Edwards Wins the Mellencamp Primary
The news that singer John Mellencamp with cap the Iowa caucus campaign of John Edwards had not provoked the media frenzy that accompanied Oprah Winfrey’s Des Moines tarmac tap on behalf of rival Democrat Barack Obama.
For this, Edwards should be thankful.
Obama has been stalled in the Iowa polls ever since Winfrey visited the state on his behalf early in December. In contrast, national front-runner Hillary Clinton, who fumbled repeatedly in November and early December, and Edwards, who had been written out of the race by some pundits, have regained their positions.
Obama misread Iowa. He bet on style over substance in a state where activist Democrats take seriously the definitional role their play in the nominating process. The senator from Illinois, who had so much momentum at the beginning of December, calculated that the Hawkeye state might be locked up by a recommendation from a multi-media persona whose entry into presidential politics came off a little like the launch of a new “project.”
That does not mean that Obama should be counted out in Iowa. He has spent more money than the other candidates on slick TV ads, he has hired some of the best caucus strategists and his campaign is tossing every charge and claim it can muster into a drive to blunt the momentum that has belonged to Edwards since he dominated the last pre-caucus debate between the Democratic contenders.
But, despite his many advantages, the Illinoisan could well finish behind Edwards.
That’s because the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president has waged a dramatically different campaign than Obama’s feel-good effort. Where Obama has run the softest sort of campaign, Edwards is mounting a edgy, muscular effort that owes more to the memory of Paul Wellstone or the sensibilities of Ralph Nader than to the smooth triangulations of Bill Clinton or the not-so-smooth compromises of John Kerry.
Edwards has fought his way back into contention with aggressively populist positions, anti-corporate rhetoric and a campaign that eschews glitz for grit. Necessarily, the former senator from North Carolina opts for a different sort of celebrity than the other contenders.
So it is that Mellencamp will come to Iowa Wednesday to close the Edwards campaign off with a “This Is Our Country” rally at the not-exactly-Hollywood Val Air Ballroom in West Des Moines. (In case anyone is missing the point here, they will be distributing the tickets from the United Steelworkers Local 310 hall.)
Where Winfrey brought a big name but little in the way of a track record on the issues that are fundamental to the rural and small-town Iowans who will play a disproportional role in Thursday’s caucuses, Mellencamp is more than just another celebrity taking a lap around the policy arena.
For a quarter century, the singer has been in the thick of the fight on behalf of the rural families he immortalized in the video for “Rain on the Scarecrow,” his epic song about the farm crisis that buffeted Iowa and neighboring states in the 1980s and never really ended.
Mellencamp has not merely sung about withering small towns and farm foreclosures. As a organizer of Farm Aid, he has brought some of the biggest stars in the world to benefit concerts in Iowa and surrounding states, and he has helped to distribute the money raised at those events to organizations across Iowa.
Farm Aid is nonpartisan. It’s not endorsing in this race. But Mellencamp is. The singer, who this year will be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but whose music remains vital enough to have earned a 2008 Grammy nomination for Best Rock Vocal Performance, was lobbied for support by other campaigns, especially Clinton’s. But he has a long relationship with Edwards. He has an even longer relationship with the issues that Edwards is talking about. Indeed, his credibility is grounded in the recognition that Mellencamp has repeatedly taken career-risking anti-war, anti-racist and anti-poverty stances that other celebrities of his stature tend to avoid.
What matters, of course, is the fact of that credibility — and the fact that it is so closely tied to the farm and rural issues that have meaning even in the more urbanized regions of Iowa. That is why, if there is an endorsement that is going to have meaning with the people who drive down country roads to attend caucuses on what looks to be a very cold and unforgiving Thursday night, it is likely to be that of the guy who proudly sings that, “I was born in a small town…”
John Nichols’ new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”
Copyright © 2007 The Nation
Edwards has run a good campaign and has good people working with him. His message that we are in the grips of corporate power has resonance. People know we need corporations, but that they should not run everything.
The next few days are critical. The corporatist media is finally, albeit begrudgingly, giving John Edwards a little more coverage — wonder if they will pick up much on this? Hope so. Mellencamp’s support is telling and should only help.
I have no intention of voting for Edwards for the same reason I wont vote for Clinton: they are both bought and paid for by Big Money. Check out opensecrets.com for an accounting of who financed their campaigns while in the Senate. Edwards cannot have it both ways now.
It is pretty clear who Nichols supports for president. Is this what they refer to as journalistic integrity?
All this writer says is doublespeak to explain the immoral and suicidal track that our political institution is on. The scum that hold office in D.C. are more responsive to the dollars from corporations than they are to the needs and thoughts of their constituents, and to their duty to the Constitution. Thanks to them we can become a “material witness” and denied any recourse. We can be spied upon and even tortured. The surrendered their power to declare war and have allowed Bush to make America hated in every part of the world. This government is taking us backwards in time and yet the media act like it’s all business as usual. Fox isn’t the only compliant news source in America.
Hoa binh
Comparing Edwards with Wellstone and Nader? Puhhh-leeeze! He may be spouting the anti-corp line, but he hasn’t shown me anything that proves he’s not just another corporate whore. And then there’s the health care issue…
Edwards was the best candidate in 2004; he’s still the best candidate in 2008 and he’s still got my vote!
