Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

AG Edwards?

By Matthew Mosk
John Edwards for Attorney General?

That's an idea that has been gaining currency among some of his closest supporters -- U.S. trial lawyers who gathered this weekend in Puerto Rico for an annual winter conference.

"I sure would hope there will be a role for him," said Gibson Vance, a Mongtomery, Ala., trial lawyer who has been a longtime friend and supporter of Edwards. "He would be a heck of a tough attorney general. Think about it."

Vance said he is still strongly supporting Edwards's presidential bid. But if that doesn't work out, he said many trial lawyers would like to see the eventual Democratic nominee find a role for Edwards on his or her team. Given Edwards's success as a litigator, they say, the AG job would be great fit.

As a profession, the trial lawyers are some of the most tenacious Democratic fundraisers, and this morning's Washington Post reports on efforts by top aides to Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to court them.

Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman, spent two days at the trial lawyers' conference, delicately searching for donors among the -- mostly -- Edwards faithful. He said he was asked several times about the potential for Edwards to have a role within a potential Clinton administration, and the topic of attorney general did come up. But McAuliffe noted it would be a felony to promise someone a cabinet post in exchange for political support.

Fred Baron, a Dallas trial lawyer who is heading up fundraising efforts for Edwards, acknowledged there was speculation about the candidate as a possible attorney general -- especially after Edwards placed a distant third in this weekend's primary in South Carolina, the state where he was born and where he won the primary four years ago.

"There is a great deal of admiration for the talents of Sen. Edwards," Baron said. "They don't want to see his voice silenced. If he is not the nominee, we don't want to see him fade away."

But Baron was emphasized that the speculation was premature. Baron said he was "surprised and impressed" by the consistent message he's receiving from Edwards supporters - that they want him to keep fighting for the top job.

By Washington Post Editor  |  January 28, 2008; 8:36 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Vows to Return All Rezko Funds
Next: Romney, Remembering Gordon Hinckley


One of the best arguments I've heard for John Edwards is that my my Reagan-loving, government-bashing, anti-feminist, voted-2-times-for-Bush Republican brother-- who doesn't really trust either party because he thinks there's no difference between them and that they're all controlled by lobbyists for Big Business -- really likes him, saying that he's the only candidate (except Huckabee -- sigh!) who is for real live people and not the corporate interests.

(Just to put that in perspective, the rest of the family -- who one and all will vote for anyone the Democratic party nominates -- is a bit concerned that Clinton and Obama, though attractive candidates in many ways, might not be sufficiently committed to progressive principles.)

Give John Edwards a chance, people! And if he doesn't get the nomination, urge the person who does, once elected, to put him on the Supreme Court!

Posted by: jstiller | January 29, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Edwards would make a good AG if not the President or Vice President. Maybe Edwards should seek a deal with Obama for and endorsement after Feb 5. Senator Clinton should remain Senator Clinton. Richardson as Vp or Sec of State would be good for any President.

Posted by: djw3505 | January 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I hope Edwards has a place in an Obama cabinet. I respect both immensely, but will be voting for Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | January 29, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

YER ALL BLOWING SMOKE RINGS OUTA YOUR PATOTIES, the best man for the jog as AG would be bill richardson, slow and deliberate and would have the ethical background to do it with class either that the pit bull in the senat judiciary committee Charles Schummere

Now theres someone who would make afor a few leakey panties among the repugs facing him, Yoss Leaht the grandstander aside,

Posted by: nightslider | January 29, 2008 5:35 AM | Report abuse

I still want Edwards for my president. He is strong, smart, kind, and tenacious. I trust his ability to think on his feet, and do the right thing in any situation. I trust his conscience to admit when he was wrong, and remedy a situation. I have supported him financially and emotionally for quite sometime. I will continue to do so. I don't listen to the statistics about how poorly he is doing. If every supporter had his no quit attitude, perhaps he would win! Everyone is just a grain of sand, but together we can make a mountain, and raise John to the top. I agree that if he should fail to be the "winner", he should participate in our government in any way possible. This will keep him involved, and keep his great ideas alive. Perhaps people will see how wonderful he is, and vote him into the top office down the road. Too bad money rules our nation. It really isn't a free country after all. Candidates should be given a set amount of money to use in their campaigns, and polls should be eliminated. Let the public vote for the person they agree with and not the one that someone famous likes.

