Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
U.S. Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
WASHINGTON - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer. In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class." He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists."
Despite not winning the two state nominating contests completed so far, with 48 to go, Edwards insists he is in the race to stay. An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.
"The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.
"Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz. Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.
But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics. One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business."
Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
After this week's New Hampshire primaries, where he placed a distant third behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Edwards might not seem so scary. He ran second in the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week, trailing Obama and just ahead of Clinton.
Edwards suffered a blow on Thursday when Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry snubbed him and endorsed Obama. Edwards was Kerry's vice-presidential running mate in Kerry's failed Democratic bid for the White House in 2004.
BUSINESS'S FAVORITE UNCLEAR Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said.
These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November's election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.
Obama and Huckabee register largely as unknown quantities among business owners, both large and small, say lobbyists.
"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."
"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.
"The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he's an unknown."(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by John Wallace)
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
82 Comments so far
Show AllWe need a trial attorney as our president. Some one to strike fear into the corporations how are exploiting us all for their own greedy gain.
Obama and Hillary are considered safe by the corporate community though obviously any Republican would be preferred.
and Ron Paul?
The reason(s) why Corporate America loathes John Edwards is simple. He was a successful torts lawyer who specialized in taking sizable bites out their substantial derrieres. Now Edwards wants to continue doing more of the same in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt. If I was a corporate scumbag, I too would do almost anything to prevent his becoming President.
All along I have known that Edwards 'gets it.'
He's got my vote on Feb 5 here in AZ.
Way to go John.
Bill Moyers interviews Keith Olberman, the only tv personality allowed to talk about corporate corruption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctifB0mte3g
What a joke of a title! Corporate America is no more afraid of John Edwards than it is of the Man on the Moon. This is just another commentary cheerleading for a Demo Poli using a ridiculous premise for a reason.
john, you're a former corporate lawyer. have you seen the light or are you just mouthing the words to garner the votes of we progressives who would like our country and our government back from aipac, the isreali lobby, and other corporate lobbyists. are you really on board on this because if you are, you've got my vote in colorado's primary.
John Edwards, the end of FuckQ, Inc., the Neo Fascist America nightmare.
The last time you'll hear the bottom line is more important than the people and country that make it possible.
Edwards supports removing corporate money from our elections and changing the system to one of public financing. Of course corporations fear and loath him.
The only way we are going to begin to fix this corrupted system is with publicly financed elections.
Sadly, as things stand now it will take a miracle for him to win.
Kucinich is in-your-face "in your face" with the big corporations, while Edwards is moderately "in your face" with them.
Hillary unabashedly loves the big corporations.
Obama is an unknown quantity.
Kucinich endorsed Obama.
?
If Nader backs Edwards, he can't be all bad.
If he can put the ball back into the peoples court then we NEED him as president. He'll probably get shot but its worth a try. Blackwater would drop the CS on his head if it came to close to him winning. Kucinich sees UFOs and Obama has rage issues, Huckabee uses too much violent rhetoric and Ru Paul is the christian mouthpiece with a cover-up agenda, Hillary is a face for the companies.
Is there a better choice for the people?
The most damage has already been done so which pres elect will do the least harm?
As a people we give up workers rights to Hillary and Obama, Huckabee and Ru Paul are going to make sure you sing to their god in school and forget womens rights or science, Kucinich wants to do the best for the people but he would be completely ineffectual as he would be stonwalled in office, but Edwards could fight a good fight, if he isn't assassinated by some company stooge. I think he is my man!
Tsunami Tuesday may set things in motion.
He has a lot of support here in CA.
John's got my vote as well.
Don't let MSM lead you down another path.
Corporate America is behind the rise of clinton and obama. If either one gets the nomination, a republican will be elected as president again.
If one votes Edwards, America has a better chance of reform.
A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary!!!!!
The race is just bewteeen two people: Hilary and obama and you Independents and last minute registration young people will not be able to help so
Edwards- please leave!!!!!!!!
I have no problm Edwards is a trial lawyer. So was Abraham Lincoln and he also kept the mega corporatons under control.
~~ "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been elevated to such a high level, corruption in the elected is assured."
~~ Abraham Lincoln.~~
He's likely got my vote as well.
Kem, I'm a big fan of that quotation, but Lincoln probably didn't say it. See snopes.com's account.
Still, it's a great couple of lines.
Yeah, there was a reason Kucinich endorsed Obama, as one of his committee members stated, Kucinich made a deal.
I understand Kennedy wrote it, __ Lincoln's secretary. Anyway, that paragraph is very approprite for today and Abe did fight the corporations, as Johnn Edwards will. That's why Kerry didn't endorse Edwards, those elected don't want to see their golden eggs stop, the eggs their lobbyists lay for them.
