Mark in Houston,

What federal agency does not waste our money?

Poverty deserves to be a major issue in this campaign, and I appreciate Edwards making it part of his agenda. There are several sides to the issue as well. Global poverty also deserves to be addressed, as it is at the root of several important issues facing our country like terrorism, immigration and national security.

Randy -- care to respond to my comments? Just to focus the conversation, I'd note that I'm unaware of any statute that allows unlimited damages. Rather, you have to PROVE damages to a Jury. Punitive damages are already capped, as I explained above. Pain and suffering damages are seldom a large part of a verdict, except where a person has -- gasp -- really suffered significant pain. Are you arguing that the legislature - whether federal or at the state level - is really better situated to figure out how much pain and suffering is worth IN EVERY CASE than an individual jury, made up of a cross-cut of socient, can do on an individual basis? If so, I'd be curious to here WHY you feel that way.

Biarg,

Typical copout. So your response is meaningless too! It has to do with Edwards practcing what he preaches. You don't seem to comprehend that. I have a hard time with people or lawyers that live exquisite lives telling others they have to do what it takes to help global warming or whatever. You get it. You just copout. I just give examples of people who practice what they preach.

To the lawyer: You said it yourself. You feel a seriously injured person should get as much as they possibly can? What is wrong with that? PLENTY! There is no limit? So it is a free for all with no basis in reality? Wow! That really sets the example for tremendous greed and corruption which we have plenty of. I don't dislike lawyers. I dislike the skys the limit thinking about anything with no reason involved.

I really admire Mr. Edward's work on behalf of impoverished people. While combating domestic poverty is certainly important, we must also look beyond our lives as Americans. We--as members of the global community--face common problems and must work together as a world community to fight them. The United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025, are a good place to start thinking and acting with a global mindset. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to flight global poverty, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the United States' current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach if we act together as one world.

Randy,

With respect, what do you base your views off of other than personal dislike for layers?

[In the interests of full disclosure, I'm a lawyer myself -- although I do almost exclusively defense work for corporate clients. So from your perspective, I suppose I'm only partially worthless b/c of my profession.]

First of all, in my experience BS claims tend to get the boot rather quickly. Sure, some get to a jury, but it's FAR more likely that such a case is resolved through motions practice relatively early on in the case.

For cases that do get to a jury, I tend to believe that the jury system is pretty even handed and doesn't consistently favor Plaintiffs or Defendants. Moreover, to the extent a Plaintiff does prevail, I think most verdicts are usually quite measured.

You seem to disagree, citing juries compensating people for more than just their medical bills. My question for you is, at its base, why is that wrong?

To illustrate my point, what if you were severely injured in a car accident b/c your air bag had a manufacturing defect and - b/c of your injuries - were likely to be in constant pain for the rest of your life. In that circumstance, are you really arguing that the justice system shouldn't allow for ANY recovery above and beyond reimbursing your medical bils? Or, slightly less dramatic, what if your injuries left you in substantial pain for 12 months. Again, no compensation even though the company was liable for what occurred? From my vantage point, that's just silly.

Oh, and as to punitive damages - which you seem to also have a problem with - they're already limited by Supreme Court precedent to a certain percentage of hard damages. So that's already taken care of.

It didn't take the Edward's campaign to make Obama recognize poverty as a serious issue. He spent the entire first part of his career working in impoverished communities.

It didn't take the Edward's campaign to make Obama recognize poverty as a serious issue. He spent the entire first part of his career working in impoverished communities.

Randy, I'd love to reply to your post, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Billy Graham and Mother Theresa practice what they preach? Hunting bears? I don't know what any of that has to do with John Edwards.

But your second post clears it up: You just hate all lawyers, and you don't believe that lawyers can ever do anything good. So your criticism of Edwards is meaningless. You hate him because he's a lawyer, not because of anything specific he did.

Colin,
It doesn't work that way. There are places out there where lawyers take their cases to that they know the juries want tp "punish" these comapnies. The lawsuits are brought with the idea in mind that you sue for a hundred times more than what it is actually going to get. The rerason you don't hear cases brought back as "junk" cases is companies don't want to go through any more appeals. Settling through their insurance, even though it is far more than it should have got, is given as an award to settle.
In the case of someone seriously injured people do not often times look at what it realistically takes to take care of a seriously injured person 24/7. They look at it and say: There isn't enough money to make up for it". So two things happen. Often times the company's insurance has to pay a bundle, the victim gets more than they will ever need, the lawyer gets more than he should, and the taxpayers end up paying more costs through increased costs otherwise.

I don't care what you say about edwards. There is no fair, realistic attorneys out there. They can make gazillions on a case and swear up and down they earned every penny of it for what they call hard work. They over exaggerate what they do.

Not that it matters but above post by Randy for clarification.

I know "tort reform" can be a touchy issue, but if John Edwards brought so many "junk" cases, why is it that no one has been able to cite even ONE CASE he handled that was frivilous? The guy was a darn good lawyer, but he didn't win by consistently convincing juries to find against innocent companies. As it turns out, he won a lot of money for families who had suffered rather tragic experiences b/c of various defendant's negligent/wrongful actions.

Seriously folks, if you're going to attack a lawyer could you at least provide more evidence than...well...that they're a lawyer?

I can't believe what I'm hearing. 38 million dollars in his pocket as an attorney is consistent with what a lawyer does. You got that right. No conscience. But do they really care about the impact many of these lawsuits have on this country and the taxpayers? My point was and it is valid: There are too many people in this Country touting causes and they don't practice it themselves.

YES!!! Why don't they fly coach these rich fogies? Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, Donald Moore are just a few examples of the people who practice what they preach. The points about the Republicans are great! Hypocrites to the max! Don't tell me you are supporting the troops and against the war people. So you go hunting for a grizzly with no ammo? That's like saying yyou support your son or daughter but you detest their gay lifestyle which they were born with. Get real people. You aren't supporting the troops at all thinking like that. No one can intellectually say they support the troops and then they read about all the dissent back home against what they are doing. That may work with some kind of far fetched rauonale, but it is not normal.

