Countdown: The Candidates Of Change
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Jan 16, 2008 2:01pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather & Bill)
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow dissect the various styles of the Democratic candidates after the Nevada debate. How refreshing to have a true discussion about the candidates rather than get distracted by media-driven memes.
Every candidate from the beginning of time has run on the grounds that they’re going to change something. That’s what they do, left right and center. I mean, Bush has even admitted that were he running for a third term, he’d be running as the change candidate. So the way you make it a compelling story is that you tell voters not just that you want to bring about change, but why you think change needs to happen and what needs to be changed in order for these problems that vex our nation to be brought around so that they are…so that we’re in a better place.
And I think that Obama and Clinton and Edwards are actually identifying what needs to be changed in three really different ways. I think Hillary Clinton is saying the Republicans and Bush need to be out and Democrats need to be in. I think John Edwards is saying the special interests and the lobbyists need to be out and the people need to be in, in the populist way. And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in because he can transcend the differences across the political divide right now. There’s three very different visions of what you would do to the country if you had the reins.
Login or Register to post comments.
I'm still pissed at NBC about Kucinich. Can't watch.
How great it would be if all three ended up working together in the White House next year. They seem to actually generally respect one another and admire one another's strengths, I don't see why they wouldn't, that is, if all three actually want to change something.
It's the economy stupids.
Change itself is not necessarily good; just look at all the bad changes that Bush is reasonable for!
Based on Rachel's remarks (I <3 Rachel!), you'd think Edwards and Clinton are the people who would get things done, if elected. Obama comes off sounding like the guy who everybody will like, y'know, and want to have a beer with.
Hmm..
Pissed @ 1:
NBC = GE = Nuclear Reactors + Weapons
John Edwards = Bilderberg Group
Hillary Clinton = Bilderberg Group
Michelle Obama = Council On Foreign Relations
The early primaries exist to silence all populist candidates and leave us only with the ones annointed by the aristocrats.
Kucinich and Paul are this season's Howard DEan.
Did you know that Kucinich is having the New Hamphire primary recounted . . . seems there is a problem with the voting machines . . Audio Here
Gee, some coverage on Edwards. For a while I was thinking he is only a halogram. Just shows up on the screen once in a while, then disappears. They are still working on the technology.
Sounds like Edwards is the man for me! I happen to be the populist.
Is this change ?
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/02/aipac_policy_forum.php
"Last week, this event was described to me as a small gathering of friends. Looking at all of you here today; seeing so many of you who care about peace in this world; who care about a strong and lasting friendship between Israel and the United States, and who care about what's on the next page of our shared futures, I think "a small gathering of friends" fits this crowd just right."
Pissed @ 1:
Yes but, they have a constitutional right to subvert our constitutional right to select a president.
L.A. Confidential @ 3:
I keep sayin and sayin . . . .
AP - 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
NEW YORK - The Bank of New York Mellon Corp.'s fourth-quarter profit tumbled 68 percent due to its exposure to assets backed by mortgages and a tough comparison to last year, when the bank gained $1.4 billion after unloading its retail operations.
L.A. Confidential @ 11:
and sayin . . . .
Merrill posts worst quarter in its history Reuters - Thu Jan 17, 12:14 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Merrill Lynch & Co Inc reported about $16 billion in mortgage-related write downs and adjustments on Thursday in the worst quarter of the company's history.
It's not Style, it's The Economy Stupids!
With each new president comes some sort of change. Bush sure as hell changed a lot of things and in his case, his "change" wasn't good for our country. I think each of the dem candidates brings a talent of his or her own. Can we just blend them all together and pour the result into the oval office?
If any of the repubs get into the oval office, the change will be more of the same only a smarter person will be doing it.
We don't know what any of the candidates will do until they actually become President, but for obvious reasons Hillary and Obama do represent change. All the other candidates (except Kucinich) have quickly embraced "change" to seem like the anti-BUSH.
I think Edwards is saying that even Bank Tellers Who Support Hillary Refuse to ‘Make Change’
The corporations have already decided who is going to be president and the media is merely their talking horse of the day (Step right up! See the amazing, the irrefutable, the wondrous talking horse! Don't look away. Keeps your euyes focused on the talking horse!)
As a former Edwards supporter, after this debate I can only think: Either vote Kucinich or don't vote!
But there is that cynical side of me that says that the cenesorsip and muffling of Kucinich is a drive to get progressives to vote for Kucinich, thereby denying Edwards that prog vote...these politicans are so scummy...)
This article fails to point out that Obama was the candidate for Change and Clinton & Edwards stole it after Iowa.
Oh yeah nevermind, another pro Hillary article by Nicole Belle.
Can't watch either. Never again. After what they have done to Kucinich, I will watch only Chris Matthews from now on.
No, I'm kidding. GE and NBC advertisers can f**k off. If Dennis Kucinich wasn't invited, that would be another story. But he was, and they went to court, and they appealed the ruling like real brave fighters fighting for the right cause, as if they had to be so f*****g transparent with the way they treat US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES and CONGRESSMEN. Dennis is so much bigger than this BS.
Bush is going to lay out his economic stimulus plan tomorrow. What's he going to do? Maybe tell us if we join the army we will get lots of benefits? Last I looked the DOW was down over 200 points. It may be too late for bush's band-aide.
Do we need a change? Yes, but if we had it today it would be seven years too late for some things.
Only JOHN EDWARDS has the GUTS to do what has to be done!
The "other two" are just "more of the same old, same old BELTWAY STUFF" until the nation comes apart, finishing what the BUSH BRAT AND HIS GANG has so well started.
VOTE FOR EDWARDS!
"I think Hillary Clinton is saying the Republicans and Bush need to be out and Democrats need to be in. I think John Edwards is saying the special interests and the lobbyists need to be out and the people need to be in, in the populist way. And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in..."
