| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12096 Activity:moderate |
2/3 So it's a wrap. We're now at Kerry >>> Edwards > Clark and the
rest will be dropping out. IMO, Clark barely scraped by, has too
little funding coming from a small clique of rich people and will
be out of the race in a few weeks at most. Edwards will be around
until at least CA and then we'll see.
\_ I just don't get the Edwards thing. Is there a message there
that I'm missing, or is he really running a successful campaign
on being young, hansome, and having a southern accent?
\_ He's not that young, just looks it. He's in his 50's.
\_ Don't forget making your millions by suing doctors for things
they didn't cause!
http://csua.org/u/5tx
http://csua.org/u/5ty
\_ I've read less biased links about his court time. Let me
remind you that you can sue anyone for anything you want in
this country but only the *JURY* can decide if your case
has merit. Juries decided his cases did. Case closed. And
no, I'm not an Edwards supporter.
\_ Clark is positioning himself as a VP candidate, by not pissing
anyone off. Kerry/Clark will be able to go after Bush on
military issues.
\_ Bullshit. I think Clark is a guy who actually means what he says,
and if he says he won't consider a VP slot, I think he means it.
I predict that if he loses a few more primaries, he'll bow out
of politics permanently.
\_ Bullshit. I think Clark is a guy who actually means what he
says, and if he says he won't consider a VP slot, I think he
means it. I predict that if he loses a few more primaries,
he'll bow out of politics permanently. [formatd]
\_ Which gives Clark about a 9 month stay in politics.
\_ Kerry already has the war record thing going for him. What does
he really need Clark for?
\_ Being southern. Problem is, Edwards is too and he's more
charming.
\_ Kerry has the perception of being too liberal. He's a
democrats from the same state as Ted Kennedy. What do you
expect? Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Edwards will bring in support
from moderates and southerners. Personally I think
Kerry/Clark is a better fit because they bring credibility
to foreign policy and terrorism debates. Edwards might help
Kerry carry more southern states, but it takes more than
carrying a couple of southern states to win against Bush.
Dean, of course, is flaming out just like another dot-com.
Raised a lot of cash and blew it all away in a short time.
That describes a typical dot-bomb.
\_ Problem w/ Edwards/Kerry is that they are both senators.
It's good to mix it up a bit, vs having two ppl w/ legistlve
exp. Also Clark/Kerry seems to really hit home the whole
military angle and just BushBash away wrt his flight suit and
other military/political gaffes.
\_ I think I'll donate my flooz to Dean's campaign...
\_ Way too funny for the motd. Pearls before swine....
\_ Are you saying Clark has foreign policy experience? Uhm,
sort of, but I'd put more faith in Kerry's 35 years for how
foreign policy works than Clark. As far as the South goes,
Edwards has done better there so far and is a 'real'
Southerner. Clark is from Arkansas which is sort of the
south only if you're from either coast. Clark doesn't have
*any* experience dealing with terrorism.
\_ fighting terrorism means commanding the military.
Do you fight against Bin Laden with diplomacy? No,
you send in troops and bomb the hell out of the guy.
Who has experience commanding troops? Clark. Not Bush,
not Kerry, not Edwards.
\_ Fighting terrorism means intelligence work and black
ops and beating/drugging people in dark rooms. Now
that you understand do you still see Clark as the
right guy for that job? No experience, certainly.
If all it took was bombing shit, then we've already
got the right guys in office and don't need a new
administration.
\_ The current administration doesn't get the whole
precision bombing thing unless it supports troop
movements. Think about it: Afghanistan and Iraq
showed off our ability to hammer the opposition
so that the ground troops could mop up. Bosnia
showed off our ability to hammer the opposition
so the the ground troops didn't need to mop up.
\_ Well, that also has to do with the fact that
the Serbs weren't suicidal fanatics.
\_ So you think the more primitive weapons used in
Yugoslavia were somehow better aimed and more
effective and precise because they were dropped
during a (D) administration? Okey dokey!
\_ Fighting terrorism means a lot more than just using
the stick. You need to use the carrot, too. See
The Nazis vs. The Russian Partisans, Britain vs.
The Irish and many many more historical examples
of why just trying to defeat "terrorism" with force
only always fails.
\_ Fighting terrorism means stop making enemies with
everyone and stop telling everyone else what to do.
\_ Sometimes, outside the sandbox, you can't always
be friends with everyone. Sometimes the bad guys
really are bad and really do want to kill you and
there's really nothing you can do about it if
you're not willing to surrender. Are you French?
\_ sometimes yes, as with the Germans in WW2.
It's not the case with the current "war on
terror" though.
\_ perhaps you'd like to go read up on the
history of Islamic conquests and the spread
of Islam since it's inception and then say
that.
