Obama '08?

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're confusing this case with another one, Nimh... but not bad for memory. Here's a quick excerpt of what he actually did:

Quote:
This still gives me chills. From New York Times, Jan. 31, 2004: "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl. Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, he told the jury: She said at 3 o'clock, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' At 5, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But obstetrician waited 90 more minutes to perform breech delivery, rather than immediately doing Caesarean section. This delay, Edwards argued, permanently damaged girl's brain. In closing to jury, he said: "She speaks to you through me. And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Jury came back with $6.5 million verdict.

That, my friends, is the work of a scumbag. Brilliant work? Yep. But a scumbag nonetheless.

Does he also claim to speak for those about to be aborted? Just wondering?

Sure. They say 'christ, don't let me be born into such a sh*tty life, please'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:
[The] obstetrician waited 90 more minutes to perform breech delivery, rather than immediately doing Caesarean section. This delay, Edwards argued, permanently damaged girl's brain. In closing to jury, he said: "She speaks to you through me. And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

I dont get it, really. I mean, the whole jury system and all the playing on emotions that comes with it is pretty alien to me, so this kind of thing does sound a bit ludicrous to my European ears. But this sentence, this one sentence, makes you angrier and more offended about Edwards, think more lowly about him, than about pretty much anyone else?

I mean, you're calling Edwards worse than a scumbag (because calling him a scumbag would offend scumbags) - and well, apart from the odd brutal overseas dictator, I cant remember you ever using that kind of words, with that kind of sincere passion, about anyone else. No extent to which, say, Bush or Cheney have messed up ever made you quite this mad - but because of this sentence, Edwards is worse than a scumbag?

I mean, it's unsympathetic to me too, but thats some f*cked up priorities.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Obama: Style or Substance...?
Thought I'd bring this for perusal.

I think thats a pretty fair article.. <nods>

I mean, I never listened to any health care forum, but this is the basic impression I have too:

Quote:

[Obama]'s delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country. He has focused instead on motivating his impressive following with a call for unity and change in Washington. But along with the attention comes a hunger to hear more about what he's about. [..]

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the only other candidate to serve less time in elective office than Obama, described in detail his health care plan to provide insurance for all Americans. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton doesn't have a written plan yet, but no one questions her expertise, since she was the chief proponent of the issue during her husband's presidency. [..]

Obama was pressed by a union member in the audience who said she went to his Web site to learn more about his health care vision, but didn't find much beyond his commitment to reduce HIV/AIDS and lead poisoning.

Then again, the article is right to point out what's only fair:

Quote:

If Obama were running in a different time, he might get more of a break for lacking specifics. Primary votes were already being cast in the 1984 Democratic primary when Walter Mondale famously ridiculed opponent Gary Hart by asking, "Where's the beef?" Four years ago, no candidate for president had a health care plan this early in the game.

OK, so cut him some slack. Its hardly reasonable to expect him to have the full package ready when he's only just started.

But, on the third hand (urr), what's bothersome is this seeming condescension toward the actual policy stuff. Like, it's only the vision that really counts, policy details are subservient:

Quote:

[Obama] has downplayed the importance of the specifics at this stage, saying that it's not a lack of details that are the problem.

"Every four years somebody trots out a white paper, they post it on the Web," Obama said Saturday. "But the question we have to challenge ourselves is do we have the political will and the sense of urgency to actually get it done."

Yuck, is my reaction - sounds too much like Bush to me. "Just trust me, I have a strong will and strong principles, we'll figure out the pesky details when we get to 'em." Like we havent had enough trouble with that kind of attitude the last six years - this whole, sort of, contempt for the concrete details and pretension that all thats important is to have "political will and a sense of urgency". Yeah, look where that got us.

Vision only gets you so far - long live wonkery!

0 Replies

The article is still freely available on the Times's web page -- and still quite interesting to read.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E3DD1F38F932A05752C0A9629C8B63

I have to agree with nimh. This kind of stuff is what trial lawyers do. It's how the system works. I don't particularly like the system. But given that you have it, I don't see how it makes Edwards a scumbag that he worked the system to his advantage by delivering a theatrical performance in court.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're confusing this case with another one, Nimh... but not bad for memory. Here's a quick excerpt of what he actually did:

Quote:
This still gives me chills. From New York Times, Jan. 31, 2004: "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl. Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, he told the jury: She said at 3 o'clock, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' At 5, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But obstetrician waited 90 more minutes to perform breech delivery, rather than immediately doing Caesarean section. This delay, Edwards argued, permanently damaged girl's brain. In closing to jury, he said: "She speaks to you through me. And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Jury came back with $6.5 million verdict.

