Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

John Edwards: Faux Populist

When the primary began, Edwards had everyone fooled that he was a Howard Dean populist. 

The moment I took a look at his senate record, I laughed till I was rolling in the floor. 


This guy is a charlatan!  




His senate record was a conservative and play-it-safe as it gets! 




Kerry despised Edwards because instead of being a running mate, he campaigned for himself.  He refused to be the attack man, which is what the VP normally candidate is.




Kerry told the NYT he suspected Edwards was campaigning half-heartedly so Kerry would lose and Edwards could run for president again.




Edwards has such a "bleeding heart for the poor" that after Kerry lost, Edwards spent the last FOUR YEARS working for the poor?  No!  Getting himself elected president.




This operator spent an entire YEAR before the Iowa primary, campaigning in Iowa.  He figured he'd have it made.  People in Iowa thought the guy was a loony.  He IS a loony!




And being obsessed with nothing more than himself, he waited to endorse until he could see who he thought would win.




The fact that Clinton's health and economic plan are far to the left of Obama's, and closer to Edwards didn't mean a thing.




Because Edwards does not care about the poor, the candidates or anything.  He is a tight vortex of ambition.




Finally, and only recently, he ran down to Jimmy Carter's housing for the poor to "help out" ie give himself some creds.  For the next election.




At least the poor are finally getting a little something out of this shyster!



Comments (42)

Sorry about the formatting.
It went haywire.

Formatting is the least of your problems.

Amen to that, robot brother.

classic

And here I thought it was done for drama.

I'd like to see the post you had prepared if he endorsed Hillary...

Oh please. If he was backing Hillary tonight, instead of Obama, you'd never have even THOUGHT any of this, let alone posted it.

I had fallen for Edwards till I checked out his
senate record, reported it on Big Orange Urinal,
and was promptly thrown off.

I supported each of our candidates at one time
or another. HRC was my last choice at that time.

If this party doesn't piss all over her, she will
be one of the finest presidents of this century.

By "piss all over her" do you mean "democratically elect someone else"?

Let's check in after all the votes are counted.

I am sick of you assholes deciding who won before all the votes are counted.

I doubt you'd be calling anyone a-hole if Edwards endorsed HRC. And what about the HRC campaign - it was planned to end on Super-Tuesday. It was the campaign with over a hundred mostly DNC non-elected superdelegates in it's pocket before even one vote was cast in Iowa.

Listen, I'm sorry your candidate isn't going to win the nomination. Sorry you can't get over it in a healthy way.

Maybe you need to step away for a while. Go have a good cry or beer or whatever.

As for the formatting -- I forget what kind soul here taught me this a few months ago, but I'm grateful to them all the same -- if you write your post in Word first, don't just copy and post it right in here. Copy it to Notepad first.

I work on a Mac. PCs are dreadful.
Mac is my other passion besides HRC.

But thank you for the tip!

avatar

Microsoft should put you in a retort to the ads mac's been putting on, if only they didn't have to clear the building of the water you're so afraid or (that was a play on words).

Yes, let's attack John Edward's character because he doesn't bow at the feet of the Queen.

A guy touting himself as the kingpin progressive, without one single credit to back it up should never be criticized.

Hell, he seemed to put over Hillary more than Barack with that speech. He waited on the sidelines until the race was decided and probably only came forward now because he figures he could end up running against Clinton in four years time (should Barack lose to McCain) and will want the Obama base behind him.

avatar

The views expressed by slumlord do not necessarily represent the views of many of us here.


Well, this didn't take long.

I hope you ran this by the mods at Hillaryis44 before pasting it over here. I'd hate you see them ban you for exposing internal propaganda to outside sources before it was perfected.

Speaking of Hillaryis44, I just headed over there to take in the dyspepsia. Enjoy the first line:

"A day too late, Obama trotted out the sad figure of John Edwards to cover up the humiliation Obama suffered in West Virginia."

These guys really are the Baghdad Bobs of primary season 2008. Though you DO have to feel for Obama, looking bowed and defeated following last night's game-changer.