\_ Do you honestly advocate killing every one
of the worlds 400M Arabs? You are never going
to be able to seperate the "bad" ones from
the "good" ones, you know.
\_ Duh, of course not. This goes back to the
original thing I said which is that fighting
terrorism is primarily *not* a "drop the
bombs on them!" task, but dirty ugly black
ops, capture/torture, and assassination as
necessary. As for the rest, by squeezing
their funding sources and helping more
moderate (ie: not suicidal crazy) Muslim
states and groups the terrorists will run
out of places to hide and the ability to
recruit replacements and volunteers for
their militarily useless suicide missions.
\_ Fair enough, I agree with you mostly
then. I think you need to remember that
the carrot works better than the
stick in modifying human behavior.
But we do need both, and probably
the stick you advocate is the
right one to beat with.
\_ Cool, psych1 time: the stick works
faster, the carrot works better if you
are patient, persistent, have time,
and care about the feelings of the
subject you're training. I'll be
honest: I don't care as long they stop
sending their own children out wearing
bombs. Everything after that is up
for negotiation. Never negotiate with
terrorists. They always want more.
It's that whole "peace with honor"
thing. It didn't work then, either.
\_ One man's terrorist is another
mans freedom fighter. Were the
US Revolutionaries "terrorists"?
How about the IRA? The Contras?
I could go on, but the point is
that your absolutist stance does
not really work in the real world.
Not that I advocate negotiating
with terrorists directly, but
listening to their demands and
undermining support for them
is vital. It is the whole
"hearts and minds" idea. Even
Bush knows this, see how we pulled
out of Saudi Arabia. This was OBL's
number one complaint.
\_ You are right that Kerry is seen as another Dukakis. I
don't think having a Southern VP will help much. IMO,
a VP can hurt (Lieberman, Ferraro) but can't help. It's
just the VP. Are Southerners supposed to suddenly vote
for a Yankee because there's a Southerner on the
ticket? People will mostly vote for the President they
want and the VP is an afterthought with limited influence.
\_ You think Joe hurt Gore? I think Joe is a righteous
upstanding guy who only brought credibility to that
backstabbing scumbag, Gore. Your idea that the VP
doesn't matter to voters is contrary to accepted wisdom.
You may or may not be right but those who earn their
money getting people elected would all say you're wrong.
\_ Funny, I thought he was a self-rightous whore for the
insurance industry.
\_ You are correct. Him and Kucinich are the only
two Democratic candidates who would actually
cause me to vote for Bush.
\_ Yes, I think Joe hurt by virtue of being Jewish.
I realize what the accepted wisdom is, but think
about it. If GWB suddenly chose Dean or Kerry or
<your favorite candidate> as VP would you vote
for him? People are going to vote for the President
they want. The VP has influence, but you cannot
award "The South" to a candidate based on his VP.
Gore was *from* the South and lost badly there.
\_ If Bush chose Kerry or Dean then I'd certainly
*not* vote for him. VP *does* matter. --(R)
\_ Because Gore was a loser. Not because his VP was
Jewish. It wasn't that long ago 'they' said that
a *Catholic* could _never_ be President....
\_ Joe almost won Florida for Gore. That was pretty
much his whole reason for being on the ticket, to
motivate Jewish retirees in Florida. If Edwards
can get North Carolina or South Carolina for Kerry,
Bush's chances get a whole lot worse. I personally
don't think he can do it, but his presence could
make the difference in a close state like West
Virginia.
\_ The point is that Gore couldn't even get
Tennessee for Gore.
\_ ouch!
