Kivalis:
"we also know that truly progressive candidates have zero chance, and will not have any chance until after we have some sort of economic collapse." How right!
So we have to postpone collapse in order to create nuclear situation, which all Dems promised upfront: "Military (read nuclear) option cannot be taken off the table.
So, it follows, that the party, which promise faster collapse is a winning choice for progressives.

Be consistent, my fellow Americans. If it is a moral obligation to lose a war, than it is twice moral to lose "market economy".

Last time it brought the New Deal, albeit with the help of Hitler and Imperial Japan.

With 30,000 Russian and German dead it was a Great Deal indeed.

Danny glover is well meaning, but there is a must-read article by Chalmers Johnson , Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America?, which points out that none of the corporate Democrats, including Edwards, will make the slightest difference.

And there is no effort on the part of the "major" presidential candidates to strengthen the powers of Congress because whoever wins the election wants that increased presidential power for themselves.

And that without fundamental changes at all levels, most especially the role of the media to accurately inform the public which they won't do without basically a revolution, the military-industrial-congressional complex will only continue to grow until the rest of the world steps in to stop it unless we do it first.

But the public is so uninformed it is clueless. And so easily manipulated. Chalmers Johnson is not optimistic, and after reading this, I felt overwhelmed, like it's too late. They've gotten too big , gotten too much of our money moving in their direction. Actually it's really become the military-industrial-Congressional-Media complex. The article pointed out that the founders of our Constitution considered the role of the media so important that it was the only not natural person granted first amendment protection. Back then. Of course, in 1886 the corporations have coopted that right. With disastrous consequences. I thought about all the things I've read, about Halliburton's containment centers I've read about, Rove's plans for 2008 (read Greg Palast, An Army of Rove-Bots), the urbanized warfare machine we're developing. I don't know what is coming, it doesn't feel good.

What percentage of the public is informed and willing to work for change? 10% or maybe 15%? I don't know about you, but all my progressive friends adore Dennis Kucinich, will vote for him in the primary, and then vote for whatever Democratic corporate shill the Democrats intend to put up. I did hear one good idea. Don't waste time on the presidency, put all your energy into getting a populist Congress elected, change must come from the bottom up. And from that a populist presidential candidate can come - later. And we would have to fight like hell with the entrenched DLC to get even that.

danny glover rocks!! great actor great man

How often have Senators become President? Bush, Clinton, Reagan were all Governors first.

The South may have lost the Civil war but their attitude (bigotry?)is sure winning right now. That is what put W in the white house.

I wonder what Glover thinks of Governor Bill Richardson, who does hold some of the same beliefs on South America. (He is a shade Brown himself.)

He also has some experience in International relations and domestic Policy. I think John Edwards would be a great Uniter, but he does lack that experience.

ZeroPointField,

Isn't Richardson a DLC member (Republican-lite) like Hillary? Some think he is running for Hillary's VP. Edwards used to be a DLC guy, but has since become more progressive and that is why Glover is supporting him.

I think Edwards is the least bad of the bad options, out of the pool of the electable candidates in both parties (that doesn't include Kucinich, a very good man but a very hopeless candidate).

Danny Glover is making a mistake. He is a very good man. However, John Edwards is light years behind Kucinich as far as having a comprehensive vision.
Why is Edwards, who admits he erred in voting for the Iraq War, now rattling the sabre against Iran, based on the same falsified type of evidence that was presented to attack Iraq?
The old saying applies to 6 of the 8 Democratic nominees and 9 of the 10 Republican candidates(except Ron Paul). "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Perhaps Edwards will endorse Kucinich if he drops out of the race.

I've got Edwards stickers on my cars and have had since he announced.

The reason Edwards is being supported by Glover is that:

1.) Unlike Obama or Hillary, Edwards is a true progressive who is not in the pocket of the korporatists; and

2.) Unlike Dodd, Gravel or Kucinich, he actually has a chance to win.

Everyone should throw their support behind Edwards. He is the Dems' only real chance to put a progressive anti-korporatist in the White House.

Progressives need to remember that there are an infinite number of degrees of evil. The candidates are not all the same, and each varies in degree of evil, even the Republicans. Bush, and Darth Cheney, should have taught everyone that.

At this point, I just want someone who will not be likely to create a significant risk of: starting a nuclear war, opening secret camps in the USA where people can be permanently disappeared, getting rid of Social Security or Medicare, completely ignoring global warming, or abolishing the Bill of Rights. I think that pretty much rules out all the Republicans and probably Hillary as well. And of Obama and Edwards, Edwards not only appears to be more progressive but also would have a better chance in the general election.

Edwards and Glover to star in "Gone Fishin II" ...Joe Pesche to reprise his role as the "chum"..costarring Edward's $400 haircut, and Mel Gibson will do a cameo as Shylock

There are two kinds of Democrats on foreign policy: progressive and corporate-militarist. Which is Edwards?

