Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Success Is Making Us All Winners
Barack Obama's stunning victory in Iowa lifts our hearts, no matter whom we support. You can't help but be touched by a brilliant, passionate African American with a message of hope winning the vote of Iowa's presidential caucuses. Although it's only a first step in a long race for Obama, it is surely a giant step for America.
Nearly 44 years ago, Fanny Lou Hamer led the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to the Democratic convention in Atlantic City, challenging a Mississippi delegation that had systematically excluded all blacks. Hamer had to kick open locked doors simply to gain a hearing. She was dismissed by President Lyndon Johnson as an "illiterate." In the end, two delegates from the Freedom Democratic Party were seated, on condition that Hamer not be among them. Four years later, Democrats required equal representation. And now four decades later, an African-American leader can compete on a more level playing field.
On the stage of the Democratic debate Saturday night in New Hampshire were the leading candidates for the nomination -- a white woman, an African American, a white man and a Latino -- strong leaders all, contesting for the presidency. (Dennis Kucinich was unfairly excluded from the debate.) We have come a long way.
George Bush the First talked in New Hampshire's primary about having the "Big Mo," as in momentum. Obama enjoys far more than that. He's got the "Big M's": magnetic personality, magic moment, message, money and momentum. And the preposterously short primary season -- it's all over essentially by Feb. 5 -- dramatically favors anyone who can win the early contests, in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. If Obama wins today in New Hampshire, he will be well on his way.
The media are into the horse race: Who's up? Who's down? Daily polls, focus groups, on-the-street interviews. Lost in all this are the issues Americans care most about.
Never was this more apparent than in the New Hampshire debate. Moderator Charles Gibson came with videos on various issues to set up discussions. The first, on nuclear weapons and terrorism, stimulated a serious discussion. The second was on the budget deficits, priorities and entitlements, but Gibson clearly was tired of substance. He turned to Clinton and asked her what positions of Obama she thought ought to be "vetted." Rather than substantive differences on Social Security and spending -- of which there are many -- he teed up the tit-for-tat discussion that got the headlines the next day.
It is time to get real. This economy is probably already in recession. Last month, the private sector lost jobs. Millions are facing the loss of their homes. More and more students are getting priced out of college. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our cities being ignored; New Orleans has been abandoned. Oil is at $100 a barrel. The dollar is sinking. Catastrophic climate change is a real and present danger. We've squandered lives and resources on the war in Iraq, even as al-Qaida is consolidating and a nuclear-armed Pakistan is in turmoil. Kenya (the home of Obama's father), which is now disintegrating into violence, somehow was not part of the debate.
We need commentators to probe these issues with candidates. Not with "gotcha" questions -- "Do you know the name of the interim Uzbekistan prime minister?" -- but in ways that are as sober as the moment.
Obama is now the Democratic front-runner, with Mike Huckabee and John McCain running strong on the Republican side. They will and should be scrutinized. But let's put aside the opposition research and partisan jibes that magnify the petty. Let's focus on their answers to real challenges
--Jesse Jackson
© Copyright 2008 Digital Chicago, Inc.
118 Comments so far
Show Allmnbuyveomn, you should give yourself a chance to win by voting for Edwards. If Edwards doesn't win, you're going to get Obama or Hillary anyway, and a brokered convention might not be a bad idea. If Edwards stays in the race and nobody gets a clear majority, all the issues will be on the table.
John Edwards is not in the pocket of Wall Street, but Obama and Clinton are, period. Edwards is also the only one accepting PUBLIC FUNDING for his campaign.
Here is the list of top contributors to Obama -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
And here is the list for Hillary -
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Now, you look at that list and tell me who is bought and paid for by Wall Street. They dont fear Obama and Hillary, they own them! But they do fear John Edwards!
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it Doug?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
I think it's between Obama and Clinton now folks. I am not sure who will win.
MIKEPETERS, so far, there are 93 view articles here in January. I have posted mor than one opinions on four of them, and on six total. what's your beef? __ Never mind.
That is correct EVELYNA, a very low percentage.
It won't be a siimple NO Mike, he doesn't like to accept the truth.
I have noticed while watching the crockessess on television the lack of blacks participating.
Am I to believe New Hampshire and Iowa do not have an afro population in their state?
Kem, what do you want to bet that if he answers you, it comes with three pages of links and a load of BS?
DOUGWAGNER, would you be willing to answer a question with a simple yes or no answer? I'll do the same for you if you desire.
Question: Do you believe Obama, will attempt to stop the lobbying in Washington DC, if he is elected to the presidency?
It is the LOBBYING in Washington DC, that is the ROOT of all of our major problems. It's truly that simple.
ONLY ONE candidate addresses that issue, John Edwards. If he is not our next president, NOTHING will change. ___ We do want change don't we? Not talk, __ CHANGE.
Obama and Clinton HAVE ALREADY SOLD YOU OUT!!
Give your votes and support to someone who is really fighting for you, JOHN EDWARDS! John can win with your support. Send him some love for having the courage to speak the truth, and for forcing Obama and Clinton to start talking about the issues that matter to working people.
EDWARDS '08
It's between Obama and Clinton now folks. You can vote for the candidate who voted for a war that continues to kill millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans or for the candidate who opposed it. Obama is the real Progressive. Don't vote for somebody who gets Hillary elected.
Obama is the real deal. Clinton will sell you out.
"Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
VAUDREE, see you are still at it. You say I'm an asshole because I didn't like to see your insult of Elizabeth Edwards here. I gave you the college edition of Webster's definition, of the word 'sneaky' and you still insist you are correct and I'm an asshole for disagreeing with you. ___ Live with what you obviously are.
MIKEPETERS.......Twenty five bud.
Hi MISENTHORPE ... good to hear from you.
Jiminy Effin Cricket. I wonder if we couldn't make that our new national anthem?
And maybe get God to raise him from the dead and make him president too..
Saw him thrice. !!!
And don't fall for Hillary's 'mandate' nonsense. I'm currently paying for mandated health insurance I can't afford to attend college. $1,500 a year on top of $9,000 a year. The issue is NOT MANDATES. ITS AFFORDABILITY.
Oh, and guess who I have to buy loans from. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040824/
You think this doesn't happen with mandated health insurance?
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 Massachusetts 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. " [Because children don't have a choice, they're not adults.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
Hi mikepeters I am indeed a fan of FZ, have been since I was "knee high to a grasshopper". He was a genius on so many levels. I wish we still had the gift of his voice on current affairs. Lot's of great FZ stuff available on the net, both his music and his socio-political views.
Black Napkins - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgpgDKzsNE0
Chunga's Revenge, Hi, are you a fan of Frank's? What a genius, and the guitar solo in Black Napkins, what an edge to it.
Go Obama. He has integrity.
mikepeters - Who elected you as forum moderator? If you don't like what someone has to say scroll on down the page.
