This ad gets my vote as the weirdest commercial of the campaign to date.

If you haven't seen it, I have attached the YouTube link. Can anyone explain it to me? I am having a hard time trying to figure out what his motive is in running this.

As someone who does not vote along party lines and chooses the candidate I think will do the best job for this country, he certainly isn't placing my confidence in him or the Dems. Sounds to me like he is condemning both parties in telling us that no one, Reps or Dems, can make changes. So, what are we expected to do? Vote for him and hope for the best? LOL. Unless when he says "this has to stop" he is referring to the war in Iraq. But, it isn't clear to me. Maybe it is clear to one of you. IMO, I think this ad really works against him.

YouTube - John Edwards - "Rigged" Ad

Hello Ruby:

Sure. What he's saying is that Hillary is a moderate Republican in Democrats clothing. I think he's right.

excon

He is right saying that it is rigged. Like I said before, America is a Democratic Dictatorship and he just came out and spilled the beans... but why? Ron Paul knows better than to go that far. This is bullchit at it's finest. This is them telling us what we already know in an attempt to make us think we will get what we want but they will trick us and give us more of what we don't want, more lying, stealing, cheating con men raping us and our country.

From William Jennings Bryan to Huey Long to Edwards ,Kucinich ,and Paul... the evolution of populism in America. Edwards is rapidly becoming irrelevant. His only use in this campaign is the skim votes that would probably go to Obama. His populist bleating and "two Americas" sounds hollow knowing how he has amassed his own personal wealth. He is a hypocrite and the only proof of that needed is his demand for a more intrusive government that would garnish wages to pay for his mandatory health care plan. Political Radar: Edwards: Garnish Wages If Needed to Cover All

He is trying to tap into populist appeal . This race is already crowded with populist candidates and they are not faring well . Is that because the system is rigged or that their message only resonates to a small percent of the population?

His ad I believe is being aired in NH ;a state where it will probably work best. But nationally the perception by the vast majority is that the appeal that "the game is rigged " is a common complaint of the loser. This ad demonstrates that Edwards political career is in it's final undignified death.

Hello:

I'm just not buying this "you can't be for the poor if you're rich", crap. It makes no sense on its face. What?? The only way you can BE for the poor is to STAY poor?? If you got no money, who's going to listen??

JFK was rich and was for the poor. Really. It happens. Maybe not to Republicans...

excon

Excon, I don't know if I buy your Hillary statement. Most people I know think she is the most liberal of the Dem candidates.

Magprob your line of thinking is more along the lines of what I thought when I first saw the commercial. He is telling us what we already know and saying: Look at me! I am the only truthful man and your sole hope of overcoming this political corporate hold that is choking the U.S. In John Edwards, we have met our political savior! Yee ha. Everything is going to be wonnerfull again.

Tomder has a very valid point. If you look at the poll numbers in NH, Edwards ship hasn't done well and is sinking. I did assume that the commercial was running in at least a few states. It may not be. Yet. But, I don't understand how he thinks this commercial will help him climb out of the slump he has found himself in, in NH. I hope someone in Edwards camp can convince him that the majority of the people in NH are not inbred and ignorant. They do have computers & satellite/cable television. This isn't 1959 where they get their info in bits and pieces from the radio and local newspapers. Of course, as in any state, you have some people who will base their vote on the commercials rather than actually looking at a candidates platform. But, due to the war and the economic downturn we are experiencing, people are listening very closely, watching, asking more questions, than they have ever done before. There are a lot of people in NH who have children serving in Iraq. Every week there is another one of "the kids" shipped back home in a body bag. Edwards is making a huge tactical error in asking the people in NH to just "trust him" to fix everything. The majority of the people born and raised in NH are not that gullible. NH also has been experiencing a rise in transplants from other parts of the country. It has become a popular place to retire to. I won't be surprised if his numbers slip even further if he keeps running that ad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Excon, I don't know if I buy your Hillary statement. Most people I know think she is the most liberal of the Dem candidates.

---

Hello again, Ruby:

Really? Wow. She's not anti war. She takes money from the same people Republicans do. She's not anti lobbyist. She's not pro amnesty. She's not for ending the drug war. She hasn't embraced prison reform. She's a free trader - not a unionist. I don't know.

However, as much as I know about government, I know little about what it takes for a politician to win.

