Political junkie that I am, I've been paying close attention to the media coverage Edwards has been receiving even prior to his announcement.
First of all, I've been curious as to why the media seems to be smitten with Hillary and Obama. And the majority of reporters seemed to be mentioning Edwards very briefly, and only at the end of their discussion with words like "second tier candidate."
I found this odd. The manner in which they had been handling Edwards implied he wasn't all that, in their eyes of course.
OK, flash-forward to his announcement. I think it was on CNN, as Senator Edwards stood where Katrina has destroyed homes and Fema had failed so many, where Edwards has generously gone to help rebuild homes in that devastated community, the network plastered beneath the image of Edwards:
"MULTI-MILLIONAIRE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT."
That was it. I knew that I was right, and I knew that the media had it in for Edwards. I still don't understand why. With so much praise and flattery for Obama, why such tactics and games with Edwards?
I think any person with a one-once brain could see through their attempt to cut Edwards down by making it a point to refer to him as a "multi-millionaire." It was an attempt to point out that John Edwards, who clearly understands that there are two Americas, certainly doesn't live in your America. The populist candidate isn't sincere seemed to be the implicit message from the media.
More of this from CNN. Another interviewer questioned Edwards about a home he and his wife were building and stated that the home was worth some three-million dollars. Why do we have to know that?
Overall, I truly feel the media has an agenda here, and that agenda is to make Edwards appear as if he is insincere when he talks about dealing with poverty, which would hurt him with voters. Well, not with this voter. I have a mind of my own, and I see the game being used here and it makes me angry.
Personally, I feel that if this keeps up, we should nail 'em on it. We should write/email in protest to this obvious yet subtle attempt to sabotage Edwards.
I think I'm money on this one, but if you disagree, tell me so. And if you agree, I'd like to hear that as well.
Lastly, that Edwards was able to succeed as an attorney and made his own money only makes me respect him more. I don't see how this quality can be twisted into a negative, and the attempt on the part of the media to do so is shameful.
Click here to read Chris Matthews comments on the same subject:
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/12/28/23108.aspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Well put. I think a lot of presidential candidates are "multi-millionaires; however, that isn't the caption under their name.
I admire for shining an international spot light on N.O. by making his announcement there. He could have chosen any arean in the country and been surrounded by throngs of cheering supporters, instead, he stood in the middle of a lonely neglected disaster area, where little progress has been made in the last year. Using his "light" to bring attention to a shameful national tragedy.
I did notice he was on This Week this morning and that Chris Matthews is giving him a fair shake. Perhaps, the media will follow the lead of these respected journalists!
Yes, I did notice that Matthews made similar points in a recent blog as well. Maybe I can put a link up here for everyone.
That would be great! I haven't read it.
It seems a bit early to be calling conspiracy on all of this.
Would you rather they put "Former One-Term Senator" underneath his announcement?
I too am excited about his announcement, but I think that his wealth is a fair issue to discuss if he's going to focus so much on poverty. In respect to that, I think that he's doing a very good job handling it all as it would be easy to seem condescending, which he certainly isn't.
The other dem. candidates, or expected candidates, are all in public office right now which, sadly, gives them an advantage in the media's eye. I suspect we will continue to see this treatment of Edwards in the coming months, but with the amount of support he already has I think it's safe to say that the mainstream media will soon see him for the strong contender that he is.
No, it doesn't have to be "former one-term Senator," but how about simply "John Edwards."
My feeling was that they were trying to characterize him in a certain class, which is fine, but why not be fair and treat all the candidates the same?
Hillary is also a mulit-millionaire, and I'n sure Obama ain't starving LOL
I think the way in which he earned his money is relevant to poverty.
I've worked for nearly 20 years as a paralegal on the personal injury cases, 17 years of which was for "trial lawyers," and I can tell you, people who sustain devastating personal injuries usually lose everything they have, with no way to climb back out of hopeless poverty. I've seen it first hand, and so has he.
Lawyers like Edwards put their personal money on the line to fight against those who have committed egregious wilfull and wanton negligence. Medical malpractice cases, in particular are the toughest to win and the most expensive to prosecute.
Witnessing this kind of hardship leaves a mark on you, and it's left one on Edwards, thus his concern for poverty in America.
The media will expose Edwards for what he is. The media won't do any heavy lifting for him as long as Obama and Hillary are still in the race. Those of you that support this Trial Lawyer should do your homework and read the cases the he tried. Also check out his trial lawyer money man good ole Fredy Baron. Hes at the chief pig at the asbestos trough. Cant we get a real leader?
(Obviously, Teri Beaugez and Teresa Beau are the same person.)
Thank you for your comment.