Posted by: elegantlucy | January 28, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Folks, please don't give up the ship before it sails. Edwards is my choice, too, for several reasons. I believe that he means what he says. I believe that he knows very well what he is up against in the Republican attack machine. I believe that he can take the heat. He is committed to social justice, which seems a quaint idea in these dreadfully cynical days, but what else is worth fighting for? I believe that he is mature enough to gather good, intelligent people to work in his administration and will listen to them.

I also think that if Democrats harbor the fantasy that we are in a post-racial or post-sexist age, they will be sorely disabused of that idea once we are in the general election cycle. The Republicans do not have to prove that Obama snorted coke or is a secret Muslim or that Hillary is a lesbian. All they have to do is plant the seed of doubt, and the seed will grow in the minds of people who really do not want a woman or a black in any position of power. If all they can come up with for Edwards is that he paid too much for a haircut, well, how much do you think Mitt pays for his? It is silly and trivial. Coke, Muslim, lesbian - are those trivial to the general public? I doubt it.

Please don't throw this election away by becoming emotional. That plays right in to the Right Wing's game plan. Think about the general election, the independents that need to be won over, the disenchanted Republicans who are looking at the hole in their wallet after they fill the gas tank, and think about who they might vote for come November. Will it be Romney who is in tight with Blackwater? (When will the private army they are amassing at taxpayer expense become a force turned against the American people?) A Bush supporting McCain who thinks the war in Iraq is a good idea? Huckabee who thinks wives should obey their husbands? Hillary who they abhor? Obama the cokehead?

I think the only one who stands a chance of carrying the independents and moderate Republicans is Edwards. He is clean, and he is fully aware of the dirty tricks of the RNC. Best of all, he understands the power of the corporations and the hold they have on our country. He wants to take them on, and so should we all.

Posted by: holmes1066 | January 28, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton taking credit for the budget surplus is like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising in the morning. His presidency was witness to the fledgeling COMPUTER AGE. The technology sector was booming. That had nothing to do with him. He just enjoyed the ride.

Posted by: mageduley | January 28, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Folks, this thread is not about Clinton v. Obama. There are plenty of other places to speak to that.

What many people (including a lot of the trial lawyers quoted in this article) seem not to appreciate is that the AG is not a litigator. The AG never prepares a case for trial or tries a case. He or she is the manager of a large and widely spread out law firm. Even if one thinks Edwards' priorities are desirable (I do), the question of his ability as the manager of a big bureaucracy remains to be answered. Attorney General is not a consolation prize for would-be presidents.

Posted by: hklepper | January 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is my President. I actually prefer Edwards for VP (before Obama), but yes, AG would be perfect for Edwards also.

After Hillary, Edwards would be my choice and he was my 1st choice in 2004. I think he's great and stands for the true democratic values that Hillary stands up for and that (unfortunately) Obama seems to stray away from.

Posted by: nkivlen | January 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

My dream team would be Obama for president, Richardson for Vice President and Edwards for Attorney General. If Edwards were Attorney General, there might be justice again.

Posted by: jenai | January 28, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one getting tired of the Edwards' supporters? Let's see- you have the trial lawyers and some of the public sector unions; I am trying to remember which was more fun- the six hour deposition for a lady with no insurance whom I got out of bed for at 2:00am for emergency surgery only to be sued for an accepted, known complication (case dropped after 4 years of misery) or the 4 hour wait at the Registry of Motor Vehicles to hand in a piece of paper.
Great- make him Attorney General- then he can spend his time fighting tort reform with some real power.

Posted by: peterr1022 | January 28, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Lordy, Edwards for AG is almost too much to hope for. If that happens, this two time former prosecutor would be tempted to ask the man for a job. Heads would roll.

Dave McGlaughlin
Harrisburg, Pa.

Posted by: olddad68 | January 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton would make a good Attorney General. Barack Obama an impressive Secretary of State, although Bill Richardson is more qualified.
But John Edwards needs to be president. He is the only one who has the talent; experience, skill and the passion to be president of all the people.