RD: There are absolutely not enough jobs out there for people to have a choice in what they do. You give me the stats of all the high class jobs available and then tell me how many are working at Wal-mart and restaurants and car washes that you frequent and then tell me everyone has a choice of jobs. That is the nuttiest thing with no basis in reality when you put down the facts and figures. If you want to copout you can by doing that. But it is not real.

"It's a combination of extreme nationalism and militarism"

:)
?????

WOW. you show your face. Research the rest on your own if you care. You claim to care. Your line for line rebuttels make you look like a lawyer. Are you George Bush's lawyer? If so why? $$$$$$. Do your own research. don't attack me for posting truths.

"I know you are but what am I". HAHAHAH. Fricking republicans. Your elementary school games are a joke. The american people now see your fascists face.

If I line for line spoon feed you I am a propogandist. Do your own research. I don't hate you gop'ers like this brave blank poster (who is so brave and tough they can't even leave a name for referance) would have you beleive. I'm trying to help you. So you stop following fascsits. We stopped you. You tried fascsim. The 06 elections showed you the people reject it. Everythign above is truth. Anyone trying to discredit has an agenda.

The game og gop is sabotage. Discredit as with the live earth. "don't look at the facts. Don't believe you eyes/ears mind/. Beleive the fascsits."

I'm just glad the people now see you people for what you are. Research. You think I'm lying research. Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Krishnamurti

Now read. Fidn out for yourselves. The gop'ers would try and have you turn away from politics. this way they can propogate and lie all day and never get caught. They the people in the know can be discredited because they know nothing about the subject. Read yourself. Researach. See what the GOp has done for the last 60 years. See fascism being implamented from 9/11 on. FASCISM. She said it above. Fascists.

"IE hating americans (liberals)" sounds like you're hating on repubs to me

"Preaching God wants you to be wealthy" what.. when did this come up?

"Stopping globalization" maybe I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that it was the libs wanting to stop economic globalization

Not supplying the troops? What are you talking about? The US has the one of the best military in the world.

"Using my religon for recruits and to line their pockets. ANd painting anyone not STUPID enough to belive their propoganda as "un-american". Or not supporting the troops. Fascsits."
You should probably use facts or examples to back up your ridiculous statements. Btw do you even know what fascism is? It's a combination of extreme nationalism and militarism, far from what the republicans are. And before you start calling the repubs "militaristic" may I remind you that no one wants draft nor mandatory military service, something that many other countries have.

'I thought you people were for freedom and choices. A "free market"' and I though you were for a socialist market. That's beside the point though. I personally am for choice.
Forcing a false religion? Seriously how do you come up with this crap. Again, please provide facts and/or example, not just your delusional opinion

".John Wayne is dead. Elvis is dead" ..am I missing something?

"We have the internet now." Oh, oh no the dems got the internet. The repubs are in trouble now. (note the sarcasm)

I guess my overall comment is to get some actual facts and then we'll have something to discuss. Don't just go rambling on about some "fascist gop'er" Other people know how to use the caps lock too you know. On a side note, please learn to spell. It's like reading an essay from my little brother, only he know how to use spell check so it isn't as bad.

Right. Misdirection. Haircut and make-up pieces. Anything to take our minds off what they are talking about. We can't listen to the live earth message because the PERFORMERS are musicains. Or they didn't fly coach.

Misdirection. Frickin republicans. Hold up progress. You want to talk hypocrites. Here is the GOP. What they claim and what they DO:

1."Religous" right. Claiming to be christians and courting christian votes WHILE DOING the opposite of the religon. IE hating americans (liberals). HAting the poor. Wanting to kill/torture people. Preaching" God wants you to be wealthy". Stopping globaliztion and or climate change.

2. Claiming to be patriots and painting the dems as "against the troops" Or "un-american". Whole doing the opposite. Who supports the troops. Who uses them as a ploy SO THEY CAN LINE THEIR POcKETS. Not supplying them. Not giving them a rEAL mission. Leaving them for dead or in some cases( pat tillman) KILLING theri own people and BURNING the eveidnce. Then lying to his family. Painting his family as with Sheehan as partisan or democrats.

Those two are my main gripes with the gop. Using my religon for recruits and to line their pockets. ANd painting anyone not STUPID enough to belive their propoganda as "un-american". Or not supporting the troops. Fascsits.

Not to mention the "war on drugs" that Bush 41 brought to our doorstep. Just like the "war on terror". Bush and his people bring the drugs in to fight it. they bring the terror to us. And We're un-american?

Not to mention abortion ( should be between a woman and her dr., not politicans). I thought you people were for freedom and choices. A "free market". Not to mention socail conservatives, would tell other how to live while not living up to it. A la vitter. Newt, O'REIlly blah blah blah.

Hypocrites. The GOP's party goal is hypocritical. What a crock GOP. ANything to take our minds off what is important so you fascsits can change the country and line your pockets. You cannot force conservatism on a free people.

Forcing a false religon(you are not christians. YOur God is money) does no good. I person has to coming to a religon. ANy religon. Forceing it on anybody defeats the purpose. Religon has to be a choice, or not.

Your time is up GOP. John Wayne is dead. Elvis is dead. You can no longer be hypocrites and get away with it. We have the internet now. Your time is up. Get in the back seat where you belong. Your reign of terror is over. don't hate me. Lokk in the mirror

Randy, John Edwards' job as a trial attorney is perfectly consistent with wanting to help the poor. He was a personal injury attorney specializing in medical malpractice and corporate negligence. So his job was to help people who had been wronged by corporations to seek justice. Now he's trying to help the poor, who have been treated unfairly by society, to get what they deserve. You may disagree with his goal, but you can't call him a hypocrite for it.

drindl, sorry, people *do* have choices for jobs. This isn't a communist country, people can move or migrate if they want, and have the freedom to accept or reject jobs based on the pay offered.

