Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
Although recent polling in Iowa and New Hampshire shows her slipping against Obama and Edwards, she's not backing down. Erstwhile local gal and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will be taking a spin through Chicago tonight, hosting Hillary's Holiday Cheer at the Hyatt Regency Ballroom. Because who wants to shake hands in a cold Iowa parking lot when you can kick it at the Hyatt in Chicago?
Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign announced three days of "Celebrity Phonebanking" with special guests U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and State Comptroller Dan Hynes. If you don't want to phone bank with Giannoulias, you can check out Hillary for just $25 (if you're a student), or $500 (if you want to be in the "Special Up-Front Section") .
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i know hilary won't be winning any beauty contests, but man that pic's brutal.
Some how I bet Kevin will not share his presidential pick with us, but clearly, it aint Hillary! You know darn-toot'n Kevy Kev Kev searched long and hard for that pic!
Spork: I'm voting for John Edwards.
luke i am your father.
Clinton? If she's elected that's 24-28 years of Bushes and Clintons. This isn't a monarchy. Obama? One's future actions can be judged by past actions which means The Audacity of Hope reformer schtick rings hollow. Edwards? I have a blanket rule against trial lawyers, and oilmen for that matter. Giuliani? He looked strong after 9/11, but how hard was it to look strong in that situation? I don't think he's presidential anyway. Thompson? Nope.
Time for me to look again at McCain, Richardson, Huckabee, Biden, and Paul. Another year of uninspiring choices. Illinois is cut and dried anyway. Obama will cruise in the primaries and the Democrat will easily take Illinois in the general.
Di Urrea: It's easy to dismiss Edwards as another wealthy trial lawyer, except that the bulk of the cases he tried were people against corporations, the same theme that he has talked about on the campaign trail.
I'll take a candidate that has made his living fighting for little guys any day, trial lawyer or not.
Why does the dynasty thing matter so much with Hillary? Or is it that we can't trust a woman to run the dynasty? I don't remember much crying and whining when W ran for president that we'd all be doomed because his father had once been president. Or was there some specific number of years that we had to pass so there actually was a dynasty? Or are you just adding Bill Clinton in there so it looks like there's a dynasty? A dynasty based on what - just being president? lame. OMG - we've had over 200 years of presidents. It is like a monarchy.
Vote Ron Paul! You may not agree with him on all the issues but he has principals; he has been the lone dissenting vote on either side of the aisle dozens of times. I don't agree with him on everything but he has a backbone.
"Why does the dynasty thing matter so much with Hillary? Or is it that we can't trust a woman to run the dynasty? "
It matters because her husband's policies will be inherent within her administration. Further, this is the land of opportunity, not the land of the guy you married.
Huh? I am not a tremendous fan but she is by all accounts at least as smart as him.
No way in hell am I voting for the lady from the 'Shoebox Greetings' cards.
Kevin, there would appear to be a few issues with the statement "I'll take a candidate that has made his living fighting for little guys any day, trial lawyer or not".
First, the "for". Should a "sometimes, among other things" follow? Is it fair to say that he was also fighting for a hefty paycheck? Thats what a high-stakes plaintiffs attorney does. Some of them make quite a bit of money doing it. In fact, I'd imagine that Edwards would not turn away a millionaire plaintiff over a penniless plaintiff. The "for little guys" part of it would seem a bit misplaced.
The other part of it is that runaway tort litigation in this country has, in some cases, harmed little guys. Insurance premiums are exorbitant as a result of the insane amounts awarded in the tort system. Sure, bad doctors and negligent cops should be addressed somehow. But giving a windfall to a plaintiff, little or big, tends to come out of the pockets of lots of others both little and big. And it would appear those windfalls were at least part of what John Edwards was fighting for, at the expense of lots of other little guys.
Don't get me wrong. The same could be said of a lot of people in a lot of professions. It just comes across as particularly misleading when used to describe a trial lawyer politican.
Bush clinto bush clinton is troublesome, but I cannot trust Obama he is in up to his neck with Tony Rezko and his political patron is Emil Jones. personally I hope Bloomberg gets in the race.
Seconding JP2. When you get to keep a third of a multi-million dollar verdict/settlement, the lawyer's motive for fighting for a win is not so cut and dry. But even if his motivation is truly in the right place, I don't know how that translates into having the ability to lead the country. I know several very philanthropic folks that should go nowhere near public office.