Actually, 527s have more to do with Edwards and Hillary’s rise in polls not their politics.
“The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same players and expecting a different result. That’s the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”-Barack Obama
www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption/
Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
A new group, run by John Edwards’ former campaign manager, is spending nearly a million dollars of unregulated money to run a so-called “issue” ad in Iowa this week. The ad touts “the Edwards plan” and prominently features a smiling John Edwards — but the group claims it isn’t meant to promote one candidate or another.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s friends from Washington are spending millions on attacks, including a mailing that misleads voters by falsely disparaging Barack’s universal health care plan. The mailing carefully uses a quote from another candidate and mimics the design of that candidate’s mailings — apparently with the hope that Iowans offended by the negativity will think it came from someone else.
The case has never been clearer — this kind of politics needs to end. And you have the power to end it.
Instead of benefiting from $3.2 million from big interests over the next week, we’re asking supporters like you to give whatever you can afford. That will put us past our goal of 500,000 people owning a piece of this campaign before the Iowa caucuses.
Be part of this historic movement by making a donation of $25. If you donate now, your impact will be doubled by matching a gift from a first time donor.
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
With just one week to go before the caucuses, our opponents have revealed their commitment to politics-as-usual. Money is pouring in from outside groups to fund negative mailings, TV ads, phone calls, and attack websites.
Barack has repeatedly spoken out against the work of these outside groups, and this campaign does not accept any money from Washington lobbyists or PACs.
Instead, we put our faith in you. From the beginning, this campaign has been funded by a grassroots movement of ordinary people giving only what they can afford.
And your commitment to real change has gotten us pretty far.
The most recent polls show Barack ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, and we’re building an unparalleled operation in the 22 states with primaries and caucuses on February 5th.
Thanks to your past generosity, we are in a position to win this nomination. But we need to start strong in Iowa and keep the momentum building.
Make a donation of $25 today, and you can bring in a new donor by matching their gift:
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
We’ve set a historic goal of 500,000 people owning a piece of this campaign by the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd. That’s more people than have ever donated to a presidential campaign before voting started.
It’s not an easy goal to achieve, but it will send a powerful message to the entrenched special interests.
Let them know that their outside money can’t compete with a grassroots movement that’s committed to a new kind of politics. And let them know that the days of big, unregulated Washington money are numbered.
The time for real change is now. Make a matched donation of $25 today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/promise
* http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
All you jaded bohemian purists! No one is good enough for you except the guy least likely to be elected. You need to put yourselves out of your misery so you won’t have to witness the spectacle of everyone ignoring your sage advice.
Of all the candidates who have popular appeal, Edwards is the one most in tune with our progressive ideals. I want those ideals to make it to the White House, and not be confined to this bastion of the disgruntled.
Let’s have a happy new year in the only world we have.
Edwards/Kucinich 2008? We shall know the man by his running mate.
At this point I’m an ABC Democrat–Anybody But Clinton. We’ve had enough of neocon foreign, military, economic and environmental policy, and Clinton would merely lead us further down the road to destruction.
Huck wrote: “I have no intention of voting for Edwards for the same reason I wont vote for Clinton: they are both bought and paid for by Big Money. Check out opensecrets.com for an accounting of who financed their campaigns while in the Senate. Edwards cannot have it both ways now.”
You’re wrong there, Huck: Edwards has rejected corporate money in his presidential campaign whereas Clinton has not. He is receiving matching funding unlike the other major candidates. Redjeff is right — Edwards may not be perfect, but he and Kucinich are the only ones who want to fight the corporate oligarchy, not invite it in for the kind of ‘negotiations’ that have gotten us where we are today.
Dougnwagner, thanks for the persistent Obama ads; Barack’s a good guy, and I’ve talked to him on a couple of occasions, but I’ve heard him speak lately and he thinks we can find common ground with the neocons. That’s just not the case — ‘bipartisan compromise’ to them is ‘you do it my way.’ I understand he’s gotten some things done with this method in the Illinois State and US Senate and good for him; but the challenge of reining in the corporate power that’s ruining our economy is not through negotiation but regulation, just as FDR did in the 1930s. The multi-national corporations will not willingly give up one dime in profits and, as with Hillary in 1994 when they were allowed a ’seat at the table,’ will try to sabotage any plans for national health care, unless they are permitted to suck the taxpayers dry. Edwards and Kucinich understand this, but it seems Barack doesn’t. That said, an Edwards/Obama ticket in ‘08 would be unbeatable.
We appreciate Mellencamp’s sincerity, but don’t really trust Dems — except (perhaps) Kucinich.
Left— (*Above) I really don’t appreciate your insulting manner. It is harmful to any kind of discussion. What makes you think you have the right to call someone a “whore” just because you disagree on a point. Actually, I’m ‘left’ in my politics. Not just using the term, “left,” but have been involved in people’s struggles, civil rights movement, and in org’d labor for over 30 years. Your insulting tone harms any attempt to try to discuss with folks progressive/left ideas. (Frankly, where I’m from, it’d get you knocked on your ass)!!