It's people themselves who self-limit their own choices, either through self-destructive actions (getting a police record, dropping out of school, having kids too early, etc.) or through a narrowness of vision ("My family grew up here, therefore I must stay here").

rufus you need to chill out

he probably just meant all the rest of the people who promote poverty while living in a mansion, not just dems

"I think he is a hypocrite like all the rest"

Right. The dems are the hypocrites? What a crock. You look up hypocrite in the dictionary and it reads GOP. Being a hypocrite is mandatory for the gOP not the dems. Another GOP lie. Anything to take our minds off the facts, right randy?

You know, a person can talk all they want about how much they are wanting to help poverty. But when you are an attorney who specializies in lawsuits that not only makes a company pay but punish them too, then prices rise for everyone.These frivolous lawsuits need to stop.
I think he is a hypocrite like all the rest. The Live Earth concerts for example where the participants go home to their mansions with more than their share of pollutants, drive their hummers to and fro, and all other excesses which they are complaining others do.
Sorry, John Edwards, when you promote a cause you need to walk the walk and talk the talk. You can't get all these luxuries for yourself and then talk about helping poverty. It doesn't wash.
Sounds like evangelicals living in luxury and taking advantage of their churches.

andrea - What if HUD is a wasteful agency? I have not read a recent IG Report, but in the past it has proven to be problematic.

Just asking.

If Edwards is so serious about the issue of poverty then why, according to an article in the Federal Times on July 16, 2007, does he want to target job cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development if elected. Isn't this one of the federal agencies that works to help the impoverished by revitalizing areas and helping with the homeless?

He is just another one of those politicians talking out of both sides of his mouth and not to be trusted.

JimD -

I think there is a possibility of no "bandwagon" effect because of the constituencies that HRC and Obama have already built, taken together with HRC's high negatives, that you built on in your 12:38p post. Given the further possibility that Edwards will win IA, Clinton NH, and Obama SC, the big Feb primaries will be open. And I cannot overemphasize the nature of the D Rules: everywhere BR tops 15% he gets delegates... .

By the way, I am assuming that Obama's constituencies include under 30s and African-Americans in disproportionate numbers; plus one big state, IL, in his pocket.

Continuing the speculation about no Democrat emerging from the primaries with a majority of delegates.........

Assume that Clinton, Edwards and Obama finish as the top 3 candidates (in whatever order) but no one is close to a majority. (If one of them had, say, 85% or more of the number required for nomination, I am sure one or more of the second tier candidates would drop out and support the front runner). It is quite possible that none of the top 3 could accept one of the other two as the nominee if the nomination race got bitter. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of the second tier candidates ended up with the nomination this way. Or, perhaps, Gore would make himself available for a draft from the convention. How would the public accept a candidate who did not fare well in the primaries or did not run in them at all? Regardless of your personal preferences, wouldn't that be interesting for us political junkies?

Mark

There hasn't been a second ballot for the presidential nomination since 1952. It would be fascinating to see a brokered convention in the age of 24/7 TV news coverage. So many primaries are scheduled so close together that it could happen. Recent elections have seen a front-runner emerge in the first few primaries and a bandwagon effect take hold through the remaining primaries to give that front-runner a majority of delegates. Should the main contenders emerge from Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada with no clear front-runner there would be no bandwagon effect for the mega-primaries. Should the race remain competitive after the mega-primaries, it is quite possible that no one will be within striking distance of a majority. Should that happen, I do not believe the nominee will be Senator Clinton. If she does not win the nomination in the primaries, I believe most of the delegates not committed to her would be wary of her ability to win the general election. Also game theory says that it is far more likely that number 2 and number 3 would combine to number 1 (assuming that she does have the most delegates).

Senators are not required to resign their seats to run for President. Obama was elected in 2004 and Clinton was re-elected in 2006 so they could keep their Senate seats if they ran for President and lost. Kerry did not resign his seat in 2004. Bob Dole did in 1996 but that had a lot to do with internal Republican squabbling.

Should Obama or Edwards win the nomination, I believe they would need a running mate with strong foreign policy-national security credentials. Richardson would be a good choice for Edwards. I agree with JD that Obama would not select another minority for his running mate. Clinton would also need such a running mate to counter the prejudice that women can not be 'tough' enough in the age of terrorism. I agree with Mark that wesley Clark would be the best choice for either Obama or Clinton. Not only would he provide outstanding national security credentials but I believe a general would help the ticket agains the inevitable "they are too liberal" charges from the Republicans. After all, four star generals are at the pinnacle of one of the most conservative institutions in our society.

'And if you think my arithmetic is not unlikely, and accept Judge's view that the Ds MUST have a caucasian male on the ticket, what happens next?'

I am really unsure right now, Mark. I don't love Hillary, frankly, although having Bill as a foreign policy advisor I consider a big plus... I think he has a much better grasp of how to deal with world leaders than just about anyone, and though she has far less charisma, she's not bad. She IS tough and she can fight back against what will be relentless attacks.

However, I feel she's a little too close [as was Bill] to corporate interests and Israel. But it may be true today that someone who ISN"T close to corporate interests can't win.

Having said that, I still think she would make a fine president, better than any on the R side -- but I will never support her the way I could Gore, my personal favorite.

Obama would be fine too, although I would worry about his personal safety. I think there is enough of [a fairly substaintial] fringe element in this country that would just go nuts.

Edwards too is fine, although I like his wife better. I wish he was more hard-hitting. Richardson I like, but he's kind of a lackluster performer.

