Damn ... I was hoping he would stay on, if for no other reason, to keep Hillary and Barack talking about the ISSUES instead of one another.

Sorry to see you go John.

good!

john voted for war, john voted for the (un)patriot act.

na na na na, na na na na, hey hey goodbye!

Finally! The media is paying attention to Edwards!

I just saw him last night in Minnesota—this is hard news to take, but I wish him all the best, and hope to see him as the VP. Thanks for fighting, John.

While he was not the candidate I supported I did like him in the race, I enjoyed him the debates and I hope whoever the nominee is they ask him to continue to serve this nation. I like the idea of him as AG. See to me he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy in that respect.

I also pray that his dropping out has NOTHING to do with Elizabeth and her health. She has not been very up front lately.

Best of Luck John!

SoLongJohn @ 10:

While he was not the candidate I supported I did like him in the race, I enjoyed him the debates and I hope whoever the nominee is they ask him to continue to serve this nation. I like the idea of him as AG. See to me he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy in that respect.

I also pray that his dropping out has NOTHING to do with Elizabeth and her health. She has not been very up front lately.

Best of Luck John!

Good point. I hope that she is Ok.

Mr. Edwards, you should move to Canada and become politically involved. I would vote for you in an instant. So now it's down to Mr. Black Corporation, Mrs. Female Corporation, Mr. Crazysenile Corporation, or Mr. MormonCorporation.......my oh my the world is f*&ked!

Now folks have to get serious and decide...do we want 24 to 28 straight years of Bush and Clinton folks at 1600 Pennsylvania or can we truly embrace change and turn away from politics as usual?

Well, that leaves me no one to vote for in the primaries or the general election, so I'll be sitting the Fall election out, the first one in my 50-year voting life. None of the remaining candidates in either party represents what I KNOW is best for America, and that's first to get the corporations out of politics. All else would then follow a natural course back to democracy, because that's part of the American spirit. I don't see it happening now.

I have never thought Americans were "sheep" as so many political junkies like to say.

But the truth is, now I don't know what Americans are thinking.

Sailor Art Thomas, Jr. @ 15:

below_me @ 4:

good!

john voted for war, john voted for the (un)patriot act.

na na na na, na na na na, hey hey goodbye!

Too bad he lacks you moral purity. Too bad for you Nader's not in the race.

it hurts i know.... remember a patriot named kucinich? neither does the media.

Sailor Art Thomas, Jr. @ 15:

below_me @ 4:

good!

john voted for war, john voted for the (un)patriot act.

na na na na, na na na na, hey hey goodbye!

Too bad he lacks you moral purity. Too bad for you Nader's not in the race.

no...you're lookin at a paulbot.

anney @ 18:

Well, that leaves me no one to vote for in the primaries or the general election, so I'll be sitting the Fall election out, the first one in my 50-year voting life. None of the remaining candidates in either party represents what I KNOW is best for America, and that's first to get the corporations out of politics. All else would then follow a natural course back to democracy, because that's part of the American spirit. I don't see it happening now.

I have never thought Americans were "sheep" as so many political junkies like to say.

But the truth is, now I don't know what Americans are thinking.

Aw c'mon now. Don't you know the only shred of democracy left in North America is to vote for regime 1 or regime 2? It's starting to look like those sham elections they have in military ruled nations, where you can vote for one candidate, or none. Sad.

I'm of two minds.

First: John @ 7:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Second: God be with you and your family.

Okay, three minds.

Third: Next Time!

Thanks John!

So disheartened -- the press is absolutely rejoicing, they simply cannot mention his name enough now. I really do not want him to become VP to either of the two corporate pawns remaining, because I fear that would just be a way of stuffing a sock in his mouth. I refuse to vote for either of them in the primary, but would certainly vote for a 'democrat' in the general. Otherwise, there is nothing that inspires me to get off my duff to vote in the primary. Best wishes always for John, Elizabeth and family. Best of luck for the USA.

sculptorsam @ 3:

I was looking forward to voting for him. Sad, sad day...

I was planning on voting for him on Tuesday. Now I don't know whom to vote for. I feel like I will be just throwing my vote away. Darn.

The second box has just been denied to me.

Check with Malloy if you need help with that.

edwards has turned into such a piece of shit , now the bastards on cnn give him some time for his sellout speach!

i dont look forward to the conflict that has to come soon..... i wish there was a candidate who was an actual human. Worrying about which side is right, is a lost cause..... its us versus them, and i only hope that everyone has the guts to do the right and brave thing to save whats left of this place. If you thought you could wait it out... thought it would blow by.... you are wrong.... its coming to you, and you, and you, and you..... the charade continues with one less puppet.

Al Hidalgo @ 351:

First the Corporate Fascists fucked over Kucinich...

now they've done it to Edwards...

Obama's next.

Mark my words.

I'm no fan of corporate fascists, but the blame falls on us leftwingers and progressives. We didn't do enough to make sure Edwards or Kucinich became serious canidates. We spent all our time fighting each other instead of getting behind the progressive part of the party before it was to late. The blame is on us, not corporate or MSM bullshit.

Johnny K. @ 195:

Ryan @ 186:

ConcernedCanuck @ 82:

Ryan @ 73:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.asp?cycle=2008

Ya, cuz your donations make a big difference in comparison to say......big Pharma or military contractors. LOL.

You're missing the point! As I understand it Obama's donations are from individuals working in those industries, not from PACs or lobbyists representing those industries. While it isn't as good as a publicly funded campaign, you can't claim someone is a corporate shill because they accept donations from individuals that work for some industry. EVERYONE works for some industry!

My goodness, would you like to discuss Hillary's campaign contributions? I would advise you not to open that can of worms, assuming you are a Clinton supporter.

Would you open this can of worms please? I want to see how you people
ignore this blatant "racial" charge agains the Clintons:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200011300048

And then please open this can, I wanna see why you think it was necessary for Obama to have an "internal memo" listing points on 4 comments that were EXPLOITED for votes (again, is OBAMA dividing upon race because they are only reading the Media outlets "truncated quotes" or because they're a political campaign willing to divide by race for votes?)