RE: - Obama is a charismatic, intelligent candidate with words that appeal to many people and a powerful delivery reminicent of Martin Luther King
That was a good strategy Obama used in his speech (and I am guessing that he waited until Edwards gave his speech before delivering it). Though it is technically empty rhetoric, Obama's (pp) "It is not about what I can do as President but what we can do together" deflated the "as president, I will" focus of both his opponents. And his powerful delivery took the wind out of Hillary's sail in what was supposed to be a very upbeat speech. I can't figure out whether Hillary heard his speech or not before going up – but it was a hard act to follow. There was no hint of disappointment in Obama's voice once he got started (which was amazing!)
Looking closely, Obama's comment about the drug and insurance industries having a seat at the table but not all the seats doesn't meet the smell test. If one's goal is having a single insurer, negotiating with the insurance industries won't work because you are asking for their advice as to how best to put themselves out of business. And note that the drug companies did not have all the seats at the SPP meeting in Montebello either – I think Wal-Mart had one of them.
Hillary's "complimenting" supporters for voting for her "heart and mind" was a dig on Obama – though there was a bit too much edge when she said it.
I liked what Edwards had to say, and he gave a few more details, but he was fighting to be cheerful. He recovered by the time he was on Larry King live, though. Wished that the segment was longer. Like how both his opponents have tried to co-opt his going after the corporations message.
RE: - He is also extremely vulnerable to "swift boating"
More so than the others? Personally, I think they will go after Obama's foreign knowledge – especially considering his "President of Canada" comment - though it won't be to do with Canada at all, but they will be trying to trip him up that way. Obama hasn't faced much criticism so far and hasn't been put much into the position of defending himself. What do you think they will go after?
RE: - Remember that the majority of Americans are not highly educated open minded folks who strive for a well informed and rational viewpoint, but rather herd animals who are deeply influenced by herd instinct, and crave the security of being among a majority to the extent that they suppress their natural scepticism and doubts rather than go against the current.
Despite the common stereotype Canadians have of Americans, I've met too many intelligent Americans to figure it widespread. The Shock Doctrine comes into play in perpetuating this stereotype in that to see Bush as a protector, the populous must feel itself in need of protection, to see Obama as the messenger of hope, the populous must feel itself in need of rescue from despair.
And the whole idea instilled in Americans (ie Kindergarten Cop, Big Daddy) about being the greatest nation on earth does stifle debate because if someone starts talking reasonably about this or that, it is like one is faced with the choice of dismissing without thought or giving up the collective self-image that one considers to be one's birthright. It is a bit amusing how American politicians attempt to criticize the previous administration while tippy-toeing around the whole "Greatest Nation on Earth" issue. Then again, it may be that Canadians, like every other nation, tends to compare itself favourably to other nations.
RE: - With Obama the color of his skin will subtly turn many who do not consider themselves racist away from him "for other reasons". Add to that the irrational fear of Islam and the fact that his father who he only lived with for the first two years of his life was Muslim
Would the fact that Obama's skin is lighter than that of many Blacks be a protective factor? Heard debate about that elsewhere. The Muslim father doesn't seem to have held Obama back so far – which may be a good sign. Those for which it is more of an issue tend to vote Republican any way.
Speaking of voting Republican – I noted that both Clinton and Obama had greater support than McCain – so they got most of the Independent voters.
RE: - but how much does it take to subconsciously trip the trigger and get someone who's "not a racist" to vote for Huckabee or McCain, or Romney…….. the truth is NOT VERY MUCH.
You forgot Giuliani. Saying half of what they said during the last debate would have been enough to end their political careers in Canada! I thought that I could not hate Giuliani any more than I already did, but guess who is running his campaign – Paul Cellucci! He was on Larry King Live yesterday. Canadians know Cellucci as the American Ambassador to Canada – and, though it is a bit juvenile this is our tribute to him when he got called back (top):
Video: A tribute to America's Ambassador to Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php?season=2
RE: - John Edwards is our last best hope. He is the only one telling the truth about the corporate-military-media-industrial-complex, and the only one who will take them on.
And he also has the others talking that way so if they don't deliver they broke their promise to the electorate!
RE: - If you vote for Edwards, Richardson, or Kucinich at this point you're really just voting for Hillary.
They use the same line in Canada. They say that if you vote for the NDP that you are really voting for the Conservatives (as if the NDP and Liberals are interchangeable, which they are not since the Liberals are closer to being Conservatives than NDPers). This line assumes that there is no difference between Obama and Edwards! Do Obama supporters really believe that? Do Clinton supporters?
RE IRAQ VOTE: Do you have the American version of Hansard (ie transcript) concerning the debate preceding the vote? There is always a bit of a debate before you vote on something. Edwards said he was wrong about how he voted, but Hillary doesn't admit to making a mistake. Would like to know what they were both saying before they did what they did.
Obama seems not to have voted. Was he even in the House at the time the vote took place?
RE: - I organized against the Iraq war in 2002. I know what the issues are. Millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans continue to die because of that vote. Think about it.
Canadians have. Though we are in Afghanistan and I cringe at each new report of casualties. The last two must have made it hope while I was watching CNN or sleeping.
RE: - The great presidents junk anything that prevents them from thinking and acting on good advice
Great for whom, good for whom. Almost every President is good for somebody. Bush and Cheney were good for Haliburton – and so was the war in Iraq.
RE: - 1) Can we all agree that the Republicans winning the White House(i.e. Executive Branch & Supreme Court appointments)would truly suck?
Yes. (looking around to see if there are any Neo Con devil's advocates around). You lost me at 5), though. There are still three horses running. Promise that if Obama does something that impresses me or uses a strategy worth discussing that I will mention it – though I am still not shadow voting for him (my vote doesn't count because I am Canadian). Admit that Obama is better than Clinton to the small degree that Paul Martin was better than Stephen Harper. Martin would work to privatise Health Care, but he would do so more slowly and cautiously than Harper.
In 1984 I was a volunteer for Jesse Jackson's campaign for the presidency. In 2008, I am a volunteer for Senator Barack Obama. The differences in the two campaigns is amazing.
As an example, fund raising for Jesse Jackson was run by an ad hoc group of entrepreneurs who pocketed most of the contributions and eventually made Jesse's candidacy a joke.
Senator Obama's campaign is the model of professionalism. Offices in all 50 states, fund raising efforts that have been successful with a new demographic of political contributors, and managers that have spent the funds wisely.
Jesse's campaign was to make a statement. Barack's campaign is to become the next President of the US.
It is a great and wonderful thing when a woman and a black man stand as electable in this country with it's historic (and present) sexist and racist truths. It is empowering and of untold significance to to all minorities and disenfranchised in this country. Yeah!
And hey Kem Patrick, is it 24 of the above 95 postings are from you? 24 out of 95? (on this thread alone folks). Thank You. (you insulted me b4 Kem, like you do (above you insult others i believe) why not leave CD alone? 24 out of 95? How pathetic. Like I told you b4, quit attacking people on this thread. B4 i was a troll, or lunatic....well Kem, 24 out of 95?....and of such intellectual integrity....
jFREE, I'm a Kucinich supporter, but I agree with everything you just said. So thank you for your 5 cents.
After just reading articles & posts on CommonDreams for years I'm ready to give my '5 cents'to the progressive cyberworld.
