Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Des Moines Register's 2004 endorsement of John Edwards helped to pull the senator from North Carolina out of a pack of also-rans and put him on his way toward a strong second-place finish in Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses.
What the Register did for Edwards in 2004 serves as a reminder that the paper's endorsement matters -- especially with Democrats, who respect the Register's reasonably rational editorial stances on social and foreign-policy issues.
As anticipation of the Register's endorsement in the 2008 Democratic race mounted, there was speculation about whether it would stick with Edwards. Had that happened, the backing of the state's widest circulation newspaper might well have helped the former senator to move back toward a lead in what has become an essentially three-way contest between the man who eventually was the Democratic nominee for vice president of John Kerry's 2004 ticket, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
On the other hand, an Obama endorsement might have given the senator, whose poll numbers have surged in the state, just the boost he needed to open a clear lead.
Instead, the paper endorsed Clinton in its Sunday editions, arguing that, "From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.
"That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it's hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead."
Edwards was dismissed this time because, apparently, he has gotten too serious about addressing the fundamental challenges facing the nation. "We too seldom saw the 'positive, optimistic' campaign we found appealing in 2004," the paper's editors griped about the former senator's recent campaigning in Iowa. "His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
Obama was tossed aside as a candidate who "inspired our imaginations" while Clinton "inspired our confidence." This oddly dismissive assessment of the Illinois senator is in stark contrast to the view expressed by the Boston Globe, a newspaper with a wide circulation in the first-primary state of New Hampshire that on Sunday strongly backed Obama. "It is true that the other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes, and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities," the Globe's editors argued in what might most generously be described as a more nuanced editorial than the Register's relatively vapid appeal on Clinton's behalf.
Strangely, the paper seemed to be more interested in Delaware Senator Joe Biden -- a no-hoper in Iowa who the Iowa rumor mill had suggested in recent weeks was very much in the running for the Register's nod -- than in Edwards or Obama. The rumor mill appears to have been right, as the Register's editors wrote Sunday that, "Even in our last major round of deliberations, we kept coming back to the question, 'Why not Joe Biden?' Many of the arguments we have made on behalf of the tested leadership of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain apply to Biden as well. He knows how to get legislation passed. He, too, has deep foreign-policy expertise. We're inspired by his fierce defense of civil liberties. His work on legislation to combat domestic violence has no doubt prevented injuries and saved lives. He might, indeed, make a good president."
Frankly, the Register's arguments for Biden read better than any the paper could muster for Clinton. But nothing the editors are saying about this year's candidates -- including the paper's pick -- is nearly so convincing as the case the Register made for Edwards four years ago.
Unfortunately, now that Edwards is not just delivering vague speeches about "two Americas" but actually addressing the role that corporate power plays in fostering economic and social inequity, he's too "harsh" for the Register.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
NICHOLS: Instead, the paper endorsed Clinton in its Sunday editions, arguing that, "From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.
This maybe `cruel' to Hillary......but I can't help thinking that while HRC was meeting "with leaders around the world as first lady", many of them (privately) pitied her or worse......
Experiencing Bill's chumminess with Charlie Trie certainly prepared HRC for Norman Hsu......
HRC's "experience" for making fast money on cattle futures as a wife of a "small state" Governor will certainly help in "her presidency"......
HRC's ruthless firing of the entire WH Travel Staff was learned from Bill's wholesale dismissal of the US Attorneys.....
It's late, last words: IF HRC is to be the Dem Nominee, the 2008 campaign will likely go down as the most memorable......it will be FUN!
Posted by Happy at 12/16/2007 @ 01:48am
"Instead, the paper endorsed Clinton in its Sunday editions, arguing that"she's supposed to win
""His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
like for Gannett Company, Inc. (NYSE: GCI), maybe?
"every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency."
'specially that goldwater thing.
"Obama was tossed aside as a candidate who "inspired our imaginations" while Clinton "inspired our confidence."
that is so lame
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 02:53am
Well then, why doesn't the Nation endorse Joe Biden? We all know he is the most qualified to lead this this country, repair our reputation and creditility in the world.
He is truly in need of a miracle to get him noticed, and we hoped this would have given him a boost. However, his supporters have mixed feelings about this, in that, the DMR really doesn't have a good track record for picking winners. So, it could end up being a good thing in the end.
Joe Biden does have a lot of supporters, and once they join the Biden camp, they're not likely to leave, for any reason. I think it would be a travesty if this man is not given a fair chance to be heard, and seen, by the average american, who does not know just how much good he has done for thie country. The fact that he has not been able to compete with those with 80/90 million dollars is just a sign of how superficial our society is.
Please consider endorsing Joe Biden, as he really is our best hope. I can not imagine turning over the White House to Hillary, John Edwards, or Obama, a man with 10 years experience total in politics.
Posted by Lynne222 at 12/16/2007 @ 03:45am
Hillary is counting on Democratic machine politics rather than appealing to voters who want substantive change.
