Monday, January 21, 2008

Edwards wins South Carolina debate



Whether it will do him any good or not is questioanable, but John Edwards was the undeniable winner of tonight's CNN South Carolina primary.
While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sniped at each other with regularity, Edwards made a point of noting that the arguing was not going to solve the nation's problems or feed any starving children. Edwards stayed on point, while Obama became flustered several times and Mrs. Clinton just appeared angry.

Links to the debate transcript can be found on this page of the CNN website.

(CNN photos)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

This should show the Democrat party who they should be supporting. Dump Hilary and Obama, they both have too many issues. John Edwards would make a much better President for this Country. On the Republican side I am rooting for Huckabee.

The Lorax said...

Point made...

but since there wasn't even a hint of equal time... who heard Edwards do his "mill routine"?

He has valid points, be he needs to Veep up or get a cabinet post to be valid.

Anonymous said...

Howdy Doody Edwards.....give me a break. What a weak man. Talk about a hypocrite. He masquerades as a liberal democrat as he sits on top of the money he stole as an attorney. He and people like him are one of the sngle most factors for the high costs of health care with the lawsuits he brought against the insurance companies.

The Lorax said...

Anon,
Edwards has every right to negotiate a settlement fee... just like Thompson who made a large sum doing what? acting? Oh boy.

Romney made money taking peoples money when they bought their own investments.

They all do it. Please don't act like some form of accepting cash for services is more or less than others.

How are you paid?

Anonymous said...

IF I really need to explain to you the difference in a snake lawyer like Edwards and an actor then we can't have a converstaion until you educate yourself a little better. What Edwards did affected the country and what you and I pay for health insurance....he was not in the entertainment business. That's like saying that it is also okay for big oil to be receiveing record profits again at our expense. There is a huge difference.

The Lorax said...

Easy, anon 4:01.

Are you arguing that Edwards court cases weren't deserving of monetary rewards and that those who suffered injury didn't deserve compensation? I bet you might think differently if you were on the other side of the decision.

It wasn't JUST Edwards, but people that advertise all over the air, etc etc.

To keep your argument in the same circle... you'd also argue that Hillary didn't have any experience in the White House (even though I believe she was very involved with policy decisions)?