I don’t think we have any “truth handed down from god” on how to bring about progressive change. That is why it’s important to try to have respectful exchange of ideas. (that is, unless all folks want to do is shoot our mouths off, and that doesn’t really accomplish much).
The problem appears to me that folks are particularly frustrated and don’t see any real way to bring about badly needed changes. It is certainly frustrating to have elections that are clearly monopolized by two corporate parties, one which is the outright tool of the super wealthy and the open enemy of our people. The other is, at best, ineffective in any opposition role. Meanwhile, someone from those two parties WILL, absolutely, without any doubt, be the next president and the congress will be made up of them. Therefore, we clearly are not going to have any impact if we ignore, or stand aloof from the elections.
I believe that, for progressives, the best, most effective approach, is to get involved the huge people’s movement being organized right now by the organized labor movement and allies. Meetings are being held, of hundreds, in every major city, organizing folks to be activists fighting for natl health care, end to the war and spend monies for people’s needs, creating green jobs, right of workers to organize, etc. That is the movement! They are fighting, independently, for the issues we all need. They will take part in the elections, but only as a way to try to defeat the ultra-right, our main enemy and elect a new president and congress that we can push to pass the people’s issues. The point isn’t that we try to go vote for the most perfect candidate, it is that our loyalty is to the people’s movement and we need to use every opportunity to work to create to possibility to defeat our enemy and win new gains.
I certainly will participate in the Democratic primary, even knowing that it is a stacked deck. It’s the only deck we’ve got if we are to defeat Bush and his allies. Those that are frustrated and state that we should “vote green,” for example, are not doing anything to help defeat our enemies. It would be a positive step if we had proportional representation, which is much more democratic and smaller parties can be represented. However, in the U.S. we have a more corporate controlled system of ‘winner takes all.’ As much as the folks voting for Nader might have felt better, all we got was Bush! We need to defeat these facsists to create any posititve room to be able to protect what is left of our rights and living standards, much less gain anything.
For the record, Edwards is well thought of amoung union folks. After he lost in ‘04 he went back to the Carolinas and worked pro bono for poor folks organizations and for worker’s right to organize. When steelworkers had to strike at Goodyear, Edwards walked on those picket lines and traveled the country building support for the striking workers, the USW.
Great comment Unionguy. I see that all the Edwards bashers are out in force again. I think they’re trolls. If Nader, John Mellencamp, Jackson Brown, Bonnie Raitt and a host of others are giving Edwards the nod, that should tell you something, as these are very active anti-war, anti-corporate progressives.
Huck, I left a comment on the Kucinich story for you.
Here’s another great Edwards article over at TruthOut -
Edwards Comes Out on Top on the Economy
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/123107C.shtml
It should answer some questions for the trolls.
As I see it, Obama or Edwards (among the frontrunners with a hope of winning the Democratic nomination) are the best shot for progressives realistically. Hillary I fear will be a disaster for two reasons: she has no track record and little prospect of changing America’s course, and she is the most likely to lose in the general election of the frontrunners.
Between Obama and Edwards, the best case would be whichever one realizes they cannot win (after Feb 5) endorses the other and provides the majority of delegates to defeat Hillary. The case for Edwards is his anti-corporate rhetoric is good, he seems to be a fighter, he has Nader coming out for him, and according to polls he is the strongest Democratic candidate against any Republican nominee. But against this is the Jimmy Carter 1976 analogy: if you look only at the campaign, Carter was very exciting. The problem is Carter did very little that he promised, when elected. (I think Carter is personally decent; my comment is on his failure as President to significantly alter course for America.) Campaign promise after campaign promise, both of Carter and others, simply disappear once candidates are elected. In Carter’s case, IRS tax reform and government reorganization, to name two. In B. Clinton’s case, the plan to have free college educations in exchange for post-graduation service–a centerpiece of Clinton 1992 campaign speeches–became an immediate complete zero following election. How much of Edwards’ or Obama’s campaign platforms will translate into reality if they were elected? My sense is that Obama is the stronger candidate on likelihood of *performance* following election. The case for Obama is he is very intelligent (a university lecturer in constitutional law wins points with me), and the perceived softness in his rhetoric toward Republicans and corporate America may reflect a winning election campaign and less what happens after an election. I perceive (with polls in support) Obama as a stronger Democratic candidate than Clinton, and if nominated, virtually unbeatable. He does not come across as crazy, has proven he can win both Republican and white votes, and could be our Bobby Kennedy, or our Gorbachev, if elected. Granted any candidate is a crapshoot (given the American electoral system). Kucinich is my first choice (and I personally will vote for Kucinich as I did last time), but Obama is who I see as the best realistic shot for a different and better America. With Hillary, look for a defeat to the Republican candidate. With Edwards look for a Jimmy Carter 1976 ineffectiveness at performance following election. With Obama, an American Gorbachev. Given the existing electoral constraints, I think Obama is the best shot at a better America. Nader may not think so, but interestingly, George McGovern likes Obama. However an Edwards nomination (if it happens) would also be exciting, to see if some of the Edwards rhetoric could conceivably become reality. I hope that separately or together, Obama and Edwards can ensure that one of these two, and not Clinton, is nominated, and then goes on to win in 2008.
