Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJohn Edwards to Quit Presidential Race
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.
The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning - Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.
Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.
Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.
Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.
With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago - with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.
Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas - he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.
The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates - and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.
Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.
Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives - the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.
Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour, the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier, also was an effort to remind voters that a rich man can care about the less fortunate. It came as Edwards was dogged by negative coverage of his personal wealth, including his construction of a 28,000-square foot house, his work for a hedge fund that advised the superrich and $400 haircuts.
But even through the dark days of summer and as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.
The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004. But Edwards performed well enough to pick up 58 delegates.
© 2008 Associated Press
205 Comments so far
Show AllPaul Bramscher,
We would have better luck really getting up and supporting people like Kucinich and Edwards, providing a message to the Democratic Party. The fact that those two were abused by the system in the ways that they were is a good reason to hit the streets and make noise. How many did? Why not? Despair.
If we can manage to get an 3rd party person in, we can manage to get Kucinich in. The 3rd party person would accomplish nothing because s/he would have no allies in the government. Both parties would ignore, and effectively nullify, the odd person out (i.e. Jesse Ventura). Hence, if any 3rd party is to be consequential, it must start at the very bottom of government and place members into offices. Thus, a bigger candidate would be sustainable. But then what would happen is that one of the two parties would vaporize - the same way that the Whigs were knocked out by the Republicans.
The two-party system preserves itself.
Why do we think a 3rd party candidate, in the jaws of the Apparatus, would fare better than Dennis?
The problem in this country is not "leadership" and parties. It's the power of Corporation.
Under such horrific circumstances, good people are crushed.
We have exactly what our hyper-Capitalism yields.
If we want change, we must stop consuming.
...and start reading.
Paul Bramscher January 30th, 2008 11:23 pm
Thanks Paul, I think you are right on the money.
1% vs. 99% Money talks and bullshit walks.
Now if R Nader runs and manages to pull votes from the Dems, and this results in a repub. being elected ,is this ok? I say yes because the reason our progressive candidates did not make it is because of the way the primary states are set up for nominating candidates. each of the first three or four states to run primaries;Iowa, New Hamshire, Nevada, and South Carolina are conservative states. The More moderate to conservative dem. candidates will be favored.ie,clinton, obama & others. The media catches this group and plays them as the obvious leaders of the party and, donations then flow to them. we need a differant group of states to step forward and challange the status quo. Mich. tried: but with negative result. We need progressives to write , e-mail ,& call the DNC. headquarters demanding a fairer line up of states with diverse population to go first in the primaries.
ThinkFree:
We've had almost 150 years of strictly Democrats or Republicans in the White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States), going back to Andrew Johnson in 1865 of the Democratic National Union party.
Has almost a century and a half of political knuckling-under to these knuckleheads really led us forward? Or has it ultimately led us to a dead-end? The very fact that there is a self-defeating meme "vote for one of the two, because it's the only vote that matters" is cause of the problem.
The country could put a third party, independent, or some other maverick in office in '08 if it had the will. The will is based on the aggregate of each one of us. I do not believe that history will grant us another 150 years of this arrangement. We can lead the change by example, or we can follow like sheep.
Paul Bramscher,
I suppose you respond the way that you do because of the role you seem to have assumed online. You find it troublesome that my thinking is unfree? ... Very clever. Perhaps a certain brand of bloggers will always rely on inflammatory pseudo-wit. Nonetheless, if I wasn't clear enough in my last post, I too agree that what we see in American politics is a tragedy. What I explained about the American two-party system, however, was not an opinion but an assessment of how our election system is structured. Before anyone will be able to make your suggested changes (i.e. call for a total restructuring), they'll have to be elected - either that or folks must read and hit the streets. My point was merely that nothing but donkeys and elephants can currently be elected. Oh, and that pretending otherwise or ignoring this observation will invariably aid in supporting elephants. Thus, I opined that no vote is more prudent than a third-party vote. That's all, friend.
By the way, your "though experiment" amounts to a monarchy. Monarchies don't vote.
Somehow, it seems like you've made me an Obama supporter.
Lighten up on the assumption.
I will probably not revisit this thread.
Peace.