That, my friends, is the work of a scumbag. Brilliant work? Yep. But a scumbag nonetheless.

Does he also claim to speak for those about to be aborted? Just wondering?

Sure. They say 'christ, don't let me be born into such a sh*tty life, please'

Cycloptichorn

Speak for yourself, cyclops!!!!Although I hate these icons, here it is: Laughing

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You're confusing this case with another one, Nimh... but not bad for memory. Here's a quick excerpt of what he actually did:

Quote:
This still gives me chills. From New York Times, Jan. 31, 2004: "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl. Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, he told the jury: She said at 3 o'clock, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' At 5, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

But obstetrician waited 90 more minutes to perform breech delivery, rather than immediately doing Caesarean section. This delay, Edwards argued, permanently damaged girl's brain. In closing to jury, he said: "She speaks to you through me. And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Jury came back with $6.5 million verdict.

That, my friends, is the work of a scumbag. Brilliant work? Yep. But a scumbag nonetheless.

Does he also claim to speak for those about to be aborted? Just wondering?

Sure. They say 'christ, don't let me be born into such a sh*tty life, please'

Cycloptichorn

Speak for yourself, cyclops!!!!Although I hate these icons, here it is:

Sure, but then again, my life is great; I wasn't the product of my mom being raped, or born into a heavily abusive household.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And how do you claim to know all aborted ones will be either?

Sheesh, what a moronic conversation. Quit your smokin and maybe you could reason somethin basic.

0 Replies

Nimh, I wouldn't put him anywhere near the bottom of the bucket that I reserve for Tyrants, Rapists, Child Molesters etc. But, none of those (to my knowledge) have ever been as close to the Presidency (allegations against Bill Clinton not proven). These are direct quotes from a man lying to a jury of my peers, straight faced, jerking every last tear he can get in order to pull every last cent he can get out a questionable Law Suit. The resulting winfall of damages have harmed both medicine and the affordability of health insurance... over a Doctors mistake (at worst), if not poor luck of the draw on a cerebral palsy birth. And this man wants to be my President? And you don't understand why that irks me? He's a scumbag, Nimh. Among his first orders of business in Congress was to help keep partial birth abortions legal. Now, I happen to be Pro-Choice myself, to the extent I have an opinion at all... but can you see the hypocrisy in John Edwards not hearing the cries for help from thousands of children with their hearts a beatin healthily, legs and hands a kickin and a grabbing in the open air... until a Doctor jabs a scissors into the back of their skull and vacuums out their brains? Where's his clairvoyance on that one? The man is a scumbag. Do you disagree?

More complete quote from the Huffington Post.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/john-edwards-malpractice_b_44269.html][u][i][b]Huffington Post[/b][/i][/u][/url] wrote:

"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.' "

She quotes from CNN:
"... it now turns out that the causal link between physician malpractice and cerebral palsy is much less certain than was once believed. Furthermore, fetal heart monitoring--which was adopted by many hospitals in the '70's and '80's as a defense against claims of medical malpractice -- may not be as accurate a tool to measure fetal distress as previously hoped."

I quote from CNN:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html][u][i][b]CNN[/b][/i][/u][/url] wrote:

Doctors often view malpractice lawyers as a threat to their profession - a threat so grave it outweighs any other virtues that the Democratic ticket might have. They are thus concerned that Edwards was a trial lawyer - and in particular, a medical malpractice plaintiffs' lawyer - and is supported by trial lawyers. They are also concerned because some of the cases Edwards brought decades ago have turned out, in retrospect, to be meritless.

Now, let's go on to the more specific complaint about Edwards's own cases.

Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science."

In fact, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.

Scumbag.

0 Replies

O'Bill,

No part in your post puts my incomprehension of your position in sharper contrast than this one (in major font size, even, and everything):

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:
Now, let's go on to the more specific complaint about Edwards's own cases.

Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science."

In fact, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.

Scumbag.

Scumbag?

Dude - isnt this exactly how the judicial system is supposed to work?

Wisdom after the fact aside, the article already says - at the time of the cases, the medical profession was split about the issue.

So, the prosecution brought its case and experts; the defence brought its case and experts; and the jury was left to decide.

Thats the whole basis of the system! And you blame Edwards for playing his assigned role?

What is your submission here, that if the lawyer for the defence, or the prosecution, doesnt also already himself brings the experts that refute his case, he's a scumbag? Isnt that the job of the other side? Isnt it his job to bring his side's case as well as he can? Doesnt the whole judicial system's ability to yield justice rest entirely on both sides bringing their client's case as persuasively as they can, so the jury can make up its own mind about the merit of each?

Where's the scumbaggery here? I'm just non-plussed about how you come to your reaction about this.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

To expand, I'll respond to the rest of your post as well:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The resulting winfall of damages have harmed both medicine and the affordability of health insurance...

Well, thats one opinion. Others would argue that the damages have helped force the medical profession to take greater care and be more disciplined than it had been before. I can see how one can disagree, but not how one can conclude the difference makes Edwards a scumbag.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

She quotes from CNN:
"... it now turns out that the causal link between physician malpractice and cerebral palsy is much less certain than was once believed. Furthermore, fetal heart monitoring--which was adopted by many hospitals in the '70's and '80's as a defense against claims of medical malpractice -- may not be as accurate a tool to measure fetal distress as previously hoped."

-and-

CNNDoctors [are] concerned because some of the cases Edwards brought decades ago have turned out, in retrospect, to be meritless.

Wow. So Edwards forwarded an argument that, twenty years of follow-up research later, turns out to have been wrong - or, at least, "much less certain than was once believed". Scandalous. A scumbag indeed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

but can you see the hypocrisy in John Edwards not hearing the cries for help from thousands of children with their hearts a beatin healthily, legs and hands a kickin and a grabbing in the open air... until a Doctor jabs a scissors into the back of their skull and vacuums out their brains? Where's his clairvoyance on that one? The man is a scumbag. Do you disagree?

Umm hell yeah, most certainly so when you put it that way.

Seriously - you're blaming Edwards for theatrically playing a jury the way he did, even as you describe late abortions in the way you just did now?

Man, that sentence was worse than anything you quoted from Edwards. It might have been good as sarcasm, but it looks like it was more a subconcsious double standards kind of thing.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nimh, I wouldn't put him anywhere near the bottom of the bucket that I reserve for Tyrants, Rapists, Child Molesters etc. But, none of those (to my knowledge) have ever been as close to the Presidency (allegations against Bill Clinton not proven).

Yeah, like I said - apparently you think this quote of Edwards makes him worse than anything Bush and Cheney have done or been responsible for makes them. When we're not talking someone doing his job as trial lawyer working a court case X years ago when we're talking Bush and Cheney's responsibility for putting a boatload of unqualified hacks in positions of power, keeping hundreds of people locked up in isolation at Guantanamo for years without them ever even having been charged with anything, selectively suspending use of the Geneva conventions, actively suppressing NASA research that would prove too much about climate change, and I'm not even going to go to the myriad examples of mismanagement of the Iraq war that led to many needless deaths even if you would consider the overall cause to be just - just insert "etc etc" here.

No, none of that makes you call either man a scumbag - but Edwards, x years ago, doing the trial lawyer thing and theatrically playing the jury on behalf of a woman who lost her child - now that makes him a scumbag, no - worse than a scumbag. Apparently.

Thats what I mean with f*cked up priorities. Total loss of proportions.

0 Replies

I agree with nimh. But, isn't this thread about Obama?

0 Replies

Thanks, snood. :-) I did say it could become about the Democrats in general, though.

My take on the above exchange is that while I don't personally think Edwards is a scumbag, I think there are a lot of people who are put off by that whole aspect. The "dead-baby channeling," the whole slick lawyer trope, augmented by the slick-lawyer appearance (the hair, especially). It's an element of my tempered enthusiasm for Edwards, even though I like a lot about him. I think he isn't the candidate to reach out to the moderate/ independent voters who will be needed to win.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

My take on the above exchange is that while I don't personally think Edwards is a scumbag, I think there are a lot of people who are put off by that whole aspect. The "dead-baby channeling," the whole slick lawyer trope, augmented by the slick-lawyer appearance (the hair, especially).

