Great AD
Run this thing from this moment all the way throughout Caucus day.
The Final Argument that will end all arguments.
Last edited by SA210; 01-01-2008 at 01:46 PM.
I agree it's a great ad. I am pulling for Edwards as my close 2nd choice. If either he or Obama get the nomination, I would be ecstatic.
Great AD
Run this thing from this moment all the way throughout Caucus day.
The Final Argument that will end all arguments.
Edwards could benifit from the Iowa slingshot effect should he win Iowa.
He's also surging in NH and with a win in Iowa, that's even better, up to ten points more maybe in NH on top of what he's already gained. If that's the case, he'll definitely win South Carolina again.
We'll see...
Last edited by SA210; 01-01-2008 at 03:42 PM.
Edwards gets a boatload of money from lobbyists, just like all the machine candidates.
Great AD
Run this thing from this moment all the way throughout Caucus day.
The Final Argument that will end all arguments.
Ron Paul alone abstains.
More Than 30 Leading Economists Endorse John Edwards For President
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/head...02-economists/
Jan 2, 2008 3:11 PM
Economists pick Edwards because he will fight for sustained growth, full employment and an end to poverty
Chapel Hill, North Carolina –
Today, the John Edwards for President campaign announced that more than 30 leading U.S. economists have endorsed John Edwards for president. "Economists for John Edwards" includes such notable scholars as James K. Galbraith from the University of Texas at Austin; Deirdre McCloskey from the University of Illinois at Chicago; Thomas Palley, founder of the Economics for Democratic & Open Societies Project; Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategies Ins ute; Harley Shaiken from the University of California, Berkeley; and Edward Wolff from New York University.
"I'm proud to endorse John Edwards and his campaign to build One America.," said James Galbraith, the Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. "Edwards understands that in order for America to prosper, our economy needs to reward work as well as wealth – and he's proposed detailed and comprehensive policies to address the growing income gap, the health care crisis, job loss and the other critical social issues facing our nation."
"I am honored to have earned the support of this distinguished group of economists," said Senator Edwards. "Today, families across the country are working harder than ever, but struggling to make ends meet. To help middle-class families get ahead, we need a president who will fight for universal health care, smarter trade policies and a new energy economy."
In their endorsement of Edwards, the "Economists for Edwards" signed on to the following statement:
"As professional economists, we support John Edwards for President of the United States in 2008 because we believe that John Edwards has best demonstrated the capacity and the policies to be the next president of the United States.
"We support John Edwards because we believe his campaign is the single best expression of progressive political values in American politics today.
"We support John Edwards because we believe that as president he will best wage the hard fight that lies ahead for the principles and programs we endorse.
"We support John Edwards because as economists, we seek effective public policy aimed at sustained growth, full employment, an end to poverty, and progress toward solving the major social and environmental problems associated with health care, education, trade, taxation and climate change.
"John Edwards' approach to these issues has been uniquely serious, honest, and far-reaching. We urge all Americans – and particularly the Democratic voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - to join us in supporting John Edwards for president."
A complete list of the members of "Economists for Edwards" is included below.
Economists for Edwards
Note that ins utional affiliations are for identification purposes only.
Gar Alperovitz
Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy
University of Maryland-College Park
Lourdes Beneria
Professor of City and Regional Planning
Cornell University
Michael A. Bernstein
Provost
Tulane University
Martha Campbell
Associate Professor, Economics
SUNY Potsdam
Manuel Castells
Chair Professor of Communication Technology and Society
University of Southern California, and
Distinguished Visiting Professor of Science and Technology
MIT
Jane D'Arista
Former staff economist
U.S. House of Representatives
William Darity, Jr.