I have reviewed his cases, and would be happy to discuss them with you in detail. In the meantime, here's an article written by a findlaw.com law professor for CNN:
The 'character' issue is a non-issue
Now, let's go on to the more specific complaint about Edwards's own cases.
Edwards won many large verdicts against obstetricians in North Carolina. One of the primary theories he invoked holds that cerebral palsy can be caused during delivery. Now critics are saying that theory was based on "junk science."
In fact, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of this theory. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided.
Now -- many years later, in light of additional evidence and science -- it seems that the defendants seem to have a much better case than previously believed. But all that proves about Edwards is that he couldn't see into the future. No one can, which is why we have trials, not oracles.
Consider the 1979 case critics often mention, in which Edwards won $6.5 million for a young girl named Jennifer Campbell who had been born with cerebral palsy in a rural part of North Carolina. The Campbells claimed that, given Jennifer's position in the womb, the doctor should have recommended a Caesarean section -- especially during the birth, once there was evidence of fetal distress.
At the time, even some defense experts seemed to agree. North Carolina operated under something called the "locality rule," which meant that reasonable care in medicine was defined by the standard of care of the local doctors. As Edwards tells it in his book, Four Trials, the defendant's North Carolina expert admitted in deposition that he would have elected for a Caesarean section at the outset -- and that, given his reading of the heart rate monitor records, he would have recognized fetal distress over an hour earlier than the defendant doctor did.
As noted, it now turns out that the causal link between physician malpractice and cerebral palsy is much less certain than was once believed. Furthermore, fetal heart monitoring--which was adopted by many hospitals in the '70's and '80's as a defense against claims of medical malpractice -- may not be as accurate a tool to measure fetal distress as previously hoped.
With the benefit of hindsight, many medical experts now feel the monitors produce too many false alarms, and thus too many unnecessary Caesarean sections -- resulting perhaps in too many erroneous findings of liability.
In 1979, however, none of this was clear. And therefore, the supposed "character" issue for Edwards is no issue at all.
Of course, this is not to deny that some lawyers might use junk science. (When lawyers for Big Tobacco presented scientists who denied that smoking is addictive or causes cancer, what were they thinking?) But Edwards wasn't one of them.
Interestingly, the Campbell verdict, in the end, may have done quite a bit of good. In the course of the trial, Edwards brought out that the hospital never offered to the Campbells the choice of opting for a Caesarean section. They weren't asked to sign an "informed consent" form until after Jennifer was born - even though the form stated that they had been informed before the delivery of its various dangers.
The jury's anger that the parents were not given this option may have been a large reason for its multimillion dollar verdict. Certainly, it is plausible that, as Edwards says in his book, the case had a huge impact on how hospitals handled informed consent.
Edwards' cases and personal responsibility
In many ways, Edwards's history as a medical malpractice lawyer ought to appeal to Americans -- since we are a nation deeply attached to the idea of personal responsibility. This history shows that Edwards subscribes to mainstream American values -- and that is an important thing in a Vice President.
Doctors sometimes cannot understand why lawyers urge juries to look for the person responsible for everything that goes wrong. It is because in our culture, injured people don't get any help unless they can blame their injuries on someone -- but if they can, they are entitled to full compensation.
A little girl who has cerebral palsy through bad luck might get nothing (except perhaps Social Security). But under our system, Jennifer Campbell has a right to get back everything she lost -- if she can prove that she was wronged. And Jennifer has no alternative but a lawyer such as Edwards. Without him, she will get virtually nothing.
American tort law is more individualistic than any other Western nation. We distrust bureaucracies and centralization. Our tort system does not look like something a scientist would have developed, which is perhaps why some doctors find it so maddening. But they should not hate John Edwards for applying to his clients' cases the values which are at the foundation of American tort law.
John Edwards understands how Americans feel about fault, money and justice -- which is why he was a great lawyer and could be a good Vice President.
By Anthony J. Sebok, a FindLaw columnist, is a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, where he teaches torts, among other subjects. A longer version of this column is available at findlaw.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/se...rds/index.html
Fred Baron, Baron & Budd, P.C.
"As a result of his work to protect the rights of victims of toxic substances, The National Law Journal has listed Fred as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers in the U.S." (The National Law Journal, June 8, 2000). He has been honored as a lawyer who helped shape Texas law during the 20th century in "Legal Legends: A Century of Texas Law and Lawyering" (Texas Lawyer commemorative publication, June 2000) and has been named one of Dallas' top lawyers by D Magazine (May 2001 and May 2005). The University of Texas School of Law has honored him by establishing the Frederick M. Baron Chair in Law, which is held by a senior professor of the law school engaged in original research on lawyering and the civil justice system."
Sounds pretty darn impressive to me!
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Baron_Fred_1963385.aspx
Post a Comment