Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards. 
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.
In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
But beyond his profession, Edwards' tone and language on the campaign trail have increased business antipathy toward him. His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on "corporate greed" and warnings of "the destruction of the middle class."
He accuses lobbyists of "corrupting the government" and says Americans lack universal health care because of "drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists."
Despite not winning the two state nominating contests completed so far, with 48 to go, Edwards insists he is in the race to stay. An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.
"The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.
"Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.
Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.
But this year Edwards is not alone. Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, sometimes also rails against corporate power and influence, tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics.
One business lobbyist, who asked not to be named, said Edwards "has gone to this angry populist, anti-business rhetoric that borders on class warfare ... He focuses dislike of special interests, which is out there, on business."
Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be "a disaster" for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
After this week's New Hampshire primaries, where he placed a distant third behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Edwards might not seem so scary. He ran second in the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week, trailing Obama and just ahead of Clinton.
Edwards suffered a blow on Thursday when Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry snubbed him and endorsed Obama. Edwards was Kerry's vice-presidential running mate in Kerry's failed Democratic bid for the White House in 2004.
BUSINESS'S FAVORITE UNCLEAR
Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said.
These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November's election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.
Obama and Huckabee register largely as unknown quantities among business owners, both large and small, say lobbyists.
"My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat ... I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes."
"I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.
"The next scariest for business would be Huckabee because of his rhetoric and because he's an unknown."(Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by John Wallace)
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
82 Comments so far
Show AllWell said Don! You too Vaudree!
EDWARDS '08
Folks,
All this discussion is well and good, however, we do still have a dilema: We can't just leave and pull the plug. That's why it was wrong to even consider the dumbass W in the first place, and that is what I was saying back in 1999!
Once you're in, you're in for good was the old saying that numb nuts W ignored.
We're in, as I see it, until there is a safe;
(And I'll admonish everyone don't just think our troops here, ..think about the normal ma & pa Iraqi whose country, lives & livelihoods we all totally f---ed up by letting W into the white house in the first place without riots in the streets on our end!)
honorable;
(as seen by the people whose lives we messed up by sending our stormtroopers over to knock down their doors in the middle of the night looking for a thug who was most probably made so by our very presence, arrogance & tactics!)
way out that truly helps them recover.
I heard our government officials put it like this on the radio:
"until we can get them a stable military (to replace the one we broke up) and help them achieve a stable form of government (Saddam was a bastard, but Iraq was "stable")that can defend itself against Iran, and we get rid of the al qaida terrorists (of whom anyone who wishes their occupiers ill is considered a part, even if we created the antagonists from a previously gainfully employed Iraqi with our presence and tactics, and despite the fact that there weren't even any al qaida in Iraq and was there even 1 Iraqi national in the 9/11 hijack crews?!!), then we can't really abandon them. I only wish the stupid bastards thought about that before allowing W to send our troops there.
Someone like John Edwards has the courage and moral standing to do what we need to do to make things right. Like I said, whether Charlie-effing-Gibson thinks he's electable not or "disappointing" (to whom you corporate mouth-piece-of-sh*#!), John Edwards will get my vote.
CV, thanks for the explanation. Fortress is a point that some campaign or another keeps bringing up. Now that I know that it is bogus and why, I can ignore it. Edwards doesn't seem beholden to them, from what you say.
RE: - First, Edwards would need to 'connect the dots' and explain to the American people how all of the diverse domestic (economic) and foreign (war) issues at the heart of our dissatisfaction and disgust with this government are intimately interrelated and, in fact, emanate from a single deceitful source.
The political system is different in Canada than in the US. No MP is expected to keep up on everything - even the opposition parties delegate the work among various critics - a Foreign Affairs critic, one critic that focuses on Trade deals, another that focuses on Health Care etc. But with our system, there is someone in each party responsible for reading some portion of the whole and everything gets read. Edwards's interest before going into politics seems to be corporate law and domestic affairs and he may just not have known as much about some things as others at the time.
Edwards coming out publicly to say he was wrong about the war was very brave. More important, however, is the reasons he gives for being wrong and why he is so sure that he is right now. Unless one comprehends fully why one made a mistake, one has nothing to prevent oneself from making similar mistakes in the future. Edwards seems to have the power of his convictions so I doubt that his change of position (to the extent it was) is based on such comprehension rather than changes in polls. I doubt that Edwards was ever fully in support of the war, but mistakenly believed that his vote was for something that would only be used in an emergency.
Military funding is a tricky area since increase tend to be used more for bombs than for better protective gear for soldiers (and few pacifists would want to vote against bullet proof vests) - though sold as being more for gear rather than bombs.
RE: - Cramer and George Will have both called Edwards the Trotsky of 2008
They can't be serious! OMG! Are people laughing at them or taking them seriously! The Tories don't even call the NDP stuff like that any more for fear of humiliating themselves!
Note: Tory is British/Canadian slang for Conservative, thus, your Repugs would also be considered Tories.
The NBC channel I get doesn't seem to be showing the debate.
This is my take on George Will's recent bloviating in my local paper:A recent opulently garlanded George Will treatise presciently placing Mr. Will's picture directly beneath the word "hucksters" was amusingly appropriate. Massively deceptive middle class economic "facts" were presented which conveniently left out inflation and the increased need for multiple household paychecks. Then followed a proclamation that millionaires and billionaires make out bigger income tax checks than Americans who live below the poverty line. Mr. Will's sense of the obvious is stunning and if paid by the word, the profitability is likewise obvious. Mr. Will then haughtily expounds that the politician of a "humble background" such as Huckabee, Edwards, Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, may have "festering resentments and status anxieties" that might hinder their abilities. Finally climbing to the nub of his argument, Mr. Will sneers, "Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there." Mr. Will and his elite friends are right to worry after the neocons, who are not slow learners in the power and money-grabbing sense, have pillaged the economy to their vast improvement. But the rest of us are left with a debtor America, a teetering imperial power whose prestige has eroded to world unease and even hatred. With problems galore, it's time for power to move to interests of sanity and the common good.