Posted by: BANSLOW | January 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

spring_rain - I think you are confused. The Bill Clinton era is over. He will not be President if Hillary wins. He's not allowed to be President, because if he was allowed, then he'd push even Hillary under a bus to get back in the White House. I'm tired of Hillary supporters saying that they can't wait until "the Clintons" get back in the White House, as if Bill's presence in Hillary's administration would be a welcome thing to those of us seeking change, not just from Bush, but also from the scandal-plagued Clinton presidency, have a desire to see him in proximity to power again. WE UNEQUIVOCALLY DO NOT.

Posted by: pk2031 | January 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the initial comment in this stream, by rabbit3, that men like Edwards and Richardson should not be wasted. That could additionally be said about every one of the Democratic hopefuls; Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, et al. However, what I'd like to see happen is something that I've suggested to Joe Trippi, in the way of an e-mail, that I've sent again and again. Unless there is some procedural reason as to why it can't be done, I would like to see Edwards declare the fact that Bill Richardson would be his Vice-Presidential pick NOW, in the midst of the primaries. To do this, I feel , would showcase two talented and worthy men as a formidable package to be presented to the American people. A package of talent and hope. Doing this would give the Edwards campaign the attention, that to this point, has been lacking in the MSM. I'm no strategist, just a hopeful concerned citizen. A ticket like this, put forth, could excite the populous
in a way it has not yet been done. I think that the candidacies of either Obama or Clinton are the Repuglicans wet dreams.
They will rip either one, to shreds. Edwards would scare the crap out of them. You know I'm right. You can just imagine what the "Right Wing Spin Machine" would do with playing the "Race" card or invoking the Clinton name again and again in regards to the "Good old days" of the first Clinton administrations. The Bona Fides of an Edwards/Richardson ticket would be much harder to assail.
Comment and/or spread the idea, if you agree.
Jonathan Sand
Talk Radio Host

Posted by: johnie2xsyahoocom | January 28, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

i believe John Edwards should be vice presidentail choice of SenClinton or Sen.Obama. he was a great chice when Sen.Kerry ran and would still be a great now. Given the power that Chaney has,equal authority to Edwards may be what makes him accept.

Posted by: chazmara | January 28, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm rather partial to the idea of Patrick Fitzgerald for AG. He's a proven non-partisan, letter-of-the-law, fanny-kickin' prosecutor. And I wonder if Edwards might not be suited for HUD or - as mentioned above - Labor. What ever the appointments, sure as shootin' all the Cabinet level agencies are going to need a thorough sanitization.

Posted by: thewordybird | January 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I guess one rumour filled article in the Washington Post designed to force Edwards out of the race and depress his supporters wasn't enough for the Post. No, they had to have two of them in one day.

I think everytime the media runs a "you need to get out of the race" article about Edwards that everyone should donate to his campaign. Maybe then the media will stop trying to limit voters choices in this and future elections.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 28, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Some of the attitudes around here amount to a circular firing squad. People painting characatures of one or the other candidate and making the competition out to be a collection of horrible people rather than calling their own candidate preferable. Look at the last 7 years people!!! Honestly, ANY democrat (repeat ANY) is what has to happen in this election. Sure there may be an issue or 2 where I have a moderate to significant disagreement with one of the dems or the other, but the GOP must take a serious landslide butt kicking this time around in order to turn our country very firmly away from Neocon ideology. If another republican is elected and the GOP is not forced into a major cataclysm, THAT WOULD BE A TRAGEDY FOR THIS COUNTRY. While watching a democrat other than your favorite get the nomination would be very disappointing, it would not be as much of a tragedy as the one that would result from making such enemies of each other during the nomination process that we turn the results of the general election over to a misguided, short sighted, and intensely evil GOP... again.

Posted by: disolove | January 28, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

As an attorney, I can tell you he'd be much more effective in the long run as a member of the Supreme Court. Of course, he could be AG, then appointed to Sp Ct if there were another opening after the one that will occur when Stevens retires early on if a dem wins.

Posted by: skymackey | January 28, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the least experienced candidate from either party, although I think he will make a fine AG. Spring Rain thinks going after a corporation is somehow great experience for the presidency. It's not. But it's great experience for an AG. Every key vote Edwards made as a senator he's apologized for. Is there one bill that he authored and had signed into law that has mattered to the country? Nope. Why didn't he run again? Could it be that he would've gotten his arse kicked?Why couldn't he carry his home state in 2004? Why did he finish a distant third this past weekend in the state he was born? Edwards sock puppets will say it's because of the inattention of the media. I say it's because he's a one-note candidate and the people have seen through him. But he can take that one-note and do some good as the AG in Obama's administration. Perhaps Edwards could even be Obama's Chief Dog Catcher.

