Edwards Lament

[yeahwho]

I really do like John Edwards as a democratic candidate for president, next to Kucinich he is probably my favorite candidate. He has made some very solid arguments for media perception and reality on his campaign sight, check it out (http://www.johnedwards.com/whereisjohn/).

Everything Hillary and Obama are saying... so is Edwards, but he seems to me to be even more concrete than the other two. I hate to say it but, I think I'm becoming an Edwards fan after watching both Obama/Clinton becoming media dolls and camera muggers. They're ignoring the Bull in the China Shop.

Obama still has my loyalty, but only by the slimmest thread.

Hillary will never get my nod.

It's like the public is fascinated on a woman and a black man, if only Ron Paul could step aside and let RuPaul run.

[yeahwho]

plus this response (http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20080117-obama-reagan/) to Barack Obama's statement about Ronald Reagan (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html) is right up my political belief system.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – John Edwards for President campaign manager David Bonior released the following statement about Senator Obama's comments about President Reagan:

"Senator Obama was wrong -- frightfully so -- in using Ronald Reagan as an example of voters reaching for change. The breadth of change Ronald Reagan brought was crippling for millions of Americans with the two worst recessions since the Depression, a complete disregard for the rights of American labor, and tax cuts that lined the pockets of the richest Americans at the expense of fiscal sanity and the well-being of the most vulnerable in our society.

"Senator Obama may have been more interested in contrasting Reagan with Bill Clinton, but it shows particularly bad judgment to suggest this is the kind or even the breadth of change Americans want. Instead of lauding Ronald Reagan, Senator Obama would do better to remember that it was presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy who helped move this country forward."

[saz]

i must sound like a broken record on here, but again, i was in the same boat as you. i previously bought into the obama hype.

but i started really looking into him, and there isn't much there. he is a genuinely nice guy and a great orator, but he's not a true progressive. obama is not only just another status quo moderate centrist, but just look (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/) at who his economic policy advisors are. all of his talk about "hope" and "change" is utter nonsense.

and in politics, you can't play "nice" with the opposition, especially the republicans.

as i've previously pointed out, edwards is not only the most electable (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/cnn-national-matchups-john-edwards-most-electable-121207001.html) democrat (http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/john-edwards-is-the-most-electable-democrat.html), but the media are completely ignoring him. edwards is the only one who isn't pushing the feel good fantasy of bipartisanship. working together with the republicans, and their corporate and evangelical fanatical supporters? that is a fantasy. the dems need to be divisive. they need to steamroll a progressive partisan agenda right over the corpses of the republicans and the corporate ceos. what do you think the republicans have been doing for the last seven years? americans don't deserve a health insurance plan where the insurance companies get a seat at the table. in fact, they shouldn't even be allowed in the room. there is a distinct odor of business as usual about hillary and obama. i'm sick of the dems being nice and spineless, while the republicans do what they want: breaking the law and being bullies in the process. the corporations and their right-wing congressional lackies shouldn't get any consideration whatsoever. democrats like harry reid, nancy pelosi, hillary and obama are useless.

matt taibbi of rolling stone is a great journalist who has written one of the best pieces i've recently read about the media and the coverage of the current presidential primaries. he's not afraid to call out both politicians and other broadcasters and journalists on their b.s.


How Trivial Can the Media Make the Presidential Race?

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted January 16, 2008.

Corporate media are turning one of the most exciting primary seasons in history into a trivia contest.

"Stripped of its prognosticating element, most campaign journalism is essentially a clerical job, and not a particularly noble one at that. On the trail, we reporters aren't watching politics in action: The real stuff happens behind closed doors, where armies of faceless fund-raising pros are glad-handing equally faceless members of the political donor class, collecting hundreds of millions of dollars that will be paid off in very specific favors over the course of the next four years. That's the real high-stakes poker game in this business, and we don't get to sit at that table.

How did one of the most genuinely interesting primary contests in American history devolve into a Grade-D smack-down that even Vince McMahon would be ashamed to promote? The real story of the campaign has been its unprecedented unpredictability -- and therein lies the problem. On both tickets, the abject failure of media-anointed front-runners to hold their ground was due at least in part to voters having grown weary of being told by the press who was "electable" and who wasn't. Both the Huckabee and Ron Paul candidacies represent angry grass-roots challenges to the entrenched Republican party apparatus, while the Edwards candidacy is a frank and open attack on his own party's too-cozy relationship with corporate America. These developments signaled a meaningful political phenomenon -- widespread voter disgust, not only with the two ruling parties, but with a national political press that smugly enforced the party insiders' stranglehold on the process with its incessant bullying of dissident candidates.

But there was no way this genuinely interesting theme was going to make it into mainstream coverage of the campaign heading into the primary season. It was inevitable that different, far stupider story lines would be found to dominate the headlines once the real bullets started flying in Iowa and New Hampshire. And find them we did.

