Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe long wait continues to see who John Edwards will back for the Democratic presidential nomination that many progressives thought should be his.
But it is not as if the former North Carolina senator is just sitting around waiting for inspiration to strike.
In addition to maintaining conversations with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – which seem to have inspired both candidates to adopt the former candidate's populist themes on issues ranging from trade policy to health care reform – Edwards and his wife Elizabeth Edwards are key players in a new nationwide campaign to remind Americans of all the costs of the ongoing war in Iraq.
The multi-million-dollar Iraq/Recession Campaign, which launches Monday, seeks to remind voters, in the words of organizers, that, "As economic concerns weigh heavily on the minds of Americans, opposition to President Bush's reckless war in Iraq continues to grow. The massive cost of the war in Iraq – hurtling toward one trillion dollars – has increased demand for a strategy to bring U.S. troops home. The Iraq/Recession Campaign will highlight the majority of Americans who want to see leadership on investing in critical priorities at home and establishing real security throughout the world."
In addition to John and Elizabeth Edwards, those involved in launching the campaign included Service Employees International Union secretary-treasurer Anna Burger, MoveOn executive director Eli Pariser, VetsVote chairman Jon Soltz, USAction executive director Jeff Blum, Center for American Progress president John Podesta and Americans United for Change president Brad Woodhouse.
Burger was just a key player in the announcement of an Obama endorsement by the Change to Win coalition of major labor unions – although three key unions were not on board. But don't read too much into her presence, or that of MoveOn's Pariser. After all, Podesta has a long record as a Clintonista.
Bottom line: It still comes down to Edwards. And he still hasn't made an endorsement.
He has, however, begun to identify the role he may play in a fall Democratic campaign – not as a vice presidential running mate, which seems extremely unlikely, but as an outspoken advocate for a party platform and ticket that recognizes how an unnecessary war has diverted resources and energy away from the real work of building a functional and just domestic economy.
Even if he has yet to pick a candidate, John Edwards has "endorsed" an approach to the 2008 race. And it's the right one, especially in a contest with John "100 Years of War" McCain.
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
HAPPY News: Edwards endorses Ralph Nader........Forms 3rd Party.....Don't you `true' Progressives wish!!
Posted by Happy at 02/25/2008 @ 10:38am
"Bottom line: It still comes down to Edwards. And he still hasn't made an endorsement."
No...and yes.
Mr Nichols, who with his rah-rahing of the Nader run, shall now be known as "Sancho Panza" for his flunky role to all things "Quixotic" (from impeachment to Hagel/Bloomberg "Unity Tickets", to Russ Feingold's importance, to this)...once again seems to think Obama will live or die without John Edwards behind him....
well, in 1 week, 7 days, or 148 hours if you like, John Edwards' endorsement or non-endorsement will be rendered absolutely useless.
Somebody will win Texas and Ohio, and if JE hasn't spoken up at that point, nobody will give a rat's ass (ex John Nichols of course) as to who he supports.
NOW, if he supports Obama in <148 hours...and Obama wins Texas and Ohio, then Edwards can gloam onto some bragging rights.
If he supports Hillary (in same timeframe) and SHE wins...he would likely be considered a significant, but not monumental factor.
If he sits it out and Obama wins TX and OH and Hillary drops out...who cares who he endorses.
If he endorses Hillary AFTER she wins TX and OH, it could help a TINY bit, but he'll also piss off a lot of his OLD supporters who moved to Obama after South Carolina.
Either way, Mr Nichols, like impeachment, the "significance of an Edwards' endorsement"...has a VERY short shelf-life!
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 10:45am
five years of war, and all we got is "the surge is working" ?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 10:48am
The news cycles between now and Texas/Ohio are becoming precious and few. Edwards will provide a two day cycle in one candidate's favor, which would be nice, but the clock is ticking... I think this is more based on choosing the winner and still having "power" in the party, than it is about any principle, which is why his candidacy went nowhere.
Nader and Edwards would be a perfect ticket, too bad it would easily be thwarted by positioning a mirror in front of the candidate and a bobbleheaded supporter nearby. *fawn*
Posted by Tzimisce at 02/25/2008 @ 10:54am
Nader and Edwards would be a perfect ticket...
