Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJust hours after FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through a vote to remove a longstanding newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban--thereby ignoring the public will, undermining democratic diversity and bowing to the corrupting campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists of the largest media companies, Barack Obama slammed the decision. "Today the FCC failed to further the important goal of promoting diversity in the media and instead chose to put big corporate interests ahead of the peoples' interests," he said in a statement.
As I wrote in my Editor's Cut, "On the Media," (posted 12/12/07) Obama has been a stalwart supporter of encouraging diversity in the ownership of broadcast media. An Obama presidency, he has pledged, will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve; it would also push for better opportunities for minority, small business and women-owned media firms.
Fortunately the fight is far from over. Obama has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would nullify the vote."Congress will not stand by and allow the FCC to move forward with these regulatory changes, " Obama said this afternoon, " and I will urge my colleagues to push forward legislation that ensures any changes will be evaluated and modified in a transparent and inclusive process, and fully takes into account the interests of our women and minority-owned outlets and communities."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Two things...
1. "An Obama presidency, he has pledged, will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve."
How...exactly? "You WILL cover the Pumpkin Festival Fox-31!"..."You WILL cover the City Council meeting for five minutes not 30 seconds"....love to see THAT regulation written.
and 2. "Obama has co-sponsored a bill in the Senate that would nullify the vote."
Now...say you were an ambitious and politically powerful US Senator running AGAINST Sen. Obama for the Democratic nomination...and had the MAJORITY LEADER's son running your campaign in Nevada....what might he or SHE do, to stop that bill from passing or getting to the Floor, in order to paint Mr Obama as ineffective?!?!?!!?
jussssssssss saying.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 4:01pm
Go for it, Barry.
And wear your helmet, because the MSM Owners will have your hide for this. Unless, of course, you raise as much $$ as HRC & spend it all with them. In which case, should you ever enter the White House, they'll nail you then.
Nevertheless, go for it. Perhaps you have a chance. You or Edwards. Her Imperial Majesty will stay mum or triangulate. Her husband, after all, help keep this media concentration ball rolling.
Posted by sloper at 12/18/2007 @ 4:03pm
Post from another thread:
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 @ 4:24pm
why Hillary Clinton is such a miserable choice for Democratic voters in general, and progressives in particular.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 4:24pm |
They can't do that, B_KOOL.
Because in probably less than 45 days, they may have to ENDORSE her as "better than the alternative", and to post on how she sucks...just a few weeks before...would be rather embarassing to Ms vanden Heuvel and the Gang.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 4:30pm
Because in probably less than 45 days, they may have to ENDORSE her as "better than the alternative", and to post on how she sucks...just a few weeks before...would be rather embarassing to Ms vanden Heuvel and the Gang.
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 4:30pm
yeah, and YOU, too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 4:36pm
yeah, and YOU, too!----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/18/2007 @ 4:36pm
Sure, but I'm not claiming to be a "progressive" news source.
KvH slams HRC hard and calls her out as B_KOOL wants....what do they say when they have to endorse her come early Feb/late January?
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 4:46pm
Great move, Obama!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 4:58pm
It all just keeps slipping away. We can't have a democracy when the media is monopolized by one group! Not that things aren't bad enough as it is, but...
We the people are so incredibly screwed.
Posted by dalikar985 at 12/18/2007 @ 5:37pm
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 4:46pm
...what do they say when they have to endorse her come early Feb/late January...
Maybe they just wait for the Greens to decide who they are running or endorse Ron Paul's to Libertarian campaign after he gets passed up and can't support the Republican nominee. HA!
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 6:50pm
This is a good one for Obama.
By the way Mett, you asked whether I would say sorry for the voting record mistake I made. Indeed I did. I also respond to three of the entries in your case against Edwards. At least two of them should be removed if you are making the case that he is centrist, for reasons I give on that thread. Thought you deserved to know that I said sorry and that you were (mostly) right.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/18/2007 @ 6:51pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 12/18/2007 @ 6:50pm
Tbey tried that in 2000, backed Ralph.
And later apologized for it. Didn't fall for it again in 2004.
Willing to bet a lotta folks going to be a bit "disappointed" in "The Nation" (and possibly Ms vanden Heuvel, if she writes it)...come late January.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 7:12pm
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 7:12pm
And apologized for it? Now, that's sad.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 7:55pm
(and possibly Ms vanden Heuvel, if she writes it)...come late January.