The Caucasian male question is interesting. I wish it weren't so, but I don't know... certainly I think is the candidate is obama or Hillary or Richardson, there should be a white male to balance. Change too fast scares people.

IN any case, all of the D's again, I would support over any R -- especially the phony Mitt and the loony Guiliani. If you ever saw the footage of him viciously attacking his own wife on TV, I think you'd be amazed. He's absolutely savage and vile.

McCain, I could have supported at one time, before he started pandering to people who slimed his family. He's just a sad case, really. the rest of the R's- lunatics.

Who cares about Obama. He has accomplished a grand total of ZERO in the Senate. He has virtually no experience. Same with Edwards - a big nothing.

H. Clinton is taken much more seriously in the Senate than either of these two. Also, Richardson is much better qualified than Obama and Edwards.

Obama is the Jessica Simpson of politics. There's nothing there except a nice smile and a bunch of cliches.

Do the Ds on this blog see anyone winning BEFORE the Convention?

My best guess, right now, is that HRC will go into the Convention with 33% of the delegates and a lead, but because of PR rules for the Ds, Obama will be close, and Edwards and Richardson will have enough votes to trade with.

Colin, Judge, Cassandra, spartan, drindl, lylepink, all Ds: what do you think?

And if you think my arithmetic is not unlikely, and accept Judge's view that the Ds MUST have a caucasian male on the ticket, what happens next?

I think that Wes Clark is a fitting VP for every single one of these candidates.

Does Obama have to give up his Senate seat in Illinois if he is the nominee? Does HRC have to give up her seat in NY if she is the nominee? I think BR does NOT have to give up his governorship if he is the nominee, but I stand to be corrected.

"Edwards has spent much of his time since his unsuccessful 2004 bids for president and vice president focused on making poverty part of the daily discussion in the 2008 debate. (It might just be working; Sen. Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver an address on urban poverty tomorrow in Washington.)"

I admire Edwards' focus on poverty. But I note that this post suggests reasons people think Obama has little substance -- not because he doesn't talk about issues, but because the media is so caught up the the celebrity it created for him that it doesn't actually listen.

To help in decoding: Obama talks about Katrina quite often. If he were president, would he outlaw hurricanes? Doubtful -- the Republicans would filibuster. [sarcasm off] Rather, he is talking about the way that Katrina symbolized and revealed patterns of injustice and failures of the contract between the government and the governed -- particularly __the most impoverished among us__.

Is it too much to ask that reporters/bloggers actually read the speeches of candidates other than their personal favorite?

"Exactly the opposite. It's brutal."

John Edwards is right about one thing. Two americas. You got the real (world) and fake. you got the REAL people and the fakers.

There are two americas. I went to an amusment park this weekend. They had a special pass. You pay $200 each you get to go to the front of ALL lines. You get to feed and interact with the animals, rather than just watching. Money talks, bull shi__ runs the marathon.

You got the money you are un-toucable, or less touchable. You got the money AMERICA IS A FREE COUNTRY. You don't have money and AMErica is corporate slavery. You don't have moeny and you toil everyday for THE MAN while they live it up. You produce they enjoy what you produce.

' dirty Harry | July 18, 2007 11:35 AM'

zouk punches in 7 minutes early today. funny, that's what rush limbuagh calls harry reid. i knew you were a ditto head.. going to cut and paste from The Wekly Standard all day today?

'Yeah right, drindl, and the Indians were peaceful before we taught them how to kill. and living on a farm with no power or water is so romantic. and dying of some unknown illness is so natural. etc.'

wtf are you talking about? this bears no relationship to what i posted.

'having been on both sides of the equation, I think I have the right to speak. (Have you?...)

People who take those jobs do so by choice.'

--yes, I have. I was born working class, my first few many jobs were menial [waitress, clerk, door-to-door sales, you name it] I nearly killed myself working full time while attending college full time, I had some ability as a writer, I left everything behind and moved to NY, I worked 12 hours a day for a few years, and I became a successful copywriter, well paid.

And as far as taking a life-treatening job 'by choice' -- so people don't really have any/many choices, JD. that's the rightwing myth, that is everyone is created equal in america. It's simply a lie, especially now.

I don't know why you thought I was romanticizing being working class. Exactly the opposite. It's brutal.

Media gets filibuster affair backwards: News outlets ignore GOP obstructionism, then blame Dems for filibuster - Josh Marshall has been documenting just how irresponsible the media has been in neglecting to report on GOP filibusters, leading to widespread confusion as to why Congress isn't passing legislation. Now, once the media finally brings itself to start introducing the word to the public, major news outlets get it backwards: "During the July 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) 'vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals.' ... Additionally, on the July 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that Reid is 'filibustering his own bill.'" Sawyer has been a professional political correspondent in DC since 1978. Before that, she worked in two Republican White Houses. She must know what a filibuster is.

"If no-one bothers to read your posts they can hardly change the world."

I feel you roo. i don't care about the things you mentioned. I have a duty here, from time to time. I do it. It's for others to determine to read or not. To research or not. I mis-spell to draw gop'ers in. Give them something to attack other than the facts. This way WE can keep them involved. It's not the dems holding up progress. So preaching to them solves nothing. I'm trying to engage the gop'ers. I do that with differant methods. Sometimes blind attacks, somtimes misspelled words, sometimes talking about that which has no bearing. I know the GOP. I know their games. Preaching to the choir accomplishes nothing. The gop is sabotage.

I do my job, in terms or american politics. It's for others to listen and research for themselves, or not. I can't spoon feed you peple. I'm not anything special. I am a young anrgy man with an agenda. That's it. My agenda is in progress. Read or not. Listen or not. It's not for me to decide. I can just do me. God has me saying what certain people need to hear at certain times. You and I don't knwo they words or the people or the time. I can just do me.