1) Can we all agree that the Republicans winning the White House(i.e. Executive Branch & Supreme Court appointments)would truly suck?
2) As progressives can we agree that Clinton is the 'establishment' candidate with the most pro-corporate & hawkish policies of the Democratic candidates? (& her as the nominee would unite the Repubs like no one else?)
3) Kucinich is right on about every issue (for me) but folks he only got 1 percent of New Hampshire vote & he isn't going to win any state in 08 (he did win Maui in 04!)
4) Edwards is certainly talking a populist platform (altough he is a millionare) & has 'repented' his pro-war votes as a Senator but he gave up his Senate seat in 04 (which went to a right-wing Repub)to run full-time for Prez with the strategy to win Iowa..which he didn't do (& came in a poor 3rd in NH)
5) Folks, I think this is a '2 Horse' race between an African-American former Civil Rights attorney & community activist & a former First Lady whose husband did all he could to turn the Dems to the Right..
If you want to vote for Dennis or Edwards go ahead but it looks like only Obama can stop Clinton. Can you at least not 'bash' him?...I don't agree with the man on everything but he DID do some progressive things as a state senator & he does give people 'hope', especially African-Americans & over 600 million people on the African continent...BTW most Americans don't vote on the 'issues' but unfortunately on things like gender(women voting for Hillary) or personality (political idiots like my sister who voted for Bush...or will vote against Hillary) OBAMA has a GREAT 'his-story' & personality & can WIN against the Repubs (not only will he turn out the black vote but I imagine alot of southern whites will vote for him to prove their 'not' racist..not that he needs the South to win in the general election) As Progressives we will have a better chance of a President Obama enacting our agenda than Clinton or certainly any Repub...okay that's my 5/Jefferson or 10/JFK! (or is it FDR?..I live oversea's folks..Happy day to all..I'm hitting the sack!)
The great presidents junk anything that prevents them from thinking and acting on good advice and changes in facts they are the dog sled mushers. Average presidents are the lead dog and they occasionally modify the directions of the corporate mushers within the confines of the harness. Bu$h the inferior is not the lead sled dog, so his view is always the same. He was selected because he follows the orders of the corporate mushers with no deviation.
RE: - I wonder if VAUDREE realizes that your comment about "Sophists never admit they are wrong", is related to the historical fact that being sophisticated was not previously viewed as being a complement?
I never came across that in researching Harry Potter names. I did come up with the etimology for barbarian and how it meant something different to the Romans than to the Greeks while researching "Barbara."
Anyone who actually thinks that I actually insulted Elizabeth Edwards is an asshole - at least regarding that. I praised Edwards's debating strategy and Elizabeth for realizing what Edwards was up to.
One can still fart and pick one's nose and watch a debate as a sporting event. And I will praise even people I hate if I think that their strategies are worth noting.
A debate is like curling.
I was an idiot when I was younger watching curling. I would watch the rock hit three other rocks out of the house and then go potty or get something up to eat while they were deciding on the next shot. My dad, however, would be going through all the various possible shots available, deciding which one was best and would swear loudly at his team for not choosing the shot he thought was best. Now that they give the players mikes, we know that they swear (unbleeped) and fart too.
There are three debates coming up on CNN: Jan 21, Jan 30 and Jan 31.
PS. Calling one names doesn't make one right. It means that one has no counter argument. It can be fun at times, though. But being anti-intelligent is worse than being unintelligent because it means that having brains is wasted on that person. All the soldiers out there with brain injuries in battle wishing that they could read and comprehend and articulate like they used to and someone can but doesn't. From now on, if you say something worth commenting on I will, but if you start acting like a Bratz doll, I got other things to do.
RE:: it'll only be a matter of time before he is assassinated by the same people that didn't like JFK
Someone tried to assassinate Reagan too. So it is not just the visionaries.
Why do they try to assassinate politicians in the US?
Good, at last he shut up! What a windbag!
VAUDREE, can't begin to tell you, just how much I appreciate YOUR defination of the word petty means to me. I humbly disagree with you your 'sophisticated' an drather lengthy analysis of the term, as it was used by myself however.
From Websters, College editiion 2006. ___ Petty: Narrow mided,__ mean.
Oh, and lest we forget your Elizabeth Edwards description of her smile. __ SNEAKY:__sneakiest, of or like a sneak, __sneakng; __ cowardly. Not exactly a compliment, but perhaps some of you Canadians use a different dictionary than us unsophisticated, Yankee rebels.
I'd be surprised in a country of racists they'd elect an African American and even if they do it'll only be a matter of time before he is assassinated by the same people that didn't like JFK...
You didn't post the entire interview CHUNGA, he did say it was personal and several other bloggers here heard it and posted that during the past three days. You know it may have been his comment to another reporter that day however. I heard him say it was personal. Why didn't he tell Moyers why he did it when he was asked? ___ Because he didn't have an answer then that he wished to say.
What are you babbling about now VAUDREE? I never said a word about watching the debate, I know how to watch a debate and form opinions without your help. Get a life.
Hi NSPIRE, I don't know what she thinks. But I don't think insulting Edwards wife for no good reason is "sophisticated" and then not seeing how it sounded and not offerig an apology for being ignorant.
TICONDEROGA, I agree with that 100%, no one should be excluded from the debates. I don't beleive Kucinich should have endorsed Edwards or Hillary either. he shOuld not have made any deals and endorsed Obama either. I have always admired Kucinich, I don't admire what he did in Iowa.
Wow! This was interesting.
It looks to me like Jesse Jackson's article is about how it's a good thing that America is finally in a place where a black man can possibly be elected President. And, whether you like Obama or not, it IS a good thing (it's also a good thing that American is in a place where a woman can possibly become President, too, whether or not you like Hillary.)
And Kem, Kucinich is the opposite of petty. He's more like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, fighting for the little guy no matter what. He's done this his whole life. He wears his heart on his sleeve. And saying that he endorsed Obama over Edwards because of spite is like saying it was Ralph Nader's fault that Gore lost to Bush.
Regardless as to Kucinich's public reason for not endorsing Edwards, the reality is that, despite his populist rhetoric, Edwards tried to CONSPIRE with Hillary Clinton to take Kucinich and Gravel off the debating platform, and that's an important thing. A very important thing. It's the same thing the MSM does (and we don't like it when they do it, do we?), it's an attempt to prevent us from hearing what's really going on, and it's just not something we should tolerate in a Presidential candidate, especially one who's claiming to be on our side.
At least that's the way it seems to me.
Dougnwagner, Edwards isn't "saying anything to win", he is the only one SAYING ANYTHING!!
Obama says he'll keep us in Iraq past 2013, how much clearer does it have to be for you?
Edwards will get us out in 10 months!
Obama's campaign is being run by lobbyists. Do you think he'll bite the hand that's feeding him? Edwards isn't taking their money, no matter how much you want to think he is!
Get a clue dougwagner, Edwards is the only one that will take them on and beat them, period.