This endorsement is another example in a long line of Clinton "machine" endorsements, in which she believes voters need to be told who to vote for rather than voting based on their own assessment of which candidate is best capable of bringing about the change from Washington politics as usual that they desire.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/16/2007 @ 04:32am
And if the Edwards 2004 endorsement is any indication of this paper's track record of picking winners, then picking the "second" place finisher in Iowa appears to be their forte.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/16/2007 @ 04:37am
Lynne,
Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill, against the Kerry-Feingold bill in 2006 which would have brough most of the troops home by now, and his big plan for Iraq is a three state partition (the plan that would cause a war involving at least Turkey and Kurdistan, but probably also Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Sunni and Shi'ite sections of Iraq. About the only plan that every middle east expert can agree is wrong.). He is corrupt (deep in the pocket of credit card companies, hence the bankruptcy vote), politically cowardly, and a deeply stupid person. If C-SPAN makes available tapes of Judiciary and Foreign Relations committee meetings spend some time wathcing them. He is easily the least intelligent person in the room, and that includes people like Orrin Hatch and Seesions. His questions are vapid and silly, and for someone who has been on these committees for years he often displays a startling ignorance (he references particular cases less often than just about anyone else, and he is responsible for that moronic policy of judicial nominess not being forced to give their legal opinions about any issue that might come up for review).
As for the Des Moines Register, that it came down to Clinton and Biden for them shows what the editors are, corporate stooges. I will leave it to Mett to challenge their claims about Obama's experience relative to Clinton's. But the following quotes are ridiculous:
"We too seldom saw the 'positive, optimistic' campaign we found appealing in 2004," "His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
So we need optimistic people? And if there is no good reason to be positive and optimistic? If the people are being shafted? We should say with a smile how great it is to be American and how we are all in this together I suppose.(why didn't they like Obama?) When they say 'business community' they apparently mean big corporations, since they are the one's Edwards is attacking. The thought that every candidate needs to work with them is further evidence that the Des Moines Register is full of corporate stooges.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 06:53am
DENTEDPAT, you knocked that one out of the park! Going, going, going, gone. Excellent post!
Disclaimer: In referencing baseball in my above approval of Dentedpat's post, I am in no way inferring that Dentedpat is taking steroids. :)
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/16/2007 @ 09:09am
It's interesting that the editorial board of the Des Moines Register is a totally different one than the one that endorsed John Edwards four years ago. The current board is mostly made up of women, and studies show that women tend to manage by concensus, not by individual leadership. These women editors have apparently bought into the idea that the country is polarized, whereas it seems most Iowans, along with the rest of us, believe that the country has been politicized by corporate donors and the Democrats and Republicans who pander to them. It's telling that the editors, in their assessment of the other candidates, basically said "John Edwards is right about everything he says, but fighting the entrenched interests is a little too scary for us." Well, that's why John Edwards is presidential and they're not. The DMR editorial board is looking for management. The rest of us are looking for leadership.
Posted by grayslady at 12/16/2007 @ 09:12am
As for the Des Moines Register, that it came down to Clinton and Biden for them shows what the editors are, corporate stooges.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/16/2007 @ 06:53am
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 09:21am
DentedPat,
First of all, Biden voted for the bankruptcy bill, so that women could get their child support payments before any other creditor when a deadbeat dad files for a BK. No other reason;
His floor statement; "I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence.
I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system. "
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426
I might also add, that this bill was being worked on for 10 years. John Edwards had also voted for the BK bill in 2001. However, as to my opinion, I say, GOOD. It's about damn time people stopped abusing BK's, when they live well above their means, and then expect a bail out when they can't pay their bills. By the way, credit cards are OPTIONAL. And don't bother giving me the sob story about how the BK bill hurts the poor, or the Vets, blah, blah, blah, because there ARE protections IN PLACE for all special circumstances. I've read the entire bill. Have you??
Secondly, Joe Biden voted against Kerry- Feingold bill to continue to fund the troops so that they would have the right equipment necessary to be protected. He said he would not use the troops as a pawn. To protect the troops. It was also only a 4 month funding bill. His "plan" is not "partitioning". It also is specifically with what the Iraq constitution calls for. Sorry you don't get it.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/senator-joe-biden-votes-to-fund-us-tro ops-in-the-field/267440862
He is not "corrupt deep in the pocket of credit card companies, hence the bankruptcy vote". Here are his contributors, since 1989;
[b] JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.: CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)[/b]
Top Industries The top industries supporting Joseph R. Biden Jr. are: 1 Lawyers/Law Firms $6,265,871 2 Real Estate $1,172,230 3 Retired $853,148 4 Securities & Investment $839,775 5 Misc Finance $499,470 6 Misc Business $462,641 7 Business Services $455,925 8 Health Professionals $382,275 9 TV/Movies/Music $364,666 10 Lobbyists $333,185 [b]11 Finance/Credit Companies $294,650 [/b] 12 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $294,249 13 Pro-Israel $272,700 [b]14 Commercial Banks $269,050 [/b] 15 Education $249,725 16 Insurance $223,975 17 Retail Sales $186,400 18 General Contractors $175,550 19 Accountants $136,935 20 Democratic/Liberal $129,490
So, that's about a $563,000 bucks in 18 years. Or $31,000 a year in contributions. I doubt he did it for the banks, at all.