Arts & Sciences Professor of Public Policy Studies
Professor of African and Africa-American Studies and Economics
Duke University
Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
Bernard Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis
The New School University
Gerald Epstein
Professor of Economics
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Susan F. Feiner
Director of Women's Studies
Professor of Economics
University of Southern Maine
James K. Galbraith
Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations
LBJ School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin, and
Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Ins ute
Richard Garrett
Associate Professor of Economics
Division of Accounting and Business Management
Marymount Manhattan College
Mary King
Professor of Economics
Portland State University
Jan Kregel
Visiting Distinguished Research Professor of Economics
The University of Missouri - Kansas City
Peter Hans Matthews
Department of Economics
Middlebury College
Middlebury, Vermont 05753
Deirdre McCloskey
Professor of Economics
University of Illinois at Chicago
Richard McIntyre
Honors Program Director and Professor of Economics
University of Rhode Island.
Thomas Michl
Professor of Economics
Colgate University
David Miller
Assistant Professor of Economics
University of California, San Diego (UCSD)
John Miller
Professor of Economics
Wheaton College
Tracy Mott
Professor of Economics
University of Colorado at Boulder
Thomas Palley
Founder
Economics for Democratic & Open Societies Project
Dimitri Papadimitriou
President
Levy Economics Ins ute
Bard College
Chip Poirot
Associate Professor of Economics
Department of Social Sciences
Shawnee State University
Robert Pollin
Professor of Economics and Director,
Political Economy Research Ins ute (PERI)
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Robert Prasch
Associate Professor of Economics
Middlebury College
Clyde Prestowitz
President
Economic Strategies Ins ute
Bruce Roberts
Professor of Economics
University of Southern Maine
J. Barkley Rosser
Professor of Economics
James Madison University
Harley Shaiken
Class of 1930 Professor
Graduate School of Education and Department of Geography
University of California, Berkeley
Nina Shapiro
Professor and Chair
Department of Economics and Finance,
Saint Peter's College
Edward Wolff
Professor of Economics
New York University
Martin Wolfson
Professor of Economics and Policy Studies
University of Notre Dame
L. Randall Wray
Research Director
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability
Department of Economics
University of Missouri-Kansas City, and
Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Ins ute
Last edited by SA210; 01-02-2008 at 11:01 PM.
Why did that ad make me laugh? Edwards won't do anything for the middle class. He doesn't even begin to understand what's wrong with the economy! He's going to say Maytag you better make sure you pay your Maytag employees $25 an hour! Sure John, we'll keep this plant with 80 workers and pay them $25 an hour, we'll just move the rest of our plants to Mexico and China.
he is a in lawyer, christ.
What John Edwards is saying now to get the Democratic Nomination (he is outflanking the other candidates to the left), will ALL change if he becomes the nominee.
He was never a radical left-wing senator. What changed? Oh yeah, he decided to try to get the Democratic nomination.
"End Poverty". If those people listed above actually believe that is possible, they cannot actually be "economists".
I find this to be more inspiring....
Look, "ending poverty" is not exactly a popular idea. It's not something alot of people care about, and is even considered political suicide by alot of people for a candidate to run on that platform.
I am and have always been convinced that this is something that John Edwards truly cares about.
It sounds good, but how does he plan to change the system? By sitting at a table with those who corrupted it? What did he actually say in this ad? It's a feel good ad, but Obama has taken Johns lead the entire campaign. I like Obama, but I think he needs to stop using John Edwards as his speech writer.
How does Edwards plan on changing the system and more to the point, why didn't he do anything to change the system while he was in the Senate? I appreciate his "populist" message and I would be happy to support him if he was the nominee, but his fiery rhetoric is in stark contrast to his Senate record.
Well, John has learned from his mistakes, like voting for the war, and has apologized for it. However Obama continued to vote for the funding. That in itself is huge in my opinion.
While being Senator, John Edwards helped to raise the minimum wage in many states. And after, you know he started a poverty center and even has a book out on the subject. He is more seasoned and has learned and matured, especially since the last campaign.
And the truth of the matter is, Obama has copied and followed John's lead the entire race. In my opinion, John is the better leader.
Obama barely came out with a healthcare plan in September. John released his Univerasal plan early in the year, and more importantly John Edwards has been much more specific on all his plans, moreso than Any other candidate other than maybe Kucinich.
He didn't wait to see how the media would tear him apart, he spoke on what he believed and the others followed.
