John Edwards' Fighting Words
The candidate is running an impassioned, anti-corporate campaign, but will Edwards' pugilistic populism turn off Iowa voters?
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA —Campaigning in Iowa, John Edwards spends a great deal of time talking about the extremely poor. He talks about veterans who live under bridges and parents who choose between food for their kids and heat in their homes. Eradicating poverty, he says, "is the cause of my life." But, a voter can ask, has it always been so? Or has he only become an anti-poverty crusader as a presidential candidate? Sincere or not—and he sure seems sincere—is his help-the-poor message the best way to connect with Iowa Democrats? In fact, Edwards' campaign events in Iowa, heavy with union workers and members of the middle class, contain few people without a roof over their heads or food on the table.
Members of those audiences don't mind, however. The rhetoric shows Edwards' commitment to fighting for the little man. "I find it appealing," said Nancy Gruwell, a health care worker and committed Edwards supporter. "He wants to help everyone. People who are in poverty probably had really good jobs and lost them." It was a statement echoed by Edwards supporters in Cedar Rapids and Des Moines on Monday, who say Edwards' focus on poverty is just another way of strengthening the social safety net that protects all of us. The selflessness of Edwards' message "is one of the reasons I'm a Democrat," said one supporter.
And then there's Edwards' palpable dislike for corporations. "There are very powerful forces, well-financed forces, standing between you and the future your children should have," the candidate proclaimed at a campaign event in Des Moines. "That's what this election is about. Unless and until you have a president of the United States who's willing to stand up with some backbone and some guts and fight and stand up to these corporate interests," there will never be real change.
The Des Moines Register, in its recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton, said that it found Edwards' "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric" distasteful. Getting things done would be difficult for such a one-sided crusader, it implied. I asked Edwards about this before a rally in Cedar Rapids. "I just have a fundamental disagreement with the Register," he replied. "I respect their views; they're just very different from mine. I think most Americans see that corporate power and corporate greed are keeping the American dream from getting to their children. We have a fight on our hands."
His campaign, no surprise, dismisses the argument that Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric makes him less electable in the general. (Corporations, though, will have all the money they need to fund attack ads against him, and millions of Americans happily go to work for corporations every day.) "His message is very optimistic about America and its future," says spokesman Dan Leistikow. "Most Americans want a president who is going to fight for them and who recognizes that for the middle class, their interests have been ignored."
Not all those Iowans looking him over at campaign events are so sure. When I asked James Moriarty, an attorney from Cedar Rapids and Edwards supporter, if the candidate's anti-corporate message would hurt him in the general, he said, "I hope not." He paused and added, "I think the difference between Wal-Mart making $12 billion and making $3 billion is a lot of people who could lead better lives and provide for their families better."
An undecided voter named Scott Schultz, who is torn between Edwards and Barack Obama, noted, "You can't be so anti-corporate that it alienates the corporations, and they go bankrupt or say, 'Okay, I'll go to Mexico.' I think you have to work with these corporations. You have to have a strong hand with them, but by the same token, you kind of do have to work with them. You can't just say, 'They're bad, evil.' To me, that's how the Republicans have been working, but, you know, in reverse."
"We need to be all united together," said Schultz's wife, Kim, an educator. "It reminds me a little of the George Bush 'my way or the highway' attitude." She added, "I understand his passion, though. Sometimes I feel the same way, too."
Electability is a major selling point here in Iowa as the campaign enters the homestretch. Mari Culver, the first lady of Iowa, endorsed Edwards yesterday and introduced him at multiple events by saying, "John Edwards can win. He is the only Democratic candidate who can beat every Republican in the fall." The campaign is touting a CNN poll that found that only Edwards can slay every snake in the five-headed Republican monster of Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani. Edwards himself points to the fact that he grew up in a small town in rural America and that he won an election in a red state (albeit only once).
Along with offering a cause (ending poverty) and highlighting a target (greedy corporations and their hit men in Washington), Edwards makes the case that he is the fighter in the race. Hillary Clinton's top-line message is that she will "work hard" every single day for ordinary Americans. Edwards takes it one step further: He will "fight" every single day. He repeats the theme of "fight" ad nauseam.
