The fundamental dynamic of the Democratic race changed when Obama started to make a different version of the same case Edwards had been making all along: that it wasn't enough to say that the last eight years were an aberration, a national nightmare, from which we could simply wake up, as Clinton was arguing. Instead, both Obama and Edwards argue that there's something rotten at the core of our politics (bitter divisiveness, and corporate power respectively), that requires a completely new approach. Given that, this line in Obama's speech at the Democratic dinner last night stood out to me. He talked about the problems the nation faces, problems that "George Bush made far worse, but that were festering long before George Bush took office."

Comments (46)

1. True. And if change is the watchword of this election, HRC is unlikely to win the election.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/05/2008 @ 12:21pm

2. It's a shame, however, even sham-like, that Dennis Kucinich is to be excluded from tonight's debate.

   Rese, how did Kucinich's brother die? Accidently?

   Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 12:42pm

3. Does anyone really find it plausible that diviseness is the root of the problem? Isn't it a symptom? Republicans have gutted social programs to the point where we are, on matters like infant mortality, education, and economic inequality, among the worst first world countries in the world. It seems to me this is a good explanation of why there is division. One side doesn't want this to keep happening, and the other side does. What causes this division? Does anyone think it isn't the money?

   And how could it have been diviseness anyway? Don't you have to be divided about over something? Do Obama supporters really think that people are divided for the sake of division? That activists and partisans spend the time they do fighting about these issues just to fight? It seems that Obama supporters who frequent the nation do think that. But what about the reasonable Obama supporters? Why do they think divisiveness is the key? I am really curious, because I cannot understand why smart people (and I know a few smart Obama supporters personally) buy into this campaign, given its overarching theme.

   I should be clear I don't think this is a clear party divide. Plenty of democrats (blue dogs and DLCers) seem fine with what is happening to our country. Maybe there are republicans who don't like what is happening, but I haven't seen evidence for that.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 12:54pm

4. I apologize for the spelling mistakes.

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 1:00pm

5. "bitter divisiveness, and corporate power respectively"

   Well "corporate power" is easy...tax and regulate the fool out of them.

   But...how EXACTLY does one overcome "bitter divisiveness"? Is the Right going to compromise on abortion or illegal immigration? Is the Left going to compromise on the environment and Iraq?

   Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 1:01pm

6. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

   For those of you who still have not heard:

   There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

   It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

   http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

   Together for Obama, Anne

   Posted by annevilla at 01/05/2008 @ 1:21pm

7. "Does anyone really find it plausible that divisiveness is the root of the problem? Isn't it a symptom?" DENTEDPAT

   Quite, divisiveness is a result, not a cause. And there are good causes aplenty for being divisive: aggressive wars that cheer some, outrage & exploit many others; regressive tax rates that delight the few & screw the many; Gitmo, black hole secret prisons, Patriot Act, No fly lists, perpetual wars & occupations, it's such a long list ... but let's start with the causes, as Kucinich has, and Edwards says he would (we have to take his word, his record says otherwise). So one must ask Mr. Obama, precisely what is it you want us all to be so united on? My bulls--t detector is quivering, it seems to be saying that you, sir, charming as you are, may be a Trojan horse, a US version of Tony Blair, different from Hillary in complexion, gender & your superb style, but all too close when it will come down to policy.

   Posted by Lit at 01/05/2008 @ 1:23pm

8. I didn't see this, but it is a pretty good presentation against Obama. Better than anything I have come up with

   Open Left [openleft.com]

   Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 2:16pm

9. DENTED, your link didn't work. :(

   LIT, I've been wondering all along what type of compromise will happen when Obama starts trying to unify republicans and democrats. There are certain issues that the two parties simply cannot come to a consensus on, as MASK pointed out.

   LEW, an article I read last night stated ABC put out the prerequisites to all the parties for their debate. Kucinich didn't complain about them then. He didn't meet them so he doesn't get to participate. His whining about not being able to participate is just that, whining. I don't know what the prerequisites were but if Kucinich had a problem with them, then he should have said something when they first came out, not when he couldn't meet them.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/05/2008 @ 2:31pm

10. Besides, I lost all respect for Kucinich when he advised his supporters to follow Obama. Obama is the last person of any of the candidates that would do anything remotely close to holding the current administration responsible for the atrocities to the constitution they have committed.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/05/2008 @ 2:32pm

11. Thanks Fritz. Sounds reasonable, applicable, and fair, although unfortunate for we supporters.

    And, from upthread, "why the divisiveness?," it may go to the "root" cause of "man's inhumanity to man."