What an ego.
pissed off patricia @ 19:
Bush will speak and calm the population with his words of wisdom.
"If ur' hurtin' you can always join the Military. Lot's of jobs, a great future, signing bonuses, and the best leadership money can buy. Beats being homeless."
This was a great interview. What I think the candidates need to focus on though is the "how". What needs to change and why it needs to be changed are easy to promote to the voters. Its how they intend to change it that holds the consequences. This is what the voters need to hear and then let the voters decide who's idea of change is the best.
By the way and this is OT but Keith Olbermann really looks like my old College Constitutional Law instructor. I'm almost tempted to write him and ask him why I got a B on a paper I did. :lol:
Avid Reader @ 6
"Did you know that Kucinich is having the New Hamphire primary recounted . . . seems there is a problem with the voting machines "
Yep, I'm just glad he didn't use PayPal to finance it. : )
Andy @ 10
Yes but, they have a constitutional right to subvert our constitutional right to select a president.
Don't get me started on corporations and their freakin' rights as citizens.
Wow...
Rachel Maddow does actual punditry that is informative and helps make the race more understandable.
How refreshing.
Steve @ 17:
Well, yeah, after Iowa, they all climbed on that bandwagon, didn't they. Even Mitt said he was the candidate for change. ;)
But I think Edwards, although "change" wasn't his buzzword, he really is for a change of direction.
It's not the economy stupid, that's what the industrial plutocrats would like you to believe as you buy their products and fight for their oil profits.
It is global warming. Climate change will change everything, it already is...and the economy will become a direct result of shifting climate patterns.
Let's be honest as we can, any one of those candidates would be a hell of a lot better than what we have dealt with these past seven years. Neither of them are failures in everything they have ever done. Neither of them are involved in Haliburton or big oil. Neither of them would be influenced by the likes of cheney, rove, rumsfeld or the neocons. Each of them are smart people with smart backgrounds. Each of them has a decent background in their personal lives. Yeah, Hillary had to deal with Bill's problems but in spite of that she raised her daughter to be a respectable young woman.
I mean, I know everyone has their favorite, but any one of them would be such a relief from what we have now.
Joe @ 23
While you're at it, could you also ask him to do a piece on NBC's treatment of Kucinich? That'd be great.
Has he ever put NBC on the worse, worser, worst list?
Gasoline is going to go higher, utilities are going to go higher, food is going to go higher, everything is going to go higher higher higher higher higher higher.
What "they" going to do about that? Anyone want to talk about that?
I mean after 7 years whats it going to take?
oldgringo @ 20:
From the London Guardian last presidential cycle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,,1231830,00.html
Among the 100 or so invitees to the annual Bilderberg conference under way Sunday in a northern Italy resort is potential U.S. vice president John Edwards.
Reporters generally are not invited and those who are observe the conference group's general pledge of secrecy, reinforcing the view of conspiracy theorists that the elite gathering is up to no good, London's The Guardian newspaper reported.
Sen. Edwards is regarded in Democratic circles as a good performer in his battle with Sen. John Kerry for the nomination to be presidential candidate and so is expected to be a finalist when Kerry chooses a running mate.
Other invitees are Mrs. Bill Gates and likely are regulars Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger and U.S. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld.
The Bilderberg tradition began in 1954 as a transatlantic post-war sounding board.
L.A. @30
A depression?
With Wall St. going to hell in a handbasket I hope their multi storid buildings have secured windows. The stockbrokers are going to have to go up to the roof to jump.
Are we waiting to be the last to change from fossil fuel?
Demand NEW solutions not obsolete ideas that get us more of the same!
Look to the FUTURE. Stop looking at solutions of the past expecting different results.Time to start an Energy Revoloution as well as Economic/Job Boom.
http://www.ecotality.com/blog/…..e-reality/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture
http://www.theaircar.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
Obama ‘08
pissed off patricia @ 28:
Word. We keep forgetting that.
pissed off patricia @ 28:
Its not who's running that matters, its who they report to. Do you think the Clinton/Bush ping pong match is accidental? Re-watch "The Matrix" and read between the lines . . . the writers were speaking to us . . .
Pissed @ 29:
I'd ask about that for sure. Leaving Kucinich or any other candidate out is, in my view unfair to the voter and unAmerican overall. The way I see it, Kucinich or any other candidate for that matter may not currently hold high poll numbers but another debate may change that. That candidate could say something to really change things and I think American's deserve to hear it.
I'm sure that Obama would ask NBC, Wait a minute but where is Dennis?, during the debate, but we all know what the response/follow up question would be:
"Have you seen UFOs together? Hillary and Edwards don't mind being without Dennis here, so aren't you too rebellious and radical to stand up for whatever Dennis Kucinich thinks is right? Since you mentioned Dennis Kucinich, you must really admire his ideals, let me rephrase this, being supported by Dennis Kucinich, do you think that his close encounters with extraterrestrials and his British wife indicate some interracial issues and don't you think that we've heard enough about race already, Hillary is nodding her head so she will certainly agree. So please Barack, tell us again, why are you running anyway?
Hence he stayed silent.
Avid Reader @ 6:
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. As of yet there is no proven problems with the vote in New Hampshire. We should wait untill the facts are in before we start yelling voter fraud.
StevePam @ 34:
If we get another Repug as pres. and a repug congress, they will replace fossil fuels with "WE THE POOR PEOPLE."
"And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in because he can transcend the differences across the political divide right now. "
How does Obama want to transcend the differences across the political divide?"
READ BELOW. NOTE: May not be safe for REAL Democrats and Liberals to read, side effects include nausea, sudden bursts of anger and unabashed outrage:
From Huffington Post:
Obama Compares Himself To Reagan, JFK...But Not Bill Clinton
January 16, 2008 03:08 PM - Sam Stein
In an interview Monday with the Reno Journal Gazette editorial board, Sen. Barack Obama riffed on a range of political topics ranging from Katrina, the home mortgage crisis and, of course, fodder from the campaign trail.