The majority of Americans believe Iraq was a mistake, but Obama originally came out to support Liebermann, a strong advocate for the war.
There's something really, really, whacked out with trying to sweep this under the rug.
Why did Obama originally support Liebermann? Can any Obama supporters here offer an explanation? Obama is trying to appear kosher to AIPAC? Obama supports whoever is best-funded, regardless of ideology? Obama supports Liebermann's politics? The answer had better be fleshed out now, not after he assumes the throne.
I find it "troublesome", ThinkFree, that your thinking is so unfree. If the only votes that count is for one of the two preselected corporate candidates, what sort of democracy would you call that? Sounds like one of the creepiest self-fulfilling prophesies to fascism I've heard in a long while.
ThinkFree,
Here's a thought experiment for you: If we lived in a country with only a single party, would the only vote that counts be a vote for that single party?
We vote our ideals, or we vote nothing.
We have some problems:
* Get rid of the Electoral College.
* Get rid of the primary system.
* Get rid of all electronic voting machines.
* Get a handle on the Corporate Media's influence in deciding races.
* Move to Range or IRV.
* Perhaps a population proportionate unicameral body.
* Introduce some sort of public financing.
Given all these hoops, is voting really the most effective way to make change? Does it matter at all? As I've said before, I'll vote with my voice, pocketbook and (if needed) feet. Our system is built to resist, not facilitate, democracy.
Paul Bramscher,
In this country, the only worthwhile vote, assuming that we want our vote to "matter," is one cast for one of the two people chosen by the two dominant parties. Now, I agree, in theory and principle, with all that you say. However, voting for anyone outside of the two-party structure simply divides the population, with absolutely no chance of electing the third-party runner. Hence, Republicans were fond of, and even offered back-door support for Nader's campaign, which he scandalously accepted.
While positive that he wouldn't be elected, they also knew that any votes for him would be taken away from the Democrats, their only real opposition.
Personally, I believe that if we want to vote our conscience, and none of the remaining choices entice us, it may be wiser to withhold our vote completely (thereby not unwittingly tilting elections in any way) and write a letter to Congress instead. In that letter, we may consider expressing our feelings about the current system and voting process. In addition, it may be worth expressing our disapproval for what happened to Kucinich and Edwards. These letters could be CCed to international leaders and media outlets.
The point being: while this nation trashes the quality of democracy overseas, there are thinking beings who question the integrity of democracy at home. While perhaps useless, such an effort may be most honest. If our "leaders" cannot represent us in the world, perhaps we ought represent ourselves.
At the very least, something like this would shame the government...
...and express solidarity with the world.
Peace.
My son said that he doens't like the term "sniff-house clothes" and refers the term "play clothes" for the clothes that you store in the basement because you don't get all the air-freshioner off and he wears in situations where the air is not all that clean.
He said that from now on every time I use the word "sniff-house" he will delete one of my word documents.
I told him that if he removes any of my word documents that I will remove his testicles. He doesn't believe me. Considers it an empty threat.
Of course I don't believe everything I hear on the net. Though I concede that no one can avoid making both type I and type II errors (excuse me if I missed them up):
Type I: Believing something which is false;
Type II: Disbelieving something which is true;
I had heard of other people bring it up before I found the transcript. And though I run the risk of making a Type I error, it seems legitimate enough. I also am used to seeing spoofs (complete with the "and I approve this message" part pasted in) and this doesn't strike me as a fake.
What I don't know is whether it was a downright lie or a half-truth. Half-truths are a lot harder to dispel - but if there was even a grain of truth, it would be in a commercial rather than a robocall.
I am judging Hillary Clinton on her actions concerning Michael John Hamdani's fictions. Also, unlike South Carolina (which is in the Southern US where they know very little about Canada), New York is a border state. Hillary Clinton must have known what was going on concerning Maher Arar!
I vote with my head and my heart - I abhor cruelty. I expect those I vote for to have a conscience, but I also expect them to be smart. Kucinich has a conscience but he is not as smart as he needs to be. He knows a lot of things, but being in a situation where one has to choose between one's conscience and bankruptcy - one expects one come up with a way to avoid such a choice in power.
