The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


John Edwards

Edwards's Turn Of Fortune

In a dig at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during Tuesday night's AFL-CIO debate in Chicago, former Sen. John Edwards boasted that he would never be celebrated on the front of the business magazine Fortune the way his rival for the Democratic nomination recently was.

"You'll never see me on the cover of Fortune magazine," Edwards said.

In fact, Edwards was recently profiled by the magazine (though not, admittedly, on its cover). He sat for a lengthy interview with writer Nina Easton and also posed for a photo.

His point, of course, was not that he dislikes Fortune magazine, but rather tha the would never be celebrated by business interests the way Clinton has been. No word on how he feels about Business Week.

-- Anne E. Kornblut

Posted at 8:44 AM ET on Aug 9, 2007  | Category:  John Edwards
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: And Now, From the
West Wing Peanut Gallery
| Next: Gay Issues
Forum Is a First

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

No "defense" for Mr Edwards...more OFFENSE.
That's why they're attacking him.
Even MEGA_MEDIA, thanks to the major change in FCC licensing, have huge Corporations with huge lobbyists. They're not interested in "fair news", just bottom line.
Thank you, Warren Buffet. No one person or group should be licensed to control virtually all the media in a major metropolitan area.
No wonder we get "pablum" from the media, and, as Judith Miller proved, deliberate lies and propanganda from the controlling interests, which were used to justify an unjust war. ON THE FRONT PAGE.


Otherwise we lose our democracy.


Posted by: diamond.jim | August 28, 2007 7:07 PM

AGAIN, the campaigns have turned into personalities contests rather than raising issues.
Let's deal with one issue....lobbyists.
Have we forgotten Tom DeLay already ? The "K Srteet Project". The absolute source of corruption in government, period.
Huge special interests, with little control, act as prostitutes for "Big Corp", foreign countries, and other fragmentary special interests.
What happened to "PUBLIC INTEREST".Where's our lobby ?
A campaign financing law that supposedly reformed this cancer was a fraud at the creation.
How in the world can individual voters, given modest means, ever compete with the "prostitutes" on Capitol Hill that can gather millions ?
Our democracy has been been bought out from under us.
Mr Edwards seems to be the ONLY candidate making enough noise that the other candidates have become mere echoes of his position.
Before we recapture our democracy we must wipe out the lobbyists.
There should be a 200 mile neutral zone around the Capitol within which no lobbyist can hold offices.
How many average Americans have anywhere near the access to Congress...or can even be on the floor while in the lobbyists ?
Cut ACCESS. Get them off the floor and out of the Capitol.
Then go to mandatory public financing. Taxpayers may scream, but maybe they might come to realize that current campaign financing, which is no more than legalized bribery, is THE major force in who gets the spotlight.
This same force funded the Republican theft of the White House.
Thank you Mr Edwards.

Posted by: diamond.jim | August 28, 2007 6:52 PM

Not only are the people who criticize Edwards, really shallow... but they're also not very intelligent, unless of course ttj1 is correct and they are trying to defend their corporate interests.

I do find it hard to believe how any democrat could be disgusted with Edwards. I've been involved in politics for most of my life, and well I've become quite cynical as a result... but even MY cycnicism doesn't carry over to Edwards.

This guy is anything but disengeuous.

The corporate interests are simply scared, because he is the real thing, and he's been beating them in courtrooms time and time again. Just imagine what he'd do to them as President.

It gives real hope to a country that has suffered the absolute worst leadership in the past 8 years... and well, to be honest, has suffered under a form of government that should be called corporatism for the past 28 years.

Edwards is the only candidate i'll be voting for, in the primary AND in the general election... even if i have to write in a vote in the latter.

Posted by: ericlatham | August 14, 2007 6:45 AM

The people who are criticizing Edwards are really shallow and don't appear to really care about the problems at hand or about electing someone who can resolve them. Perhaps they have some special corporate interests to defend and are afraid that Edwards will spoil their private party...

Posted by: ttj1 | August 9, 2007 3:01 PM

It seems lately that some in the national press will take any opportunity to fuel the phony storyline that John Edwards is a hypocrite, but anyone who looks at the actual headline of our Fortune story ("John Edwards: Union Man") will see this is the very point Edwards made at Tuesday's debate. But this post proves our point better than we could ourselves. Next thing you know, somebody wealthy will have the nerve to care about poverty in America.

Posted by: EricSchultz | August 9, 2007 2:24 PM

IndefenseofJohnEdwards....Yoohoo to you! You have it right. Hillary is being shoved at us whether we want her or not. Washington insiders want this to be a self full filling prophecy. Isn't it interesting how Biden and Dodd are now carrying water for her? If we hear how great she is enough, we'll get on the band wagon. I, for one, will never vote for her. I am 52 and have always voted--but I'll write in John Edwards before I'd vote for her and I'm a woman! I feel Bill Clinton sold out any democrat that was left of center so to speak! Why would I vote for a repeat performance? I am for John Edwards all the way...we must educate people about what is really going on. Thanks for the post!