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 7:12pm
i'm sure she'll feel the same way you will..............
kinda "oh wellish"
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 9:03pm
B-Kool--check out our "non avoidance" re Edwards editorial this coming issue; also one in which we grapple with Edwards-Obama threads playing out here on blogs; but what we'll be endorsing in 2008 is principle--we need some democracy building at home. And we need space for progressive movement to grow--and, hell, it's already driven major issues into this election..though not at scale we might have hoped for...ending war, healthcare for all, fair not unfettered trade....you guys should cool it, and stop dissing the Nation and think about how you can do some nation-building --kvh
Posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel at 12/18/2007 @ 9:34pm
Tbey tried that in 2000, backed Ralph.
And later apologized for it....
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 7:12pm
Care to give us a link to the endorsement and apology?.....like to read it! Was KvH involved?
Since TN has used up its ONE (permitted) endorsement apology on a Progressive, does this mean they won't endorse another one UNLESS very confident that the next Progressive they do endorse, can actually WIN against the Repub and Repub-Lite??
Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 10:00pm
Posted by HAPPY 12/18/2007 @ 10:00pm
The quick Google--
Friday, February 18, 2000 in The Nation
Run, Ralph, Really Run by John Nichols
Ralph Nader is running for President, and a fair number of progressives are excited by the prospect. They should be.
Run properly, a Nader candidacy could offer the electorate a dose of radical democracy and a progressive alternative on trade policy, corporate welfare, criminal justice reform, the farm crisis and a host of other critical issues ignored by the front-running candidates of both major parties. With close to 100 percent name recognition and approval ratings that Al Gore and George W. Bush would trade their bankrolls to achieve, Nader brings to a national campaign a forty-year record as a reformer that puts the modest claims of John McCain and Bill Bradley to shame. If Nader wages a serious campaign, he can force the other candidates to address issues that will otherwise be dismissed, and he could push to the left whichever Democratic candidate prevails in the primaries.
---------------Followed 4 years later by--------------
editorial | posted January 29, 2004 (February 16, 2004 issue) An Open Letter to Ralph Nader
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:23pm
but what we'll be endorsing in 2008 is principle--Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/18/2007 @ 9:34pm
Save this, guys.
Will "The Nation" refrain from endorsing Hillary? Or claim that she is "best suited, if imperfect, for fighting for our principles"?
It will be interesting to see.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:26pm
It will be interesting to see.
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 10:26pm
......to see how Ms. KvH disses you the next time.....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 10:37pm
Well, this will be interesting too....
By Jon Shanks Dec 18, 2007
"John Edwards is getting ready to get hit with a campaign bombshell according to a report that makes the cover of the National Enquirer. Matt Drudge has the top of the cover of the weekly magazine posted on the Drudge Report right now and the magazine will hit newsstands on both coasts on Wednesday. It follows to most of the rest of the country on Thursday.
Expect details from the story to begin leaking some time tonight. The part of the cover that is being shown says "Exclusive: Presidential Race Bombshell." The all caps headline screams in black and red letters, "John Edwards Love child scandal!"
A sub head adds that the "Woman linked to the candidate is pregnant and in hiding." The magazine promises "exclusive photos" and there is a photograph of a blonde woman on the cover wearing a black dress and looking pregnant but it is impossible to tell if this is the woman.
Expect denials from the Edwards camp soon. Online here at the National Enquirer the story has yet to be posted and they will likely only post a partial lede if anything. The story is developing.
www.nationalledger.com
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 11:07pm
From: Friday, February 18, 2000 in The Nation
Run, Ralph, Really Run by John Nichols
John Nichols, who writes our new feature "The Beat," is editorial page editor of the Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin.
It seems Nichols came on board TN more fully around that time.....The "Run, Ralph, Really Run" was NOT exactly an outright endorsement of Nader by The Nation....TN may have done so, as a magazine, later...
Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 11:08pm
I bring forth two paragraphs (hat tip to MASK), from (bold mine):
editorial | posted January 29, 2004 (February 16, 2004 issue) An Open Letter to Ralph Nader
But when devotion to principle collides with electoral politics, hard truths must be faced. Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil.....
The context for an independent presidential bid is completely altered from 2000, when there was a real base for a protest candidate. The overwhelming mass of voters with progressive values--who are essential to all efforts to build a force that can change the direction of the country--have only one focus this year: to beat Bush. Any candidacy seen as distracting from that goal will be excoriated by the entire spectrum of potentially progressive voters.....