\_ Before we start calling this a wrap, let's remember that we're only
up to 578 delegates pledged out of 4,321 possible votes. Yes, Kerry
has out-delegated his closest competitor (Dean) by 100%, but the
game is still in its early stages, and there's plenty of room for
more people to drop out. Moreover, remember that the Dem Primary
is not constructed on any reasonably logical rules:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/misc/more.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard
\_ Thanks for the URLs, I'll check them out. The thing is there's
this whole momentum thing. People like winners. They vote for
winners. They want to be associated with winners and tell their
friends they voted for a winner. It is certainly possible but
growing ever more unlikely as each state turns to Kerry that the
others can hope to catch up. |
| 5/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/5tx -> www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century. Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for the United States Senate. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, said it is conceivable for a doctors incompetence to cause cerebral palsy in an infant. There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know, Goldstein added. A great many of these cases are due to subtle infections of the child before birth, Freeman said. That is the cause of the premature labor and the cause of the brain damage. There is little or no evidence that if you did a caesarean section a short time earlier you would prevent cerebral palsy, he added. Heart wrenching plea But some of Edwards critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants. Edwards trial summaries routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children, according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003. The Globe cited an example of Edwards oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell. I have to tell you right now - I didnt plan to talk about this - right now I feel her Jennifer, I feel her presence, Edwards told the jury according to court records. However, Olson believes trial lawyers have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation, by excluding certain scientific evidence. Trial lawyers have been cashing in on cases where the doctors conduct probably did not make any difference at all - cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room, Olson said. Junk science in the courtroom Peter Huber, a lawyer and author of the book, Galileos Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom , believes juries are typically manipulated with emotional arguments to aid the plaintiffs case. The jury sees the undisputed trauma first, the disputed negligence second, the undisputed cerebral palsy third. It is a perfect set-up for misinterpreting sequence as cause, Huber wrote. According to Boisseau, the growing body of scientific studies showing that obstetricians are generally blameless in cerebral palsy cases has done nothing to alter the trend of multi-million dollar court settlements. Those settlements are reached, Boisseau said, even though a lot of the plaintiffs expert science is unsupported, essentially junk science. Many juries never even get to hear about the medical science or the origins of cerebral palsy because 90 percent of suits for obstetrical malpractice are settled out of court, noted Freeman of Johns Hopkins Hospital. Huber does not expect cerebral palsy cases to fade away, despite the growing body of scientific evidence exonerating doctors. Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these medical malpractice claims, cerebral palsy cases remain enormously attractive to lawyers, Huber wrote. The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $128 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards Senate financial disclosure forms. Edwards old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time he worked there. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win more than $152 million based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone. The legal profession recognized Edwards achievements by inducting him into the prestigious legal society called the Inner Circle of Advocates, which includes the nations top 100 lawyers. Lawyers Weekly also cited Edwards as one of Americas Lawyers of the Year in 1996. The kids and families Ive fought for Edwards has shifted his emotionally charged speeches from the jury box to the presidential campaign trail and is fond of re-telling the story of how his firm sued on behalf of a cerebral palsy-afflicted boy named Ethan Bedrick in 1996. Ethan, born in North Carolina in 1992, allegedly developed cerebral palsy after a botched delivery. The family was forced to go to court to get their son the care he needed, Edwards has said of the case, which his law firm won. Edwards has repeatedly cited Ethans case as an example of the kids and families Ive fought for, and in the minds of many political observers positioned himself as the classic David against the insurance industrys Goliath. However, Edwards has also repeatedly failed to mention that he had represented Ethan Bedrick in a lawsuit against the boys obstetrician a year earlier in 1995. Edwards had alleged that the doctor was negligent in failing to prevent the boys oxygen deprivation during labor and therefore had caused the boys cerebral palsy. Edwards settled the malpractice case with the doctors insurance company less than three weeks into the trial, enabling Ethans family to get a reported $5 million for medical and living expenses. The case was reportedly the largest medical malpractice settlement in North Carolina history. Im proud of that Edwards is not shy about defending his legal career and says he would gladly put his record up against that of President Bush in this years general election. The time I spent in courtrooms representing kids and families against, you know, big insurance companies and big drug companies and big corporate America - Im proud of that, Edwards told the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes in December 2003. Lorne Hall, one of the physicians with whom Edwards reached a confidential settlement in a malpractice case involving cerebral palsy, agreed, telling The Charlotte Observer in 2003 that Edwards knows how to pick cases, and he knows the ones he can win. Hall said Edwards was very polished, very polite, dressed to the Ts, smiling at the ladies. But the anonymous source for this story said Edwards displayed a belligerent attitude toward the medical profession. The reputation he had was - he never wanted to hear that nobody did anything wrong. If you even walked by the door of an alleged malpractice incident, you were gong to cough up money too, the source said. That is the nature of an advocacy system, Hood added Hood does not fault Edwards for the strategies he used as a trial lawyer. It was his job to make the best possible case for them, Hood said. Many legal observers agree that Edwards was simply doing his job and doing it very well. A North Carolina newspaper, The News and Observer, said Edwards forged a reputation as one of the most skilled plaintiffs attorneys in the business. Retired North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, who heard many of Edwards arguments in court, had nothing but praise for the abilities of the former trial lawyer, turned senator. He was probably the best I ever had in the 21 years I had on the bench. Lawyers would come in to watch him, to see what he does, Farmer told the Chicago Tribune in December 2003. Scientifically unfounded Olson said lawsuits blaming obstetricians for cerebral palsy and other infant brain damage may constitute the single biggest branch of medical malpractice litigation. Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in about 8,000 infants annually in the United States... |