As far as your comments about his intelligence, they're simply BS, and are childish remarks, which you somehow thought made your point stronger. Everything else you said, was just ridiculous, and not worthy of spending time replying to.
Posted by Lynne222 at 12/16/2007 @ 11:00am
Actually Obama is no "progressive," either, and John Nichols as well as others on the left need to recognize it. I regard Obama as little more than a ringer for the Republicans, whether or not the senator from Illinois recognizes it.
He's way to the right of everybody running including Clinton and panders too much to the Republicans. That's why I regard him as a ringer, a man who can't possibly win anything in the GE but benefits only the Republicans.
Getting back to the DMN, the fact they pointed out Edwards' anti-corporate stance is reason enough to vote for him. It was an endorsement without being an endorsement.
Posted by susannunes at 12/16/2007 @ 12:04pm
So what? You'll pimp whatever corporate slimeball the democratic elites tell you to. Everyone knows that. Besides, the the way the Iowa Caucus shakes down depends on who buys which precinct captains...oh, wait, I forgot. You pwoggie dumbshits are still pretending there's some kind of democracy going on here. Nevermind.
Posted by AlanSmithee at 12/16/2007 @ 12:25pm
DENTEDPAT: Do you actually have anything to back up your assertion that Biden is "startlingly ignorant" and that his questions are "vapid and silly?" Lynne222 already did a great job refuting the rest of your anti-Biden arguments. Instead of asking everyone to hunt down C-SPAN tapes, why don't you do a search on "senate judiciary (or foreign relations) committee transcripts biden" and give us his exact quotes. If in fact you are right, then that would provide relevant material to debate. I just read the transcripts of his questioning of Alito during confirmation hearings, and his questioning of Gonzales over wiretapping, and though long-winded at times, they were hardly ignorant, vapid, or silly.
Posted by chris11 at 12/16/2007 @ 12:38pm
Posted by SUSANNUNES 12/16/2007 @ 12:04pm
Obama, as a Harvard Law graduate, who was the editor-and-chief of the Harvard Law Review, could have gone to "any" of the best white-shoe corporate law firms in the country like Cravath, Steptoe or Convington, but instead of doing the "corporate law thing" like most of his classmates, he goes to the South Side of Chicago, the "rough" side, and becomes a community organizer.
Hillary, on the other hand, after graduating from law school, goes to the Rose law firm in Arkansas, which is THE corporate law firm in the state.
Edwards "current" anti-corporate rhetoric rings hollow as he was a supporter of NAFTA and other corporate initiatives when he was in the senate and thought being a DLC centrist was the ticket to the white house. I wonder if Edwards would have done plaintiff's work as a tort lawyer if he wasn't getting multi-million dollar settlements and judgments? Something tells me that he would have sought a different line of work that was more in line with his multi-millionaire financial goals.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/16/2007 @ 12:42pm
As far as I can tell, her only "experience" is that of a high-flying operator riding Bill Clinton's coattails.
Posted by ZERO 12/16/2007 @ 12:43pm
now, THAT is a slippery slope.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 12:48pm
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clintons, Clintons.
No thanks.
The endorsement of Des Moines Register editorial board is laughable.
If they really go for "experienced," they should have choose Biden, Dodd or Richardson.
What's Hillary's remarkable "experience":
- voting for Iraq war--the gigantic foreign policy failure. in addition to that her senate record is thin and timid
- her only official responsibility in her husband's administration is the failure of health insurance reform
- she did travel extensively as a first lady, which actually caused a great deal complaint from Republican party, thinking she used too much tax payers' money for "personal" travel
- her campaign tactic is the most scarry part--planting questions, spreading rumors, it reminded me of Bush's tactic
- enlisting all the heavyweights to advocate for her while we voters prefer a candidate who can stands on his/her own shoes to prove him/herself. This is another evidence of Washington Establishment wants to prolong their way. If Hillary is so great, why not makes case for herself instead of outside advocacy.
Who cares what this editoral board is thinking. 4 years ago, they endorsed Edwards whom I was not impressed and we can see by our own eyes--how great Edwards is?!
By the way, this laughable endorsement did have an unintended consequence--it fires me up.
Posted by may2002 at 12/16/2007 @ 2:49pm
Obama, as a Harvard Law graduate, who was the editor-and-chief of the Harvard Law Review, could have gone to "any" of the best white-shoe corporate law firms in the country like Cravath, Steptoe or Convington, but instead of doing the "corporate law thing" like most of his classmates, he goes to the South Side of Chicago, the "rough" side, and becomes a community organizer.