I was listening to Air America the other day. They did an on-air poll - you know the quick kind where you only have 5 seconds to mention your candidate’s name. The results really blew me away. Out of about 25 or so calls, 20 were for Edwards, maybe 3 for Obama, and 1 or 2 for Hillary and Richardson.

Now it might be that Air Americas audience is the fringe left. I don't know.

excon

PS> Actually, I think it IS the fringe left...

Uh, 25 calls? C'mon ex. You never should have posted that. I don't believe that if Air America had 2500 people responding, it would give us an accurate accounting of how the general populace of the U.S. is voting. Just like New Hampshire's primary results won't. I find your views on Hillary interesting. To me, she appears to be flip flopping her way through this campaign on so many issues that I am not in any position at the moment to accurately conclude what her real intentions are for this country if she is elected. She isn't anti-war? Really? I don't know either. ;)

To be honest, Ruby, I had not seen that Edwards ad, until you posted this. If I had not already decided my opinion on Edwards, this would not have helped me undecide my opinion. Why would I vote for him? He did not say anything that no one already does not know. Sure the system is rigged and corrupt. He makes the stab but offers what in replacement? If he does not get the nod from the Democratic Party, then we can hear him say what? Because of the system being rigged?

LOL shy. Exactly my point of view, although I don't think he will say anything publicly when he doesn't win in the NH primaries. I do think his senior adviser, Joe Trippi, is offering up some very bad strategy advice with this commercial. Then again, I am not a (highly paid) strategist, so who am I to tell a candidate he is wasting a small fortune on a commercial? But, I am doing it anyway. ;) Hopefully he will smarten up, smack Trippi on his noggin, and pull that ad prior to airing it anywhere else in the country.

Not knowing what other states are viewing, just as an FYI, since we are now counting down the days until the primary here, both Giuliani & McCain have really racheted up their campaigns and their latest TV ads are highly effective with the general public, IMO (based on the feedback I am receiving from people I speak with). It will be interesting to see if those ads have any effect on the polls (percentage wise) come voting day. Not sure if the McCain commercials will be offset by what he is currently planning. He is gearing up for his town hall meetings with Chuck Norris at his side. I cannot see how Norris's endorsement will help him, although it might help Norris sell more of his "Total Gym" equipment here in the Granite State.:rolleyes:

Lol @ the Total Gym. I share your view on the Chuck Norris endorsement, or any celebrity endorsement for that matter. I am not voting for someone because some "star" tells me how great the person is. Now if they gave me a new car and a chicken in my stew pot - I might consider!

Here is something for the Edwards campaign, Ruby:

Attachment 5559

LOL! Very funny you silly girl!

Quote:

---

I'm just not buying this "you can't be for the poor if you're rich", crap.

---

But that is not what I said . I specifically said John Edwards was the hypocrite . What ? You say he's not ? Then how does one explain him railing about predatory financial institutions when in fact he recently worked for a hedge fund. When he was caught he said he did it for the research about financial markets and their relationship to poverty . Lol Even worse ;while employed at the Hedge fund Edwards claims he had no knowledge that their business was sub-prime loans . Lolololol He learned well, because he earned so much money even he is afraid to divulge the amount . But we do know that he has $16 million invested in Fortress funds, a company that forecloses on Hurricane Katrina victims .

This is the same John Edwards who takes shots at Walmart all the time and then had flunkies contact Walmart to go to the front of the line when the new Playstation 3 went on sale.

John Edwards is the one who only recently demanded that we give up our big cars, a demand he made despite the fact that he owns a house with two large garages, for the two SUVs he owns .

This is the John Edwards who demands socialized medicine built on the back of taxpayers, even though it was his type of slip and fall faux scientific lawsuit that helped drive up insurance rates ;driving up medical costs;helping drive millions of people right out of the medical system altogether.Then he would garnish wages from us if we failed to sign onto his dictatorial idea about mandatory health insurance.

Quote:

---

and the economic downturn we are experiencing

---

Ruby .

The Bush economic boom is now in it's 6th year making it an almost historical economic expansion. Forecasters are predicting a slow down to 2-3 % growth next year .That would still make it a period of economic expansion. Recessions occur when there is high unemployment, high inflation and only then is defined by two successive quarters of negative GDP. We are no where's close to that . Unemployment is at almost historic lows .The fed and Tresury has managed inflation well. At the current levels of revenue the deficit will be erased by the middle of next year .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Bush economic boom is now in it's 6th year

---

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the war machine and its related industries, also any president can print money and grow the debt perversely. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the war machine and its related industries, also any president can print money and grow the debt perversely. :rolleyes:

---

First of all, NK, you are again showing you lack of understanding of economics and finance.