    The Old Testament metaphorically presents it as a Cain v. Able conflict. I prefer the modern take, abley represented in the wrestling match in the movie "Born on the Fourth of July," although women are, of course, b/c we're a patriarchal culture, absent.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 2:37pm

12. Spelling correction: "Ably," no "e" (male...ha,ha)

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 2:40pm

13. Yeah, Fritz, that's why I like Kucinich. Maybe Rese's postulate that Kucinich's brother's death was somehow associated with the unenviably unviable (less than 15% support in Iowa) D.K.'s efforts to hold the neo-cons accountable, is evidenced in his pointing his caucasers to Obama, whom you and others suggest is less than a New Deal Dem.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 2:46pm

14. Posted by LEWWELGE 01/05/2008 @ 2:46pm

    (LEW has me on Ignore, so this is for the rest)

    RESE doesn't believe that ANYBODY famous or powerful "just dies"...it's always part of the "Jesuit/Zionist Conspiracy".

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 2:53pm

15. Maybe there are republicans who don't like what is happening, but I haven't seen evidence for that.

    DENTEDPAT,

    Like I said on Katrina's thread on "Keep Edwards' Hope Alive", Obama Republicans are with us on all of the important progressive issues.

    They are with us on ending the war in Iraq, they are with us on campaign finance reform and curbing the influence of special interests, they are with us on climate change and want America to break its addiction to oil, they are with us on universal healthcare, and like that conservative member of the Canadian parliament in "Sicko", they view universal healthcare as a basic human right rather than a partisan issue. They are also with us on reforming our schools and expanding educational opportunities for all. And although they are not blind to the realities of international terrorism, they are with us believing that we can engage the world in a more positive light in which America plays a "constructive" role in resolving conflict around the world. And what is particularly striking about the Obama Republicans is that they ALL desperately want a united America and reject the partisan bickering and gridlock that we now see in Washington.

    So rather than falling into our typical anti-Republican mode that has been all about reacting to the excess of Reagan, progressive Democrats should all seize this unique opportunity to unite with Barack and unite with "all" Americans that believe in our progressive ideals, and usher in a new progressive majority that will govern for decades.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/05/2008 @ 2:58pm

16. LEW, I wish I knew what the prerequisites were for the ABC debate. I agree, it's a shame when any of the candidates aren't "invited" to debate. Gravel, Hunter (on the repub side) and Kucinich were all out. Granted, none of these candidates are really viable but it does't mean they don't have something to contribute. The biggest draw to Kucinich for me was his wanting to hold accountable those that filleted the constitution. Although now it seems there were some Democrats involved in much more than was initially let on (i.e., Pelosi and company). Some of Dennis' other ideas were good, but really radical. Too radical I think to be implemented. Same boat Ron Paul is in. Speaking of which, there were a flock of Ron Paul supporters standing outside the mall today. He's the only candidate I've seen supporters hit the streets for, at least in this area.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/05/2008 @ 3:10pm

17. Mett,

    I meant elected republicans. You do force one to be more explicit.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 3:16pm

18. Don't know why the link didn't work

    http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3002

    but here it is to cut and paste. Matt Carroll against Obama. Not comprehensive but a nice set of links in one place.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 3:17pm

19. DENTED, Thanks!!

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/05/2008 @ 3:20pm

20. I meant elected republicans. You do force one to be more explicit.

    The "elected" Republicans are there based on "yesterday's politics". Once Barack makes it clear to them that a large segment of their party is with him on the issue, these elected Republicans will either support Barack or face a serious problem back home trying to get re-elected without the vote of Obama Republicans.

    You guys really need to think back to the Reagan Revolution, and how that put Democratic "elected" leaders on the defensive where even Ted Kennedy was sounding more moderate. The Democratic leaders response to all of that was to form the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which is bunch of conservative/centrist Democrats that have aligned with conservative Republicans.

    Barack is turning the Reagan thing on its head, in which the Republican elected leaders will have no choice but to form a Republican Leadership Council of progressive/moderate Republicans to stay viable as a political party.