A month ago, I was actually interested to see who won these first few races. But now that this whole affair has degenerated into a mass orgy of sports clichés and celebrity catfighting, I find myself more hoping that they all die in a fire somehow. And something tells me that most of America would hope that my colleagues and I burn up with them."

link (http://www.alternet.org/story/73727/?page=1)


taibbi was also on real (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCMyyoKqH-4) time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCMyyoKqH-4) last week.

[yeahwho]

Edwards On Nevada Loss: I'm In This Until The End, For The Sake Of Middle Class
- January 19, 2008, 6:19PM

As others have noted, one of the big stories of the night is the disappointing finish of John Edwards, who came in with less than 5%. Here's the statement just out from the Edwards campaign, in full:

“Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her win in Nevada. Our campaign is very grateful to all those who demonstrated the loyalty and dedication to stand up for John Edwards in the face of very difficult circumstances and long odds, including our brothers and sisters in Nevada from the Carpenters, Steelworkers, Transport Workers, and Communications Workers of America.

“John Edwards is the underdog in this campaign, facing two $100 million candidates. But that is nothing compared to the real underdogs in our country – working men and women, middle class families, and all those who have no voice in Washington.

“John Edwards is in this race to fight for the real underdogs and to make sure the voices of the American people are heard in Washington, not the special interests. That’s why he’s the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists; the only candidate who will ban corporate lobbyists from his White House; and the only candidate who is honest enough to say we are in a fight for our country and we need to take on the special interests if we are going to have a country that works for hard-working families and the middle class.

“The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint, and we’re committed to making sure the voices of all the voters in the remaining 47 states are heard. The nomination won’t be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we’re ready to fight for every delegate. Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that’s a fight John Edwards is ready for.”

tenacious bitch ain't he?

[saz]

not only did he kick ass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9gSpMiaW7Y) and win (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080122/cm_thenation/45273581) last night's debate (he was clear, concise, no spin, a great relief from hillary and especially obama who does nothing but talk in an endless circle of lofty rhetoric) but edwards also received a glowing letter (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/mlk_iii_to_edwards_my_father_w.html) from martin luther king's son:


January 20, 2008


The Honorable John E. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516


Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father’s legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father’s legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.


Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

[abcdefz]

You guys? Please:

I love threads that have actual content, but when the posts are lengthy, you gotta break 'em up so we pitiful people with regular screens
don't have to keep scrolling side to side. I know that's kind of whiny, but you're sort of defeating your own purpose, I think.

[saz]

i have a regular size screen as well, and it doesn't matter how short or lengthy any particular post is anywhere on this forum, because i always have to scroll from one side of the screen to another. there is nothing that we can do about it, but rather something that only the bbmb administration can change.

[abcdefz]

You just insert hard returns (see above).

[saz]

even when you're viewing the board or a particular forum, you still have to scroll from one side to the other. anyways, who cares.


(y)

only john edwards can beat mccain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-mudcat-saunders/only-john-edwards-can-bea_b_82734.html)

"Let's hope John Edwards can hold on until the convention. Maybe the delegates will come to their senses and actually pick a winner - the "angry" populist = a democrat who talks tough about issues of poverty, opportunity, and economic justice. A democrat who will the turn the clock back on the serious dismantling of our democracy! Can the democrats finally do something right?"

[Documad]

As much as I'd love to see a brokered convention from either party,
at least once in my lifetime, I can't see the democrats giving the nomination
to the guy in third place unless the top two both die or are found to have done
something really really horrible.

Something similar did happen in my state twice in the last 20 years in
statewide races, where the leading candidate had to drop out over a
personal scandal, but it's pretty rare.

[DroppinScience]

You know, my conscience is telling me that Edwards is the best bet. I've loved Obama dearly since his DNC '04 speech, but Edwards right now feels like the reincarnation of Robert Kennedy in '68 (side note: had he lived, do you think he'd have pursued poverty and social justice to the extent that he was campaigning?).

Brokered convention FTW this year.

[saz]

As much as I'd love to see a brokered convention from either party,
at least once in my lifetime, I can't see the democrats giving the nomination
to the guy in third place unless the top two both die or are found to have done
something really really horrible.

Something similar did happen in my state twice in the last 20 years in
statewide races, where the leading candidate had to drop out over a
personal scandal, but it's pretty rare.


bill clinton lost the first five primaries/caucuses in 1992, and was virtually written off.

[Documad]

I don't think Edwards is going to take the south like Bill Clinton, but if he does I'd be delighted.

I'm going to caucus on super Tuesday, but not for a presidential candidate.

[wrongwayandugg]

I really do like John Edwards as a democratic candidate for president, next to Kucinich he is probably my favorite candidate.
I wanted Kucinich for president also. What I want to know is, why was Kucinich on the Alex Jones show and how close is this friendship between Kucinich and Ron Paul? Anyone know what is going on?:confused:

[DroppinScience]

Mysterious Traveler Entrances Town With Utopian Vision Of The Future
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mysterious_traveler_entrances

:)