1) Presidents do not print money.

2) There is no "war machine" in the current war.

The "war machine" of WWII was a complete economic change from a peacetime economy to a wartime economy. EVERY COMPANY was producing war products, from food to clothing to weapons to vehicles. There was no such thing as a sector of the economy that wasn't part of the war effort. THAT was the war machine that pulled the country out of the Great Depression.

By contrast, only a very small portion of our national economy is involved in the war in Iraq. The actuall effect of the war on the economy has been EXTREMELY small. The past 6 years of economic boom have had NOTHING to do with any "war machine", and everything to do with 2 major tax cuts that created lots of jobs.

Elliot

Actually it is the service sector which includes retail, education and healthcare positions which grew by 127,000 more jobs in November. Right now construction is weak due to the housing bubble but American exports are growing enough to balance that. Attribute that to the weak dollar if you will. That only proves that a weaker currency is not necessarily a bad thing .It also says that world economies are expanding and that the demand for US goods will continue. I see nothing negative in this .

I note that Canadian purchases of goods in the US this month caused a reversal in the tempory rate exchange in favor of the loon.

Tom, I was referring to the viewpoint of the general populace.

By the way, unemployment figures are only verifiable through those that are still collecting unemployment. They don't include the people who have fallen off the map, so to speak. Those that haven't been able to find a job and are no longer eligible to collect. I know a number of people in this situation.

Tom, I have no problem with you continuing to defending the current administration, while the rest of us keep watching the national debt, gas, oil, grocery,. prices soar through the roof, and RE prices, dollar valuation,. tumble down. People are scared and the general populace views it as an economic downturn. Most people aren't students of economics. I go by the grumblings of my friends and neighbors. As for myself, I am only a mere widow living on a set income that until recently left me in a decent position, and, is now posing some very real life dilemmas for me.:rolleyes:

Yes I admit that if I was unemployed it would be little comfort to me that unemployment is low. You are correct that perceptions mean a lot. That goes back to another thread discussion about how the media creates perceptions . I guarantee if we were in the 6th year of the AL Gore boom the media would be trumpetting it.

LOL. Possibly they would have the upperhand on that, but I think there would be enough conservative news writers and TV news programs that would get their voices heard somewhere amidst the din of the liberal bleating.

Hello tom:

I don't disagree that the statistics say we're booming... Indeed, the "haves" are having a lot more these days, that's for sure.

However, when I look around my neighborhood, I see people working at Wal Mart who used to work in the lumber mills. I see people working at the new McDonalds down the road who used to build cars. I see manufacturing jobs going overseas to China or to Mexico, and being replaced with jobs as clerks or car salesman.

I suppose they could be counted as new jobs and spun to look like we're booming.

But, in the real world, the average worker is getting behinder and behinder. His REAL standard of living has been declining for years. He knows it too.

And NO, I didn't need the media to tell me that.

excon

LOL excon. You do have a way with words. Yes, all figures can be spun. I didn't believe the gov't stats & info before Bush was in office, and I don't believe them now. I have to go by what I am seeing around me. And, you are right. Our largest employers have and continue to go out of business in the past 5 years. I see empty storefronts on my Main Street. Those people who were trained for specific work in the factory & construction sectors are having a very tough time of it. I have one three family rental property investment with a partner, and my tenants are floundering. The net effect is that it leaves me floundering. My taxes have shot up dramatically this past year. I managed to lock in at a decent rate for oil, but that price of course, has increased in the past year. My grocery bills are much higher for the basic necessities. I walk out of the store with two average sized bags and $80 less in my pocket.

On the upside of all of this, the need to decrease my expenditures and figure out where I can tighten my belt further, allows me to keep my brain functioning at optimum level, so maybe I will avoid altzheimers (sp?) after all! But, when I think about it, having my mental faculties diminished will allow me the luxury of not worrying all the time as I am currently doing. It is all such a quandry. ;)

Yup I know people who used to draft for a living but their job no longer existed . They could've settled for a Walmart job I guess but instead they retrained and learned how to use CAD . There used to be a great demand for blacksmiths before the automobile also .