But perhaps the most interesting offering was when he tried to place his candidacy into a historical context. Which elections does Obama see as analogous to 2008? And with which presidents does he share personal similarities? That would be John Kennedy in 1960 (hardly surprising) and Ronald Reagan in 1980 (more daring). But not, it should be noted, Bill Clinton in 1992.
In fact, Obama offered praise for the Gipper, lauding him for tapping into the country's concern with the growth and "excesses" of the federal government, and its desire to "return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship" -- hardly a welcomed interpretation within progressive circles. Said the Illinois Democrat:
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
LINK TO ARTICLE. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/obama-compares-himself-to_n_818...
MEMO TO THE OBAMA FANS: Obama is a very smart man, this was no mistake and this was not a "well you are taking this out of context" as you guys always seem to be saying. This is code language for Republicans saying "Vote for me, Ronnie was my hero too!"
OBAMA IS A FRAUD to everyone that has put their faith & hope in him, unless you are a "Reagan Democrat."
They are all frauds, the point of this very limited democracy is to pick the least fraudulent if the MSM will let you. Who makes BOTH parties "whisper" behind them? Sure isn't Obama or Edwards, now is it? Who needs a spouse to roam the countryside campaigning like it's 1992? Sure isn't Obama or Edwards.
I'm for Edwards but, Kucinich should be allowed to be heard. Here is why they fear him.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/260.html
Joe @ 37
"... Leaving Kucinich or any other candidate out is, in my view unfair to the voter and unAmerican overall. The way I see it, Kucinich or any other candidate for that matter may not currently hold high poll numbers but another debate may change that. That candidate could say something to really change things and I think American’s deserve to hear it."
Amen Joe, Amen.
Avid Reader @ 36:
The Matrix? The Matrix was a movie for gods sake. What the hell dose a SF movie have to say about anything?
Pissed @ 32:
Probably the only way this country will come to it's senses and realize ALL THE Corporations and their Shills on Televison don't know what in F they are talking about.
I can't believe people don't see this.
Don't think it really matters who the PTB (powers that be - the international financial cabal) put into office, as whoever it is will have to continue doing their bidding. The politicians in this country are all corrupt - and if any idealist/realist should happen to get elected in some remote district, it only takes one term for them to learn the system and then spend the next 30 years working for lobbyists and corporatists in order to get "re-elected" time and again.
I'm still thinkin' since Cheney got a new Duracell implanted, he and Bush will be creating some kind of havoc before November so they can have some fun putting all those Presidential directives into action. Maybe just a little terror attack or a little war with Iran??!! Be a shame to waste all those well-trained Blackwater guys.....
Joe O. @ 37:
Aw c'mon guys. The MSM and the Corporate Elite have pretended to give you a couple choices. Can't you just pick one and pretend democracy is flourishing? Oh and who is that white guy with the southern accent the MSM occasionally mentions? HuffPost had an article up about the debate and that guy got ONE SENTENCE at the end of it. ONE SENTENCE.
You want to talk about change? For once stop acting like sports commentators. Get to the details.
- Hillary Clinton wants to change healthcare yet she receives the largest contributions from the health insurance. That's not change.
- John Edwards wants to bring power back to the people yet when people ask what he did while working at Foundation hedge fund, he won't say. That's not change.
- Barack Obama says he'll end the war in Iraq but keeps voting to fund it every time. That's not change.
What is change? You have to understand how the system works at the root level. Kucinich and Paul have a much better understanding and will definitely bring about great change! Vote with your heart, democracy isn't about being on the winning team, it's about letting your voice be heard.
The boob tubes been around for 57 years. Lot of good it's done us.
ConcernedCanuck @ 42:
I understand your point, given that Hillary's spouse is a former president with cult-status.
But in defense, every candidates' spouse is roaming the countryside campaigning.
Yet what I find so treasonous is that a Democrat to liken himself, admire and design his campaign just like the Father and Saint of the Neo-Conservative movement, this is blasphemy to everything the Democratic Party stands for.
I guess Obama is just like his mentor Joe Lieberman, a Republican wolf in a Democrat's clothing.
Maddow is top shelf as a commentator. She's the best there is right now. K.O. and others have taken notice and she continues to accept invitations to be guest "pundit." Good for her, and for the rest of us.
Why is no one complaining because they don't hear from Mike Gravel? If you want all voices heard, why not his as well?
Just to be clear, I am no fan of his. Just curious, that's all.
ConcernedCanuck @ 48
"Oh and who is that white guy with the southern accent the MSM occasionally mentions? "
Bush was at the debate? ; )
ConcernedCanuck @ 48:
He was lucky to be mentioned at all.
Gee, some coverage on Edwards. For a while I was thinking he is only a halogram. Just shows up on the screen once in a while, then disappears. They are still working on the technology.
Dow-327.51
This isn't looking good. Not with mega negative earnings being reported.
Steve @ 17:
okay, smart guy, show me where anything I said could be construed as pro-Hillary. As far as I can see, the only pro- I expressed was towards Rachel Maddow's punditry.
People like you are unbelievable. Because I don't slam the candidate you don't like EVERY TIME that candidate is mentioned you ASSUME (and we all know what happens when you assume) that I'm pro-that candidate. You live in an extremely simplistic world. I took no side on any candidate, I transcribed the words of Rachel Maddow.
So keep that in mind next time you decide to go on another ignorant and ill-informed rant...this is your elbow and THAT is your ass.
since Kucinich was "excluded" I think we should have Dennis and other congressmen front and center on youtube..
so they can give us daily updates of what is REALLY going on and down.....
whats going on with the dow... down 325
diamondmc @ 39:
It has been proven that the executive of the company who maintains the machines in New England was recently released from prison for felony controlled substances sales. It has been proven that several townships reported 0 votes for Ron Paul when in fact he had over 30 in one town.