Posted by TZIMISCE 02/25/2008 @ 10:54am
...to elect John McCain, you mean.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 10:57am
And I voted for Nader in 2000, the differences presented between Bush and Gore, weren't great, and I lived in Kentucky a solidly Red state. But now, what is the reason for running? There is a difference, in style and substance, Obama actually rallies the base and the grassroots. There is a need for more parties, but both of the major parties are undergoing a change. More nuanced views would be great but our system might be more healthy than we think if these realignments make the parties more responsive.
Posted by Tzimisce at 02/25/2008 @ 10:59am
...to elect John McCain, you mean.
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 10:57am
Negative. I can speak as at least a single person representative of people who voted for Nader in the past. We really just wanted to be heard by the Democrat elite. Triangulation and utter selling out for power, decimated support for that party. Seriously there were many years there were I could not tell you one policy change that Democrats would enact if elected, essentially they took the position of "I disagree with everything Republicans say."
In the end for many voters bad ideas were better than no ideas, and if given the choice many would rather vote for losing ideas, then no ideas.
Posted by Tzimisce at 02/25/2008 @ 11:04am
But I reject the idea that Nader cost Gore the election. Sure there was voter disenfranchisement in Florida and the margin of victory for Bush could have easily been made up by Nader votes. Those Nader voters were there for Gore to get, and post-loss Gore, the one that actually showed that he was a liberal, and had charisma and well was electable to those people. IF the 2003 Gore had run in 2000 he would have earned my vote, and I would guess he might have won the election (this time for real). Gore, Kerry, Cliton (if she gets it) is just a long line of Democrats running headlong away from their base and activist supporters.
Posted by Tzimisce at 02/25/2008 @ 11:12am
And I voted for Nader in 2000, the differences presented between Bush and Gore, weren't great,
you still feel that way?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:12am
In retrospect, well no, I think it would be foolish to say that. At that time though, how they ran, and what issues they ran on, certainly Yes.
I'll steal a line, if i had to live that situation over again, with the same information, then i would have reacted the same. Gore's war on charisma and lack of ideas lost my vote.
Posted by Tzimisce at 02/25/2008 @ 11:15am
Edwards has this occasionally devious quality, like when he and Hillary conspired to lock others out of the debates.
Should he endorse Clinton, his credibility will be less than zero.
Posted by Lil at 02/25/2008 @ 11:27am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Tzimisce
so, you voted against someone, rather than for someone. you didn't feel you were throwing your vote away? after all, Nader had zero chance of winning anything.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 11:27am
I voted against Gore, and for someone, or at least a platform that represented my views.
I was throwing my vote away, but I could argue that I would have been throwing it away in either direction. Do I hold my nose an vote for someone, who might, represent me? OR Do I vote for a platform that I agree with in the hopes that someone pays attention?
Kerry didn't quite get it, but Howard Dean sure as hell did, and Obama seems to really get it. You don't have to be in lockstep with your base, but you at least have to hear it out.
Posted by Tzimisce at 02/25/2008 @ 11:32am
Should he endorse Clinton, his credibility will be less than zero.
Posted by LIL 02/25/2008 @ 11:27am
If he endorses Clinton, he'll make everyone who supported him and switched to Obama (i.e. the vast majority of his supporters, myself included) look like fools for having faith in him. His career will definitely be over. He'd contradict everything he said on his campaign trail.
He'd be stupid, not to mention a complete asshole, to endorse Clinton.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 11:32am
A few smelling salts here are needed here. Its not at all inconsequential that Obama deputy campaign manager Hildebrand also founded Americans United for Change under the Hildebrand Tewes 'umbrella' of 'clients' nor that he works with MoveOn, who somehow managed to convince its members to, for the first time ever, endorse a pres. candidate, Obama, of course, at a time when it was crucial for Obama in the primaries/caucuses. Shame on Edwards for participating in this obfuscation. Whatever brings the consultants the big bucks and delivers for their candidate, I guess.