I supposed it was unintended, but I found humor nevertheless in the unnamed lobbyist's reference to "class warfare." As though corporations were people of a recognizable class! They are not, they are not only not people, by their nature they are anti-people. They are legal fictions which, as tools, have a purpose if used right (like hammers are useful on nails but not so much if used on human skulls). Tools. Things. They do not, and cannot, constitute a "class."
PF-Flyer, I agree with you that a ticket with Hillary or Barack at the top of it is a very hard sell to crossover Republicans. It pushes the popular vote way too close to the 50/50 range that is very easy to overcome with electronic voting machines, ballot problems, voter caging and dirty tricks. As the polls show, a ticket with Edwards at the top, would yield a much more comfortable margin for error.
EDWARDS '08
A vote for Edwards is not a vote for Hillary. Many votes for Obama in Iowa came from Republican crossovers. It's not restricted in Iowa, and the Republicans used the strategy in the past: They didn't want to run against Edwards, so Iowans supported Kerry, the anti-war guy, who Republicans thought they could beat.
Republicans love to hate Hillary.
Many who vote conservative will not vote for a black guy with a middle name of "Hussein." Look at how many African-Americans are Republicans, or how many people with "Hussein" in any part of their name are Republicans.
Ever since GHWBush turned against Saddam, all the Husseins got wise and left the Republican party.
Some even left the country.
Some even left on red-eye flights on 9-11-01 while all other flights were grounded.
Hillary and Obama are the candidates of the Republican's sweetest dreams.
An Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards ticket might work, as long as they ask Kucinich to head up the Dept. of Peace. Pool their delegates. Kick butt. Better than corporate sell-out Hillary.
Also, if you want to help DK in Michigan, I just got this notice from his campaign:
HELP DENNIS WIN VOTES IN MICHIGAN
Dear Friend,
Michigan can make a big difference to this campaign. We need to get our people to the polls on Tuesday and you can help, no matter where you live.
We are asking supporters to call a small list of Michigan voters and urge them to get out and vote for Dennis. If you already have an account, please log in. If you are new to this effort, just go to:
www.call4dennis.com
and register at the bottom of the page. A script and instructions will be provided.
There are only three active candidates on the Democratic primary ballot - Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mike Gravel. So please do your best to convince people that a vote for Dennis is a real vote for change.
Thank you for everything you do. Every effort, every contribution, no matter how small will help.
Strength through Peace,
The Kucinich Calling from Home Team
You can help from anywhere in the US by making phone calls.
MikeBinBC: Here is a link to the AP story as reported in the Reno Gazette Journal. Enjoy!
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/NEWS19/80114039&...
buford33, yes, Cramer and George Will have both called Edwards the Trotsky of 2008, and Tom Donohue, the brown-shirt thug of the Chamber of Commerce, has said that the corporate Empire will spend 'whatever it takes' to bite the ass of anti-corporate populists in 2008.
But for Edwards to even approach the seriousness of purpose of Kucinich, Nader, and yes Gore in fighting against the dagger at the heart of America and average Americans he really needs to do two things to demonstrate that he truly understands the seminal issue, and that he's really committed to this fight:
1. First, Edwards would need to 'connect the dots' and explain to the American people how all of the diverse domestic (economic) and foreign (war) issues at the heart of our dissatisfaction and disgust with this government are intimately interrelated and, in fact, emanate from a single deceitful source.
2. And most importantly, to prove that he will commit himself unalterably to the level of other progressive populists for whom the real meaning of the word 'change' can only be termed revolutionary, Edwards would have to publicly acknowledge that the seminal source of our domestic and foreign trauma is a corporatist Empire which has very nearly taken over our democracy and is hiding behind the facade of a phony 'Vichy American' government and corporate media.
Both domestic economic pain and foreign wars?
What could be the answer?
"It's not the economy, stupid."
"It's the empire, stupid"
It's the global corporatist empire hiding behind this facade of 'Vichy America' which is oppressing and destroying our domestic economy --- as well as precipitating global tyranny and hatred through its foreign imperialist wars.
In this 2008 election season more than ever before, "It's the empire, stupid", that is the seminal source of all our sorrows --- domestic and foreign.
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned decades ago:
"Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home".
And now, as Chalmers Johnson accurately diagnoses, we are reaping the "Sorrows of Empire" both abroad and at home, and no candidate even dares to speak the name of American democracy's real hidden oppressor ----- whispers Citizen Kane, "Empire".
So far in the 2008 campaign no candidate has 'connected the dots' and explained clearly how a corporatist economic Empire has infected our democracy and is the common cause of all our sorrows ---- and no candidate has had the courage to call that enemy of our democracy by it right name; EMPIRE.
"****************BREAKING**************
Kucinich won the lawsuit!!! Judge ordered that Kucinich was to debate on NBC in Nevada tomorrow or debate would be canceled!!! WAHOOOOO…"
GREAT NEWS!!! YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
KUCINICH 2008
"The only people who seem willing to tell me whether this Fortress thing is a big deal or not are Kucinich die-hards or Obama die-hards. All that I can guess it that it is more like betting on horses that like owning race horses..."
