View Story | 297 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
your using such a touching story for a money solicitation at the end.
I loved it up until that point.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:36:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
He or she wants universal healthcare.
I fundamentally disagree with you.
The writer sees the costs daily of the health care system we have.
Rather than "tasteless," I would describe trying to make changes as he is by supporting John Edwards as close to a moral imperative.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:39:06 AM PDT
Not that the author's underlying ideas were. Nothing more, nothing less.
I found the money beg distasteful, you didn't. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:45:47 AM PDT
It was not tastless, and, frankly, I found your attack on the diarist in your comment quite "tasteless" and unecessary.
He did something good and he has the right to ask for money to make change. Not only the right, but maybe even the ethical duty to ask for money t support the candidate most likely to implement a universal health care plan.
The story exemplified the choices people make to survive and how we need universal health care. The diarist is right on both acts: (1) helping that man and (2) asking people to contribute to John Edwards in order to get universal health care.
Why did you feel the need to spoil a good diary with an attacking comment?
by TomP on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:56:26 AM PDT
It's a touching story, but it's ultimately being used to solicit John Edwards campaign contributions. This story could've been used by any candidate's supporter in truth (replace each occurrence of "John Edwards" in this diary with "Hillary Clinton"), and I feel turning it into a candidate-centric beg really dilutes its impact.
I'd be saying this no matter who was doing it.
We disagree. Again, that's fine.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:04:46 AM PDT
http://www.youtube.com/...
yep, it's corny but, still...
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:51:51 AM PDT
You might have a valid point if we lived in a world devoid of substance, truth and reality. However, outside of political pundent La La Land, truth still matters and reality effects real people.
This story could've been used by any candidate's supporter in truth (replace each occurrence of "John Edwards" in this diary with "Hillary Clinton")
That wouldn’t be tasteless - it would be fraudulent, insulting and laughably dishonest.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." Robert F. Kennedy
by enough already on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:53:54 AM PDT
Come again?
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:58:12 AM PDT
by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:00:02 AM PDT
But given the positive tone of this diary, I will not go into detail about why I think so.
Wait for the next Hillary hit piece, maybe I'll say it there, heh.
Send this Turn Maine Blue blogger to Denver! Click here to donate.
by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:57:41 AM PDT
is now "spoiling" the diary? Who's attacking whom now?
Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence
by mrblifil on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:06:17 AM PDT
followed by positive comments. And someone comes in and says something snide? That could have been kept to themselves?
Yes, that spoiled it. Not too often people have written about someone, or an experience in a completely positive light during the Second Primary War.
So for someone to waltz in and pull that, yeah, that makes me sick. Just because this is the Internet doesn't mean you get to say things that you wouldn't say to the bell-ringer at the grocery store.
by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:54:49 AM PDT
money beg
I don't know and don't care who is the candidate of your choice. I suspect it may be the candidate I support, Hillary, but that is no reason to be rude.
The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber
by macmcd on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:16:53 PM PDT
The diarist connected the candidate he believes in with what they did for someone. Nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, considering the tone of the diary, your attempt to come in here and sour the tone of the conversation is what's tasteless here. You could have kept that to yourself just fine.
by Eddie in ME on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:52:33 AM PDT
part that said "just your primary vote"? I bet you turn NPR off during their pledge drives too ...
an Edwards democrat all the way to my obituary
by SMucci on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:45:26 AM PDT
Spare me your hyperbole.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:47:19 AM PDT
the practice of telling compelling stories which end with a request for money. At least there is a value added to the request - from your reply I'm guessing our values differ.
by SMucci on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:18:18 AM PDT
then please, consider a Holiday Season donation to the candidate of your choice... any one will do.
The diarist is, in my opinion, trying to reduce the incidences of the working poor sacrificing medicine so they can buy food for their kids. He apparently sees Sen. Edwards as the best vehicle for that improvement. It shouldn't matter which campaign you choose, any democrat elected brings us all closer to a better health care system.
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson 6/11/1807
by Patriot4peace on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:48:11 AM PDT
And that you didn't use it to make hyperbolic personal attacks or impugn my integrity.
This winter, I'll actually be halting my political donations in lieu of supporting local homeless shelters during the cold season. I'm on a budget, and the campaigns already have millions in their coffers.
