John Edwards is using a new stump speech calling out Hillary Clinton. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," Edwards says in the speech. This is a followup to his new move to show how he wants to bring change to Washington by not accepting Lobbyist Contributions.
This rasied a bigger question for me though. I find it interesting that he is so big on lobbyist contributions when he did not hestitate to take a free ride job at a hedge fund. Hedge Funds have caused a lot of problems in our financial system and with our economy. I feel that he is happy to point blame, but reluctant to take responsibility for his own actions.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
I too see Hillary as a way to restore civility to our country and it's name. Her experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee makes her extremely knowledgeable in foreign affairs. That is something that the United States desperately needs right now.
Regardless of how you feel about her, she is still the most experienced candidate to lead us out of the quagmire!
To begin with Hillary is not old. Nobody younger than me is old and someone would have to have several years on me to even think of them as old. Edwards picking on Hillary may make him look better to you, but the only Democrats who like it are those who are displeased with Hillary because she is not far enough to left to suit them. Now there's some food for thought.
Just where you get the idea that either Bill tried to appease terrorists, or that Hillary would, is difficult to comprehend. Bill was the first President to try and and get Bin Laden and got roundly criticized by the Republicans for those efforts. The fact that his multiple attempts didn't succeed did not mean he didn't try and if the Republicans had been more concerned about terrorists back then Bill might have been able tried again, but Repubs were only interested in making Clinton look bad. Bush only became concerned about Al Qaeda after 9/11 and that was too late.
Modern,
Edwards only sees wrong with his actions when it come to appeasing the Dem's left-wing and we have had enough of politicians pandering to the wings. Hillary may be somewhat left of center, but that is fine with me, so am I.
As for Edward railing against lobbyists I suspect it is a political expediency by a candidate who I do not recall mentioning it when he was Kerry's running mate. I also suspect some research into his Senatorial campaigns would reveal that he too has accepted money from lobbyists. Perhaps he feels that his personal wealth will be enough to let him win the primary, after which the only ones who may be looking will be the Republicans and they won't be looking too hard for fear that someone will begin questioning where their money is coming from.
Refusing money from lobbyists won't change much because its not their money in the first place and I am sure those who supply the lobbyists with money will find another way to contribute to the candidates they prefer. We have already seen evidence of that with bosses who are in the position to reimburse employees who make donations on their behalf as another way of getting around the limitations on individual and corporate contributions. Where there is a will there is a way and I am sure both Edwards and Obama will find one.
Hillary is leaving herself open to later accusations if she does end up supporting the causes of those from whom she accepts larger sums of money, but she is not afraid of giving us an idea of where to look by declaring that she will accept donations from lobbyists and such. She has warned potential contributor's that taking there money does not obligate her and if she wins and runs for a second term, the money will flow regardless of what she does or does not do.
I think it was P.T. Barnum who said, "There is sucker born every minute." , and you can warn suckers and still count on them to be suckers. The number of political contributors who have ended up being suckers is one thing nobody tries to keep track of even when they yell foul, If I recall correctly Hillary has had to suffer for Bill failing to deliver in the manner that was expected by big money contributors and she still has raised more money than any other candidate. As long as she can get away with, I see no reason to question her word that she will not be influenced by contributors money. I don't know how long she will be able to get away with it, but taking the money and then not delivering as expected may be the only thing that finally puts and end to the attempts to buy influence.