I'll leave it at that for everyone to ponder how 2008 compares with 2004 or 2000....and in regards to The Nation's "Kiss of Death" to Nader who was, up to then (and still?), TN's "Public Citizen Number One" and "dear friend".
Posted by Happy at 12/18/2007 @ 11:30pm
B-Kool--check out our "non avoidance" re Edwards editorial this coming issue; also one in which we grapple with Edwards-Obama threads playing out here on blogs; but what we'll be endorsing in 2008 is principle--we need some democracy building at home. And we need space for progressive movement to grow--and, hell, it's already driven major issues into this election..though not at scale we might have hoped for...ending war, healthcare for all, fair not unfettered trade....you guys should cool it, and stop dissing the Nation and think about how you can do some nation-building
~kvh
Thanks for the post :-)
I assure you, Katrina, I have great respect for The Nation magazine. Any criticism is meant constructively.
By the way, I hear through the grapevine news that the latest polling data in Iowa --Des Moines Register poll?-- that Edwards is at 30 percent versus 26 and 22 for Obama and her highness respectively.
I'll be interested to see the actual news break on this one.
Should be interesting.
Thanks again for your attention, Katrina.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/18/2007 @ 11:36pm
Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 11:07pm
Mask,
I guy came in my office this afternoon with this Drudge Report story and I kept telling him, "Look at the source - The National Enquirer". Not only are they not a credible publication, I don't recall them "ever" getting a story right that was not already available from credible sources.
Even if the report were true, I'm sure Edwards would just do a Jesse Jackson and say it was a mistake but he intends to support the mother and the child!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 11:45pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/18/2007 @ 11:36pm
BKool,
Why don't you tell us what Edwards internal polls are showing? Quite a different result, right?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/18/2007 @ 11:48pm
BKool,
Why don't you tell us what Edwards internal polls are showing? Quite a different result, right?
~Budd Lite
Metteyya,
I suppose you're accusing me of being an Edwards campaign staffer?
Not even, dude.
I've been posting here for a couple of years as I imagine Maskot can attest.
Also, I am completely candid about the drawbacks of Edwards, unlike your fawning support of Obama.
But keep up the totally phony, adoration laced Obama posts. It can be as effective as the posts of John Edwards' supporters in making his case.
Thanks ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2007 @ 12:10am
And another thing.....
Thanks to everyone who posts on, or reads these threads. Yeah, I should probably be stating my caveats on that one, but the fact of the matter is that these threads represent the seething, see-saw mess that a real democracy is supposed to be.
So to all, keep cackling on. This is a small, but significant sign of democratic health.
Cheers :-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2007 @ 12:16am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/19/2007 @ 12:10am
Drawbacks? I have NEVER heard you mention any drawbacks of Edwards. Please do share!
The only "fawning" I know of is the Obama Girl YouTube thing. I actually thought it was quite cute and very creative. As MASK can attest, I have been upfront in saying I wish Obama were more anti-AIPAC, more green in his energy policy, and more "universal" in his healthcare plan. This is hardly the position of an Obama fawner, right?
I think you just got the wrong idea because I was quite clear and convincing in my exposure of Edwards as a phony progressive. There is quite a difference in my mind between a true progressive like Obama who could be even more progressive, and a centrist like Edwards that is trying to fool us and pretend that he was a progressive all along.
This "I was only pretending to be a centrist because I was from the South so it was easier to fit into the blue-dog crowd" when I was in the Senate, just doesn't cut it.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 12:26am
Mett, Did anyone say he was pretending? I am one who brought up blue dogs and I know I didn't suggest he was pretending. I suggested that he was working within the system. I think it is possible that at each point he thought his votes were the right thing to do, but not because they were good policy, only because they were what party leadership wanted, and he was looking to do good by climbing the leadership ladder. Again I think this shows political cowardice, but is compatible with his really having progressive opinions the whole time. Another option is that he changed his mind. Something that is know to happen to political figures (Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc.)
Did anyone else notice a Nichols peice on the Edwards sex scandal, that the National Enquirer is pushing, that went up and then down again real quick? I posted a comment after reading it, and when I submitted it I was taken to a blank page, and the blog post was no longer on the page. Is this Nichols being Nichols and finally having some editorial control exercised? Or did they just want to delay the blog post? What? Is my server failing?