SHAME ON YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS

Johnny explain obama's supposed difference when his voting record is identical to Hillary's.

I wish you people would just own up and admit he's the same, only you're all infatuated with him enough to slander one of your own.

Van @ 320:

Rusty Shackleford @ 290:

Van @ 282:

diamondmc @ 274:

The Supreme Court is not immune to public pressure. When faced with a potentially revolutionary situation, they will do an about face. Read your history about the US during the 1930s.

If the SCOTUS strikes down gay rights, abortion rights, etc...that's all to the good. Mass action and popular political pressure is what changes things long term by changing peoples' CONSCIOUSNESS. Not a couple of old, right-wing white guys sitting on the Court. What the SCOTUS interprets as "the law" can easily be "uninterpreted" when a new batch of Justices with a different ideological agenda are seated. Long term change comes from changes in mass political attitudes, not SC seats.

Brown v. Board of Education

Loving v. Virginia

Roe v. Wade

Lawrence v. Texas

Bush v. Gore

And so on.

Yeah - the Supreme Court is virtually meaningless.

"Virtually meaningless"--yep, pretty damn close. What the court gives, the court can take away.

That's what happens when you reduce your political choices to "What about the Supreme Court??" "Hillary can do anything the corporations want as far I'm concerned but, for God's sake, don't appoint a Justice that will overturn Roe V. Wade!!!" Pathetic.

As to the guy above who claims 'What mass action?"--well, that's my point exactly as far as current history goes. But the current level of apathy is not representative of US history as a whole.

We have mass action in the U.S., Van. We've even given it a name:

Voting.

You seem to want some kind of anarchy, or mob rule, or something. Let us know how that works out for you.

rusty... voting is a sham..... let us know how all that fair election stuff works out for you.... way to put faith in the system slave!

thin and weak @ 367:

rusty... voting is a sham..... let us know how all that fair election stuff works out for you.... way to put faith in the system slave!

Why are you here then?

The Biggest Reason (among several others) why I'm not voting for Ron Paul...

http://grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul_factsheet/

# Does not consider climate change a major issue and is not convinced that it is largely caused by human activity.

# Says he would end all subsidies and special benefits to energy companies.

# Has voted in favor of offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

# Has consistently opposed farm subsidies.

Know your candidates: http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html?source=most_popular

Comment in Stone (probably become my signature line):
"I’ll put it this way…the way I’ve always put it….

If no one was running against a republican for president and the only taker was Bozo the clown… I’d be Bozo’s campaign manager…"

diamondmc @ 361:

Al Hidalgo @ 351:

First the Corporate Fascists fucked over Kucinich...

now they've done it to Edwards...

Obama's next.

Mark my words.

I'm no fan of corporate fascists, but the blame falls on us leftwingers and progressives. We didn't do enough to make sure Edwards or Kucinich became serious canidates. We spent all our time fighting each other instead of getting behind the progressive part of the party before it was to late. The blame is on us, not corporate or MSM bullshit.

You are right, and I will add that this problem is occurring with the other party as well.

The fundamental problem that people have to come to grips with is that the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are presented with are not grassroots. There are literally hundreds of people who start Presidential campaigns, and the weakness of democracy is that without groups of people "filtering" out these people, the voting process would be chaotic and ineffective.

Therefore, by the time you and I see "who is in the running", there has already been a SUBSTANTIAL filtering done by the media, and most importantly by the government itself.

And to make matters worse, the mostly fake candidates that make it through the screening process by either lying or pandering, end up being judged by a population that for the most part is only concerned with supporting the popular candidate.

The very depressing thing is that most people do not actually look into candidates and what they do and think. For example, most of the people who voted for McCain in the primaries did so because they thought he was the anti-war candidate. This incredible ignorance is common. People just don't care. They see a handsome face or a "war-hero" on TV or in the papers and they think "That is someone I would vote for", as if voting for a President is like judging a modeling contest or going to see a Rambo movie. Sounds unlikely but this is how many people vote. They don't take the time to learn.

The majority of citizens are starting to wake up a little, but it's not at the level that is needed to make a difference. This country has been "dumbed down" tremendously over the years, and that's why it is so important to be an extremist for liberty, so that we can build everything back up. If things are going to change, there has to be the freedom to do so. Stifling freedom stifles progress, it's that simple. Kucinich and Paul are Constitutionalists, but they don't have the "charisma" and the "stupidity" that the establishment is looking for.

I don't think Obama is being targeted. If he was, you would see him lagging in the polls. He is popular, because he is paid off by special interests, which goes directly against progressive ideals. Kucinich refused this, that's why he was the best, that's why he was ignored and hence dropped out.

Rusty Shackleford @ 366:

Drew @ 360:

Rusty Shackleford @ 355:

Drew @ 310:
Strong words from the "John Edwards is STUPID" guy.

AGAIN you ignore Edwards...

You are PROVING my statements correct, so you cannot put me down, unless you have a proper rebuttal.

How can I rebut "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

By saying whatever you throw at me, bounces off and sticks on to you.

Than you can FINALLY address Edwards' voting record...

But I see you really are a coward, so your opinion is worthless.

Susan @ 231:

Kerry Reid @ 197:

If only his record in the Senate had been anywhere near as populist as the campaign platform he decided to run on. He got "religion" too late for it to matter.

But he could make a hell of an AG, I think.

Still wish Feingold was running.

Amen. But we also need principled progressives remain in the Senate to keep the Harry Reid Democrats honest. Besides, Feingold was fairly negative on Edwards. I think that Edwards might make a better Secretary of Labor, if he really believed his platform. For AG, I can't think of anyone better qualified, and who would put more fear into the corporate hearts, than Ralph Nader :-) Either way, the first order is to put a Democrat in the White House; even if it turns out to be someone as currently unqualified as Obama.