I've never understood why people are so skeptical of those that are successful when they work in the public interest. If John Edwards wanted to get rich quick, wouldn't he have had an easier time working for energy corporations, rather than going after a pool drain manufacturer on behalf of a five year old girl who was pinned to the bottom of a wading pool by a faulty drain by suction so powerful that it pulled most of her intestines out. At least twelve other children had been previously similarly injured by drains manufactured by the same company, which did nothing, even though the fix to the problem was a pair of screws that cost less than $1 per drain.
She will spend the rest of her life being fed intravenously, and that medical care isn't cheap. Corporations that abuse the public trust should be held responsible for their negligence. One third is the standard rate for lawyers, and only when they win. Her parents knew the fee going into it.
Maybe it's the stellar (and usually deserved) reputation personal injury lawyers have. Maybe it's because whenever large sums of money are involved in *anything* in life motives are called into question.
Again, say he won that multi-million dollar that funded the purchase of his 28,000 square foot home out of the goodness of his heart -- that makes him qualified to be president how?
(I should note that I'm an independent and don't have a horse in this race)
I think it's important to look at his plans to decide if he's got any. What makes a person qualified to be president is complicated, but at the very least, he or she has to have a real, substantial plan to solve the problems we have and optimize our opportunities to prosper in every aspect of life.
It's called the vision thing.
John Edwards is the only person( besides Kucinich) out there speaking about the growing underside of America, like Rorbert Kennedy.
This is what the demorats, sorry I mean "democrates" should be focusing on the growing disparity between rich and poor, the two Americas. Its ironic that the republicans, included -no body- Alla Keys in thier debate because they embrace the right wing of thier party to guide them.
Meanwhile the democrates bar a sitting US Congressmen from one of the largest states in the union, a state that also was pivitole in the election of Bush and has the highest housing foreclosure rate in the country, yet the Party of Nancy- Lear Jet Armani- Pelosi and Rahm -Chicago Machine- Emanuel, decide that it will be harmfull to "our" party and its voters if Kucinich gets heard along side the rest of them. Yea I like Edwards, but it almost makes me want to vote for Kucinich because he has been right on nearly every thing.
Yeah but spook, doesn't kucinich remind you a bit of Perot? I mean, sadly, he's right on most points but there's not a snowballs chance he'll get elected because of the two party system.
Also, this thread has gotten interested in Edwards. I didn't really think of his as a viable contender until now.
My point matty is what kinda party are "we" to discriminate against Kucinich because he is too "left"?
We are not going to ever really win if we keep trying to ape the republican party, we pulled the same crap with Howard Dead.
Had the democratic party got behind him instead
using a stupid rallying cry to a bunch of college kids as a pretex to derail him, we would've had a much stronger candadite than Cowardly Kerry and a very likely progressive democratic president today
With that said I again I will probabaly vote for Edwards.
Well, two more points about the trial lawyers...
Kevin, did you say public interest? Yes, that example you cited would appear to clearly be in the public interest. He still got paid.
Meantime, a trial lawyer doing mass asbestos litigation made enough to buy a professional baseball team! Yay for justice, right??? Companies like Chicago's own USG went through bankruptcy, the money was spread out away from those who actually suffered from asbestos-induced illnesses and towards the much larger pool of those who went through screening mills. Lots and lots of trial attorneys made some good dough doing that.
The workers? The truly sick? Not so much.
As I recollect (perhaps incorrectly), the best part about situations like USG is that the asbestos was only used in a compound produced by a company later bought by USG. The compound was never actually produced or sold by USG at any time, nor by the subsidiary at any time it was owned by USG. But hey, why should that stop a trial attorney or 10000 from bankrupting the world's largest wallboard company? Or producers of industrial brake liners, insulation, or dozens of other products that used to be produced in the midwest.
And then there is that other thing about the ATLA being one of the largest sources of campaign contributions in America. Making sure their recipients are looking after the "public interest", right? Right??
Edwards may have represented nothing but little guys against goliaths. He may never have taken his own interests first. But just as much as 55 or 60% of Americans would vote against Hillary, 70 or 75% of Americans would vote against a Trial Lawyer by the time the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are done campaigning.
As a Republican I hate to say it, but I think I'm throwing my hat in with Obama. He may be tied into a corrupt Chicago machine, but what national Democrat isn't? Maybe he just has an honest face.