EDWARDS '08
restive: the country is in a mess, and I'm sorry folks, we do need hope here, and lots of it. What we do NOT need is hope and nothing more
Well, the capitalists are counting on Obama to provide only a facade of hope under which they may carry on their grotesque classist oppression/enslavement toward complete societal breakdown. If the puppet installed in the White House revolts, he/she will find the horse head in the bed. This is all perfect karma for the American people. But the power is in the people's hands, as always. Vote your principles, people. Vote Kucinich in the primaries and third party progressives in the general elections.
If you vote for Edwards, Richardson, or Kucinich at this point you're really just voting for Hillary. That's the reality Mike. Get over yourself and your eternal wisdom in voting for a person [Edwards] who says anything to win and has obviously fooled you about who he is.
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)
I organized against the Iraq war in 2002. I know what the issues are. Millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans continue to die because of that vote. Think about it.
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php
Mike:
I agree with you..... Edwards is the only candiate currently within striking distance of nomination who offers any real hope of change.... who can gavanize people for change and is deeply enough embedded and experienced in the system to achive his ends.
Howardd
Howard, John Edwards is our last best hope. He is the only one telling the truth about the corporate-military-media-industrial-complex, and the only one who will take them on.
We need a fighter right now, not a good speech-maker.
John Edwards IS that fighter! EDWARDS '08
Obama is a charismatic, intelligent candidate with words that appeal to many people and a powerful delivery reminicent of Martin Luther King......if he just wouldn't get excited and hurried in places. I personally like the man, and I like his message.
However I am deeply disturbed and concerned at the prospect of Obama becoming the Democratic candidate. The ultimate result will be a choice between Barak Obama and a republican candidate who likely is a "sleeper" candidate for the religious right or the industrialists. Obama...... dynamic and intelligent as he is must buck a deeply ingrained racism in the general election which is not apparent in the primary. He is also extremely vulnerable to "swift boating"......... Note that the wackos are pulling their punches in hopes that they can destroy him in the general election. Remember that the majority of Americans are not highly educated open minded folks who strive for a well informed and rational viewpoint, but rather herd animals who are deeply influenced by herd instinct, and crave the security of being among a majority to the extent that they suppress their natural scepticism and doubts rather than go against the current. Have we forgotten so quickly how many people now are in accord with those of us who spoke against the Bush administration....... but who would not dare step forward a few years back for fear of being in the minority and being on the receiving end of the contempt and disaproval of the majority. They conveniently have no memory of this.... and like myself, I suspect that you do not tax them over their lack of backbone. With Obama the color of his skin will subtly turn many who do not consider themselves racist away from him "for other reasons". Add to that the irrational fear of Islam and the fact that his father who he only lived with for the first two years of his life was Muslim...... and you have a deepening shadow of doubt in the minds of those inclined doubt anyway. Raised a Catholic and ultimately becoming a protestant..... these are obviously bogus issues....... but how much does it take to subconsciously trip the trigger and get someone who's "not a racist" to vote for Huckabee or McCain, or Romney........ the truth is NOT VERY MUCH. One may not consider oneself a racist....... but the truth is that for many such, it ultimately will not take much "non racial" justification to make them select the other candidate.
Unfortunately we are at a crucial point in American history...... A decision point where after 8 years of Fascist administration and sheep like devotion to that administration there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel..... and a possibility of reaching that light. Obama holds out the tantalizing hope of change..... and we reach for that change..... for the chance to turn America back onto the path our founders charted for us........... But if Obama is defeated and I believe he will be..... That hope is dashed....... We can look forward like the groundhog that has seen his shadow to another 8 years of darkness and despair.
This is not a time to prove how far we have come......... we already know that we have not progressed far.... and in fact that we as a nation have backslid considerably........ It is a time to try to recover ground lost under Bush and his bandits. It is my belief that even if Obama were elected...... and I personally do not believe this is possible in America today....... he must stand up against a congress in which a large percentage will thwart any efforts to do good and drive American in a new and positive direction. We already know of the perfidy of the right, of the fundamental philosophy that the ends justifies the means. We already know that they do NOT believe in playing by the rules...... but ONLY in winning at all cost. The Gottedamerung mentality on the right is nearly as deeply held as it was by the die hard Nazis...... They are willing to "destroy heaven" in pursuit of their ends. This madness is not at an end. I suspect that the Nazi mentality is not familiar to many Americans today.... that German Mythology is virtually unknown to Americans, but it describes the American extreme right to a Tee. The Gods feude amongst themselves, and ultimately lay waste to heaven....... The far right likewise is willing to bring everything down in their efforts to achieve their ends.
I fear that a vote for Obama or Clinton will play right into the hands of the wackos...... and enable them in the general election.
We must find a candidate that is not only nominatable...... but ELECTABLE...... the consequence of failure could well be a fundamentalist preacher president..... or somethign equally unacceptable.
Howard
Hi KEM, I wonder if VAUDREE realizes that your comment about "Sophists never admit they are wrong", is related to the historical fact that being sophisticated was not previously viewed as being a complement?
vaudree - If Obummer wins the Dim nomination we will indeed be seeing greater scrutiny of him. And it will not be at all complimentary.
Folks, I'm supporting Republican Ron Paul. Whomever emerges on the Democratic side (sans Hillary) will be better than whomever wins the Republican side (sans Ron Paul... who wants the troops home NOW!)
Remember what the Republicans did too Democrat Cynthia McKinney in Georgia? I say its time for Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives to reciprocate in the Republican Primaries. Whatever we can do to continue to keep Ron Paul's pro-Peace message heard! (have you been watching Faux News squirm?)
"I cannot find one thing wrong about what Mr Jackson had to say !!! I don't see any "COLOR" pushing on his part, I just see a good sensible and positive article !!! No-one else from either party shows me anything better than OBAMA, so unless something major turns my direction, He'll have my support !!!"
Now there is a fine reason to support a candidate!
KEM PATRICK, watching a debate is not just about cheering your guy on and booing the other guys.
Watching a debate is like watching curling. Or even Hockey. You can recognise a good goal that a goaltender had no chance at stopping or a good save that you figure was next to impossible? You may not like it when the other team does it - but you can still recognise the talent! You will still admit that this was a good goal or that this was a good save.
If you don't look at a debate as a game of strategy, then why bother watching it! Why don't you just let those people from CNN or FOX tell you how they saw it.
With all your brilliance and knowledge, I can't understand why you don't comprehend something so basic as what a debate is or why discussing the strategies used by the various candidates may be important - er - essential!
I am not as bright as I used to be so I probably missed a lot of the strategical moves - and there is probably more to even what Edwards did that I even comprehend. But you, with your better memory, are not using it to shed light on all this! Why bother having an intact memory if you are not going to use it to analyze the debate - it is such a waste!
Kucinich is moral and fights corporate corruption but Nader did not choose him did he - he chose Edwards because Edwards has something that Kucinich doesn't - cunning. You need a certain amount of cunning to take on the big guys and Kucinich, for all his virtue and good intentions, doesn't have what Edwards showed us in that debate.
Kucinich says that he had to cave into the big guys or else let the city go bankrupt - and that he chose the latter because it was the more moral choice. Choosing the latter will always be used against him by any neo con as "proof" that Kucinich cannot handle a budget and, therefore, should not be trusted with the budget for the whole nation. Kucinich needs to be more cunning that even Edwards to work the PR out of that one - even though he has excellent policies.
