Clinton Backer Bob Kerrey on Smearing Obama

While campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton this week, former Senator Bob Kerrey became the fourth Clinton supporter this month to raise a false smear against Barack Obama, one of her main rivals for the Democratic nomination. Adopting the bigoted language of lies that have circulated about Obama on the Internet, Kerrey falsely implied that Obama attended an Islamist school; falsely said that Obama had "chosen" to be Christian; and falsely claimed Obama was repelled by his own middle name. Obama is actually a life-long Christian and a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. In January, CNN debunked the smears against him, reporting that allegations that he "was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a ‘madrassa' are not accurate." In October, The Nation's Chris Hayes traced how false emails about Obama have gained traction online.

The smears come after several other dirty tricks from Clinton backers were exposed this month. Last week, Clinton Campaign Co-Chair Bill Shaheen falsely implied that Obama had a drug problem or possibly dealt drugs, while Clinton Campaign Pollster Mark Penn repeated similar charges on MSNBC. After over 24 hours of criticism, the Clinton Campaign announced that Shaheen made the personal decision "to step down" because the comments were unauthorized. On Monday, however, Clinton said that actually "we asked him to step down." Earlier this month, two volunteer chairs resigned from the Clinton Campaign after sending emails lying about Obama's religion, while a third Clinton volunteer was on the same email chain.

Yet Kerrey's comments are distinct because he is the highest level Clinton supporter to publicly push the Muslim smears against Obama, and he is also ratcheting up the rhetoric. In a series of high profile interviews, Kerrey has gone out of his way to cover every aspect of the smears – saying "Muslim," "madrassa," "Hussein" and that Obama chose Christianity – and also raising traitorous language. Pressed about his comments on CNN, Kerry purported to distance himself from the very smear campaign he was advancing: "There is a smear campaign going on. And people are acting as if he's an Islamic Manchurian candidate." That phrase only turns up 29 hits on Google, however, and nine of the references quote Kerrey. So very few "people are acting" or saying that – unless they're discussing Kerrey's sly effort to raise the line of attack.

In a Sunday interview with ABC, Kerrey offered some bizarre advice on ads Obama "should" run. "There's this nonsense out there about him being a Muslim Manchurian candidate. He should do a commercial, look the camera straight in the eye, and say, 'My wife Michelle and I are Christians, but my father was a Muslim and my paternal grandfather was a Muslim, and that fact and my name means I can speak to a billion people around the world…" Apparently, Kerrey thinks people will believe that as an experienced pol, his strategy to dispel a "Muslim Manchurian" smear is to run ads that say "Muslim" more often than "Christian."

Unlike the uproar over the other smears this month, however, the Clinton Campaign is not distancing itself from Kerrey's offensive. "I know Bob. He was being very complimentary of Sen. Obama," said Clinton, according to Tuesday's Quad City Times, an Iowa newspaper. Kerrey has assiduously wrapped the smears in complimentary language, yet that approach may also suggest how deliberately he is pushing each message. Channeling the bigoted attacks on Obama, for example, he repeatedly raises the middle name "Hussein." Thus he told the Washington Post: "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama." Of course, there is no evidence that Obama is repelled by his name. As The New York Times Caucus blog noted Monday night, "We don't think we've seen anywhere that Mr. Obama has disowned his name." Kerrey found another way to emphasize Hussein in his ABC interview, while ostensibly explaining his "second" reason for deciding that Obama has enough experience to be president: "His name is Barack Hussein Obama. I know that middle name is seen as a weakness by Republicans, but I don't think it is." The name "Hussein" compensates for inexperience and carries no electoral cost? Can anyone take these shifting arguments seriously? Whether assessing candidates, Obama's inner feelings, or G.O.P. strategy -- everything goes back to the smears for Kerrey.

So far, many reporters have given Kerrey the benefit of the doubt while further airing the smears. Under the misleading headline MADRASSAGATE, the Daily News even swooned that Kerrey offered "so powerful a compliment that one might think he was on the stump for Obama instead of Clinton." An odd claim, since the two words you never hear Obama backers say on TV are madrassa and Hussein. Americablog's John Aravosis, who is generally supportive of Clinton, called on the Clinton Campaign to muzzle their newest backer: "Kerrey is doing the dirty work of the Clinton campaign, or he's a rogue agent spreading racism in their name. Either way, the Clinton campaign needs to stop this, now."

He's right. Clinton should disown Kerrey's comments immediately. Given the stakes in this election and the costs of (even a perception) of lying character assasination in Iowa, I think both the Clinton and Obama campaigns would be better off without Kerrey's "complimentary" smears.

UPDATE: Readers contend that it is accurate to say Obama "chose" Christianity, since he became religious as a young man in Chicago. Given the accusations that he is hiding Muslim roots, however, it remains a questionable point for Kerrey to emphasize. Obama grew up with an unobservant Christian mother and an atheist father, and then became more observant as a young man. R.J. Escrow responds to this post by adding that "Kerrey falsely claimed Obama's father was a Muslim. Obama's father was an atheist." Again, this is another point where Kerrey has carefully pushed the agenda in a way that some would argue is technically accurate, but it suggests a careful strategy to push the smears. As The Christian Science Monitor reports:

[Obama's] father, a black Kenyan economist, was raised Muslim but was an atheist by the time Obama was born. His mother, a white Kansan, had Baptist and Methodist roots but viewed organized religion with a gimlet eye...

Finally, some readers defend Kerrey by noting that he raised the smears before, in an Economist interview posted on October 30. The Politico's Ben Smith cited the interview as one reason not to jump to "conclusions about the motives of the former Nebraska Senator." There are a few sentences from the interview quoted on the Economist site, here is a longer passage of Kerrey's answer, after a clip was played of Obama saying he would talk to friends and enemies of the U.S.:

Q. Fine words, But is, is--

K: Well they are fine words. Look I - I look at Barack Obama I think he does have substantial experience in areas that matter to me, personally. For example, he's addicted to nicotine. He's trying to kick the habit. You got a million adolescents every year in America who take up smoking. So he gonna be able to lead in the area. Second he's black. And you know, some black leaders are saying he's not, but he's black. And he can speak to youth in America, as he did in Selma, and tell them, that look, I'm for civil rights, I'm for more money in health and education, but if you don't work harder, if you aren't a good parent, if you choose self-destructive behavior there is nothing I can do to help you. And finally, I love that his name is Barack Hussein Obama; that he was educated for a while in a secular madrassa. I know the right wingers are saying that he's, you know, sort of an Islamic manchurian candidate, but he can speak like no other candidate to a billion Muslims on this earth and say we're not your enemy unless you make us so.

Got all that? First, "he's addicted to nicotine." "Second, he's black" -- even if people say "he's not," he really is. And "finally," some people say he is "an Islamic manchurian candidate," but Bob Kerrey thinks otherwise. If this interview is supposed to make Kerrey look better, then he's really in trouble.

Comments (120)

1. One wonders what the Clintons' promised payoff to tall-tale-teller Bob Kerrey is, in exchange for all his slimey bigot work. Ambassador to the UN? Paris? London? Cheap price for the Clintons to pay, given Kerrey's weighty service to Clintonian dynastic ambitions. And very much within the Clinton family "ethic,' as these pardon-sellers are the same people, let's not forget, who had a mentally ill man in Arkansas put to death to ensure that they looked tough on crime 15 years ago.

   Posted by sloper at 12/18/2007 @ 08:12am

2. Two points:

   1) Most Nation readers and the more astute public are sharply aware of the fact that Hillary Clinton is a Smithsonian quality example of a "Democrat in name only". In addition, her ever widening wake of nefarious financial supporters, and questionable ties with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Mark Penn's high powered corporate lobby smear machine should unequivocally rule her out of any consideration as the potential Democratic nominee.

   2) Barack Obama is looking like an increasingly dangerous gamble for Democratic voters. One thing for certain about Obama's starry-eyed campaign of "hope" is that no one really knows how he will react in the highbeams of the swift boat butchers. And the above Melber post is just one more indication of what is in store for the Democratic nominee.

   In stark contrast to Obama is the successful trial lawyer, John Edwards. What we can be certain about with him is that he will put up a valiant and fierce fight if attacked. And if there's any single factor that explains the low esteem of Congress in the public's eye it is the Democrats lack of fighting spirit.

   Case closed.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 09:00am

3. Elrond (paraphrased): "Gandalf. The enemy is moving. Lady Sauron's forces are massing in the East, her eye is fixed on Manchester. And Kerrey, you tell me, has betrayed us. Our list of allies grows thin."

   Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:08am

4. That's not bad, Maskot.

   Perhaps you may be learning a new trick or two. Now if you can just avoid the red herrings you're so fond of.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 09:16am

5. Posted by SLOPER 12/18/2007 @ 08:12am

   ambassador to the "new", "free", "democratic", iran they have planned?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 09:28am

6. well, it seems ms clinton

   is deeply

   involved in ASSHOLEGATE.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 09:31am

7. keith ellison for president.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 09:31am

8. The more Hillary's campaign goes negative, the more she's tied to repub's, hsuB's pappy even, the more she'll sink in the pools-- no matter how much she sheds tears in public... She looses the first states and she sinks even lower in the polls.

   The public* doesn't want the old tired practice of 'deception' any longer, no dic'tator-lite, our citizenry are ready for a 'real' US President ala our US Constitution.

   *And by 'the public'-- I'm not including souless reptilian new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

   Hillary needed to stick to the issues, that she's not willing to do so, or worse can't--- is a big red blinking light.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 09:32am

9. er, polls

   Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 09:33am

10. pool polls!?!?!?

    Freud anyone?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 09:34am

11. keith ellison for president.

    ~FZ

    Or at the very least, someone who doesn't spew the projectile vomit of "islamo-fascist" upon the public lap.

    By the way, I heard the supposedly charming Huckabee using that term.