Hay HEATHEN, that is a great link, thank you for posting it. I was certan that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. ???
So METANORPH, if we vote for Edwards, then Hillary gets the vote. If we vote for Hillary she gets the vote, if we vote for Obama and he or she wins the primary, the republican gets the vote.
Let's wait awhile and see just how far this goffy game goes before we determine what's up. You know, within a few weeks, a lot of sensible people may wake up and discover that john Edwards is the ONLY candidate who has a prayer of winning the primary that will get us back on track. Right now the train is off the rails and racing straight for a deep and rocky canyon.
I was wrong, Lincoln did have one secretary named Roosevelt and Roosevelt had a secretary named Lincoln and Nixon had a secretary named Kennedy. And so much for trivia, it matters not. What matters is, John Edwards gets some decent press so the public can hear his stands on the issues.
thetexan, John wasn't a corporate lawyer, he was a trial lawyer that sued corporations. Big difference.
EDWARDS '08
~Big Change~. It would be difficult to exclude Edwards from the debates as they have Kucinich. But don't think for one minute they wouldn't like to do that. They don't want him and they do fear him and they do insure he gets far less press coverage than Obama and Hillary. They should exclude NO ONE and that should be illegal and every candidate should get equal time during the debates. If one interuppts the other, as Obama did to John Edwards at acritical moment of his short speech, they should be docked time. And unfair questions should not be asked, such as the UFO question of Kucinich.
Edwards has my vote in Ohio! I wish the campaign trail was more about substance and issues instead of so much talk about race and gender...a corporate stooge is just that regardless of his/her ethnicity or gender...Let's get the real issues that matter on the table...support Edwards but fight to get Dennis invited/heard at every debate possible...the MSM will certainly not do anything to get these populist voices heard...
metamorph - your anti democratic rhetoric is offensive. Please leave!
Corporations can't be THAT afraid of Edwards, or they'd do like they do to Kucinich and EXCLUDE him from the debates in the televised (and print) media that they own.
The weapons/insurance industry-owned media has stopped even pretending they don't control the process: Which candidates have gotten the most positive, "they're the front-runners!" media attention for the last year? The two that are now getting the most votes. Edwards has gotten screwed by the media too, albeit far more gently than Kucinich, so he's coming in a distant third.
We'll never get the representation we deserve until we have a free press that isn't owned by General Electric, as is NBC--the latest station to exclude Kucinich from the upcoming Nevada debate on Jan. 15th.
I don't care who you support: If you agree the public deserves an open debate on issues, (and to know who's running) CALL NBC and raise hell: (212)664-4444
Hi Texas. Yeah, Kucinich did suggest that he and Ron Paul run together. At first I thought that was a really crazy idea, since both their platforms, except their shared aversion to the Iraq war, are basically so different, but now I'm not quite so sure it would be such a bad idea.
Someone pointed out to me that if either Kucinich or Ron Paul could get elected President, neither of them could just snap their fingers and put all their ideas in place, which is perfectly correct. What they both could do, though, is exercise the Presidential power of the veto, and either would certainly veto any bill that Congress passed that would fund the war in Iraq, forcing Congress to have to override it, which would be very difficult, and that wouldn't be such a bad thing at all.
Ending this war is the one thing that neither the Republican Party or the Democratic Party really want to do, although they will happily distract us with talk about health care reform or whatever other issue they can distract us with.
What they're doing is running some sort of carefully orchestrated game by us, giving us the illusion that we still have a democracy, because there's no way they're going to give up on the oil in Iraq. It's not even that they necessarily want the oil for Americans to put in their cars. They want to keep it in the ground for now, only to be able to pump it out later to use as a form of leverage to control both us and the rest of the world. And, of course, they don't want Russia or China or Germany or anyone else to get their hands on the stuff, which just might happen if we left Iraq.
Heck, the US exports more oil than it was getting from Iraq before the war began, and far more than it's getting from Iraq now. If we need oil so badly, why export it at all?
So, out of all the politicians out there, the only ones I trust are Kucinich and Paul, both of who never voted for the war. And, maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why Kucinich endorsed both Paul and Obama.
Kucinich's first order of business is stopping the war, and Edwards voted to authorize it. Meanwhile, Obama was speaking out against it. That is why Kucinich supports Obama.
Why support Edwards over Kucinich?
Make sure the same reasons can't be used to support Obama over Edwards, or Clinton over Obama. Or in any way boils down to "electability" (whatever that means)
Once Kucinich is sufficiently marginalized, and everyone jumps from that ship to the next.
Then they can begin to marginalize the next biggest threat, Edwards.
This childhood song reminds me of this whole primary process.
There were 5 bears in the bed and the biggest one said: "I'm sleepy move over".
