Because the BOSTON GLOBE -- who ENDORSED Obama and McCain runs a HIT JOB on him!!!!!
Fucking objective, unbiased MSM my silently-sweet, fart-misting ass!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not that Edwards doesn't deserve it. Just read.
"Edwards's populist message evolves; Fight for the poor not a hallmark of his Senate career" by Scott Helman and Matt Negrin, Globe Correspondent | January 7, 2008
MANCHESTER, N.H. - John Edwards, buoyed by his second-place finish in Iowa, has brought his populist, combative, and fiercely anticorporate message to New Hampshire, demanding sweeping changes in healthcare, trade, and income distribution.
Edwards, in Saturday night's Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College:
"This fight is deeply personal to me. I've been engaged in it my whole life, to fight for the middle class, to fight against powerful special interests. And it is a fight I will wage on behalf of the American people as president of the United States and win, as I have for 54 years."
But an examination of Edwards's record shows that his positions on leading issues, his rhetoric on the campaign trail, and his approach to solving the country's problems have evolved in significant ways since his presidential bid in 2004 and his tenure as a North Carolina senator from 1998 to 2004.
Edwards has made fighting poverty a signature issue of his campaign, using even more urgent language than he did in 2004, when he famously talked about "two Americas" - one prospering, another falling behind.
Edwards, however, was not known as an outspoken champion for the poor during his six years as a senator, and his campaign could point to no major bills in that regard that he authored and got passed into law. He did help push a patients' bill of rights and he joined other Democrats in Congress in backing proposed increases in the minimum wage.
But his fierce condemnation of rapacious corporations today stands in contrast to the more moderate voice he has been in the past.
Meanwhile, the McCain-endorsing Globe makes excuse for him!
Edwards, speaking to chief executives at the Fortune Global Forum in November 2002:
"[You should not be blamed for] taking aggressive advantage of legal holes in our tax law. Doing the most you can under the law to create profit for your shareholders is your job."
On the campaign trail, Edwards has been highly critical of free trade policies, standing with many of his union backers in arguing that free trade has severely damaged American jobs and wages. But while in the Senate, Edwards voted for two such controversial measures that labor opposed on the very same grounds.
It's called being a HYPOCRITICAL LIAR!
In 2000, he voted for permanent, normalized trade relations with China, which gave American businesses access to China's huge market, but which labor and other opponents said would hurt domestic manufacturing. Edwards has called the vote a blunder. He also voted, in 2002, for a bill giving President Bush broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. Edwards says he regrets that vote, too.
Edwards has disavowed other major votes as well. In 2001, he joined 81 other senators in voting for bankruptcy legislation making it more difficult for consumers to clear debt. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who dropped out of the presidential race last week after a poor showing in Iowa, has attacked Edwards for his vote, saying it belied his stated commitment to fighting for the middle class.
Last month, Edwards told reporters that he was wrong to vote for the bill, but that it was an exception.
Well, that is THREE EXCEPTIONS I've counted already!! Why do the words LYING FRAUD sudenly pop into my head?
Edwards, according to the Los Angeles Times:
"I voted hundreds of times in the interests of poor people. If you look at anybody's record you'll be able to flyspeck one thing here or there. My life work makes absolutely clear what I'm committed to."
Yeah, sorry, sorry, sorry for voting for bad bills and the RAMIFICATIONS of such, but those are just "specks" of FLY SHIT, huh, Johnny?!
Another SLICK SOUTHERNER a la Clinton here!
Edwards similarly expressed contrition for his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying he was "wrong to vote for this war." And he has apologized for his support in 2001 of No Child Left Behind, President Bush's controversial education initiative requiring public schools to meet certain benchmarks. Edwards has called it one of the worst mistakes of his Senate career.
Well, now I'm up to FIVE EXCEPTIONS, meaning the guy's JUDGMENT has to be called into question!
We can't afford another George W. Bush, readers!
Edwards's approach to policy-making has evolved as well, as he has grown far more confrontational than the candidate whose sunny disposition, both as a presidential contender and eventual running mate, was a hallmark of the 2004 race.
How come the "sunny disposition" optimist thing works for asshole Bush?
Or is that just the LYING MSM TELLING US THAT?
He often, for example, casts rival Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, as hopelessly naive for being willing to let drug companies and insurance companies participate in negotiations over healthcare.
Edwards, last week in Iowa:
"That is a complete fantasy. The only way we're going to get their power away is we're going to have to take their power away."
However, when Edwards was asked by a writer on the liberal blog MyDD.com about the role of business, labor, healthcare groups, and doctors in the healthcare debate in February of last year, he said:
"I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation. You want to make the system work for everybody."
Edwards's campaign insists that a focus on inconsistencies in his record misses the larger arc of a career spent representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporations, winning accolades from major labor groups even though he came from a right-to-work state, and, in the years between his presidential campaigns, creating an academic center to study ways to reverse poverty.
But compared with 2004, when he was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, his rhetoric has escalated considerably. His shift in tone may have helped him win over some Democrats this cycle. Indeed, his second-place finish in Iowa over Senator Hillary Clinton and his continued viability as a candidate bear that out.
Even though he admitted he won't win New Hampshire!
But the more confrontational tone has also turned off some voters who preferred the John Edwards they knew in 2004.
Denise Hawks, a 49-year-old donor relations specialist from Des Moines, said she was with Edwards four years ago, but went with Obama this year, in part because of Edwards's transformation into an angrier, more strident candidate.
Hawks asked: "[If he was such a fighter, she asked, where was he when Republican operatives helped sink the Democrats' 2004 presidential hopes with their attack ads?] Four years too late. They were asleep at the wheel."
Edwards has said that he wanted to fight back against attacks on his running mate, John F. Kerry, but was overruled by the Kerry camp. Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials, however, have disputed his contention that he favored a tougher strategy, saying Edwards often refused their requests to go after Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney more forcefully."
WTF?!:?! Then WHO was really running that shit campaign?!
Is Edwards lying again?
And Kerry would have made a HORRIBLE president!
So will the current crop -- unless it's RON PAUL!
