John Edwards to run for president in '08
 

Breaking on CNN. No link yet.

I posted the same thread...
 

at the exact time as yours, so I deleted mine...but here is the info:

Officials: John Edwards to announce '08 run

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239360/

North Carolina Democrat expected to publicize decision late this month

WASHINGTON - Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to enter the 2008 race for the White House, two Democratic officials said Saturday.

Edwards, who represented North Carolina in the Senate for six years, plans to make the campaign announcement late this month from the New Orleans neighborhood hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina last year and slow to recover from the storm.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt Edwards' announcement.

As Edwards enters the crowded field, the Lower Ninth Ward provides a stark backdrop to highlight his signature issue - that economic inequality means that the country is divided into "two Americas."

Edwards also plans to travel from New Orleans through the four early presidential nominating states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Among Democrats, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are drawing the most attention almost two years before the actual vote.

Edwards, however, is in a strong position as the leading candidate in Iowa. He was a top fundraiser in the race for the nomination in 2004 before he became Democratic Sen. John Kerry's running mate.

Since the Democrats' loss to President Bush, Edwards has worked to build support for a repeat presidential bid.

Edwards' spokesman, David Ginsberg, would not confirm or deny that Edwards planned to announce he would run in 2008.

Ginsberg said Edwards would make an announcement about his future when he is ready.

This breaking news story will be updated.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Very glad he is running. I hope he continues to talk about poverty and the two Americas.

:thumbsup: That's good news!! Now I know at least my grandma will vote for him as he's sure to be cuter of the candidates :p

In all seriousness though I was hoping he'd run...!

Ooooh!!
 

He's so freakin' cute!! I may have to actually vote for the very first time. :laugh:

I wonder how many people will think they're voting for that cool psychic dude. ;)

Seriously though, Edwards seems to be a very good candidate for president. I need to familiarize myself a little more with his record, but so far he'd have my vote.

Edwards is goodlooking, but Obama is much more handsome, in my opinion.

Anyway, if Obama runs, I will be voting for him, as my preference is to support someone who was against the immoral Iraq war from the beginning. Edwards is my second favorite. An Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket would be appealing to me. :nod:

Since i dont go by looks...
 

I very much like Edwards over any other Democratic candidate.

I also like the Edwards/Obama ticket (Give Obama some experience being VP then have him run for Prez)



edit: Speaking of Obama, I like the following political cartoon by Steve Breen

Me too. I like John Edwards.

He really doesn't have much of one as he was only a one term senator. He was a very successful trial lawyer. He comes from a regular working middle class family. He lost a son in a tragic accident. His wife is an awesome lady who beat breast cancer and is an attorney herself.

Guess I'm the minority around here.
I wouldn't vote for this guy if you paid me. He's got schiester written all over him. :distress:
And I'm aware he's not the psychic guy HOWEVER he did claim to be channeling some dead girl in a case he was trying. uggghhh....

I'm not exactly an Edwards fan either. His Two Americas speech is amazing, and he delivers it well, but it's not exactly a new or original idea is it?

And I'll never forgive him for his piss-poor showing against Cheney in the 2004 VP debate - and the fact that he's a trial lawyer only makes it worse. How could he not remember sitting next to Satan himself at a prayer breakfast (of all places)? And then he followed that gaffe with the sheepish Mary Cheney comment... :distress:

I *do* like his wife Elizabeth, however. :laugh:

I love his wife. And his Two Americas speech is very new and original for a major Presidential candidate. When was the last time someone other than Jesse Jackson or Dennis Kucinich based his entire campaign on highlighting the plight of the poor in America?

That's my point. While a major Presidential candidate basing his campaign on the old "haves & have nots" cliche maybe be new, the idea itself is not. And he comes across sometimes (to me) as though he's simply using the issue as class-bait.

I don't think he's a bad guy or anything. He's just doesn't inspire me so far.

I understand what you're saying. From my perspective, there is nothing really politically advantageous to highlighting poverty as a key presidential issue. So I find him to be sincere. And you're right, the idea might not be new, but there have been solutions (or even much of an effort) to poverty.

Still very early in the game, but Edwards is topping polls in Iowa and Nevada (the first two caucuses/primaries). A couple of early wins and some strong victories in the south, and he stands a very good chance of getting the nomination. I don't think Hillary is a shoo-in at all.