I think that a lot of that is "so 2004" though. It was played out as much as it could be then, and your average viewer will be overcome with heard-that-done-that boredom if any of the "he channeled dead babies!" stuff is dragged up again. Its like conservatives coming up with Vince Foster when the topic is Hillary. I dont think its your typical moderate/ independent voter who is much motivated by that, its more of a thing for the hardcore politicos you find on blogs and forums.

Quote:

I think he isn't the candidate to reach out to the moderate/ independent voters who will be needed to win.

For the reasons I laid out in this long and sadly ignored post, which was kind of buried by the dead baby exchange, I think "North Carolina millers' son John Edwards" stands a better chance to reach out to them than Obama does.

I think that against the backdrop of a chaotic and, post-Bush/Iraq, particularly disastrous-looking window to the world, America will be more hungry for a domestic issues-focused populist than for a cosmopolitan intellectual. Thats also why McCain has been going down in my expectations - nobody wants another President wholly absorbed by real or perceived needs for intervention abroad.

Obama, in turn, simply reminds me a bit too much of John Kerry, though he is obviously a far better speaker, and a far more principled, less opportunist man. But he has that kind of ethereal quality. Americans (or voters, period) do earthy rather than ethereal, I think. Now Edwards is hardly the perfect populist (the hair, yes, the vanity), but he's gotten a lot better the last four years, and intellectual/ethereal he is not.

Not that I think either of them has much of a chance though - against, say, Giuliani, or this Fred Thompson guy perhaps. Against Gingrich, sure. Razz

(Against McCain, perhaps, but one not more than the other - anyway, its not gonna be McCain.)

0 Replies

I don't really mean the dead babies thing per se, but that there Edwards has more general weaknesses that are typified by that -- as in, people who are already suspicious of him for something more basic will take that as something concrete to object to. It's the "already suspicious" part that concerns me.

To take your Vince Foster example, that taps into a lot of things that people who already dislike Hillary dislike about her. The power-hungry, ruthless, clench-jawed harridan who used her husband to benefit herself.

As in, even if the specific Vince Foster incident doesn't excite people much anymore, the fact that it was such an issue has something to do with the more general distrust people feel for Hillary, and that distrust -- taking Vince Foster out of the equation entirely -- is deep and therefore valid. (Not that people have valid reasons to distrust her, but that people distrust her and that's an issue in terms of her electability.)

Not sure that makes sense.

I think Obama's at a signal moment right now, as Lash's article indicates. The first phase of the campaign is nearing a close -- the "here I am, this is what I'm about, let's get started," generally energizing phase. I think coming up with more policy stuff will be the next phase -- and I think he'll be really, really good at it. The moment when I started really considering him was probably when I read the long New Yorker profile in 2004 and read about how he connected with (white) Illinois farmers. He knows how to reach out beyond typical liberal bastions, for sure.

While I personally like Obama a lot (I mean, obviously), but I am definitely watching Edwards with interest and if he becomes the nominee I will support him willingly, depending of course on how things go between now and then. Right now though, there are a lot of things that make me nervous.

1 Reply

sozobe wrote:

While I personally like Obama a lot (I mean, obviously), but I am definitely watching Edwards with interest and if he becomes the nominee I will support him willingly, depending of course on how things go between now and then. Right now though, there are a lot of things that make me nervous.

Yeah, with me its exactly the other way round Razz

Except of course that with me its not actually relevant, cause of, you know, how I'm not actually American and stuff :wink:

0 Replies

Oof, that was awkwardly written. Too late to edit, oh well.

Yeah, I know. I do think that it's quite possible Obama will wow you in his next phase. I mean, the whole thing about Edwards has been preparing for this for two years (and already went through the whole shebang starting I guess, what, four years ago?), while Obama started two months ago.