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 01:47am
Here it is by the way, still not up on the main page:
EDWARDS AND THE ENQUIRER...If the story is true, John Edwards is finished as a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
The story is the National Enquirer top-of-the-page cover article -- which is set to go on sale at the checkout counters of the supermarkets and drug stores of Iowa, New Hampshire and the other 48 states Wednesday morning -- that claims the former senator from North Carolina is the father of a soon-to-be-born "love child."
The article claims Edwards, who has long burnished an image as the consummate family man and whose wife Elizabeth is a key player in his campaign, had an 18-month affair with female staffer who traveled with the candidate during the current campaign. According to the Enquirer, which is indeed a supermarket tabloid but which has at least some history of breaking sordid political stories that turn out to have credibility, the staffer is now six-months pregnant and hiding from the media.
Edwards and the staffer are reportedly denying the story -- with the campaign issuing an absolute and unequivocal dismissal of its validity. The Enquirer counters with a claim that it has obtained confirmations from friends of the woman who say she shared the details of the affair and the pregnancy with them. Reporters for the weekly newspaper also claims to have seen emails that were purportedly sent by the woman regarding an affair.
The Enquirer and other tabloids, it should be remembered, broke stories of Bill Clinton's affairs in 1992. But Clinton had a reputation as a rogue. Edwards has always presented himself as a dedicated husband to Elizabeth, who is currently fighting cancer, and as the doting father of young children.
Under the circumstances, it is difficult to see how the Edwards campaign could survive a legitimate sex scandal.
It may not even be able to survive an illegitimate sex scandal.
Edwards has been surging in Iowa -- a new Insider Advantage poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers has him ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton and just one point behind Illinois Senator Barack Obama. But he cannot afford to lose the critical days leading up to the January 3 caucuses that will make or break his campaign responding to questions -- fair or not -- about whether he got a staffer pregnant.
Posted by John Nichols at 12/19/2007 @ 01:47am | Post Comment | Email This Post
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 01:49am
Apart from the dissapearing Nichols story, which could be an important indicator of the integrity of the Nation, but could also be nothing but a mistake by the webmaster, I thought I would congratulate Mett for admitting that Obama has flaws. I must have missed before where she (I am trying to use the female as the indefinite pronoun in political speech, like it has become the indefinite pronoun in academic writing. I know that Metteyya is not a female name) was open about these flaws, but no matter. It is important that she does so now no matter how many times I missed it before.
The list of criticisms seems right to me, but they apply to most of the candidates (all except for Kucinich). Now if she admits that he gets more money from big corporations than any candidate but Clinton she and Edwards supporters will be in agreement about the straightforward facts. Once that happens the real evaluation can begin. We have already said our peice on who is more trustworthy as a progressive. I think Edwards because he takes less money from bad people. Mett thinks Obama because of Edward's dismal Senate record. There is still room to debate who has the better policy proposals, and who is right about strategy and priorities.
(This is me trying to go against character and be nice when I post because Mett was relatively nice about a slipup of mine and because she expressed some dislike of my vindictive nature. It makes me grumpy and uncomfortable to do this by the way.)
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 02:12am
We the people are so incredibly screwed.
Posted by DALIKAR985 12/18/2007 @ 5:37pm
Evidently, we the people, like being incredibly screwed because:1) We don't vote, 2) When we do vote, we put people in charge like the W and our antiChrist, neocon, warmongering, nutcase vice president .
Granted, our choices are preselected for us from the get go, so no matter how we vote, corporate interests win and we lose. This is just another chapter in the fiasco that is supposed to be a democracy, but isn't.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/19/2007 @ 07:49am
you guys should cool it, and stop dissing the Nation and think about how you can do some nation-building --kvh
Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 12/18/2007 @ 9:34pm
KVH,
The Nation is one of the only sources left that isn't controlled by the corporate agenda. The Nation is one of the only sources left that actaully produces reports we can't and won't find in the main stream press because of things just like this recent FCC decision.
Please keep up the good work.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/19/2007 @ 07:59am
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/19/2007 @ 01:49am
Keep in mind that this is the National Enquirer you are talking about. If that is your source of news and investigative reporting, you are in big trouble. I recall seeing a story on the cover of the Enquirer about a rabbit faced baby....fine investigative reporting for enquiring minds.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/19/2007 @ 08:10am
Posted by John Nichols at 12/19/2007 @ 01:47am | Post Comment | Email This Post
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/19/2007 @ 01:49am
the nation pulled this one. however, it's on yahoo news! scandal, scandal, scandal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071219/cm_thenation/45261535
this is like england.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 08:27am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/19/2007 @ 08:10am
Actually, I think that's the Weekly World News......or is that "Bat Boy" I'm thinking of?...heheh
Problem is....it might be true.