Believe me, or don't. Join me or don't. I can just do me. I like your posts roo. They are on point. But you have a differant agenda. I don't hate the gop'ers. I feel sorry for them. I want to take their fear and put it in a safe place. WE need to help them. Not destroy them. We need to show them where and why they are wrong. WE need to show them that money is not something to live your life for. Money is little pieces of paper with pictures on it. That's it. It's worth is only what we give it. Sorry if I'm not what you expect roo. I can just do me.

God bless. Good lcuk

Yeah right, drindl, and the Indians were peaceful before we taught them how to kill. and living on a farm with no power or water is so romantic. and dying of some unknown illness is so natural. etc.

The NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies data has January-June 2007 just edging out the same period in 1998 for the record. The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported today that 2007 has been "the second warmest on record for January-June year-to-date period," missing 1998 by only 0.01°C. Either way, it is hot!

Other factoids from the NCDC data:

For the January-June period, the global surface temperature over land ranked warmest on record, beating 2002 by 0.10°C.
Much of the West and the South suffered from extreme drought conditions brought about by months of below average precipitation. It was the second driest January-June and driest April-June on record in the Southeast. By the end of June, 65 percent

Obstructing stupid ideas that the President would never sign IS their job. Get a grip and get on with the real biz. you Libs are becoming a laughing stock, especially that total clown Harry.

Sorry if this conflicts with your worldview drindl, but what I say is the truth; and having been on both sides of the equation, I think I have the right to speak. (Have you?...)

People who take those jobs do so by choice. Nobody puts a gun to their head and says go stand on a metal beam 40 stories up, or work in some dangerous plumbing job. Clearly, the higher wages compensated them for those risks, else they wouldn't have taken the job.

And whether I 'know' any working class families? Yeah. I am one. That's the point. I work more now in a white collar job than I did in the blue collar, by an order of magnitude. And I find no charm or romance in the BC job, even looking back through the lens of nostalgia; it was simply necessary at the time.

Maybe Edwards will get Obama to start talking about poverty? First, Obama's done much more than talk about it, and not just since he got into public office, but before he ever considered political office. You should know Obama was fighting for poor people for years with the grassroots in Chicago before he got into Harvard, and only earned $12,000 a year doing so when he already had a Columbia bachelors degree and could've made much more. Obama was sought by law firms and could've been as rich as Edwards after Harvard Law, but he chose to work on civil rights, and register thousands of new poor voters in Illinois instead. This blogger apparently doesn't know much about Senator Obama, who's only just made his first million for writing books, not millions of dollars as a professional advocate against the abuse of the poor by suing corporations. All the blogger listed as Edwards anti-poverty work outside of professional law began after his 2004 loss - that doesn't look genuine. Obama's history is real, and his policies better.

AFTER AN ALL-NIGHT DEBATE, SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE BLOCKED A DEMOCRATIC EFFORT TO REMOVE AMERICAN COMBAT TROOPS FROM IRAQ BY THE END OF APRIL 2008 BY A VOTE OF 52 TO 47

So dingy harry pulls a foolish media stunt that can only be described as another in the long line of failures since he took charge. can a Senator be impeached for incompetence? Is there a single thing positive he can lay claim to? I don't think he's meeting his benchmarks.

so does he want more troops or less troops this week?

The Usual Suspects. In case you thought Cheney might have secretly been consulting with Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace and Amnesty International, have no fear. He was meeting with just who you thought he was: Exxon, Enron, British Petroleum, Duke Energy, and a Grover Norquist/Gale Norton front group with ties to Abramoff.

CC -- ANSWER: WHY IS EDWARD'S HAIRCUT A 'STORY' WHILE MITTY'S MAKEUP IS NOT?

Now THIS made me laugh. Remember Mellon Scaife, who used millions of his own money to bring down Bill Clinton?

'The Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday called the Bush administration's plans to stay the course in Iraq a "prescription for American suicide." The editorial in the Tribune-Review added, "And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about 'sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved,' we had to
question his mental stability."

White House officials arranged for top officials at the Office of National Drug Control Policy to help as many as 18 vulnerable Republican congressmen by making appearances and sometimes announcing new federal grants in the lawmakers' districts in the months leading up to the November 2006 elections, a Democratic lawmaker said yesterday.

'I can say that, during the former, I never took my work home with me, or on vacation, etc. I do 10x more 'work' now than I did back then. And a hell of a lot more stress.'

JD's comment made me laugh out loud. I remember looking out the windown of my office on the 40th floor straight across at steelworkers walking on the skeleton of a new building going up, dodging steel beams swinging toward them, risking their lives every minute of the day -- and undoubtedly making a lot less than I was.

And my brother, an industrial plumber whose spleen was ruptured on the job and spent 3 months out of work. .. 3rd time he was almost killed on the job. He's 40.

If you don't know any working class families, STFU. You have no idea how hard they work and struggle and for how little money.

At the White House, Ms. Townsend found herself in the uncomfortable position of explaining why American military action was focused in Iraq when the report concluded that main threat of terror attacks that could be carried out in the United States emanated from the tribal areas of Pakistan.

When did the US government and the people who live here lose their humanity?

Thanks you Mr. Edwards for reminding us of important ethics such as, "Take care of the least of these"

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" seems to be the slogan of politics in the US.

His cause is a noble one.

-- President Bush's top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan.'

So when are the Serious Pundits going to start talking about THIS? Billions of dollars later, thousands and thousands of dead -- and al-Queda is now stronger than they were before 9/11. And bin Ladin is still free.

FEEL SAFER NOW, REPUBLICAN MORONS?