Maybe some of you read Matt Taibi's piece at Rolling Stone - http://www.prwatch.org/node/6981
Source: Rolling Stone, February 21, 2008 Matt Taibbi analyzes how "Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends." He faults the MoveOn-led Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, "a political tool for the Democrats -- one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans. ... At the forefront of the groups are Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse... [M]uch of the anti-war group's leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes -- whose partners Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes served as staffers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. ... This is the kind of conflict of interest that would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community. ... The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that it's now all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the presidential campaign. Once again ... the Democrats have ... done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they've been asked to give, every step of the way." Besides MoveOn others in the AAEI coalition include Americans United for Change, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, SEIU, USAction, VoteVets.org, Win Without War and Working Assets. Both Hildebrand and Tewes are "senior strategists" for presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Posted by coolwater at 02/25/2008 @ 11:47am
I like what former writer for The Nation, David Corn, had to say about an Edward's endorsement:
The John Edwards Endorsement: A Last Chance To Prove He's No Phony
A few weeks ago, I was talking to an influential Hillary Clinton fundraiser. When the subject of John Edwards (still in the race at that time) came up, she started sputtering about his hypocrisy. His expensive hair cut, his big house--the guy's a phony, she exclaimed derisively, and his populist, anti-Washington, help-the-poor rhetoric was all just for show. He won't last.
She was right on that final point. As for his authenticity, that was a question that chased Edwards. During his six years in the U.S. Senate (1999 to 2005), Edwards was no working-class hero. He did not develop a reputation as a firebrand willing to take on the powerbrokers of the nation's capital. At that time, Senator Paul Wellstone was the populist champion in the Senate (until his tragic death in October 2002). Wellstone waged one fight after another against corporate interests, lobbying influence, and the sway of big-money. I don't recall Edwards standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him during all these uphill battles.
Yet on the campaign trail, Edwards became Joe Hill in a suit.
Wellstone once told me that you always have to allow for redemption within politics. And perhaps Edwards' conversion was genuine. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? His message was powerful and well-delivered--even if not embraced by a plurality of Democratic voters. But if Edwards wants to prove he was truly speaking his heart and mind, he has no choice when it comes to endorsing one of the remaining Democratic contenders. He cannot support Hillary Clinton.
During the campaign, as he called for ending poverty, Edwards pointed to Clinton as part of the problem. Let's roll the tape on a speech he gave in New Hampshire last summer:
The system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things....
Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming...
It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game. And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it. The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other. The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
There is no way to read that passage as not a direct assault on Clinton. Edwards was calling her out as a "corporate Democrat" willing to benefit from the crooked politics of Washington. The reference to the renting of the Lincoln Bedroom was a sharp punctuation mark. (During the Bill Clinton presidency, big donors to his campaign were rewarded with overnights in the White House.)
This was not a solo blast. At the debate before the New Hampshire primary, Edwards slammed Clinton for being aligned with "the forces of status quo" dead-set on blocking change in Washington.
Those were some charges. Did Edwards mean what he was saying about Clinton? Did he mean it when he proclaimed that poverty eradication was the cause of his life?
In the past few days, Edwards has met with Clinton, and he's due to see Barack Obama, presumably to figure out if he should endorse either. If Clinton ends up the Democratic nominee, it will not be hypocritical for Edwards to campaign for her. He can reasonably argue she will be a better president than John McCain. But if the choice is Obama or Clinton, he is stuck. Were Edwards to pick her over him, he would be endorsing a "corporate Democrat" fronting for the status quo over the fellow whom he approvingly cited as an advocate for change. If Edwards pulled such a move, all those powerful words he left behind on the campaign trail would have no meaning.
There's been speculation among the politerati about what Edwards might want in return for the few delegates he managed to collect before leaving the race. (He cannot hand them over automatically to any candidate; he can only suggest his delegates follow his lead.) Would he like to be attorney general in a Democratic administration, perhaps as a stepping stone toward the Supreme Court? He could make a good A.G. But if Edwards horse-trades away his principled opposition to Clinton for a job, it will indicate he's nothing but another say-anything/do-anything politician.