    Imagine, if Obama and Huckabee are the nominees of their parties we could have a battle of hem-haw versus hee-haw.

    Yikes!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 09:37am

12. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 09:16am |

    Well, B_KOOL, by an odd coincidence, it only seems to be a "red herring" when....I disagree with you!

    (Or happen to show how an Internet meme about some "academic expert on fascism" isn't exactly accurate!)

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:41am

13. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 09:37am

    In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

    In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

    http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

    "James H. Hutson is chief of the Manuscript Division and the author of many books, including, most recently, "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," 1998."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 09:59am

14. Well, B_KOOL, by an odd coincidence, it only seems to be a "red herring" when....I disagree with you!

    (Or happen to show how an Internet meme about some "academic expert on fascism" isn't exactly accurate!)

    ~Maskot @ 09:41am

    Funny, Maskot.

    You've no sense of irony as I've mentioned on a previous occasion.

    I indicated to you in crystal clear fashion --not clear enough apparently to your beagle brain--, that an idea that has merit should be addressed by its content not by its author.

    So there you stand in denial of your propensity for red herrings while simultaneously chasing one to make a point.

    Fascinating.

    And a bit sad I might add.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 10:03am

15. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 09:37am | ignore this person

    Kerry's an ineffectual whore, and this is going to backfire. Lady Sauron's (if this spreads over the net we'll have to give mask the credit, phok ... The upside is she'll probably have him whacked for it) campaign, is dripping desperation. This is as base as it is stupid.

    Oh, and add Edwards, along with his last minute conversion, and you can have hoe de hoe with the hem and the hee.

    Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 10:09am

16. Posted by V 12/18/2007 @ 10:09am

    frosty zoom for president!

    yeah, i kinda like the sound of that.

    send donations to..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 10:13am

17. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 10:03am |

    Okay, B_KOOL....so if I provide a list of the failings of liberalism, by "Doctor" "Shawn Hannity"....and its Sean Hannity, right-wing radio DJ, and he's no holder of a doctorate...and he's merely firing one off to attack John Kerry in the 2004 Election...

    we merely debate the content...not any claims being made to "authority" or "credentials" for the commentator?

    That'd be a "red herring"....uh...right?

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am

18. Thanks for the post, FZ :-)

    "from In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England.

    As an aside, I would add that my recollections of John Locke are that he was a well respected political theorist of is day, but I much prefer the gregariousness, razor sharp wit, and eloquence of David Hume among the famous triumvirate of British empiricists --Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

    from Wiki:

    According to Locke, unused property is waste and an offense against nature.

    Thought you might find that interesting.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am

19. Hillary was and is as empty a suit as she would like to portray Barack as as can be illustrated by this poll:

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1383

    Thus Hillary's task was to clarify/solidify and make the issues as solid as possiple for the general election and be credible when calling out repub swiftboating as lies and be believable. By not doing just that she's wounded herself, not enoculated...

    By Hillary's campaign and Bill going negative, it has been interesting to see that which had made Bill so popular, now slowly being transfered, not to Hillary-- but to Barack. I do believe Bill is noticing that too and is in a quandry as to how to stop it... Calling Barack an empty suit won't help as illustrated above.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 10:18am

20. Another upside is, that with Shaheen, Penn and Kerry, along with the three whose names are not yet learned, there are at least six members of "the nine," identified ...

    Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 10:19am

21. Sorry, FROSTY....Article Two, Section One, Clause Five-

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:19am

22. er, inoculated

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 10:19am

23. Oh, and add Edwards, along with his last minute conversion, and you can have hoe de hoe with the hem and the hee.

    ~V @ 10:09am

    I enjoy your posts, V.

    But what, exactly, is your vision for how we are to proceed as citizens in this failing democracy.

    And please, no pie in the sky.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 10:23am

24. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 09:00am

    Your defense of Edwards is admirable given his "recent" conversion from DLC centrist as a senator to a populist progressive. I wonder what prompted this conversion, BKool? Why did the conversion coincide with the DLC falling out of favor with most Democrats?

    And he really should have taken that campaign advice he got early on: "Choose between being president and this monstrous 28,000 square foot house. This ain't the 1930s where grotesque displays of wealth were acceptable signs of power; and in 2008, you ain't gonna get hard working Americans who struggle paycheck to paycheck to fund your grassroots campaign when you are building super-sized mansions!"

    Edwards chose his super-sized mansion over common sense and now wonders why he hasn't raised the grassroots money he had hoped. "John, like I said a while ago, it ain't that you're white, running against a black and a woman, it's your love of money and grotesque displays of wealth that don't sit very well with the very voter you are trying to attract".

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 10:26am

25. "we merely debate the content."

    ~Maskot

    Absolutely.

    (And the implied comparison of Hannity with Lawrence Britt is patently unfair since you haven't even begun to show how Britt is a loony toon on par with Sean "insanity" Hannity)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 10:27am

26. According to Locke, unused property is waste and an offense against nature.

    Thought you might find that interesting.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am

    and property is defined as land you work "cultivate".

    in mexico (as per their constitution), if you work a piece of "unoccupied" land for 4 (i think) years, it's your property.

    everything was fine until recently. now the results are disastrous.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 10:30am

27. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 10:19am

    hey, zedillo modified the mexican constitution so fox could take the job (from 2 mexican parents to only 1 -- fox's mom is spanish).

    so write your representatives, now.

    in the meantime, send donations to................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 10:33am

28. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 10:27am

    B_KOOL, it's LaUrence Britt.

    And not saying one isn't more sane than the other...just saying NEITHER is a poli-sci, history, or government academic or researcher.

    But if you think you could restrain yourself from calling Hannity a loony toon, and merely discuss the content of his article....then I'll acknowledge the same for Britt.

    If you think you could do that????

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:35am

29. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/18/2007 @ 10:33am

    FROSTY, if they modify the Connie to allow foreign-borns to become President...it won't be for you (sorry), it'll be for...

    The Presidenator!

    He'll be baaak!

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:37am

30. Metteyya,

    Thanks for the post.

    Look, we can cut through all the crap about houses and haircuts. Edwards obviously got to where he is, in large part, because he's really freakin' ambitious.

    So what?!

    You, the Buddhist, completely discount the nuance that exists here. Most of us can clearly see that Edwards is not the entirely selfish monster that you're so disingenuously trying your damndest to paint him as.

    I suggest you pack up your suitcases of snakeoil, load up your wobbly wagon and head to more gullible pastures.

    And to anyone here who's thinking of buying the impotent concoction you're conning for, I warn them that they're playing with poison.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 10:42am

31. But if you think you could restrain yourself from calling Hannity a loony toon, and merely discuss the content of his article....then I'll acknowledge the same for Britt.

    If you think you could do that????

    ~Maskot

    I'll let you go, Maskot. You win.

    Now, take your chew toy to your corner, and quietly enjoy the fruits of your victory ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 10:46am

32. Assholegate indeed. This seemed eerily similar to Penn seeing how many times he can drop the word "cocaine" in the course of an interview. Kerrey might as well just be sitting there saying "Muslim Hussein Muslim Muslim Muslim Hussein Muslim" give me a break, this is dirty character assassination at its worse. Talk about running from the GOP muckbook Hillary (and supporters).

    Also, as far as electability, all the polls show a few important things: 1) Obama's electability against all of the frontrunners is at least as good as Hillary's, if not better (a lot better against Giuliani in latest USA Today poll). So he isn't "rolling the dice". 2) Hillary's negative rating in the general electorate is 50%, meaning 50% of Americans won't vote for her no matter what. The next least favorable candidate on either side of the aisle is 17% more less disliked than Clinton) THAT SHOULD SOUND WARNING BELLS! 3) Yes, as far as electability goes, Edwards also looks much better than Hillary as well.

    The point is, her electability argument is CRAP. Also the argument saying that Obama is "untested" against the GOP smear machine is crap as well. He has been doing quite well against Hillary's smear tactics, in fact the more she smears the less favorably people view her and her campaign. We need a candidate who can take the smears and flip them, instead of someone who is going to produce a FRENZY of anti-Hillary hate from the GOP. She says she has been "vetted" by her past experiences with the GOP machine, yeah, if by "vetted" you mean turned into damaged goods. Her 50% general election unfavorable rating is the result of her "vetting", she didn't learn to repel GOP attacks, she got her reputation STOMPED by the GOP, and the only reason they are being quiet now is because they are waiting (hoping) for her to get nominated so they can finish her off. Hillary would go into the general election with a huge handicap, whereas Obama doesn't have past baggage holding him back, and he has shown at ever instance that he can withstand smears (from both "friends" and foes) and come out on top every time. For anyone really paying attention there should be no doubt that Obama is much more electable and a much safer choice than Hillary.

    And yes, Edwards is safer too, but I still worry about his poor showing in 2004...he just doesn't have the wow power of Obama or his ability to bring in masses of independents and even some conservatives.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/18/2007 @ 10:49am

33. BKool, here is some more food for thought:

    The "fighting the corporations all my life" thing is also suspect. As a NC State graduate and graduate of UNC law school, what sort of options did he have if he wanted to make the big bucks? He couldn't go the white-shoe corporate route like the Duke law graduates across town because these firms don't recruit from UNC. So either you become a government lawyer like a prosecutor or public defender, which don't make that much money, or you chase ambulances, and at least have "a shot" and making big dough, which is what Edwards did.

    You take the big settlement and judgment opportunity away, and I doubt Edwards would have chased ambulances at all. In other words, he really didn't dislike corporations, they were just the deepest pockets available to sue in his desire to become a very wealthy man.

    I wish we could hear from all of those "would-be" plaintiffs that were TURNED AWAY as potential clients of Edwards because the defendants did not have deep enough pockets (i.e., Edwards settlement check wouldn't crack 7 digits). These would-be plaintiffs would expose Edwards as just another huckster lawyer out there trying to get rich, and his anti-corporate rhetoric as very hollow.

    Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 7:19pm

    When you contrast this history with Obama, we begin to see who is the real progressive.

    Obama, as a Harvard Law School graduate, and Editor-and-Chief of the Harvard Law Review, which is the highest academic distinction save graduating first in your class, could have gone to "any" of the best white-shoe corporate law firms in the country and become a very wealthy man. But instead of going the white-shoe corporate route, he goes to the South Side of Chicago, the "rough" side, and becomes a community organizer. During this experience, he learns of so many civil rights abuses of poor, predominately black people, he becomes a civil right lawyer, taking as many cases as he could, regardless of the settlement or judgment dollar potential. He didn't get rich doing this, and Michelle is clearly the bread-winner in his family.

    So we have Edwards, who could NOT go the white-shoe corporate route because he didn't get into to Duke law school, and therefore CHOSE the fastest path to becoming a wealthy attorney available, which was an ambulance chaser. And Obama, who graduated from Harvard law school as the first black Editor-and-Chief of the Harvard Law Review, CHOSE to bypass the best white-shoe corporate law firms in the country for life as a community organizer in one of the poorest communities in America, and took on civil rights cases that were the right thing to do, even if this meant that his wife would earn more money than him.

    Like you said, CASE CLOSED, as Obama is the true progressive among the electable Democrats!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 10:59am

34. Shouldn't this commentary be titled "Kerry's New Kiss of Death"....for either Clinton or Obama.....take your pick, heheheh!!!

    Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 11:04am

35. Bridoc,

    All of your arguments aside --and I appreciate them-- in the battle between Edwards and Obama for believability, Obama has been the guy who refuses to delineate himself clearly.

    Here's the latest in that regard:

    Paul Krugman's NY Times piece, "Big Table Fantasies"

    excerpt:

    The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator -- Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register -- suggested that Mr. Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on the wealthy and special interests, because "the same groups are often responsible for getting things done in Washington."

    Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we're going to sit at a table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."

    This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would include insurance companies and drug companies.

    On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that "We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."

    Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?

    Make no mistake, this upcoming election in 2008 is about nothing less than the resuscitation of our beached and bloated democracy.

    Obama's message of hope sounds all too similar to the last seven achingly painful years of Democratic submission to the gimlet eyed White House and its black hoard of minions.

    Again, in regards to Obama, where's the audacity?

    Whatever one's opinion of John Edwards, his message has been loud and clear.

    From the last debate:

    "So much (is) at stake in this election. You know, what makes America, America, is at stake. Jobs, the middle class, health care, preserving the environment, and the world for future generations.

    But all those things are risk, and why are they at risk? Because of corporate power, and corporate greed in Washington DC, and we have to take them on. You can't make a deal with 'em. You can't hope that they're gonna go away. You have to actually be willing to fight."

    So, please, let's elect a fighter this time! It may be our last.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 11:14am

36. Metteyya, You hit at an important point, one of the most important points of the entire campaign I think, which is often overlooked, and that is character. People are so used to politicians who have had had silver spoons in their mouths their whole lives that they overlook how much Obama has had to work his ass off and overcome to get where he is today. Obama didn't get where he is on anyone else's coattails and he has done amazing things nonetheless. You are also right that he could have graduated and went for big money jobs, yet instead he chose true public service and teaching, which also shows his great character. People like to discount him as "starry-eyed" and idealistic, but he done all this on his own, and he hasn't backed down, he is STRONG and it shows. He also still believes in transparent governance (wish Hillary did) and actually listening (which should never be confused with being weak or compromising on values, which is how both Bush and Hillary seem to view listening and collaboration), which is hugely refreshing after the administration we are leaving behind. Basically, he has PROVEN both his character and his abilities by everything he has accomplished on his own, and these cynical and baseless attacks against what his character "may" be like when he gets into the White House just show a lack of understanding of who he is and what he has accomplished.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/18/2007 @ 11:16am

37. And Kool, I do agree that Edward's fire on the topic is nice, but keep in mind that this fire didn't exist the last time he campaigned, yet rather just conveniently appeared for the current campaign season. I really do want to believe that it is sincere, but I'm cautious, and I think that caution is valid. Obama shouldn't be attacked because his campaign message is different. Despite the differences in rhetoric, I don't think their policies would be that different, and I don't think it is fair to assume that Obama will save to corporate special interests.

    I've said this and I'll say it again, if it weren't for Obama, my second choice vote would fall to Edwards, because his populist talk is appealing, but most of all, he isn't Republican-lite (ie conservative foreign policy, in the pockets of the AIPAC lobby, favorite past presidents include HW Bush and Reagan, going to have HW Bush as a good will ambassador to show the world we have "changed", former board member of wal-mart, etc). At least we can all agree we need either Obama or Edwards. I'm not trying to start any fights, I just think it is fair to keep things in context when juxtaposing how Edwards and Obama talk about getting things done..

    Posted by bridoc at 12/18/2007 @ 11:24am

38. So we have Edwards, who could NOT go the white-shoe corporate route because he didn't get into to Duke law school, and therefore CHOSE the fastest path to becoming a wealthy attorney available, which was an ambulance chaser.

    ~Budd Lite

    Get that disingenuous crap out of here, Metteyya. If that's your idea of a lay-up, get ready to have it unceremoniously slapped back in your face.

    The way to play the game is by driving the lane to the hole with authority, and dishing off or taking the ball up strong.

    That's clearly not Obama's philosophy. He'd prefer to fire off lame jumpers every time down the court.

    That doesn't win any games, Metteyya. And the fans will be booing loudly soon enough if he gets the nomination.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 11:28am

39. Now, where's my homeys at?

    Haskells? Dented Pat?

    Here comes the outlet pass.

    Slam it home, dudes.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 11:31am

40. Mett,

    I have held back really going off on you, but you are an idiot. Houses and Haircuts, that is what you care about. Not policy. Not who gets money from where, but houses and haircuts.

    And because Edwards was poor and couldn't go to an institution like Harvard and so couldn't pass up an oppurtunity to work for evil corporations, he is somehow not progressive enough.

    Not a word about what policies they support, and what constituencies support them. You are a mindless drone who lacks the knowledge or wit to talk about important things, so you cheerlead based on inanities. You do your candidate a disservice everytime you post one of your ridiculous comments. If Obama does win the primaries I am going to work real hard to separate my thoughts about him from my evaluation of you. I have a very smart friend who likes Obama. I will try to talk to him more once he is back on this side of the pond, just so I don't get trapped into thinking all Obama supporters are stuck making arguments fit for tabloids and VH1.

    B-Kool

    Locke only claims that spoilage abrogates the right to property in the state of nature. He doesn't mention it again except to say that money doesn't spoil, so the problem is taken care of. It is also important to note that he isn't really talking about land being allowed to go fallow, since nothing is wasted there but the oppurtunity to have already used it. He is, I believe, talking about apples in the example, something that is wasted through not being used in a timely manner. And again, once laws of property are enacted, he never mentions a spoilage proviso being a way around them. Locke on property is as libertarian as you get.

    V, My impression is that Edwards started changing his tune in 2004, and has continued moving left since then. The poverty initiative started after he and Kerry lost. The move left on Iraq started before it got unpopular with Republicans and independents (I think). If this is a calculating move on his part, it amounts to a four year investment. This isn't like Hilary Clinton changing her tune on the war early this year, or Romney changing his tune on abortion after he left the state house in Boston (or did he change it to run against Kennedy? I cannot remember). I can't prove what his motivations are, but I think you can agree that Edwards is at least not as clear a case of changing your policy to fit the polls as people like Clinton or Romney. If you think I have the timeline wrong, let me know.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 11:36am

41. Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 10:46am

    Really, B_...you should learn to be gracious in defeat...

    John Edwards no doubt will be!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 11:40am

42. Bridoc, These candidates pay PR people lots of money to craft their public persona. You don't know Obama's, Clinton's, or Edward's character anymore than you know Tommy Hilfiger's. Don't fall for the branding crap people. If you want to gage how reliable a person is to do certain things, follow the money. Generally speaking candidates rule in accordance with their donor's wishes, especially in a first term.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 11:40am

43. and these cynical and baseless attacks against what his character "may" be like when he gets into the White House just show a lack of understanding of who he is and what he has accomplished.

    ~Bridoc

    The buzz that's loudly humming at progressive muckraking sites like Counterpunch and ZNet, and even from someone as mainstream as Paul Krugman, is clearly about Obama's demonstrated obeisance to corporate power.

    Edwards is feared and loathed by very many in the highest reaches of DC because they know danger when they see it.

    Unfortunately, not enough of us are tuned into the zeitgeist.

    Another excerpt from Krugman:

    Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.

    There's a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what's wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."

    And there's every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week's Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

    But the news media recoil from populist appeals.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 11:48am

44. Just to comment on the actual article. Clinton's campaign is engaged in the religious equivalent of race-baiting. The people associated with this campaign need to be broken and dumped from the democratic party. All they do is bring in money that corrupts the party, and bring down the overall level of discourse. And they did the same thing in the 90's.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 11:49am

45. Bridoc, These candidates pay PR people lots of money to craft their public persona. You don't know Obama's, Clinton's, or Edward's character anymore than you know Tommy Hilfiger's. Don't fall for the branding crap people.

    Dented Pat

    Did you just see that pass? And the catch, and smooth powerful layup by my homey, "the Undaunted One"?

    I think you Obama boys are in over your heads.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 11:53am

46. B Kool

    In fairness to Obama, who is not as vapid as Mett makes him sound, it is possible to believe that Obama speaks in vague outlines, and focuses on mushy ideas like bipartisanship and bringing the country together in order to dupe the large donors and to dupe the mushy headed, like Mett.