Robert Parry answered that definitively with several Edwards quotes:

  >> "At the top of these threats is Iran," Edwards said. "Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons...."

    "We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

    Edwards even chided Bush for not being aggressive enough in confronting Iran.

    "To a large extent, the U.S. abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake," Edwards said in a speech that contained not a single critical word about Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, its settlements on occupied territory or its own large and sophisticated nuclear arsenal.>>

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020407G.shtml

Kucinich and Gravel are the only two progressives on foreign policy of the eight Democrats running. The other six are corporate-militarist Democrats. It is inconceivable that any true progressive could threaten nuclear war against Iran (the threat alone is a crime under the UN Charter) when Iran has not been found to have violated the NPT treaty and the US is in obvious violation of its critical Article Six. Under Article Four Iran has an "inalienable right" to enrichment. Israel hasn't signed the treaty at all. It has a nuclear arsenal.

Joshua Frank said in an AlterNet article that "Americans and the people of the Middle East deserve better than Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. They deserve to live their lives without the threat of warfare and bloodshed. They deserve to live without fear."

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02072007.html

I have great respect for the many commenters above who get that Edwards (on foreign policy) is a corporate-militarist in a progressive Trojan Horse.

Earthian,

We know all that. We know Edwards is not very progressive, and his foreign policy positions are downright depressing (the same is true for Obama and Hillary, while the positions of the Republicans are worse). But we also know that truly progressive candidates have zero chance, and will not have any chance until after we have some sort of economic collapse. So what do we do? I would think we would want to stay alive and out of confinement and to be able to keep some semblance of a constitutional representative government. That is not much to ask for, but Edwards might be the only candidate with a chance that gives us a reasonable probability of achieving that modest goal.

Or go ahead and vote for Kucinich in the primaries and Nader in the general election and elect Giuliani and I will see you in the secret camp for dissenters and maybe we can have it out then, unless the nuclear radiation from the blowback gets us first.

Maybe Danny Glover, whom I greatly respect, looked at Edwards, Hilary, Obama, Richardson and the ten Republicans and decided that Edwards was the lesser of 14 evils.
I look at the "electable" Democrats and wonder "If we already have a Republican party that is corporate friendly and hawkish in foreign policy, can't we expect something different from the Dems?"
That really leaves only Gravel and Kucinich. I'm for Gravel.

Danny Glover has done plenty of great endorsements in the past: Kucinich, Nader, McKinney. He always has stood for progressive heroes and people who would not stand for the horrible things happening these days.

I assume the reason he chose Edwards and not Kucinich this time has to do with electability and the fact he did tour the country with Edwards.

To his credit unlike the rest of the candidates Edwards with his support of unions is actually behaving like he realizes poor people exist which is more than you can say for most of the other candidates. Kucinch himself when asked about the other candidates in 2004 had great things to say of Edwards.

So I understand why Glover is doing this.

Me? I remain a hardcore supporter of Kucinich. I know Edwards will continue many terrible things that hurt many people. Kucinich wants those things stopped. I don't care how futile Big Business and Big Media tell me supporting Kucinich is. It's the conscientious thing to do.

I wish Glover the best in causing positive change his own way, but I don't agree with him on this one.

I'm stil going with Kuchinich. Gotta go with my conscience. I'm tired of "electability".

Kuchinich, Gravel, Nader, Danny Glover and all progressive thinkers need to get together and form a party.

iwarrior May 15th, 2007 9:53 pm

"I'm stil going with Kuchinich. Gotta go with my conscience. I'm tired of "electability"."

I agree, and Kucinich would appoint a "Peace Czar" to his cabinet, not a "War Czar". War is nothing but an excuse for an elititst-controlled government to expand the economy for their own self-interests; control (via Patriot Act legislation and the like) those who would protest government policy, and to maintain class distinction.

The sick mentality of perpetual war must be stopped!

Who you ultimately vote for in the primaries should depend on the situation at hand when your state votes. I live in Wisconsin and won't make my decision until my primary. I joined the Green Party in 2001, but in WI you can vote for any ONE party in the primaries so I vote in the Democratic primary. If Kucinich is still in the race when YOUR state votes, knock yourself out, the reality is that most voters will not have a chance to make a difference in the Kucinich or Gravel campaigns since they likely won't have many (or any) delegates when they roll in to your town. I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primary because I thought it was the last chance to stop Kerry. So do what makes sense at the time. If the primary were a one day, nationwide event it would be different, but it's not. If you're voting to make a statement to other Dems, that's alright too. But here's a hint... they're not listening! Just like the Nader voters who still hear this garbage from the corporatist Dems and their pundits about electing Bush because their candidate wouldn't listen to progressives and didn't take seriously that anyone would vote for the candidate they most agreed with.