Sure, it's the Enquirer, and there's an 80% chance the Edwards story is false (and planted by ...hmmm?).
But those guys DID break the Jesse Jackson story, and actually covered the OJ trial to some acclaim.
And it's strange that John Nichols would even THINK of posting a story about it...unless he thought there might be something to it. (Though, by pulling it, he apparently had second thoughts).
He's right though...if true...Edwards is dead. "He had a BABY with ANOTHER WOMAN while ELIZABETH WAS IN CHEMO!?!?!!?!?"
You just couldn't "ride that out". But, maybe it's phoney, and if so, it may backfire. There's just no way of telling now.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2007 @ 09:10am
Posted by Dented Pat --overnight
To my eyes, that's a truly heartbreaking story if it --true or not-- breaks an imminently valuable campaign.
I'm bummed out, dude.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/19/2007 @ 09:23am
Posted by MASK 12/19/2007 @ 09:10am
edwards looks as bad as......................
newt gingrich.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 09:24am
hey there, enquiring minds.
PRESIDENTIAL CHEATING SCANDAL! ALLEGED AFFAIR COULD WRECK JOHN EDWARDS' CAMPAIGN BID [tinyurl.com]
plus these other hot stories:
NEW SHOW FOR RACHAEL RAY
HEROES STAR ENGAGED!
JUDGE: POLICE CAN KEEP DREW PETERSON'S STUFF
LENO RETURNS IN JANUARY
WILL SMITH MOVIE SETS RECORD
UPDATE: PAM ANDERSON DIVORCE DRAMA
LINDSAY LOHAN TALKS!
DREW PETERSON UPDATE: GRAND JURY HEARS TESTIMONY FROM SON
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/19/2007 @ 09:36am
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/19/2007 @ 01:47am
Of the politicians you mentioned, "only" Bill Clinton had a conversion that was "timed" to coincide with the prevailing wind at the time he was seeking the presidency.
We all know how that turned out, so I think we are correct to be skeptical of Edwards "recent" progressive conversion.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 09:58am
I suggested that he was working within the system. I think it is possible that at each point he thought his votes were the right thing to do, but not because they were good policy, only because they were what party leadership wanted, and he was looking to do good by climbing the leadership ladder.
Well that pretty much settles it, DENTEDPAT! Edwards will take "any" position, including progressive ones, if he believes it "helps him climb into a leadership position". Translation: the guy's issue positions can't be trusted because he is "all" ambition!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 10:04am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/19/2007 @ 09:24am
If true....yes...he would.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2007 @ 10:15am
Sure, it's the Enquirer, and there's an 80% chance the Edwards story is false
Mask, that's exactly my point!
It would be kind of interesting, however, to get a hold of those emails between Rielle and her friend so we can confirm if Rielle admits to having an affair with Edwards. But it is doubtful that we will get a DNA test with a 6-month pregnancy, so "hard proof" before the election is pretty much impossible.
The sequestering, hiding, and protection of Rielle is somewhat puzzling and looks like what we saw in the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. If there really is nothing to this, why all the secrecy?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 10:40am
I haven't found any legitimate source that is covering this. Google news returns 17 hits, most of which are blogs, one of which is a gambling paper. Given that, speculation like Metts is completely unwarranted. We don't know anything yet, and the Enquirer does not have the credibility to make it reasonable to look.
Mett, If you think Edwards is alone in doing what the party leadership tells him so that he stays in their good graces, you don't know the Senate, or Congress generally. Go against the whip enough and they take away your power to do anything worthwhile. You think Obama wants to fund the war without any real conditions attached to the supplemental? You think he wants to support Pay-Go? The leadership does (because the leadership is stupid and spineless). I don't hold Obama as responsible for those votes, precisely because no Senator is an independent actor. Their committee positions and whether their bills get to the floor are in the hands of other people. People like (in Obama's case) Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. If Obama actually wants to help people in the Senate he will have to play ball. (now that he has done so well in fundraising, he won't have to play ball as much if he is still Senator in Jan. '09). This is not him changing his views to get power. Just like it was not Edwards changing his views to get power. Your 'translation' was unfair (and that language is as strong as I will get, for now).