    If we are willing to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt sufficient to overlook that he was, in the best case, a politically cowardly Senator, and believe that he is being truthful now, we should extend the same benefit of the doubt to Obama. The one thing Mett gets right in her gossipy little posts is that Obama has acted in ways consistent with progressivism his whole life.

    I don't like the strategy of being a stealth progessive, and so I will continue to support Edwards. I think one of the main benefits that presidential campaigns bring is the clash of ideologies, and the opening that creates to change minds. Obama has shown he will not fight the ideological battles during the campaign. I don't think he has shown, yet, that he won't fight for good policies if he is president.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 11:55am

47. Does it strike anyone else that Krugman, who is a pretty good economist, plays a little fast and loose when talking about politics. I like the results of the Fox and CNN debate groups, but I don't see a reason to trust them (we don't know anything about how the participants were chosen, what questions they were asked, how much of the result depending on that stupid handset they had). My own opinion was that Edwards didn't perform well at all for the Des Moines Register, and that Dodd (who gets a lot of money from shady sources. Not as much as Obama, and not nearly as much as Clinton, but a good amount nonetheless) was the only one who did what he needed to do.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 12:01pm

48. I don't like the strategy of being a stealth progessive, and so I will continue to support Edwards. I think one of the main benefits that presidential campaigns bring is the clash of ideologies, and the opening that creates to change minds. Obama has shown he will not fight the ideological battles during the campaign. I don't think he has shown, yet, that he won't fight for good policies if he is president.

    ~DENTEDPAT

    Well said, my nuanced friend. I don't disagree with your final sentence either, but the central question that we must keep sharply in focus is this, "What will it take to restore our democracy, and who is the viable presidential candidate that best personifies the decided upon strategy?".

    Edwards is, in my opinion, the slam-dunk answer to the question.

    I'm not suggesting he's a god among men, but simply the best available tool with which to shatter the mirrored halls of our Versailles on the Potomac.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 12:06pm

49. I think we are turning into an echo chamber BKool. I am going to go to the library. To V and Bridoc, I hope to engage in constructive debate with you later. To Mett, I have given up on you ever engaging in constructive debate with anyone. If your goal was to wear me down with foolishness then strap on a flight suit and declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 12:10pm

50. Does it strike anyone else that Krugman, who is a pretty good economist, plays a little fast and loose when talking about politics.

    ~DP

    I like Krugman because he's a gifted writer and he gets conservatives worked into a lathered frenzy of anger and hatred. And he does it so calmly.

    But he is a politico too. It's not difficult to surmise that he might be angling for a job in the next (Democratic) administration --something plum perhaps.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 12:12pm

51. Good day :-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 12:13pm

52. Bridoc, These candidates pay PR people lots of money to craft their public persona. You don't know Obama's, Clinton's, or Edward's character anymore than you know Tommy Hilfiger's. Don't fall for the branding crap people.

    Dented Pat

    Tell this to the people (Kool, for one) who use Obama's crafted campaign persona as an indicator that he is weak willed and not able to fight the Republicans. That's an interesting double standard. This is the point I've been making all over the place: Obama is not weak, nor is he stupid, he knows what he is doing and I've seen every indication that he will stand up strongly against Republicans if he is president, I just expect him to not be as dividing in his rhetoric as Edwards is. Don't get me wrong, yet again I'll say this, I love Edwards and his fiery rhetoric, but his supporters who use that and say this is proof that Obama is a wimp next to him are obviously not getting the point expressed above, not to mention they are silent when people, justifiably, point out that he himself was lackluster in his campaign performance just a few years ago...he didn't show any of these fiery populist anti-corporate positions, yet here they are magically when he needs to win an election. My point is, don't pretend that Edwards is definitely going to walk the walk if elected, and don't assume that Obama won't walk the walk if he is elected. These are campaigns people and we just have to try to know the real people behind them, and have faith that we chose correctly. We can agree the Hillary isn't the one we want, but the last thing we need is to be attacking the two progressive frontrunners because of differences in message, that amount to little or nothing more than campaign rhetoric. So really, can we stop this nonsense? Edwards and Obama are both good candidates and I'll be happy with either of them, even if I do have my own definite preference. What I won't be happy with is Hillary winning, and that should be the real focus here, supporting the good candidates, not doing HRC people a favor by tearing each other down..

    And no Kool, us "Obama boys" are no in over our heads.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/18/2007 @ 12:14pm

53. To Bridoc:

    "I don't disagree with your final sentence either"

    ~b kool --in reply to DP's statement that Obama will fight too.

    And no Kool, us "Obama boys" are not in over our heads.

    ~Bridoc

    I'm just having a little fun ;-)

    I'll catch you next time. Good day to you too, Bridoc.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 12:19pm

54. Too bad B_KOOL left....

    just getting ready to ask how Edwards is doing in South Carolina?...

    and why?

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 12:34pm

55. Aside from the debate about who is really a better candidate, it's a sorry commentary on the American public and those who are supposed to serve them that the Muslim issue finds resonance. Christians like to denigrate Islam as if it's appreciably different in theology than Christianity. Of course, there are opposing social manifestations, but these are much more due to geography than religion. The Middle East is not America, and no matter what religion is practiced, there will be huge cultural and political gaps.

    Islam, Judaism, and Christianity of all stripes come from the same roots. They all believe in one (pretty angry, jealous, overbearing, unreasonable) god, the devil, and similar notions of an afterlife with punishment and rewards. I have been told that Jews don't believe in an afterlife, but I'm not sure if this pertains to all Jews or just reformed.

    In any case, Muslims don't believe Jesus was a deity, but they do believe he was a prophet. That's a substantial distinction, but it still comes down to specific dogma. The three Abrahamic religions are patriarchal, oppressive, and exclusionary. They differ in degree but not kind. It's just amazing that the various Protestant sects still fight over what amount to minor discrepancies in dogma and practice, that some Protestants think Catholics or Mormons are not "true" Christians, that Muslims see Christians as heretics and vice versa, and that Catholics still believe they own the real religion.

    What a horrendous statement it makes about Americans in general and politicians specifically that there is any issue whatsoever about religion in this presidential campaign. All religions are made up stories with no hard evidence to prove one way or another. It's unfortunate that "faith" is such an overvalued characteristic compared to being "rational" or "scientific." Imagine a candidate running as a man or woman of "reason" rather than a man or woman of "faith." Instead, the "reality based community" is held in contempt, at least by those who seek to distort the truth.

    In fact, science seems to be viewed by some religious commentators as a perverse form of religion. (I don't have the quotes here, but this is not just a straw person - I've heard it said and seen posters who have written comments to this effect.) Science, of course, is not a religion, it's a method of discovering how the world and life works through empirical evidence. It would be so refreshing to find a candidate who was willing to promote that notion and base his or her issues on logic, historical facts, and scientific study.

    It's no more plausible that Christianity has the "right" answers than it is that Islam does, but in the US, being accused of being a Muslim has deleterious effects. It's ridiculous, shallow, narrowminded, and bigoted, and it's not just a result of 9/11, although that surely inflated the problem.

    I couldn't care less if Obama's father was a Muslim or even if he is, if Romney is a Mormon, or if any candidate is an atheist or agnostic. I do, however, care if the candidate's religion infuses his or her decisions as president. No candidate should ever be held to account for religious beliefs, and those beliefs should surely not be used in smear campaigns. It is imperative that candidates are emphatic in their assurances that their religion will not be a factor in their governance.

    The rest should be private. It's an abomination that the Clinton campaign, along with those who are clamoring against Romney (whom I seriously dislike for many other reasons), have used religion as a weapon to disparage anyone.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 12/18/2007 @ 12:45pm

56. "I enjoy your posts, V.

    But what, exactly, is your vision for how we are to proceed as citizens in this failing democracy.

    And please, no pie in the sky."

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 10:23am | ignore this person

    I'll think about it and get back to you, once my mental ducks are in a row. (O ... how about, peach cobbler?)

    In the mean time;

    A fact heretofore overlooked is that Kerrey lied when he claimed Obama's father was a Muslim. Obama's father was an atheist.

    Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 12:47pm

57. It's all good..

    I just can't wait until this primary crap is all over, so we can either start focusing on the real enemies, or tune out because I don't care anymore if Hillary is nominated :P

    Posted by bridoc at 12/18/2007 @ 12:59pm

58. Cannot stand any more all the tactics Hillary' campaign used to smear Obama.

    If she becomes the nominee, she definitely will not get the votes of mine, my husband and anybody close to me.

    I will convince everybody close to me not to vote for this dishonest power hungry woman.

    Hill and Bill is dirty, dishonest, mean and manipulative. They deserve each other, but we don't deserve them.

    Posted by may2002 at 12/18/2007 @ 1:02pm

59. Before they sold Lincoln's bedroom,

    now they sell pre-presidency package.

    Whoever is willing to be their surrogates or hired guns will get a title/position in the next Clinton White House.

    Posted by may2002 at 12/18/2007 @ 1:04pm

60. Posted by MAY2002 12/18/2007 @ 1:02pm

    So who do you support?

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 1:10pm

61. I am not on my computer (I just couldnt resist jumping back in the fray) and for a moment I saw Rese and was horrified. Luckily I logged back in and the comments section got a page or two shorter.

    Bridoc,

    I am not sure you read all my posts, but that isn't your fault exactly. There are a lot of them and they come rapid fire.

    I don't argue much against Obama's character. I don't think he is weak. I think he has made a strategic decision not to fight any ideological battles. This is a good way to get fence sitters and other independents, because alot of them occupy the position they do out of a distaste for discussing policy details and the hard facts of economics and history. I think that strategy goes hand in hand with his courtship of the big money players in Wall Street. I don't have a double standard as far as I can tell. In fact I just posted a comment about it being unfair not to give Obama the same benefit of the doubt as B Kool and I give Edwards.