~Metteyya, our site's beloved "Budd Lite" --pronounced "bood"
Obama on the "rough" side. I'm starting to get the picture, Budd. You're diggin' Obama's action, if you now what I mean ;-)
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Here's my own personal take in succint form:
Bridoc says:
I don't know whether or not Edwards would pursue his message if elected, maybe he really feels passionately about it, maybe he was conveniently born again populist just in time to run for president again.
b kool replies:
That is the crux of our disagreement I think --whether or not Edwards is trustworthy. And I respect your opinion --but respectfully disagree.
But I am arguing essentially that the clock on American democracy is running short --if it hasn't already expired-- and we have, in Edwards, a highly successful trial attorney with the skill set necessary to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to bring us all on board for a badly needed overhaul of Washington DC.
Frankly, I don't think Obama quite gets it, and even if he did I question his fortitude and ability to do what Edwards has made a career of --making a case to an American jury.
I rest my defense.
~b kool @ 1:55pm --"Hillary fails another reform test", campaign '08 thread.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 2:55pm
The endorsement of Des Moines Register editorial board is laughable.
~"May2002" @ 2:49pm
In fact, the Register's endorsement might just as well as have had those exact words printed below their own editorial to serve as the disclaimer.
I'm left wondering if it wasn't a Kafkaesque attempt to, in actual fact, endorse Obama or Edwards. A first use of the "reverse endorsement" if you will.
I guess we'll soon see how astute the Iowa voters really are.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 3:04pm
So if the quest is for Frodo Obama to destroy Lady Sauron's "ring of inevitability"...are we at the point where...
A. Gandalf Edwards falls in Moria?
B. Boromir Richardson gets cut down at Amon Hen?
C. Merry and Dennis are captured by the Uruk-hai?
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2007 @ 4:31pm
A first use of the "reverse endorsement" if you will.
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/16/2007 @ 3:04pm
good point. but hardly the first time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 4:33pm
Posted by MASK 12/16/2007 @ 4:31pm
nope. This is the point where Golum Plouffe leads Frodo Obama across the Poison Penn Swamp to the Gates of Des Moindor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 4:42pm
BREAKING: Kristol: Lieberman to Endorse McCain
December 16, 2007 • By William Kristol
NEWS FLASH:
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that Sen. Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, will endorse Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president tomorrow. The two will appear together at a press conference Monday morning in New Hampshire, weather permitting.
--------------------------------------------------
IF as `Flashed', my respect to Joe Lieberman, again,....beholden to NONE but long-standing principles...
McCain/Lieberman sounds great....or Lieberman as Sec. of State in a GOP Admin.!
Posted by Happy at 12/16/2007 @ 5:47pm
Ok, been trying to cut down my participation here, because I always feel like it is a waste of time at the end of the day, and it looks like people are holding me accountable for not replying quickly enough. I suppose when you are as confrontational as I am you have to expect and accept that. I do not take myself to have been refuted. Not even close. Here is why.
1. A Senator who votes for a bill like the most recent bankruptcy bill because it helps facilitate child support payments is an idiot. That is very far from being the most significant aspect of the bill. You can't file for Chapter 11 because of health care costs because of the bill Biden voted for. If you think that is abuse of bankruptcy laws, Lynne, then I cannot imagine a way in which you are not heartless and cruel. Perhaps it is my own lack of imagination. As for Edwards supporting a completely different bill years earlier, the fact that two bills both deal with the same general issue does not mean that support of them is morally equivalent. Otherwise Bush is just as much an environmentalist as Gore or Kerry, because Bush has supported lots of budgets for the EPA and lots of bills about air and water standards. It is just that all the bills Bush has supported have hurt the environment. Now if you could point to some anti-poor element in the 01 bankruptcy bill that is on the level with the one Biden supported, let me know. I am already aware that until '04 Edwards had some terrible positions. Some I can explain, and some I just have to admit provide evidence against my candidate's quality.
2. If you are willing to accept Republican talking points about how Democrats should vote with regards to the war, fine. You can be a republican if you want. Just don't expect that to fly as an excuse for Biden. The Kerry-Feingold bill didn't just remove funding, it mandated that the troops come home on a certain timeline. So if Bush had kept them there, without funding (why Demcrats should have to support every undeclared war and not fight the intransigence of an imperial president is something I don't get. I guess the republicans and Lynne have some good explanation why it would be the fault of the people who didn't send them there that they lacked what they needed, and not the person who sent them there with both insufficient evidence and no solid legal backing), there is a good argument that he would have been in violation of a statute in good standing, in addition to putting the lives of troops in danger.