The issue is not whether he was right in his criticism of Clinton, but whether he was genuine on the campaign trail. An Edwards endorsement of Obama would not be slam-dunk evidence he's truly become a Wellstonian populist. But an Edwards endorsement of Clinton--though welcomed by the Clinton camp--would prove that Clinton fundraisers' point: he's not for real.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
"The John Edwards Endorsement: A Last Chance To Prove He's No Phony"----Posted by METTEYYA 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm
"Phoney"?...that your word or Mr Corn's METTE?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 12:54pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 12:54pm
That was Mr. Corn's word, but if you have been following my posts here concerning Edwards for the past 6 months, you would know that I fully concur!
Edwards has always been out for himself, and there is no doubt he was promised some job in a Clinton administration which is causing him to hesitate to endorse Obama.
Edwards never had any principles that he was able to put ahead of his own personal ambition, and this non-endorsement is just more proof of this fact.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/25/2008 @ 1:07pm
Reason I asked is, if David Corn is "hinting" that John Edwards MIGHT be a phony....
it's a good indicator of why he is no longer associated with "The Nation", given John Nichols' (and others) strong adoration of JE that continues to today.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 1:08pm
still think he harbors whimsey of being chosen #2. wait til just a few days prior to texhio...
thats what i'm waiting to see...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 1:08pm
I don't think that is why David Corn is no longer at The Nation, as there are plenty of writers here who have similar doubts about Edwards.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/25/2008 @ 1:43pm
David Corn also was opposed to impeachment (another John Nichols' fave) on the grounds that it would distract even hurt the Democrats for 2007-2008.
That and the "phony" comment about Edwards (plus hearing him on NPR on occasion) lead me to think that maybe Mr Corn wasn't particularly "in" with the Editors here at "TN" in the last few years and "decided to seek new opportunities", i.e. the old "mutual break-up"?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:07pm
conventional wisdom blah blah...CW has fallen flat on its face this election. never have i seen the hierophantic talking head keepers of the ark of the CW so consistently fail to predict anything but the most undeniably obvious - even that after the fact...which means, not exactly a prediction...
wait til 2-3 days before ohias and look for an edwards announcement. maybe not, but...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 2:15pm
the ark of the CW so consistently fail to predict anything but the most undeniably obvious - Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 2:15pm
Don't you need to find the Lost City of Georgetown and gain the Headpiece to the Staff of David Gergen to discover the final resting place of the Lost Ark of the Conventional Wisdom?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 2:23pm
"NOW, if he supports Obama in <148 hours...and Obama wins Texas and Ohio, then Edwards can gloam onto some bragging rights."
A VERY good point.
Posted by chuckamok at 02/25/2008 @ 2:28pm
It's bad enough we combine names of celebrities but now we do it with states too! Come on people. You're killing me.
Posted by k330k at 02/25/2008 @ 2:30pm
I don't think that is why David Corn is no longer at The Nation, as there are plenty of writers here who have similar doubts about Edwards.
Part of this is true. Other people at the nation seem to have roughly the same position about Edwards as Corn does. My own guess is that Corn might have wanted more in the way of investigative journalism and less in the way of being a part of the 'voice' of the democratic party (which is what the Nation is increasingly devolving into).
Part of it is off base. Mask was closer to right when he said that Corn thought Edwards might be phony. I think Edwards might be phony. 'Might' is a pretty weak word. That is different than actively having doubts.
As for the article, it seems to me that Edwards is doing pretty much the right thing. His future isn't in elected office anymore, it is as an issue advocate. While it makes no sense for them to be, plenty of people who could form a part of a progressive/populist issue oriented movement within the party are attached to Clinton's candidacy. If Edwards' future is in trying to raise the profile of certain issues, and increase the effectiveness of groups dedicated to those issues, then there is not much to be gained by pissing off Clinton's bamboozled supporters. I think the only reason to endorse now (given that Clinton is such a long shot, because of how much she has to win Texas and Ohio by to get back into the race) would be if you needed the support of either the Clinton machine or the emerging Obama machine some time in the future. And you only need that for appointed or elected public office. And if he is going the Gore route, which is the best route for him to take, he doesn't need the machines, but does need the supporters.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/25/2008 @ 2:41pm
Edwards never had any principles that he was able to put ahead of his own personal ambition, and this non-endorsement is just more proof of this fact.