I agree - it's not adventageous, as important as it is. I hate to say it, but 08 is still going to be about Iraq.

Speaking of Dennis Kucinich, did you catch this mention of him by Matt Taibbi in the last Rolling Stone? (I tried to look for it on the RS website, but no luck. Their web programmers are obvoiusly as stoned as their reviewers...)

I read the Taibbi article a few days ago, and it struck me mainly because Matt didn't just happen to see the binder in Kucinich's office. When Matt was interviewing him, Kucinich made it a point to hold up the binder and say something like, "This is something you might be interested in seeing."

Is it 2008 yet? :lol:

Here's where I found the summation, btw: http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/20...ate.html#links

It was the other way around. Cheney said he didn't remember meeting Edwards. Dick pretty much sat there and lied his ass off during that debate. It was horrid.
Also the Mary Cheney comment was made by Kerry, unless there is some comment from Edwards I am unaware of.

Certainly not in the last 25 years or so. The disregard for the sick and homeless in the Reagan era was despicable.

That's right, Cheney was trying to insinuate that Edwards was never around Washington -- shirking his Senate responsibilities-- because of his run for President.

This was also the debate where Cheney said he didn't know African-American women were severely impacted by HIV/AIDS. Something a man in his position should have known.

That's the night that he showed anyone who was watching what a sick, evil bastard he really is.

Someone's been reading Ann Coulter.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._award_debate/

Edwards's career tied to jury award debate

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Senator John Edwards, the North Carolina lawyer running for president, built a career out of winning historic jury awards for children who suffered birth defects allegedly because doctors mishandled their deliveries -- from a record $6.5 million in 1985 to a new record of $23 million in his last trial in 1997.

His summations became legendary, with lawyers crowding the courtroom to listen to Edwards move jurors to tears. "What value do you attach to the emotional suffering that this little girl will have for the rest of her life?" he asked in his breakthrough case, in 1985. "I wouldn't take $10 million for it." Edwards also persuaded the jury that the hospital was responsible, even though the doctor was not an employee.

But in a precursor of battles to come, the trial judge set aside a portion of the $6.5 million verdict as excessive, and an appeals court agreed. The North Carolina Hospital Association filed an unsuccessful protest brief, claiming Edwards had opened a new avenue for malpractice cases.

Now, spurred by President Bush, Republicans are seeking to limit awards for pain and suffering, saying juries are driving up the cost of health care. On Saturday, Texas voters narrowly supported a $750,000 cap on pain and suffering awards. Today, North Carolina is scheduled to consider limiting such awards to $250,000. While Edwards helped block a similar bill in the Senate last July, Republicans are vowing to take it up again, putting Edwards -- and his career -- back in the spotlight.

"To the extent that he's been able to persuade a jury, he's succeeded," said state Senator Robert Pittenger of North Carolina, referring to Edwards's ability to make a jury cater to his client's needs. But Pittenger, a Republican supporting limits on jury awards, insists, "That's not, to me, an equitable way to try to stabilize the health care industry."

A Globe review of Edwards's career from the mid-1980s through 1997 reveals that he was more than just a practitioner of medical malpractice law. He was one of its most prominent specialists, stretching the reach of the law for nearly two decades. But he also came to personify some of the alleged excesses that reformers have sought to curb.

For instance, his summations routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children.

"I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her, I feel her presence," he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. "She's inside me and she's talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.' "

Critics say such emotional appeals can lead to pain-and-suffering awards that go beyond what's warranted. "There's a feeling that jury verdicts are not based on just the facts," said Nick Ellis, president-elect of the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Edwards, who declined to comment for this report, has said he opposes limiting awards for pain and suffering because they "will affect a situation where a child is blinded for life, where a child is paralyzed for life," and compensating them for medical costs or lost income wouldn't account for their hardships.

In some of his cases, the awards for pain and suffering exceeded his clients' economic losses.

For instance, in a 1994 case, one of Edwards's clients had a double mastectomy based on the doctor's mistaken belief that she had suffered a recurrence of breast cancer. An arbitrator awarded her $850,000 for emotional distress. Without a pain and suffering award, her damages would have been limited to medical expenses.