Posted by: ksvo2002 | August 9, 2007 2:20 PM

indefenseofjohnedwards is spot-on. Always look to who the establishment is trying to take down, THAT is where the real threat lies to the "business as usual" powers that be.If you want 4 more years of the goverment we currently have go with Clinton or Obamabut if you look at overall electability in the General Edwards blows all the other Dems out of the water. Americans really need to staer using some critical thinking skills they seem to buy into the MSM's spin hook line and sinker. Very sad for this country. 'Well if I read it in WaPo,NYT's,WSJ it must be gospel'....right????please if it matters to you? really do your own research! After my own extensive research I can proudly state, Edwards 08'

Posted by: asher13 | August 9, 2007 1:34 PM

As for the issue at hand, the piece on John Edwards in Fortune magazine was nothing about "business," it was a profile on his life and family.

There is a difference between that, and a cover photo of Hillary Clinton saying "Business loves Hillary."

Of course they do, which is why the CEO of Goldman Sachs just endorsed her, and why the insurance companies want her, because she has supposedly made a deal with the health insurance companies, where her health care plan is basically going to be a windfall for them. I don't remember the specifics, since it was months ago and I only read it once, but why doesn't Kornblut go an research that, instead of trying to be the latest mainstream media chatterer to try and find an Edwards scandal where the isn't one? If Hillary Clinton is about universal "insurance" with only insurance companies providing it, and no government plan whatsoever, isn't that something that you think you should be looking into?

Posted by: OEST | August 9, 2007 1:25 PM

If audart and ccas27 aren't disgusted with Hillary Clinton, then they don't have the ability to be in disgust. Besides, if they think Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning in the General Election than John Edwards does, then they must not be paying attention to anything but Hillary Clinton's "cleavage," since the media believe that that's worth discussing. 50% of the country won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances. Starting from there, she's toast.

Point is, people who get most of their news from the television set, know very little about what's going on. People who get most of their information from print and online, and discuss the issues in depth online, are a lot more informed, just like the bloggers at YearlyKos were. The reason they booed Clinton is because they know all about her. They know her positions on the issues. It's not because they are so "left-wing." It's because they are informed. Unions know her position on NAFTA, which is why she was booed at the AFL-CIO forum.

Informed people know that Clinton is a media-protected panderer.

One of the things that works for Edwards, is being out of DC for the past 2 years has been very liberating, and the fact is, once you are outside of the line of fire, you have an opportunity to reflect and to see how things look from the outside, and many times you can tell better what the truth is from the outside because you aren't caught up in it. Also, you get a chance running for President to discover yourself. John Edwards wasn't involved in a lot of political stuff before getting into politics, so it's not like he had 20 something years like Biden, to gather a list of all of his "beliefs."

Basically, the first time he went into DC trying to find his way, "get his feet wet" and not mess up, like he said in an interview earlier in the year. To say that his voting record, as many do, doesn't reflect his current populist rhetoric is to ignore the fact that he was getting advice from other establishment Democrats when he was in DC and respected Republicans like John McCain, so of course his votes reflected that. I mean, look at Barack "I was against this war from the beginning" Obama, who never saw a funding bill for Iraq that he didn't like AFTER he got to the Senate.

Once people first get there, they try to fit in and gain friends, and get advice that leads them to make some votes that they probably shouldn't have. That doesn't mean that when, like John Edwards, they step back and assess their beliefs and what they really care about, and start looking at more issues that they have never thought about, that they don't end up being different than what they thought before.

The Republican establishment hates John Edwards.

The establishment Democrats hate John Edwards.

The establishment media, made up of many former establishment Dems and Cons, can't stand John Edwards, and is doing the bidding of the other two establishments to try and tear him down.

John Edwards is the true outsider in the race. Doesn't matter if he used to be a Senator. He has been liberated.

Posted by: OEST | August 9, 2007 1:20 PM

I've been a Democrat all my life, and I've never felt so disgusted with a candidate as I do with John Edwards.

From his disengeuous apology for his IWR vote, to his joining a hedge fund in order to 'study' poverty, nothing seems genuine about this guy.

When he finally drops out of the race, I'll breath a sigh of relief and continue work to get a real Democrat elected.

Posted by: ccas27 | August 9, 2007 12:34 PM

John Edwards disgusts me -- and I say that as a Democrat.

He's as genuine as a three-dollar bill and he is also filled with rage; and so for that matter is his wife.

Posted by: audart | August 9, 2007 12:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company