Speaking of Ralph, he may be running again: http://www.naderexplore08.org/

Funny thing about the Supremes, when a president makes a choice they never know how it's going to turn out. FDR appointed Hugo Black who was a big supporter in keeping church and state seperate, but he also wrote Korematsu v the United States, and various early 70's decisions that supported the police. Conservative presidents appointed Earl Warren, and Warren Burger, and they all turned out to be fairly liberal. Although Burger was often blamed for taking credit for other peoples ideas.

Now days though, they're so heavily vetted for not just ability but philosophy by the appointing president, that may be unlikely to happen too often anymore. That's why the Senate should be allowed to ask pointed questions of the appointee as long as they're being subjected to a presidential litmus test.

Rusty Shackleford @ 378:

Drew @ 375:

Rusty Shackleford @ 366:

Drew @ 360:
How can I rebut "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

By saying whatever you throw at me, bounces off and sticks on to you.

Than you can FINALLY address Edwards' voting record...

But I see you really are a coward, so your opinion is worthless.

My opinion is worthless unless I respond to whatever question you happen to think of, in the way you want it responded to? You got a separate house for that ego?

But I'll humor you. Edwards' voting record: not perfect, but pretty good. Just like everybody else who has to work in a legislative body.

Oh - except Ron Paul. He is perfect in every way.

Your humoring was actually a first attempt at answering. That wasn't so hard now was it?

So Edwards' voting record is not perfect but pretty good? OK, if that is good enough, then so be it. If the country becomes worse, and you are arrested for thought crimes, don't think you didn't know why or how it came to be.

Rusty Shackleford @ 382:

Sam @ 380:

Rusty Shackleford @ 365:

Van @ 320:
We have mass action in the U.S., Van. We've even given it a name:

Voting.

You seem to want some kind of anarchy, or mob rule, or something. Let us know how that works out for you.

Read about the history of the Supreme Court. The Roe v. Wade decision did not come from the most liberal court, and neither did Brown v. Board. Those decisions were partly in response to the massive demostrations that were happening at the time. The Court is not completely blind to what is going on in the country. They know that in order for the decision to have any respect, there needs to be popular support. If they had voted the other way in Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights movement would have kept on fighting for desegregation. Certainly, the Court changed its ways when FDR threatened to increase the size of the court.

You are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court justices are very aware of public opinion, and the way things are going in the country. I don't believe I argued to the contrary.

I'm saying that if all of us progressives, who really stand for progressive change do get together and march and protest and make a big enough impact, the court will take notice, along with the candidates. It bothers me that these candidates seem to take progressives for granted simply because they know there is no way we are voting for a Republican. They should be pushing forward an extremely progressive agenda and have faith that there are plenty of Americans who are beggin for this sort of progressiveness. I'm talking no war, fixing the climate crisis, better labor standards, getting rid of oppression in the US, and stop oppressing people abroad, real healthcare reform, etc.

Rusty Shackleford @ 382:

Sam @ 380:

Rusty Shackleford @ 365:

Van @ 320:
We have mass action in the U.S., Van. We've even given it a name:

Voting.

You seem to want some kind of anarchy, or mob rule, or something. Let us know how that works out for you.

Read about the history of the Supreme Court. The Roe v. Wade decision did not come from the most liberal court, and neither did Brown v. Board. Those decisions were partly in response to the massive demostrations that were happening at the time. The Court is not completely blind to what is going on in the country. They know that in order for the decision to have any respect, there needs to be popular support. If they had voted the other way in Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights movement would have kept on fighting for desegregation. Certainly, the Court changed its ways when FDR threatened to increase the size of the court.

You are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court justices are very aware of public opinion, and the way things are going in the country. I don't believe I argued to the contrary.

Rusty, mere voting isn't cutting it anymore.

Peaceful demonstrations are being stopped now. When Bush visited Seattle a while back, there were thousands of demonstrators who were pepper-sprayed just for being there. THEY WERE NOT VIOLENT.

I think to make a really big change, I think we have to do what progressives in the larger context used to be good at. PROTESTING. While I do not agree with many social ideas, I do respect those who protest against oppression.

I think all the liberal blogs need to organize protest rallies, but I think sadly that many of them don't because they see the power the government now has and they think they can make a difference by putting people in power that will do what they think is right. But they are going to have a BIG surprise waiting for them when they find that things are not going to get better by doing things this way. Change comes from US the people, not those who are given power.

What makes me sick to my stomach was watching the SOTU. Not only having to watch Cheney, which is bad enough, but watching Pelosi give standing ovation after standing ovation after standing ovation. Absolutely sickening.

If you want to defend it by saying "well, as speaker she has to or else it would not look good on TV to have the speaker sit down in protest", then I will say that this apologetic attitude is exactly how and why government fails. They do bad things and people throw their hands up and say "what can you do?"

What you can do is organize protests. We should do what 60 year olds did in the 60's. We should stand up. Our ability to make democratic changes is clearly slipping away, everyone should be able to see this. It's understandable because of how scary it is. Really, I am scared out of my mind when I see what is happening to protesters. But the more we sit down, the more it will get worse. Because if you don't make the choice to stand up, somebody is going to make sure you can't even if you wanted to later on. They're looking at us like we're wild rats in a cage. When the rats calm down because of fear, the owners come in and tie them down in case they get rowdy again.

The regular population has been dehumanized.

if edwards endorses either obama or clinton it will be because he sold out to the highest bidder , sad but true!

Drew @ 388:

Rusty Shackleford @ 382:

Sam @ 380:

Rusty Shackleford @ 365:

Read about the history of the Supreme Court. The Roe v. Wade decision did not come from the most liberal court, and neither did Brown v. Board. Those decisions were partly in response to the massive demostrations that were happening at the time. The Court is not completely blind to what is going on in the country. They know that in order for the decision to have any respect, there needs to be popular support. If they had voted the other way in Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights movement would have kept on fighting for desegregation. Certainly, the Court changed its ways when FDR threatened to increase the size of the court.