In last night's marathon Senate debate, the Republican Party repeatedly blamed the "surrender" advocates, "partisan" Democrats (thanks Joe) who allegedly seek a "precipitous" withdrawal, even though every single proposal by the Democrats and a handful of disillusioned Republicans says nothing about surrender or a precipitous withdrawal. Instead, the Democratic proposals call for the military to develop plans for a gradual withdrawal consistent with our soldiers' safety, which means every plan has always given General Petraeus until next spring for his "surge" to work. And every Democratic proposal in the Senate would leave unknown thousands of troops in Iraq to defend Iraqi territorial integrity from outside invasion (except ours) and for counter-terrorism, as well as "force protection." In short, the President's Republicans, at the urging of Bill Kristol who claims credit for the "precipitous withdrawal" framing, are simply lying about what this entire debate is about.

Sen. Tom Harkin has a few words about why Republicans are obstructing the business of the Senate on behalf of continued failure. And he wants your help in spreading the word -- and increasing pressure -- on the GOP WINO Caucus. And on every Republican and Independent Trojan Horse Stealth Republican Lite. (Don't miss Harold Meyerson's take on the WINOs this morning. Priceless.)

Republicans support failure. And they are willing to continue to obstruct the will of the vast majority of the American public. It is that simple. We need to make the cost of continuing to do so outweigh their need to kiss Presidential behind. One way to do that is to turn up the heat. Whatever it takes, however long it takes...the time for accountability is now.

Call your Senators toll free, and let them know what you think about the Grand Obstruction Party and the Republican commitment to more of the same failure:

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

Wilkes faces 30 counts in two separate indictments, including charges that he gave Cunningham $600,000 in gifts and cash in exchange for Cunningham's help in getting more than $80 million in defense contracts. Wilkes' two trials are expected to occur this fall. The government has not said if it will bring Cunningham back to San Diego to testify.

Cunningham was able to promote defense contracts for favored companies through the use of legislative "earmarks," provisions lawmakers could slip anonymously into spending bills without debate, discussion or disclosure that benefit interests in their districts or their political supporters Wilkes has said a $100,000 payment he made to Cunningham in 2000, was not a bribe, but instead was to purchase Cunningham's river yacht, the Kelly C.

WASHINGTON - In two days of prison interviews with federal agents this year, disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham described a level of corruption on his part more extensive than previously known and dealt a potentially devastating blow to the defense being waged by one of the defense contractors alleged to have bribed him.
The interviews were conducted in February at the federal prison near Tucson, where the longtime Republican congressman is serving an eight-year and four-month sentence after admitting to accepting more than $2.4 million in bribes. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion.

FBI transcript (PDF)
Hattier affidavit (PDF)
According to an 11-page FBI summary of the sessions, obtained by Copley News Service, Cunningham was very much the initiator of his corrupt actions, demanding bribes, accepting envelopes with cash and displaying an insatiable appetite for more money, more cars, more drink, more fine food and more expensive goods and prostitutes.

Cunningham's answers are bad news for Brent Wilkes, president of Poway-based ADCS Inc., who is fighting bribery charges against him. They set the stage for what could be a dramatic courtroom showdown between the former North County congressman and his longtime benefactor.

Oh yes, forgot to say, Mitty's Makeup artist is at
Hidden Beauty of West Hills, Calif.

Hidden Beauty. How special. If a democrat went to a place like this, it would be all over the headlines. But a repug? Nobody will touch it.

Sounds like a great product line, though...

MITTY'S HIDDEN BEAUTY

'And finally, All-Hallowed and All-Seeing Grand Vizier of the Media Universe Matt Drudge hasn't issued any command for coverage of Romney's makeup fees. Thus, Edwards' haircut is news, and Romney's makeup fees aren't. Really, now. This is not complicated.'

Yes, Matt Drudge has not covered Mitty's Makeup, so therefore, the Serious Pundits won't either, because they are all simply sheep who do what Drudgey tells them to.

--yeah, when are all the Serious Pundits going to report on Mitty's Makeup? If it 'says something' about Edwards character when he spends a lot on a haircut, what does it say about a man who spends $300 on makeup?

C'mon, media wh*res, cover this! Where's the front page WaPo and NYTimes stories on this?

'What kinds of things do you think of when you hear "communications consulting"?

Speechwriting? Message strategy?

Well, "communications consulting" is how presidential candidate Mitt Romney recorded $300 in payments to a California company that describes itself as "a mobile beauty team for hair, makeup and men's grooming and spa services."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mitt+romneys+makeup&btnG=Google+Search

Sorry about the typo in the word "mansion". Grunwald is married to Matt Cooper, whom I have known since 1982. Some power couple! Both Washiungton prostitutes. Speaking as a former reporter, Cooper didn't have the stomach for Federal prison, ujnlike Judith Miller. I nstead he went on CNN and every other media outlet and whined about his and Grunwald's son Benjamin. Cooper is now working for Conde Nast's PORTFOLIO as its Washington editor, a job somewhat akin to appointing Typhoid Mary to cover an epidemic. I say the hell with HRC and her strategy and the hell with all Democrats who will not stand up and be counted on the only issue that really matters todaty: getting our brothers and sisters out of a war zone they cannot hope to win. Karl Rove may be able to block the Senators from getting anywhere, but this is now the endgame. HRC has changed her position on so many issues for the last seven years (not tro mention her years as co-President) that she reminds me of David Byrne's brilliant Talking Heads lyric:

"I've changed my hairstyle
So many times now
I don't know what I look like."

Chris from now on you need to mention that Mitt Romney paid 300 bucks for makeup last quarter, since you feel the need to do it everytime you mention John Edwards.

Video: FDA Closure Plan Risk To Consumers, Lawmakers Say

A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plan to close half of its laboratories is an assault on food safety that probably would expose more Americans to harm from unsafe food, lawmakers charged at a House hearing.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/video-fda-closure-plan-risk-to.html

When are people going to figure out that it is neither phony nor hypocritical to advocate for the poor while having personal wealth. The advocate is championing ways for the poor to get help and be...less poor.