    We need to quit thinking in past political terms like Edwards and Hillary, and learn from this past by beginning to see what is possible in this unique political climate. Barack has done this and clearly recognizes that our time is now, in which we can form a new progressive majority that will govern for decades.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/05/2008 @ 3:39pm

21. Instead, both Obama and Edwards argue that there's something rotten at the core of our politics (bitter divisiveness, and corporate power respectively), that requires a completely new approach.

    ~Hayes

    (Sorry for the long post, readers. I needed to get this off my conscience ;-)

    Let's get down to brass tacks. This Obama versus Edwards argument is the one that should have been vigorously pursued at The Nation several months ago.

    Today's Bob Herbert piece at the NY Times --he and Krugman are the two best reasons to visit the Times in my opinion-- is ebullient in its praise of the Obama phenomenon:

    "But for all the talk of change, it's just one of the factors driving the Obama phenomenon. The simple truth is that hardly anyone -- in politics, in the news media or anywhere else -- realized what an extraordinary candidate Senator Obama would turn out to be.

    He's smart, hard-working, charismatic, good-looking and a whiz at fund-raising.

    He has an incandescent smile, but it's not frozen in place. He seems authentic. When he laughs, you have the feeling it's because something is funny.

    People are lining up to believe in him. He has the easy demeanor (in a long, lanky frame) of someone who's comfortable with himself. Even when he fires up a crowd, he doesn't get too hot. He has the cadences that remind you of King but the cool that reminds you of Kennedy -- John, not Robert."

    Herbert's piece awoke in me the feelings I felt when I first witnessed Obama's rise to the national political scene in the wake of his '04 convention speech. The same feelings that faded quite dramatically in wake of too many capitulations in the US Senate.

    An inspection of Obama's record reveals a cypher. In the apt words of Ezra Klein at The American Prospect:

    "Indeed, Obama is that oddest of all creatures: a leader who's never led. There are no courageous, lonely crusades to his name, or supremely unlikely electoral battles beneath his belt."

    Contrast that with but one example of the explosive praise by those not prone to explosive praise. Here's the erudite Norman Solomon:

    "Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century."

    Here's a light hearted analogy for what we've been watching between Obama and Edwards over the last several months:

    The two candidates have been engaged in a sort of imaginary basketball contest where the players on the court are not clothed in the jerseys of the home team and the away team. Instead they scoot up and down the court, and either score on the opponents basket --on the right-- or they score on the friendly basket --on the left.

    Obama's the dude with the Jordan hops and the super smooth style and grace. Edwards is the dashing Pistol Pete Maravich sharpshooter. But we're not sure if we like him because his hair always looks "too nice".

    While Obama has been gliding up and down the court with gazelle-like beauty he has been taking very few shots, and too many have uncomfortably nestled into the opponent's net --witness the Lamont/Lieberman dust-up for a single disturbing example.

    Meanwhile, "the Pistol" has been absolutely on fire. So much so that the die hard reticent are now singing his praises --e.g. Ralph Nader of all people.

    The three pointers have been burning the friendly nets for months now. So much so that the nylon is actually burning.

    So my question is this: Where the hell has The Nation been on this phenom, John Edwards?

    It's now looking like too little, too late as Katrina vanden Heuvel and John Nichols have added their resonant voices to the chorus only in the last week or two.

    In my brief history as a "Nationhead", I think the mag has been at its best when it showcases the work of those such as Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Klein and others. The Jason Vest exposé of JINSA and CSP in Sept '02 was a highlight, as well, in my mind.

    The lowest point, in my opinion, has been the lack of leadership on the Edwards phenomenon.

    But hey. I guess I have to understand it somewhat. Even good guys like Peter Rothberg and Ari Berman appear to be blinded by the light of Obama's charm.

    For me, I'll take substance over style every time. And waging war on "bitter divisiveness in Washington" is a stellar example of style without substance.

    P.S. The counter argument that John Edwards is a phony who will capitulate as soon as he's elected is a tough sell. A major retraction is made difficult when the rhetoric has been so hot. At a certain point the only way out of a burning building is forward not backward. It seems evident to me that John Edwards has put himself out that far. I think it's tragic for our dangerously burning nation that we haven't backed him up.