Many people worried that Edwards, having worked for Fortress Group would be partial to them, but he has called for the removal of the tax loophole that hedge fund and other fund managers use and abuse. Not something that made him popular at Fortress I'll wager.
The Nevada Poll is great news.
If Obama and Hillary keep slashing each other up as they have over the past week, they may clear the stage for Edwards.
Kerry's un-endorsment may actually help him (by distancing him from his previous politics and the old guard) and his thumbs down from the DLC is a Seal of Approval in my book.
Edwards/Obama'08
(Kucinich for Secretary of Peace)
Rebel, if you're right about that, it's great news.
You need to work with other Kucinich supporters to organize voters in Michigan to vote for him, as he is the only one on the Democratic primary ballot other than Hillary Clinton. This may be his last chance to get back in the race.
EDWARDS '08
****************BREAKING**************
Kucinich won the lawsuit!!! Judge ordered that Kucinich was to debate on NBC in Nevada tomorrow or debate would be canceled!!! WAHOOOOO...
jockyoung, you should post that link in as many places as you can. If we can do this, and raise $7 million in one day, Frday, January 18, that would really stick it to the corporate media ignoring his candidacy, as well as help John get his message out.
EDWARDS '08
Kucinich endorsed Obama in the Iowa votes, according to a recent email from his campaign headquarters, because Edwards apparently accepts money from Wall Street. I wish I saved that email to provide a more accurate transcription of Kucinich's wording about Edwards - forgive me if I am way off, but if my memory serves me correct, Edwards has some ties to the Wall Street gang. Personally, I prefer Edwards over Obama.
It would be great to see an Edwards/Kucinich ticket...HOW wonderful that would be?!?!
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams"- Willy Wonka
KUCINICH 2008
bigchange, you need to get Kucinich supporters organized in Michigan to vote for him, as he is the only one on the Democratic primary ballot other than Hillary Clinton. This may be his last chance to get back in the race.
EDWARDS '08
jockyoung, it is illegal for Canadians to donate money to an American election. But if you can find a loophole, like a printable signed picture of Edwards for $20 Canadian, I would advertise this on the "activism" section on babble (at rabble.ca) if I was you. Canadians like Edwards.
Would Clinton, Obama or Edwards support the following policy initiatives?
-Repeal of anti-terrorism legislation and elimination of secret trials and evidence, as well as of racial profiling of Muslims, those perceived to be Muslims, and other racialized communities such as people of African descent.
- Reinstate the Kyoto Protocol's importance, implement green strategies in the community and industry, and invest in renewable energy research.
- Shift the objective of the Afghan mission from military combat to reconstruction and development projects that promote a pluralistic society.
(from El-Farouk Khaki's platform)
What's this "Edwards has fought corporations and won" stuff? As a trial lawyer? Maybe, but what has he done as a Senator? He voted for China Free Trade, a terrible thing for workers and the environment. And according to Allan Nairn on Democracy Now!, his top foreign policy advisers come from "the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, and...EADS". www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
Dennis Kucinich established himself as a candidate of un-wavering principle as mayor of Cleveland when he sacrificed his career to defend the public interest and refuse to sell the city's public utility, Muny Light. But he "won" against the corporate interests and now Cleveland still owns their utility. Since then, Kucinich has always defended the economic issues of working Americans with clarity and conviction. He would cancel NAFTA and WITHDRAW from the WTO. He will fight for a single-payer health care system. Sorry, but these things need to happen. As Viggo Mortenson put it, "no disrespect to John Edwards, he's doing what he thinks he needs to do...it's just not nearly enough".
Why vote for second best?
jockyoung, Thanks for the link!
If anyone has been thinking of donating to Edwards, someone at DailyKos is trying to get a fundraising blitz to happen on Friday. Try to beat Ron Paul's record of 6 million in one day and maybe get the media to take notice:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/13/171722/549/52/436243
Obama is no El-Farouk Khaki, which is a shame, I would vote for Khaki. But if we can't have Khaki or King or Mandela, there is, at least, Edwards!
Like Edwards, Khaki is also a lawyer!
http://www.elfaroukkhaki.ca/bio.php
RE - Ron Paul - you have to listen closely to see that he is for corporate rights over the rights of actual human beings because of the way he words his "no government interference" mantra.
Edwards has the fire in the belly of fighting the corporate scum. He and his wife have lost a child and dealt with the life-threatening health problem she's had.
I'm disgusted with progressive leadership that is supporting Hillary. Dolores Huerta & Ron Dellums.
The MSM has marginalized Edwards in the same way they've shut out Kucinich. Yeah, they've marginalized Paul but let's get real about Paul.
A libertarian who is anti-abortion, respects property rights more than human rights, won't take on corporate America.
I've found that Paul is 2008's John Anderson, a candidate for people who didn't pay much attention to politics and still don't.
If America is to have a chance to benefit anyone other than the wealthy, Edwards is a worthy candidate.
RE: - Of course corporations fear and loath him. / Sadly, as things stand now it will take a miracle for him to win.
Or so those who "fear and loath him" would like you to believe. If Edwards does well in the January 21 debate, where he is likely to get equal time, he can do it. I think that someone is writing Edwards's obituary a bit too soon. Hey, we haven't even had Super Tuesday (or whatever you guys call it) yet!
RE: - Kucinich is in-your-face "in your face" with the big corporations, while Edwards is moderately "in your face" with them.
