Blitzer: Is John Edwards the Angry White Man?
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jan 01, 2008 5:49pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Bill W) Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: You know, it's interesting. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be making the same point in criticizing you. They suggested yesterday -- Hillary Clinton said it's not something you have to do by yelling and screaming. They are talking about your being supposedly one angry man. Barack Obama saying change doesn't come by hollering.
What do you say to their criticisms that you are just running over around the state screaming and hollering and making a lot of noise, but you're not ready to really get things done to work to get things done?
EDWARDS: Well, I would respectfully say that the reason both of them are attacking me is that they know from what they are seeing and their campaigns are seeing is that we are moving up every single day. All the polling shows it, I see it on the ground. And -- but the mistake that is being made in the criticism, of course, is I'm not the normal politician doing political talk. Instead, I'm speaking from my heart and soul and my gut about what I believe needs to be done in this country to stop corporate greed and to strengthen the middle class. And they are seeing the response, and they are trying to figure out some way to blunt it.
Is John Edwards this election cycle's Howard Dean? Because now, on the eve of first state primary, the meme being pushed by both the media and his Democratic nominee rivals is that John Edwards' rhetoric is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I'm no fan of Charles Krauthammer, but he said it best today:
"If young people show up to caucus, advantage Obama. If older people show up to caucus, advantage Clinton. If angry people show up to caucus, advantage Edwards!"
I hate to quote Charles, but I just couldn't put Edward's increasingly confrontational persona into words better than he did. I'm not sure if America is ready to elect a black candidate, or even a woman. But I'm absolutely convinced that America is not going to elect an angry candidate. And that is what John Edwards is becoming---"the angry candidate".
I don't know how much this persona is of media creation, because I haven't seen any stump speeches of Edwards where he seemed unduly angry, although it's certainly possible. This tidy little categorization--which may or may not be accurate--feels uncomfortably similar to Howard Dean's smearing as unhinged during the 2004 primaries.
Cruz at DailyKos asks the question "Why shouldn't Edwards be angry? Aren't you?"
Login or Register to post comments.
john for Pres!!!!!
Goddammit I *STILL* would love a Howard Dean presidency. *sigh*
Honestly, if the media are trying to tell me someone is 'too angry' to be President, then that actually encourages me they might be a good one. Because dammit we SHOULD be pissed off!
We the People are fucking sick and tired of being sick and tired! Being an angry *anything* right now is good!
Dodd or Kucinich are my first choices still; but this just makes my opinion of Edwards improve; and it wasn't a BAD opinion to start with.
And HRC is a liar, and Obama is like a mime he waves his hands so much...magic is not going to solve anything either. Bah, this whole thing is a drag.
Hew's got the Moxie - NOT the yelling and hollering they call it - to move people to vote for his campaign. I think he can and should win. We need a strong fighter - go DEMS!
Hillary Clinton’s Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth Pictorial Graph
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
As opposed to the rest of the crowd?
John Edward's poses a threat to these "talking head buffoons" because he is calling for an end to corporate "welfare", the military/industrial complex and most of the networks are owned by huge conglomerates. They all received massive tax breaks, no regulation whatsoever, under an agreement made by Rove when Bush was running in 2000. These corporations have seen their profits soar and they have screwed the american taxpayer.
Edwards is absolutely right and if he makes it to Massachusetts I will definitely be voting for him. I've grown disillusioned with Obama and forget Hillary. I hope Edwards does well tomorrow night.
we need a president that is as PISSED as I am!!!!
we need to stand behind edwards!!
he is not perfect, but he is the best chance we have!!
beltway bumpkins get the bozack. Anyone that cares about the poor and middle class and doesn't speak Broderese is "angry"
Just look at his voting record. He's nothing but hype. Anybody that votes for him is a sucker that just listens to whoever yells the loudest.
Well, there's alot to be angry about.
Still undecided and this "anger management" issue isn't going to sway me one way or the other.
Jason B @ 10:
Like Clinton and Obama that continue to fund the war but say they are against it? He has gone up against big Corp as a lawyer and did a damn good job!!!!
If you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention these last seven years.
A lot of people are justifiably angry. Why should that exclude Edwards?
I want someone who is angry about the status quo to represent me in DC.
BUT - Blitzin - if you are trying to cast aspersions at Edwards in the typecast of the "Angry White Male" - you need only look to the repiglican party. They uniformly fit the mold with criteria of White, Christian, Authoritative, and Male.
There, you can have your pick of any number of angry white males.
*
Obama will vote 'present' at the Iowa caucus.
At least I know where Edwards stands on the issues. I can't say that for either Obama or Clinton -- or any of the Republican crowd. Only Edwards and Kucinich actually have a plan and have laid it out. Clinton and Obama are all sizzle and no steak. Keep yelling John!
No John, are they the normal, scratch that, super normal politician, saying one thing and meaning another, this blame the rich and corporations shit is not going to work. You worked for a hedge fund now you want to tax them, you want free housing, food, college education, etc, saying whatever it is you have to say to get elected. I think it will be interesting to see what he does when he does not win the nomination, my bet he makes a load of cash and forget his two Americas crap!
That is an absolutely BS accusation...Edwards sounds the most human, and compelling out of all of them. Those comments are just meant to negate his positives.
(Yea, I would vote for Hillary in the Iowa caucus, but when it comes down to it for the 100th time, ANY DEM OVER ANY REPUBLICAN, and the Dem has my vote, period.)
Freewayblogger of the Year:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2008/01/freewayblogger-of-year.html
From the Angry White North...
Well, gee, the majority of this country is angry. I'm a voter and I'm angry. I'm glad to see there's at least one presidential front runner who is, too. Thanks, Wolf, Hilary and Obama for steering me to Edwards!
California Dave @ 11:
You're foolish if you think anyone can just walk away from the war in Iraq. There is no way around that, we are there for at least a decade. You can sneer at Obama for voting to fund the war, but you might want to consider thanking Edwards, who voted for it. Obama didn't - but he does recognise that "you break it, you buy it."
So, our choices are:
Justly angry guy
vs.
Stepford glazed eyes
who you going to choose?
Ummm.... I think the punditocracy is missing the fact that the electorate IS angry about everything. Edwards doesn't seem angry so much as earnest about his beliefs, but maybe being labeled angry isn't all that bad.
Chuck Todd-When electorates turn Angry, members of both parties may be running for their political lives Nov 7. 2007
I'm voting Kucinich in the primaries, but my second choice is John Edwards.
I think that Dennis Kucinich is throwing some support to Obama's campaign because he too realizes that John Edwards is moving up in the polls and wants to knock him down.
Anyways, I don't choose presidents by their looks or what they say, rather, I look at their voting record because candidates get desperate and start saying stupid things, that includes Dennis Kucinich and the Obama/ Iowa comment.
Dennis Kucinich still has the best voting record and that is why i will vote for him.
Bowl week @ 16:
Spoken like a true repiglican't. go back to LGFB!
eeewwww! He so angry! Grrrrrrr!
How does Blitzed sleep at night. What a disingenuous nit!
Must be very slow at CNN today.
Decent argument from Michael Moore on why he's leaning towards Edwards and away from Obama and Hillary
About time one of these candidates at least pretends to be pissed at what has happened the last 8 years. Um..hey Wolf "mother of all" Blitzers...it isn't going to work this time.
Wolf just wants Edwards to be pissed enough to shoot an old man in the face.
this is what happens when you start getting somewhere....now he's a threat...and with the way their attacking him.......it's gonna turn and bite them on the ass. There are still a lot of undecideds (me for one) and I frown on bullshit cheap attacks.....