    But I hope I'm wrong, and Barack Obama is the miraculous coming of the messiah that Metteyya says he is :-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 3:54pm

22. An interesting take on the advisers of each candidate ...

    "AMY GOODMAN: John Edwards?

    ALLAN NAIRN: Well, Edwards is a little different. The list of his foreign advisers is not as complete, so it's not as clear exactly where they may be coming from, but it's interesting. Last night on TV, one of the top Edwards advisers, "Mudcat" Saunders, was complaining about the fact that there are 35,000 lobbyists in Washington. And it appears, from the Edwards list, that many of the military lobbyists are working on the Edwards foreign policy team, because the names that--the Edwards names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS. So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, if he tries to go after the military lobbyists, he may get a little blowback from his own advisers."

    http://tinyurl.com/2blb3d

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 4:01pm

23. Do you think, Mett and B_Kool, that Edwards might receive an offer from Obama to be his V.P. candidate, and would he accept it if presented?

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 4:05pm

24. ....So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, if he tries to go after the military lobbyists, he may get a little blowback from his own advisers."

    ~Posted by V

    This is an excellent point raised by V. It goes to the heart of the madness that has our country in a stranglehold. The military industrial complex, and the corporatocracy that rule the nest in Washington DC.

    But we've gotta start somewhere, V. I've already acknowledged that, as an afficionado of Chalmers Johnson's Blowback trilogy, we are in deep shit.

    Our options in brief: Do nothing but raise a stink, do what we can, or start the armed revolution.

    I think V's posts suggest to me that he should put his money where his typing fingers are, and start the armed revolution.

    When do we start V?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 4:13pm

25. I'm out for now. Back later perhaps.

    ~Ciao, dudes.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 4:14pm

26. I don't know Lew,

    I think it would spell the end of Edwards' political career. It would also require compromise on key issues (like health care and Iraq) where Obama is to the right of Edwards.

    I don't pretend to know either man or what they want. What I would like to see is for Edwards to be the Gore of economic populism. He doesn't have the standing that Gore did, so I doubt he will ever be as succesful at pushing economic issues as Gore as been at pushing the sane agenda on global warming. But he could still do alot of good. Use your name and personal fortune to make people pay attention to poverty and corporate control of government. Anything else would be dissapointing.

    It would be a great idea for Obama to try this though. If Edwards finishes third in NH then Obama can call him up and say 'You don't want the Clinton's back anymore than I do, so let's do this thing.' (Add the words hope, change and unity somewhere in that sentence, since it is Obama talking.) If there is only one anti-Clinton candidate, then Hilary goes down in flames. Tiny little flames that give little light and that we forget about when they die.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/05/2008 @ 4:18pm

27. B_Kool,

    Ok bad ass ... if you perhaps, get back, read the first post over here~>

    The Tyranny of Super-Delegates [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 4:20pm

28. Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/05/2008 @ 4:18pm

    Anybody suggesting Edwards would take Veep to Obama....needs a basic human psychology class.

    No politician would endure the embarassment of accepting a SECOND Veep slot (after Kerry) after making their SECOND stab at the Top Slot. "Always a bridesmaid, never a bride" would be the Vice-President candidate John Edwards campaign slogan!

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 4:49pm

29. "Always a bridesmaid, never a bride" would be the Vice-President candidate John Edwards campaign slogan!

    Posted by MASK 01/05/2008 @ 4:49pm

    but i bet his tonsorial (thanks!) skills will shine in the glow of jade, 100% silk dupioni shantung.

    (he'll make rudy SOOOOOO envious)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2008 @ 5:18pm

30. HAYES: ...Obama and Edwards argue that there's something rotten....that requires a completely new approach.

    I admit that I don't suck in either gentleman's campaign this-and-that but have formed general impressions of each......

    Fact is, my impressions don't extend to "completely new approach" from either. There is a truly "new" face and that's ALL!

    Posted by Happy at 01/05/2008 @ 5:26pm

31. So my question is this: Where the hell has The Nation been on this phenom, John Edwards?

    B-Kool-66, good job! You have brought a focal/pivotal point into the table. I think a central ability of a political analyst should be to discern between the accessory or trivial and the main issues, to have a high level of realism in the assessment of real possibilities and probabilities, and to bring the debate there.