The right will always try to portray the left of centre as "tax and spend" - they do it here, they do it in the US, they have been doing it for decades. And they succeed in convincing voters of it even though Reagan left office with a big debt, Mulroney left office with a big debt and Bush is going to leave office with a bid debt. They do it even though Tommy Douglas and Roy Romanow inherited heavily indebted Provinces (actually the same Province, different time periods) from neo cons, balanced the budget and, in the case of Tommy Douglas, still managed to give us Medicare and in door plumbing on the farm.
Tommy Douglas managed to avoid both bankruptcy and give us Medicare! Tommy Douglas found himself in the same situation Kucinich was in and found a way out of it. How would Edwards do - like Kucinich or like Tommy Douglas?
RE: - Kucinich was wrong to do what he did and is making excuses. His petty nature
Morally wrong or wrong in strategy? Kucinich may not even know why he made the choice, but after he did, he had to defend it. Discussing why Kucinich miscalculated or made a strategical error or why is fair game. Calling Kucinich a pooh-pooh head because he didn't do what we both figured he should have is what daycare kids do.
The word "petty" dismisses a search for motivations rather than facilitates it. It is the same as saying they shoot at us because they are "evil" - it is a label that one uses when one doesn't really want to know why.
That said, I have no clue why Kucinich did what he did and can only offer guesses.
I asked how serious the Hedge Fund thing is because I am not a gambler and, therefore, don't know much about the stock market or Hedge funds. I just don't want to fall in the trap of digging up the dirt on the other guy and just ignoring the dirt on the guy I like because that makes whatever I say about the Repugs seem less credible.
I can ask questions when I don't know something since eventually someone will answer them.
Who the President is affects me as much as it affects you.
RE: - OBTW, the video that Al-Jazerra posted I would consider to be very complementary of Obama. The lead-in about chasing girls is silly but most of the clip is supportive.
Thank you for actually watching it and making up your own mind.
Maybe the chasing girls is silly, but the fact that he was surrounded by girls in the picture means that he had some charm that they all wanted to be around him. That is the same charm that is drawing crowds today.
Charisma can be manufactured some what if it is not natural, but, in Obama's case, it seems to be natural. Can also be undermined?
I do see the creation of the video as a sign that we will soon be moving towards a greater scrutiny of Obama. Such videos are usually made when one wants to find out more about somebody - the person and/or his ideas.
Well Kem I listened to that broadcast, actually I listened to the podcast while driving on Sunday, and I agree with you that Kucinich did not give a very satisfying explanation. But I did not recall him saying anyting about it being PERAONAL. So payed it back just now and then I went to the Bill Moyers Journal website at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/transcript4.html to read the transcript.
Here is the segment where Moyers asks Kucinich about his Iowa Obama FOPA. I don't see anything about it being PERSONAL. A bad choice in my opinion but not personal.
BILL MOYERS: Are you aware that you really upset some of your supporters by asking them to make Barack Obama their second choice in Iowa if they didn't vote for you? And I have had a score of e-mails since we announced that you were coming on the broadcast from your supporters who were quite upset. "Dennis Kucinich has urged us to do exactly what he spent the last year telling them not to do: skip over a candidate with more progressive politics in order to support a candidate with less progressive politics." Even Michael Moore wrote a letter suggesting that progressives should go for John Edwards. Why did you do it?
DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, first of all, you know that in 2004 I made a recommendation and it's an Iowa-only recommendation, it wasn't an endorsement, to go with John Edwards. And in 2008 I told my supporters that if I didn't reach the delegate threshold they should go-- I would recommend that they go with Barack Obama in the second ballot. And, again, it wasn't endorsed and it's Iowa-only specific. Now you know, I know these candidates. And I gave my best judgment as to a recommendation. The why of it would probably require more time than we have.
BILL MOYERS: I know. But John Edwards talks more like you-- John Edwards has said, quote, I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an iron-clad hold on our democracy. I thought, "He must have lifted that right out of Dennis Kucinich's speeches." You say that all the time. And yet you said go for Obama, not for Edwards.
DENNIS KUCINICH: You know, I thought Senator Obama offered an approach and has the kind of sincerity that deserved recommendation only on that second ballot. Because when he comes to New Hampshire, I'm sincerely trying to get more votes than him.
BILL MOYERS: But is the Democratic Party any longer your party?
Here is where they change the subject, nothing about his decision being personal.
I cannot find one thing wrong about what Mr Jackson had to say !!! I don't see any "COLOR" pushing on his part, I just see a good sensible and positive article !!! No-one else from either party shows me anything better than OBAMA, so unless something major turns my direction, He'll have my support !!!
EARTHEAN, Yes Dennis Kucinich sent that letter out AFTER he blundered on the Moyers news hour interview. He made a deal with Obama, __ what deal? He said the reason he did it was PERSONAL. That reason he gives is NOTHING personal and is weak at best and the entire thing about Edwards is written by one of his high roller backers. Why, if it was so important to d as he did do, didn't Kucinich hit Edwards with it during debates? What is it that Edwards has done that is illegal or wrong with investing in those particulaar hedge funds?
Kucinich was wrong to do what he did and is making excuses. His petty nature on that issue was obvious when Moyers asked him the question. If he had any legitimate reason, he should have answered right then and any who are fair minded would know it. If it were all something he had to go to court over, (which is is not), a jury would surely find him guilty. The entire thing stinks to high heaven. Ask Mr. K what the deal was, those were the words of the Obama campaign staff. __ "The deal is done." __ It sure was.
Excellent post Billy__y4.
Regarding the stated reasons Kucinich skipped endorsing Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa has been answered. Kucinich sent out a mass e-mail about it on the sixth of January. But he did not reveal either to Moyers in the interview nor in the letter the nature of the "deal" to endorse Obama on the second ballot in Iowa.
Here is the letter:
>>New Hampshire, Iowa and Edwards
Dear Supporter,
For the record:
1. New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.
2. I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.
3. In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.
While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.
We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.
We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.
Dennis Kucinich>>
O'HARE, Oops, I mean RABBITT, the entire country is not racist, that is clearly evident by the success of Obama. Most of his votes were from whites. Most of us judge people by character, not color or race.
When I went to high school, it was all white. As I look back on race relations in my youth it was an ugly time. I rejoice with Jesse Jackson that a black man is the leading contender for the presidency from one of our political parties. It is indicative that we, as a society, have come a long way from Jim Crow.
This has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with Obama's political positions. When I vote in our primary in February, I will vote for the candidate with whom I most agree and whom I consider to be the most electable for the party I support. I will not vote based on race or gender or religion. I am pleased that Obama will be on that ballot. I am pleased that Clinton will be on that ballot. I am pleased that Romney, a Mormon, will be on that ballot. I am glad to be voting in a country and a time when these three people, each representing a historically discriminated group, can be serious contenders for the presidency.
OBTW, the video that Al-Jazerra posted I would consider to be very complementary of Obama. The lead-in about chasing girls is silly but most of the clip is supportive.