3. I think you make a fair point with regards to the credit card claim. I should have said financial services more broadly. I don't know where the numbers are coming from, so a source would be nice. This is important not because I think you are lying, but because certain sites that track campaign contributions do not count indvididual donations from executives at a credit card company as coming from a credit card company. (Some sites and most media outlets do) They will only tally money coming from a company if it comes from that company's PAC (opensecrets seems to tabulate this way). So I need to know the methodology. But lets say these numbers represent all the corporate money he gets. If I am allowed to correct myself (so let me repeat you caught me in a mistake), he has gotten $1,902,945. (I am counting securities and investments, misc finance, credit cards, commercial banks. Any industry that gives him money and that involves manipulating debt is relevant to the motivations of his vote for the bankruptcy bill. I don't count lobbyists, business services, or misc business, though it is fairly certain that some of the lobbyists worked for finance, and I worry about what vague groupings like business services and misc business). So $105,719 annually. That sounds like enough to buy a vote from a Senator.
4. His original plan was partition. If you disagree with that, you don't know your own candidate. His current plan is a federal system where the three regions would have a high degree of autonomy. Everyone familiar with what Iran and Turkey have said about this topic knows that will make a larger war much more likely. I really don't know what else to say about this. There is a reason he is the only Senator who supported partition and the only one who thinks the solution to the problem is federal autonomous districts. Given that the oil is all in either Kurdish or Shi'ite dominated areas, a high degree of autonomy entails a terribly weak Sunni region that would be effectively powerless in the Iraqi government (one reason the Sunnis don't support this idea).
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 7:14pm
Getting back to the DMN, the fact they pointed out Edwards' anti-corporate stance is reason enough to vote for him. It was an endorsement without being an endorsement.
~SUSANNUNES @ 12:04pm
That's a very valid take. Well put, Susan.
By the way, this isn't the posting name for Mizan Nunes is it?
If so, I just want to give props to your work at the INN (International News Net) on Free Speech TV. I love what you do!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 7:16pm
In response to both Lynne and Chris:
As for being childish, do you mean that any accusation of lack of intelligence is childish or just this one? And if just this one what sets my accusation apart? Now let me admit a few things.
I understand and generally speaking endorse a policy of being skeptical about intelligence claims. Candidates are so managed that it is really hard to be sure you are getting an accurate picture of their character or intellect. Sometimes I think the evidence is clear though. I thought it was clear for Bush, and I think it is clear for Biden.
Also,I don't take myself to have proved anything about Biden's intelligence. The only evidence I actually offered was what is sometimes known as the Biden rule, or the Ginsburg precedent (where nominees don't have to say anything about their general legal philosophy because that might imply something about a case they will take.). I think anyone behind such a rule would have to be an idiot, especially when their task is to evaluate the people who now have cover to clam up about every important topic. I suppose the best way to take what I said is as a two-parter. One, letting you know that I think Biden is stupid. Since people go on and on about how experienced and knowledgable he is, I think it is important to voice the contrary opinion, just to break up the monotony. Second part, an invitation for you to look at old C-SPAN podcasts or whatever they have there to find out for yourself. Most people I have spoken to who support Biden do so only because of the number of years he has been in Congress, and the number of times he has been on either C-SPAN or Fox News. Now I admit that Lynne is more informed about her candidate than most Biden supporters, so I am doubtful about whether you will change your mind about him based on old C-SPAN footage. My last question for you Lynne is if my comment wasn't worth a response, why did you spend so much time responding? That doesn't seem rational at all. Rest assured I think your response was worth a counter-response.
At this point I am talking only to Chris: It is not my responsibility to be politically aware for you. I haven't written down every moronic question Biden has asked in Judiciary both because that would require a lot of writing, and because hearing them was sufficient for making up my mind about him. Now I want to convince others that he is an awful candidate (probably the worst democrat in the field), but there is a limit to the amount of time I think it is worth putting into that project. The invitation is as much as I am willing to do on the Notion. I haven't ever changed anyone's mind here. Whether it is because of their stubborness or my being unconvincing, the odds are low I will do much good. I have a dissertation to work on, so if you are only willing to change your mind if someone else does all your political research for you, I have to confess I am not up to the task. You will need to find a better man than me. I would suggest doing research on your own candidate's negatives though. It pays to be prepared. When people like Mett bring up that he was a DLC-er I am not taken aback, because I know how bad his record used to be (It doesn't include supporting NAFTA as far as I am aware though, since he didn't come to the Senate until '96).
If it is the case that you have been watching Biden as much as I have, and have come the opposite conclusion, then, while I must express astonishment, I would have to do some research to make a stronger case. I thought most of Biden's support was soft, having never met someone who was informed and willing to go to the mat for him. So, to prevent this discussion from getting any longer, I invite the two of you to continue this discussion at dentedpat@hotmail.com should you wish. If you invest enough time to send an email, I will invest a little time coming up with examples.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 7:21pm
I apologize for the long posts. Because of my tendency towards writing them, I am going to start giving out the invitation to email me more often. No reason to force everyone to suffer through my longwindedness.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 7:23pm
Ok, been trying to cut down my participation here, because I always feel like it is a waste of time at the end of the day, and it looks like people are holding me accountable for not replying quickly enough. I suppose when you are as confrontational as I am you have to expect and accept that.