    And there it is, the two main agents of change Obama and Edwards that The Nation ( and probably most other progressive media as well) have failed to sieve into a final picture, a snapshot that will serve as guide for the vast majority of Dems yearning for change.

    Since probably six months ago I guess, there has been this clear message about the three leading the polls. We did not know however, the precise numbers into play. But Kucinich, Richardson (although sometimes seeming to climb to the two digits), and the two senators were never realistic alternatives.

    Central to these two men's differences is that Obama is always speaking about how the country united will solve its probems. He never speaks as to how he will put the other side into knock down.

    Edwards is speaking about a necessary fight between the people and the corporations' interests. I humbly propose this to The Nation as a debate point.

    Posted by Frank42 at 01/05/2008 @ 5:58pm

32. B_Kool,

    Ok bad ass ... if you perhaps, get back, read the first post over here~>

    The Tyranny of Super-Delegates [tinyurl.com]

    ~V @ 4:20pm

    Interesting V. I had visited that Katrina thread early on and kind of agreed with Maskot --a fairly rare occurrence-- that the super-delegate controversy was not worthy of front-burner treatment necessarily.

    In any case, I appreciate the fact that you were trying to suggest something constructive to address the issue --I, of course, didn't see your post at the time that I visited because it got "time warped" to the top subsequently.

    On the larger issue of the reeking albatross that currently weighs so heavily around our neck --i.e. the military industrial complex and it's now birthing demon spawn, the security and snooping industrial complex-- it seems as urgent as a heart attack that intelligent publications across the political spectrum begin a more or less cooperative effort expose the mad machinations.

    I'd vote to triage that to the top of the "to do" list ASAP.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 6:21pm

33. Posted by FRANK42 @ 5:58pm

    Thank you for the kind words, Frank :-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 6:23pm

34. Frankly I don't see The Nation as having been too off point re the Edwards phenomenon because they've publicized Kucinich with a cover story and more, and he's Left of anyone.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 6:35pm

35. Posted by FRANK42 01/05/2008 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person

    Excuse me. But who's mouth was the prayerbook that spoke the gospel which made of him "a phenom" ... ? If you take away and or excuse, his senate record which is what happened, as it is never brought up by his supporters. Which was the sum of his acts, as a political entity. What else do you have left? I'll remain open minded for about two, three, more posts. Go, if you are of a mind to ... for it.

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 6:36pm

36. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/05/2008 @ 6:21pm | ignore this person

    A couple of things. The order in the list is not by importance, for now at least. And it has to be concrete, what do you want congress to do about the MIC?

    Posted by V at 01/05/2008 @ 6:40pm

37. A couple of things. The order in the list is not by importance, for now at least. And it has to be concrete, what do you want congress to do about the MIC?

    ~V @ 6:40pm

    That's the $500 billion question, V. In general I'd say, "Let the discussion begin", but right now we probably should start with preventing ourselves from becoming a security state.

    Let's start by a drastic scale-back of the operations of Blackwater. The company was originally conceived as a sort of training adjunct to the military. They've now rapidly grown into something that should not be, something potentially monstrous.

    With the former CIA extraordinary renditions architect, Cofer Black, on board they are growing their own private intelligence operation.

    By the way, I believe John Edwards is the lone presidential candidate who regularly uses the name, Blackwater, as a synonym for what's wrong with Washington.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 7:15pm

38. I'm out for awhile again.

    Catch you guys on the flip, B.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/05/2008 @ 7:16pm

39. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/05/2008 @ 5:18pm

    Edwardites keep floating this (much as Kucinichites floated "Edwards/Kucinich" tickets)...never realizing how shameing it would be for Edwards to accept 2nd slot AGAIN, and to a guy less experienced than Kerry.

    Posted by Mask at 01/05/2008 @ 7:20pm

40. I'm willing to concede that I might be a bit naive about all this. Living outside the states for the past few years, I haven't been subjected to the intensity of recent campaigns, only watching from afar, but for what it's worth, here's my take on two questions circling round the whole Edwards/Obama thing.