Count Leslie Blitzer as another one of the irrelevant talking heads who can't stand Edwards. It just keeps making John seem more appealing.
Edwards may be the last best hope for progressives.
Funny thing is, when Dean was the angry candidate in 2004, Edwards was busy being the "sunny" candidate. Why wasn't Edwards angry in 2004? It's all political strategy. Say what you want about Dean, but his anger was genuine. Also Dean wasn't ratcheting up his anger like some sort of calibrated machine to peak on polling day. Dean was angry throughout because he saw right through the Bush BS before anyone else did. It's stunning how many people have fallen for the Edwards ver. 2008, I guess I'll never understand.
If he is the Howard Dean, that's not a bad thing. Now people know Rove mischaracterized Dean and he would have been a perfectly good president.
Just shows the media wants Clinton...I mean...look at her experiences...defending Walmart...oh and that defending Coke from disabled people...I mean she's perfect
If all they got on Edwards is the "angry" angle, or "all talk" angle, its the height of irony that either the always careful and calculated Clinton or the freshmen Senator who likes skipping votes should be characterizing anyone as being more talk than action.
Either way, I hear Edwards is always late and pissing people off, and then always has some bullshit excuse for being late. That alone makes me wary of voting for someone who cant be on time and that is not sincere with his reasons.
Extrapolate that into someone who ranked right up there with LIEberman in his war fever.
He may just be a smooooooth tawker, but aint they all?
JJohnson @ 2:
Good answer. Everyone should be angry.
Tom (Not Tom) @ 12:
agreed......he needs to make it clear he ISpissed off....and why.
Wolf Blitzer, representing a network that every night shoves Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs down our throats, the network that gave us Crossfire for God's sake, asks if John Edwards is too angry. Amazing.
-ep
Really, if you're not angry, somebody should pull your feeding tube.
odanny @ 36:
good point....I wouldn't appreciate being made to wait.............in the cold and snow no less.
Jason B @ 20:
Tell that to the moron who posted "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on a giant billboard behind his podium...
Who are you calling foolish? We need to count are losses, reel all of our troops back in...blame it all on the asshole at the helm...and bitch slap everyone who speaks like you...
I get so sick of this "we are obligated shit"! I didn't vote for this asshole! In fact, I don't think he even won! Yet we have an illegal war that constantly takes the lives of perfectly good people who have been duped into joining the military to help "defend freedom" or "bring democracy to Iraq"! I don't like the idea that we have lost! And I most assuredly don't think that the soldiers have lost their lives for nothing! But, I think America is in the midst of a constituational crisis and these soldiers have been sacrificed to prove that the truth should stand against this oppressive administration! So in other words, SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
He's angry with an expensive haircut....hmm, not much happening in the Comedy Situation Room.
Meanwhile, we're losing count of America's mayor's scandals and soon-to-be-repug-nominee.
It's funny that people claim Obama only votes present, yet it is his legislation that opened up government transperancy and federal spending to be viewed online. His voting record is the most progressive, his rhetoric tells us that we're not going to get anything done by stomping our feet and screaming, and he's right. The neocons and republicans have ruined our country, but they still make up almost 50% of the population - pointing our fingers and screaming at them isn't going to help them come across to our side and we need a MAJORITY in order to pass the hard legislation that needs to happen.
Go ahead and vote for Edwards, and you'll find yourself with another 51% president that gets nothing of value done because the other side hates him so much. If you want to fix this country, we actually have to work WITH the people on the other side of the political spectrum, instead of yelling at them about how wrong they are.
Jason B @ 44:
we've tried working with them.
And look what it got us.
Chip @ 42:
Tell that to the moron who posted "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" on a giant billboard behind his podium...
Who are you calling foolish? We need to count are losses, reel all of our troops back in...blame it all on the asshole at the helm...and bitch slap everyone who speaks like you...
I get so sick of this "we are obligated shit"! I didn't vote for this asshole! In fact, I don't think he even won! Yet we have an illegal war that constantly takes the lives of perfectly good people who have been duped into joining the military to help "defend freedom" or "bring democracy to Iraq"! I don't like the idea that we have lost! And I most assuredly don't think that the soldiers have lost their lives for nothing! But, I think America is in the midst of a constituational crisis and these soldiers have been sacrificed to prove that the truth should stand against this oppressive administration! So in other words, SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I voted against Bush, and I'm very angry about the whole thing, too. But you know what? There are MILLIONS of innocent people in Iraq who will die if we leave. What about them, huh? Are you so cold as to turn your back on an entire country and let it burn because it's inconvenient to you? Bush may be the idiot who put up the "mission accomplished" banner, but regardless of who went in to Iraq, we are there now, and PEOPLE WILL DIE IF WE LEAVE. Yeah, we're losing our troops, too, but that's the cost of this country's mistake. Maybe in 10 years the people who supported the war to begin with will have finally learned their lesson.
What is wrong with people that they want to leave innocent Iraqis to die? You want to hold the Bush Administration accountable, you get angry when the Bush administration ISN'T held accountable, and then you want the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF AMERICA to not be held accountable for wars we start! That's completely retarded!
I'm angry about it, too! I'm damn angry - but there ain't shit we can do about it! We invaded this country, we destroyed their police system, fire system, hospitals, WE let anarchy run loose in that nation and it's up to US to fix it! America needs to be held accountable for its actions, sorry that that's so inconvenient to you.
I voted against Bush, and I’m very angry about the whole thing, too. But you know what? There are MILLIONS of innocent people in Iraq who will die if we leave. What about them, huh? Are you so cold as to turn your back on an entire country and let it burn because it’s inconvenient to you? Bush may be the idiot who put up the “mission accomplished” banner, but regardless of who went in to Iraq, we are there now, and PEOPLE WILL DIE IF WE LEAVE. Yeah, we’re losing our troops, too, but that’s the cost of this country’s mistake. Maybe in 10 years the people who supported the war to begin with will have finally learned their lesson.
What is wrong with people that they want to leave innocent Iraqis to die? You want to hold the Bush Administration accountable, you get angry when the Bush administration ISN’T held accountable, and then you want the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF AMERICA to not be held accountable for wars we start! That’s completely retarded!
I’m angry about it, too! I’m damn angry - but there ain’t shit we can do about it! We invaded this country, we destroyed their police system, fire system, hospitals, WE let anarchy run loose in that nation and it’s up to US to fix it! America needs to be held accountable for its actions, sorry that that’s so inconvenient to you.
Clinton is like her husband about whose catch phrase Mort Sahl quipped, "A new kind of Democrat-Yeah, a Republican!" And, sadly, I'm afraid an ungodly amount of people in this country will react to the prospect of Obama as President the same way the townsfolk in Blazing Saddles did to their new sheriff. Kucinich could win, if people would actually just vote for him, but somehow people seem to think it's common knowledge that nobody will. I believe Edwards is sincere, I like his message (angry or not) and polls have shown he has the best chance of beating any of the so-called Republicans.
He's angry????? Good. He's got my vote.
Wolf Blitzer=bag of wind
First Wolf "Says" that Clinton and Obama are "saying " that Edwards is "screaming and yelling and hollering"....Well, I am not so sure they really are, even though Wolf likes to sit there and YELL that they are. ....Clinton this week is using her Mrs. Butterworth routine ( sweet, syrupy sweet- that we are supposed to think is her "softer" side) and actually what the Media and the GOP is very very fearful of is that Obama and Edwards will team up....their worst nightmare...
I have not seen Edwards or Obama bash each other or even hint at it...they both have been sticking to the ISSUES with passion, intellect....