I like Kucinich's policies a bit better, but Edwards have fought these corporate bad guys and won! Edwards knows how to fight them and seems honest about it not being easy or quick.
RE: - and Ron Paul?
Ron Paul may be against social programs for corporations, but he is against social programs for people too. And, if you listen closely, he believes that corporations should be allowed to supply essential services. So that utility company owned by the State, he wants it sold. Those Charter schools they are opening in New Orleans (instead of rebuilding the public schools) - he's OK with that!
All Ron Paul is against is one corporation gaining an advantage over another corporation due to government interference! Ok, and the war as well, so he is not all bad.
BTW - Who would benefit most from taking the time to real all of those old Ron Paul newletters from 50 years ago? Isn't Obama and Ron Paul both popular among the youth?
RE: - If Nader backs Edwards, he can't be all bad.
Nader and Michael Moore support doesn't hurt.
RE: - A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary!!!!!
Spoken like a diehard Obama supporter! I get the feeling that you guys figure that every waking moment you are not working to get your candidate elected is a wasted moment. I wonder if every time you use the urinal if you turn to the person beside you and start stating the case for voting Obama!
That statement makes the false assumption that Obama's platform is more similar to Edwards's than it is to Hillary's. Ask Obama who is financing his platform?
Obama may not give the health insurance corporations ALL of the seats at the table, but he is still reserving seats for them at the table.
Why would Edwards invite health insurance corporations to the table? His ultimate goal is to put them out of business!
RE: - The weapons/insurance industry-owned media has stopped even pretending they don't control the process
Was watching the documentary "Why we Fight" yesterday and they made the point that you presently have a Military weapons lobbyist as Vice President.
How much is this corporate smooching legal?
RE: - t would be difficult to exclude Edwards from the debates as they have Kucinich. But don't think for one minute they wouldn't like to do that.
nodding. What they did do was keep Edwards's air time as minimal as possible. I also notice a difference in the CNN advertising for the Jan 21 debate (where Edwards is featured as prominently as the other two) and the CNN debate at the end of the month where he is very tiny compared to the much bigger picture of Clinton and Obama. If Edwards does well in the January 21 debate, I think he can do it.
Am I being naive in thinking that this debate might be different than the others?
Ironically, January 21 is the date that Marc Emery is supposed to be extradited to the United States to face trial - the Prince of Pot may go to jail for life.
RE: - He's about getting out of Iraq & not going into Iran, against nukes, against corporate corruption & control…so of course he's the nightmare of the elite who want to own EVERYTHING, and EVERYONE.
I want Edwards to win. I talked to my friend on the phone and she also wants Edwards to win (though she prefers Obama to Clinton if push comes to shove). That said ...
Edwards never said that he would get ALL troops out of Iraq. Edwards only said that he would get all COMBAT troops out of Iraq. Edwards has not ruled out keeping/bringing a peacekeeping force in there or sending troops, if necessary, for disaster relief. Edwards may rule these things out in the future, but, so far, all of Edwards's promise concern only COMBAT troops.
RE: - Kucinich doesn't trust Edwards because of his ties to Fortress Group Investments.
The only people who seem willing to tell me whether this Fortress thing is a big deal or not are Kucinich die-hards or Obama die-hards. All that I can guess it that it is more like betting on horses that like owning race horses, to use a metaphor. How does being involved with Fortress compare to being involved with, for example, Halliburton? I'll check back for the answer.
RE: - I am not opposed to a black man or a woman running the country.I think its long over due. But I would prefer it to be because they were the right ones for the job, not just the first. If one or the other (Hilary or Obama) is Selected and turns in a poor performance, I think you would be hard pressed to get another woman or a non white man, or woman, elected for some time.
Good point. The first black or woman or black woman or Green President has to do a good job because they would naturally be our only idea of how good or bad the group they will be held up as an example of how well X can rule. We don't figure that just because Edwards and Bush are both white that electing one would be like electing the other. But when there has been only one ...
I think that Edwards is the best one for the job.
RE: - Glad to read this! The corporate media has gone beyond not covering Edwards and used our public airwaves to call Edwards a Soviet Party rep (CNN: G Beck) and "Trotsky" (MSNBC: J Cramer).
And that wasn't even FOX! Next they will actually call him CANADIAN! They call Canada "Canuckastan."
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
RE: - He is speaking to the center from the center- to that permanent majority that still opposes NAFTA and the WTO 15 years after it passed.
Do you know that Canadians cannot increase the amount of our own oil that we use for personal consumption unless we increase the amount of oil that we export to the US by the same ratio - brought to you by NAFTA!
There is a cost one has to pay if one backs out of NAFTA, so Edwards will probably try to renegotiate it first so that it includes worker and environmental protections and gets rid of Chapter 11 and other protections for corporations. If that doesn't work, he'll probably scrap it and pay the cost.
Speaking of trade agreements, the American congress was supposed to be looking into getting the transcript of the latest SPP meeting and provide a copy to the NDP. Haven't heard anything more about it. Once the NDP get a copy of things like that, they tend to be very vocal in the press about it.
Seems also that Wright and Benjamin have not got their records from the FBI yet or we would be hearing about that also. What is Edwards's position on border security issues?
I'd trust Edwards' anti-corporate language was more than a political strategy if:
1) He actually opposed NAFTA and promised to withdraw from the WTO if elected. But instead he says he'll "fix" NAFTA. Well, it's illegal to amend NAFTA under WTO law. Only Kucinich has made this a clear, front and center part of his platform. Watch the AFL-CIO debate.