    With the overcoming divisiveness issue--again, I might be naive here--I like to think it's about more than just, hey, can't we all get along. Everyone here--right and left--complains about the MSM, and one of their biggest problems is they way they contribute to the notion that every issue has only two sides: pro-life v. pro-choice, for instance. This notion fuels a lot of the anger and (doh) divisiveness. But probably most of you have noticed that when you sit down with an intelligent person and have a rational conversation with them, you can often come to some sort of common ground.

    I've cooled off Obama since his coming out a few years ago, but I'm still interested, and from what I know about his (pre-US Senate) background, his ability to build consensus does seem impressive. And I do hope that he means more than just buying the world a coke. But that he has an understanding that even on the most contentious of issues, there are ways to discuss them and move forward without shouting at, denigrating, or completely ignoring each other. And yes, I agree that there are issues on which I wouldn't compromise, but I think part of the reason we're in the mess we're in is because much of the populace had come to believe that "my way or the highway" is how politics gets done. It's one way, but one of the worst and it's really brought the country to a fucked up place. So when Obama talks about doing it a different way (even though he is maddeningly vague) people really want to believe it's possible because, maybe, they know it can be possible and they want it. That's a powerful draw that shouldn't be discounted by Edwards supporters.

    And (moving on to the other question), I think Edwards supporters tend to downplay the 'untrustworthy' factor. Yes, he talks a good talk (and as with Obama, I want to believe him). But after the last sixteen years in the presidency, I think it's FINALLY set in to people's brains that politicians lie and say what they need to to be elected and generally aren't to be trusted. This might not be true of Edwards, and he might be a victim of historical timing, but after seeing Clinton fold on all his promise, after seeing Bush abandon "compassionate conservatism" and "not in the business of nation building", after going through the whole Kerry flip-flop fiasco, and sitting through Romney's shameless pandering, I think it's really hard for a lot of people to trust Edwards. I don't care about his hair cut. And his message really resonates with me, but I've been burned too many times in the past two decades. And I think a lot of people feel that way.

    For all the talk on this forum about how the voters should look past image to substance, should explore the issues, and so on (which I agree with), I think you also have to take into account that A LOT of people approach politics through their guts, through their personal experience. This may suck for Edwards supporters, but I think it gets to a lot of why people are apter to buy into Obama's "message" than they are to buy Edwards's MESSAGE.

    Oh, and one last thing, I think discounting Obama's race is also a mistake. A LOT of liberals really want a black president. It may be irrational, but it's another one of those things that grabs people by the guts. My mom was just visiting me for the holidays. She's a good ol 60s lib who loves JFK and MLK. We were talking elections late into one night, and every time the talk came round to the possibility of Obama winning in November, she got all teary-eyed and hopeful. That kind of pull on people is powerful, no matter how irrational, and Edwards just doesn't have that (of course, to be cynical, he does have the not-being-black thing pretty well taken care of).

    Anyway, sorry for the bible . . . just been trying to wade through all the Metts and B_Kools and DPs and Masks, and I still don't even know which of the two I prefer, but this is what I've come up with so far. I'm looking forward to more of your posts, that's for sure.

    Posted by Rintrah at 01/05/2008 @ 7:25pm

41. By the way, watching the Repub debate and Romney just went off on health care (and the respectability of the pharma industry). Guy's a pig.

    Posted by Rintrah at 01/05/2008 @ 8:15pm

42. Interesting comments/tome, Rintrah. CREDitability. Integrity. Key words.

    A dear friend in Virginia Beach, Va., today synthesized it for me by articulating the necessary distinction between conviction and convenience, which each of us must make, although, of course, the candidates are in the lime/spot-light.

    Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 8:26pm

43. 100% silk dupioni shantung.

    (he'll make rudy SOOOOOO envious)

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/05/2008 @ 5:18pm | ignore this person

    nice vocabulary. though I was in the shmatte business in my youth, the word dupioni was new to me.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 9:49pm

44. I've cooled off Obama since his coming out a few years ago,

    Obama is gay?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 9:51pm

45. Obama is gay?

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/05/2008 @ 9:51pm

    You hadn't heard?

    Obviously I meant 'coming out' in terms of his debut, on the national stage that is. A much older, perhaps old-fashioned, meaning of the term. I guess I didn't need to explain that, but ya never know.

    Posted by Rintrah at 01/05/2008 @ 10:08pm

46. a debutante then.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 10:22pm