Frankly Americans - MOST are fed up , pissed off, they have had TWO elections stolen, Crimes committed in their names, an Illegal war, Economy in the toilet, No Healthcare for millions, VETS treated worse than ever....And Real Americans Should be Fed up...It is Time for Change.....Now or Never.....
Edwards is the realistic candidate. He is rational, he is not completely bought and paid for, he is not completely idealistic, etc. Of course that is dangerous in and of itself...that is not what people particularly want instead they want they want friends, heroes, heroines, etc. and the media knows this. Thus it is easier to call him a complainer or angry guy it fits, like we have the looney guy, the old guy, the mean girl, etc. The power of narrative in play! Of course Newsweek and others are concerned, they aren't sure that Edwards may come in 1st or 2nd so they are covering him just in case. Can't get caught by surprise! We could only wish that some poll buster like Dodd or something would pull something out that would just mix the whole field up as it should be. Sadly there is just too much consensus building and editorializing in the media these days and not enough willingness just to report what happens. Dan Rather was a piker compared to what happens now.
Corporate America is terrified of the Edwards message. They will do everything in their power to make any coverage about him seem like it doesn't reflect the beliefs of a huge majority of this country. I am angry! I don't want someone telling me they are going to give the people who drove the government into the ditch a seat at the table. I don't want someone to tell me they think it's a good idea to appoint conservatives to their cabinet because they respects their views. And I damn sure don't want someone who doesn't realize that voting to give GW the power to go to war over and over and over again is not being fooled, it's being stupid. I've had enough stupid to last a lifetime. I'll take smart, nerdy and hardworking for a change. I WANT AN ANGRY PRESIDENT! If he/she isn't angry about what has happened in the last 8 years then he/she needs to find another line of work.
Jason B @ 46:
We can walk away! Why do yout think all of these people are dying? We are not wanted! Our existence in the situation is increasing the issue. They need to do what they need to do. We have removed their dictator under false pretenses. Mission accomplished! I don't want any more Iraqi citizens to either! But, we need to take a stand and make sure presidents of the future don't do the same thing this one has! If it's the last thing we do, we need to hold this administration accountable to the letter of the law (PERIOD). Unfortuately to do so we need to reverse every decision he has made from the get go. In the future when our children look back they will realize we did the best we could to correct our mistake!
You may be right, it may get worse before it gets better, but without the Iraqi's doing it themselves...they will always need a helping hand, and we just cannot afford it, financially, emotionally, or any other form of assistance. We are broke and will be bankrupt before we know it. The new mission should be to rebuild America. Then maybe we can help them after we are back on our feet.
Wow, more spin! Anyway, I'm still voting for the black guy. Clinton might make a good Dick Cheney!
Chip @ 42:
Well said. I seem to remember we walked away from Vietnam, so don't tell us it can't be done.
Oh, and one more thing to ponder, and Wolf and Chris Matthews NEVER mention this- there are alot of VERY VERY pissed off Repugs out there too, not just DEMS.....if you listen to the Morning Call In Shows on cspan it is amazing....Food for thought all of those neglected VETS, unemployed workers, People without Healthcare, and Foreclosed Homeowners, are NOT just DEMS....alot of them are also Repugs...and they want Change too.
And if OUR Country is drowning in destruction we are not supposed to angry at our loss ? really "? WHY ? Because Bushco says it is unpatriotic ?
Obama and Edwards, Richardson, Dodd , Kucinich have all been trying to help people remember WE ARE WE THE PEOPLE.....
Me thinks Joe Trippi is screwing up AGAIN!
Jason B @ 44:
Edwards is only angry for the primary season. Should he secure the nomination, he would swing hard back to the center. Not by disavowing his beliefs of course, but by accentuating certain themes. Still, all the progressives swooning for him now will get a serious case of whiplash. I don't think legislation accomplishments (or lack thereof) would be much different under any of the major candidates' hypothetical administrations. What is guaranteed is that they will bear little rsemblence to the proposals put forth now. The huge difference would be in the international arena where Obama could become an iconic figure abroad.
Chip @ 53:
You ASSUME that if we leave that MAYBE they'll rebuild. You're willing to sentence millions of people to death so that we can work on ourselves. But you're wrong. It's too late for that. It's like a drunk driver who's just hit a car full of children. You can't take it back and you can't walk away from it.
You say Iraqis should do it themselves but they CAN'T. We got rid of their army, we got rid of their police, we got rid of their hospitals, their education system, there is nothing left there for them to start building.
We DO need to hold this administration accountable, but we also need to hold this COUNTRY accountable. There is NO WAY we can just walk away and leave a country to rip itself to pieces over our actions. That is WRONG, and if that's what this country does, then this country DESERVES to be broke and bankrupt, because we would be morally bankrupt to leave now.
The new mission SHOULD be to rebuild America - after we fix the shit we broke in Iraq. There can be no ignoring them. They are our problem now and what we do with that country speaks volumes about this country. The country I believe in knows the difference between right and wrong and does what's right. If we leave Iraq in flames, then I hope this country joins it.
It isn't fair that we all have to pay because of Bush's decision, but that's a 51% president for you. Because half the country hates him so much, he just does the most damage he can. Now we have a blue America and a red America and nobody is willing to talk to each other. How are we to find a solution to our country's problems if no one is willing to talk to each other? Red America will not let Blue America just come in and decide what's right and what eneds to be fixed - that's why we are a democracy based on majority, not 50%+1.
We would do well to remind ourselves of what this country really stands for, and stop thinking that we're so much better than everybody else that we can just leave them to die. We should be proud of our country, every one of us, not a bunch of angry blowhards yelling at each other instead of listening and finding a common ground.
unfrozencaveman @ 58:
Obama's legislation is both progressive, common-sense, and centristic. He works with every one to get things done, and that's just how he is. You're right about Edwards, who would go right to the center if he got the nomination, where would Obama go? He's always been a figure that's about bringing people together rather than pushing them apart. Obama's already running his general campaign, no false promises there, which is why he should get the nomiantion.
Jason B @ 47:
As angry as you supposedly are you are still full of shit.
Exactly what crystal ball are you looking in that tells you 'millions of Iraqi's will die' if you leave?
Certainly it isn't the same one the Iraqi's are looking at since they WANT you to leave.
And how, exactly, have your troops prevented any ethnic cleansing? They haven't except for in the green zone.
Just admit to the colossal fuck-up and illegal invasion of another country and get out. There is no saving face in Iraq and there never was.
Oh yeah.... about a million innocent Iraqi's have already died while you were there (illegally).
Bowl:
Probably. He only changed his war stance after Katrina...
Josh:
But sounding and acting are two different things.
Jason B @ 59:
So, your solution is put another hole in our sinking ship! Did you hear me when I said we are BROKE! The Federal reserve can't just keep printing "dollars"! We can't afford it! Damn, I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with my ex! We don't have the money to help them anymore...nada, zip, zilch! The military is stretched far far too thin. The soldiers don't make beans! The contractors are making us look like shit while our tax "money" lines their pockets! When bread is $12.00 a loaf you'll see what we have done to ourselves!
I would really like an Edwards/Obama ticket.
First term keep Edwards busy on domestic issues - corporate welfare, health care, war profiteering, etc. Get Obama out on the world stage helping to repair our image and standing. I feel he is the only candidate that could actually make a difference in many of the countries that hate us now. This would also allow him to build his support in this country for the future when he can carry the torch from Edwards.
Szin @ 61:
The problem is that our current administration has no interest in fixing Iraq, they are only there to dole our war dollars and profits to their buddies. The idea is to get the money while the money's good.