    Now as for Obama's strategy let me say I don't think division is bad, nor do I think partisanship is bad. There are real conflicts of interest in this country, and real conflicts of ideology. Not talking about them leaves them in place to rear their head everytime you try and get something sensible done. Only by going through the ugly hard fight of taking on the opposing ideology and vested interests can you acheive lasting gains. While it can sound simplistic and far too undetached for lots of the ivy-league liberals I spend my day with, politics is essentially a fight between the powerful few (most of the wealthy) and everyone else. The wealthy have not and will not lay down their arms in this fight. They will continue pursuing class war under the cloak of classical liberalism (in the name of people like John Locke for instance). A candidate who refuses to take part in that struggle doesn't transcend it or cause the fight to stop. He just cedes vital public space to the rich. He allows another election cycle to go by where falsehoods like 'markets always lead to better outcomes without government interference', and 'everyone can make it if they work hard' go unchallenged. Meanwhile environmental catastrophe awaits and the suffering of the poor grows.

    So there is my argument. I don't think I know Obama. If I had to guess I would guess he is like alot of my ivy-league liberal freinds, who think fighting the class war is so 1800's. I like those people (To anticipate Mask's question, I would call myself an Ivy-League Populist by the way. Rare breeds we are, and bitter. We sneak in on fellowships and GRE scores, and are left feeling out of place when our students come to class in outfits that cost more than our cars). I wouldn't support them for president anymore than I will support Obama.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 1:29pm

62. Clinton or Obama is rapidly becoming a GOP fantasy. By the time these two are finished with each other, the GOP could nominate a pedophile serving time for embezzlement and win in a walk.

    Posted by GUPDOG

    Well luckily running a embezzling pedophile is actually right up the GOP alley if you've been paying attention to their "ethical problems".

    But no, Obama won't be a dream for the GOP, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that that will be the case. Granted, I'm sure the GOP will borrow all of Hillary's mudslinging and apply it to Obama, but I don't think the mud will stick. Especially if Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee get the nomination, seriously, do you think any of them have any lack of weak spots? Haha, give me a break, the Republican primary makes the Dem primary look like a cuddle fest in terms of mudslinging (for the most part).

    Basically I'm saying, maybe you should back up some of your accusations with facts? Because I'm getting really tired of people saying crap with nothing backing it up. Thanks.

    Posted by bridoc at 12/18/2007 @ 1:31pm

63. South Carolina is not going well for Edwards, it is true. I think money explains it. He had the lead there until the Obama and Clinton campaigns really got going. He has to spend money on Iowa or else he is shot.

    He has raised more money there than from any other democrat, and has raised more money in North Carolina than any other candidate, so there is some reason for hope.

    [opensecrets.org]

    I don't see him having a chance unless he wins Iowa, does well in New Hampshire (2nd place would be necessary I think), and Clinton's support evaporates once people realize she is not guaranteed to win.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 1:36pm

64. I apparently cannot work the html tags.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 1:37pm

65. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/presstatetots.asp?State=SC

    that is the link

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 1:37pm

66. address! not link!

    dammit

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 1:37pm

67. Houses and Haircuts, that is what you care about. Not policy. Not who gets money from where, but houses and haircuts.

    BKool,

    Policy positions can be faked so we need to dig a little deeper to learn what the candidate really values.

    Edwards couldn't go the white-shoe corporate route because these law firms only recruit from the elite law schools. So is he really anti-corporate or just pursuing the career path that was available to him if he wanted to become a wealthy lawyer? Certainly he could have chosen public service instead, and become a prosecutor or a public defender, but he chose ambulance chasing, and I think it is reasonable to ask why?

    The house? Edwards was just plain stupid to build a 28,000 square foot house during an election year when he wants us to believe he is a progressive and donate what little hard earned cash we have to him. If we have to sacrifice each payday to make ends meet, why doesn't Edwards sacrifice this grotesque display of wealth and use the money to fund his campaign?

    My haircuts cost $12 so it is hard to imagine a $400 haircut. I know this is a media driven campaign so maybe he believes he has to do this to look his best. But it is back to the issue of authenticity, does one who is "authentic" behave in this way?

    And I guess you missed my response to Paul Grugman. Here it is again:

    Response to Paul Krugman:

    It is you, Paul, that are being naive, if you think "politics as usual" in Washington is the way to go forward in getting universal healthcare for all Americans. Hillary tried your "Let's fight and polarize the country" approach and where did it get her? Where did it get universal healthcare?

    "Politics as usual" pundits like yourself need to understand that we need to turn the page on the divisive partisan wars of the past if we are to bring about meaningful change in Washington. Simply digging a trench and drawing a line in the sand won't get you the votes that you need to pass universal healthcare legislation.

    Posted by METTEYYA 12/17/2007 @ 10:04am

    Being a "fighter" is cool, but fighting just to be fighting ain't very productive!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 1:43pm

68. More ignorance from Mett

    If we have to sacrifice each payday to make ends meet, why doesn't Edwards sacrifice this grotesque display of wealth and use the money to fund his campaign?

    Because he accepted federal matching funds, which prohibits him from spending his own money.

    and the Houses and Haircuts line that you used was mine, not BKools. We are thinking so much alike at this point that we are writing the same things though. I would suggest taking some time, doing some reading, and coming back to argue for your candidate when you know something about the issues. Or, if you already know about the issues, do some yoga until your obsession with the silly aspects of campaigns is cleansed from you.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 1:58pm

69. Hillary tried your "Let's fight and polarize the country" approach and where did it get her? Where did it get universal healthcare?

    You are referring to her boondoggle for the big insurance companies? That was fighting, but fighting for the very rich and powerful against the somewhat less rich and powerful. This isn't the fight Edwards, BKool or myself are talking about.

    Being a "fighter" is cool, but fighting just to be fighting ain't very productive!

    Yeah, that is what is under discussion here, fighting for the sake of fighting. Get real. Fighting so that poverty is not ignored by the next democratic president, fighting so that unions don't go belly up, fighting so that median wages stop stagnating, is not fighting for fighting's sake. Fighting so that corporations can't weight elections against the interest of the people with their large donations, and fighting to prevent the economic domination of the third world by multinationals is not fighting for fighting's sake.

    I have decided to hound you until you give way to more articulate, more informed, more mature, and more honest defenders of Obama. This is an important debate to have, the debate between Edwards and Obama, and you get in the way.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 2:10pm

70. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/18/2007 @ 1:36pm

    Not sure I see "money" as Edwards main problem in South Carolina.

    Clinton has much of the African-American vote, and what she doesn't have goes to Obama. And the moderate-even-conservative SC white Democrats aren't so keen on all the "populism" from Edwards, i.e. his attempt to channel Bobby Kennedy.

    Frankly, I don't see, even if Obama implodes after New Hampshire (which is unlikely) how Edwards can win in either a scenario where Hillary is winning...or Hillary is losing.

    If winning, she sweeps up those votes in SC she already has, and any potential switch in the African-American vote to Obama ends. And they aren't going to go to Edwards.

    If losing, the "Hope Campaign" of Obama's will be on the march and stirring up excitement both in the SC black vote and in some of the SC moderates, etc. And again, Edwards comes out on bottom.

    Edwards may be the most electable in the General Election...but he's got a helluva PRIMARY fight that he has to win first....and (you're right) if he loses Iowa AND New Hampshire....South Carolina will be make-or-break (but likely already "broken").

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 2:12pm

71. I would suggest taking some time, doing some reading, and coming back to argue for your candidate when you know something about the issues

    Give me 5 minutes and I can "create" and issue platform for any candidate that makes him or her LOOK LIKE a progressive. The only real "issue" for the voter, however, is whether the candidate ACTUALLY IS a progressive!

    To figure this out, we can't stay trapped in the issue-matrix the candidate has created for us, we need to step outside this matrix and look at all they key decisions they have made in their life and ask the simple question: Would a true progressive have made those same decisions?

    For Obama, the answer is clearly, yes; for Edwards, it is a resounding, NO!!! No, to joining the DLC and voting their way in the Senate, no, to 28,000 square foot mansions, and, no, to ambulance chasing over public service!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 2:13pm

72. Edwards' explanation sounds alot like the reasonable interpretation of Obama's rightward slide the last few months. He tried to play the big money game, and ended up serving the donors. I think he is being a bit to easy on himself, I think there had to be a fair amount of cowardice involved too (especially with regards to Iraq, where it looks like he ceded his own moral agency to the party leadership).

    But the narrative for Bill Clinton looks to work the same way. Someone of leftish opinions who tried to play the big money donors, but got played himself and ended up supporting, in some cases, very right wing positions. This is not that incredible an explanation.

    If you want to debate based on Edward's record, and how to properly intepret it, I am pleased to do so. It would amount to you taking part in the real debate. It is more than fair to hold Edwards accountable for doing wrong from 1998-2003. But please leave aside the baseless speculation on his motives for being a trial lawyer (if you do research and find cases he tried which went against the public interest, that would be potentially daming, because a combination of bad strategy and cowardice would not explain wrongdoing while he was a self-sufficient and independent attorney) and the stuff about houses and haircuts (especially because no one seems to know what the other candidates spend on theirs). Do that I will refrain from insulting you.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 2:26pm

73. Mask, I will go farther; If Edwards loses in Iowa (unless he is a very close second) he is done (barring a scandal for one of the other big two. A live possibility for Clinton, not as much for Obama). his New Hampshire strategy seems to depend entirely on momentum from Iowa.