"I still remember when I was young—I was about four, five years old—I got into a fight," he said in Des Moines. "Came home bloody. My father sat me down—bloody, teary—he sat me down and said, 'Listen son, don't ever start a fight. I don't want to hear you're out there starting fights. But you never, ever walk away from a fight." More fight is John Edwards' prescription for America, and not just in the macro sense. "I want you to go out there tomorrow," he tells his audience, "and find that kid who kicked your butt and I want you to kick his butt. And then I want you to fight with everything you've got [for America]."
So while Clinton presents herself as the potential worker in chief, and Obama offers himself as the candidate who can transcend the rancor and bickering of Washington, Edwards says, I want to be your slugger in Washington. Does this pugilistic populism work? Does he run the risk of turning off voters with his anger? "I don't see him as angry so much as he's indignant," said Moriarty, the attorney from Cedar Rapids. "Righteously so. You don't get anything accomplished when you're angry. It clouds your judgment. When something offends you, in your heart, then you do something about it. I feel poverty truly offends Senator Edwards."
I asked Gruwell, the health care worker, if Edwards' righteous anger will scare people in the general election. "Um, yeah," she said, embarrassed. "I think so."
Edwards, like his rivals, isn't going negative in these final weeks before the January 3 caucuses. But he insists his fighting attitude would allow him to better take on health care interests than his competitors.
"You cannot bring about," Edwards repeatedly declares, "in my judgment, the change this country so desperately needs either if you take their money or if you say, 'We're going to sit at the table with insurance companies, drug companies, and they're going to compromise their power away.'" It's no secret he was referring first to Clinton, who has accepted huge sums from the health care industry, and second to Obama, who recently said he would begin health care reform by convening a meeting of all players, including the multibillion-dollar corporations, and air it on C-SPAN so Americans can see what each party is demanding and if they are negotiating in good faith. "It is a fantasy," Edwards said yesterday. "It will never happen. I'll tell you when they'll give away their power: When we take their power away from them."
In recent days, Edwards and his campaign staffers have been focusing more on Obama. But Edwards has been gentle. In response to Obama's questions to Edwards—"Were you fighting [special interests] when you were in the Senate? What did you do [then]?"—Edwards merely cited his coauthorship on the patients' bill of rights, which was opposed by insurance companies, and he declined to return fire. The strongest thing Edwards would say is that it is "unrealistic" for Obama to expect insurance companies and drug companies to be willing and helpful partners.
This is an interesting and somewhat definitional debate—one that has often bubbled within Democratic circles: How confrontational should Democrats be with corporate power? But in Iowa the fight is being waged on a campaign trail where other factors are at play. Nevertheless, Edwards' message is rather clear and stark. There's no misunderstanding it. Caucus night will show how many Democrats in Iowa are concerned about the poor, angry about corporations, and yearning to have Edwards be their fighter in Washington.
Page 1 of 1 
Edwards is exactly what this country needs. Corporate America is out of control & needs to be reeled in.
I would rather vote for someone who shoot for the moon and wind up outside of earth orbit than those corporate, business-as-usual Democrats. Don't be fooled: Edwards is the only electable, change candidate.
Edwards message is the opposite of those in power and a refreshing change of substance and demeanor in politics. His views comport with what the new silent majority is thinking when they recognize the inequality and corruption that corporate money buys.
I will vote for a candidate that limits campaigning to two months before the Iowa caucus.
I posted this on an ABC website that talked about Obama telling voters that he was better on the issue of how to deal with special interests.
Here is another thought on the difference between Edwards & Obama on the issue of how to deal with insurance & drug companies. This is how I see it and this is why I support Edwards.
I think Senator Obama has already lost round 1 in the fight by already signaling to the insurance & drug companies that he is willing to compromise before the talks even start. Whatever changes he might obtain will only be incremental changes that he will have to fight tooth and nail to get.
I think Edwards has already won round 1 by putting the insurance & drug companies on notice that he is no easy mark and will only negotiate from a position of strength. They either get with the program or they can settle for scraps. The longer they hold out the less leverage they will have. Edwards will also have to fight tooth and nail but he won't have to settle for what the insurance & drug companies will give to him they will have to settle for what he and the American people will give to them.
If you were trying to reform the system which position wouldl you want to have?
Edwards has great rhetoric. What I would like to see is a factual list from Mother Jones as to how he acts and lives. If he is such a champion of the poor, why did he NEVER do pro bono work? Why did he spend 5.5 MILLION dollars on a mansion in North Carolina. Why did he VOTE FOR the War and run strongly on this fact four years ago. Why didn't he introduce his health plan when he was in the Senate and could actually effect policy?