It seems to me that not too long ago all that Edwards needed to do to be redeemed in Mett's eyes was not to endorse Clinton (can you search the archives Mask?). Now anything short of endorsing Obama promptly is a sign that he is a PHONY!!!!!!!!!
Mett. Proudly keeping the 'Obama cult' meme alive.
It just couldn't possibly be that he thinks Obama is too far to the right on key issues like health care and the mortgage crisis could it? No certainly not. Much more likely is that Mett is able to tell what the offer Clinton made to Edwards was and what Edwards' motivations are. Do all members of the Obama cult get awarded telepathic powers Mett, or is it just the upper echelons?
Disclaimer: I don't think most Obama supporters have a cultish devotion to him. I think that the most vocal supporters of his online do and that is where the cult meme comes from.
Posted by dentedpat at 02/25/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person
don't touch it! its evil!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
don't touch it! its evil!!!!!
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 3:03pm
No, that was the kid at the end of "Time Bandits".
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 3:39pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person
yeah - i loved the late sir ralph's portrayal of god in that one...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 3:46pm
I have no idea what is going on in Edwards' mind-- nor does Corn, nor does anyone else besides Edwards. And very likely, he's a bit 60/40 betwixt and between himself.
But the matter of his "endorsement" is of no consequence whatsoever. Except perhaps to him. He was able to sway only a tiny minority of the vote when he was in the race-- now he's out, he'll have less than nothing. It is a matter of complete mystery to me why the campaigns are "wooing" him at all, esp. since they are doing it so feebly. He has 26 delegates over which he has very little sway whatsoever, and that is shaky. Once he releases them, they can vote however they like. And his paltry 26 pales beside the 366 delegates that the Clintonistas are angling to turn their way from the fraudulent Florida & Michigan "elections." (Let me see . . . where was it last common to hold elections with just one name on the ballot? Hmmm . . . Not exactly a model of good Democratic practices.)
I think this is why Edwards has not endorsed yet. He has not had a real offer from either side. He hates Clinton, at least in the political sense of "hate." That much is apparent from his campaigning. But Obama, from his record, is as much a cipher as Edwards himself is; we just don't know what kind of administration either one of them would assemble. Would it be principled? Based on the campaigning, yes. Would it be coopted & "pragmatic" (read sell-out)? I don't know. There's nothing solid to preclude this in either man's case. The one thing clear is that with Clinton the sell-out is already in the fix.
Posted by goyadad at 02/25/2008 @ 3:47pm
The issue is not whether he was right in his criticism of Clinton, but whether he was genuine on the campaign trail. An Edwards endorsement of Obama would not be slam-dunk evidence he's truly become a Wellstonian populist. But an Edwards endorsement of Clinton--though welcomed by the Clinton camp--would prove that Clinton fundraisers' point: he's not for real.
Posted by METTEYYA 02/25/2008 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person
METTEYA,
Obama has the support of most posting comments here at this site. That support does not, however, preclude legitimate criticisms of certain policy initiatives. It is rather peculiar of you to compare Obama to Wellstone when Obama himself expresses condescending disdain for very anti-establishment populism Wellstone and later Edwards offered to the voter. Furthermore, it is unfortunate to see you attempt to validate and justify the millions of dollars Obama has accepted from Wall Street bankers. Since less than one percent of Americans donate all political contributions two hundred dollars or more, it's quite laughable to claim that a random group of individuals at Goldman Sachs and the other investment firms on Wall Street, just happen to comprise Obama's top donors by mere coincidence.
And this frail claim is made more pathetic by Obama's home mortgage initiative, which emulates Republican talking points about personal responsibility in the sub-prime lending scandal, while offering cover to the financial institutions largely to blame. While you may characterize Obamas' surrounding himself with former Clinton administration centrist economic advisors as nuance and open-mindedness, many others would perceive it as evidence that Obama is not as progressive as some of those who ‘talk' him up claim.
Here is an excerpt from an interesting 2006 interview by David Sirota with Obama:
"Obama's deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama's support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It's because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.
http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/
Posted by Oustbush at 02/25/2008 @ 3:53pm
His future isn't in elected office anymore,
this is way premature for Edwards. he is a young man, has good name recognition and is a good communicator. most politicians cannot say the same.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/25/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/25/2008 @ 3:46pm
Supreme Being: I should do something very extroverted and vengeful to you. Honestly, I'm too tired. So, I think I'll transfer you to the undergrowth department, brackens, small shrubs, that sort of thing... with a 19% cut in salary, backdated to the beginning of time.