So they all rolled over and the little one fell out…
There were 4 bears in the bed and the biggest one said…(you get the picture)
Glad to read this! The corporate media has gone beyond not covering Edwards and used our public airwaves to call Edwards a Soviet Party rep (CNN: G Beck) and "Trotsky" (MSNBC: J Cramer). Worth a read: Edwards, the media, and the phenomObamanon. It is a well-referenced article by a product designer about the marketing of Obama's brand that we are buying up.
Progressives do need to wake up and look for substance.
No, I don't get your picture. There were five bears in the bed and one had the support of the press and he/she, ate the other four bears.
Edwards has the clarity to recognize the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the increasing inequity of income distribution. He also publicly said his vote for the Iraq war was a regretted mistake, something that shows he has the strength to face countless smearing charges of 'flip flopper'. In this respect it appears Bush & Hillary share the same common bond of being pig-headed about admitting to mistakes, a mental & moral deficiency.
Edwards also recognizes the dangers of nuclear technology to ALL of us, and would favor spending billions on renewables instead of a nuclear industry that has had its hands in our pockets for over 50 years.
By pollings it has been shown Edwards is the ONLY candidate that beats ALL the Republican candidates.
He's about getting out of Iraq & not going into Iran, against nukes, against corporate corruption & control...so of course he's the nightmare of the elite who want to own EVERYTHING, and EVERYONE.
Hell, he's even against his former running mate,John Kerry, for not fighting hard enough to overturn the official results of the last election. That point alone, of realizing Kerry & Bush are from the same 'Skull & Bones' mold, and in different degrees bad for this country, would be enough to lend him support.
He's made powerful enemies? None of them are as powerful as a galvanized motivated WE THE PEOPLE. He's not perfect, but despite being marginalized by the corporate controlled MSM he's electable.
There was an article this morning about 7% of NJ houesholds are millionaires. Highest in the nation. Ever visit Camden, Trenton, Newark...? Unbelievable blight, poverty and street crime. Is this our future as jobs continue going abroad and only the system milkers get rich?
You can bet the rich folk and the medical establishment will mobilize against an Edwards candidacy no matter who the Republicans nominate. They like it like this.
The news from the Kucinich site tells us that Kucinich asked his supporters to go with Obama if he (Kucinich) didn't reach the 15% needed to stay in that race. ONLY IOWA. I REPEAT, ONLY IOWA. Kucinich doesn't trust Edwards because of his ties to Fortress Group Investments. I have no reason to think he was not telling the truth, as he see's it. I think he's the only one teeling the truth 100% of the time.We're so fucking doomed. Even here I see misimformation spewed forth like it was ana from heaven, when the truth is we've been played agian. Its a human thing. Kucinich is still the closest thing to salvation we're ever gonna see, and the good news is, if and when he doesn't get elected, we can still feel a little better knowing this little bulldog is still fighting for us in congress. I will still write his name in the box when the time comes, because I don't like being told who my choices are. This is a Selection not an election. I am not opposed to a black man or a woman running the country.I think its long over due. But I would prefer it to be because they were the right ones for the job, not just the first. If one or the other (Hilary or Obama) is Selected and turns in a poor performance, I think you would be hard pressed to get another woman or a non white man, or woman, elected for some time.
So vote your heart and conscience but get your house in order cause hard time are commin. No matter who gets the job. Thanks Texrey
Corporations never fear a lawyer who uses 'Esquire'...
"tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics"
It has always been there, just not advertised by MSM. We are AMERICANS! We believe in the power and sanctity of the INDIVIDUAL! If the need arises, we will all be INDIVIDUALS working TOGETHER towards a common problem. But we have no like of CORPORATIONS or a RULING CLASS. We Need no Kings!
Yes we've let ourselves be sold into materialism, fear and nationalism.
But Independance is Our Undercurrent! Freedom is our Battle Cry! Liberty is our Guiding Light! Justice is the Code that Binds us! Independance!
Kucinich did mention (in passing, was it serious?) that he 'chose' paul as a running mate- And Paul's campaign said emphatically "No Way!" Why he did it... does it matter? i like Paul for the sole reason that he is not hot air, states his goals. (Why I like Kucinich too), that and decreasing the DoD/HMS budget and changing the course of occupation.
And yes, they cannot "snap their fingers" to get things done, we may still have a system of checks-and-balances!
Main Presidential Tools:
the Veto!
Judge Appointments
Manages Military (not sure exactly what Pres duties are here)
Bully Pulpit
Cabinet Appointments, running federal agencies
Drafting the Budget
Am I missing anything?