It has also been proven that the polls were only wrong regarding Clinton and Obama and that the electronic vote counters favored Clinton over Obama.
Bev Harris made a movie about the wide spread election fraud the last two cycles.
Two of the vote counters from Ohio are currently serving Federal Prison sentences for election fraud from 2004. Of course this is not reported . . . see a pattern here?
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . its a duck.
Pissed @ 1:
Yeah, it's tough. But I've got to have me some Kieth. But if anymore fucked up shit happens and he lets it go...I dunno....
SM@41 "Obama is a fraud" Do you ever submit any facts to support your clear hatred for Obama? Girl you just loooove Bill Clinton. I think you have Monica fantasies. Let it go and stop trolling. The sad truth is Clinton's troubles did help contribute to us ending up with Bush. I want to help you. Please slowly remove your lips off Clinton's ass!
Eyeball Kid @ 52:
When is she going to address the dire state of the U.S. Economy?
Avid Reader @ 36:
You know, it's not a question of whether you think that you took the red pill. It's whether you actually did. Me thinks that the pill you took had a lot of food coloring on it. Bilderberg = automatically evil? Good grief.
RBK_4_Dennis_Kucinich @ 49:
I heard the same line by all the Nader people, that there was no differance between bush and Gore. Well after almost 8 years of bush and his neocon thugs, I'm not buying that line again. The fact is, that winning this election is the only hope of ever even thinking about turning around this mess.
The DOW is bleeding to death and tomorrow bush is going to kiss it and make it all better. Doctor, I think need to get this patient into ICU. Get that man with the puckered lips out of the way.
Guess Bernake didn't do a very good job today convincing everyone that things were okay, huh?
Left&Left @ 60:
Obama is in an early stage of assimilation by the Borg
SM if he designs his campaign to mirror Reagan's but intends to govern and lead like a Democrat, what is your problem. The fact that he said Reagan? Are you as blindly partisan as the people you hate? This whole debate played out, pretty stupidly I should add, over at DKos. It was just as boring there as it is now when you try to bring it here.
diamondmc @ 39:
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/
pissed off patricia @ 53:
Add in Mike Gravel to my other comment @37. All candidates should be put out there for all to see. If a candidate is running they should be given every opportunity to he heard and I would say that for both parties.
I wonder if Rachel could get a message to Keith? I've tried mailing him several times and run into a wall each time. I wish he would cover Sibel Edmonds. I wish he would have taken a stand on the dirty exclusion of Kucinich. But I can't get a message to him.
I wonder if Rachel would pass it on? Hmm.....
-310.53
SM @ 51:
If a person seriously looks at the MSM's 3 candidates, with eyes open, it is a very difficult choice:
Hillary Clinton.....scandals for 35 years, some real, some not, but scandals nonetheless
without a doubt the most polarizing candidate of all, hated by many
Obama.........Who? Suddenly the poster boy. Seems to have one helluva election team
Endorsed by Oprah!! Oh Yippee!! What the world needs is Dr. Phil
Edwards............definitely talking the talk. Media hates his guts because of his populism
Um......I don't know.........vote like Michigan...vote UNCOMMITTED.
Joe O. @ 68:
They should have all the candidates on for several hours each week in a C-SPAN style call in program. Audiences could provide feedback using web polls
Ali @ 5:
Shirley you are not comparing Barack Obama to the empty suit Bush.
Barack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review and the son of no one had ever heard of.
Hillary is more the well connected candidate we could all have a good cry with right? You know sit around and talk about the philandering husbands they all have to put up with.
pissed off patricia @ 64:
If this sell off continues we are in deep Sh*t.
Detroit Ken @ 69:
He can't. I doubt he was happy about Dennis being cut, but what the hell do you expect him to do?
KO can't fight all our battles, folks.
pissed off patricia @ 64:
Yeah, that's rich ain't it? Mister all-powerful talks with god bush is going to fix it.
Meaning? probable further disaster and chaos. I wish he would just shut up and do nothing like he did with the rest of his life. It's one thing to ruin your own companies, but this is OUR country and he has ruined it (or at least done a pretty good job of destruction).
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
Of course anyone in this country who doesn't need to wear a name tag isn't very concerned.
Mike Mid City @ 73:
The hooks are in Michelle Obama . . . Barack is my senator and our state is in trouble . . .would if bother you if you voted for a guy and then he went missing in action for over a year . . .. missed key votes . . . I like the guy . . . I just think the whole process stinks.
I sincerely don't believe if someone mentions the name, Reagan, that means they adore him, want to emulate him or want to dig him up and dust him off. This is just another example of change. If we could have a president who could make a positive change in the hatred and division in the country, I think everyone would benefit. If the world sees us once again as a united country, I think they would have a much kinder attitude toward us. That would be a change worth making for all of us.
L.A. Confidential @ 74:
I can't argue with that. I just looked at my stock portfolio and it has some loses but then again I'm almost entirely defensive. My unrealized loses aren't as bad as some though I bet. This economic stimulus package is just a band-aid I think the markets see it that way. The massive economic problems laying just under the suface remain untouched and unmentioned by any political candidate.
Avid Reader @ 78:
Your right the process stinks and if it were to be cleaned up it will take an outsider to do it.
I think Obama is enough of an outsider that I've sent him 25 twice.
Yours, an old white union guy who has more in common with Barack the the rest of them.
Mike
Ron @ 40:
Republican or Dem makes no difference. THE change we need is from dependence on foreign oil.
This would help to solve the economy as well as end the need for almost all wars.
Pay attention candidates.
A CAR THAT RUNS ON COMPRESSED AIR already being mass produced.
