Tempe, Ariz.

Edwards was the first? Excuse me? No doubt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama followed Edwards. However... Dennis Kucinich was first on just about everything. Edwards picked up some of what Kucinich was saying (and good on him for it).

Why does The Nation fall in step with the corporate media in pretending that Kucinich isn't running? I expect more from The Nation.

Not only was Kucinich first, he's the populist candidate par excellence with a record to prove it: he voted correctly the first time around on all the critical issues--against the illegal Iraq War, against funding for the illegal occupation of Iraq, against the bankruptcy bill, against the horrid Bill of Rights-trashing Patriot Act, against the horrendous Military Commissions Act, against aggression toward Iran and on and on. He has proposed impeachment procedings against our law-breaking VP Cheney.

He has won poll after poll that the media don't talk about. He won ABC's poll after the Iowa debate. He even won the poll on Edwards' own website. He beat Edwards by a whopping 16 to 17 percent in the KPOJ stawpoll. You should be talking about why ABC and MSNBC kept Kucinich out of the other presidential debates, don't you think?

Carolyn Cooper
01/17/2008 @ 3:46pm

Hercules, Calif.

One can only hope. Once they take office I see more of the same DLC centrism.

The only development that might change the equation would be a deep recession or an outright depression. Only then, after public outrage, would they risk taking on their Wall Street financiers.

Michael McKinlay
01/16/2008 @ 8:46pm

Desert Hot Springs, Calif.

"He was the first with a bold universal healthcare plan, the first with an ambitious climate change proposal that called for cap-and-trade, and the leader on reforming predatory lending practices.." John Edwards, a good candidate, has some other firsts:

He first voted twice for the bankruptcy bills 2000-2001, and then later regretted it.

He first voted to authorize the Bush's Iraq War and then later regretted it.

Why on earth does being first imply "setting the agenda?" In 1968, why didn't Gene McCarthy, who "set the anti-war agenda," pick up after Robert Kennedy's death and win the nomination? Wasn't he first?

To beat out Obama by a day or two with a press release doesn't mean anything to the public, no more than Gene McCarthy's self-righteous campaign did.

What counts is the ability inspire people into action. Without motivation there is no progress. If you want to point-by-point on the issues, you will be missing the story of the 2008 election.

Richard Ray Harris
01/16/2008 @ 5:50pm

Riverside, Calif.

Wall Street is about to face a recession if they are lucky, but a global depression would not be a surprise before the 2008 general election. Since the interest rates have been cut to the bone, it is doubtful that any further cuts will help corporate stupidity.

What is bringing down the economy is the outsourcing of jobs and the insourcing of cheap labor. No jobs, no industries to support them, and the American people do not have any disposable income to buy anything. The internal market inspired by Alexander Hamilton is gone. Without protective tariffs, there are no jobs, no industries, and no American market.

Along with tariffs, we need to regulate these businesses to protect them against their own stupidity and the American public from the harmful products that result from a lack of regulation. It was the Progressive movement that pushed for regulating big business to protect the health and welfare of the general public, and to decentralize the concentration of economic power in the hands of a stupid few with the Sherman Anti-trust act.

We have all the tools to fix this situation. We need to begin by pulling out of NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements. Most of all, we need to pull out of the WTO, and once again control our own economy, and become the country we use to be.

Pervis J. Casey
01/16/2008 @ 2:55pm