A better administration will focus on fixing the problems instead of letting them fester. Iraq needs a political solution, not a military solution, and it will up to a strong president to lead the Iraqis in a good direction.
Regardless of whether they want us there or not, we broke it and we are responsible for Iraq's welfare. We cannot leave - that would be disgusting and immoral. We may have gone in illegally but we cannot leave those people to die. They are our responsibility.
Jason B @ 59:
And nor can the drunk bring the children back to life. All he can do is suck it up and face the consequences. Time for you to start doing that instead of continuing to prolong the agony of IRAQI's.
Btw, newsflash: this is the cradle of civilization you are talking about. They have built what they have from nothing more than once and they can do it again.
Talk about making false assumptions. Assuming that Iraqi's are dependent on the great US of A to get them off their asses is the height of hubris.
Edwards is moving up in the polls. Expect more smearing from the talking heads because Edwards consistently wins head to head against any of the Republicans. This time, though, Edwards is battle tested from 2004. I don't think that he will back down... his anti-corporate message is resonating with people because the PEOPLE are feeling the economy where it hurts... in a way in which the big business corporatists aren't.
EMPY @ 64:
I don't see anything from the right that could beat that ticket.Plus.......it sets up the next elections very well.........provided they do their job and don't screw up.
First the MSM told us Edwards was a limp wristed sissy with the haircut story. [got it? Edwards is a fag]
Now the MSM tells us Edwards is too aggressive. [got it? The guy is too manly to be a Democrat]
Can't the MSM get off their lazy butts anddo some test marketing to come up with a consistent story that denigrates the guy without making the MSM look like the passive-aggressive, bitchy queens that they are?
Ok Wolf, let me get this straight, candidates who rail about killing Iraqis, bombing Iranians, torturing innocent people, doubling the size of concentration camps such as GITMO (Hello, Willard - uh, I mean Mitt), and deporting innocent Mexican - those candidates are rational. But a candidate like Edwards, who speaks out against corporate welfare, no health coverage for large segments of the country, admits he was wrong in voting in favor of the war and now actively condemns it - he's angry and unstable. Ok, I get it Wolf - you're a fucking idiot!
Chip @ 63:
That is EXACTLY my solution. When those 51%ers are paying 12.00 a loaf of bread, they will think twice about supporting a pointless war. You're right that we can't afford it, and you know what happens to people who buy things they can't afford? They go broke! Not fair? Life ain't fair, champ.
We broke it, we bought it. If Iraq brings down the US, then the US deserves to go down. I don't think it will be the end of this country, because I have faith in our country to fix issues when we really put our minds to it. That's what this country has always been about. But to simply throw our hands up in the air and say "it's too hard!" and leave an entire country to be destroyed, that is not my USA. I cannot believe that any thinking, caring, feeling human being would say that.
i am against the US being in Iraq as much as anyone else. I was out protesting before the invasion. But once we went in, it was too late. We own it now. You see all those people who bought subprime mortgages getting hit now after they tried to flip their house for instant cash - people need to be held accountable for their actions, and countries need to be held accountable for its actions.
If you want the US to be the best country in the world, the strongest, then it needs to take this slap in the face. It needs to see Iraq through, it needs to fix the country and we ALL need to tighten our belts and suffer while we fix the problems we have created. We will come out a stronger country in the end. If we just run away, we will just continue to be whittled away in to a shadow of our former selves.
I think the US is better than that.
Szin @ 66:
We broke them. It is not their job to rebuild what we broke. We invaded their country for no reason and destroyed it. It is the height of neocon non-accountability to think we can just walk away from a country we've just destroyed. I couldn't call you a liberal or progressive at all as it seems you are concerned with no one's life but your own.
They might have rebuilt from scratch before, but it is not their job to do it now. Your disingenuous argument only downplays the damage we have done. I prefer accountability for actions. I prefer having a country that respects and obeys the rule of law.
Jason B @ 71:
I guess I have to convert this into a simplified format; where do you suppose we get the money to help the Iraqi's? From thin air? Jason, you are part of the problem! You are obviously smart, but only smart enough to sound stupid! Who works for nothing? I won't, will you? Do you think the soldiers will? Do you think that since we can't afford to pay our debt with China, and Japan they are going to help? You have been duped just like the those who believe that Iraqi was involved in 9/11! It's a god damn national sickness! Let's change the name of our great land! Let's change the name from AMERICA, to MYOPIA! Sound good! It's a much better fit! Because the America I know doesn't act like this!
Jason B @ 44:
You are wrong about Obama's voting record. He has not opened government transparency. Look at his vote on the CAFA:
This isn't the only time he voted against the Democrats' position. He voted to confirm Rice. Many did not. He voted to authorize funding despite professing to disapprove of the invasion and war. He is not a leader and has not introduced legislation, has missed more meetings of the committee to benefit veterans, and has not convened any meetings on the subcommittee he heads on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - not one. Yes, he helped to pass some important health related bills in Illinois as a state senator. But even in Illinois, he voted "present" on some (abortion-related) votes that, if major, will be portrayed as such if he is the nominee.
He is one of my senators. And I did not vote for him to be my senator so that he could run for president before he had even served half a term in DC. Frankly, I think he needs to prove his worth on a national level before moving to higher office.
And his rhetoric is just that - rhetoric
mudshark @ 68:
There is always that chance that they totally blow it, but I would bet they could make some big changes. I also want the VP to be someone young and dynamic that can carry the White House in 8 years.
Well, guess what... I'm f**king angry to. Good for Edwards. Anyone that is not angry or outraged at what has happened to this country under Republican rule has either been sleeping or is a traitor to the Constitution. Mr. nice guy Obama is all talk. He says he didn't support the war but yet he continues to finance the war. What's that about? And Clinton, except for race and gender, she is no different than Obama.
Actually.....Jason and Chip are both right......we can't stay....and we can't leave....so where does that leave us?...IMO...we need to greatly scale back our forces..leave just enough for the time being to over see a plan that starts to really contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq.And in doing so open up the contracts to other countries so they will supply support for their contractors...the way it is right now is a conundrum.Now this plan may seem naive or inadequate....but it's better than what this admin has been shoveling.
I hate the election season in this country. I hate the way the media frames these cycles and I hate the conventional wisdom of these idiot politico wanna be intellectuals who analyze the best way for paint to dry and go out of their way to articulate why it matters more to us than things like healthcare, good environmental policy, an end to the war and all those like it or a rational and just economic system. This country will never have a healthy democracy as long as this is the type of political dialogue that dominates our conversations leading in to elections.
Look at the damn economic system (worldwide it's horrible), the war, the environment, the educational system, healthcare, who the hell isn't angry and why aren't they? You "moderates" gave us NAFTA, we "angry" people were just afraid of change, not the deal itself according to you. You gave us the war, only the crazies were against it (remember 9/11? Don't you want to attack who did this to us? There is no other "moderate" option), you've given us this healthcare system and you "moderates" were smart enough to ignore the tree huggers and their granola environmental issues. I can't wait to see what you and the right wing has in store for the country in the coming years. I’m angry, obviously, but I don’t see the point of taking part in this circus, especially when the only candidates who have anything to say are shoved to the margins and ignored.
Chip @ 73:
If this country falls apart because we invaded a country for no reason, then this country deserves to fall apart. The invasion was WRONG. We all know that. What you're saying is "Why should we be held accountable for our actions?" I am saying we should. Even if it hurts us, even if it's inconvenient, even if it destroys us financially - we invaded, we are accountable.