2) He proposed a single-payer health care system. No, instead Edwards' plan is more of the same: subsidize the private insurance industry in an attempt to cover more people. Read what the Physicians for a National Health Program has to say about why these front-runner, pro-insurance company plans won't work.
Apparently even 'talking the talk' is enough to get you marginalized by the corporate media, but at least they still allow Edwards in their debates. They've kicked out Kucinich, the one voice for peace, single-payer, and the strongest for fair trade/workers rights.
CALL NBC at 212-664-4444 and tell them you want a REAL debate between ALL the candidates.
You are wasting time talking about details when the system is corrupt at the foundation. Who are Edwards, Hillary, Jewliani, and the rest of the gang? You claim the two previous elections were stolen. What makes you think this one is not going to be stolen? Have you done anything to replace the fraudulent Diebold voting machines, like writing to election officials, attorneys general, or doing whatever you can to bring it to national attention?
Even if they steal this election, it shouldn't matter to you because they're stealing it among themselves. They belong to the same party of corporations and big money. Suppose Hillary steals it from Jewliani or vice versa. They're not stealing it from your (and my) beloved Kucinich who will not be even nominated. So, quit wasting your time talking about the virtues and vices of this or that candidate because in a rigged system our votes don't really count.
I like when people boast that America is a free country. That you are free to contribute to campaigns as much as a corporation does. What a level playing field! They probably knew that I have trouble paying my rent. So they gave me the freedom to contribute millions. Wow, don't you want to cherish this freedom?
You also have the freedom of expression. You can write, say, or shout at the top of your voice until your lungs give up, but you are no match for the corporate monopolized media. You can also cherish this freedom. I would rather save my breath.
Saila, that has happened to me sometimes when I have corrected my posts. Don't know why. If you don't correct, it doesn't happen.
I agree with your analysis, skinnycat. Though someone who posts here (is it Adelle?) has said that Edwards' healthcare plan allows individuals to choose a single-payer plan, and says it's a "back door" way to bring single-payer to all.
In any event, I'll vote for Edwards.
Something weird is happening here. When I log in to post a comment, I see my comment is already posted. But when I log out and then return, my post is gone.
I logged in to post it, but I saw that it's already posted, when I logged out and returned, it was gone. Very weird.
Edwards will be the strongest candidate in the general election. He is speaking to the center from the center- to that permanent majority that still opposes NAFTA and the WTO 15 years after it passed. Since politics is defined from the center, the DLC is a radical, extremist rightwing organ. The corporacrats & their media mouthpieces accuse Edwards of being 'angry.' He just recited a few facts about corporations. The truth is neither angry nor happy, it is just reality.
"Bipartisanship" authorized the Iraq war as well as the S&L Caper, NAFTA, media consolidation, and the subprime crimes - so Edwards is unlikely to lose votes to a spoiler like Bloomberg.
Nor would Edwards need to move to the right to get the lion's share of the working class republican vote. Many of them were democrats til the Clintons came along. He will also do well in the south.
It looks like a transitional election. People are moving 'back' to the center from the right - the Democratic right as well as the Republican right.
I have issues with Edwards. He doesn't support single payer healthcare, for one. I will write-in a name for president to express my dissatisfaction with the two-party system – that dog-in-the-manger that strangles Democracy in America.
But Edwards is the most electable candidate the Democrats have. No doubt about it. If he can withstand the class envy of the corporate democrats, and the media freezeout by the corporate media, he could get 65% + of the popular vote. btw, single-payer is a centrist issue.
For the Blowhards Who Insist It's a Two-Way Race....
Check out the article at Huffington Post -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/for-the-blowhards-who-ins_b_8...
"For those of you who think the Democratic presidential nomination fight is just a two-way race between Obama and Clinton, check out this brand new poll from the Reno Gazette-Journal. Yup, that's right - it shows the Nevada caucus race a three-way, dead heat with John Edwards right in the mix."
Here is a link to the Reno Gazette-Journal poll -
http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/new-poll-democra...
EDWARDS '08
buford33,
The bag of hot air known as George Will also has applied the Trotsky label to Edwards (on the Stephanopolous show on Jan. 6). I prefer Edwards to Clinton and Obama and will probably vote for him, but how can someone so firmly within the capitalist camp be called pro-Soviet? American political discourse has tilted so far right for so long that it has fallen off the edge and now is in freefall towards fascism.
My 18 year old daughter and my 88 year old mother are both for Obama. My wife likes his "Unity" message too. He certainly appeals to people who are distressed by the divisiveness of the Clinton-Bush Era.
I feel that Obama's "Unity" message contains a signal to Wall Street: "You can keep everything you stole from the American People in the last 7 years, but we're gonna reduce your take starting in '08".
What I hear from Edwards is: "We're cutting your share of the pie, and we're coming to take back everything you stole in the last 7 years".
To hell with "Unity". I want Justice.
John Edwards has my vote.
I wish that just once, when Clinton or Obama were traipsing through their 'Take America Back' hoopla, some one would ask, 'Take America back from what?' That would get em slack jawed.
Edwards is the only candidate who has addressed this question of who we're taking our country back from. --- man, I hope he's got good security should he ever make a real surge in the polls---
Kem Patrick- "John Edwards needs and deserves fair press coverage, but the press is controlled by the big corpprations and he won't get any fair press."
Yes, I know, It's very difficult to watch, it's so frustrating to try to find some coverage of him..... when you do, he's the only pragmatist in the bunch. An announcement that he's throwing all his chips into the race....., they'd still ignore him, but ignore come from the root ignorance and in this time mon-eye ignorance rules. hell's bells the mon-eyed election system makes no sense at all, it is without soul.