A HOME-GROWN BIOFUEL THAT GETS 10,000 GALLONS OF OIL PER ACRE COMPAIRED TO 48 GALLONS OF SOY OR 20 GALLONS FROM CORN.
WOULD NOT DRIVE UP FOODSTOCK PRICES AND WILL MALE US MORE COMPETITIVE ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
Left&Left @ 60:
I actually like Edwards too! And no Monica fantasies, Bill's not actually my type.
I don't hate Obama, I think he belongs in the Republican party, and not in the Democratic Party, without a doubt.
And I love how Rachel Maddow gave this quote:
"And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in because he can transcend the differences across the political divide right now."
Because what he wants is to converge Democrats to the Republican side and vice versa using the Reagan Model. It's like saying Hilter was very effective the way he converged Germany and is definitely a model to base a campaign on. It's treasonous against everything the Democratic Party stands for.
THAT's why I think he's a fraud.
Don't give up on Edwards...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVN4DEwV3I
StevePam @ 82:
Great ideas, but that isn't what is wrong with the economy. What is wrong with the economy? YEARS of corporate CEO's pocketing billions, years of corporations screwing money out of the little guy and then closing their doors and moving to Cheapanistan. Years of tax breaks, sometimes in ludicrous amounts (one year GM had profits in the hundreds of millions and actually got an income tax rebate-true story)..........and last but not least............GLOBAL TRADE agreements. Corporations have figured out, hey we can make little brown boy work for 3 cents/day, and then send it overseas to North America and sell it for $500 and the CONsumer will buy it. Of course it had to come to an end. How do you figure you can earn 60 grand a year, when a company can move to one of those countries, and their entire yearly payroll is less?
diamondmc @ 39:
Amid troubling reports on election integrity, Dem introduces paper-ballot legislation
As new reports are emerging about vote-counting problems and potential conflicts of interest regarding handling of ballots, a Democratic congressman has introduced new legislation that would make it easier for states to audit their election results.
Rep. Rush Holt's bill was introduced the same day that Maryland voters learned the security of their electronic voting machines would be entrusted to a high-profile Republican operative, and as activists were documenting irregularities in last week's New Hampshire primary.
pissed off patricia @ 79:
He should of stayed emulating JFK, Dr. MLK, Jr., not the Patron Saint of everything wrong in this country.
pissed off patricia @ 64:
Don't focus on the number, focus on the percent of the Dow. When the Dow crashed in 1987, it lost almost 23% of it's value. With the Dow where it is right now, it gonna have to go a lot lower than 300 points to achieve that sort of percentage loss. Let's hope those program that stop panic selling work.
Romney shows his true nasty short tempered combative Republican colors when a reporter actually does his job by calling Romney on a (gasp!) lie http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/17/watch-reporter-gets-into_n_8201...
Guess it depends on what your definition of is is huh Mittens?
ecotopian @ 89:
You also have to figure in the devaluation of the dollar sincr 1987. This very well be bigger than you thought.
Nutty Christian extremist Mike Huckabee, when he's not advocating throwing out the constitution in exchange for legislating from the Bible, brags about eating fried squirrel in a popcorn popper.
Seriously.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yj3QAzSWVA4
Back to "Candidates of Change"
I think comedian Chris Rock says it best:
"Hillary keeps going on and on about her experience as first lady making her qualified to be president. Being married to someone doesn"t make you experienced enough to do their job. I"ve been married to my wife for ten years and if she was up here right now y"all wouldn"t laugh once. You get on a plane tomorrow, you want the pilot"s wife flying you?"
So, apparently with the repub delegates split thus far, if this continues, someone--perhaps even a new someone--will be nominated at the convention.
And maybe that's the plan all along.
SM@83 Not at any point did Obama talk of converging parties. He only talks of reaching out to ALL dissatisfied Americans, no matter what party affiliation. He made this same statement at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. That asshole Bush made a similar promise only to decide half the nation wasn't worthy and therefore didn't matter. Two important facts: The Democratic party does not stand for division (remember after 9-11 we tried to help bring the country together only to be rejected and back stabbed by the Repubs) . Also Hitler did not bring Germany together, he violently took it over. We are better than the Republicans and we will treat all Americans equally. If anyone is a fraud, it is you SM.
ConcernedCanuck @ 86:
Wrong ! This IS what's wrong with the economy!
If we start using home grown fuel and convert to air technology all the rhetoric and hate you just spewed would quickly evaporate as it would be obsolete.
Does change not come from actions no matter how simple they seem or from the age old argument of who is to blame?
hadenuf @ 94:
They will spend whatever it takes to implement it. Millions if not billions.
StevePam @ 96:
I already said I agreed with you partially. BUT you are still partially wrong. Why? The exact same reasoning I gave you. Mr. Corporation does not care what kind of alternative fuels you want to use. Why? Because they've studied it, and there isn't as much easy profits in it. So, you are partially right, but I am completely right. Corporate greed is what is wrong with the economy, and no amount of alternative energies are going to change that.
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
De-centralization of energy production is what they want to avoid . . . you know . . . the free market . . . . democracy . . . . foul thoughts for a member of the guild of corporatists
oldgringo @ 20:
I agree that John Edwards has stood up for his real beliefs. But, look where it has gotten him. The press has so marginalized his campaign that his percentage is dimenishing with each new primary state. Clinton is old politics and backroom dealing. She isn't any better than a moderate Republican. I believe Obama is closest to Edwards, but smart enough not to cut his throat by presenting too radical a campaign against Corporate America. One can look at his record in Illinois and see his values and actions are in the right place for changing this country. The fact that his rhetoric is more mainstream is a reflection of what is necessary to gain the nomination. An Obama Presidency would certainly go along way to restoring American respect around the globe.
xargaw @ 100:
So Obama's either a sell out. Or he's not being totally up front with the American people with how he would actually govern if elected, just to get elected.
Yep. Sounds like politics as usual to me.