The diarist's story genuinely touched me, but their tacking on of a credit card form at the end struck me as tasteless. I recommended this diary for its story, but dislike that it's ultimately a John Edwards contribution solicitation.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly that a Democratic president will bring about a better, more universal healthcare system.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:59:04 AM PDT
I think we all have to learn, especially here at dKos, that disagreeing does not mean one of us is wrong.
I just wanted to point out that Leisure's solicitation was a heartfelt plea (from a health care worker) to help elect the candidate that he believes is the one with the best health care plan.
That was good enough for me, I made a donation about a half hour ago.
And magically, just like that, the two rec's I got on the previous post gave me a little round troll button.
by Patriot4peace on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:04:42 AM PDT
It never is. That is exactly the point you are missing. The John Edwards for POTUS campaign is NOT about John Edwards. I realize that this kind of candidacy is a rarely seen occurrence, virtually impossible for many to fathom, but that is EXACTLY the point. No other current or recent candidate compares. But if we as citizens are not too blindly foolish to take advantage of the mostly undeserved opportunity that Edwards offers, the future of this country and future candidates will be much better for it.
I recommended this diary for its story, but dislike that it's ultimately a John Edwards contribution solicitation.
by enough already on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:11:22 AM PDT
John Edwards - "Rigged" Ad The system is rigged, and it is rigged against you.
It's about not replacing corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.
You are exactly right. This is a movement for real change. It's not about a candidate, unlike the two celebrity candidates. It is about ideas and what we all will do together.
by TomP on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:34:13 AM PDT
The simple question in this election is who's going to fight for me and the rest on the bottom 99% of us? (borrowed that from Carol Shea-Porter)
Edwards is smart, principaled and he won't back down. I just keep hearing Tom Petty singing this in the background.
Democracy isn't something you have, it's something you do! "Granny D"
by chuck in NH on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:56:24 AM PDT
the sad fact is, that we need to support progressive candidates with money. Money sent to help John Edwards win will ultimately help every single instance of a father or mother choosing between money and food for his or her children. Edwards has the best plan for universal health coverage, and in order to help everyone, we need to support him.
There was nothing inappropriate about this diary - it is wonderful.
by KimHynes on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 05:59:43 AM PDT
if the diarist had used this unfortunate person's story to solicit Hillary Clinton donations, with a HillRaisers link at the end.
I digress. This being an "Edwards" diary, I'm sure there'll be a line of people to disagree with me. I don't care to fill up this diary's comments responding to every single individual disagreement, and'll leave this Kossack's diary noting my appreciation for her willingness to assist someone in need.
The diarist did an excellent thing for that person.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:10:21 AM PDT
I would rec the diarist for their kindness towards another person. I would not write comment after comment calling that person out on his/her attempt to direct campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton in hopes that she could help the man in this story or others like him.
I may disagree with her plan to bring the insurance and pharmaceutical companies to the table to achieve that goal, but, I would not have the bad taste to comment about it in a diary about a heartfelt plea for healthcare.
I may be put off by the amount of money she takes from lobbyists for insurance and big pharma, but, I would not set out to spoil a perfectly kind-hearted diary by ranting about it every third comment.
by Newzie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:50:09 AM PDT
And faced a pile-on of responses. Shame on me for responding to them, is it?
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:56:32 AM PDT
to question the integrity of the diarist and of all JRE supporters.
I do find it interesting that you use Hillary in your example and not your actual candidate.
Did you watch the Iowa Forum on Saturday afternoon? I did.
Did you notice how NO ONE applauded Obama after he talked about his healthcare plan? I did.
Half the people were there from Chicago, cheering him on at every turn, and not one person in the audience applauded after he talked about his healthcare plan.
Why is that?
by Newzie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:01:38 AM PDT
My goodness, I apparently questioned the integrity of all John Edwards supporters. You're just being polemical, now.
Here comes the "your candidate"/"my candidate" touting, apparently. Neither "your candidate" nor "my candidate" compare to Dennis Kucinich on healthcare at any rate.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:08:53 AM PDT
It required Lloyd George to begin wih the half measure of National Insurance.
by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:11:20 AM PDT
that you were probably a Kucinich supporter. I saw "Universal Healthcare" in one of your later comments.