You are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court justices are very aware of public opinion, and the way things are going in the country. I don't believe I argued to the contrary.

Rusty, mere voting isn't cutting it anymore.

Peaceful demonstrations are being stopped now. When Bush visited Seattle a while back, there were thousands of demonstrators who were pepper-sprayed just for being there. THEY WERE NOT VIOLENT.

I think to make a really big change, I think we have to do what progressives in the larger context used to be good at. PROTESTING. While I do not agree with many social ideas, I do respect those who protest against oppression.

I think all the liberal blogs need to organize protest rallies, but I think sadly that many of them don't because they see the power the government now has and they think they can make a difference by putting people in power that will do what they think is right. But they are going to have a BIG surprise waiting for them when they find that things are not going to get better by doing things this way. Change comes from US the people, not those who are given power.

What makes me sick to my stomach was watching the SOTU. Not only having to watch Cheney, which is bad enough, but watching Pelosi give standing ovation after standing ovation after standing ovation. Absolutely sickening.

If you want to defend it by saying "well, as speaker she has to or else it would not look good on TV to have the speaker sit down in protest", then I will say that this apologetic attitude is exactly how and why government fails. They do bad things and people throw their hands up and say "what can you do?"

What you can do is organize protests. We should do what 60 year olds did in the 60's. We should stand up. Our ability to make democratic changes is clearly slipping away, everyone should be able to see this. It's understandable because of how scary it is. Really, I am scared out of my mind when I see what is happening to protesters. But the more we sit down, the more it will get worse. Because if you don't make the choice to stand up, somebody is going to make sure you can't even if you wanted to later on. They're looking at us like we're wild rats in a cage. When the rats calm down because of fear, the owners come in and tie them down in case they get rowdy again.

The regular population has been dehumanized.

If everything is as bad as you say, then there's no point in non-violent protest. It won't do any good.

Look, protesting is great and has its place. But without voting it's worthless.

Rusty Shackleford @ 392:

Drew @ 388:

Rusty Shackleford @ 382:

Sam @ 380:
You are absolutely correct. The Supreme Court justices are very aware of public opinion, and the way things are going in the country. I don't believe I argued to the contrary.

Rusty, mere voting isn't cutting it anymore.

Peaceful demonstrations are being stopped now. When Bush visited Seattle a while back, there were thousands of demonstrators who were pepper-sprayed just for being there. THEY WERE NOT VIOLENT.

I think to make a really big change, I think we have to do what progressives in the larger context used to be good at. PROTESTING. While I do not agree with many social ideas, I do respect those who protest against oppression.

I think all the liberal blogs need to organize protest rallies, but I think sadly that many of them don't because they see the power the government now has and they think they can make a difference by putting people in power that will do what they think is right. But they are going to have a BIG surprise waiting for them when they find that things are not going to get better by doing things this way. Change comes from US the people, not those who are given power.

What makes me sick to my stomach was watching the SOTU. Not only having to watch Cheney, which is bad enough, but watching Pelosi give standing ovation after standing ovation after standing ovation. Absolutely sickening.

If you want to defend it by saying "well, as speaker she has to or else it would not look good on TV to have the speaker sit down in protest", then I will say that this apologetic attitude is exactly how and why government fails. They do bad things and people throw their hands up and say "what can you do?"

What you can do is organize protests. We should do what 60 year olds did in the 60's. We should stand up. Our ability to make democratic changes is clearly slipping away, everyone should be able to see this. It's understandable because of how scary it is. Really, I am scared out of my mind when I see what is happening to protesters. But the more we sit down, the more it will get worse. Because if you don't make the choice to stand up, somebody is going to make sure you can't even if you wanted to later on. They're looking at us like we're wild rats in a cage. When the rats calm down because of fear, the owners come in and tie them down in case they get rowdy again.

The regular population has been dehumanized.

If everything is as bad as you say, then there's no point in non-violent protest. It won't do any good.

Look, protesting is great and has its place. But without voting it's worthless.

Why do voting and protesting have to be 2 separate things? I plan on voting, but I also want to protest, and see more protests. Protesting does get a lot done, we need to make sure that it is not dangerous to put on a peaceful protest.

Will anti-racists cheer for Obama? or: What is Bill Clinton up to?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/a...

let's not forget that obama is still in the race. He represents and will procure the progressive change that edwards spoke of so eloquently and directly, yet turned away from and betrayed when he had a chance to lead as a senator.

lopaloo102 @ 39:

let's not forget that obama is still in the race. He represents and will procure the progressive change that edwards spoke of so eloquently and directly, yet turned away from and betrayed when he had a chance to lead as a senator.

Ya, Obama feels no obligation to the corporations that donated millions to his campaign..........hahahahahaahaha

i think the voters are just waiting for bill maher to tell them who to vote for, the suspence is killing me , he wont be on till friday night!

Finally the John Edwards who exclaimed Hillary Clinton was the status Quo, but just a few years ago, with John Kerry he himself was only second to Kerry as the Status Quo. From my view the electorate knew this all along.

It is stunning to watch Mainstream Media manipulate the masses, and view the sea saw of subdue to obnoxious contextual word smiting that throws America into a tangle. Yet, all the while would blame everyone else in Government, including the Electorate for the problems in our social current, when in all real sense Mainstream Media is so biased, embedded, and corrupt to greed to power everyone can get a little dizzy watching them to make judgments. Is that the goal?

The real pitiful glory seekers are those anchors and analyst that for bright or effective contextual wit that is not always placing intellectual capital to support Americas constitutional values, go on to continue praise or rape for their favorite or hated candidates, Republican or Democrats. Better yet spews out prejudice with the pressure of an overloaded fire hydrant. The real sneer comes from the likes of deviates like Chris Matthews, and Joe Scarborg, yes as in Borg, submit, your resistance is futile, prepare to be assimilated. Vote the way we tell you. Tim Russert also does an exception job with his round robin discussions bending every video and news clip into a mobius twisted cylinder of political hate injecting code now that deceptionally forms a yoke of bad baggage for who ever he wants. Clinton is talking in code now.