If I were president I would 1. rearrange DoD/HMS/CIA/NIA/FBI etc and slash their budgets (but I would need conressional approval). 2. appoint progressive judges (but I would need conressional approval) 3. appoint progressives to run federal agencies (but I would need conressional approval) 4. get rid of the (privately owned)Federal Reserve and slash the IRS budget (but I would probably need conressional approval) 5. have presidential addresses on tv/radio/web/print everyday explaining progressive issues (no congressional approval needed) 6. veto any legislation that increases spending or borrowing without balancing the budget (no congressional approval needed)
Actually, Edwards is more "in-your-face" to corporations... he actually cost them money, while Kucinich mearly inspires us progressives.
in 04 I never thought I would have this slight feeling of betrayal by Kucinich for his Obama endorsement. I do listen but haven't bought his statement about not endorsing Edwards because of his Fortress Group Investments ties- they weren't really supported well. It smacks of a politician (gasp! he is one) who doesn't listen to his core constituency.
Now I'm in a real pickle.
They say that Edwards doesn't have the loot to continue a strong campaign, but I keep wondering why he doesn't spend his own fortune if thats what it takes to win. Let's say he spends down to a few million of personel wealth, wouldn't that get some attention and certainly wouldn't it be worth it?..... that's if his message is really on target and I believe it is. Hell, he'd gain a lot of love and respect, never have to worry about his and his own.
Also, do Edwards and Kucinich ever have lunch together,....they should, often and invite Ron Paul, these people should unite, it is time advesarial politics are exceeded for the good of the humanity and our country.
I originally supported Kucinich, but he will not be given any chance by the MSM to even speak, let alone be elected. I have changed to Edwards and have sent him money (not much) to help his campaign. We absolutely must get the corporations out of our government, or it will become a totally fascist operation which is what Cheney is hoping for.
One of the points we need to see made clear is that Corporations are not a "Class" we are making War on.
Corporations have become economic Vampires and Werewolves, draining the life from our economy and ripping out the throat of democracy.
Wall Street in particular functions in Full Vampire mode, extracting a pint from every financial transaction it encounters.
That's what the "Sub Prime" mortgage scandal was really all about. The sub prime mortgage was designed to leach all the equity out of a home leaving the buyers bankrupt and, due to the new bankruptcy laws pushed by their Republican servants, in debt slavery for the rest of their lives.
Edwards IS a threat, that is why the MSM went after him in '04, and are pretty much downplaying him in '08
Texas says:"and Ron Paul?"
Fk Ron Paul. He is another libertarian regressive
Edwards has put several million of his money into his campaigns EDDIE. He also doesn't earn any wages while running for the office. He also gives a lot of money to people wh are down and out. He's a good man, has a big heart and would be a wonderful president. John Edwards needs and deserves fair press coverage, but the press is controlled by the big corpprations and he won't get any fair press.
As an Edwards supporter, I, too, think he is the best out there AND the scariest opponent to the Republicans -- for policy and demographic reasons.
In any event, I hope that he hangs in to the end to BROKER his delegates if he can't be the nominee. He has power in this election because of the small margins between the Media's 2 favorite darlings --- First Black Man and First Woman.
Broker the nomination, Johnny!
Kem Patrick- "John Edwards needs and deserves fair press coverage, but the press is controlled by the big corpprations and he won't get any fair press."
Yes, I know, It's very difficult to watch, it's so frustrating to try to find some coverage of him..... when you do, he's the only pragmatist in the bunch. An announcement that he's throwing all his chips into the race....., they'd still ignore him, but ignore come from the root ignorance and in this time mon-eye ignorance rules. hell's bells the mon-eyed election system makes no sense at all, it is without soul.
The weight and hype of the gender and race thing sells a lot more ticket than genuine focus on issues.
What a weenie, John Kerry
I wish that just once, when Clinton or Obama were traipsing through their 'Take America Back' hoopla, some one would ask, 'Take America back from what?' That would get em slack jawed.
Edwards is the only candidate who has addressed this question of who we're taking our country back from. --- man, I hope he's got good security should he ever make a real surge in the polls---
My 18 year old daughter and my 88 year old mother are both for Obama. My wife likes his "Unity" message too. He certainly appeals to people who are distressed by the divisiveness of the Clinton-Bush Era.
I feel that Obama's "Unity" message contains a signal to Wall Street: "You can keep everything you stole from the American People in the last 7 years, but we're gonna reduce your take starting in '08".
What I hear from Edwards is: "We're cutting your share of the pie, and we're coming to take back everything you stole in the last 7 years".
To hell with "Unity". I want Justice.
John Edwards has my vote.
buford33,
The bag of hot air known as George Will also has applied the Trotsky label to Edwards (on the Stephanopolous show on Jan. 6). I prefer Edwards to Clinton and Obama and will probably vote for him, but how can someone so firmly within the capitalist camp be called pro-Soviet? American political discourse has tilted so far right for so long that it has fallen off the edge and now is in freefall towards fascism.