I agree that that is the goal and Dennis is the only one who wants to push us there immediately. If he gets the nomination, I'd be very happy to vote for him.
Here's a thought: If, instead of complaining that the diarist campaigned for JRE at the end of the story, perhaps you could have written a comment saying something like, "That was a touching story. I will donate to Kucinich instead because I think he has the best healthcare plan and I encourage others to do the same. Please donate to Dennis Kucinch for his Universal Healthcare plan."
I doubt you would have gotten as many negative replies with that. And, many JRE supporters would actually agree with you.
I hope you have a wonderful day.
by Newzie on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:19:13 AM PDT
That I was in no way "questioning the integrity of all John Edwards supporters." The accusation was polemical and unwarranted.
I still wouldn't use a "donate" link like you describe, and I suspect you underestimate the negative response there'dve been had I responded to this diary with a "donate to Kucinich" link.
I'm glad you share a desire for single-payer universal healthcare in our country, though. You have a good one too, then.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:26:40 AM PDT
is an impressive stretch.
The diarist relates a compelling story detailing the horror of lacking health care. The diarist uses this story to advocate support for the one candidate from either party who led the fight for universal health care, and who fights hardest for it now.
Not only is the joining of the two not tasteless, it is in fact necessary. This is why we need universal health care ASAP. This is why we can't wait until the end of a first term of the next president.
This is why we need leaders, not followers.
Spare me your bullshit.
This message has not been approved by the corporate media.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:34:11 AM PDT
Right, gotcha.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:40:25 AM PDT
he's best on it, and he's leading on it, and he's the reason there are universal or near-universal plans being discussed prominently.
Gotcha indeed. Your skills of argumentation need some sharpening.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:50:12 AM PDT
or "my candidate". It's about getting universal health care passed as soon as possible. Edwards is the best means to that ends and that is one of the many reasons I support him. He is not "my candidate". He is the best advocate for everything that concerns me. If I was going to vote for someone based on things that have nothing to do with issues that matter most to me, I'd probably choose Biden. If I was shallow enough to believe it's all about "my candidate" like some football team I want to win, I wouldn't choose Edwards. My support is based on issues... not shallow team spirit garbage.
by 123Mary123 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:56:30 AM PDT
person and must realize there are many more out there like that person. He made a huge impact on that person and his family's life; but he can't do that for everyone who needs it. With Edwards' leadership, more people will be helped; so he is helping Edwards get to that point.
What is wrong with that?
A story to solicit Clinton donations would have to be about the hardship of corporate America... not average American tragedies caused by a lack of universal health care in this country. If Clinton truly expects to lead the country towards universal health care, she has to stop taking money from powerful interests that want nothing more than to prevent government run health care.
I know it's frowned on to say negative things about candidates; but to defend the reasoning behind a story like this being linked to Edwards, one must point out that Edwards is the candidate who pushed the other leading dems to committ to a health care plan in the first place and it could argued that universal health care would not be as widely accepted an idea if not for Edwards' recent demand for it. We know he's going to fight for it and he's going to break republican frames against it. We know he's got a plan that will pass and will get everyone health care as soon as possible.
It's not fair to expect us to pretend we believe universal health care will become a reality soon if any other dem is elected. I don't believe that and I'm not going to pretend I do.
by 123Mary123 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:55:19 AM PDT
That's what I was getting at, yes.
Of the "big three" primary candidates, there isn't much difference between their plans other than nuance and mandates. I disagree with your evaluation of the healthcare playing field, but I may see less contrast between with being the single-payer type myself.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:02:58 AM PDT
reason to believe that Edwards is our best hope to see universal health care become a reality. For some reason, it's not ok to say so; but that is why this diary is not so much a pro Edwards diary as it is a pro universal care diary.
Hillary originally said that she would have universal care by the end of her second term, Edwards pushed the bar and she practically replicated his plan in response. The major difference isn't in the plan itself. It's in the determination and ability to make it become a reality.