It would be hypocritical if some rich guy went around saying that it's better to BE poor and that everyone should give up their money and become poor...while he keeps all of his.

What's a paltry one million dollars to a member of Congress?

Well, apparently not enough to know if an organization about to receive that big block of cash actually exists.

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, the fiscal crusader who's never met an earmark he likes, questioned Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana on the House floor Tuesday about whether the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure actually exists - since, hey, it's getting like a million bucks or something.

Visclosky, who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, had to admit that, well, he didn't have a clue.

After a lengthy back-and-forth, Flake, complaining that his staff couldn't find a website for the center, asked Visclosky, "Does the center currently exist?"

"At this time, I do not know," the Indiana Democrat replied. "But if it does not exist, the monies could not go to it."

And who could possibly be the sponsor of such an earmark? Yes, you guessed it, the man Republicans love to hate, Pennsylvania Democrat John P. Murtha.

Despite the money's uncertain destination, the House rejected Flake's measure to strike the funds, 326-98. And the Visclosky bill also sailed through, 312-112.

As I said, what's one million dollars to a member of Congress?

Edwards is almost as phony as Romney

Maybe Edwards can put up a few hundred homeless people at his 28,000 square foot home or give them some of his $55,000-per-speech speaking fees

rufus--You need to communicate your important ideas more effectively. Most people, including the evil libs, completely ignore your posts at this point.

1) Spell checker. Seriously. You may feel that grammar, spelling nor punctuation are important in comparison to your Big Ideas but lack thereof conveys a feeling that you are not taking your task seriously. Get Firefox from http://www.mozilla.org/firefox, it is Open Source and comes with a spellchecker.

2) Sometimes you need to write it down but not publish it. Upset? Write the post, then delete it. Then write your *real* post.

If no-one bothers to read your posts they can hardly change the world.

Poverty is not Edwards only seriously considered issue. His website is substantive, well-researched, and covers issues from global warming to healthcare.

I'm so glad to read a political commentary which addresses issues rather than exploiting personal attack. I really hope the media can raise the level of debate -their own. The candidates, at least the Dems, have been impressive.

Poverty is not Edwards only seriously considered issue. His website is substantive, well-researched, and covers issues from global warming to healthcare.

I'm so glad to read a political commentary which addresses issues rather than exploiting personal attack. I really hope the media can raise the level of debate -their own. The candidates, at least the Dems, have been impressive.

:)

yEAH HOWARD. Network becomes reality. And we never saw it coming. The repubs have been n charge at least the last ten years. And everything is the libs fault. What a crock.

Great post. We start by getting Fox "News" and Rush off the air. We can re-build without the lying propogandists. As a self-government we need all the REAL news and none of the fake news.

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'

"As noted on Friday, Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Republican Tom Davis of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee wrote letters to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and RNC Chairman Mike Duncan requesting further documents regarding the handling of information surrouding the death of Army Ranger Specialist Patrick Tillman.[..]

On Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing entitled "The Tillman Fratricide: What the Leadership of the Defense Department Knew." The hearing will examine what senior Defense Department officials knew about U.S. Army Corporal Patrick Tillman's death by fratricide.

On Friday, July 13, Chairman Waxman and Ranking Minority Member Tom Davis sent letters to the White House and the Department of Defense objecting to the withholding of documents related to the death of Corporal Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2004. Chairman Waxman also wrote the Republican National Committee to request communications about Corporal Tillman's death by White House officials using e-mail accounts controlled by the RNC. (See also here)
"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

MikeB, saying that the unions that exist and contribute today aren't 'real' unions is to deny reality. They stand for most, if not all, of the Democratic party's planks these days. Yes, even public sector unions.

Now, do they confirm to true 'liberalism' as that word originally was meant to communicate? No, they don't. But then your gripe isn't with unions, per se, it's with the evolution of progressive priorities.

As for your offhand comment about how unions defend 'working' men (implying that those not in unions, or those of us in white collar jobs, aren't 'workers' or 'working class'...) - give me a break. I hated that backhanded comment when Gore and Edwards and others make it; I've been on both sides of the fence - unionized blue collar job (in NJ, reading gas meters), and doing what I do now, a very white collar job in mgmt. I can say that, during the former, I never took my work home with me, or on vacation, etc. I do 10x more 'work' now than I did back then. And a hell of a lot more stress.

JD: Obama+Richardson is too minority oriented. Obama needs to balance his minority status with a white guy, preferably a Southerner. Edwards is tailor-made. He'd pick up a thicker accent in Alabama and Georgia and they'd eat it up. He doesn't need to win anything, just suppress the redneck vote against Obama.

Having said all that I agree that a stronger VP candidate having approximately the same pedigree probably exists. Bob Riley might be available (just kidding!).

do nothing dems - You'd better go check your facts. The bulk of campaign contributions to Democratic candidates to date originates with corporations, business organizations, and individuals being used to funnel corporate money. This is precisely the same origin as for your Republican candidates. ABout the inly "union" giving campaign cash these days are the public employee unions and they are about as liberal as Herman Goring and as dedicated to Democaric canddates as is Karl Rove. Unions, genuine unions representing actual working men and women, are dying and have no money nor power to influence elections or policy. Witness the campaign donors for Clinton and Richardson.

Edwards is toast. When either HRC or Obama gets the nom, probably HRC, their Vice choice will probably be Richardson, due to his resume and the respectable showing he's making both in polls and fundraising.

If Edwards cannot win his own state for Kerry, and the South evidently doesn't like his politics enough to sway even one state (including the very populist WV), why would anyone bring him on as vice?

Dems, ask youself, which red state will go blue thanks to Edwards?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget it wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues.

The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for Labor.

The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.

Since unions helped elect the current Congress, they are now seeking action on their agenda, which ranges from holding fewer secret ballot elections to cutting back on the oversight that is at the heart of the 1959 union "bill of rights" that JFK championed.