Randall: Oh, thank you, sir.
Supreme Being: Yes, well, I am the nice one.
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/25/2008 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person
It's too bad you were not paying more attention over the past year. Nevertheless, eighteen, sometimes thirty percent of the Democratic electorate was inclined to support or vote for Edwards despite his getting less than 25 percent of the media coverage Obama and Clinton received. The strength of Edwards was how he transformed the race from one obsessed on personality traits or style to one more focused on issues. Edwards, unlike the other candidates, spent the last four years working with community organizers, grassroots activists, unions, academics specializing on poverty issues, and policy experts carefully crafting comprehensive solutions to the problems facing our nation. His wife, Elizabeth's battle with cancer also helped shape their understanding of the health care industry and how it must be reformed. No other candidate spoke as forcefully as Edwards concerning health care and how it's destroying lives as well as the economy. Edwards made no excuses or apologies for the need to reform health care and in a straightforward manner stated that the private industry would compete in his plan against the government system, and if the public model was more efficient and cost effective, we would adopt a single payer system.
Most of the Nation's writers have acknowledged Edwards as being the transformative force regarding real policy initiatives during this campaign. While progressive writers have praised Edwards for his sound proposals, it is Obama and Clinton who have been vetted by the business community. Let us ‘hope' that Obama later slams the door shut on these wealthy interest groups piling money at his feet.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/25/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person
now thats a god i can dig! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/25/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/25/2008 @ 3:53pm
Yeah, OUSTBUSH, this is one of the considerations that give me pause. I'm on the bandwagon, but I'm still looking around me to see if the whole ruckus is all theater. Wellstone was a legitimate liberal progressive, and to call him a "gadfly" could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your view. Sirota (a bit gaddish himself) took it as having a sneering tone, but these judgments often depend on how one's ear is tuned. (Sirota's is definitely tuned the minor scale & cynicism, though rightly so & I respect him for it.)
But like Mrs. Gump, I believe that cynicism is as cynicism does. So let's look at the war vote issue (sigh, again). Obama endlessly (and correctly) criticizes Billary for temporizing and triangulating with her vote & excuse-making and blame-placing after the fact (Oh, that W! How was I to know he'd doublecross us?)
But when HE had the chance to vote on the war, what did Obama do? No, no, no, no-- I'm not interested in the inside-baseball anaylsis of when a yes is a no and all of that rationalizing prattle. What did he DO when war funding was up for a vote-- for an actual vote?
Well, I know what he did because I was interested enough to watch the actual vote on C-SPAN 2. It was very telling. Billary & 'Bama both idled & pattered around the recorder's table for the better part of an hour, each waiting to have the other vote first. It turned out in this game of senatorial "chicken" that Clinton went first, voting yes. Then less than 3 minutes later 'Bama voted yes also.
So, when we are talking about an actual vote, not a theoretical one, a vote that matters & one that counts, did Obama vote yes or no on war funding?
Of course, the Clintons can't beat him up over this because she voted yes too, and that naturally was part of the calculation.
But my Sirotan query is this: Would Paul Wellstone have voted yes?
We all know the answer to that one. Which makes me sigh and reflect that this whole scenario seems like something out of "Mullholland Falls," "The Usual Suspects" or an old episode of Star Trek where Spock has to choose between shooting either of two versions of Kirk, one the genuine, humanitarian Kirk and the other his demonic double. Here I am, like all the rest of us, fazer in hand, trying to reason out the correct choice. And wondering if it won't be a big laugh on the lot of us if it turns out they are both evil imposters.
Posted by goyadad at 02/25/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person
I'm essentially consigned to accepting Obama as the candidate, but those kinds of critiques as you posted above, leave me feeling a bit nauseous. And the Kyle-Lieberman vote that Clinton cravenly voted yeah on (she was underestimating the ability of Obama to catch her at the time, looking ahead to the general election), Obama skipped the vote. Both were cowardly acts and do not bode well for the future.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/25/2008 @ 4:44pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/25/2008 @ 4:27
"No other candidate spoke as forcefully as Edwards concerning health care"
Don't take this as irritable rejoinder, OUSTBUSH, but in fact I was paying attention (or at least my version of same).