The weight and hype of the gender and race thing sells a lot more ticket than genuine focus on issues.
What a weenie, John Kerry
As an Edwards supporter, I, too, think he is the best out there AND the scariest opponent to the Republicans -- for policy and demographic reasons.
In any event, I hope that he hangs in to the end to BROKER his delegates if he can't be the nominee. He has power in this election because of the small margins between the Media's 2 favorite darlings --- First Black Man and First Woman.
Broker the nomination, Johnny!
Edwards has put several million of his money into his campaigns EDDIE. He also doesn't earn any wages while running for the office. He also gives a lot of money to people wh are down and out. He's a good man, has a big heart and would be a wonderful president. John Edwards needs and deserves fair press coverage, but the press is controlled by the big corpprations and he won't get any fair press.
Edwards IS a threat, that is why the MSM went after him in '04, and are pretty much downplaying him in '08
Texas says:"and Ron Paul?"
Fk Ron Paul. He is another libertarian regressive
One of the points we need to see made clear is that Corporations are not a "Class" we are making War on.
Corporations have become economic Vampires and Werewolves, draining the life from our economy and ripping out the throat of democracy.
Wall Street in particular functions in Full Vampire mode, extracting a pint from every financial transaction it encounters.
That's what the "Sub Prime" mortgage scandal was really all about. The sub prime mortgage was designed to leach all the equity out of a home leaving the buyers bankrupt and, due to the new bankruptcy laws pushed by their Republican servants, in debt slavery for the rest of their lives.
I originally supported Kucinich, but he will not be given any chance by the MSM to even speak, let alone be elected. I have changed to Edwards and have sent him money (not much) to help his campaign. We absolutely must get the corporations out of our government, or it will become a totally fascist operation which is what Cheney is hoping for.
They say that Edwards doesn't have the loot to continue a strong campaign, but I keep wondering why he doesn't spend his own fortune if thats what it takes to win. Let's say he spends down to a few million of personel wealth, wouldn't that get some attention and certainly wouldn't it be worth it?..... that's if his message is really on target and I believe it is. Hell, he'd gain a lot of love and respect, never have to worry about his and his own.
Also, do Edwards and Kucinich ever have lunch together,....they should, often and invite Ron Paul, these people should unite, it is time advesarial politics are exceeded for the good of the humanity and our country.
Actually, Edwards is more "in-your-face" to corporations... he actually cost them money, while Kucinich mearly inspires us progressives.
in 04 I never thought I would have this slight feeling of betrayal by Kucinich for his Obama endorsement. I do listen but haven't bought his statement about not endorsing Edwards because of his Fortress Group Investments ties- they weren't really supported well. It smacks of a politician (gasp! he is one) who doesn't listen to his core constituency.
Now I'm in a real pickle.
Kucinich did mention (in passing, was it serious?) that he 'chose' paul as a running mate- And Paul's campaign said emphatically "No Way!" Why he did it... does it matter? i like Paul for the sole reason that he is not hot air, states his goals. (Why I like Kucinich too), that and decreasing the DoD/HMS budget and changing the course of occupation.
And yes, they cannot "snap their fingers" to get things done, we may still have a system of checks-and-balances!
Main Presidential Tools:
the Veto!
Judge Appointments
Manages Military (not sure exactly what Pres duties are here)
Bully Pulpit
Cabinet Appointments, running federal agencies
Drafting the Budget
Am I missing anything?
If I were president I would 1. rearrange DoD/HMS/CIA/NIA/FBI etc and slash their budgets (but I would need conressional approval). 2. appoint progressive judges (but I would need conressional approval) 3. appoint progressives to run federal agencies (but I would need conressional approval) 4. get rid of the (privately owned)Federal Reserve and slash the IRS budget (but I would probably need conressional approval) 5. have presidential addresses on tv/radio/web/print everyday explaining progressive issues (no congressional approval needed) 6. veto any legislation that increases spending or borrowing without balancing the budget (no congressional approval needed)
"tapping a populist current that lies just below the surface of U.S. politics"
It has always been there, just not advertised by MSM. We are AMERICANS! We believe in the power and sanctity of the INDIVIDUAL! If the need arises, we will all be INDIVIDUALS working TOGETHER towards a common problem. But we have no like of CORPORATIONS or a RULING CLASS. We Need no Kings!
Yes we've let ourselves be sold into materialism, fear and nationalism.
But Independance is Our Undercurrent! Freedom is our Battle Cry! Liberty is our Guiding Light! Justice is the Code that Binds us! Independance!
Corporations never fear a lawyer who uses 'Esquire'...
The news from the Kucinich site tells us that Kucinich asked his supporters to go with Obama if he (Kucinich) didn't reach the 15% needed to stay in that race. ONLY IOWA. I REPEAT, ONLY IOWA. Kucinich doesn't trust Edwards because of his ties to Fortress Group Investments. I have no reason to think he was not telling the truth, as he see's it. I think he's the only one teeling the truth 100% of the time.We're so fucking doomed. Even here I see misimformation spewed forth like it was ana from heaven, when the truth is we've been played agian. Its a human thing. Kucinich is still the closest thing to salvation we're ever gonna see, and the good news is, if and when he doesn't get elected, we can still feel a little better knowing this little bulldog is still fighting for us in congress. I will still write his name in the box when the time comes, because I don't like being told who my choices are. This is a Selection not an election. I am not opposed to a black man or a woman running the country.I think its long over due. But I would prefer it to be because they were the right ones for the job, not just the first. If one or the other (Hilary or Obama) is Selected and turns in a poor performance, I think you would be hard pressed to get another woman or a non white man, or woman, elected for some time.