Give him an A plus for rhetoric, but I can not imagine a more hypocritical candidate than John Edwards.
Champion of the poor? Too bad he has not lived his life to match his words.
Corporate greed??? I would just love to see a breakdown of all the "class action" lawsuits he has been involved in and how much money he got from each one, compared to how much money his poor client who suffered so much, got! While he isn't the lawyer who did the McDonalds hot tea debacle, he has spent his whole life doing just that. Is that "fighting the greedy corporations" or is that a "blood sucking lawyer" at his best??
I work for a corporation--one that is definitely more good than bad in its citizenship--but that doesn't mean that I give corporations a pass to exploit workers and consumers.
The concept that one has to be either for or against corporations is silly. We need corporations in a global economy. But they can, and must, treat workers and consumers fairly. Many very successful corps have done exactly this--Costco, for instance.
It's not an either/or choice. We can have more choices of retail and workplaces than just the Mom-and-Pops while still not turning the country into a scene from an Upton Sinclair book.
I really agree with you on this one.
Now that really isn't fair. First he wasn't an ambulance chaser, and he did not do frivolous lawsuits. He took on many corporations for injuries they inflicted through negligence. He wasn't walking around handing out neck braces. Additionally you do realize that both Hillary and Barrack are lawyers too.
Go, John, go!! I hope someone soaks the rich and redistributes the wealth in this country.
Ken Burns Compares Obama to Lincoln
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/18/ken_burns_compares_o...
Obama's Theme of Fresh Start Resonates Strongly Against Clinton Campaign
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4021096&page=1
The Des Moines Register may have a problem with Edwards message, I sure as hell don't. The truth is all the candidates are compromised from this corporate owned country. At least Edwards knows and exposes the powers that are calling the shots. While watching the video, 'An Unreasonable Man' about Ralph Nader I would support him all over again. All the demos are compromised, All of them!
The big reason I will not support Obama, his health care program keeps the insurance industry at the table and in the game. Insurance wins, we lose! How many people in this country understand that administration cost at present = about 30%, under medicare about 3%. Single payer plan is the answer.
Have you seen Edwards' house?????
Corporations have too much influence and power in our governement today and John Edwards is right to say that we need to fight to break the corporate dominance. In spite of an 1886 Supreme Court ruling, corporations are NOT PEOPLE and should not be given the same priviledges as people. Corporations should not be allowed to influence our politicians with lobbying and campaign contributions because it only leads to their agendas being put before ours. Need a reminder, "the Iraq War". Think of all the defense contractors, oil companies and now security companies(Blackwater) that are profiting for a war that makes money for them while it drains the people's treasury, now 9 trillion in the red. If the people paid for their own elections and didnt allow the huge campaign contributions to run our elections, do you think the President would be more inclined to listen to us?
A CEO will still have their one vote, just like you and I have our 1 vote. Because a CEO has millions of dollars at his disposal does that make him more important than you?
Look at it this way, if Hillary and Obama are taking in millions now to run their campaigns, thats millions of favors they will owe out to corporations that do not share your concerns. VOTE EDWARDS!
The person who seems to have the most problem with Edwards' anti-corporate rhetoric is you, Jonathan.
You've now taken a blog item -- in which you took a pasting in the comments that were posted in opposition to your view -- and expanded into a full article with the same premise, and you're STILL taking a pasting from most of the comments.
Why don't you get off this meme -- which only you, the Des Moines register, and a few crusty Iowans seem to share -- and do some real reporting based on something other than your own centrist bias?
James Moriarty: "I think the difference between Wal-Mart making $12 billion and making $3 billion is a lot of people who could lead better lives and provide for their families better."
Another example of a "false ground" position. Moriarty undoubtedly believes what he said -- he's an Edwards supporter, and is expressing misgivings about Edwards' message's reach.
But his view makes the assumption that those 12 billion dollars are better used by WalMart, for their employee's betterment, than they would be in some other context, such as if they went to support a broader small-business base, with the advantages of public health coverage.
There is reason to believe that small businesses, which WalMart routinely drives into insolvency, are more responsive to their employees' welfare than big business, who have the clout to weather all but the most determined of worker actions, and are usually required to produce major profits for worldwide shareholders, rather than more modest profits for family owners.