You say the America you know wouldn't act like this - like what? Invade a country for no reason and then run away when it isn't convenient? We shouldn't have invaded, but we did, we're there now. The country that _I_ know wouldn't just run away. And when, in 10 years, we're eating 12 dollar loaves of bread, guess what? We're gonna be thinking real long and hard about who we elect and who we invade. And that's what we should be doing.
As I move away from Granola (and still liking him lots) ... Edwards does appear to bethe most WINNABLE candidate.
EMPY @ 64:
The foreign policy stuff is much easier than the domestic stuff if only because the President has much more ability to dictate the game plan in foreign affairs. A significant foreign policy achievement abroad - say a peace deal in the middle east or solid political solution in Iraq can be accomplished without the wrangling in congress. No such luck on the domestic side. A significant foreign policy acheivement early in the administration then rewrites the political calculus on the domestic side. This is why I think Obama has more potential - if he plays his cards right (and that's a big if). The U.S. public (sorry to say) has a tough time detecting phoniness - which is how we ended up with Bush for eight years. Foreigners are better at sniffing it out. I think Edwards has a phoniness problem and I do think it would affect his ability to manuver in the international arena.
Jason B @ 71:
Iraq will survive without us. Period. Much, much better, actually. It's arrogant to think otherwise.
Jason B @ 20:
Jason - Isn't Red State looking for you?
unfrozencaveman @ 81:
not if he had Obama as VP.....and Wes Clark as Sec State...
Jesus H. Christ! Are Obama and Hill coordinated or what?!?
HRC- Got yer memo! You take "yelling & screaming". "Hollerin'" sounds less disingenuous comin' from me. -BO
BO- Sounds good to me! All's fair in... ;) ... -HRC
HRC- See ya in NH, Senator! -BO
Johnny- Doesn't Bill's wife come across as a robot? She comes across like one of Disney's animatronics in the Hall of Presidents, no? I've got an idea. Reply ASAP if yer interested. -Barack
**************
mudshark- I've got somethin' to show you. Meet me here.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 83:
Sad that you think I'm "conservative" just because I believe in accountability.
Gregory, Iraqis will have some kind of country in the end, no matter what. Yes, I agree. But, that isn't my point. My point is that we broke it - we are accountable for it.
Does no one here think America should be held accountable for its actions? If not, then you have no business holding Bush or any member of his administration accountable for their actions. You can't want to hold someone accountable for starting a false war if you just want to run away from it and leave the country in ruins.
It's called accountability, people. We've preached it against the conservatives for years, it is bizarre that suddenly we don't want it for ourselves.
"Iraq needs a political solution"
Wrong. They need an economic solution. Do you remember when the Iraqis, immediately after the invasion, wanted to vote and get the democracy going? What did Bremer and the Bush administration do? They attempted to cancel the elections and installed their puppets into government. The elections only went through because the Iraqis rose up in civil disobedience and forced the administration to hold elections. Why was the Bush administration delaying elections? They had an economic plan and the elections would make that plan virtually impossible. So Bremer and the CPA rushed through their economic package before the elections which was so un-democratic that the Iraqi Chamber of Commerce (capitalists and generally pro-West) was outraged (forget the country who by an overwhelming majority were against these neo-liberal policies), saying it would be a sell off of Iraqi assets to foreign investors (at a time when the capital had to circulate in the country and create an infrastructure) and it would give preferential treatment in financial assistance to Western Investors over domestic investors. That is exactly what happened. The CPA's economic policies and the current Oil Law, if it goes through, makes the political solution nothing more than a stage show. The economic policies chosen for the Iraqis, not chosen BY the Iraqis, by the occupying power makes a functioning democracy impossible. I’ve head the political solution comment mentioned so many times, amongst people that I generally agree with, that I think my head is going to explode. I'm not trying to be rude to you, I'm tired of hearing that political solution will solve anything if the economic policies stay in place. It won't. Iraqis themselves have little power to reverse the CPA’s policies. If we don’t put pressure on the government here to reverse them, and we currently aren’t, they will go ahead and the only thing that will result from the political solution, if it reflected popular will & with the current policies in place, is capital flight.
mudshark @ 84:
Not good enough, how many #2's can you name from other countries? Obama would need to be the Pres. to get th international ID to start rebuilding our image. Definitely Clark would be a great #2 though (we'll forgive him for the Hilary endorsement).
onslow memling @ 5:
them pharmacy kickbacks add up!
Bowl week @ 16:
What a load of B.S.! But nice trolling.
Jason B @ 10:
You obviously never heard Hillary bellow. "BWAAAAA!"
What's wrong with John's voting record?
Edwards was:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record [A GOOD thing in my book]
Rated B- by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record [Another GOOD thing]
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record [Obviously]
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
Edwards is by far the best choice. Edwards/Dodd would be fantastic, but personally I'd prefer Dodd to stay in the senate, we'll need good people there and he's proven he is trustworthy by filibustering the telecom immunity while Hillary was out COLLECTING money from the telecoms. All these supposed detractors of Edwards spam these one line, unsupported attacks. No meat on any of them. Pathetic, really. As for him being a lawyer... yeah. He was. For the little guy. As opposed to the lawyers named Clinton and Obama that don't represent the little guy at all.
Now, tell me about Obama's voting record in his first year. Or did he even bother to show up for ANY votes? He sure didn't show up for the important ones. BTW, I doubt you'll ever see an Obama Edwards ticket. Obama has just stabbed the unions in the back and now calls all unions "washington special interest groups"! After seeking their support! What a liar.
And I'm curious why people would still bother to vote for Dennis Kucinich at all? He's just going to give your votes to Obama anyway.
Here's the refresher:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/adventure_capitalism.php
"Pausing only to install himself in Saddam's old palace—and adding an extra ring of barbed wire—"Jerry" Bremer cancelled Garner's scheduled meeting of Iraq's tribal leaders called to plan national elections. Instead, Bremer appointed the entire government himself. National elections, Bremer pronounced, would have to wait until 2005. The extended occupation would require our forces to linger.
The delay would, incidentally, provide time needed to lock in the laws, regulations and irreversible sales of assets in accordance with the Economy Plan."
"On that, Bremer wasted no time. Altogether, the leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority issued exactly 100 orders that remade Iraq in the image of the Economy Plan. In May, for example, Bremer—only a month from escaping out Baghdad's back door—took time from fighting the burgeoning insurrection to sign orders 81—"Patents,"and 83, "Copyrights." Here, Grover Norquist's hard work paid off. Fifty years of royalties would now be conferred on music recording. And 20 years on Windows code. "
http://www.zmag.org/content/sh...fm?ItemID=13600
As deadline after deadline and benchmark after benchmark passes and with all the pressure imposed by the IMF, the US Administration, the US oil lobby and International Oil Companies (IOCs) on the Iraqi government, the oil law, against all the odds, refuses to be born.
...
External influences were for the most part, behind the approval of a draft of the oil law, which will be the first and major step in the privatization of Iraqi oil wealth and will ensure that the oil will be produced and marketed by the IOCs with enormous profit to them.
Neither the US Republican administration nor the Democrats had any disagreement with this policy and made the approval of the oil law a benchmark for future US strategy in Iraq within the Iraqi Study Group report.[1]
3. The IMF made the approval of the oil law one of the main conditions for reducing the Iraqi international debts, as declared in December 1, 2005 in the Paris meetings between the IMF and representatives of the Iraqi Government.
...The latest Oil poll, which was carried out in June and July 2007 by KA Research, has shown that the Iraqis oppose plans to open the country's oil fields to foreign investment by a factor of two to one (63% oppose to 31% for).