Here, these Mainstreamers banner the editorials of huge support from where ever, but hide behind their own sneaky perverted advertised reality advertising like independent aloof soothsayers. Enjoying their own personal lust for their candidate having the opportunity to pound who they hate pleasantly into the ground. My point is these Cable news message wonks, have the opportunity to delivery their personal poison but fail to give their own personal Editorials. We will all be saying eventually, it’s the Media stupid.

Contrary to being meaningless the Democratic primary out come in Michigan and Florida, with just simple straight forward effort with out Mainstream Media spin or manipulation, Show very telling in the line up for Democrats that didn’t even campaign there, very Black in Michigan, and very white in Florida, can command not only a leading edge in capturing votes but show Hillary Clinton in first place each time. Then Mainstream Media will pout, sneer, shake their baby battle rattles, and squeak yelling like tuckered inflectional contextual turbidity interpreting everything they want into poisoned reasoning to convince the electorate what is really said or thought of.

Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborg have lost an edge where they frequently more often seem to express the stupidity they suck in out the room while eloquently leaving the oxygen for us. Chris Matthews who plays Dodge ball more than Hardball is another perfect example of those IMUS contracted types. With their calling card, Have the ability to stupefy will travel. Going to the gates of Hell with McCain should be an interesting trip.

Welcome back to the status quo. Thanks for all your "progressive anger". We now return you to your previously scheduled bi-partisan corporate sponsored government.

This is sad. Many of the prognostications about Democratic defeat ring true. I wonder, though, if and how far into the progressive light Obama has been pushed by Edwards campaign. Now, unfortunately, Obama is the only meaningful candidate...and so much promise to live up to! I think we all need to stop hammering each other and gut wrenching about Nader or Ron (Burn the govt. down!) Paul, and start hammering Obama with a flood of progressive, well thought-out, and reasoned demands.

The first to me is obvious. We need to get Obama to recognize the war on humanity, one that has been felt historically by African-Americans more than other segments of America's demography, and then to start to cut his strings to Archer Daniel Midlands, and the other corporate scum that are destroying our Republic.

If Obama wants our votes we neeed to be clear with him on our demands.

Sam @ 394:

Why do voting and protesting have to be 2 separate things? I plan on voting, but I also want to protest, and see more protests. Protesting does get a lot done, we need to make sure that it is not dangerous to put on a peaceful protest.

They don't have to be separate things, and I didn't mean to suggest that they should be. I think protesting is great. I admire and respect the people who do it. I've done it myself, back during the run-up to Iraq. I also contacted my representatives in Congress and let them know how I felt. Unless you're going to start a NON-non-violent revolution of some sort, that's still how we try to effect change in America. Sometimes we lose. That's life.

Rusty Shackleford @ 398:

Sam @ 394:

Why do voting and protesting have to be 2 separate things? I plan on voting, but I also want to protest, and see more protests. Protesting does get a lot done, we need to make sure that it is not dangerous to put on a peaceful protest.

They don't have to be separate things, and I didn't mean to suggest that they should be. I think protesting is great. I admire and respect the people who do it. I've done it myself, back during the run-up to Iraq. I also contacted my representatives in Congress and let them know how I felt. Unless you're going to start a NON-non-violent revolution of some sort, that's still how we try to effect change in America. Sometimes we lose. That's life.

I agree, I just wonder how much more it is going to take to actually get people off their chairs to start real protesting. I know that a lot of people like Obama or Hillary and no matter how you feel, it is a little ridiculous that there is not a strict anti-war candidate running on the Dem ticket, among other things. People should want better, and the candidates, along with our representatives should give it to us. I thin a lot of it is that people are not showing how much they dislike the way the country is going. Apparently just getting Dems into office doesnt work. 2006 was supposed to bring us so much better, and really nothing has gotten better. Whatever happened to that first 100 hours agenda? Just because they are Dems, doesnt mean they will change things. The people can change things, and voting is certainly a way to start, but we need to be voting for candidates that hold our same ideals and tell us what they think. There has been much to much vagueness in this campaign so far.

Damnit all to hell Edwards, I was going to vote for you souly based on your economic plan.
Now I only have Dr. Paul to vote for, because I'm "not" giving my vote to the "lesser" of any 'evil'!

He's dropping out now before Super Tuesday so that he doesn't take away votes for Obama and hand Clinton a victory. Gotta be...

383 Sam Says

"I do not like Green Eggs and Ham!"

[This is not a Ron Paul thread. Please resist the temptation. And don't answer back, Wag. We've got your number-Sitemonitor]

We have mass action in the U.S., Van. We’ve even given it a name:

Voting.

You seem to want some kind of anarchy, or mob rule, or something. Let us know how that works out for you.

*snort*

"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."--Stalin

Elections are stolen in the US all the time. I'm not just talking about Bush v. Gore, either. Nixon probably defeated JFK in 1960, but the Daley machine in Chicago was engaged in some "monkey business" (ie, voter fraud) that gave JFK the victory. Kerry and Ohio in 2004 is another example.

What do I want? For starters, a ban on corporate donations and full public financing of elections. Also, paper ballots ONLY.

Drew @ 399:

Sam @ 394:

Rusty Shackleford @ 392:

Drew @ 388:
If everything is as bad as you say, then there's no point in non-violent protest. It won't do any good.

Look, protesting is great and has its place. But without voting it's worthless.

Why do voting and protesting have to be 2 separate things? I plan on voting, but I also want to protest, and see more protests. Protesting does get a lot done, we need to make sure that it is not dangerous to put on a peaceful protest.

Rusty, I would have to disagree. I would say VOTING is worthless without protest. Want proof? What if there was no protesting anymore, and the election turned out to be a fraud? [see 2000 and 2004 elections, 2008 NH primary)

Then imagine what if the election was done internally...then imagine no election at all. Remember there is no protesting anymore, so what would happen?