    As for money, I think the national attention Clinton is getting, combined with holdover support for her husband explains the success Clinton is having with African Americans, and that the war chest she has accounts for national attention. Whether Edwards is involved or not, Obama will end up taking a significant percentage away. If Edwards is still in it come South Carolina, I think the African American vote will split and he will be able to get into a three way race, and will have to trust to luck, just like in Iowa. If we wins all three early contests the press will get behind him because he is pretty (sad to say), and small donations will come pouring in, and I think he will be set. I put his odds of winning at around 10% though.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 2:31pm

74. Oh, I should say I wasn't fair to Bridoc. On closer reading, she was not accusing me of applying a double standard, so I apologize for the implication that you did. I do stand by the general explanation of my opposition to Obama though.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 2:55pm

75. I've said this before but think of this strategy by Hillary:

    People either hate her or love her. There are very few inbetweens (that I've seen). So they'll either vote for her or vote against her for another candidate. So that means she gets 50% of the vote while the other candidates have to share the other 50%. Hillary wins. She wins the primary but loses the general. I think the republicans are frothing to get her elected in the primary. I even heard Sean Hanity saying that the radio talk show hosts need to take their christmas vacation so Hillary can regroup. I'm sure that was tongue in cheek but I'm not above another conspiracy theory - been hearing them for the last 7 years.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/18/2007 @ 2:56pm

76. I put his odds of winning at around 10% though.

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/18/2007 @ 2:31pm

    No matter the specifics...that sounds about right.

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 3:13pm

77. BTW, I'll add this...

    If Edwards doesn't get the nomination, he could still come back in 2016.

    He'd still be young (63), a bit "distinquished" than "boyish" (as now), and if he's "done a Nixon" and worked the Party, done fund-raisers for other Dems, etc.....he could challenge either Hillary's Veep, or a Repub elected in 2012.

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 3:19pm

78. Fritz commits a fallacy. That there are two options does not mean that there is a fifty percent chance that either option will hold, it just means the odds for the two will add up to 100, or 1 depending on how academic you are. When you have late stage cancer, there are two options, die from it or remission. That doesn't mean that you have a 50% chance of remission (as my family has found out more than once). I think it is right that there are few in betweens with Clinton. But I don't think it is right that 50% of the democratic base is bound to vote for her.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 3:20pm

79. Clinton or Obama is rapidly becoming a GOP fantasy. By the time these two are finished with each other, the GOP could nominate a pedophile serving time for embezzlement and win in a walk.

    Posted by GUPDOG 12/18/2007 @ 1:22pm

    AGAIN?!?!?!?!?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 3:22pm

80. Let me just say all the evidence points towards Edwards and Obama being safe against every GOP candidate, and Clinton only losing to McCain (the polls said this in the spring and early summer, and it was confirmed by the latest CNN poll, which I posted here a day or two ago).

    The difference is probably accounted for by the fact that Clinton and McCain are so close to each other on foreign policy and economic policy that Clinton cannot attack his positions much, and they are left with personal narratives only. And McCain for all he has been selling himself to evil people and evil causes for the past 8 years still has the POW who passed up a chance to go home out of soldierly solidarity story to appeal to. Hilary has, 'I stuck by my adulterous husband, after riding his mendacity to power and influence.'

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 3:26pm

81. Posted by METTEYYA 12/18/2007 @ 10:59am

    If you are going to attack Edwards' resume, you really should try to actually learn about it first.

    Posted by Hman23 at 12/18/2007 @ 3:33pm

82. Mask,

    I would not be surprised if lots of democrats don't stick around until 2016. If Clinton is the candidate I think there is a real chance you will see a large portion of the democratic base leave the party. This is how parties die and get replaced, when the base shifts away from leadership and consistently has their demands denied. Its how the Democrats lost people to the Populist movement in the late 1800's (when the Southern Democratic party began to die. Only a shift towards leadership from the northeast progressives saved it, and saved it in name only), and it is how the Whigs lost the anti-slavery movement in the 1850's. I know I won't be giving anymore money to the Democratic party if Clinton is the candidate, nor will I be voting for her (but I live in New York so my vote is nearly meaningless).

    I think a similar move is brewing among Christian conservatives. As the old guard leadership dies or goes senile (Falwell, Robertson, Graham), there is a chance for new voices not beholden to republicans to rise up and point out the demands the Bible makes with regard to the environment and poverty. They won't go democrat, but I could see them start running their own people for state and local races, and directing their campaign contributions elsewhere.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 3:34pm

83. I'll concur with the 10% estimate for an Edwards nomination, and add that the variables are so volatile right now that the making of these "estimates" is a bit like shooting at high flying ducks from a moving boat in windy conditions with a single shot 4-10.

    Good luck.

    We'll know a lot more after Iowa which is now just over 2 weeks away.

    In the meantime, I sincerely hope that The Nation magazine can do us all a favor and do justice to the spirited Obama-Edwards debate that's been happening in their blog post comments threads.

    And I hope they continue to expound and expand on the myriad reasons why Hillary Clinton is such a miserable choice for Democratic voters in general, and progressives in particular.

    I'll just call that my Nation Christmas list. And no lumps of (Edwards avoidance) coal, please.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 3:35pm

84. Edwards CENTRIST voting record as a Senator:

    He voted in 2000 to grant most-favored-nation trading status to China (Bill Number: HR 4444);

    He voted to table an amendment that would lift ban on Americans traveling to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234);

    He voted to make it tougher on those who have financial misfortune and declare bankruptcy (Bill Number: HR 833);

    He voted for religious symbols in public schools (Bill Number: S 254);

    He voted to strengthen penalties for juvenile offenders (Bill Number: S 254);

    He voted against military base closures (Bill Number: S 1059);

    He voted for Bush's no child left behind scam that emphasizes testing skills over learning, and guaranteed military recruiter access to public schools (Bill Number: HR 1);

    He voted against prescription drug benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1);

    He voted against protecting Social Security and Medicare budget surpluses (Bill Number: HR 4577);

    He voted against increasing the minimum wage TWICE (Bill Number: S 625);

    He voted for use of military force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114);

    He voted for Patriot Act that violates our civil liberties (Bill Number: HR 3162).

    Like I said, give me 5 minutes and I can "craft" an issue platform for a candidate to run on that makes one LOOK LIKE a progressive, but as Edwards centrist voting record demonstrates, HE AIN'T NO PROGRESSIVE!!!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 3:47pm

85. Whistle and a 10 minute game misconduct to Metteyya. That's an automatic ejection for disingenuous blogging and attempted drive-by character assassination.

    Yo' Budd Lite. Cut the crap already!

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 4:03pm

86. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/18/2007 @ 3:34pm

    That depends on your view of "the base" (Dem OR Repub).

    For instance, if Hillary is the Dem nominee....it's a "slap" to the liberal base (supposedly).

    But if Huckabee is the GOP nominee....he's the Dream Candidate (less talking nice about poverty) of the Religious Right (preacher, "pro-life", "real" Christian unlike Romney...in their minds).

    If Obama or Edwards, the Dem base may be appeased. If Giuliani or Romney, the Repub base (the RRs) may be the ones getting pissed.

    But what does a pissed off base....do?

    DO they split off? (libs to "Greens"...cons to some new "Traditions Party"?) I don't think so. Mostly because I think their leadership (Pat Robertson or James Dobson...or Air America or Huffington Post) will play the "Now, now, children...let's not cut off our nose to spite our face" and moderate any talk of splitting off.

    But, if they do...they'll lose. No more than 20-25% of the electorate is "the base" of either Party. RRs break off and for the "Christian Party"...liberals and moderates win for decades.

    Liberals break off and boost the "Greens" or (given the "People's Front of Judea" mentality) a DOZEN left-wing parties....DLC and Repubs blend and run the roost for years (or until a Great Depreesion).

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 4:26pm

87. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 4:26pm

    the base -- al qa-eda in arabic.

    but what happens if the base splits on BOTH sides.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 4:30pm

88. Somewhere Al Gore is laughing.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/18/113051/03

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 4:43pm

89. but what happens if the base splits on BOTH sides.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/18/2007 @ 4:30pm

    Very tough scenario to imagine. Hillary as President would re-unite the Repubs. Limbaugh et al would paint her as both "tax and spend" and "appointing anti-Christian judges" and they'd remain solid.

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 4:52pm

90. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/18/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Who cares? It's not like he's in the political arena or anything. Just another lecturer.

    Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 4:53pm

91. Somewhere Al is laughing at Frita...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 5:00pm

92. I can't vouch for all the claims Mett made, and her history of asserting false fundraising claims makes me doubt one or two of these descriptions of votes (and some of them I have no problem with, like base closings and religious symbols), but there are two votes that every Edwards fan has to admit were terrible and find some way to explain to themselves; the war and the Patriot Act. Not only is there was there no good argument for either vote at the time, they represent two of the central three issues of this campaign, the war, restoring the constitution, and the economy.

    I have given my explanation. Edwards came to the Senate when the DLC ran the Democratic party, and as a Southern Democrat it was easy for him to identify with a group made up of a lot of blue dogs. He tried to play within the system of Democratic politics and ended up being a rather terrible Senator. When he ran for president he started being more independent (to the point that the DLC felt the need to get Wesley Clark to be their man against Dean and Kerry. Going into that election I am sure they thought Edwards was their guy.) culminating in his last few months of campaigning when he was economically farther to the left than any candidate except Kucinich. He could't go back to the DLC after that, and moved hard left on basically every issue within the first year of the failure of the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

    Why this happened is open for debate. Maybe he legitimately believed the crap that comes out of the DLC and PPI, and then learned different. Maybe he never believed it but lacked the courage to go it alone, and so stayed within the party institutions until he found his oats on the campaign trail. Maybe being around Kerry (who is a much better Senator than his lousy presidential campaign would make you think) broke him of bad habits. Either way I think it is implausible that he thought that denying himself any access to corporate money or major media attention was a way to win in '08, and everyone knew that is where he was headed by being so anti-corporate, not just in rhetoric but in suggested policies.