But here is an appropo excerpt from the Bard:
(Polo.) What do you read my lord?
(Ham.) Words, words, words.
When we have more than words, then we find out for certain. But by then, of course, it is too late for remedy and we have only to upbraid ourselves for our gullibility and to resolve to choose better on subsequent occasions (but sadly, upon the same evidence).
Posted by goyadad at 02/25/2008 @ 4:45pm
Here I am, like all the rest of us, fazer in hand, trying to reason out the correct choice. And wondering if it won't be a big laugh on the lot of us if it turns out they are both evil imposters.---Posted by GOYADAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:35pm
Would that make Nader Yvonne Craig as the green Orion slave girl?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/25/2008 @ 4:46pm
Dear OUSTBUSH,
Sorry for occasioning your nausea. (Consult Dr. J-P Sartre on the causes and remedies of same.)
My sorrow is that Sen. Wellstone is dead and that his nearest neighbor in the senate (both ideologically & geographically) decided that it was a lost cause for a northern liberal with a long & solid record to back up his claims to being a reformer decided that it was that very record which killed off any presidential hopes in their cradle.
But let's hope Obama is the real deal. Damned if I can tell, though.
Posted by goyadad at 02/25/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/25/2008 @ 3:53pm
OUTBUSH,
Those were David Corn's words about Wellstone, not mine!
I happen to agree with David concerning Edwards and I think if Edwards endorses Clinton, this will be one of many actions he has taken during the course of his life that show he never really was a populist or a progressive and was just using this to get elected because he believed a few years back that the race would be between him and Clinton.
You can't vote as a DLC centrist and invest in the very "bad" corporations that you rail against and have any credibility as a progressive with most people. The fact that Edwards was able to fool so many people for so long is really troubling, because it shows that one can simply craft an issue platform and "talk" like a progressive and many will not beyond this creation to who you really are.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by MASK 02/25/2008 @ 4:46pm
Would that make Nader Yvonne Craig as the green Orion slave girl?!?!?
LOL!!
I'm not sure, but it might make Mad Mac the semblable of Roger C. Carmel as that duplicitous intergalactic trader in female flesh, Harry Mudd (read here Ms. Iseman, Cindy McCain, Mrs. McCain the First, et al. ad infinitum.)
Posted by goyadad at 02/25/2008 @ 5:05pm
Typo...should read "many will not [look] beyond this creation to who you really are."
Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 5:06pm
Posted by GOYADAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person
I apologize for that comment, clearly you have been paying attention.
Your mention of C-SPAN brings to mind the transparency ideas that METTEYA often posts from the Obama campaign website. Now, I applaud such actions from government, but remain skeptical of their effectiveness. Clearly we have technological tools at our disposal even today, yet, the corrupt machine of concentrated wealth and privilege drowning out the voter (half the population who even attempts the process) marches on. C-SPAN allows us to observe with our own eyes how uninspiring the political process remains. Obama, who is proposing reforms that allow full disclosure, has fund raising data that frightens me and almost makes me wish for more secrecy!
Posted by Oustbush at 02/25/2008 @ 5:06pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/25/2008 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person
But can you accept campaign dough from those industries you rail against (on occasion)?
I like the Obama transparency stuff, but campaign reform is more crucial,otherwise all you have are public documents confirming that it takes months of corporate groveling to raise the hundreds of millions necessary to compete in the political process. I do recognize, in fairness, that his proposals go beyond the mere listing of campaign donors and do appreciate the potential good that can be realized if one remains optimistic. An earlier point was raised, however, that many Americans do not even have computers.
I would love to see our elected politicians forced to wear NASCAR-style jackets or sports coats covered with the decals of the corporate campaign donors.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/25/2008 @ 5:23pm
Sorry for occasioning your nausea. (Consult Dr. J-P Sartre on the causes and remedies of same.)