Ron @ 40:
or
"WE THE SHEEPLE"
Ron @ 97:
I wonder if this will be when Bloomberg is pulled out of the hat.
ConcernedCanuck @ 93:
Another cute quote from Chris Rock who referred to Senator Clinton as "that white woman".
Clinton is not running as an ex-first lady. She's no Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan staring adoringly in
the eyes of their respective idiot husbands.
You don't want to know about it.
Ruins the joke.
L.A. Confidential @ 56:
Keep your powder dry, buying opportunities are coming. :)
ConcernedCanuck @ 98:
You don't understand redistribution then.
Who are the they you speak of who studied it and found not as much profits in it, as you put it.
Petroleum corporations? Their shareholders? Arab leaders? Same old same old polititions?
Study it for yourself.
Demand change like I said in my earlier posts.
Demand will always bring supply.
OR.......we could argue over who is at fault.
Who is Mr. corporation? If you are not in the energy buisness this is not helping your buisness, no matter how big or small you are. I know from being in the newspaper buisness that energy costs are killing us. I think the same could be said for the food buisness, construction, medical and so on and so forth. To lump all corporations together as this big evil thing, is pretty simplistic. The world is not just black or white, there are alot of shades of gray.
I thought Obama did poorly in the Nevada debate and I'm not sure just being able to bring people together to debate the issues is what we need in a leader. It helps but I don't get any sense of what Obama specifically wants to do as Prez. Change & Hope are not positions. Edwards is actually running a campaign to make our lives better, not just his own, and he is a fighter and we will need a fighter to wrestle power and control away from corporate and give it back to the people. If Hillary is elected we will see very little change because she is just too DLC/Repug Lite and we will be subjected to the Hill/Bill Drama for another four years - no thanks!
diamondmc @ 107:
No the world is black or red. Profits are what drives every corporation. And yes it is that simplistic. No profit, no corporation. Who sucks the most cash out of the US taxpayer's pockets? Corporations. Who makes profit but still sucks cash out of US taxpayer's pockets? Corporations. You don't get it. This is Economics 101 from some University class. That is all bullshit. It isn't supply vs demand economics anymore. That ended years ago. Price "fixing" is the norm now with industry. They get together, slap each other on the backs, and SET THEIR PRICES. It isn't supply and demand...it's what is the maximum profit we can get, with the least amount of expense. Take the oil industry. They don't want alternative fuels and why would they? OIL is cheap to get. PERIOD. Alternative fuels (ALL ALTERNATIVE FUELS) cost more money, thus less profit. How about Automobiles? Is there a demand for the big 3's vehicles? Not really. Is it making them change? NO IT ISN'T. They still make crap. Oh and Mr. Corporation? He/she is the upper 1% of society that doesn't care about helping/assisting or bettering the planet. They care about keeping in that 1% bracket.
Believe whatever fairy tale economics you want. Keep up the fight. We've been doing the "conservation" thing for 30 or more years now. Sure is working.
As a person who doesn't vote untill Feb 5th, I still haven't had to make up my mind yet. When I watched the Nevada debate I couldn't help notice how little differance there was between the three. All three are mainstream dems, so the question for me will be who can win. Anyone of them will be alot better then the rightwing morons that the party of god has running.
ConcernedCanuck @ 109:
All I can say is WOW! I sure wish the world was that simple.
[deleted--off topic and offensive]
Avid Reader @ 79:
? Explain please..
The few times I have caught her speaking on C-Span she has always come across as very smart and extremely genuine. In fact she is one of the main factors in quelling my reservations of Obama.
...Then again I actually kinda like Laura Bush. Tell the truth though, I have the feeling she secretly feels about Dubya the same as the rest of us. She is a librarian, she got him to read Camus's "The Stranger", the literal lame-duck-president book she read the kids at Easter, and in a delicious bit of passive-aggressiveness, her decision to hire as WH chef the author of "Desert for Dummies" ...come on even the Onion,TDS, or TCR can't right something that fitting
Clinton is not running as an ex-first lady. She’s no Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan staring adoringly in
the eyes of their respective idiot husbands.
She's NOT? Hmmmm...What about that large chunk of the
35 years!!!!
mantra that she drops as often as Rudy drops "9/11"?
Every chance she gets, she harkens back to the Clinton WH.
and, face it...She WAS First Lady, after all.
Yet, everytime she gets in over here head, they bring out Bill?
Hillbots everywhere, I have to tell you, the BIG DOG enjoys this TOO much for you to control him.
Right now, he's catnip to those non-college 40+ white women that Hillary is counting on to float her to the nomination....
But in the General, he will NOT be a help, cause independents, by and large, want change.
And, harkening back to the glory days by running out Bill, ain't gonna do it.
Don't hate me, but I don't really care for Rachel Maddow. Something about those Air America pundits are off-putting. She never brings anything new or interesting to any discussion I've ever seen or heard. Just my two cents.
xargaw @ 100:
Ok, lets look at his "values and actions": In the Illinois house and the US Senate he was (and is) an avoider when it came to the tough votes:
"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.".
"On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote."
"After co-sponsoring legislation earlier this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for liquefied coal, Obama more recently began qualifying his support in ways that have left both environmentalists and coal industry officials unsure where he stands. His shift has helped shape this month's Senate debate over how to reduce both dependence on foreign oil and carbon dioxide emissions; on Tuesday, he voted against one proposal to boost liquefied coal and for a more narrowly worded one. Both failed."
Leadership? Uh...I don't think so.
He's more like this guy.
Joe O. @ 69:
I agree, but note that when Dennis is unjustly ignored he stands up for himself and tries to fight the powers that be. Mike Gravel should certainly do that as well.
Lucy @ 76:
Right, but then see him for what he is...loyal to the company and not an unbiased newsman.