Your neighbors who worked at the mill were pretty busy when home prices were going through the roof. Did you think it realistic for the housing boom to go on forever ? I didn't .

Do you really think that Detroit could continue to compete with increasing demands from labor while workers not only in China ,Japan ,and Mexico (not to mention Tennessee ) were not making the same demands?

More important from a libertarian point of view ; what role should government have in guaranteeing your job ?

Hello again, tom:

Your knee jerked.

I said nothing about the government owing these people anything other than to count them and assess their plight accurately. That isn't now being done.

That was my point, and it still is.

excon

Economic reports I read break it down by sector. A bigger problem is that the press will report a housing bubble burst as an indicator of a weakness in the overall economy. That is where the inaccurate reporting is being done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That is where the inaccurate reporting is being done.

---

C'mon Tom, you and I know that the only accurate reporting is the one that jives with your ideals. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yup I know people who used to draft for a living but their job no longer existed . They could've settled for a Walmart job I guess but instead they retrained and learned how to use CAD . There used to be a great demand for blacksmiths before the automobile also .

Your neighbors who worked at the mill were pretty busy when home prices were going through the roof. Did you think it realistic for the housing boom to go on forever ? I didn't .

Do you really think that Detroit could continue to compete with increasing demands from labor while workers not only in China ,Japan ,and Mexico (not to mention Tennessee ) were not making the same demands?

More important from a libertarian point of view ; what role should goverment have in guaranteeing your job ?

---

Tom, although I never expected home prices to keep going through the roof and recognize that a correction in the market was required, there are many people who weren't prepared for it. Not everyone is capable of understanding or planning for the future. Why are all those people who bought houses at inflated prices, now losing them to foreclosure? Do you think they were purposely stupid? Many were sucked in by less than ethical mortgage brokers who were looking to make money off people who weren't savvy enough to question them. For that part of this discussion, I believe we need more stringent laws in place protecting the consumer from unlicensed mortgage brokers and minimally monitored RE agencies.

That is nice that you know people who were able to retrain and find jobs within their fields. You live in a major metropolitan area and haven't seen what all this means to people living in other parts of the country, where the closest city is a few hours away. The largest employer currently in my area is a gun manufacturer. They have been downsizing over the past few years and are talking about closing shop altogether. At the moment I believe they still provide at least 1,000 jobs to this area. What do you propose all those people do? How do you retrain and find a job locally, in an area you were born and raised, in which your family and friends all live, when you are competing for jobs with all your friends and co-workers who are in the same boat? Yes, some can retrain and find jobs locally. Some will be forced to sell their homes and move to an area that will provide them opportunities. But, it is unrealistic to expect all of them to leave the area they were born and raised in. If that occurred, we would have nothing but huge metropolises with nothing in between except a few outposts and tumble weeds.

Of course the government cannot guarantee anyone's job. But, why do some people refuse to hold them at least partially accountable for any actions they take that lead to domestic difficulties? Of course the media is partially responsible for creating an overreaction in people, but doesn't our federal government hold any responsibility for the current difficulties we are facing now?

Quote:

---

doesn't our federal government hold any responsibility for the current difficulties we are facing now?

---

Yes they do... those who know me from other postings know I have been critical of needless government expansion;spending (and that includes Bush and the Republican watch) . I think that causes much of the hardships .

Example : yes you can blame financial institutions in part for the sub-prime mess. But also keep in mind that they were under increasing pressure by lawmakers to make risky loans available to people who did not qualify under normal circumstances.

Trust me ;the banks are already feeling the hit for their sloppy practices and more is to come .The deal President Bush negotiated with the lending institutions (without a taxpayer hit by the way ) to bail SOME of the home buyers out is sound governance . I know of no lending institution that would prefer to hold a default loan.

Government bail out is NOT sound . The government bailed out Chrysler . Where is it now ?

I suspect that many who rail against the machine ;when asked their solution would say the remedy is more of the same. More government intervention . More taxpayer money thrown at problems .

As for my job... I moved to where my job is ;I did not wait for a job to come to me . I was going to settle in the Midwest where I went to school . But there were more opportunities here . I know what I say isn't sugar coated but too many people settle for their condition and then complain that someone else did not provide.

Tom, I would give you a greenie if I could for that last post.