And whoever is the Democratic candidate should offer Nader a cabinet-level position with tenure and free speech guaranteed, in exchange for not running independently, on analogy with European coalition governments in which parties cooperate without losing their identity or their distinctive platforms.
One can hope for change, or one can fight. I’m backing Edwards as the best fighter for change that will benefit the middle (working) class.
Anyone who thinks Obama is progressive should read this:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
I will vote for Kucinich in the NC primary.
If I were in Iowa, tho, I think I’d feel tugged toward a vote for Edwards, if only as a way to reward the only media-approved candidate who is talking about the overweening power of corporations in this country (the world).
Fervently populist rhetoric late in his campaign won Al Gore the presidency in 2000 (even if the Supreme Court abetted an unconstitutional coup). Fiercely populist rhetoric will WIN a national election.
A great majority of citizens are fed up with corporations running everything. The Democratic Party needs to learn that this is not a ‘risky’ or ‘edgy’ way of speaking. It’s sure-fire.
Unfortunately, John Edwards is great at saying all the right things, but hasn’t shown any tendency to follow through.
In NC, when he ran for Senate, his rhetoric sounded very similar to what he’s saying now. Once elected, he spent his freshman term in the Senate running for President.
His voting record, when he showed up, was well to the right of his campaign rhetoric - his staff gave the excuse that a freshman Senator is punished for veering from the established Party line.
I’ve always said, after that performance, that I wouldn’t vote for him for dog-catcher. Now, given the media-vetted contenders, I’m hoping I have the chance to vote for someone who at least SAYS he’ll make some stand against the hegemony of corporations.
Sheesh, what a dismal bunch we have to choose from! Lord Jesus, come quickly!
Peach McD in Durham NC
Arent there things, Peach, that John Edwards has done right despite party pressures?
He has been on his own, doing things that he supports in the North Carolina that no one on either side has paid attention to - especially for the poor, at cost to himself.
Boy I would like to vote for Kucinich, but I learned realism in my teens.
Not that I have decided yet…..
RSJ wrote: “You’re wrong there, Huck: Edwards has rejected corporate money…”
Why not check his record as a US Senator? THe truth about Edwards is the following:
He voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill as a Senator.
He voted DOWN a bill on sustainable energy.
He voted to end debate on CAFE standards for his corporate handlers in the auto industry.
He voted for the Death penalty.
Leauge of Conservation Voters never gave him better than a 34% rating on the environment: the lowest rating of any current candidate now running.
He does not believe in equal rights for gays.
He was defending his IRaq war vote up until two years ago when he changed his mind: this five years after the war started.
Don’t lecture me on Edwards: you and the rest of the sheep don’t even know the facts.
Thank you unionguy. Disrespectful comments don’t reflect the essence of the progressive movement. I’m all for fighting for what’s good, but let’s focus on truth, ideas, and making helpful changes, not on hurtful words. I’m really turned off to comments that are mean-spirited.
I’m throwing my full support behind John Edwards. He’s a fighter, not perfect, but good enough to maybe help this country if he’s elected president. Dennis Kucinich is great, but he doesn’t have the strong organizational qualities and grass roots support that John Edwards has.
rmax,
I love how you routinely distort Obama’s record on the issues that matter to ALL Americans by quoting someone with a soft spot for New Left Stalinism and ‘enlightened dictatorship’ like Paul Street.
Example 1: “Dealing with Serbia in the 1990s cemented the neocon-neolib entente. By Sept. 11, 2001, these two groups had converged as a single ideological family. They agreed that American nationalism was best expressed in world affairs as a progressive imperialism. The rallying call for armed action would be promoting human rights and democratic government among peoples who resisted American hegemony.” – Paul Street
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928
Who elected Musharraf and the Taliban to run Afghanistan and Pakistan? Of course any political grouping with enough guns and minimal investments in twentieth century modernity, (The Taliban outlawed music, girls schools, and required women to wear head-to-toe coverings among other things like chopping people’s hands off for stealing), is going to oppose them when they try to just take power with the barrel of a gun and enforce an archaic and ethnically-exclusive form of Islam on everybody who is Afghan.
Who elected Milosevic to run Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Bosnia? FYI, the Green Party of Germany voted to authorize Germany to participate in NATO operations in Kosovo in 1999. Kosovo is 90% Albanian. Milosevic was responsible for genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia and today there is peace in those nations because of NATO intervention. Intervention through NATO in Southeastern Europe has brought increased stability to not just the former republics of Yugoslavia, but to the entire region which was impacted by emigration out of the conflict zones. Is ending genocide in the Balkans more important than ending genocide somewhere else? No. Was it more practical to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s than in Iraq in 2003-2009(dread ) given the assets of the states participating in the coalition, our relations with states neighboring the conflict zone, and the logistical-space of the area in which American soliders would operate? Yes.
Furthermore, one American politician’s hypocrisy does not make everyone who does believe in human rights and democratic government as rationales for using military force in their turn hypocrites.
Example 2: “[Obama] praises the architects of the Cold War for checking the Soviet Union’s nefarious designs “to spread [in Obama’s words] its totalitarian brand of communism.”- Paul Street
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?%20SectionID=72&ItemID=12928
Obama’s words? Give me a break. They were also Trotksy’s words. The fact that “the USSR modeled the possibility of independent national development outside the parameters of U.S.-led world-capitalist supervision” does not dismiss the fascism that made it possible. Hitler also modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of British-led world-capitalist development and the fascism of Mobutuism ‘modeled a possibility of independent development outside the parameters of US-led world-capitalist development’. There is nothing intrinsic to that outsider status that is inherently good.