The US administration recognized that a US-led military coup d'etat would not result in any laws being recognized as legitimate by the international community if parliament were to be dissolved. They therefore moved to a new policy, which involved direct interference with the political process in Iraq through their more reliable allies to reorganize the political alliance on which the government relied in order to achieve their goals. They finally succeeded in achieving the establishment of such a front, which was called the "The front of the moderates"
...The latest oil poll which was carried out in June and July 2007 by KA Research has shown that the vast majority of Iraqis (91%) did not feel informed enough about the oil law. This included the 33% who said they knew a little information on the law, 30% who said that they were not very informed and 28% that stated that they knew nothing about it.
http://www.50years.org/cms/ejn/story/169
"The World Bank supports the completely undemocratic decision of the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)—the occupation force led by the U.S. to
govern Iraq until the June 28th handover—to reform legislation on foreign
direct investment. According to the UN/WB Joint Needs Assessment, in CPA
Order 39, “Iraq announced a foreign direct investment policy that would make
the country one of the most open in the world. The law permits full foreign
ownership of businesses in all sectors (with the exception of natural
resources [e.g., oil]), permits foreign firms to enter Iraq as direct owners of
branches or through joint ventures, provides for national treatment of foreign
firms and permits the full and immediate reparation of profits."
"...By claiming “national treatment,” which means being treated as any Iraqi
company would, foreign firms will receive a number of benefits typically
reserved for domestic investors. They will most likely pay lower taxes, avoid
tariffs, and avoid paying various fees for conducting business in Iraq. The
decision to eliminate the possibility of protecting domestic investment,
typically accomplished with tariffs on imports, was made unilaterally by the
CPA, while the Iraqi people were powerless and without decision-making
capacity. “It was an order from [U.S. Administrator of the CPA Paul] Bremer.
They didn't consult anyone about it,” Ihsan al-Titenchi, Membership Director of
the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told al-Jazeera. After
the “hand-over,” the World Bank will now take a leading role in enforcing the
CPA’s binding rules, which are destined to hurt Iraqi domestic investment and
inhibit Iraqi participation in business, while eroding the democratic process in
Iraq."
"...The radical liberalization policies were announced by the Iraqi Interim
Finance Minister with the support of Bremer at the World Bank/International
Monetary Fund (IMF) 2003 annual meeting in Dubai. This move was likely
intended to lend legitimacy for the Iraqi Governing Council -- by having its
Finance Minister speak at a high-profile international meeting -- and to
establish the World Bank and IMF as point institutions for guiding Iraq’s
economic future. In fact, the CPA order even states that the policies were
drafted after “having coordinated with the international financial institutions.”
Joseph Saba, the World Bank’s Iraq Country Director, lauded the policies as
“major steps forward in terms of creating an environment for investment” in the
Washington Post"
"The measures which have been announced will lead to foreign domination
over economic decision-making and largely sign away the independence [of
Iraq],” Ridha al-Qureishi, an Iraqi financial and monetary academic, told al-
Jazeera."
I find it astonishing that Hillary and Obama have the support among Democrats they appear to have. Edwards is light-years ahead of both of them in both electability and progressive policy positions. And he's unafraid to tell the truth about power in the US. Edwards is not as beholden to corporate interests as the Clintons and Obama are - the arc of his career contrasts with the others sharply, implying he will NOT tack too far to the center as many assume. That's also why the corporate media is so afraid of him - they fear they cant control him! What does that say ?? hello? Is that not exactly what we want? We need a real fighter in there - like a bulldog trial lawyer with the nuts to crack those of the corporate powers. Does anybody really see Hil or Obama doing that?
My feeling is that Hillary's and Obama's numbers have been artificially inflated by manipulative polls, and that Edwards will surprise the Villagers with a first or second. I really hope the Democratic base rallies around him - soon. Looks to me like Edwards is in a good position to pick up where Dr Dean left off, except with the experience and the political chops to withstand the pitfalls and the inevitable attacks.
What hypocrisy! I thought most white Americans love an angry white man.
unfrozencaveman @ 88:
I'm guessing most people in other countries are quite aware who our current #2 is, even though he is quite shy with the media and doesn't exactly spread good will wherever he goes. I don't want our President to have to spend the bulk of his time fixing our worldwide f-ups. I want his fixing our domestic f-ups.
unfrozencaveman @ 33:
Its tough for the cavemen types, I guess. Better to just refreeeze.
Andy K @ 85:
I'm savin that one....
I want somebody that kicks ass and chews gum,at the sametime.John Edwards should give this speech,Tonight We Dine In Hell.From the movie (The 300).
Jason B @ 86:
Accountability? You want accountability? That word doesn't exist in a Republican's vocabulary. George W Bush and Dick Cheney have never been accountable. Not all Americans supported the idea of invading a sovereign nation. I am not accountable for the idiotic behavior of Bush and Cheney and all their followers so don't tell me Americans need to be accountable in Iraq. That's pure bull crap.
If you really want accountability then let's start with impeaching Cheney, then Bush and then we can have a hearty discussion about accountability.
Jason B @ 20:
we buy it and we go broke!
Cats r Flyfishn @ 99:
I gotta agree, Jason. Dear ol' Dad always said "if you're in a hole...stop diggin." We have to stop buying the shovels.
I have never seen him angry, yell or act the way "they" are making out. He is composed, passionate, concerned, and ernest in all the speeches I have listened to. Granted anyone can have a bad day but it just does not fit the composed behavior I have always seen. I hope he does win because I think the republicans cannot beat him. Also, I am waiting for the day that corporations have to pay their fairshare, when lobbyists are not part of the furniture at the White House, Iraq has no US soldiers, we all have universal insurance, and we tax the rich.
Szin @ 61:
You have made my day with your comments and assessments. Sometimes words, or the way we use them, can be very entertaining. This is one of those moments.
By the way,this guy is full of shit. All the Republicans talk about is "Winning this thing." How is that saving lives? It is almost as if some warmongers want to use and see how effective our weaponry is. Our involvement in Iraq should provide a whole series on how to kill third world people whose technology are significantly inferior to ours. The people who created the show Weapons at War must be drolling about what this war will provide.
Joseph
At some point we might want to stop feeding the troll, who is obviously trying to undermine Edwards because Edwards would be by far the strongest of the top 3 Democrats in the general.
Impeach cheney and bush @ 102:
I like your name and I agree wholeheartedly. Impeach Cheney and Bush!
EMPY @ 95:
I think you're severly overestimating Dick Cheney's name recognition abroad. Somewhere between 1-5% would be my guess. Bush's would be up near a 100% though.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 99:
[emphasis added]
And not all Germans supported Hitler, either. But Germany was held accountable for the Nazis' crimes.
But on the other hand, those who dissented from the Nazi's ended up running the country. In West Germany, anyway.
I do have a problem with Obama missing all those votes.That tells me he was thinking ahead..for the election..you can't get called out on your votes if you don't vote......Now...I kinda like Obama...kinda............I don't think he's got the experience to be Prez.........you don't send an apprentice to do a journeymans job.......maybe in 2016.
Andy K @ 107:
You mean, those that dissented and didn't die in concentration camps.
Johnny2Bad @ 96:
Permanently unfrozen - lucky enough to escape those unpleasant U.S. winters for warmer pastures :)
mudshark @ 108:
If I were in Iowa, I'd have Obama #3 on my ballot, Dodd #2, Edwards #1. Denny K. has really blown it in the last few weeks, imo. Oh well, at least he's got Elizabeth to console him.
You all keep arguing that our government should be held responsible for this mistake, but not Edwards. The guy's got a good record, but he doesn't have a reliable record, and
is only making big promises to win votes. So what happens when he reneges on those promises, and we're stuck with another Clintonian status quo, huh?! Obama is smarter than Edwards, because he won't try to make bold pledges he can't deliver. Edwards would have to be goaded into getting results as much as Pelosi, while Obama can make things happen
with his diplomatic skills. It's one thing to be progressive, but it's another to be realistic.