You need to decide when it is that Edwards changed his positions. If I am right he started it a little on the '04 campaign trail, but most of it happened in 2005. That is not a conversion that was "timed" to coincide with the prevailing wind at the time he was seeking the presidency. In 2005 most of the country still supported the Iraq war (if I recall correctly), the party is still ambivalent on trade, the party still does not make poverty a priority, and the party is still deep in bed with big corporations (like Clinton and Obama are). It was three years before an election, two years before he announced, and it began with his starting a non-political foundation. If I am recalling correctly Kennedy's conversion happened closer to an election and Johnson started caring about Civil Rights in time for the 1964 elections. JFK had been pretty bad on Civil rights too, before he had to run for the presidency. I am not suggesting that any of them didn't mean it. It is possible they didn't. It is also possible that a long process of thought and reflection culminated in a change around the right time for them politically. In Johnson's case that seem confirmed because after the 1964 election he went on to sign the '65 Civil Rights bill. It would have been reasonable to think the '64 Civil Rights bill was pandering for the black vote, and that the Texan would abandon them once he didn't need them. But sometimes cynicism is wrong. You have to think so too, as your candidate is taking money from the same sources as the republicans, and we all know how that worked out for Bill Clinton.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 1:20pm
B_Kool,
No reason to get bummed out yet. AT this point, as far as I can tell, all the evidence comes in the form of 'The National Enquirer says...'. The Enquirer peice doesn't contain any evidence. They don't have, like they had for the Flowers scandal, someone who is claiming they had an affair. They have someone the Enquirer claims is claiming to friend that she is having an affair. I think the media is stupid enough to fall for this stuff, but they are also fairly elitist and won't like they idea that the Enquirer scooped them. Unless something more comes to light I think this story could die.
If the staffer does come out and says they had an affair, I would be torn as to whether to believe her. She has less to lose by lying than Edwards, but she would still be a normal person willingly subjecting herself to public scrutiny and intrusion, which people don't do on a lark (usually). If the story is true it is time to support Kucinich or write in for Feingold (which is what I would do), and then maybe hold your nose and vote for Obama in the generals.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 1:27pm
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/19/2007 @ 1:20pm
The only story I found was at The Enquirer. Here is the link:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426
I don't put much credence in "any" story in The Enquirer, so the only detail that raised my eyebrow was "emails from Rielle to her friend admitting to the affair". This is something that could be verified by an independent source, and at least would put Rielle's credibility into question. T
The refusal to take polygraphs was also interesting as well, as was inviting Rielle over for dinner with the family of the "alleged" adulterer. These actions seem kind of odd if the story is not true.
DENTEDPAT, as for your "The Democratic leaders made me do it" excuse, how does that explain the Edwards China trade vote, or barring Americans from visiting Cuba, or "Bush's" No Child Left Behind vote, or voting for religious symbols in public schools, or voting against prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients, or voting for the Patriot Act or for War in Iraq, as "many" democrats OPPOSED these centrist positions taken by Edwards, including the Democratic leadership?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 1:38pm
Mett,
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V2911
Most democrats didn't vote against the China deal. I am willing to grant any explanation you want of the Cuba and religious symbols votes. I don't care about them and I don't think other people should. The DLC leaders in the Senate opposed Frist's prescription drug benefit plan (which was a bad bill, so they got lucky this time), and my argument is that Edwards sided with the DLC because they effectively ran the party until their abject failure in the 2004 elections to Clark elected. Most democrats voted for the Patriot Act and AUMF. So I am not sure where the voting records go against my explanation.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 1:53pm
It was three years before an election, two years before he announced
I don't know how long you have been involved in politics, but that sounds like a presidential PLAN to me. And in "late" 2005, the country was souring on the war in Iraq, especially Democrats. The better question, is at what point in time did he admit that the Iraq War vote was a mistake? Sunday, November 13, 2005, which is only 2 years ago! (Source: Washington Post)
And has Edwards "ever" admitted that his vote in favor of the Patriot Act was a mistake? If so, when did that occur?
Has he "ever" admitted that his China trade vote was a mistake?
What about religious symbols in public schools?
No prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients?
Bush's No Child Left Behind?
Travel ban to Cuba?
He hasn't admitted that ANY of these votes were a mistake, yet he wants us to believe he is a progressive. Don't figure!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 1:57pm
Mett,
To be clear you find it odd that two people turned down an Enquirer request to take a polygraph? Wouldn't you? Even if you were telling the truth?