“The so-called friends of the Soviet Union (left democrats, pacifists, Brandlerites, and the like) repeat the argument of the Comintern functionaries that the struggle against the Stalinist bureaucracy, i.e., first of all criticism of its false policies, “helps the counter-revolution.” This is the standpoint of the political lackeys of the bureaucracy, but never that of revolutionists. The Soviet Union both internally and externally can be defended only by means of a correct policy. All other considerations are either secondary or simply lying phrases.
The present CPSU is not a party but an apparatus of domination in the hands of an uncontrolled bureaucracy. Within the framework of the CPSU and outside of it takes place the grouping of the scattered elements of the two basic parties: the proletarian and the Thermidorean-Bonapartist. Rising above both of them, the centrist bureaucracy wages a war of annihilation against the Bolshevik-Leninists. While coming into sharp clashes from time to time with their Thermidorean half-allies, the Stalinists, nevertheless, clear the road for the latter by crushing, strangling, and corrupting the Bolshevik Party.”
“Only the creation of the Marxist International, completely independent of the Stalinist bureaucracy and counterposed politically to it, can save the USSR from collapse by binding its destiny with the destiny of the world proletarian revolution.”- Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330715.htm
Paul Street’s cynicism and your cynicism in quoting him is not refreshing and is exactly why I am not voting for the warmongering Edwards or the Clintons.
VOTE OBAMA. CHANGE THE WORLD.
It’s been very interesting reading the articles (and comments) here on Common Dreams, and they’ve certainly been an education to me.
I’ve thought for a long time that Dennis Kucinich is by far the best candidate for the job of President, and still think he is, but I’m starting to realize that Edwards, despite his earlier mistakes, might not be that bad.
Kucinich has made hardly any errors and represents an almost perfect progressive agenda, and I appreciate that greatly, and Edwards has made a number of mistakes and is less than perfect, but he has at least admitted to his mistakes.
One thing that’s clear in American politics is that changing your mind about an issue, if you’re a politician, is something that can and will be used against you, but Bush hasn’t changed his mind about anything, and he’s been a disaster. Maybe the ability to realize you made a mistake and the courage to admit it isn’t such a bad thing, after all.
I guess my point is that, although I’d truly love to see Kucinich elected, I’m beginning to realize that this is an unlikely scenario and that Edwards just maybe might be okay. And I second the idea that others here have had that Edwards/Kucinich might be a pretty good ticket.
I’m still planning on voting for Kucinich in the primaries, and doing what I can to support his campaign, but some of you folks have convinced me that if Kucinich doesn’t win the primaries and Edwards does, voting for Edwards in the actual Presidential race might not be such a waste of time.
Dennis Kucinich has my vote, hands down. In my opinion, the other candidates are poor substitutes. If you want not-for-profit universal health care, if you want us out of Iraq, if you’re pro-union, Dennis is your man.
If people would stop worrying about who is supposedly “electable,” as framed by the corporate-owned, main stream media, and simply vote for who truly reflects their values and beliefs, Dennis would win. When people hear him speak, they love him, and he would kick butt in any one-on-one debate with any Republican (except for Ron Paul, a more even match). Like one person described him, he’s got the courage of a lion, a heart of gold, and a spine made of steel.
Edwards’ rhetoric is good, and he is pro-union, but I don’t trust that his rhetoric will match his deeds if he’s elected President. This is based on his past voting record (voted for the Iraq War, voted for the Patriot Act, voted for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, etc.).
As for Obama, I don’t like the way he condescends to Dennis Kucinich, like in this video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/26/democratic-candidate-debate-obama-kucinich-and-gravel-talk-iran/
In this April 2007 debate, Dennis challenged Barack’s assertion that “no one seriously disputes” that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. Well, it turns out that Dennis was right, as we recently learned from the NIE that Iran stopped any development of a nuclear weapons program in 2003. I’m the same age as Barack, yet he speaks to Dennis, who’s 61, as if he were a naive, misguided child. Dennis is a man ahead of his time and is often right before anyone else knows it.
If you want the real deal, vote for Dennis. Otherwise, you have only yourselves to blame when we end up with more of the same old, same old.
Doug Wagner posted a link offering this claim about Edwards health care plan:
“He speaks [Edwards] honestly about and against the growing chasm between rich and poor within the United States. He has the most progressive health care proposal among the top-tier Democratic candidates and says he’s willing to raise taxes to fund universal coverage.”
THis paragraph asserts Edwards has the most progressive health care plan: this is utterly false. Edwards plan is lock step with CLinton’s plan and Obama’s plan. All these plans bow down to the insurance industry. Kucinich has the only plan that takes on the insurance industry.
What does this prove about claims about Edwards?
It tells me that the POWER OF BELIEF is greater than THE POWER OF TRUTH!