Don't forget, every time someone credits American-style capitalism with providing "your job," that EVERY economic system provides jobs, some much better than ours. There are virtually no unemployed in the Scandinavian countries, with their comprehensive public support services. Whereas our own fatally fudged unemployment figures are hiding a progressive holocaust of unemployment and insolvent wastage of human potential.
Unrestricted Capitalism does only one thing well. It funnels profits and wealth upward, from those who actually do the work of the culture to those who run the percentage-skimming organizations at the top of the tax brackets, and use their wealth to ensure that government continues the ponzi scheme.
pmorlan also has an excellent point that one cannot negotiate with pirates (insurance corporations). The only thing you get from negotiations with Chicago School types is over the type of refreshments to be served at the funeral of your dreams.
No negotiations.
Bravo, Senator Edwards. Why should righteous anger be the exclusive province of Republicans?
We may give away corporate wealth by offending our corporations, but we might also bring them under control to help the American people. This article has convinced me to vote Edwards.
The rhetoric sounds like the Kennedys in the 60's. Look what happened to them.
Very well said, have you read Wendell Berry about local economy?
With no financial regulations too many corporations are run by greedy sociopaths, I know I have worked for some! People comes before business, Globalization as it is today is a farce only benefiting the big money and if it is not stop it will get worse. Anyway we have to keep hoping for better time and mostly better leaders.
Sorry, I was talking about Dan Mortenson post.
It seems a little ridiculous to ask if someone became an "anti-poverty crusader" because they're running for president, since no one in their right mind would think that would be politically attractive. I am voting for Edwards because he IS sincere about his passion for eradicating poverty, not because he "seems" sincere. It warms my heart to hear a presidential candidate even talking about it -- and it's been a long time since a presidential campaign has warmed my heart.
To ask about Edwards' house is simply a distraction. If I can care about poverty (I'm not homeless either), then why can't he? Millions of people offer portions of their resources to help others without foregoing whatever luxuries they also provide themselves with, and they're called generous Americans, not hypocrites.
I am sick of people trying to act like trial lawyers are some lesser form of human. Without them, thousands of people would have no recourse at all against the many injustices of corporate behemoths. They do very hard work, and went through a lot to be qualified to do it.
It is completely true that the powers-that-be have never voluntarily handed over their power. It always takes a fight. Let's hope we're ready - finally!
It is about time someone recognise that Corporations can not be considered a U.S. Citizen. They are not a real people so how can you give them the rights of real U.S. Citizens? They are creations of men to gain economic advantage in various fields of endeavor some for good some for not so good. We the people have given them rights of citizens forgetting that they can not feel the pain or compassion that true real citizens can. I feel this is a make or brake time to regain the power that we have so foolishly given the Corporations. John Edwards I think has the guts, knowledge, and will power to fight and regain our country & national identity back to the individual citizen.
I have been supporting Edwards for about 8 months now and have never looked back-I am more convinced every day that I made the right decision-he is the only candidate that"gets" what is happening in America and has the guts to fix it-this is why there has been such hostility in the media-they either criticze or ignore him-there are millions of us that have been watching the Fascist takeover of this country since 2000-it's time to push back and restore fairness in American life-the hypocrisy of corporations and their insatiable greed, regardless who is harmed is plain to see.
What's wrong with fighting? What's wrong with anger? Nothing.
The "go along to get long" mode has never worked, and that's what we have in our present set of Dem candidates.
Afraid to offend someone? Just who has been so offensive to all of us and the world for the last seven years? Yes, the same Bush who's responsible for the destruction of American as we knew it.
So I say let's find out if we, the American people, will worry about offending someone, or if we will do the right thing for America.
It's now or never.
John Edwards is the one candidate I believe in. He became a millionaire by helping the underdog. Persons who dispute his logic did not become millionaires by disagreeing with John Edwards. HE WILL BE THE CHAMPION FOR AMERICA
I imagine the Health Ins. Company that refused to give the doctor recommended liver to the young girl who died did not deserve to receive the harsh treatment. The Register is always somewhat progressive during the year but rarely supports the Dem's for office.
