TO THEMSELVES.

little guy against bigger interests.

and other pro bono lawyers represent people like hamdan challenging Gitmo.

I'd bet Hillary has more donations from lawyers at investment banks and insurance companies than Edwards

I don't make big money - I represent children's interests in court.  I see what poverty does to families.  

Edwards is their best hope because, as he has always done, he fights for those with little or no power.

Many attorneys like me support John Edwards.  When people snidely make their sneering comments about "trial" attorneys, I wish they would do some research.  Plaintiff attorneys like John Edwards work incredibly hard to give those with virtually no voice some recourse against the powerful.  He happens to have been an exceptionally talented, intelligent and hard working crusader who is a model for plaintiffs' attorneys everywhere.

BTW, Robert Bork, who once snidely compared "trial attorneys" to pirates, does what all similarly snide critics do when something bad happens to them.  He got an attorney to file a complaint demanding in excess of $1 million in punitive damages against the Yale Club for a fall he took there.  Also, the complaint filed on behalf of this once nominee for the Supreme Court was riddled with legal errors.  Shows how much he knows about the civil justice system.
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorney blog.com/2007/06/robert-bork-brings-trip fall-suit-for.html

What is wrong with taking money from trial lawyers?

I think they is the best single, wealth constituency around which to build a campaign.  There is almost nothing wrong with the quid pro quo they demand.  Class action suits are critical.  Tort reform is a corporate scam.

Sure Tom Delay and the GOPers have their cheap and easy talking point about how lawyers are the problem for everything.

I guess I am surprised to see their talking point so breathlessly repeated on a progressive website.

I am even more surprised to read someone accuse one of the party's most loyal group of financial supporters of being morally questionable.

Repeated GOPer talking points and slam a key Democratic constituency in less than 50 words.  That's efficient work.

WHO DOESN'T TAKE MONEY FROM LAWYERS?

Most politicians are lawyers for crying out loud.  What an ignorant issue to even focus on.  

I saw all of those headlines screaming about Edwards being funded by lawyers.

WHAT DEMOCRAT ISN'T?

No.  I wonder how many people even knew that Rupert Murdoch owns Harper Collins.  I didn't

The problem is the Murdoch owns EVERYTHING.  That's the problem.  

Should John Edwards go on television?  All of these cable news networks work together.  The other night CNN and MSNBC were showing the same live feeds from Minnesota, and for one disaster a few years ago CNN and Fox News were sharing the feed from a local station that they both had ownership.

CONSOLIDATION IS THE PROBLEM

Murdoch owns too much himself.  John Edwards COMMITTED FROM THE BEGINNING never to accept a dime for the book deal.  It all went to charity.

That does not make him a hypocrite.  He was a point of transfer.  The proceeds from the book went from HarperCollins to Edwards to charities like Habitat for Humanity.  

If anything, John Edwards used Murdoch in that deal, whereas Murdoch is using Clinton with campaign cash.

Is Hillary Clinton a partner to the New York Post, like I heard?