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 1:59pm
DENTEDPAT,
What would be a useful exercise id to look at each of those centrist Edwards votes in the senate that I identified and compare them with the votes of his fellow Democrat, Russ Feingold, who we all know and trust as a progressive.
The contrast between Edwards votes and Feingold's votes are very illuminating, even shocking, when you consider that Edwards is trying to convince us that he is a progressive!
How come the Democratic leadership didn't make Feingold vote the way Edwards did?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 2:22pm
To be clear you find it odd that two people turned down an Enquirer request to take a polygraph? Wouldn't you? Even if you were telling the truth?
If I were Edwards, and I was running for president and knew the story was false, I would VOLUNTEER not only for a polygraph, but a DNA test to make sure I didn't lose a SINGLE VOTE due to this story. I would instruct Rielle to do the same. This race is way to close to do anything less (unless of course the story is true)
I'm not saying I would have the test "administered" by The Enquirer, but I would want to put this story to rest REAL FAST, and these tests can be done in one day.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 2:27pm
Mett,
1. If by involved in politics you mean in a campaign or something like that; zero years. If you mean following it, about fifteen years. Thanks for the useless question. Rest assurred it doesn't sound like a presidential plan to me, and if the best you have is 'It sounds to me like he is faking' you will understand if I am not convinced.
2. The test is not his apology for his vote. The test is when his position on Iraq changed. I might be wrong, but I remember him coming out against it before he apologized for his vote (there was a reason he was asked whether he apologized, because he had already starting critisizing the war). Even if you are right two years is a long time. Clinton changed her tune about getting troops out less than a year ago, and that seems like a more reasonable case of pandering. Again, to convince someone you need more than 'I think 2 years doesn't sound like much time.' You can believe what you want on any basis you like, but arguments are about providing reason for someone else to change their mind.
3. I am again surprised on your insistence on apologies. If he says 'I support X' and you don't believe him why is it important to you that he says 'I apologize for not having supported X in the past'? His position on the big free trade deals changed during the '04 election (when by the way I also did not buy his conversion. Then his shift in positions, coming as it did in the middle of a campaign seemed off.), and has been steady since then (and that is why I changed my mind. I admit it is possible that he simply never left campaign mode, but since his positions now make it harder and not easier for him to win, I don't buy it).
3. What about religious symbols in public schools? I have responded to this at least three times. I have admitted that he didn't have a liberal position then and might not have it now. I don't know what purpose there is to repeating your question when you got the answer you wanted, but perhaps you simply like repitition. Same goes for Travel ban to Cuba?
4.No prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients? Disingenuous. Opposing one prescription drug benefit (offered by the corrupt republican Senate majority leader) does not mean you are against any prescription drug benefit. I am guessing you know that. So shame on you.
5. I don't like NCLB either. At the time almost every senate democrat did, mostly because they didn't know it was going to be an unfunded mandate. Most don't have a big problem with testing from what I gather. If you won't believe Edwards when he says he changed his mind, do you have the same policy for every democrat who supported it originally and now doesn't like it? When you learn more about an issue, your mind can change. That has happened to most of the democrats who supported NCLB.
Look, you have made your case that he is not trustworthy and I have made the opposite case. I have responded to yours on multiple occasions. Saying the same thing over again for the upteenth time isn't going to change anything. If you come up with some new reason not to trust him, fire away. But you waste both our time when you cut and paste in questions I have already given an answer to. You have responded to my case for his being trustworthy (you said he thought that he could make up for big corporate donations with grassroots support, which makes me think either you don't follow campaign finance issues, or you think he doesn't), and while I didn't agree I don't think you are being unreasonable. This boils down, as I have said before, about how willing you are to put aside cynicism about motivations. You aren't willing to do that much with Edwards. I understand that. I don't understand that in conjunction with your seemingly complete lack of cynicism with regard to Obama and his big corporate support (though in fairness you seemed early on not to know about his big corporate support), but I do not get broken up because someone applies a double standard. Life is full of them.