Nothing.

Protesting thus PRECLUDES voting. It always has. The USA was founded by protesting the oppressive English monarchy. This country is, or at least was, a protest first, vote later kind of country.

As soon as protesting is squashed, so will the voting. You think voting is so powerful? How can something that can be hacked be so powerful? If the whole country peacefully protested, believe me, it would be INVINCIBLE.

But a divided country cannot protest. Even in this country there is an ideological battle taking place, perhaps greater than anywhere else on Earth. In most countries, battle are fought with blood. Here the battle is for our minds.

Hear hear!!!!!

*snort*

"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."--Stalin

Elections are stolen in the US all the time. I'm not just talking about Bush v. Gore, either. Nixon probably defeated JFK in 1960, but the Daley machine in Chicago was engaged in some "monkey business" (ie, voter fraud) that gave JFK the victory. Kerry and Ohio in 2004 is another example.

What do I want? For starters, a ban on corporate donations and full public financing of elections. Also, paper ballots ONLY.

And might I add: Term limits for all elected officials, not to exceed two terms.

Ted @ 404:

He's dropping out now before Super Tuesday so that he doesn't take away votes for Obama and hand Clinton a victory. Gotta be...

Um okay, the polling and voting numbers show the opposite is true. Edwards and Clinton split the vote, now she will get it.
Also all those who think he will endorse Obama need to read the candidates plans.
Obama is so far out in left field Edwards can't support him. Edwards and Clinton are very close together in their overall plans. Although I think he will not endorse anyone but simply support the candidate we select.

And the if it's Hillary I won't vote crowd. You have that right but you lose the right to complain if a republican is elected and screws up your country more. You become as irrelevant in the political spectrum as those Nader people in 2000.

Rusty Shackleford @ 409:

Sam @ 400:

Rusty Shackleford @ 398:

Sam @ 394:
They don't have to be separate things, and I didn't mean to suggest that they should be. I think protesting is great. I admire and respect the people who do it. I've done it myself, back during the run-up to Iraq. I also contacted my representatives in Congress and let them know how I felt. Unless you're going to start a NON-non-violent revolution of some sort, that's still how we try to effect change in America. Sometimes we lose. That's life.

I agree, I just wonder how much more it is going to take to actually get people off their chairs to start real protesting. I know that a lot of people like Obama or Hillary and no matter how you feel, it is a little ridiculous that there is not a strict anti-war candidate running on the Dem ticket, among other things. People should want better, and the candidates, along with our representatives should give it to us. I thin a lot of it is that people are not showing how much they dislike the way the country is going. Apparently just getting Dems into office doesnt work. 2006 was supposed to bring us so much better, and really nothing has gotten better. Whatever happened to that first 100 hours agenda? Just because they are Dems, doesnt mean they will change things. The people can change things, and voting is certainly a way to start, but we need to be voting for candidates that hold our same ideals and tell us what they think. There has been much to much vagueness in this campaign so far.

I can't remember who it was who posted it here (Dr. Acula?), but somebody pointed out that the Democrats have actually accomplished quite a bit since the 2006 election. They haven't worked miracles, but they didn't claim they were going to, and no reasonable person was expecting miracles since they do not have a filibuster-proof majority and they still have to work with a hostile president.

As for "strict anti-war candidates," we had a couple who could qualify for that title: Kucinich and Richardson. As much fun as it is to blame the "MSM" and "corporate masters" and whatever, their messages simply didn't resonate. A lot of voters, including many Democrats, aren't comfortable with a "get out of Iraq yesterday" policy. Many think the U.S. is obligated to continue to try to stabilize the country, or have a "we broke it, we bought it" attitude. There is a whole spectrum of opinions on Iraq, even among Democrats. That's probably why we no longer have any candidates who fit what I think you mean, if I understand you correctly, by "strict anti-war."

You may be right on the differeing attitudes about Iraq. But from the very 1st debate, Kucinich and Richardson were not given even 20% of the time of the top 3 candidates. Obama and Clinton got all the attention. I understand that there are differing opinions, but when only 1 is allowed to be expressed at length, its not exactly a fair game.

I don't know the Dems had a pretty full agenda. Was the minimum wage ever even raised in the end? The fact that there hasn't been a stronger call for impeachment bothers me too. These people were elected to get us out of Iraq. Instead we end up with a surge and when Bush is al through bringing home his 20000 troops, we will be in the same exact place as when we started.

Ohmygoodness @ 416:

Ted @ 404:

He's dropping out now before Super Tuesday so that he doesn't take away votes for Obama and hand Clinton a victory. Gotta be...

Um okay, the polling and voting numbers show the opposite is true. Edwards and Clinton split the vote, now she will get it.
Also all those who think he will endorse Obama need to read the candidates plans.
Obama is so far out in left field Edwards can't support him. Edwards and Clinton are very close together in their overall plans. Although I think he will not endorse anyone but simply support the candidate we select.

And the if it's Hillary I won't vote crowd. You have that right but you lose the right to complain if a republican is elected and screws up your country more. You become as irrelevant in the political spectrum as those Nader people in 2000.

I'd love a link to the "polling and voting numbers" showing Edwards votes go to Clinton. I've read scores of comments here by Edwards supporters now choosing between Obama, Nader, or apathy. Not one went to Clinton.

Also, the right to vote and the right to petition the government with grievances are separate and distinct Constitutional Rights. Could you please provide a link to whatever bumper sticker told you that Americans lose their right to complain if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton?

Sam @ 403:

Guy in PDX @ 402:

Damnit all to hell Edwards, I was going to vote for you souly based on your economic plan.
Now I only have Dr. Paul to vote for, because I'm "not" giving my vote to the "lesser" of any 'evil'!

But at the same time, he is against any foreign aid.