Meanwhile in New Hampshire Richardson has passed Edwards in the latest CNN poll to take third place in the race:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/17/topnh4b.pdf

Meanwhile in New Hampshire Richardson has passed Edwards in the latest CNN poll to take third place in the race:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/07/17/topnh4b.pdf

"The President has to spend a lot of time on foreign policy issues and a host of other domestic issues, which usually leaves the plight of poor Americans a pretty low priority."

And as we've seen tax cuts for billionaires have a habit of diverting your attention as well, bsimon!

I think the poor appreciate both the focus of both Edwards and Obama on their problems. Whether that will translate into votes remains to be seen. Americans have repeatedly shown a lack of interest in their own welfare when it comes to voting patterns. We consistently ignore the hearts and minds of those whom terrorists recruit overseas but do a bang-up job of courting the hearts and minds of the voting public in the US every four years.

In Colorado's CD2 a big winner is Jared Polis. Jared is a hugely successful businessman and longtime liberal activist.

Jared raised a record for Colorado with over $300,000 this past quarter. Jared out raised his major opponent by over $70,000. Jared is running for the seat being vacated by Mark Udall.

Two huge losers in Colorado would be:

Bob Schaffer the sole Republican running for the US Senate who raised only $600,000

Doug Lamborn freshman Congressman who is inviting a primary challenge by only raising $30,000

Andy R writes
"Poverty may not be a winning issue but it is a very important one."

Indeed it is. Its likely an extremely important issue to 15% of our population. But given the job duties of President, it seems that someone who's primary concern is poverty ought to seek a job in which they can spend more time addressing that problem. The President has to spend a lot of time on foreign policy issues and a host of other domestic issues, which usually leaves the plight of poor Americans a pretty low priority.

Chris writes
"Edwards brushed off media reports about his expensive haircuts and his spacious home in North Carolina as distractions that do a disservice to the thousands of Americans living in poverty"

Wait, is it the media reports or the expensive haircuts and spacious home that do a disservice to the thousands of Americans living in poverty?

I kid.

I think Kid Johnny Edwards isn't faking concern for the plight of Americans living in poverty. I just think making him President is the wrong solution to the problem. Perhaps a stint as Secretary of Health & Human Services would be more appropriate.

Poverty may not be a winning issue but it is a very important one. Also Edwards is doing a great job of using poverty to highlight the other issues that are important to all of us, healthcare, energy costs, etc.

I don't know if Edwards can win the primary (although I am betting he will make a serious run at it) but if he does then he will wipe the floor with any of the Republicans.

One of our sharp-eyed TPMtv sleuths CS just caught White House Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend saying Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Mesapotamia (aka al Qaeda in Iraq), a group that appears to have no operational ties to bin Laden's group are in fact "the same organization." (

Tonight, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will keep the Senate "working through the night" in an effort to force conservatives to stand and filibuster the Levin/Reed plan for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

The same conservatives filibustering tonight were singing a different tune two years ago. When Democrats held up the confirmation of a few of President Bush's right-wing judicial nominees, conservatives repeatedly complained of "obstructionism."

Senate conservatives had threatened to deploy the "nuclear option," which would have eliminated the traditional Senate practice of filibustering.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "[Filibustering] is wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up."

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: "Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the '[nuclear]' option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate."

Today, however, these conservatives are proposing the exact opposite of the nuclear option -- a permanent filibuster. The Washington Post reports today that McConnell has requested that all Iraq amendments meet a 60 vote threshold, an effort designed to quietly block withdrawal legislation from ever passing the Senate:

Edwards simultaneously polishes both his populist and anti-poverty credentials to a blinding gloss in preparation for his stint as Obama's VP. Wonder if he's got some harem pants and gold chains hanging in his closet in case he needs to reach out even further?

GWB was down the street at the Cleveland Clinic just one week ago. According to their press the "President Gained Hands-on Experience with Brain Surgery Simulation," a headline that positively begs Jon Stewart to make fun of it. Did he take a detour off either Chester or Carnegie to check on the plight of the underclass while he was there? Nope.

The key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate have been released. Read them HERE. Below, some important findings:

Al Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability":

Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Iraq has strengthened al Qaeda, which will seek to "leverage the contacts and capabilities" gained in the war:

Of note, we assess that al-Qa'ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland.

Al Qaeda's association with "al Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) helps to "energize the broader Sunni extremist community" and "recruit and indoctrinate operatives":

In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa'ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.

On July 11, Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) proposed an amendment to the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2008 (H.R. 1585) calling for troop redeployment from Iraq to begin within 120 days. On July 16, Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic leadership's effort to schedule an up-or-down vote on the amendment. In response, Reid scheduled a July 18 cloture vote on the amendment, which would require a 60-vote supermajority to cut off debate on the measure. On the Senate floor, Reid criticized the Republicans for "using a filibuster to block us from even voting on" the amendment and announced his intention to extend the debate on the measure through the night on July 17 in order to "highlight Republican obstruction."

During the July 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." Sawyer was referring to Reid's plan to hold an all-night Senate debate prior to the July 18 cloture vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq. However, by planning to extend the Senate session throughout the night, Reid is not "vow[ing] to filibuster," as Sawyer reported. Rather, he is highlighting the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal; in other words, it is the Republicans who are filibustering the withdrawal proposal by requiring that 60 senators vote for the amendment in order for it to pass.

Additionally, on the July 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that Reid is "filibustering his own bill."

John Edwards, along with Dennis Kucinich, is the only truly decent candidate running for the Presidency. I expect attacks on him from both the right wing and Clinton-global economy camps for actually taking the time to show the plight of the working poor in this country.

Not to mention it doubles as a subtle jab against Dennis Kucinich, representative for Ohio's 10th district, which includes Cleveland. Looks like Edwards is trying to bring down the "lesser" candidates after all...