Bill
"Let's focus on their answers to real challenges."
If the moderators of these debates refuse to ask challenging questions on issues that are critical to the well being of this country and the world, there will never be any answers to questions that are worth focusing on.
I can think of only three presidential candidates who have been forthright in talking about the real issues with the people of this country:
DENNIS KUCINICH
MIKE GRAVEL
RON PAUL
Let's not forget that the networks airing the latest debates changed the rules so that these three candidates who previously tried to force discussion on critical issues were not invited to participate. What does that say about this alleged Democracy and about the presidential candidates who didn't protest against the networks changing the rules and trampling on the rights of the candidates and the people of this nation?
That in itself is a major issue!
VAUDREE. Sophists never admit they are wrong. You are one of those in case you were unaware. It is also better to just ignore them, I will do so whenever possible.
NAYOIBI, what do you base your opiinin of Edwards not being a fighter on? __ I base my opinion on his record, which is directly opposite of your opinion. Also, tell us which other candidate has even mentioned fightig lobbying. They all say we need change, that of course is obvious. For you to say such a thing about John Edwards certainly does undermine any credibility you may believe you have here.
That is like saying some dumb thing about anyone which is not actually a fact, just to be talking or writing. "Blah, Blah, Blah", and it's nonsense. The people who read here aren't stupid you know. Well, 98% aren't. There are always those two percenters hanging around.
'I became an Obama supporter the moment I realised that he is probably the only candidate on the left or right, who will make a genuine and fair effort to solve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. I wish him well. He is a good person!'
Is there another Obama out there? Or is this the same Obama who went to the AIPAC convention and pledged fealty to Israel and its supporters?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_aipac_speech_text_as_pr.html
Most of the speech is typical Obama. Sounds good, but it is almost content-free behind the good sounding words. And Obama definitely seems to be a politician who only tells an audience what they want to hear. But this gem is near the end.
"we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is
best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime
Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table
by the United States."
So, even though we fund the Israelis with some $5 billion a year, we should never insist that they negotiate. Yeah, that's great.
Generally, he seems to recite every myth and propaganda line about the region that the US uses to justify wars and violence
Its so hard to tell about Edwards. Most of what I've heard about what he's done since he left the Senate has been good. And he says the right things (mostly, kinda) in this election.
But since he wasn't doing this in the Senate, its hard to tell. Did he really have a mid-life conversion and realization about what's important and we are seeing the results of this? Or was this all a political strategy of how to position himself against two main contenders who are both highly conservative and unlikely to get union support?
If I was still a member of the Evilcrat party, I'd probably caucus for Edwards. Well, second choice since I could start with Kucinich in that instant runoff type of system that's a caucus. But it doesn't matter since I changed my membership when I decided I could not possibly be a member of the Evilcrat party. And CO requires party membership to participate in the caucus.
I'm holding my breath waiting for Obama to actually say something.
So far all I hear is a lot of content-free drivel about 'hope' and 'change' and 'unity.' Of course, I turned blue and collapsed from lack of oxygen ages ago waiting for this.
--------------
I also campaigned for Jesse in 1988. It let me oppose Al Gore and his DLC backed drive to take over the Dem party back them! But I got the distinct sense that Jesse sold out after that and failed to carry on the fight with the strong base he'd built in that election.
I volunteered for Jesse Jackson during his campaign for president. In fact, I even helped him win the neighborhood caucus. I supported him because of his call for national health care.
But, when I look at the sorry state of black people in the US, I wonder why Jesse Jackson isn't more militant? Why isn't he on a hunger strike, or writing letters from a Birmingham jail, as Dr. King did?
I'll support Obama, but only because I want to end the Bush/Cheney conspiracy to overthrow the American republican form of government. But this conspiracy can't be overthrown by Obama feel-good moodism. Do you really think that the military-security industrial complex is going to allow itself to be dismantled without a desperate fight?
The fight has already begun in the form of substantial corporate campaign contributions to the Obama campaign and a decidedly lack of substance on the issues.
mr. jackson, please go to mr. gwyn's article about the greatest black presidential candidate in the history of this country to know what i really think.
kem , edwards is not a warrior....couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag....i know you like him and that is fine , he is not a bad person (maybe) but warrior- he is not.
Those who do not support John Edwards, either are unaware, or don't really care that mega corporations now control our government. No one else but Edwards will fight that disaster.
I am very pleased to see that a person of color can be well liked, respected and can win an election of such importance in America. I just do not believe Obama will do the job near as well as John Edwards will, for Obama will not stop the lobbying, that and our corrupt press and media are our most serious problems. Fix those most serious problems and the rest will be easy.
:rolleyes
What you fail to appreciate is that debates are a type of sport and should be judged by the same standards as curling or hockey - ok maybe moreso curling than hockey - since there is more strategy in curling.
With curling, like with debates, you can appreciate the beauty of a good throw - even if your opponent threw it. That is why people watch debates! It is not just to cheer for this person or that person but to judge strategy.
Are curlers bad people because they engage in strategy? Since Edwards made his shot, there was only one possible shot left for Hillary and Elizabeth knew it before Hillary even opened her mouth.
The phrase "sneaky smile" still fits.
More of these idiotic letters that are so poorly written that one gets the vitriol, but not the substantive points. Jesse Jackson, one of my heroes, has made excellent points. I wish commentators would deal with his points instead of running off for or against pet peeves or their favorite candidate.
You always have an answer when you screw up don't you V?
RE: - Fortress Investment Group / Its hedge funds invest in, among other things, publicly traded companies.
I am not a gambler so I am guessing that Edwards did work for Fortress which is a stock-market based casino. Are hedge funds something that you flip like currency when you think it will go up or down or do you keep it in something called a "portfolio" meaning that one has a long term interest in how a specific horse/company is doing.
In other words, does Edwards bet on horses or does he bred them for races like Cheney does?
Is that any different than the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan investing in Ritalin, Big Tobacco and Mall? (near bottom)
http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues_jan12.html
Honestly, I would be hyprocritical to dismiss this without knowing more what it means, but it does seem, at first glance, less cosy than some of the other funding relationships in this race.
RE: - VAUDREE, Have you ever met Elizabeth Edwards? You write that John Edwards wife was giving sneaky smiles? She is attempting to smile while possibly dying of incurable breast cancer. Elizabeth Edwards is NOT sneaky,___ she is a truly wonderful person.
I never said that she wasn't. Even honest wonderful people strategise or give sneaky smiles when their husband has just planted a few time bombs which she knows are going to blow up in the face of the other candidates!
There was a sense when Elizabeth gave that smile (which proudly acknowledged John's cunning - if you prefer) that she was not thinking so much about her cancer but witnessing something she would not miss for the world. That smile betrayed that she has seen this before and that she has some idea how it turns out. And maybe even that we were witnessing what drew her to John in the first place.
It was seeing Elizabeth's smile which finally explained that, win or lose, seeing her husband in action was how she wanted to spend her remaining time. I don't know how much time Elizabeth has - whether it be months or years - but do know that she is not beyond taking joy from this.