John Edwards was the first one to say it was the Economy. Then Hillary and Obama follow his lead. I can't believe all of you who actually think you are going to win a general election with Hillary or Obama at the head of the ticket. They will never ever win in the South, or the Electoral College. Wake up Folks! The only good Candidate to win the General Election is John Edwards! Hillary and Obama are going to screw it up for all of us! I will not vote for either of them!
A simple fact is, Obama is the boss you'd rather work for because you respect him, he respects you, but he does expect top quality results. He seems to be a team oriented guy.
Hillary? Her team mucked her in a racism/sexism mess which reeks of desperation. Then, they tried derailing an agreed voting plan in New Hampshire - that she went along with creating, FYI - because she wasn't gonna be voted 'Miss Popularity.' If the people she surrounds herself with create such embarrasing fiascos like this, loud, obnoxious, and very low...imagine how much worse a white house she'll have.
I hope you saw today's The New York Times.
January 17, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/opinion/17thu3.html?ref=opinion&pagewa...
"After watching the subject of race intrude on the primaries last week, and become even more prominent this week, we were relieved that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama called a truce Tuesday night.
It was clearly her side that first stoked the race and gender issue."
Hillary is betting on the fact that white women can be made to fear black men in softer tones than yelling for help from the sisterhood. And Hillary is also praying Latino voters won't understand what her campaign was trying to pull in Nevada this week.
A favorite quote of this morning so far...
"You know, if someone was married to a surgeon for years, would you consider them qualified to cut you open? Then why does she think being married to a president makes her presidential material?"
I love Rachel Maddow. She's the best thing on radio too.
So, Obama didn't sound so good as described by Maddow. Maybe he had an off day at the debate.
The way I see it, if Hillary wins, she better bring in 60 democratic senators (plus another to cover Joe Lieberman), because we'll have at least two more years of republican obstruction on just about everything. I think Obama could possibly parlay his personal charisma and message of unity into some Republican cooperation (if anyone can). Of course, this would be most valuable if the administration wants to do good things (protect the environment, appoint liberal judges, close Guantanamo, etc.) Obama has not taken very progressive stands, but I believe he's more liberal than Clinton in some areas.
One other thing, Bill Clinton always gave me the impression that his personal popularity was more important to him than doing good things. So, for example, he ended up proposing administrative rules on logging roads only a month before he left office because he didn't want to take the heat for it before then. I guess he never put himself out there and took a stand. Some might say that that's an example of being a compromise kind of guy, but I kind of look at it like this: a leader isn't someone who finds out where people want to go and manages to run out in front of them. Bill Clinton always seemed like that type of leader to me. Hillary seems a little more ballsy (go figure,) but I think Obama can really make people consider ideas with which they aren't too comfortable.
Edwards seems more like Hillary to me than Obama. I know he talks the talk, but you should check out what the White House for Sale guy is saying about Edwards's "bundlers".
Sany @ 119:
This from the guy who couldn't even carry his own state for Kerry.
oh no...Hillary's poll numbers are sinking! she's diverted the plane from Nevada!!!!
see what I mean? SHE's SINKING!!!!
MSNBC has stupid reruns of old documentaries on at 10pm instead of Rachel having her own show
#122-That's because he had to carry Kerry, like an ablabross around his neck. Obama and Hillary just steal everything from John Edwards. Edwards is the one, you so called progressives, should be rooting for, not Hillary or Obama ( the two Corporate Candidates the Dems just love to support)! Good Luck with those two. Just don't cry in Nomember when you lose again!
Old Billy @ 122:
Oh PLEEEZE.
Johnny2Bad @ 126:
What? Don't come 'round talking about only Edwards can win in the south when he couldn't deliver before. Please what? He added nothing in terms of votes to the ticket - and he was running against Cheney!
The progressive candidate is Kucinich.
BUT for "Change" to occur the candidate must show that it can make those promised changed to actuality. The pro and con about having a history and not having one is seeing an actual trend of successes and failures.
Clinton claim that she has experience to make these changes:
Facts are:
1. Hillary's IRAQ WAR was done if poor judgement.
2. She could not even admit mistakes....other than say "If I knew then what I knew now, I would have voted differently. She is the most insider of the bunch, how could her decision have been a mistake then? Is it now a mistake because of the information that has been leaked prior to going attacking IRAQ?
3. When Bill Clinton appointed her to take care of the Healthcare issues and when she failed to reform, why did she take money from the Health Care that was alleged to be a hush money?
4. Why did she deny that her infidelity, rather chose to help cover-up the affair with Monica Lewinsky? Bill Clinton was impeached for lying in court. Didn't Hillary play a role in lying to the public too?
5. How about Paul's claim that he held a fund raising for her and raised 2 million dollars? What is the story on that? How come she did not come forward and put an end to these scandals, if it were not true?
History of baggage (bad rap) is hard to deny when it is all out there unanswered. So how can Hillary be expected to deliver the kind of "CHANGE" that she promises IF we vote for her. She claimed that she found her "VOICE", perhaps she needs to find her EARS and answer some of these allegations and clear out the air, because she is obviously not listening. There are those of us who truly are concern about our nation and government and tired of the lies and corruptions.
I challenge the same for OBAMA, the promises that you deliver in your one or two hour debates. It is easily said in this time frame but HOW are you actually going to deliver it? The problems that we have today has been going on for decades, what are the nuts and bolts that you have that will solve the problems of today? You are an excellent speaker and can charm those that are know less. What do you have that we ANALYST can evaluate? We want to see if your plans are SOUND.
If the historical change is to bring CHANGE based on gender or race, then our country is in trouble. because we have a much greater problem in this country than the issues of affimative actions. Explain your records.