~Dentedpat
I hope you stick around at least until the Super Tuesday events in Feb. and beyond if you wish.
I really appreciate having as many articulate voices here as possible --and I bet many others do as well-- who appreciate in depth what's at stake in this election. Nothing less than the resuscitation of our beached and bloated so-called democracy.
P.S. I'm curious as to the meaning of "dentedpat"?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 7:24pm
Dental Educator?!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 7:38pm
My name is Patrick and I have pectus excavatum, which is exactly what it sounds like.
One way to cut done on my longwindedness is to fully read my opponents posts. I read right past where Chris said he had read some transcripts. So clearly he has done some political research and is not asking me to do it for him. So Chris, my apologies, and strike everything I wrote to you except the invitation to carry the discussion on over email.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 7:55pm
I appreciate your stuff, dented Pat :-)
Stick around.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 8:11pm
Isn't that funny. I was thinking DENTEDPAT meant "Dented Patriot." A patriot that has been beaten so much by "the system" that dents show the battle wounds. Or that one's patriotism has been dented by the current administration.
Isn't it funny how the mind works sometimes?
Posted by FritztheCat at 12/16/2007 @ 9:20pm
No reason to force everyone to suffer through my longwindedness.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/16/2007 @ 7:23pm
unleash thy gales!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/16/2007 @ 9:27pm
I have made my mind that if the election was within only the 3 I would back Edwards.
Although of course BC was completely biased towards his wife, he has some 25% of truth around Obama. The man is very good, I guess that I too don't want him to fail rightaway. Obama HAS to show some good things that he might have accomplished in the Senate to counteract the vicious attacks that Reps will orchestrate on him and HAS to show he is progressive enough. HC, will better pass...I will take that JE should be the option.
Happy, what Lieberman principles????!! For me, Liebermann can't see things objectively because he is so much tied to Israel (and I bet he is MORE loyal to Israel than to the US). That is NOT principles, it is complete bias. In fact, keeping Lieb.'s points of view condemns the Middle East affairs into an "unresolved problem". Israel has to concede on several points if the matter will ever get resolved.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/16/2007 @ 9:58pm
You are probably just more poetic than I am Fritz. If I could go back and pretend my name meant that, I might. But it just means I have a crater in the middle of my chest, roughly similar in size to the one in Mexico from the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs. It is a nickname from college.
I have lost my patriotism during this administration though. And after military run TV in Augsburg did such a good job putting that patriotism in me too. A real shame to see government dollars wasted like that.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 10:07pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/16/2007 @ 9:20pm
I made the exact same assumption.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/16/2007 @ 10:19pm
I am getting way too much love on this board (to use the vernacular of the youths). It is making uncomfortable. And surprised. I act like a vindictive ass on this board (from time to time anyway). I have the same problem alot of people have, I get much meaner here than I would if I could see the color of my opponent's eyes.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 10:24pm
To get back to substance and also make a lie of my not haunting this board as much, did anyone see this?
http://www.alternet.org/election08/70781/
Basically says Edwards is the best shot to beat the Republicans when people are asked about actual head to head matchups. I haven't seen polls like this in months, and back in the early summer Edwards had been campaigning for months already, while Obama and Clinton were still making up their mind about whether to run and figuring out what to believe, respectively. This makes my heart sing. If Edwards gets the electability uber alles crowd behind him (winning in Iowa would help this alot) I think he could win, despite having less money than Obama and Clinton.
If only he had Kucinich's policy positions (Don't know how I am bringing myself to support a candidate who backs 'cap and trade' but I manage it somehow), I would be ecstatic.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/16/2007 @ 10:31pm
Dented but not undaunted,
There was a very interesting blog post --by Ari Berman or Melber perhaps?-- maybe a week ago under Campaign '08 that referenced a LA Times piece from '04.
The Times article stated that Rove thought Edwards was the most formidable opponent so it was decided to attack Kerry!
The logic being that the Dems would circle their wagons around Kerry, and he would gain increased support from voters.
Fascinating stuff, huh?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 10:42pm
It was Ari Melber.
Here's the piece he linked to which in turn references the Peter Wallsten LA Times piece.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/16/2007 @ 10:50pm
....Liebermann can't see things objectively because he is so much tied to Israel....it is complete bias. In fact, keeping Lieb.'s points of view condemns the Middle East affairs into an "unresolved problem". Israel has to concede on several points if the matter will ever get resolved.
Posted by FRANK42 12/16/2007 @ 9:58pm
If as you say, Lieberman is "tied to Israel", so what? I'll acknowledge he's pretty pro-Israel....so am I and a bunch of folks around the world! We all have certain (presumably) unshakable principles and those who know, trust, rely and love/hate us, won't ever think of us as flip-floppers. I admire McCain and Lieberman for standing by their principles....not that I necessarily agree with their POV. No one will get my vote unless they meet the most important principles of my own, not necessarily the most number of principles.