RE: - For you to write such incredibe assumptions about her is despicable.
I understand how heated supporters get with the stakes so high, but jumping on the description of a smile is a bit much.
I've liked Elizabeth and have since seeing her when Edwards ran last time. She impressed me most of all the wives last time. She seemed the most intelligent, and kind and genuine. Not at all like the Stepford wives up there on the stage with her.
John Edwards is setting something up which will blow up in, at least Hillary Clinton's face (and possibly Obama's as well). John Edwards was protecting Obama from Clinton's attacks. He is up to something. And saying he is up to something is commenting on his perceived brilliance - it is not dissing him.
Debates are all about strategy. Why was Hillary Clinton trying so hard to say that she fought against corporations - because Edwards inferred that only the "status quo" (and not the agents of change) smooch with corporation lobbists. Thus, Hillary, if she wanted to portray herself as an agent of change had to jump on the bandwagon. Hillary went too far - she said things that night which will come back to haunt her.
Or did you watch a different debate which did not fill you with the deep sense of pride I felt for Edwards that night?
RE: - And besides, having just read Naomi Klein's great, seminal book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, THE RISE OF DISASTER CAPITALISM, I look back on the Clinton Administration's actions with horror. The Clintons SOLD US OUT, people. They were the ones who made deals with the devils. They were Milton-ites and 'Chicago Boys' and globalizationists, and 'free'-traders
Naomi Klein has a great pedigree on both sides as far as sticking up for human justice. This is Klein on The Hour just after her book came out:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1667
That is because the Clintons tend to listen to the wrong people - though Bill Blaikie was able to weasel small victories for the people out of Bill Clinton. Not very much, but enough to make Cretien look bad in comparison on that issue. Bill Blaikie was the one handling the Free Trade file at the time and now it is Peter Julian - who is working with the American congresspersons to find out what transpired at the last SPP meeting. Even Stephen Lewis (Naomi's father-in-law) seems to figure that you can weasel a few good things for the people out of Hillary - but with Edwards, it won't be like pulling teeth. Hope we get Edwards.
With Obama - I have the strong gut feeling that he doesn't know who his friends are. I don't think he is a bad person, but I think that his soul is being fought over and that he doesn't fully know it yet.
RE: - Dennis dodged the question
That is suspicious. One would think that if the true reason was the Hedge fund that Dennis would be more than willing to cough it up.
Then again, if Dennis said to Moyer than it was the Hedge fund, the very next question Moyer would bring up was how it compared to the list of those funding Obama's and Hillary's war chests. Seems as if it was the obvious follow-up question which Kucinich wished to avoid.
I became an Obama supporter the moment I realised that he is probably the only candidate on the left or right, who will make a genuine and fair effort to solve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. I wish him well. He is a good person!
There's no such thing as an unbiased view...
So in your opinion that negates everything he says?
I don't see how it can, unless your looking for reasons to dismiss anything that doesn't already fit your opinions.
FVHorn, There won't be a Republican Congress in 08 no matter who is elected to the Presidency. If we don't have the lobbying stopped in DC, we will never have a democracy and Edwards is the only candidate running who will fight that mess. If Obama had that agenda, I would be backing him too if Edwards had no chance at all.
MeYouWeUSs. Forgiveable? That's like shooting someone in the head while they are being held up. That could be forgiven too. The damage is done. Had Kucinich not done that, endorsed no one, madeno deals, the Iowa vote may very well have been VERY close. He was wrong for whatever his reason. If he had a good reason, he should have said so long ago. Why didn't he? His actions stink, a very bad smell.
It was close as it was, Edwards got over 80,000 votes, which isn't exactly horrible, he did come in second and if Kucinich has not made a deal, he may have won. The big problem is, because Obama won, he is now percieved as the "hope for the future" by the press __ and he is anything but.
Edwards is a hope for the future because of his stand on lobbying and that has always been his stand. He saw what was happening in DC when he was a Senator and he didn't like it, it is destroying our democracy. __Already has, I want it back. __ Do you?
I have not read that link yet, but I will, even though I take dirt thrown at any candidate with some salt.
MeYouWeUs -
At the end of the article you recommended by David Swanson is the following line:
"David Swanson was press secretary for Kucinich for President 2004 and briefly consulted for Kucinich's O8 campaign."
Oh well, so much for an unbiased view on that one.
People who question Elizabeth Edwards character should read her book, "Saving Graces". She is an honest person, as is John Edwards, and they are the only ones speaking the truth about the corporations, money, greed and government.
They need everyones help now to get the message out, even if John is not the nominee, and I certainly wouldn't give up that hope now. EDWARDS '08
Maybe so…
But it's forgivable, it's a rather smallish beef to have with him.
Got any feedback about the Edwards link?
I agree with Jesse Jackson. This is an historic moment. America does not need another Clinton presidency, wherein the Neo-Con agenda was advanced beyond belief and the fascist/corporatist takeover of America was allowed to grow exponentially. Mr. Obama may not be all America needs, but just his poise, intelligence, and difference may be a good start.
My personal choice, Kucinich, sadly did not catch fire, and he asked that any of his voters in Iowa go to Obama. That is an endorsement I am heeding. Plus, I think it will be fun to throw a curveball at the world... America elects a black man named Barak Obama... the world will definitely be amazed and its view of America changed, for the better.
And besides, having just read Naomi Klein's great, seminal book, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, THE RISE OF DISASTER CAPITALISM, I look back on the Clinton Administration's actions with horror. The Clintons SOLD US OUT, people. They were the ones who made deals with the devils. They were Milton-ites and 'Chicago Boys' and globalizationists, and 'free'-traders and Corporatists and Militarists and Greenspan-ites and Davos-devotees all the way. They now feel it is their right to rule, like any good fascist/imperialist family. They react with shock that 'the people' don't love them unquestioningly, and shocked that someone challenges them.
But America and Liberal Progressives lost their way during the Clinton presidency, by way of its triangulating, obfuscating, doublespeaking political spinjobs, by way of thinking if Rush Limburger says the Clintons are Leftwing Liberals then it must be so. The rise of the Republican Congress, of the K St Project, of equivocation and triagulating all came about under the Clinton years. The mythical "political Center" was moved far to the right under Clinton. So now the Center is deemed to be the "Left".
The rise of the millionaire-celebrity-infotainment journalists, the Telecommunications giveaway, utility deregulation, the deconstruction of the social contract...on and on, this is what Clinton gave us under the guise of the 'New' Democrat, which was basically the DLC version of the old Rockefeller Republican. And as the Center moved Right, the Right moved to the Far-Right, as the greed-driven right-wing whores will not ever be satisfied until the states start selling 'naming rights' to themselves, and the states of EXXON, WASTE MANAGEMENT, IBM, YAHOO, GOOGLE, FORD, MICROSOFT, TOYOTA, and WALMART are born. And of course, Ron Paul wants us to go all the way back to the Dark Ages and feudalism... every man for himself.
Why would anyone want another Clinton presidency? Not to mention if Clinton is elected it would mean 36-straight-years (!!!) of Bush-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton in the White House. If Clinton is elected because it is "her turn", the US must offically change its name to the United States of STUPID.