If you think that the right way to go is to support someone who talked a good game (and because of his status as state senator that is all you can point to for Obama on loads of issues) and who now accepts millions of dollars from Wall Street donors go ahead. I will go with the person who performed poorly in the past and now talks a good game and doesn't take millions from Wall Street.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 2:30pm
Mett, The Enquirer didn't ask for Edwards to take a polygraph. They asked for Young and Reille to take them. And taking a polygraph seems to be given the story credence it doesn't deserve yet. You are veering away from important issues again, and after you had just gotten back on track.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 2:32pm
In the interests of fairness, I should say that my implied criticism of Pay-Go does forces me to criticize Feingold, who offered the Pay-Go amendment. I really like Feingold, but when the president will veto any tax hike Pay-Go is guaranteed to hurt the poor (since programs for them are what the democrats have to compromise on to get a budget past Bush)
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 2:46pm
Mett,
I almost forgot my former promise. If you want the chance to repeat yourself some more email me at dentedpat@hotmail.com
There no one else will be inconvenienced, and there is the chance to have a more nuanced discussion. I forgot all about my new 'direct to email strategy'.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 3:06pm
DENTEDPAT,
Since you didn't take me up on my offer to compare Edwards and Feingold's votes under the SAME Democratic leadership that you said "made Edwards vote centrist", I'll do it for you:
1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)
Edwards: Yes Fengold: No
7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
So even under the SAME DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, Edwards votes centrist, and Feingold votes progressive, so your "story" about the "Democratic leadership made Edwards do it" is plainly false!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 3:23pm
Mett,
Honestly I did not see your invitation. If I had I could have saved you time. On almost every issue Feingold is better than Edwards now. The gap was even more pronounced then.
And your continued inability to fairly represent the views of others is dissapointing (see I am not being personal. doing my best not to say what I think of you). I never said the Democratic leadership made Edwards do it. I said Edwards wanted to go along because the leadership has to approve of you to get any real influence. Does Feingold buck democratic leadership more than Edwards did? Yes, he bucks them more than anyone else. And he got excluded from leadership positions for a long time, and only got his committee chairs because he was going to run for president and the party leaders didn't want him to. Feingold is entrenched in Wisconsin, Edwards never was in North Carolina, and was a first time senator. He needed the party more than Feingold did, and wanted more influence that Feingold every had or has. You have to pay attention to the details, like who offered a bill, whether a vote is on the bill or on a motion to table, or the relative positions of different Senators, and whether the description a candidate gives of their own views and bills are accurate. When you don't pay attention to details you make silly mistakes, like putting up good votes on Edwards' part as examples of bad votes (the minimum wage thing, which I am glad you dropped) or mistake 2002 bills for 2007 bills (I did that one, but it is a good example of what happens when you don't pay sufficient attention to the details.)
Maybe do that and you won't need CAPS and !!!!
But if you are pushing a pro-Feingold position, I am right with you. The man is great and puts every current candidate (Edwards included) to shame.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 3:38pm
If you want to continue this, email would be better.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 3:39pm
Oh and I noticed the addition of 'Unnecessary' to the Military base closures bill. Nice when you feel confident enough to do that without arguing for it, even after the person you are writing to has already said they are against most base closures.
I am done being nice (that didn't take long). You cannot behave and need to get smacked down when you pull this high school debate crap.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 3:42pm
Oh and I noticed the addition of 'Unnecessary' to the Military base closures bill. Nice when you feel confident enough to do that without arguing for it, even after the person you are writing to has already said they are against most base closures.
DENTEDPAT,
I wish you could come to California and tour the former Ford Ord army base that is now California State University Monterey Bay. The community around the campus is thriving, perhaps even more than it did when it was a military base. And we don't have all of those conservative kooks running around town with the short haircuts doing the rah, rah, rah thing for the Republicans!
If you are trying to argue that you and Edwards would have preferred the former military environment, that speaks volumes about Edwards being the phony progressive that I have said that he is!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/19/2007 @ 3:59pm
Mett I hope you go to Ofallon Illinois, where I used to live, and see how much the communities around Scott Air Force base depend on servicemen and women for their economic livelihood. I hope you go to New Hampshire where Korean war veterans, like my wife's grandfather, now have to drive for hours to get to appointments because the local navy base closed.
Anecdotal evidence usually cuts both ways. That is why smart people don't rest their case on it alone. At least you tried to make a case though.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 4:04pm
I should revise my original stated position on bases though. I said that I was in general against them if they were in the US. I should have said I am not in general for them. I don't mean to suggest that it is never a good idea to close them, and I have no doubt that Ford Ord is a case of a good one if it turned into a state university in the fine system of California. That some cases are good does not show that no cases are bad.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/19/2007 @ 4:14pm