For those that brand Lieberman as the `enemy', instead of a shining example of what the Dem Party stands for (hint: in party name!), they are the bulk of the Leftest Sheeps, the ones who proudly but very noisily, muster all of 3% support for their beloved Kucinich. Think about that....even McCain, the GOP-Joementum, pulls considerably more than 3%.....
As for his being Pro-Israel, that is American policy until someday, the puppeteers controlling the Palestinians decide it's time to recognize Israel's existence. Until then, as sympathetic as I get at times for them, the Palestinian issue ranks pretty low.....Like it or not, that is the reality for quite a few decades.
Posted by Happy at 12/17/2007 @ 12:45am
Happy,
You are pro-Israel, are you also pro war with Iran? I am sorry, there is no worse blind person than the one that does not want to see. It is our extreme pro-Israel policies that have put us, and the world, in this state.
A community of nations have been hurted so badly just because we supported a group of Europeans that wanted to move to Palestine and grab the land there with terrorist actions.
I support Israel's right to exist, and likewise that of the Palestinian people and still think there is a chance of a peaceful solution if we see the problem more neutrally. If not, then we will fight the "war on terror" indefinitely because those guys are really hating us just because of our bias and use of force against them.
The worst thing ever in US politics is not Reps but the power of the Israeli lobby. They think they are benefiting Israel, actually they are just promoting war.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/17/2007 @ 04:18am
As for his being Pro-Israel, that is American policy until someday, the puppeteers controlling the Palestinians decide it's time to recognize Israel's existence. Until then, as sympathetic as I get at times for them, the Palestinian issue ranks pretty low.....Like it or not, that is the reality for quite a few decades.
Posted by HAPPY 12/17/2007 @ 12:45am
so you supported apartheid as well ?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 09:39am
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 10:51am
so you supported apartheid as well?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 11:02am
People speak loosely, but it is a message board so its not a big deal.
It is not about recognizing Israel's existence, they surely recognize that it exists everytime they run into a roadblock. It isn't even about recognizing their right to exist, since Fatah has done that and some Hamas officials have said they are prepared to do that if certain conditions are met (like not blockading Gaza). The issue now is recognizing Israel's right to exist as Jewish state, and that means giving up on right of return.
I am not suggesting that when the debate is framed properly, which is about Israel getting to be a Jewish state, it is an easy question. I am not particularly a securalist, and I think if any people has good reason to want a state to protect their culture, it is the Jews. But it seems to me that right of return deserves as much respect as 'Next year in Jerusalem.'
I just realized I responded to that tool Happy. Still got you on ignore Happy, so any response will not be read.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 12:33pm
Okay, always the bucket of cold water, I'll ask...
What do ANY of the electable candidates for President say about the Israeli-Palestinian situation?
ANY of them even coming close to saying they'll use aid for Israel as leverage against Jerusalem?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 12:38pm
Apartheid in Israel?
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 12:10pm
duh!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 2:34pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 2:34pm
Uh, FZ...I think you mean the "occupied territories", not Israel proper. If a person is an Israeli citizen living IN Israel, they get the vote and all bennies of citizenship, regardless of religion. There are 12 Arab Israeli members of the Knesset.
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 3:47pm
Uh, FZ...I think you mean the "occupied territories", not Israel proper. If a person is an Israeli citizen living IN Israel, they get the vote and all bennies of citizenship, regardless of religion. There are 12 Arab Israeli members of the Knesset.
Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 3:47pm
well, they seem to be stretching their borders quite effectively.
let's call it "israeland".
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:36pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 6:09pm
that's funny, jm. and truish enough. but let's get more original shall we.
Results 1 - 10 of about 444 for Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher,
how this for clintonian roviism?
"Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Barack Obama's great-great uncle, Ali Osama Hussein, was martryed for in the name of jihad in Montana in 1889.
The only known photograph of Ali shows him dealing cocaine. On the back of the picture is this inscription: ' Ali Osama Hussien; freedom hater, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, suicide bombed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Catherine Harris, convicted and sent to Guantanamo in 1889.'
Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff of professional image adjusters sent back the response: "We respect senator obama's right to have a cocaine dealing, islamofascist, family.
We know that Barack Hussein Obama is incapable of dealing cocaine anymore, and doesn't really hate america that much."
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 6:25pm
I'm an Iowa Democrat, so I have a closer-up view of the Iowa Democratic party than most. This is not the Field of Dreams, guys and dolls. Iowa is as smoky a back room as you'll find anywhere, hardball players nonpareil. Stogies, deals, threats, the whole nine yards.
As for the Des Moines Register, yep, corporate stooges feeding at the trough. Which is why they would endorse Ms. Rodham Clinton, who is about as hard-edged and synthetic as they come. (I'll bite my tongue about her alleged "experience": others here have said it all quite articulately.)