I do still think that a lot of the "where's Obama's substance?" is bunk, and prescribe that everyone who says that read his books. But I acknowledge that the books are more about clues into his way of thinking and what he thinks about general issues (abortion, death penalty, whatever) rather than specific proposals. A lot of his musings note what he's researched, what he's seen work, but he also suggests a lot of the WAYS he'd reach a decision on what a policy should be, convening experts, that sort of thing, which actually sound good to me as a method of coming up with specific proposals but I don't know how fast they would be.

0 Replies

Something that I think is sadly obvious, and yet remaining unsaid thus far, is that Edwards may be the beneficiary of all those votes that won't go to Obama because he's black. I think he is probably going to be the nominee, and not the least of the reasons is that he's the only major dem candidate that's not female or black.

0 Replies

Is it just me, or do other folks see a trend of hypocrisy here in Democrats at the top of their party lately?

Gore preaches his religion of global warming, yet maintains several homes and jetsets around the world regularly.

Kerry accuses virtually all Vietnam vets of atrocities, then pilots his boat into Boston and begins his speech with a lame salute.

John Edwards becomes independantly wealthy by suing doctors, yet complains of out of control health care expenses, preaches 2 Americas while he builds a monstrous mansion, and profits by claiming to speak for a helpless unborn baby, yet votes for abortion, per Occom Bill's example.

Hillary attempting to speak with a black accent in Selma, which will forever be an absolutely priceless tape.

Obama, I haven't figured out, so I will not comment on him.

0 Replies

Nimh, the opportunist made his dough by attacking Doctors for making judgment calls, not even mistakes. Channeling the little girl for dough is disgusting, any way you slice it. His bald face lie about not planning to bring up his brilliant, though disgusting, strategy and actually selling it to a jury of my peers without them realizing what a scumbag he is; is all the proof I need that the man is an incredible liar even among world class liars. My disgusting theatrics were used to demonstrate the hypocrisy of what I consider a scumbag. His were used to tarnish the record, wallet and prestige of a Doctor who delivers babies for a living, for a judgment call that may or may not have even been faulty, and certainly was not malicious. To use such an extraordinary skill, for such a reprehensible task... no doubt for the sole purpose of lining his own pockets disgusts me. Keep your argument handy... because I won't watch that scumbag become my President without protest.

0 Replies

One of the best things about Senator Obama's campaign is that he does not have a bunch of pre-conceived, neatly packaged "white paper" policies written for him in smoke-filled back rooms by industry insiders. Through his experience of working with communities, Senator Obama has learned that building a successful program for Healthcare must take into account the feedback from those that will actually use the program he proposes.

Senator Obama is going into the communities to discuss the needs people have regarding healthcare. His first one will be a Healthcare Forum in New Hampshire on 4/3 where he will be getting feedback from consumers, doctors, nurses and other providers.

He has had this standing-room-only health-care forum planned and on the front page events calendar of his website for a couple weeks now. It is too bad the Forbes "reporter" didn't bother to look on the Senator's campaign site before writing her "news" story.

Magazines likes Forbes look darned silly demanding comprehensive position papers two months into a campaign. They are really desperate for something to chew on.

~Lynn

Quote:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/03272007/nhnews-ph-p-obama.forum.html

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

My disgusting theatrics were used to demonstrate the hypocrisy of what I consider a scumbag. His were used to tarnish the record, wallet and prestige of a Doctor who delivers babies for a living

His theatrics were used to argue the case of a mother who lost her child - and as the very article you quoted yourself noted, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of the theory he brought against the doctor. Ergo, he brought his side, the opposition brought theirs, and both were considered at the time to have merit - according to the very article you cite.

He argued his side the best he could, being the representative of the mother who lost her baby and wanted to bring the case. It was his job - a job without which the judicial system would not work. The whole system is after all based on the very principle that both sides argue their case the best they can, and the jury is left to make the decision call.

In comparison, you brought your self-described "disgusting theatrics" to bear for the cause of ... well, explaining why you think a guy is a scumbag. Yeah.

You also argue that he did it all "no doubt for the sole purpose of lining his own pockets" - well, you may have "no doubt", but there's no shred of evidence for that. Seems to me he was pretty passionate about his role as trial lawyer, and did it as best he could. Now you may think that the whole profession is just scumbaggery, but thats... shall we say, an opinion.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know