I think there is so much talk about which candidates are viable and that is a reasonable arguement. The same can be said of health care plans. I would love to see Kucinich's plan come to fruition and I believe we will; but transitionally is the only way it will happen in this decade. It's great to say that you want government run with no private all of a sudden... I do too; but it's not viable. The transition from one to the other is key and it doesn't allow those powerful interests who support Hillary's campaign to argue that we aren't allowing free enterprise. Let them compete and inevitably fail... meanwhile, we have health care for everyone. Those people who fear that the quality of their care will suffer with government run will have no arguement against it because they can still purchase a private plan. It's perfect, it's viable and it's fast in my opinion.
by 123Mary123 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:13:37 AM PDT
a "threadkiller."
;)
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:35:34 AM PDT
the "big three" is less the content of their plans (though I strongly prefer Edwards's) than the individual candidate's approach to making UHC a reality in this country. Of the three, two plan to sit down with the very groups that have adamently opposed any change in health care policy to reach a compromise on both the plan and timetable while one plans to push for early legislation and to break the chains those groups have on the policy and legislative process.
I support the one who has made it clear that this is not an issue that can be resolved by playing footsie with those opposed to health care for all Americans -- John Edwards
EENR blog, a progressive community focused on issues with a side of fun
by edgery on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:20:40 AM PDT
you just repeating yourself. Your opinion has been duly noted. Now STFU
don't always believe what you think...
by claude on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:48:42 AM PDT
by claude on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:49:23 AM PDT
"John Edwards and The Best Christmas Gift Ever."
I read the title. And, with that in mind, as I read the diary and saw that it was about health care (or lack thereof), I anticipated the diarist was going to tie it to John Edwards' call for universal health care.
Didn't you, Shem?
And -- given that it's primary season and people are asking for support for their candidates -- I fully expected the diary to end with a call for supporting John Edwards, with volunteer time, money, and/or a primary vote.
After all, it is primary season and this is a political blog.
Was the story so engrossing that you forgot all this and you thought you were reading last month's Reader's Digest? It hardly seems fair to criticize the diarist for your inattention.
by Ernest T Bass on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:17:29 AM PDT
I tipped and rec'd the diarist all the same. It's unfortunate that some can't handle even a fractional bit of the slightest dissent without immediately breaking into veiled insults or snarky personal attacks.
Anyhow, commence with the pile-on.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:37:00 AM PDT
you know there was no need for you to say anything. We all expected the diarist to ask us for time/money for Edwards...
will you be upset the next time hill brings up a personal story about someone downtrodden in the context of her campaign? To solicit money?
I doubt it.
Obama lied. The 4th amendment died.
by daddy4mak on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:49:04 AM PDT
Yes, I'd find a HillRaisers link distasteful all the same. Just to clarify, are you accusing me of being a Hillary supporter? That'd be pretty amusing.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:52:12 AM PDT
the candidate who lacks a universal health care plan.
the one who uses right wing talking points to attack universal health care.
But, really, your obnoxious threadjacking and insults in a nice diary says so much about Obama supporters here.
by TomP on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:43:41 AM PDT
that some people refuse to recognize the possibility that when one of their comments compells an onslaught of contradictory responses, it very well might be because that comment and the flawed reasoning behind it - are dead WRONG.
It's unfortunate that some can't handle even a fractional bit of the slightest dissent without immediately breaking into veiled insults or snarky personal attacks.
by enough already on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:22:05 AM PDT
Given the environment, what you call an "onslaught" isn't a big deal at all.
I'm certainly not worried about it.
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:29:47 AM PDT
"veiled insults."
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:38:17 AM PDT
by Shem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:02:12 AM PDT
for liberty, perhaps?
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:08:02 AM PDT
Adam B called me a "Dick" for jesting about people shilling for Obama.
The "Douchebag" in question was actually making a serious accusation that he actually meant.
by Salo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:52:10 AM PDT
are worse than no words at all.
Some of us put our money where our mouth is. The rest of us are bullshitters.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:28:02 AM PDT
own way. I don't have the knowledge or training to be able to actually heal people but I can help by working toward getting them the healthcare that all Americans deserve. One way is to elect a Democratic candidate and one way to help the candidate is by giving whatever we can afford. I wish I could help people like the man but the next best thing is to support a candidate who pledges to do everything necessary to get health care for people like him.
by macmcd on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 12:13:58 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 297 comments