In other cases, Edwards argued that decades of medical care should justify enormous damages.

Edwards's largest malpractice verdict involved a child who was brain-damaged at birth. At trial, Edwards presented expert testimony that the child might live for more than 40 years and incur lifetime medical expenses of tens of millions of dollars. Defense witnesses testified that the child might die within a few years.

The jury awarded $23 million in 1997. Afterward, both sides settled for an undisclosed amount. As it turned out, the child died at age 6 from her injuries.

Her death spurred critics to propose another change in the law: allowing defendants to pay in installments rather than a lump sum. "I don't know what the downside is," said Ellis.

But making payments in installments could cause a significant drop in fees to plaintiffs' lawyers. Most personal-injury lawyers get a percentage of what their clients receive. Edwards's firm typically received between 25 and 40 percent of the verdict, according to his former partner, David Kirby.

Plaintiffs' lawyers say they depend on contingency fees because many clients can't afford the high cost of hiring specialists and taking depositions; under a contingency fee, the lawyer pays those costs upfront. Contingency fees "provide access to the court system that would not be available to a huge segment of society," said Kirby.

Critics counter that jury verdicts are supposed to compensate plaintiffs, not their attorneys. Edwards, according to financial disclosure forms, is worth between $12.8 million and $60 million.

Beyond obtaining large awards, Edwards expanded the limits of personal-injury law. The Campbell case, for instance, involved an expansion of liability for hospitals, even when the treatment was by a private physician.

Six years later, in 1991, Edwards won a $2.275 million verdict for the family of a woman who killed herself in a hospital a few days after she was taken off a suicide watch. The case appeared to be the first time in North Carolina that a hospital was found liable for a patient's suicide, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

In 1994, Edwards won a lawsuit against a doctor who failed to diagnose prostate cancer, even though his client allegedly missed several follow-up appointments.

But the case remembered as his biggest win came in 1997 and involved a 5-year-old girl who was injured by a swimming-pool drain. The drain cover was off and the girl was trapped by a suction pump with enough force to extract her intestines. The manufacturer argued that if the cover had been installed correctly, the accident would not have happened.

Edwards countered the company should have provided better warning labels. "Some of the covers say nothing," he said during his summation. "If that continues, it's not a question of whether there's going to be another child hurt. It's just a question of when."

Later, he pulled a newspaper out of his jacket and started to read.

"There was a wonderful, wonderful thing written this past spring. . . . It involved the death of a young boy who shouldn't have died, and what he wrote was this: `We have to gather around this family not because we understand what they're going through, but because -- but because they have to know we share their pain. Our feelings -- our terrible, terrible feelings prove that we really all are part of the same family. Their loss was our loss. Their child was our child.' "

What Edwards did not tell the jury, although some lawyers in the audience knew, was that the piece referred to his own son, Wade, who had been killed in a 1996 car accident at age 16.

When the jury came back with the $23 million verdict, 10 of the 12 jurors were crying, recalled the judge who presided at the trial.

To those who had worked with Edwards for years, the result was familiar. So was the familiar air of empathy.

Said Wade Byrd, a fellow plaintiff's attorney, "John then and now had almost a Clintonesque ability to understand a complex subject and break it down to very simple terms."

Right - Cheney said Edwards was never in Washington, and it (the debate) was the first time the two were meeting. And Edwards didn't correct him. We had to find out after the debate, when the Kerry/Edwards camp went into overdrive circulating the photo of the prayer breakfast, where Edwards was seated right next to him.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-d...4431-2004Oct07

Never mind the fact that Edwards had also met Cheney when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in. The thing that always stuck with me was that Edwards didn't correct him.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

Now, I understand that Edwards was trying to bite back against Cheney's laundry list. But if he had simply said, "Actually, Mr. Cheney, I've met you more than once. I even sat next to you at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2001. I couldn't have met you any other time because you refuse to allow Democrats to meet with you when you're on the Hill. You only meet with Republican leaders and lobbyists," then all of Cheney's earlier points would have been moot, especially when the pictures had been released after the debate.

I'm probably just splitting hairs tho, hindsight 20/20, blah blah blah. I find it hard to believe that he could let that slip, especially being a trial lawyer.

And the Mary Cheney thing:

Awwwwwwwwww....