This man, Sen. John Edwards,is the only candidate capable of running the office of President! He understands the working class, understands the need for universal health care, the ability to get us out of the middle east, (where we don't belong), ability to deal with the corporate problem, the envoirment, etc. Sen. John Edwards will surround himself with knowledgeable staff, not political hacks, to solve the enormous problems facing the nation to-day and in the future. VOTE FOR SEN. JOHN EDWARDS
POOR OR NOT, IT'S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOOK ON CORPORATE AMERICA. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE RULING OUR COUNTRY AND IT HAS TO STOP.
I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THE PHRASE "MONEY TALKS..."
I THOUGHT THE CONSTITUTION WAS SUPPOSSED TO PROTECT THE LITTLE GUY FROM THESE KINDS OF POLITICS.
GO EDWARDS!
The single biggest issue of our time is the "creeping fascism" that has occurred under the Cheney/Bush administration. Yet not a single candidate, including Edwards, ever mentions this. In times like this, a candidate who sells himself as a fighter for the American people should be calling for impeachment. Of course taking on the corporations is part of this struggle, because they are the other half of the problem, but there is much more at stake here than just how much money the big pharms make.
Yeh, Dan. The rich get richer, and the poor get thrown pennies. Before long our country will look like the monarchy of Olde England that many desparately tried to escape. The poor, the peons and surfs will continue to look wistfully at the masters' big mansions.
I like Edwards take on reining in corprate america,if you want more facts check out what President Eisenhower had to say about the industrial military complex taking over are goverment.Does Haliburton sound familiar.
Gravel mentioned it. On tv no less. of course, nobody listens to him.
Corporate Control over the economy, the mass media, the research agenda, the political process and public policy constitutes the basis for the nation's most serious, current problems. (For instance: The "War on Terrorism" in favor of "Democracy" provided a pretext for channelling the USA's financial, natural, human and institutional resources in benefit of a privileged few. First destroying, then "replacing/rebuilding" Iraq's government and infrastructure was nothing more than a mechanism for exploiting those resources - war benefits those manipulating public policy, not those fighting the war - and the loss of soldiers lives is "collateral damage" to those ends - soldiers are expendable resources to those vultures and their agenda, and so was the Bill of Rights - and many were duped into supporting or accepting the need for that cynical, sociopathic agenda).
That said: Corporate Control over the political process and public policy begins with and depends on campaign financing.
I reside in a country in which a deep-seated Electoral Reform occurred during the previous century's last decade. This is how it works and the trade offs it involves:
Electoral Campaigns are financed exclusively with public funds and the amount of funds available is approved by Congress and channeled to the political parties through the Federal Electoral Institute (FEI) responsible for realizing elections. The Federal Electoral Institute is formed by the nation's political parties themselves, each of which is represented in it. (Three large and several smaller parties participate that have been able to send elected officials to congress and the various state and local governments).
If a party spends more than the amount approved by the FEI a fine will be levied against it, and the amount of the fine will be subtracted from the amount the party receives for the next election. The time frame for proselytizing the public is also limited - dates for beginning and ending campaigns are set.
This system to help level the playing field and reduces the influence that corporation wield over governments and public policy. However - as mentioned, funding is carried out via parties, so independent candidacies are difficult or impossible to achieve. However, a party can be formed by collecting a given number of signatures and thereby qualify for public funding (otherwise, how else could funds be proportioned)? In the USA (where politics is a playground for the wealthy), limiting the amount that could be spent on electoral campaigns would help return the political process to the people.
Admittedly, there are complications: What about the transmission of public interest, issue related information via the mass media? (The freedom of speech and public participation in the political process is involved). But these are not insurmountable problems and without a doubt, a political system that favors the public good over corporate interests requires limiting the source of and amounts available for electoral campaigns. It works better than the electoral system currently in place in the USA.
Related issues include limiting reelection and of course, the anachronic, undemocratic Electoral College - Direct Election of the President should have been made possible long ago.
I think both Barack Obama and John Edwards understand this, although John's legislative approach appears to be closer to my own understanding of what needs to be done and Barack may be a little too messianic, IMO - although he's certainly very good at what he does and if he gets the nomination I'd be glad to help him try to walk on water.
I wish this blog didn't eliminate paragraphs - it runs all text together.
Don't worry about paragraghs Doug,you made you're point very well.Hopefully what little we can do in these blogs will sway a few voters in the right direction.