And Mr. Edwards, while he talks a good game, has not walked the walk. He lost the Veep debate in 2004 to Dick Cheney of all people, so I am not so sure he would be effective in the general election. And his personal gigantic mansion, his low environmental score with the LCV, and his partnering with a Wall Street Hedge Fund, do not give me confidence. Anyway, without a Democratic Congress, his plans, and those of Kucinich too, are moot, and will be constantly blocked by right-wing Republican pinheads.
So, that is my perspective. I am with Obama as the best choice we have now for change. Just his election will be enormous change. So let's start with this. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for pointing that out.
VAUDREE, Have you ever met Elizabeth Edwards? You write that John Edwards wife was giving sneaky smiles? She is attempting to smile while possibly dying of incurable breast cancer. Elizabeth Edwards is NOT sneaky,___ she is a truly wonderful person.
For you to write such incredibe assumptions about her is despicable. Wherever you are in Canada, please go dig a deep hole there and crawl into it. Don't they have some web-sites about Canada you can spout your continual crap and silly questions about American politics and laws on? You argue or write some comment with almost every post from others with your WISDOM. Your 'wisdom' is pathetic blabbering and usually contributes nothing of any worth.
Last Friday, when Bill Noyers asked Kucinich why he had endorsed Obama in Iowa, Dennis dodged the question, saying only that it was personal. If the reason was what his committee says is is now, why did he refuse to say so then? ___ It was PERSONAL. It was therefore petty and get "evenitus".
This article is about the Edwards investment in the hedge fund Fortress. Weak or not it's worth knowing isn't it?
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/865
RE: - Is this an attempt to drag the distant past into this election to try to prove, what, that Obama was once a "womanizer"
No! But since you raised the topic, why do politicians cheat? They cheat when they become insecure about their charisma - when they feel like they might be losing this magnetism which draws people to them. The act of adultery is used to make that fear that they have lost their spark which draw people to them go away. It is their way of reassuring themselves that they still have charisma - despite their dark hour.
Then again, some like Kennedy and Rene Levesque were perpetually insecure even during their high points.
Why is everyone pressuring Obama to run now (rather than in four years when he has a bit more experience) - because they see charisma as something fleeting and want to take advantage of his while he still has it.
RE: - I realize Clinton don't stir the soul in the same way as Obama
Hillary Clinton had been ahead from the start so she feels as if she is losing ground - a feeling shared by her advisors - and she is starting to panic. Whatever charisma she has goes away when she panics. If she finishes badly in NH, it gives the impression of her campaign imploding - even if she is not doing much different than Edwards. If Edwards comes in second again, it will be hard for Clinton to come back.
RE: - The point is, Edwards will fight the lobbying in DC and he will win that fight, he knows how to do that.
Was Edwards turning all questions into a debate over the need to get lobbying out of Washington during the debate an effective or ineffective strategy?
We all seem to agree that he is right (ie Oil lobby - they are against the implimentation of Kyoto; Medical Insurance lobby - they are against single payer health care; Gun Lobby, Military Lobby, etc).
However, was it effective during the debate? And, whether it was or not, it is the foundation of whatever it is that Edwards is Planning. Elizabeth had these sneaky smiles as if she figured Edwards was up to something that seemed more harmless to his opponents than it will turn out to be.
Back to Charisma, Jim Jones's son gave a pretty good discussion of the topic. Everyone keeps talking about Obama and Koolaide:
Stephan Jones
The Jonestown massacre is one of the most notorious mass suicides in history. More than 900 people died there. The quasi-socialist spiritual utopia turned hell on earth was founded by the Reverend Jim Jones.
Stephan Jones, son to Reverend Jim Jones, talks about religion, drug addiction, and even wanting to murder his father.
Stephan Jones did not take part in the suicide as he was away, playing basketball with the People's Temple Basketball team.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1459
Progressive is as progressive does.
Helping the Republicans win elections - is that progressive?
But no, not all Democrats deserve to be called progressive. Far too few of them do.
Obama is one, for anyone who cares to take an honest look.
Why do we get candidates who promise everything and give us nothing? Because if they give us nothing, they will be richly rewarded and accepted into the highest and phoniest social circles. If they give us what they promise, they're justifiably afraid they will be assassinated. They have lots to gain and everything to lose. The people are ingrates but the oligarchy that owns them is not.
Listen to the wisdom of N2K above!
It doesn't matter what the candidate has to say about the issues.
It doesn't matter which corporations have bought and paid for the candidate.
AS long as there is a "D" next to the person's name, THAT'S THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB!
N2K--Stop with the "us" business. YOU are one of THEM--just like Obama--not one of US. Look at the banner under the Common Dreams logo: It says "News and Views for the PROGRESSIVE Community," not the "Corporate-imperialist-Democrats-are-always-right-and-don't-you-dare -forget-it Community."
The other thing that comes up suggesting that it's a personal thing would be that discussion between Clinton and Edwards supposedly about limiting the field of debaters, which would presumably exclude Kucinich.
It would be speculation to say that this is why he did it when he sites other reasons. And it's a fox thing so I don't try to give it to much weight.
Cynthia McKinney 2008, an African American, a woman and someone that I could vote for without needing to go home and shower afterward. Just a thought, I am still hopeful that the dims will not be so dumb as to nominate Obummer. I still have not made up my mind about Edwards, but the more the MSM downplays him the more I am think he might be the real deal. And I still like Kuchinich, though I'd like to understand this "get-even-itus" stuff, the implications do not leave me nearly as warm and fuzzy as I would like to be.
Don't matter who wins, Israel will always win while lobbyists exist, they are the boils on the backside of US politics once lanced the relief will be instant, as those leeches are removed
I think Obama is a very good man, I like several candidates. I'm not a one issue person. The only candidate who will stop the destructive lobbying, is John Edwards. If any others are elected, nothng of any significance in our government, or our country will change. And I do believe, we all want change. Change is Obama's pledge. It is a false pledge, because he won't change anything, he won't be able to even if he intends to, unless he pledges to end the lobbying and then does that. Lobbying is the key.
Yes, if obama wants my vote he better get off the Nuke train, there are many alternatives to nuke power, including reparing our electrical grid, old transformers and the rest, of the system east of the Mississippi, are in bad shape and at least 28 to35 powerplants could be shut down with upgrades to the electrical infrastructure, for sure, the power suckers don't want that, paychecks, clipping coupons for the royalty, they don't want alternative independent energy households, hell that would eliminate their cash flow, and they might have to WORK, "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich..." Napolean
Nader2000 - He may be one of you, a Mainstream Democrat, but he is not one of the us that I identify with.
KEM PATRICK January 8th, 2008 1:43 pm "Lobbying insure that the corporations get what they desire. John Edwards would end that crime against us, 'we the people'. He is the only one who will. His chances of being our Presient have been ruined, by the petty disease of "get-even-itus", spread by Dennis Kucinich in Iowa."
Would you please elaborate on this statement KEM. I feel like I missed something. I mean the "get-even-itus" part that is.