Andy K @ 111:
being in Calif.....I have plenty of time......but I agree on #1 and #2.........so far.........Obama could make a good VP though..........I do like Dodd....but he's getting the same exposure DK was getting
.....none.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 109:
Natch.
And I don't think we can get out of Iraq immediately, sorry to say. We're going to hand it off to a capable peace-keeping force. I don't know who in the hell will take that roll, but without an effective force there's a three sided war involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. And that war could escalate quickly and engulf the entire world. All because in 2000 enough people voted for the guy they'd prefer to drink a beer with.
Tequila @ 112:
Now....I'm not trying to be an ass here.......but can you explain to me why you think it's realistic....I understand you believe in Obama.......but realistically speaking(to me anyway).....the guy simply doesn't have the experience to be Prez.....
Tequila @ 112:
yes i admire a guy who cant make prommises , you dont have to expect anything !
Tequila @ 112:
This is why progressive Democrats have got to get involved in their Senatorial and House primaries, too. Progressive Dems in California didn't offer a strong challenge to Feinstein last time around, she was re-elected very easily...and now look at her doin' the same thing she's always done: fellate the corporatocracy. Same can be said for Reid. And we all applauded when Jim Webb won in VA, and we applaud for the stances he's taken on the war, but domestically he ain't exactly a New Dealer.
Hell, I live in a House district where, outside of the '74-'78 gap after Jerry Ford left the House for the Executive Branch, it's been Republicans since, iirc, 1948. And we've(Dems) got the best chance of taking this district since '76 and the guy that offers us this chance is great in every aspect but one: he's anti-choice! And he's got to be to get what you'd still call the Reagan Democrats to come back to the light.
You can bitch about Pelosi, but outside of the impeachment question, her House has passed good, progressive legislation. But much of that legislation has been killed in the Senate or vetoed and not overridden. And a Pelosi led House, along with a Senate comprised of more progressive Democrats, will make it much easier sailing for a President Edwards.
best chance of taking this district since ‘76
'78. Damned typos! Bed soon I go to.
Obama gets stuff done??
Put down the bong for a minute....if Obama is such a do-er, then why did he miss 19 out of 37 votes on the Veteran Affairs Committee that he always brags about being on?
Diplomatic skills? How many times has he stuck his big shoe right into that million-dollar white-toothed smile? The guy who is ready to drop bombs on the Middle East - and now the latest - Mrs. Obama has informed us that he has his wife's permission to run for President - but this time only!
That oughta put fear in them tehrists' hearts, eh?
Diplomatic skills? You mean his habit of 24/7 campaigning? Like the afore-mentioned votes he missed because he was writing campaign speeches?
Talking a lot does not equal diplomatic skills. Has he ever been an ambassador? Done foreign service? Intelligence work overseas? Been a soldier?
Skills? Huh? Puh-leeze....Ok, he's a rock star, OK he has Oprah, he's been on SNL - but wait, what do any of those things have to do with making him qualified to be President? I guess those things count as long as you don't require him to show up everyday at his office and do the job he was elected to do.
As for the polls on angry candidates - I'm frickin' angry, and I happen to like the fact that Edwards is not afraid to show he's frickin' angry too. So I'll vote for the angry candidate over the rest of the mush-mouthed pussies any day!
What do the damn polls have to say about that?
mudshark:
Yes, and Bush can't pronounce "nuclear". What's your point?
tyree:
But you can expect Obama to at least change direction, if nothing else. Edwards would probably throw his base under the bus when he got elected, just like he did in '04.
Andy: Your argument for Edwards basically undermines the justification for voting for him. Like Pelosi and Reid, he claims he'll do things different "this time", and then he lets the Republican minority dictate the agenda upon getting a better seat in the government.
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm.
you decide.......I have to admit....this is a diffcult decision........The Stakes are High!
yogi:
At least he didn't put the troops in awful conditions in Walter Reed like Eddie Bear...
He still brought up negotiating with Iran and Cuba long before the other two candidates.
No, but neither has Bush.
Tequila @120........ nevermind.
So is Edwards hitting a few nerves? I, for one, am angry about the mess the Repubs have gotten us in and would like to elect someone who looks out for the bests interests of American families and not corporate interests.
Tequila@122........why do you compare him to Boosh............anyone on the left would be better than him... I think comparing Obama to Boosh is doing Obama a disservice.
Andy K @ 107:
This is totally right. No, not all the Germans were Nazis - but all Germans were accountable for Germany's actions. Not all Japanese supported Japan in WWII, but we didn't make the distinction between them when we dropped 2 H-bombs on them.
It's a damn shame all around, but we are all accountable for this. Turning your back on Iraq is like turning your back on a fire you've just started. "Well, they'll figure out how to put it out" isn't good enough, you're still accountable for your damages.
Jason.
mudshark @ 77:
Question Blog @ 8:
So he sounds like a angry white male, he should be just like most Americans. Hillary sounds like a shrill and nasally angry white female when she speaks and Obama can't seem to walk across a stage most of the time without that annoying little pimp-strut like Rolo from "Sanford and Son".
in 2004, edwards voted dishonestly for the war resolution, in an effort to woo conservative voters in the general (see shrum)
now that everyone hates bush, he's speaking directly to the most progressives, saying anything that makes them smile.
if edwards were not a washington insider, he'd be the best candidate, because you might have a reason to believe what he says. Unfortunately, he's a professional politician, full of baloney, and you have good reason (congressional record) to dismiss what he says....all his promises, all his rhetoric, ranks up there with 'no new taxes' and gw's disavowal of nation building...
that's how the insiders work-- they say whatever they have to to get elected...they get there, and grease the machine...
and that's what edwards did in the senate...
it's appropriate that clinton and obama point out JE is all talk...
Edwards "has been way too angry on the campaign trail".
Translation: "Edwards has been criticizing the big-moneyed interests wasy too much. Time for his betters, the elites, to tell him to back off."
otay....
come on now, blitzer's in edward's corner....he's trying to set him up to be the rocky balboa, getting beat up by the bigboys....
big money corporate media wants edwards in there...gives the little people a way to blow off steam, think things are gonna change, all this fancy and impassioned talk, everybody frothing....
they know once he gets to the white house, next time the industrial war complex needs his support for an unnecessary war, they'll get it just the same...
Ruthless People @ 128:
HA! Obama WISHES he had that much style! If he had Redd Foxx as his running mate they he'd be interesting. But something tells me Redd would smell the bullshit Barack has (unfortunately) started to peddle for Hillary, and walk away. Or possibly fake a heart attack.
It's a sad day when you have a woman and a black man running for president, but it's the angry rich white man from the South that is fighting for the poor and the minorities against the corporate fat cats! Strange times, but you gotta roll with them...
mudshark @ 125:
Hey I may not like Obama but mudshark is right. Saying Obama is the same as Bush?! Low blow...
why's johnny angry? that haircut's lovely, worth every penny.
i hear his manicurist has his nails in pristine condition, as well.
He is definitely this year's Howard Dean, which is ironic considering how he helped bury him in 2004. But I'm willing to forgive and support Edwards if Dodd doesn't make it through.