I believe we are being caught up the corporate “horse race” of which candidate is perfect. We can solve that right now—none of them. However, NO candidate will be perfect. I believe we should be concentrating on the issues, helping build the wide people’s movement for real change, fighting for natl. helath care, end the war and spend funds for people’s needs, green jobs, right to organize, rebiuild our infrastructure, etc. Labor, with its allies is holding big meetings in all areas, preparing to fight for these issues. They are viewing the elections as a way to open up room to win these demands, not getting caught up in the ‘horse race’mentality. I think that this is the best approach for us all.
Very interesting. It’s being reported that Dennis has just issued a press release today urging his supporters to caucus for him in Iowa, but to ballot for Obama as second choice if Dennis doesn’t meet the 15% threshold. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/kucinich_urges_supporters_to_c.php
It’s now being picked up by all the main stream media, and Obama has issued a press release in response, thanking Kucinich for that support. Maybe Obama respects Kucinich more than I thought.
As usual Huck, your last comment is wrong and misleading regarding the quote from Doug that you commented on, and your statement about Edwards health care plan.
His quote says that Edwards has the most progressive health care proposal among the top-tier Democratic candidates, and that is true because Kucinich is not a top-tier candidate.
You also said, “Edwards plan is lock step with CLinton’s plan and Obama’s plan. All these plans bow down to the insurance industry.” - This is also false and misleading Huck.
Edwards was the first of the top-tier candidates to come out with a proposal for universal health care. Clinton and Obama crafted their proposals after Edwards, and there is a big difference in the plans.
The Edwards plan allows people to buy into the single-payer medicare plan instead of private insurance policy providers. That would put private insurance companies in competition with medicare, which would begin the mass migration of people away from insurance companies, and into the medicare single-payer system.
You should at least get your facts right Huck. Also, Edwards has never, in his entire political career, taken any campaign money from corporate lobbyists or Pacs.
Huck, the link was intended to show what a hack Paul Street is. Obviously his fixation on Obama is that Obama is a winner and was right on the war, althought the same cannot be said for Edwards or Clinton.
As for healthcare, since it was brought up, the Edwards plan and the Clinton plan omit one major indeterminate cost- the fact that they provide no monetary figures for the cost of mandating insurance. In Massachusetts, the costs are so high nearly 20% of the population does not participate.
As Obama says, “Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.” He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.
What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn’t have health insurance when they’re caught speeding?
The Federal Employees Plan
“To begin with, not everyone makes the $165,000 a year or so that members of Congress do. In fact, at least 100,000 federal workers — at least 5 percent of the active work force — do not have health insurance. In many cases, according to the union that represents the workers, they consider even the cheapest options within the federal plan unaffordable. The lowest-priced family coverage offered by Blue Cross, for example, costs the employee about $2,400 a year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/20fedhealth.html
The Masachussetts Plan
“But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state’s insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year’s national average. That would undercut the plan’s secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs.“We’re going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits,” said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. “If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don’t think health reform is sustainable.”…
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
Mike, are you sure Edwards hasn’t taken money from PACs? It looks like he has. In fact ActBlue, a PAC, is his top contributor. Get real.
“Is ActBlue a 527, or a PAC, or what?
All of the above. For federal elections, ActBlue is a registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) as a Political Action Committee (PAC) and is not connected with any candidate, party, or other entity. We can directly contribute to and coordinate with candidates, and can transmit earmarked contributions from individuals to candidates. We are also registered with the IRS as a 527 political organization for many of our non-federal political activities. For our state-level political activities, in more than 20 states we are registered as a political committee.
It gets awfully complex at times, but that’s part of what we do. We worry about the legal issues so that you can focus on fundraising for the candidates you support.”
http://www.actblue.com/faq#q9
Top Contributors to Edwards Campaign
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008
#2 Contributor
Fortress Investment Group
“The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html
Take the money and run John, we all know you’re sold out and you voted for the Iraq War.
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
ActBlue? Are you realy serious? Do you know the difference between an individual contribution and a contribution from a registered lobbyist?
Mike, all I can guess is that, like Edwards, you have one set of rules for yourself and one set of rules for everyone else. ActBlue is clearly a PAC and Fortress Investment Group is clearly a corporate lobbyist. Are you really serious?
“The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same players and expecting a different result. That’s the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”-Barack Obama
www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics
“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has widened his lead in Iowa over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards heading into Thursday’s nominating caucuses, according to The Des Moines Register’s final Iowa Poll before the 2008 nominating contests.
Obama’s rise is the result in part of a dramatic influx of first-time caucusgoers, including a sizable bloc of political independents. Both groups prefer the Illinois senator in what has been a very competitive campaign.
Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, up from 28 percent in the Register’s last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was virtually unchanged at 24 percent…
The findings mark the largest lead of any of the Democratic candidates in the Register’s poll all year, underscoring what has been a hard-fought battle among the three well-organized Iowa frontrunners.
The telephone survey of 800 likely Democratic caucusgoers was taken Dec. 27-30.
In an indication of the Obama’s appeal in Iowa, Democratic caucusgoers say they prefer change and unity over other leadership characteristics. Selecting a candidate who represents a sharp departure from the status quo is 56-year-old Lansing Democrat John Rethwisch’s priority, and his main reason for backing Obama.”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044
Obama Wins the Kucinich Primary
Published on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 by the Chicago Sun Times
Kucinich Supports Obama for Second
by Lynn Sweet
AMES, Iowa — White House hopeful Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is likely not to survive a first round of balloting in Thursday’s Democratic Iowa caucus, today told his supporters to back Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as their second choice.