Misinformation or disinformation on your part. At no time has Dr. Paul stated or released any kind of info to his position on 'not accepting foreign aid'. This was however mentioned by Ghouliani as a means of lieing to ppl to disuade them from voting for Dr. Paul.

Johnny2Bad @ 345:

Van @ 334:

Johnny2Bad @ 324:

"Van" and "Drew"....Products of the modern American educational system.

We. Are. Doomed.

Well, I do have an MA in political science (theory). Granted, it's from Louisiana State University, not Harvard. Nevertheless, I do know something about the subject.

As soon as you can support your argument with facts as opposed to ad hominem attacks, I'll pay attention to what you hae to say.

(I wasn't going to bring up my education, because it sounds snobby. But, since you bought up the issue....)

You're lack of understanding of the impact of SCOTUS of our lives and its function is staggering and speaks for itself.

You have an MA in Political Science? Whew. Kinda proves my point don't ya tghink?

No. YOUR lack of understanding about the class nature of the United States and YOUR lack of understanding about American jurisprudence speaks volumes.

Do you actually think Supreme Court Justices appeal to some form of eternal, higher law and hand down decisions based upon what's "right?" Do you think the Brown decision was decided because a bunch of enlightened Justices felt it was simply the "right thing to do?" That's BS!

The SCOTUS is greatly influenced by the political forces that dominate society at a given time. They are appointed by politicians who have the best interests of their class at heart. When class interests change, Supreme Court decisions change along with them. If Hillary is elected, what type of Justices do you think she'll appoint? Someone who supports Roe v. Wade...big friggin' deal. Do you think she'll appoint someone with a radically anti-corporate cosmology who will work to make the US political system fundamentally more democratic and less beholden to corporate interests?

THAT is the key. Monied interests determine our quality of health care, our foreign policy, the type of public education system we have, et al. To think otherwise is idealistic crapola.

Van @ 424:

If Hillary is elected, what type of Justices do you think she'll appoint? Someone who supports Roe v. Wade...big friggin' deal. Do you think she'll appoint someone with a radically anti-corporate cosmology who will work to make the US political system fundamentally more democratic and less beholden to corporate interests?

"Make the US political system less beholden to corporate interests"? What exactly do you think Supreme Court justices do?

I don't get it. He said he would stick it out. He could have bailed after the 5th and I'd have been satisfied.

Any thoughts on if he'll make an endorsement and who it might be?

Rusty Shackleford @ 426:

Van @ 424:

If Hillary is elected, what type of Justices do you think she'll appoint? Someone who supports Roe v. Wade...big friggin' deal. Do you think she'll appoint someone with a radically anti-corporate cosmology who will work to make the US political system fundamentally more democratic and less beholden to corporate interests?

"Make the US political system less beholden to corporate interests"? What exactly do you think Supreme Court justices do?

They vote according to the class interest of the President who appoints them. The President serves the class interests of the corporations who fund his/her campaign.

Edwards is a perfect example. Out of all the candidates, he made it clear that he would break up the media and health care and energy monopolies IF he were to be elected.

Look at what happened. The fact that his campaign was mostly frozen out of MSM coverage and left mostly out of the political narrative was no accident.

Fade @ 42:

American voters get what they deserve, the stupid, fickle bastards.

Heartbreaking. Now Bushlite Clinton or Middleman Obama?

shit and double shit.

There is evidence of voter fraud in New Hampshire and there is no doubt of voter manipulation in the media. Not sure i want to blame the victim.

Sue @ 16:

Now folks have to get serious and decide...do we want 24 to 28 straight years of Bush and Clinton folks at 1600 Pennsylvania or can we truly embrace change and turn away from politics as usual?

"Change"? Oh you mean Obama who has an identical voting record as Hillary? Is that what you call "change"?

Or do you just mean he's a black guy who's "clean and articulate"?

Cuz I sure don't see much of a difference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_8120...

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_i_regret_that_my_campaign_pu...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/27/161410/392

Except we get 2 seasoned pros when our country needs it the most, instead of a barely 1 term national Senator who wrote his memoirs at the age of 33.

Yea, 'change' indeed.

Fade @ 47:

Welcome back to the status quo. Thanks for all your "progressive anger". We now return you to your previously scheduled bi-partisan corporate sponsored government.

They sure did clean up the tickets in a hurry. We have 8 months before the election. George Bush can breath a sigh of relief, his freedom (which i personally hate!) is safe.

Hope with all my heart this is just a media smear or that there's nothing wrong with Elizabeth.

Goddang it though, looks like I better start brushing up on how to move to New Zealand. Obama is now the only (feeble) hope - if Hillary gets it the "fix" is well and truly in and this country is finished.

How sad.

This is very sad. Everyone is discussing who it benefits. I can only speak for myself. I have always felt ABC(anybody but Clinton). I suppose that is Obama.

Sad, sad day. This campaign takes a bad turn. I was hoping he'd stay until tuesday. Just to keep the two others on some serious issues.

Well, thanks John. Here's hope, you'll get the VP spot - and the presidency in 2016...!

Xoites- Victims is what we now are, with "Choices" such as Clinton OR Obama. Do I blame vote manipulation for the fact that Democrats are backing those two over Edwards in droves?

Do I blame the Republicans for Obama fever, or people voting for Clinton "Cause she's a fighter" while she gives a standing ovation to Dubya as he talks about War in the SOTU?

No, I blame good ole Democrats who vote style over substance. I used to be able to say it was just dumbshit Republicans. But now I realize that the Republican party doesn't own the patent on dumbshit.

Josh @ 51:

Sue @ 16:

Now folks have to get serious and decide...do we want 24 to 28 straight years of Bush and Clinton folks at 1600 Pennsylvania or can we truly embrace change and turn away from politics as usual?

"Change"? Oh you mean Obama who has an identical voting record as Hillary? Is that what you call "change"?

Or do you just mean he's a black guy who's "clean and articulate"?

Cuz I sure don't see much of a difference.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_8120...