Edwards' anger won't hurt him b/c he's able to convey it with that Southern charm that Dean lacked.
oh boy, killermonkey,
you think edwards rhetoric is more than vacuous pandering for your vote?
this, the guy who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, had the NIE, and nonetheless co-sponsored with LIEBERMAN the Iraq war resolution....and you believe the BS he's asking you to swallow....
this, the guy who conceded w/kerry in 04, after bush had stolen 00....4 years go by, and they get robbed again, with acquiesence and congratulations to the thief?
you think the rich white guy isn't putting on a little show for you...
edwards is trying to sound angry because he saw obama's jefferson jackson dinner speech in iowa on youtube.
ROM Spaceknight @ 133:
I guess Edwards is angry because Bush was a rich brat who could get expensive haircuts and manicures since he was a boy on poppy's dime, whereas Edwards was born poor and had to work for his money to get his expensive haircuts and manicures and would like other poor and middle class Americans to have the opportunity to do the same.
Tequila @ 120:
Yes, and Bush can't pronounce "nuclear". What's your point?
tyree:
But you can expect Obama to at least change direction, if nothing else. Edwards would probably throw his base under the bus when he got elected, just like he did in '04.
Andy: Your argument for Edwards basically undermines the justification for voting for him. Like Pelosi and Reid, he claims he'll do things different "this time", and then he lets the Republican minority dictate the agenda upon getting a better seat in the government.
[emphasis added]
What don't you get about Pelosi's record in the whole? I won't argue much about Reid- he's rolled too many times, and he's a straight-up Republican on a few others. I hope Nevadans find a progressive replacement for him in the next primary!
But Pelosi doesn't elect Reid, or Heath Shuler(or any of the other "Blue Dogs"). It's up to their constituency. Are you in Shuler's district? In Nevada? Are you able to vote for a good progressive in Minnesota's Senatorial race?
There are 435 distinct and separate districts in the House and 100 Senators representing 50 distinctly different states. You and I get to vote for 3 of these 535 different representatives. You and I might vote the same party on all three of thase choices and get 6 distinctly different officeholders- hell, we might get 0! And you're gonna blame Nancy Pelosi, who might be in agreement with you on more of the issues than your own Rep and Senators? You're gonna blame Pelosi when she passed a resolution in the House critical of the surge? SCHIP?
She voted no on re-authoization of the Patriot Act. How did your's vote?
She voted for and passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 with Iraq Withdrawal Timeline Bill. Vetoed. Veto not overridden. How'd your's vote?
Passed the Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA).
Passed the Union Organization Bill. Passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Passed the Energy Act of 2007. Passed the College Student Relief Act of 2007.
Should I go on?
Apologies for the tone on that last one. I'm not gonna go on. Going to bed. GNA!
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 132:
Hillary and Obama are not like Bush by any stretch by they do have the capitulate-to-the-Republicans-and-corporatist seal of approval whereas Edwards scares the establishment to death.
lopaloo102 @ 129:
His message is exactly the same it's been since at least 2002 when he was talking about "two Americas". He was even fighting against the ineffectual DINOs even then! Read the link. Any evidence to the contrary? No, of course not. You're full of it.
Well, you go ahead and elect a president that is not in any way a politician (meaning not running for office, registering to run, spending any money, or making any speeches).
Are you suggesting that there are some politicians running for president that aren't politicians? Wow. You OK there?
Except they aren't. What policies of John Edwards did they refute? What statements did Hillary and Obama say were wrong that Edwards made? NONE. Baseless attack of desperate "professional politicians". You know that when Hillary was still blowing smoke Edwards had a fully detailed health care plan on his website right? One that Hillary and Obama later stole details from! When Edwards is the FIRST with policy again and again, you can't really accuse him of "all talk". Save that for Hillary and Obama.
And yeah, I guess my hair sticks up in the back too -- I have to glue it down not to look ridiculous (what country-folk call a "cow lick"). Every time I get a $7 haircut, the damn person cuts it too short, even though I TELL them not to, and I look a fool. I've finally found a good barber (that charges $15 though). If I was rich and going on TV, I'd fly that barber in too -- NO hesitation. Why not? Better than looking like Alfalfa for Fox News to vomit all over.
It's good to see you agree with Edwards that John Kerry was wrong and a coward not to challenge the vote in 04 like he promised! It's the reason Kerry hasn't been campaigning for Edwards. Edwards stopped speaking to him right after that, and said it was the wrong thing to do. Look anywhere on the net you want, Edwards disliked Kerry from the very start, and told him to go to hell at every opportunity once he found out what a jerk Kerry was. Kerry even stole John Edwards campaign slogan (only he switched one word to make it sound idiotic).
Edwards tried working with these clowns and being nice. Didn't work did it? Thank God he's smart enough not to keep banging his head against that wall, and going on his own this time. I support him fully.
I made my decision for John Edwards years ago. If you want your country back and want our government to represent you - the people, not the corporations and the filthy rich, vote for Edwards. Edwards! Edwards! Edwards!!!
I wasn't comparing him to Bush to disparage him. My point was that these arguments about Obama being "qualified" are pointless. He clearly at least can get his act together better than the people responsible for this war.
Andy: That's great, but she still voted for the war and oversaw our torture policy. And most of the bills she passed are watered-down and non-binding.
lopaloo102 @ 131:
The people I see frothing are the talking bobble-heads in the beltway media -- frothing against the "radicalism" of Edwards. Unless corporate media thinks Americans are so smart that they need the triple-cross, I'll go with the "corporate media is afraid of Edwards" angle.
Ruthless People @ 140:
oh, bull$#!+. when edwards had a chance to knock out dirty dick cheney, kingpin of the neocon enterprise, cheney swatted him away like a gnat.
and what kind of sissy spends 400 bucks on a haircut, anyway? i bet cher doesn't even spend half as much. elton john, either.
Why is it that in America, it's okay to be angry as long as you're white? That's the part that gets me. Edwards isn't the "Angry Candidate," he's the "Angry White Man," you know that if Obama were to try to go that route, he'd be torpedoed in a second.
I guess in this country, it's cool to be angry as long as you're white.
killer monkeys...
A-- You say Edwards has been on message since 2002....right, but what did he do of importance in the senate, besides vote for the war....you have reitterated my point exactly-- he's been on message, nothing more.....saying all the right things, doing all the wrong things...
B--by "professional politician" i mean washington insider....Edwards has been there since 1998...that gives him 10 years of rolling around in the mud with the other bigwigs.......he's a sullied pig. :-)
obama has been in DC for two years.....
C--Clinton/Obama didn't refute his policies, they were just pointing out that edwards is all talk.... he says what sounds best, but when he had a chance to affect change, he didn't, he went along with the corporate big wigs and the washington insiders....he's a player....
Election 04-- edwards did what the big money told him to again....you expect me to feel better about him because he stopped talking to kerry....i never heard him say a peep about not wanting to concede...he smiled and did what he was told (paid) to do...again, you are making my point...he went against what his gut told him to do, because that's what his greed for power, and that's what the fatcats in DC told him to do...
and now we should believe him, because he's figured out what to say, despite all those goofs?
I don't think it'll matter much tomorrow night.....I wish Edwards were not an insider, I'd love to support him...I just can't overlook or make excuses for his record....
Dharma Pup @ 32:
Edwards, Kucinich and Paul are the only candidates that are not paid for in full.
This makes the corps really angry.
If any of them make it, god willing, get the security up quick.
To respond to the chorus of how we can't leave Iraq, the facts are not with your conclusions. In the areas that the British have left, violence has decreased. If 60+% of Iraqi's think it is okay to shoot US troops, how do we overcome that? Even with all the headlines about how great the surge is, 2007 was STILL the deadliest year in Iraq. It sounds great to say we need to fix what we broke but in this case, we are the ones continuing the destruction of a once sovereign nation.
Login or Register to post comments.