So vote your heart and conscience but get your house in order cause hard time are commin. No matter who gets the job. Thanks Texrey
There was an article this morning about 7% of NJ houesholds are millionaires. Highest in the nation. Ever visit Camden, Trenton, Newark...? Unbelievable blight, poverty and street crime. Is this our future as jobs continue going abroad and only the system milkers get rich?
You can bet the rich folk and the medical establishment will mobilize against an Edwards candidacy no matter who the Republicans nominate. They like it like this.
Edwards has the clarity to recognize the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the increasing inequity of income distribution. He also publicly said his vote for the Iraq war was a regretted mistake, something that shows he has the strength to face countless smearing charges of 'flip flopper'. In this respect it appears Bush & Hillary share the same common bond of being pig-headed about admitting to mistakes, a mental & moral deficiency.
Edwards also recognizes the dangers of nuclear technology to ALL of us, and would favor spending billions on renewables instead of a nuclear industry that has had its hands in our pockets for over 50 years.
By pollings it has been shown Edwards is the ONLY candidate that beats ALL the Republican candidates.
He's about getting out of Iraq & not going into Iran, against nukes, against corporate corruption & control...so of course he's the nightmare of the elite who want to own EVERYTHING, and EVERYONE.
Hell, he's even against his former running mate,John Kerry, for not fighting hard enough to overturn the official results of the last election. That point alone, of realizing Kerry & Bush are from the same 'Skull & Bones' mold, and in different degrees bad for this country, would be enough to lend him support.
He's made powerful enemies? None of them are as powerful as a galvanized motivated WE THE PEOPLE. He's not perfect, but despite being marginalized by the corporate controlled MSM he's electable.
No, I don't get your picture. There were five bears in the bed and one had the support of the press and he/she, ate the other four bears.
Glad to read this! The corporate media has gone beyond not covering Edwards and used our public airwaves to call Edwards a Soviet Party rep (CNN: G Beck) and "Trotsky" (MSNBC: J Cramer). Worth a read: Edwards, the media, and the phenomObamanon. It is a well-referenced article by a product designer about the marketing of Obama's brand that we are buying up.
Progressives do need to wake up and look for substance.
Why support Edwards over Kucinich?
Make sure the same reasons can't be used to support Obama over Edwards, or Clinton over Obama. Or in any way boils down to "electability" (whatever that means)
Once Kucinich is sufficiently marginalized, and everyone jumps from that ship to the next.
Then they can begin to marginalize the next biggest threat, Edwards.
This childhood song reminds me of this whole primary process.
There were 5 bears in the bed and the biggest one said: "I'm sleepy move over".
So they all rolled over and the little one fell out…
There were 4 bears in the bed and the biggest one said…(you get the picture)
Kucinich's first order of business is stopping the war, and Edwards voted to authorize it. Meanwhile, Obama was speaking out against it. That is why Kucinich supports Obama.
Hi Texas. Yeah, Kucinich did suggest that he and Ron Paul run together. At first I thought that was a really crazy idea, since both their platforms, except their shared aversion to the Iraq war, are basically so different, but now I'm not quite so sure it would be such a bad idea.
Someone pointed out to me that if either Kucinich or Ron Paul could get elected President, neither of them could just snap their fingers and put all their ideas in place, which is perfectly correct. What they both could do, though, is exercise the Presidential power of the veto, and either would certainly veto any bill that Congress passed that would fund the war in Iraq, forcing Congress to have to override it, which would be very difficult, and that wouldn't be such a bad thing at all.
Ending this war is the one thing that neither the Republican Party or the Democratic Party really want to do, although they will happily distract us with talk about health care reform or whatever other issue they can distract us with.
What they're doing is running some sort of carefully orchestrated game by us, giving us the illusion that we still have a democracy, because there's no way they're going to give up on the oil in Iraq. It's not even that they necessarily want the oil for Americans to put in their cars. They want to keep it in the ground for now, only to be able to pump it out later to use as a form of leverage to control both us and the rest of the world. And, of course, they don't want Russia or China or Germany or anyone else to get their hands on the stuff, which just might happen if we left Iraq.
Heck, the US exports more oil than it was getting from Iraq before the war began, and far more than it's getting from Iraq now. If we need oil so badly, why export it at all?
So, out of all the politicians out there, the only ones I trust are Kucinich and Paul, both of who never voted for the war. And, maybe, just maybe, there's a reason why Kucinich endorsed both Paul and Obama.
Corporations can't be THAT afraid of Edwards, or they'd do like they do to Kucinich and EXCLUDE him from the debates in the televised (and print) media that they own.
The weapons/insurance industry-owned media has stopped even pretending they don't control the process: Which candidates have gotten the most positive, "they're the front-runners!" media attention for the last year? The two that are now getting the most votes. Edwards has gotten screwed by the media too, albeit far more gently than Kucinich, so he's coming in a distant third.
We'll never get the representation we deserve until we have a free press that isn't owned by General Electric, as is NBC--the latest station to exclude Kucinich from the upcoming Nevada debate on Jan. 15th.
I don't care who you support: If you agree the public deserves an open debate on issues, (and to know who's running) CALL NBC and raise hell: (212)664-4444
metamorph - your anti democratic rhetoric is offensive. Please leave!
