Well, what would one expect from an ambulance chaser?

Even in the midst of a plague of lawyers, Edwards stands out as uniquely pestilential.

It does not show Kerry in a good light either. He did the political calculation rather than "trust his gut" and pick Gephardt.

It does not show Kerry in a good light either. He did the political calculation rather than "trust his gut" and pick Gephardt.

"repeatedly portrays Edwards as a hyper-ambitious phony"

Truth hurts, huh?

Edwards is the only halfway serious presidential candidate shining a spotlight on the widening opportunity gap in America, and I don't doubt that's the reason National Review and likeminded reptiles find him such an inviting target. To sadists and sociopaths, the slightest hint of genuine altruism looks utterly cynical.

Hey Brian, You are so full of S**t. This cretin pretended to channel a dead baby to win a lawsuit. If that's the kind of Prez you want, move to Chavez or Mugabe country. They sing those kind of tunes all the time.

A genuine slimeball defending a genuine slimeball. Par for the course, more BS from BS.

Speaking of the "opportunity gap", I saw the most interesting article recently:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-20-cover-generation-wealth_N.htm

It seems that the "opportunity gap" is not so much defined as the elite rich treading on the poor, but old people getting a lot more money than young people.

So it may be assumed that as the downtrodden poor get older they too will get wealthy (on average, of course). So that's not so bad!

Bill: This cretin pretended to channel a dead baby to win a lawsuit.

In other words, he imagined its experiences to create sympathy in the jury--his job. He stood up for people he believed to have been wronged, and a jury of our fellow citizens evidently agreed, but Lo and Behold you've come along to set the record straight.

But what you've really done is reinforce my point: All compassion seems phony to those with none, let alone altruism from self-made people of means who make right-wing pettiness all the more despicable. Edwards is not the best example of these values, but attempts to score points from that fact only emphasize that he is a walking, talking indictment of everything the right stands for, not of himself.

If that's the kind of Prez you want, move to Chavez or Mugabe country.

If that's your logic, why didn't you move to Saudi Arabia instead of voting for Bush?

They sing those kind of tunes all the time.

No, they don't. There is no connection between your analogy and this universe, and it stems only from your awesome and apparently proud ignorance.

Mike: A genuine slimeball defending a genuine slimeball.

Oh, now Republican Robot #2 chimes in. Your "contribution" is surely appreciated by someone, somewhere.

David: It seems that the "opportunity gap" is not so much defined as the elite rich treading on the poor, but old people getting a lot more money than young people.

The issue is indeed a great deal more complex in the US than a well-defined class structure, but America's economic problems are stemming from an increasing redistribution of wealth toward the top while the population bell curve slips gradually in the other direction. While it's true that we can't expect to sustain perpetual increases in prosperity (short of a solar system economy, which is a tangent issue), it is clear that current policy is contributing to the problem if not directly causing large parts of it. Decades of failure to invest in basic infrastructure and services that underpin our economy (e.g., health care, education, roads, etc.) is beginning to take a serious toll, and the added costs that are inflicted show up in higher costs of living, higher prices, fewer benefits, etc etc, and that causes poverty and reduces the standard of living.

"Oh, now Republican Robot #2 chimes in. Your "contribution" is surely appreciated by someone, somewhere."

I have neer heard of a robot that calls out sub-human refuse such as yourself. I am sure my comment was found accurate by 90% of the board Brian. The human contingent.

When you defend unethical slime like Edwards, you become tainted with it. Takes a low life to stick up for an ambulence chaser that exploits the deaths of innocents to win cases and the death of his own child to garner sympathy to attain political power.

You however,are a typical unthinking drone of the left regurgitating whatever talking point the hive decides to spew.

When you defend unethical slime like Edwards, you become tainted with it.