    Both Obama and Edwards supporters have to break with cynicism at some point. Edwards supporters have to think that he has changed his mind, or his ways. Obama supporters have to think that he won't be beholden to the corporations that give him so much money. (and anticipating Mett's 'he doesn't accept PAC or lobbyist money' ond 'he is supported by the grassroots' claims, let me repeat; go to opensecrets.org and look it up. He does get PAC money, and he is second only to Clinton in money form major corporate sectors.)

    I side with the guy not being paid by the enemy.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:09pm

93. I am agreeing with Mask so much.

    Short term the first base to split will produce a loser. By short term I mean three or four election cycles. But long term I doubt the opposing coalition sticks together without a foil. Suppose you get a new party which forms around unions, anti-globalization activitists, single payer health care advocates, anti-war activists and environmentalists (Call them the Anti-corporate party. I would say such a party would right away pull in 15-20% of the electorate with unions responsible for most of it, if it weren't for the dumb name I have given them. Long term I believe this party could capture a majority.). That party doesn't upset Christian conservatives much. Gets harder for Goldman Sachs candidates to get the Christian conservatives to vote for lower taxes for the wealthy and free trade because they have no credible threat of the 'godless liberals' anymore. Makes it more likely that the Christian conservatives start questioning the rather unnatural alliance they have formed with big business and southern racists (still a significant minority in the Republican party I think. I base this on nothing more than my time living in Southern Illinois and my wife's time in North Carolina. It is bad in both places, and you are still hours from Alabama).

    Is my scenario better than one where the base sticks with the Democrats? Don't know. Two big pressing problems, Global Warming and the growth of corporate power, that might be insoluble if it takes 16 years to get to them. On the other, real chance if things go as they are that you won't deal with them in 16 years anyway.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:22pm

94. Also did anyone notice that Mett includes House bills (HR designation) in the bills Edwards supposedly voted for or against while in the Senate? I am looking up some of these bills (and in some cases have to look up their Senate equivalents), but this is a really basic mistake Mett.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:26pm

95. Mett is either lying or getting her info from a liar

    HR 4444 is not about most favored nation status, it is titled "To suspend temporarily the duty on Polycaprolactone Acrylate". It was brought to the House floor in 2007

    S 1234 doesn't mention Cuba, it is about Iran. And it was brought to the floor in 2007, so Edwards didn't vote for it.

    HR 833 doesn't mention bankruptcy. It does talk about loans to farmers, so might in some way have led to making bankruptcy harder. But it came to the house floor in 2007 too.

    I will continue with this list later, but I have to go make dinner. Either way I think this should put the nail in the coffin for Mett's credibility. It seems her five minutes of research was done in the wrong place.

    Bye Mett, I am done with you.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:37pm

96. shit strike that last post. I meant to delete it when I noticed my mistake, but sent it instead

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:38pm

97. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/18/2007 @ 5:26pm

    Let me help you out, DENTEDPAT; here is the link to Edward's voting record in the Senate:

    http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

    He voted for each and every one of hose centrist items in my above post, so check out the site and apologize if you are inclined.

    You have been trying to attack me personally for merely pointing out the obvious, and in case you haven't noticed, I do not engage in personal attacks against any bloggers, not even MASK, even though he has tempted me with his Jew/Arsenio thing he keeps bringing up when he is cornered (hehe!).

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 5:42pm

98. Key Vote

    U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000

    Bill Number: HR 4444 Issue: Trade Issues Date: 09/19/2000 Sponsor:Rep Archer, Bill [TX-7]

    Roll Call Number: 0251 Bill Passed (Senate) How members voted

    . Read statements made in this general time period.

    Official Title of Legislation:

    HR 4444: To authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the People's Republic of China, and to establish a framework for relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

    Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

    Vote to pass a bill to extend permanent normal trade relations to China.

    Highlights:

    - Grants China permanent normal trade relations (NTR) status with the United States when it becomes a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), ending annual review and approval of NTR

    - Establishes a Congressional-Executive Commission to ensure that China complies with internationally recognized human rights laws, meets labor standards and allows religious freedom

    - Establishes a task force to prohibit the importation of Chinese products that were made in forced labor camps or prisons

    - Calls for Taiwan's entry into the WTO as soon as China becomes a member

    House Passage Vote: 05/24/2000: Passed: 237-197 (Roll no. 228).

    Senate Passage Vote: 09/19/2000: Passed: 83-15. Record Vote Number: 251.

    Presidential Action: 10/10/2000: Signed by President. Became Public Law #106-286.

    Last Updated: 04/12/2005

    For further status information call the Voter's Research Hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART (1-888-868-3762).

    Do I have to do this for every false statement you make?

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 5:45pm

99. Now I have to apologize to Mett. I entered the bill numbers in the wrong page on Thomas, so the post where I say I am done with her I am mistaken. So I apologize Mett. My mistake.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:46pm

100. Only if you don't wait for me to self-correct. Looks like I beat you by about 4 minutes. But I understand the impulse to get right into posting a response when you see a new comment come up. It is what I was doing when I entered teh false information. Seriously, my fault though.

     Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:47pm

101. No you don't attack. Why not though? I appreciate the graciousness with respect to the mistake I just made, but I don't understand the no attack policy. I suppose it is part and parcel of your appreciation of bipartisanship, but I just don't get it. If you think Mask is being an anti-semite (I suppose that is what you are getting at), why not attack?

     Just for the record if you think I am doing something immoral, or being decietful in some way, go ahead and attack. I don't mind. If we were friends I might, but we aren't so bash away. If you are in fact right that I am doing something untoward, (more than simple mistakes or disagreements.) it would be better for me if I got called on it than for you to pass it by.

     I thought your shift from reasonable discussions of Obama's merits to the stuff about Edwards' house and your speculations abotu his law career amounted to shallow character attacks. And I am pretty sure I didn't get mean until then (If I did, sorry for that too). I think I was right to get mean. The carrot never works as well as the stick. I was wrong about the voting record thing though, so I will apologize again. And I understand if you use this against me. This is why I should write my posts out in word before sending them. So I don't send something that I know is wrong.

     Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 5:57pm

102. I don't know whether Mett will except my apology. Let me eat crow again for the screwup and invite the laughter and scorn.

     On to substance. Before I got sidetracked into screwing up THOMAS, I said I had problems with some of the descriptions and some of the votes I didn't have problems with at all.

     He voted against increasing the minimum wage TWICE (Bill Number: S 625

     This was a motion to table the minimum wage amendment. Edwards voted no, along with almost every other democrat, so this is a good thing. I can understand why Mett was confused, because the way that Votesmart lists it it looks as though he voted against a minimum wage increase. But click on the description and the voting record and you find out otherwise. I am in a mood to be giving right now after my own online research mistake, so I will chalk this up to vote-smart's poor presentation.

     He voted against protecting Social Security and Medicare budget surpluses (Bill Number: HR 4577);

     This was a good bill until John Aschroft added an amendment. Again, look at the voting list. This was supported by republicans not democrats. Again though, votesmart presents this in an odd fashion, so it looks like he is against protecting the surplus. Again I will be giving, since I make my own mistakes on this score. And because it is the Christmas season.

     He voted against prescription drug benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1);

     This bill was offered by Bill Frist. It is not a good bill. Most democrats voted for it, I think because they thought it would be better than nothing, but several didn't. Two ways to take this vote on Edwards part. Either he was being really progressive and holding out for something better, or he was following Byrd, Clinton, etc. centrist democrats who voted against (I don't know why they did though.). I have to admit that the latter is more likely, but voting against a bad prescription benefit bill is not somethign that will change my mind about candidates.

     Lesson, the two big bad votes are still the war and the Patriot Act. All the others can be explained away as either not actually being bad votes (like the first two where, through no fault of Metts own something that looked bad was actually good), or as being votes of little consequence, or votes about which there is legitimate disagreement.

     Kennedy voted for NCLB, so it was not exactly a centrist bill. It was a bad bill though. As for religious symbols, I take a big tent approach on this one, and being in favor of them on public lands strikes me as non-liberal, but not necessarily not progressive. Anyway it doesn't bother me. I like military bases because I have lived in communities that depend on them. The reduction in the military that progressives should look for, I argue, is in weapon systems spending, not in bases and manpower.

     Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 6:48pm

103. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/18/2007 @ 5:57pm

     There just isn't anything "personal" about my posts here, so why attack anyone personally?

     I just try to share thoughts and ideas. If someone disagrees, that's OK, but hopefully I have provoked some new thinking or have shed some new light on an issue. Disagreeing doesn't make one a bad person, as reasonable minds can differ on a wide range of topics.

     On the Democratic presidential race, I had to do my own analysis and research some time ago, and came to the conclusion that Obama was the most progressive candidate with a real chance of winning.

     If after reviewing Edwards centrist voting record in the Senate, you think he is not pulling your leg when he claims to be a progressive, that's fine with me. I have just been around politics an awfully long time and have seen this "move to the left for the primaries and back to the center for the general election" thing far too many times to be fooled again.

     Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 7:02pm

104. Posted by METTEYYA

     the thing with Edwards' house is crap. FDR had plenty houses, more and bigger than anything Edwards has, and yet he cared about the unfortunate ones more than any pres before or since. it was called noblesse oblige.

     Posted by Hondo at 12/18/2007 @ 7:07pm

105. The Edwards vote on the Patriot Act and the Iraq War bothered me too. But at least Edwards had the wherewithall to come out and say the Iraq vote was a mistake. He didn't try to pussyfoot around the fact that his vote was wrong and he owned up to it. As for the Patriot Act, he very well may have not read it as the version that was adopted was a replacement submitted in the early morning hours of the day of the vote. I can see that as a reason but I can't justify not reading it. I think a lot of voters on that Act were lax in their responsibilities of actually reading the thing before voting, like Kucinich did (and then voted against it).