Posted by GOYADAD 02/25/2008 @ 4:55pm | ignore this person
Though I have had this on my book shelves for some years, I haven't read it. Perhaps I'll give it a try. Probably after dinner would be best, I suspect. Thanks.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/25/2008 @ 5:28pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/25/2008 @ 5:23pm
This Opensecrets.org reporting of "fundraising by industry" is EXTRAORDINARILY misleading, as it "assumes" without "any" factual basis that "employees" that donate to a candidate were told to do so by their "employer".
We all saw the movie SICKO, and saw the "thousands" of letters Michael Moore received from employees in the healthcare industry that DISAGREED with the policies of their employers. If you are an associate or partner at a law firm or investment bank, this does NOT mean that you agree with the practices of every client of your firm, and to push this guilt by association is disingenuous.
Many employees feel trapped in occupations and at companies they despise, but put mortgage payments and kids tuition ahead of their disdain for their employers.
Certainly, there are those at certain companies that "bundle" funds from employees and donate them to a particular candidate, but you cannot confuse this bundling with "individual" (pay CLOSE attention to the date the contribution was made by going to the FEC website) contributions made by high-paid employees who simply like a particular candidate!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/25/2008 @ 8:00pm
1,000,000,000,000 dollars! That is the projected COST by 2010 to American taxpayers for Alibama's global poverty bill now facing eminent death in congressional committees! Guess he would rather PAY third world countries to kill their own people like they already do, but more efficiently!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
Hey, where's the link?
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/25/2008 @ 8:23pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
racist trash.
hey rio,
WE ARE ALL AFRICAN
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 9:53pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/25/2008 @ 6:21pm
Hey, where's the link?
Posted by MATTMAN 02/25/2008 @ 8:23pm
between the sausages that make up his "brain".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/25/2008 @ 9:54pm
Here's a link to Obama's website, but no pricetag
obama.senate.gov/press/071211-obama_hagel_can/
Here's another, which mentions a formula of .07 % of GNP for a period of years, calculated to be as much as 845 Billion....
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28265.html
Which, if accurate, wouldn't be too far off....
So, Frosty, how is it racist of RIO to make light of it?
Or, is it just racist of anyone to criticise Barry Oh!?
Lets all get along, and do the Obama chant!
Hope for Change! Hope for Change! Change! change! Hope! Hope!
Posted by TransitDave at 02/25/2008 @ 11:51pm
Correction, cost of $845 bil starting in 2010, for about a 12 year period.....Still, probably an honest mistake on RIO's part....
An alarming figure, in any case. How's he gonna pay for it?
Posted by TransitDave at 02/25/2008 @ 11:55pm
So, Frosty, how is it racist of RIO to make light of it?
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/25/2008 @ 11:51pm
alibama.
'nuff said.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:02am
An alarming figure, in any case. How's he gonna pay for it?
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/25/2008 @ 11:55pm
a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs.
sounds like a much cheaper way to fight terrorism
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:06am
sounds like a much cheaper way to fight terrorism
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/26/2008
Easy for a Canadian to say........
And, how is Alibama racist?
Posted by TransitDave at 02/26/2008 @ 12:21am
But he still hasn't said how he would pay for it
Posted by TransitDave at 02/26/2008 @ 12:22am
Easy for a Canadian to say........
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/26/2008 @ 12:21am
ever heard of afghanistan?
canadians are dying there so that some stupid gas pipeline can be built.
terrorism my ass.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:43am
But he still hasn't said how he would pay for it
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/26/2008 @ 12:22am
aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:45am
it seems.
of all that's left in your twisted political bumbling you call an election,
mr. obama seems to be the best choice.
all candidates pander endlessly.
at least mr. obama seems to pander sincerely.
that's a start.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 12:48am
But he still hasn't said how he would pay for it
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/26/2008 @ 12:22am | ignore this person
Bush has not said how he would pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 08:20am
Bush has not said how he would pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/26/2008 @ 08:20am
it's part of his plan to eliminate global poverty.
he's going to kill them all.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/26/2008 @ 09:45am
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/26/2008 @ 12:22am | ignore this person
don't be so foolish. it is congress that votes the money and spends it. the pres merely proposes the budget.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/26/2008 @ 3:33pm