“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change,” Kucinich said in a statement.
While Kucinich was barely pulling any backing according to all polls - thereby making it likely he would not make the 15 percent threshold vote needed to win delegates - his voters going for Obama in a second round could be critical for Obama coming out of Iowa ahead of rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) or former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)
Kucinich spokesman Andy Juniewicz said the deal was finalized today and Obama called him at about 2 p.m. Central Time to thank him for his support. In making the second choice deal with Obama, Kucinich decided not to do a replay of 2004, where his followers were asked to support Edwards as their second choice, helping to provide Edwards with his margin for coming in second.
In a statement, Obama said, “I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I’m honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change.”
Huck, speaking of the power of belief, do you seriously believe Kucinich can win in Iowa, or even land in the top three? I think Dennis’ progressive programs are great but, realistically, it’s going to end up a two-person race after Iowa and NH, and Dennis isn’t going to be one of the two. Also you must confront Dennis’ over-all chances in the general election — what if he starts singing “Sixteen Tons” during a debate with, say, Huckabee — it’s all over but the shouting and we have another GOP president for four years. This is why I think Edwards is the best bet; while he’s not perfect by any means — who is? — he’s got a 75-point favorability rating and beats all of the Republican candidates handily.
Huck, you also wrote: “Why not check his record as a US Senator?”
I have and you’re wrong on a couple of points:
You claimed: “He does not believe in equal rights for gays.”
That’s not true — he personally has some qualms about the idea of gay marriage, but he supports full equal rights for gays.
You claimed: “He was defending his IRaq war vote up until two years ago when he changed his mind: this five years after the war started.”
Actually, he said he made a mistake on that vote when he was running in 2004, three years ago; he’s apologized for that mistake, and others he’s made; I suggest you listen to some of his Iowa speeches and read his website. Did I remind you I never said Edwards was perfect?
You said: “Don’t lecture me on Edwards: you and the rest of the sheep don’t even know the facts.”
And don’t try to lecture me with your inaccuracy and your blatant bias. Perhaps you’ve haven’t improved in five years, maybe you haven’t made any mistakes, but other people have — maybe Edwards is one of them and, once again, I’m not claiming he’s perfect, just a bit better than the viable alternatives.
I’m all for a third party — I voted for Nader in 2000 — but to counter the two major parties you’re going to need a lot of money to buy TV time and name recognition to garner Big Media coverage nationally. Someone like a Robert Redford or a Jon Stewart has enough name recognition to collect the money, but they aren’t running. Absent that, I don’t see any third party, at least in 2008, having a chance to win nationwide. It’s a dirty shame, but that’s what we have to deal with this year. This country can’t survive another four years of a conservative Republican president.
BTW, you realize Edwards is a politician, don’t you? Whether we like it or not, a Democratic or Republican politician is going to win the presidency in 2008 — it might as well be someone who recognizes some of the real problems we have and what to do about them.
To my mind, here’s the most important thing: our economy is falling apart, thanks to corporate interests running our government. Here’s what Dean Baker had to say about Edwards on this point:
“In short, Edwards has set himself apart from the other two top candidates by indicating a clear willingness to challenge an agenda set on Wall Street. If a President Edwards actually carried through with this course, he would pursue a very different economic agenda than his two leading rivals.”
– Dean Baker, “Edwards Comes Out on Top on the Economy,” TruthOut, Dec. 31, 2007.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/123107C.shtml
If the corporate agenda continues to dominate our government, none of the other issues — health care, Bush’s Iraq War, labor rights, voting rights, fair treatment for the poor, etc. — will be addressed and we need a president who’ll fight these multi-national corporate interests and Wall Street, not invite them in for coffee or to score another campaign contribution. That, Huck, is the power of truth, as dismal as it may be.
That’s a surprise, Kucinich throwing his support to Obama — I hope he knows something we don’t.
Dougnwagner, he’s another recent poll showing a dead heat between Obama and Edwards:
“The poll, conducted with 500 likely caucus goers from each party on Wednesday and Thursday, showed Edwards and Obama tied with 29 percent to lead Democrats, followed by Clinton with 28 percent. Bill Richardson was fourth with 7 percent. Joe Biden was fifth with 3 percent. Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich both had 1 percent and 2 percent were undecided.”
– Dan Gearino, “New Lee poll: Edwards moves into 3-way tie,” WCF Courier Des Moines Bureau, Dec. 28, 2007.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/12/28/news/top_story/doc4775211182ecc379814340.txt
the irony being, Edwards is the only one defeating every repug candidate in the polls.
As usual Mike, you are blowing more hot air for the rest of the sheeple whose beliefs are more important than truth. Making unsubstantive claims like “Universal Health Care” without offering citation or proof shows your nothing more than a shill. Carry on with your bombast; i can hardly wait to hear your latest hissy fit on the subject!