Oh, and a Hillary fan leveling charges of "faux populist"? That's chutzpah! That's irony! That's a wrap!

nice

Yeah, Bill did nothing for the middle class, did he?

Slumlord (still can't respond to you directly-- what's up with that?),

We can debate the nineties another time, if you like (and whose record is Hillary running on again?). I'm just bemused by the fact that the same woman making a plea that "lobbyists are people too" in late-2007 would be rebranding herself as a fiery type populist in 2008.

But since you went there:

I don't think anyone would confuse the former head of the DLC--Mr. "The Era of Big Government is Over"/"End of Welfare as We Know It"--for a populist. Unless we're judging populism by the standards of how folksy you sound or how much you like barbecue.

Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit was a legitimately wonderful progressive act and helped working people, but any gains from that were more than counteracted by his neoliberal anti-union trade policy. Oh, and did I mention that the Clintons set the cause of national health care back by a decade-and-a-half?

Anyway, economist Robert Pollin has a pretty fair assessment of who really benefited during the nineties. I'll paste it for you here:

"In fact, unless we are examining this period from the perspective of the U.S. stock market’s biggest winners, it is simply not the case—indeed nowhere near to being true—that the 1990s was the world's most prosperous decade. Rather, considering the U.S. economy only, average GDP growth during the Clinton presidency (3.7 percent) was roughly comparable to that of the Carter administration (3.4 percent), even though the Carter term in office has been widely disparaged as a period of economic malaise. Meanwhile, even by the end of Clinton's term of office, wages for the average worker remained 10 percent below where they were when Nixon stepped down in 1973, while the long-term trend of widening inequality grew more severe. The deterioration of economic conditions throughout most of the developing world was more serious still. Average GDP growth shifted downward dramatically relative to the 1960s and 1970s, and inequality deepened."

http://www.peri.umass.edu/Robert-Pollin-on.342.0.html

Bitter much? Funny since you were extolling Edwards virtues when you were positive he was going to endorse Clinton based on his wife's rantings.

Yikes! I don't think bringing Elizabeth into this is necessary or for that matter appropriate.

avatar

A guy touting himself as the kingpin progressive, without one single credit to back it up should never be criticized.

Posted by "Present"

You slam Edwards' Senate voting record -- but "present" not a single instance to back up your BS.

Let me guess: you're a McSham clone.

avatar

Only elitist Republican't slumlords use Macs.

Telling me there aren't Wingnut trolls
in these blogs?

Other than yourself, you mean? I am, of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't post such lame-ass hypocritical boneheaded trollery "supporting" Hillary if you really wanted to help her.

avatar

Edwards is one of the kindest, truly concerned and empathetic politician I have ever met.

You're right, BevD. He's one of the good ones.

You must be the two people who voted for him.

I actually didn't vote for Edwards-- I've been a kool-aid-drinking Obamabot from the start. But I may yet get a chance to vote for Edwards for the VP slot. Whereas I imagine you'll be pulling the lever for McCain.

You realize of course, that the only 2-term winning president
endorses Hillary Clinton.

And every loser in the party endorses Obama?

Funny. You don't suppose he might be a little bit biased by the fact that he's married to her, and by the fact that she agreed not to divorce his philandering ass when any woman with half a gram of self respect (and no presidential ambitions) would have done so in a heartbeat, eh?

avatar

What about McCain?
Oh right, you support McCain.

I'm sure that nepotism had nothing to do with Bill's endorsement...

Also, if Iowans thought he was so crazy, why did he beat Hillary in the caucuses? Also, remember that this was at least a month before she became the candidate of the "working class."

I work on a Mac, too. No problems here. The truth is you're a classic Hillary troll using classic troll methods to monopolize screen space and reader time. I've seen your kind endlessly on the Washington Post web site. Do you go by svreader there?

You're pathetic.

Yum, those are some sour grapes.

avatar

I think the most telling thing about "Present" is that I have yet to see a comment from him doing anything but maligning Obama and his supporters on a site dedicated to the muckraker section (although that section almost defies comment w/ the insanity the GOP displays).

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address