For Edwards. I have to commend you for admitting your mistake for voting for the IRAQ WAR. It takes a real man to admit his mistakes. Because you did this, you are one up over Hillary. How come you did not stand up to Hillary and Obama and remind them that the bickering about race and gender bashing is NOT the principles of Democracy. Why did you sat silent when one of your fellow candidate was being excluded? Isn't it that OPPRESSION is not Democratic? Why didn't any of you reject the exclusion of your fellow candidates? That would have been the most noble and democratic way to behave.
Another thing I want to asked: Explain or defend your connection with the hedge fund. Being silent only make you appear that there may be some truth to it and you just want to avoid it.
Nancy Pelosi " broke the glass ceiling" and look where we are today. I hope the objective of voting for a President is not based on wanting to make history by "breaking the Ceiling". If Hillary or Obama does "breaks the glass ceiling", are we getting another Nancy Pelosi?
I think AMERICA is growing tire of sound-bites. This year is about "CHANGE" again. Frankly the "Change" that has been promised election after election has lost it's bite. We the PEOPLE want to hear actual "SOUND" solutions and plan for getting there......
And just maybe IF we get it RIGHT this time......maybe in the next election Candidates will not have to promise "CHANGE" from failed policies but rather towards adapting to improved policies without making major structural change to the way our nation is governed.
I hope YOU didn't think that we would just hand our votes to you without addressing these issues do YOU?
Left&Left @ 95:
Projecting much?
Obama is a fraud to his party, like Lieberman. We don't need a candidate that is going to kiss the Republicans' collective behind and send his Reagan-worship as a message so Republicans to vote for him. He is emulating one of the worst war criminals that ever existed. I can tell you are way too drunk off his Kool-Aid. He should of run as a Republican and then his compassionate centrism would make more sense.
Democrats HAVE BEEN TRYING since forever to unify - and that is how we lose elections and spend decades trying to reform what the Republicans have messed up. Reoublicans have made it more than obvious since 1980 that they are not going to cross the ailse over ANYTHING - until 9/11 of course.
Democrats don't need a "unifer" - we need a damn fumigator to run the Republican OUT of office so we can clean up their mess. Edwards or Clinton can do the job. Obama will be doing photo ops and speeches while his Republi-staff will continue the Reagan legacy.
Left&Left @ 95:
L.A. Confidential @ 22:
For awhile. The after your discharge, they hit you with the homelessness. It's part of the package.
Does that mean that Barack Obama is the trancendental meditation candidate who will part the waters or walk on water to lead us to the land of milk and honey? Get real. He's brought to you by the Chicago machine. We need passion and action to get any real change. Vote Edwards!
Too bad there's not *that* much difference; for the millionth time Obama and Hillary have identical voting records and the same corporate campaign contributors.
Smoke that.
Bush has even admitted that were he running for a third term, he’d be running as the change candidate.
Yikes..........that sentence gave me chills. What a truly terrifying thought. Thanks for that one, C&L; I won't be able to sleep tonight!
Here's a link to John Edwards new video about how the media is ignoring him - it's great! http://www.johnedwards.com/whereisjohn/
Don't let the corporate media win this election. Go to John's site and see where he stands on the issues. You can download a detailed PDF document if you desire specifics. John is the only candidate that doesn't accept money from special interests and lobbyists and John's strong stance against them one of the reasons the media won't cover him. The other one is that the Republicans are afraid of him and think that they can beat Hillary or Obama. He doesn't stand for them, he stands for us. Think and don't let the media brainwash you. Do your homework. If you do, you'll see Edwards is the best choice for our and our children's future.
The World We Can Envision
Clean, safe, abundant, inexpensive energy for all…stabilized climate…clean and healthy water, food, and air for all…beautiful blue skies over our cities…low-impact, sustainable forestry and agriculture…beautiful landscapes unspoiled by wires and smokestacks…recycling of virtually all wastes…rivers running free and natural…thriving sustainable local economies…living standards and education rates increasing…birth rates declining…a global culture of sharing…unleashed human creativity…a new and lasting era of world peace… With a revolution in energy as the foundation of renewed and loving stewardship of our planet, we can transform our world into a beautiful and healthy home full of promise, opportunity, abundance, and peace for all of humanity.
Excerpted from New Energy Movement site…
Our survival will require a vast and dramatic shift in how human civilization generates and uses energy.
That was brilliant! Rachel Maddow in one sentence discerned the difference between the three Democratic contenders:
Obama: Vote for me and me alone because I can bridge the gap between the partisan divide.
Clinton: The change we need in Washington is to elect the Democratic ticket and a Democratic Congress.
Edwards: Elect me because I will break the lobbyist and the special interests.
Now which of those recognizes the problem in Washington and how to correct it?
John Edwards is the only one talking real change. Obama is a pipe dream to think you can work with entrenched interests and come away with any meaningful reforms. Clinton is better in that she accepts that being partisan works but still falls short in that we have replaced parties before and that's lead to nowhere.
Is it just me or does it sound like she calls him Tooky at 0.15! lol
ConcernedCanuck @ 109:
No the people who suck the most cash out of US taxpayers dollars are the ones in charge of collecting it, our government. Corporate "greed" only exists because our government collaborates with big business all the time instead of limiting themselves to regulation(the purpose of which should be to stop corporate crime, not to spend 10 years to approve medicine) Look at all that taxpayer money wasted on every single company in the military industrial complex. Ridiculous congressional spending - and being together with big business to achieve that spending is what needs to be fixed.
And of course they put the most positive spin on Obama's message. Just exactly HOW is he going to TRANSCEND--one of his buzzwords.
Bill and Hillary Clinton already TRANSCENDED the party divide and Obama's people call them republican-lite.
I guess Obama's going to transcend by singing the praises of Republican presidents who destroyed Democrats.
apple pie @ 16:
The fix is in. The insiders want Obama because he's inexperienced and vacuous and they can control him like the repugs controlled Bush. Thats also why they don't impeach, they want all that expanded executive power and a puppet at the helm. Democracy in this country is so over.
Login or Register to post comments.