RSJ, you people love to spin other people comments. I guess it is the only thing you can offer on this forum. Listen very carefully, i will repeat this one more time. The only thing ive ever noted on this site is that Kucinich is THE ONLY TRUE PROGRESSIVE IN THE PACK AS EVIDENCED BY HIS RECORD IN THE CONGRESS AND HIS CURRENT PLAN! What is so difficult to understand about it?
Ive also noted several times that i respect anyones right to vote any way they choose to. The only distinction ive been making all along is that Edwards is no progressive by his RECORD in the Senate. Nothing more and nothing less.
If anyone here thinks Edwards is going to reign in corporate money since he is a long time recipient of it, is living in a dream world.
Besides, lad, you affirmed my point on what i said about Edwards. Edwards was supporting his record on the Iraq war vote as he ran for Vice President in 2004. Note the link below of an article by Edwards apologizing about the Iraq war vote in nov 2005 THREE YEARS AFTER THE START OF WAR.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html
Your living in a vacuum.
The same is true of his position on gays. He approves of partnership benefits BUT NOT GAY MARRIAGE.
Huck, I’d wholeheartedly support Kucinich if I thought he had a chance of winning, but he doesn’t. Today on MSNBC, they mentioned every Dem candidate in Iowa except Dennis — he’s getting the full media blackout. This isn’t right, and we should all protest it but, in the meantime, I think Edwards would be the next best thing. Aside from that, as I mentioned before, Dennis has a tendency to go a little loopy at times; when you’re campaigning for president, you aren’t allowed to do that, as unfair as that may be.
You said I love to ’spin’ other people’s comments — do you mean ‘reply’ to them? What did I ’spin’ of what you wrote?
Edwards does have a sometimes problematic senate voting record, it’s true, but he has repeatedly apologized for some of his less-than-progressive votes and said he’s learned his lesson. Can I prove he’s telling the truth? No. Can you prove he’s lying when he says this? No. But, at the least, he has impressed many union members by joining them on picket lines and by fighting for the unemployed. He also fought corporations in court. All political calculation? Possibly, but at least he’s talking about fighting the corporate/Wall Street power structure that is killing our nation, something Hillary and Obama rarely mention, if at all.
Compare all the ‘corporate and PAC’ money Edwards has received, and from which PACs and corporations, to that of his top rivals — what you’re trying to assert here is a sad joke.
I don’t have a link handy, but I’m positive that when Edwards was campaigning in 2004 he said his vote to authorize force against Iraq was a mistake and he said he was wrong. If that’s not the case, I stand corrected and I apologize.
Finally, I already said he had problems with gay marriage, but he approves of full equality in all other regards. As I keep saying, he’s not perfect, but he’s the only viable progressive option at the moment.
RSJ, Edwards does not have a 75 point favorability rating in any credible poll. In fact, he lags marginally behind Obama in both the USA Today and CNN polls. P.S. Des Moines Register got it right last time and polled a larger number of people.
http://www.pollingreport.com/gallery2.htm#GALobamaFAV
Edwards did not apologize in 2004 for voting for the war. Do you Edwards clones use the internet? Come on.
“And don’t try to lecture me with your inaccuracy and your blatant bias. Perhaps you’ve haven’t improved in five years, maybe you haven’t made any mistakes, but other people have…”
And maybe the one mistake other candidates in the race didn’t make was that they didn’t vote for the war and wait until millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans died to change their mind along with public opinion. Maybe the other candidates (Kucinich and Obama) take war seriously. Maybe they opposed it in 2002, when it could have saved millions of lives.
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
YEAs —77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
Edwards is a phony in my opinion, (he was working at Fortress Investment Group when they were expanding their predatory lending operation and then he comes out against it?
He voted for MFN status for China, but now he’s for fair trade? 
He voted for the war but now he’s for it? 
He call’s a plan that’s not universal healthcare, universal healthcare? :)) and I would never vote for him, not even in a general election. If Obama does not win I will probably vote for the Green Party, whose candidate looks like it will be Cynthia McKinney. Not a bad choice in my opinion.
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/
RSJ, thanks for trying to help enlighten the sheeple a bit, but talking to dougnwagner and huck is like banging your head against the brick wall. Huck has already admitted defeat, for him it was Kucinich or no one, and now his hero has asked his supporters to caucus for Obama, and as far as dougnwagner is concerned, it’s Obama or no one. They both need to broaden their view a bit. They don’t care about what the best choice is for progress, which may change with time, for them, it’s their choice or stay home, or vote independent. I think they are trying to divide the people here, and sabotage one of the most progressive candidates in the race, John Edwards.
Micheal Moore knows that EDWARDS is the man.
Check it out here on CD -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/02/6108/
RSj, i accept your apology. And not to rub it in, but i think you affirmed the point i was making about Edwards: i.e., the power of belief is more important than the power of truth.
How ironic that a dude who suffers myopia is accusing others as if his ‘one size fits all’ political dysfunction applies to them too. The difference between a true indedendent and sheep is that sheep will take whatever the system produces. They will eat their humble pie, do whatever their handlers tell them to do; if they say jump, Mike and his kin will ask “How high?” This group represents the same predictability as the Repub sheep. They can see nothing beyond their own ideology.
There’s no hope for you Huck.
EDWARDS IS THE MAN, PERIOD!!
I agree Doug, the Green Party is the only way to go.