Is there a candidate missing from this whole discussion? I do believe so.
Dennis Kucinich won the poll here at The Nation (as well as a couple of other left-leaning nationwide polls) and scared the bejeebers out of a number of machine-type political movers and shakers. No one much expected this, but reaction came quickly.
In August the Democratic debate here in Iowa was heavily censored by ABC. Censored how? Oh, try this. ABC put up an online poll during the debate asking viewers who they thought was winning the debate. Dennis was winning by a huge margin. They took down the poll and re-started it. Dennis was winning again. They set it aside.
In the still photo that went up on ABC's web site, Kucinich was CROPPED from the photo. Likely a coincidence? Not. Check out the two-minute clip below, with a quip from Kucinich, who remains good-natured depite all the dirty tricks because he knows he has a winning platform that we NEED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DGfXA8DlE
That link is really worth clicking.
Then this past week the Des Moines Register made SURE Dennis would do no more damage here, at least last week. I'm not sure that their hardball-type strategy makes longterm sense: it may well breed backlash. (Which arrogant, contemptuous types don't even acknowledge, much less fear, as if the split-second NOW were all that counted. They do think-- like tyrants-- that voters are pea-brains.)
Kucinich is farther left and more solidly, more vociferously, and more experientially anti-corporate even than Edwards, which is overstating the obvious, but I thought it needed saying.
DM Register jes' don't like that one bit.
So the mighty Register outright banned Kucinich from the debate, though he had fulfilled every stated requirement to participate. The Register concocted a new criterion-- on the spot-- to exclude him.
Get this: the Kucinich campaign's Iowa coordinator works out of his HOME, because the Kucinich campaign is a grassroots campaign and concerned to conserve the bucks. (Which shows a bit right up front about Kucinich's consistency, I believe. Kucinich takes commercial planes, too, unlike the rest of the candidates.)
So the Register decided Dennis's campaign wasn't real, on those grounds. They didn't think to add that his taking commercial planes rather than traveling on private planes was a disqualifier too, but they might have if they'd thought of it.
Riiight. And by the same token I'm not a woman because I don't think like Rodham Clinton.
I expect we will see more dirty tricks from the folks who support Ms. Rodham Clinton. When I see this kind of desperado garbage, I can think only of a parable from the silver screen. There is a striking scene in the eighties film of Stephen King's "The Dead Zone." Martin Sheen plays a presidential candidate who shows his true colors when a potential assassin in the balcony at a rally takes aim at him with a rifle... and he holds up an infant from the front row of the audience as a "shield." Yowzer.
Flashbulbs pop and it's curtains for the candidate, who has shown us in a split second what he's really made of.
The ABC debacle back in August and the DM register debate-exclusion fiasco have similarly shown the "hand" of the Iowa Democratic machine.
Nonetheless, it would seem that whatever doesn't kill the Kucinich campaign makes it stronger. It's not a children's crusade, never was. Obama may think he has copyrighted the word "hope" but Dennis is the one who's really offering the stuff to a starving nation.
Last night's broadcast New Hampshire town meeting in which Dennis hit full-force on issues no one has had the guts even to mention was an eye-opener. I can hardly wait for what happens next.
Posted by Amalie_Bear at 12/17/2007 @ 8:28pm
Posted by AMALIE_BEAR 12/17/2007 @ 8:28pm
There's nothing stopping Kucinich from being the "2008 Dean"....he isn't.
There's nothing stopping him from raking in tons of cash like Ron Paul....he isn't.
There's nothing preventing Kucinich from coming back from SINGLE-DIGIT polling numbers to be the front-runner like Mike Huckabee....he isn't.
Perhaps there's another reason DK isn't popular...and it's not "the corporate Media", but something a little closer to home.
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:05pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/17/2007 @ 10:03pm
RIO, when WHATEVER Dem wins next year....you flailing about, spitting venom, and them (likely) have atleast 1.5X Bush's approval ratings despite your rantings...
will be a thing of great humor to watch.
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:06pm
Mask: You attempt to refute claims I didn't make. My post addressed the issue of the Des Moines Register's desperado exclusion of Kucinich from their debate and ABC's earlier exclusion of him from their polls. I didn't compare him to Paul or Dean or Huckabee. I didn't complain about his poll numbers. Your universe is not tangent to ours, but that's okay.
Voters of my ilk-- those who look to restore constitutional democracy to a country that has been highjacked by corporate greed and bloodlust-- look to the long term, not to the flash in the pan. We are concerned for the next generations, concerned to provide them with education, healthcare, a safe and salubrious environment.
Maybe my "Dead Zone" comment touched a nerve. If so, sorry.
Posted by Amalie_Bear at 12/17/2007 @ 10:49pm
Perhaps there's another reason DK isn't popular...and it's not "the corporate Media", but something a little closer to home.
Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:05pm
yep. people are pigeons.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:58pm