Posted by: markiebee001 | January 28, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like all these folks need a good hot cup of STFU.

Posted by: cab91 | January 28, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Edwards for the Supreme Court. We have enough people on the court with limited real world experience but lots of attitude. What we need now is someone who has both trial experience and political toughness. John Edwards has proven he has both.

Posted by: pwkennedy | January 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I too would like to see Edwards involved in the cabinet. Secretary General, or Labor? Not a bad idea. However, as a lifelong democrate I am upset with the DNC and how they have handled voters in the State of Florida...our votes don't count...our delegates don't count and all because we have been penalized by the DNC...I voted early for Edwards in the vote doesn't count. Michigan voters also were penalized...Now the DNC continues to solicite donations from me and other democrates in Florida. Well, if things don't change, I'm going to pull a Liberman and go Independent...oops...I mean Republican-Independent...

Posted by: dennis | January 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Suipreme- I know this: That Bill Clinton left the Presidency and this country's treasury WITH A SURPLUS OF BILLIONS-UNLIKE ANY PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. I also know that President Bush will be leaving the country with a country that has A DEFICIT OF UNTOLD TRILLIONS-ALSO UNLIKE ANY PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

Therefore, I like the Clintons, and how they do things-BETTER.

As for Obama, what's he gonna do when things don't go his way huh? Have all you bright lights who want to vote for him thought about that? He's never had to face opposition or any real adversity his entire life, except, his personal race issues, and how did he handle those? Why, he had to go "score some blow" as he put it, "whenever he could afford it."

No thanks. That shows me a weak man under pressure. God only knows what he would do if he were REALLY under pressure. And with that disingenuous personality of his, mark my words, HE'S A RICHARD M. NIXON IN THE MAKING-TOO HIDDEN, TOO TIGHTLY WOUND, TO EVER EVER EVER BE PRESIDENT.

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I see a bit of irony in HRC being presented as the candidate that breaks the glass ceiling for women when it was she and her husband that trashed the reputations of two distinguished African American women professionals, professor Lani Guinier, now tenured law professor at Harvard, and Dr Joycelyn Elders. Guinier was not only a colleague at Yale Law School but also friends to both Clintons who stood silently by as the media thrashed her over misunderstandings of complex legal issues. This is how HRC demonstrates her commitment to all women and how WJC demonstrates his 'spurs' as 'First Black' to Black People!

Posted by: jgotsch1 | January 28, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse



It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you:

Posted by: avraamjack | January 28, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Spring_Rain you have the choice to vote for whomever you choose, however you should keep in mind, that it is Hillary who claims she has more than 35 years of experience, yet it has been during this time that the great issues and problems affecting our nation have expanded. Obama has not been POTUS or VPOTUS so maybe you should direct your anomosity towards those who have abused the trust and created the largeness that has us in this situation today, with their ties to the status quo politics that enables our present issues.

Moreover, both Hillary and McCain offer similar bonifides, a ton of Washington experience and ties to the same forces that they must resist in returning the government back to the people. And, since I have yet hear how they can reverse the tide and face down the system in which they have gained their standing, perhaps you could elaborate on what they are saying about fixing 'Washington lobbyists' influence in our government?

Posted by: suipreme | January 28, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I firmly believe Edwards would make a great President, which is why I have, and continue, to support him- he has it all, the experience and ability to engage in the fine art of compromise, to build coalitions to push his agenda through, the friendly, non-hidden personality, the ability to connect with the working class, and the understanding and knowledge of their problems, someone who has faced a great deal of adversity, and has handled it very well, THE MAN HAS NO "ISSUES" ONLY PLUSES.

He should BE the next President. But absent that, he must have a very important role in whatever administration comes forward, which I hope is Hillary Clinton's. BUT I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA FOR DOGCATCHER, MUCH LESS PRESIDENT.

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 28, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Edwards for Attorney-General and Richardson for Secretary of State. These men have talent to serve their country that must not go to waste!

Posted by: rabbit3 | January 28, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company