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_i_regret_that_my_campaign_pu...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/27/161410/392

Except we get 2 seasoned pros when our country needs it the most, instead of a barely 1 term national Senator who wrote his memoirs at the age of 33.

Yea, 'change' indeed.

He has more legislative experience that Hillary Clinton, unless you want to argue that being in the state legislature is meaningless.....you aren't making that argument are you? Then again, why am I asking you that? Of course you are.

If you see no difference between Obama and Clinton you are either two pigheaded to appreciate the distinctions, dishonestly disregarding them, or simply disappointed that your favorite candidate is no longer in the race.

Clinton = 4 more years of partisan rancor. Obama = 8 years of progress and meaningful change.

Vickif @ 33:

sculptorsam @ 3:

I was looking forward to voting for him. Sad, sad day...

I was planning on voting for him on Tuesday. Now I don't know whom to vote for. I feel like I will be just throwing my vote away. Darn.

He'll still be on the ballot... I think.
So show him some love!

We are deluding ourselves if we think we live in a two party system.

We live in a one party system and we ain't invited.

Sue @ 16:

Now folks have to get serious and decide...do we want 24 to 28 straight years of Bush and Clinton folks at 1600 Pennsylvania or can we truly embrace change and turn away from politics as usual?

A Depressing thought! What is wrong with this country?

parisian-indio @ 37:

Will anti-racists cheer for Obama? or: What is Bill Clinton up to?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article3273187.ece

That article was rubbish. Thank God the Britons posting comments have sense.

1)"white trash JFK" Soooo the author is saying a common man who propels himself from commoner life to become the leader of the last "Superpower" via Intelligence alone is white trash because...well, he was a commoner? JFK had as many consorts as Clinton has had; so he's better because he comes from wealth? I'd say Clinton is the prince...because he did it all on his own.

2)I have one question: WHAT do Jesse Jackson and Obama have in common enough to win South Carolina? I certainly don't remember Jesse having alot of hype as Obama does. Hm, I wonder what they have in common...

3)When Obama's campaign "leaked" an internal memo outlining 4 "racially sensitive" comments attributed to the Clintons (MLK and LBJ?!?? How is that racially sensitive other than it was made by a white person?!) Obama says he "regrets allowing his campaign to float the race issues.
THAT is the worst dividing action any leader could ever hope to make; all in the name of POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

OBAMA did that.

Van @ 430:

Rusty Shackleford @ 426:

Van @ 424:

If Hillary is elected, what type of Justices do you think she'll appoint? Someone who supports Roe v. Wade...big friggin' deal. Do you think she'll appoint someone with a radically anti-corporate cosmology who will work to make the US political system fundamentally more democratic and less beholden to corporate interests?

"Make the US political system less beholden to corporate interests"? What exactly do you think Supreme Court justices do?

They vote according to the class interest of the President who appoints them. The President serves the class interests of the corporations who fund his/her campaign.

Edwards is a perfect example. Out of all the candidates, he made it clear that he would break up the media and health care and energy monopolies IF he were to be elected.

Look at what happened. The fact that his campaign was mostly frozen out of MSM coverage and left mostly out of the political narrative was no accident.

Okay, but my point was that Supreme Court cases very rarely have any effect on the extent to which the political system is "beholden to corporate interests."

Travis @ 431:

Osa-en-fuego @ 351:

"Too hard to get into Sweden. I’m looking to Croatia." oH NO! Travis, don't go! If you can't even handle a little bloodless American politics, do you think you can handle the SERBS?? You do realize that Gene Roddenberry (StarTrek) based the Klingons on Serbs that he knew? :) If you are in fact Serbian, good luck, and I'm sorry - really- the Serbs are very nice people... and very smart... (please don't kill me....)

For starters, Serbs live in *Serbia*. Ethnic Serbs make up 4.5% of the Croatian population (source). Clearly the opposing view to my own is held by minds far too powerful to be trifled with. Also, learn to use the quote function, astroturfer.

What does that even MEAN, asswipe? I prefer grass. And the quote function is for cro-magnons too lazy to copy and paste what they specifically want to reference. I use it here because you obviously have trouble reading without it. But you are correct in your last statement, my mind is obviously too lofty to be trifled with by a humourless sheep tick such as yourself.
FYI, the Serbs have their own country NOW, only after threatening to kill every Catholic and Muslim within a 1000 mile radius and very nearly doing so, in retribution for what was done to THEM by the Catholics during WWII, yada yada, etc. etc. Little something called history. It's very interesting stuff, I recommend it. Point is, anyone that ignorant of history should NOT in fact move to Croatia, where the good citizens will club you over the head rather quickly if should slip up and say, mistake a Catholic for an Eastern Orthodox... zzzzzahhhkkpj. snort. yawn. did I doze off? Sorry, your ignorance and cynicism bores me. You may no longer play with my monkey.

Why would John Edwards quit now? He said that he was exiting so that an historic event,i.e. Afro-American or women president, would take place. That really is not a reason to leave when you know that you had the best prepared platform and were giving many of us hope that we could see real change. We really do need to fight the United Corporations of America while any of us have jobs that pay over three dollars a day. Who is left? It is a sad day when someone who I thought was not a quitter quit. Mr. Edwards, the people who really counted, not the talking heads on television, were getting your message out. I now am the proud possessor of 200 yard signs that I paid for to get the word out. I am disappointed and sad for America.

Rusty Shackleford @ 435:

Van @ 433:

Okay, but my point was that Supreme Court cases very rarely have any effect on the extent to which the political system is “beholden to corporate interests.”

Yep...:-) That's my point! The monied class wouldn't have it any other way.

You made an "A" in your graduate Marx seminar, didn't you?

Yes! How did you know? :-) I also wrote an honors thesis on Nietzsche as an undergraduate. For me, the three greatest philosophers EVER are Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Marx!

Take that Plato and throw it in the trash. Political philosophers should deal with the world AS IT IS. Leave all that "should be" crap to the theologians.