Do Blogs like these sway voters? I think it takes a strong local presence on the part of a candidates organization. Corporate and Electoral Reforms must come from within the government itself and inducing the political elite to approve measures that reduce their own power is not a trivial task / achievement. If the executive branch is the source of the initiative, a candidate must recognize the need for it and include it in his/her platform. So far, we have the same discourse all around us, personalized by each of the candidates, most of whom are not quite that specific.
So the question is, which of them recognizes the need for a profound change in campaign financing as part of an electoral reform package? Most of the democrats stress this issue in the Ethics section of their Issues part of their websites, but I think it goes farther than that. Structural changes must occur in order for the democratic process to really BE democratic, and aside from a candidate that subscribes to this need he/she must have an organization that responds to issues that aren't already outlined on their website.
This takes getting into the cutting edge of a political machine that is set up to distribute canned responses to preconceived issues. (Pose an issue not yet contemplated and see if you get a response). You'll need to get through to someone involved in policy making as well as the decision making process, someone close to the heart of the campaign and the candidate him/herself; and in spite of what these campaigns claim about their intention to get everyone involved, most of them do NOT respond to suggestions that they themselves haven't already set as a goal. So where's the dialog and interchange they all say they want?
So far, of the three highest ranking candidates, only John Edwards staff has responded to a request for information not found on his website, and it took several phone calls (and some rather pointed remarks) to get it to happen - but it did, and an Issues Assistant called me back then emailed me the document I'd asked for (one that had been mentioned by Paul Krugman in one of his NYT Op-Ed columns last month).
You probably know that the campaign literature emailed by all candidates always includes a pitch for financial support. As things stand, the electoral process is run by money. If you want democracy, you have to pay for it. Well, that's not democracy. But that's what we've got.
This is something that can and should be changed, but a movement may have to be created in order to for the candidate's staffs to even sit up and take notice.
The most obvious no-brainer is to do away with the Electoral College and elect the nation's President by Direct Vote, so that may be a good place to start. (I've asked Obama's campaign office for his position and am waiting for a specific reply).
Hillary is George Bush in a dress or pant suit. She has not confronted Bush on any issue. Obama is inexperienced and extremely intelligent and appears to be fighting for the working people. However, he has not done anything of any significance in the Illinois legislature or the Senate. However, we have one canidate who has fought the corporations all his adult life. He is from a poor family so he has known the sturggle of the common man, John Edwards. So why are the American people dismissing the best candidate for a person who voted for Iraq and has voted for basically a war in Iran. Gender or race should not be a factor.If you voted for George Bush, don't make the same mistake with Hillary. Let's try to vote for the best candidate for a change. Vote with your head not your emotions.
Don't kid you're self,there are some in corporate America that would like to see a larger peon class of people in our country.Look at Mexico where the average wage is $5 per day on average,and a small dynasty of families control all the wealth,it's no wonder mexicans are dying to come to America.Do I think all corporations are bad;of course not,but when we're constantly bombarded with commercials telling us that if we take this pill are sex life will be better,but to be careful if the erection last more than 4 hours,but not to worry because you'll get to sit out in a field of lilly's in a bathtub,pills to help us sleep,pills to help us pee or not to pee,pills to help us not be depressed,I could go on and on,but I'm sure you get the drift.The side affects from a lot of these drug's are worse than the problem.The point I'm wanting to make is that these pharm.co.spend millions pushing a lot of drugs down are throat that we don't need,then they come out a few years later and tell us that whoops people have been dying from taking that pill,but not to worry we'll come up with something else to make you feel better.When the mininum wage was raised did you here them start yelling and worrying about wheather they'de be able to stay in this country or move their business over sea's or across the border.The thing that I don't understand about the business practice's of a lot of company's,is why they don't realize that a strong middle class earning a good wage makes everyone better off,instead of the trickle down approach of the Reagan years,why not try the trickle up approach that would help everyone?Why greed that's why.I hope you got a laugh out of some of my remarks,because a good laugh is an easy pill to swallow.So yes I do think we need a President like John Edwards to reign in corporate greed,let's hope he pick's up the pace in S.C.To quote a much used theme,we need a change in America now more than we have since the Nixon years,who was impeached for less than what Bush and Cheney have done.
hi john edwards this is alliyah mcnceill at west hoke middle school i have to do a research on you for a canidate.can you help me.thank you.