| csua.org/u/5ty -> www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200402%5CCUL20040202a.html John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat whos running for his partys presidential nomination, conceded that infant cerebral palsy usually is not the fault of the doctors who deliver the baby - even though he argued otherwise in his days as a trial lawyer. Edwards did say that during his legal career, he represented only the few cases that were the exceptions to the rule. The outcome of those cases, many of them dealing with the debatable cause of cerebral palsy in infants, made Edwards a rich man, allowing him to self-finance a 1998 run for the United States Senate from North Carolina and position himself as a presidential candidate in 2004. Before I ever accepted a brain-injured child case, we would spend months investigating it, Edwards added. The Times also noted that between 1985 and 1995, Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the obstetrician/gynecologist could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know, Goldstein said. Boisseau of the Kansas-based firm Turner and Boisseau, which specializes in defending doctors insurance companies from medical malpractice lawsuits, said he believed junk science was used by lawyers in cases similar to those Edwards argued during his legal career. And while obstetricians were generally blameless in cerebral palsy cases, according to Boisseau, he said he believed there would be more legal judgments and settlements in the future similar to those Edwards had won during his legal career. |
| www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/misc/more.html CNN - If you think federal income tax forms are complex, try understanding the presidential delegate selection process. The precise manner in which the Democrats will choose their 2004 presidential nominee will be a logistical maze, with many twists and turns. To better understand the primary and caucus results, it is helpful to first look ahead to the Democratic National Convention, set for July 26-29, 2004, in Boston, Massachusetts. While elected officials, party leaders and dignitaries will converge on the Fleet Center, the real power rests with the convention delegates. A Democratic hopefuls many months pressing the flesh on the campaign trail aside, it is these delegates who actually choose the partys nominee. The system operates much like the Electoral College, in which vote-mandated Electors ultimately select the United States president every four years. Each Democratic state party is allocated a number of delegates based on a complicated formula that takes into account the states electoral votes and the strength of support for Democratic presidential candidates in the last three general elections. Each individual convention delegate casts one vote for a Democratic candidate. The first candidate to receive a majority of the convention floors votes 2,162 in 2004 becomes the nominee. Alternates will also be on-hand for the convention, ostensibly to replace delegates who do not or cannot show up, as will thousands of Democratic officials, leaders and regular citizens, plus the usual horde of journalists. Electing delegates, per district So how can delegates get a spot in Boston? Like the general presidential election, the party primaries and caucuses do not constitute a direct election. In other words, people dont actually vote for a candidate, but they vote for a delegate allied with that candidate. Before the primary or caucus, each candidate on a states ballot submits the names of local Democrats who would serve as their delegates at the national convention, if necessary. The actual vote determines the allegiance of district-level delegates, based on vote tallies in each of the states United States congressional districts. Per guidelines set by the national party, each state splits these delegates evenly, male and female. In this regard, the Democrats delegate-dividing formula is more intricate than Republicans. While the GOP favors winner-take-all elections - compelling all convention delegates tied to a states vote to support a particular candidate - Democratic primaries and caucuses are proportional. So multiple Democratic candidates can earn a share of a state and districts delegate pool, based on how they finished in each primary or caucus. Pledged and unpledged Even then, the proportionally allotted or pledged district-level delegates only make up roughly half of a states contingent to the partys national convention. The remaining delegates are comprised of pledged at-large delegates and party leaders and elected officials PLEOs, and unpledged add-on delegates and PLEOs also referred to as superdelegates. Generally, each states district-level delegates will select at-large delegates to the partys national convention, as well as some PLEOs. Both at-large picks and delegate-selected PLEOs must openly commit to one candidate before this vote, and their names are subject to the candidates review. So, given the clear-cut allegiances of district-level delegates, the statewide vote roughly determines the allegiances, and thus the identities of pledged at-large and PLEO delegates. But this process makes it difficult to simply correlate the statewide vote to delegate totals for each candidate. Voter tallies in each congressional district create races within the race, and how those shake out ultimately determines the at-large and pledged PLEO delegates. Every state has a set of wild cards - that is, unpledged delegates chosen to attend and vote at the national convention, but not obliged to support a particular candidate. |
| www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard -> www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/ John Kerry had enough delegates pledged and unpledged to clinch the Democratic nomination. The count on this page represents CNNs state-by-state total through March 11. For a historical look at the full results and delegate count reported immediately following the conclusion of each states race through March 9, click on the state name. For a state-by-state breakdown of unpledged delegates, go to the Unpledged Delegate Scorecard Updated: 9:00 pm EDT April 13, 2004. There are currently 4,322 total delegates to the Democratic National convention, including 802 unpledged or superdelegates. Unlike pledged delegates, if a superdelegate dies or for some reason is unable to participate at the convention, alternates do not replace that delegate. Therefore, the number of unpledged delegates could decrease, adjusting the total delegate number and reducing the magic number needed to clinch the nomination. The other category includes pledged and unpledged delegates that represent Democrats in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands and living abroad. |