Edwards has my vote in Ohio! I wish the campaign trail was more about substance and issues instead of so much talk about race and gender...a corporate stooge is just that regardless of his/her ethnicity or gender...Let's get the real issues that matter on the table...support Edwards but fight to get Dennis invited/heard at every debate possible...the MSM will certainly not do anything to get these populist voices heard...
~Big Change~. It would be difficult to exclude Edwards from the debates as they have Kucinich. But don't think for one minute they wouldn't like to do that. They don't want him and they do fear him and they do insure he gets far less press coverage than Obama and Hillary. They should exclude NO ONE and that should be illegal and every candidate should get equal time during the debates. If one interuppts the other, as Obama did to John Edwards at acritical moment of his short speech, they should be docked time. And unfair questions should not be asked, such as the UFO question of Kucinich.
thetexan, John wasn't a corporate lawyer, he was a trial lawyer that sued corporations. Big difference.
EDWARDS '08
I was wrong, Lincoln did have one secretary named Roosevelt and Roosevelt had a secretary named Lincoln and Nixon had a secretary named Kennedy. And so much for trivia, it matters not. What matters is, John Edwards gets some decent press so the public can hear his stands on the issues.
So METANORPH, if we vote for Edwards, then Hillary gets the vote. If we vote for Hillary she gets the vote, if we vote for Obama and he or she wins the primary, the republican gets the vote.
Let's wait awhile and see just how far this goffy game goes before we determine what's up. You know, within a few weeks, a lot of sensible people may wake up and discover that john Edwards is the ONLY candidate who has a prayer of winning the primary that will get us back on track. Right now the train is off the rails and racing straight for a deep and rocky canyon.
Hay HEATHEN, that is a great link, thank you for posting it. I was certan that Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. ???
I understand Kennedy wrote it, __ Lincoln's secretary. Anyway, that paragraph is very approprite for today and Abe did fight the corporations, as Johnn Edwards will. That's why Kerry didn't endorse Edwards, those elected don't want to see their golden eggs stop, the eggs their lobbyists lay for them.
Yeah, there was a reason Kucinich endorsed Obama, as one of his committee members stated, Kucinich made a deal.
Kem, I'm a big fan of that quotation, but Lincoln probably didn't say it. See snopes.com's account.
Still, it's a great couple of lines.
He's likely got my vote as well.
I have no problm Edwards is a trial lawyer. So was Abraham Lincoln and he also kept the mega corporatons under control.
~~ "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been elevated to such a high level, corruption in the elected is assured."
~~ Abraham Lincoln.~~
A vote for Edwards is a vote for Hillary!!!!!
The race is just bewteeen two people: Hilary and obama and you Independents and last minute registration young people will not be able to help so
Edwards- please leave!!!!!!!!
Corporate America is behind the rise of clinton and obama. If either one gets the nomination, a republican will be elected as president again.
If one votes Edwards, America has a better chance of reform.
Tsunami Tuesday may set things in motion.
He has a lot of support here in CA.
John's got my vote as well.
Don't let MSM lead you down another path.
If he can put the ball back into the peoples court then we NEED him as president. He'll probably get shot but its worth a try. Blackwater would drop the CS on his head if it came to close to him winning. Kucinich sees UFOs and Obama has rage issues, Huckabee uses too much violent rhetoric and Ru Paul is the christian mouthpiece with a cover-up agenda, Hillary is a face for the companies.
Is there a better choice for the people?
The most damage has already been done so which pres elect will do the least harm?
As a people we give up workers rights to Hillary and Obama, Huckabee and Ru Paul are going to make sure you sing to their god in school and forget womens rights or science, Kucinich wants to do the best for the people but he would be completely ineffectual as he would be stonwalled in office, but Edwards could fight a good fight, if he isn't assassinated by some company stooge. I think he is my man!
If Nader backs Edwards, he can't be all bad.
Kucinich is in-your-face "in your face" with the big corporations, while Edwards is moderately "in your face" with them.
Hillary unabashedly loves the big corporations.
Obama is an unknown quantity.
Kucinich endorsed Obama.
?
Edwards supports removing corporate money from our elections and changing the system to one of public financing. Of course corporations fear and loath him.
The only way we are going to begin to fix this corrupted system is with publicly financed elections.
Sadly, as things stand now it will take a miracle for him to win.
John Edwards, the end of FuckQ, Inc., the Neo Fascist America nightmare.
The last time you'll hear the bottom line is more important than the people and country that make it possible.
john, you're a former corporate lawyer. have you seen the light or are you just mouthing the words to garner the votes of we progressives who would like our country and our government back from aipac, the isreali lobby, and other corporate lobbyists. are you really on board on this because if you are, you've got my vote in colorado's primary.
What a joke of a title! Corporate America is no more afraid of John Edwards than it is of the Man on the Moon. This is just another commentary cheerleading for a Demo Poli using a ridiculous premise for a reason.
Bill Moyers interviews Keith Olberman, the only tv personality allowed to talk about corporate corruption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctifB0mte3g
All along I have known that Edwards 'gets it.'
He's got my vote on Feb 5 here in AZ.
Way to go John.
The reason(s) why Corporate America loathes John Edwards is simple. He was a successful torts lawyer who specialized in taking sizable bites out their substantial derrieres. Now Edwards wants to continue doing more of the same in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt. If I was a corporate scumbag, I too would do almost anything to prevent his becoming President.
and Ron Paul?
We need a trial attorney as our president. Some one to strike fear into the corporations how are exploiting us all for their own greedy gain.
Obama and Hillary are considered safe by the corporate community though obviously any Republican would be preferred.