Here is his plan, it's out there and people can hold it to him whether they agree with it or not.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/pl...ne-america.pdf
As I said before, I like Obama, but I have lost a little bit of respect for him lately, for the negative attacks towards Edwards, attacking John for a 527 group supporting John even though a 527 group is supporting Obama in California, and not only that, while John asked them to not run those ads for him, Obama refused to do the same. That kinda backfired on Obama.
Obama recently told people that he chose to be a civil rights lawyer over money, that's why he didn't become a trial lawyer. That's an obvious dig at Edwards, these are more like Republican talking points. I have really lost some respect for him.
Obama has also outspent Edwards in Iowa 9 million to 3 million, but John is still up there with him in the polls, by being outspent by 6 million dollars, and by the way, that's also with all the media coverage on only Obama and Hillary. I think that says something.
John is going to change the system by Not laying down as the Democratic party did everytime a Republican hit job came along. He is a fighter, and that's what we need. I also think it's important to note that John has more labor endorsement support than any other candidate, and far more than Obama. They really believe that John will do more for them than Obama will.
Last edited by SA210; 01-03-2008 at 11:31 AM.
Obviously you've been reading the Daily Kos. Look, Obama was the editor of Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious position any law student could have in America. I guarantee you that every big name firm was lining up to throw big money at him. He turned that down to become a civil rights lawyer making $13k/year. Why shouldn't he point that out on the campaign trail? I think it shows a little bit about his character.
Really, it was the fact that he used the phrase "trial lawyer" that got Kos' panties in a wad. For months, Obama had said in his speeches that he had an opportunity to go to a corporate firm and make a lot of money, but instead became a civil rights attorney. No one said a word. Then, in one speech, contrasting himself with Edwards, he said he could have been a trial lawyer, but instead became a civil rights attorney and the blogosphere goes ape . No one said a thing when he was saying "corporate lawyer" (ala Clinton). I think there is no issue there other than the political blogs being showing they're no different than other forms of media in taking a statement out of context and acting in a reactionary manner.
Furthermore, as someone who went to law school and has been a part of the recruiting process, I can tell you that it says something that Obama, as a law student, turned down the huge firms that were courting him. The money they throw around and promise you is ridiculous.
Again, I don't understand why he can't mention this on the trail without it being a "Republican talking point" as Kos said.
This is just one point that I brought up, but I can appreciate that he turned those firms down, and that is very repectable, honestly. What was not respectable was that he was taking a shot at John. That questions John's character. And I think that only fuels Republican talking points should John be the nominee. But again, we can disagree on that, but there is much more than this point as to why I would prefer John to Obama and why I believe John has been the one candidate to shape this whole race and has lead with his proposals.
If John is not the nominee, some policies from the other two candidates would be the result of John's campaign.
Is it "taking a shot" whenever Obama contrasts himself with Edwards? Is it "taking a shot" when Edwards says that Obama is "too nice" to bring about change? Isn't that a comment on Obama's character (i.e., an implication of a lack of for ude or tenacity)? , that's an expected part of the election and I don't hold any of that against Edwards. I want to know how he is different than Obama and from Obama, how he is different than Edwards.
Really, I don't even know why I am arguing with you. I like Edwards and would be more than happy to support him. Like I said in another thread, Obama and Edwards are options 1A and 1B for me. I also agree that Edwards has helped set the agenda for this election. It just so happens that I like Obama a little more at this time.
I do understand your point, and don't want to argue because we feel the same about our candidates, just reversed,. haha if that makes sense. I felt that Obama saying that though, makes the impression that John is greedy and not the person he says he is about fighting for the little guy. I believe that's different than saying Obama is too nice, therefore "I can "fight" them better.
Anyway, I've always liked your posts and I'm on your side. We'll see what happens tonight.
On the contrary, I think, "ending poverty" is a very admirable goal that the vast majority of voters in this country would support. They would also support a president that could make all of our wives look like supermodels, and give us all wings to fly around like angels.
Each dream and promise is as likely, and easy to fulfill, as the next.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