You haven't shown lack of ethics on his part, only your own. Have you ever made a fool of yourself on the job, or in your life said anything that a determined antagonist could use to make you sound ludicrous and/or sleazy? When I say that he was doing his job, you don't argue; when I say that he was standing up for people he believed to have been wronged, you don't argue; when I say that he is the only halfway serious candidate addressing liberal economic issues, you neither argue with that fact nor attack it substantively; all you do is trawl around like a bottom-feeder for excuses to cast his humanity and values in a putrid light. Even then, with all your transparent bigotry, envy, and hypocrisy, what have you people come up with? An possibly inappropriately funded haircut and a single sentence in a trial speech where attempts to win sympathy were made to sound ridiculous. The man is not George W. Bush, constantly saying and doing the most absurd and insane things, he is a guy who doesn't micromanage his budget and extemporized one sentence of a trial speech past the line of taste. What exactly is wrong with you that you hate him so much?

Takes a low life to stick up for an ambulence chaser that exploits the deaths of innocents to win cases and the death of his own child to garner sympathy to attain political power.

The hypocrisy is dripping like honey from your hatespeak. If one of those innocents were someone you cared about, you wouldn't have any qualms about enlisting the aid of an "ambulance chaser" to get some small, insignificant level of justice for yourself and your family. But then, maybe you're not the kind of person who would need contingent representation; maybe you're the sort who has it on retainer, and doesn't even keep track of the lawsuits entered on your behalf and that of your "interests." Excuse me if I have a little more sympathy for people who make a living giving average citizens access to a system that is supposed to be equally available than the parasitic corporate lawyers you probably see as more respectable. So if you hate lawyers that much, perhaps you should move to somewhere that law is dictated by Glorious Leaders, Holy Ones, or Most Serene Majesties, as there would be no one "exploiting" the system by providing professional legal services in exchange for (gasp) a fee.

"You haven't shown lack of ethics on his part, only your own."

Edwards has repeatedly done this with no assistance. I do not see you approach any standard ethics on your part to judge me by.

Your only core dictum seems to be that the ends justify the means. You lay down with dogs, don't whine about your fleas.

Now Slimebucket has reached a new low encouraging his supporters to disrupt and protest Memorial Day parades and celebrations.

All that can be said about Edwards now is he has absolutely no class, no dignity and no humanity left in him.

Mike: Edwards has repeatedly done this with no assistance.

You haven't shown that either, but just keep insisting on it with the force of a religious belief. His campaign strategy focusing on poverty is risky at best, and will seriously limit his ability to raise funds; he apologized for authorizing the invasion of Iraq, which the vast majority of Democrats who did likewise refuse to explicitly do; and his campaign thus far has been characterized by refreshing straight talk. This is not the behavior of an "overambitious phony," nor an unethical, power-hungry politician who will say and do anything to win elections. Your representations have no resemblance to reality, and you don't seem to care about that fact. This position against him is nothing more than a preference on your part, without any interest in facts or fair character judgment in evidence.

Your only core dictum seems to be that the ends justify the means.

I've never said anything that even remotely suggests this, let alone indicates it to be my "core dictum," so once again you demonstrate that right-wingers don't care what is true. Why are truth and fairness less important to you than finding excuses to express your aesthetic preferences? Do you think a presidential election is a bordello lineup for your scrotum to choose from? There are lives on the line--please either act like an adult and make rational decisions or stop contributing to the problems of this country with your ignorant, uninformed, and entirely self-gratifying participation. If you can't articulate your problems with Edwards rather than babbling character attacks at him and me like a blind Mein Kampf rant, then what the hell convinces you that your political judgment is any better than throwing darts at a list of names? You haven't even tried to answer a single thing I've said in his defense, but you persist in repeating the same stupid insults. Would you like to be treated like that by people you're asking for support, whom you want to convince of your ideas? You've got some serious credibility and worthiness issues to work out, buddy.

"You haven't shown that either,"

Some things are self-apparent to those with a minimal shard of common sense like fire hot and water wet. This is one of those. That you have to look beyond the obvious to salvage him is to kick occam's razor squarely in the nads.