     I can understand mistakes. I expect mistakes to be made. I can't get behind corruption or just plain sneakyness. I justify to myself Edwards' shift in the last four years as him learning from his mistakes. I'm not him so I'll never know for sure so I can only put myself in his position and try to see things from his perspective.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 12/18/2007 @ 7:09pm

106. Umm, I guess because I don't buy the personal/non-personal divide. If you are talking to me, its personal. If you are doing things I think are wrong (not just incorrect, but morally wrong), I think the appropriate response is to attack. I think that the anonymity of the internet requires that when you think people do wrong, you unload on them. Otherwise people get away with stuff. So, for instance, even though I meant to delete the post where I misidentified the bills but sent it instead, I think it would have been appropriate to call me stupid or something like that (I was certainly saying worse things about myself after I realized it sent. Some of which bled over into the post a minute later). I need to be more careful. Getting verbally slapped down helps motivate that. I take a similar attitude towards your seemingly inexplicable shift from pushing a reasonable case against Edwards (his voting record is pretty bad, and so you shouldn't trust him) to pushing an unreasonable case against him (the speculation about his legal practice and the house thing). Since you seem to be back on sound footing again (barring the innocent mistakes I identify above), I will of course tone down. But I don't think I was wrong to be harsh with regards to some of your posts. I probably need to step back and realize that some people are really averse to agressive styles like mine, and that this is nothing in particular wrong with being so averse. So I will try to tone it down regardless.

     Plus I have to play with kid gloves now anyway, because you have a trump card for awhile.

     Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 7:12pm

107. To be totally honest, I'd be happy with either Edwards or Obama. I feel Edwards would do a better job but in truth a vote for either of these candidates would not equate to a "lesser of two evils." I think an Edwards/Obama ticket would be a winner, regardless of who's name is first.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 12/18/2007 @ 7:12pm

108. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/18/2007 @ 5:00pm

     He who laughs last, HSUB....come November 4th, 2008 and the Gore "Invisible Campaign" comes to an end for you.

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 7:15pm

109. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/18/2007 @ 6:48pm

     What about Edwards' vote for most favored nation status for China? (How does he square this with his current anti-Chinese trade rhetoric)

     What about restricting Americans from "visiting" Cuba? (Isn't this Castro grudge getting kind of old; and what about the Cuban economy and the Cuban people - haven't they suffered enough?)

     What about being against military base closures? (Why isn't he like Panetta who wants to see universities on unnecessary military bases?)

     What about toughening penalties for juvenile offenders? (Our most fragile and underdeveloped citizens don't deserve more punishment; they need better schools)

     What about supporting Bush's "no child left behind" nonsense? (Why would he support "guarantees" that military recruiters will be able to prey on our youth in public schools? And is test-taking skills the answer to our falling behind in math and science, and why are arts and humanities being devalued?)

     What about religious symbols and the separation of church and state? (Although I support one's right to pursue or not pursue any particular religion, or no religion at all, this seems to move us in the theocracy direction, which we all know is Christian-based)

     All of these positions, IN ADDITION, to his votes for war in Iraq and for the Patriot Act, put Edwards squarely OUTSIDE the progressive mainstream in the Democratic Party.

     Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 7:18pm

110. Mett,

     I already answered most of those questions, in my post at 6:48. But in brief

     1. The China vote is bad, no way around it. Not specifically DLC and centrist, but still bad.

     2. The Cuba issue is a non-issue for me. Even if Edwards were clearly wrong about this it wouldn't make a difference to me.

     3. As I said I am also in general against base closures. Too many vets and non-military people in communities around them that have come to depend on them (if we are talking about bases in teh US that is).

     4. As for the juvenile offenders thing, probably bad. I am a bit more draconian that I am guessing you would like, but only for crimes like murder and sexual assault. Didn't read the details because this is a rather low priority for me.

     5. The recruiters thing is part of Senate life, you accept bills that contain crap if you like the overall policy. That said I agree that NCLB was a bad idea from the beginning. But it wasn't bad because it was centrist. It was bad because it put too much power in the hands of the federal government, and didn't allow variation in teaching styles and practices. This is a fault of both liberals and conservatives. So you are correct that it is bad policy, but this is not evidence for your claim that he was deep in bed with the DLC. He could just as easily have been in bed with Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, if you forgive the imagery.

     5. I don't have a problem with public displays of religion by local government. I am agnostic so this is not my inner theocrat coming out, but I think the dangers of theocracy are rather small, and have little to do with crosses at town hall. I feel differently about the federal and state governments. But I should include with this that on this issue I recognize that I am not at all liberal. If all progressives are liberals, then this counts as anti-progressive. But I don't care.

     And I already admitted to the Iraq and Patriot act votes being inexcusable. I buy his explanation of them though. Because of these votes I was originally a Feingold supporter when he was leaving open that he would run, because Feingold is good on everything. Plus he is Jewish, and then the democratic nomination would have been a fight between a woman, and African American and a Jewish American. Which would have been sweet.

     Since I was hard on you about the house and law career criticisms I should say this was a good and reasonable articulation of the anti-Edwards viewpoint, and more in keeping with your posts before a few days ago. And again sorry for the screwup before.

     Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 7:32pm

111. Is anyone suprised the Clinton campaign smeared Obama???? Please this standard operating procedure out of the Bill Clinton playbook----Obama goes up in the polls and: 1. Bill comes out and says "we can't afford an inexperienced President right now" 2. The husband of the ex Governor of New Hampshire comes out and says those bad old Republicans are going to start asking question about Barack's COCAINE use. Then resigns so Hillary can have cover. 3. A former Senator and Hillary supporter starts talking like Barack has been trained by Osama himself. This is an organized and planned effort by the Clinton campaign to drive Obama's poll numbers down----it is an effort to get the press to change the story away from "Clinton campaign in turmoil" To "When did Obama last use COCAINE and did he sell it?" You Democrats claim you want "change"---If you support Hillary you are a hypocrite of epic proportions. You are the same people who made the term "Swift boat" a verb and now you are looking the other way while the same thing is going on by one of your very own to one of your very own. So now the Clinton Campaign has been successful in getting their three pronged attack out into the press--three key words to filter into the citizenry--inexperienced, COCAINE, Muslim---Now we will see if the politics of personal destruction still work.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 12/18/2007 @ 8:05pm

112. Posted by LEN MOSSE 12/18/2007 @ 8:05pm

     Len,

     The smear is NOT working, and having quite the opposite effect of driving Obama's poll numbers up, especially among women.

     If Hillary wants to wreck her campaign with smears, I say let her self-destruct!

     Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 9:39pm

113. Posted by JOMAMMA 12/18/2007 @ 10:07pm |

     In case you missed it, HSUB has a "new final date" for when Gore will announce....January 9th...("30 days after he wins the Nobel"). Then another one after that...and probably one more just before the Conventions.

     Also, I think HONDO is Empty SPENCE...but that's more speculation than assurity.

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:33pm

114. Posted by METTEYYA 12/18/2007 @ 9:39pm | ignore this person

     You're right it will. And it will do so at the speed of water cooler chat, and afternoon lunches, take flight and spread from there. If, there is a God ...

     On Edwards, I have watched the DLC and its machinations, and have been disappointed in Edwards for the (unambiguously non-progressive) positions he took. So I have, and take issue, mildly when sincere, and somewhat intelligent, with an uncritical acceptance of his "death-row" conversion.

     Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 10:45pm

115. ... average guys are still whincing and laughing at ALGORE.

     Posted by JOMAMMA 12/18/2007 @ 10:07pm

     Bwahahahahahah

     JoMa really means-- hsuB "average guys are still whincing and laughing at ALGORE." Because they're reptilian new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy idiots and Al hurts their little itsy-pitsy brian stumps.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 10:57pm

116. In case you missed it, HSUB has a "new final date" for when Gore will announce....January 9th...("30 days after he wins the Nobel").

     Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 10:33pm

     And Frita deduced this all herself, fragile minded that she is romping around in her piles of red straw, merely from a simple question I asked her.

     Is she delusional or a psychic? Will she freak out either way? Only time will tell.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 11:03pm

117. ...you are filling the stereotype the hard right paints...and you are the poster boy for the entire group...

     Posted by JOMAMMA 12/18/2007 @ 11:33pm

     Talk about a stereotype right wing painting... you're a Rembrant!

     No, not really 3-D, just a now mannered and easily copied illusion-- with notible details in the shadows...

     Bwahahahahahah.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/18/2007 @ 11:44pm

118. Ari, in his holier-than-thou way, attacks someone for smearing Obama. Yet, in his post late this evening - trying to sneak it past the Nation editors? - he repeats word for word a smear against John Edwards, no doubt planted by those selfsame Clinton smearmeisters. To trot out a National Enquirer headline about a love child, and cloak it with some veneer of respectability while doing NO corroboration of his own? Well, that is just as despicable as anything Mark Penn has done... We can see which horse Ari has in this race! No more feigning neutrality, okay, Ari?

     That blog feed is all over Yahoo News, so even though The Nation has seen fit to put it out with the rest of the trash by the curb, the damage has already been done. Shame on you, Melber, shame!

     Posted by sjduskin at 12/19/2007 @ 02:30am

119. Obama himself admitted to having used alcohol, pot and cocaine as a teenager. He claims to have been forced to do so by his identity problems.

     Obama comes across as a slick cookie who believes he is owed high office and is prepared to resort to every lie and stratagem to succeed. (Which is par for the course.)

     Posted by MARKCANYON 12/19/2007 @ 04:13am

     So again-- how is Obama a liar?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/19/2007 @ 10:18am

120. Posted by MARKCANYON 12/19/2007 @ 04:13am

     So again-- how is Obama a liar?

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/19/2007 @ 10:18am

     Cause he's not white blonde/green eyes?

     Do you even need any rational reason for anything, when your brain is a warped as SPLOTCHDITCH.

     I think that is the ditch with the WIMPY TRICKLE in it.

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/19/2007 @ 3:58pm