As far as a vote, ok, you may have to choose between two bad options because that is all that is on the table, but governing has a different set of expectations! Kucinich is too easy to paint as "tax and spend" because of that bankruptcy. As a Congressperson yes, but the only reason for him to run as President is to bring up the issues.
I don't know much about Gravel (other than Ralph Nader likes him) - what should I know?
RE: - Sometimes I allow anger, or stupidity to block out my conscience and common sense, become rude with others, or flip someone the bird, fart in church and laugh about it.
Sometimes words trigger something. Anger is a reaction to pain - one seems oblivious to the pain of others to a certain extent always when one is feeling pain oneself.
As far as farting in church - at least you are not wearing Axe or Tag!
RE: - I Killed an innocent bird once for no reason at all when I was a youngster and have always felt sort of bad about that when I think of it.
Bush killed frogs for fun and it doesn't bother him at all. Seems that one has to have a bit of goodness in one to get PTSD. Not that you have it, but one gets the sense that racism or a lack of conscience is a protective factor against getting it. If one doesn't care about the plight of others, then witnessing their slaughter won't bother you.
It didn't bother me, VAUDREE, because I considered the source.
It's mud slinging and it is it factual? If it's true, there will be other sources to bring it up, and I haven't heard her reply. I Don't want to judge her on that, just because someone says someone is a witch or is guilty doesn't mean it's a fact. I don't believe everything I read on the internet. Do You?
I know for a fact that as human beings, our conscience is perhaps one of our most important features. I also believe with absolute certanty that intelligent and decent people have a conscience and usually listen to it. In essence without a conscience, humanity would still be living as wild barbarians and evilness would prevail. There would be billions of cannibals, serial killers and rapists. There would be no laws.
There is another important feature of of our thought process which humanity has developed over the centuries, __COMMON SENSE.__ I have a conscience, use it and stay out of jail, don't beat my wife and try not to do any things that I would not wish others to do to me. Sometimes I allow anger, or stupidity to block out my conscience and common sense, become rude with others, or flip someone the bird, fart in church and laugh about it. I Killed an innocent bird once for no reason at all when I was a youngster and have always felt sort of bad about that when I think of it.
But when I vote for any candidate, I allow common sense to rule, my conscience has nothng to do with that decision. After studying the person's credibility and their platform, I vote for the one who in my opinion is overall the best choice for the position. If I were WRONG to use that method of choice and to use my common sense when voting, it would hurt my conscience, __ and so far it never has.
I like and admire Ralph Nader, Ron Paul and some others like them. I love my wife, she is a wonderful person, she has a lot of the opinions Paul and Nader have, __ so do I. I never voted for those two men nor would I ever vote to have my wife run the country and I never will. That is primarily because it would be a wasted vote and any message I believed it may send, would be heard by only the few sho were as bull headed as I was. It would hurt MY conscience. So if any can waste a vote and do so, stating it is because of their conscience, I don't understnad their thought process, and I wonder if they have any common sense.
RE: - ~Vaudree~, that link didn't upset me at all. I'm surprised you bothered to post such trash, leave it alone
It bothered me greatly. How can Clinton get away with spreading lies like that! That is pure evil! How different is she really than Dick Cheney!
And doing it the day before a vote so that, by the time you find out about it, it is too late to correct, that there is probably the difference between Edwards being in the race and out! If Edwards came in second, that would have kept him in the debate and kept him in the race.
RE: - Was Edwards threatened with a small plane crash? With the same threat that inspired Kucinich to suddenly drop bringing impeachment to the floor?
If he was, the CBC would report that - if he could prove that the threat was made. More likely, they used Edwards poor showing in Florida as an excuse to exclude him from tonight's debate. CNN was reporting on Florida (I can't get Colbert's fitting image of it out of my head) as if it was a real primary. I get the feeling that Hillary Clinton planned this all along.
Speaking of parody, doesn't McCain look a bit like Hank's father from King of the Hill. He has this way of moving around as if he was a marinette. And Romney reminds me of something out of a 60's horror movie.
It will probably be Romney and Obama - that is my prediction.
Though expect Frank Stronach to make an appearance in New Orleans with the Clintons. Frank's daughter Belinda and Bill are friends. Nothing improper, she likes her boy-toys as much as Bill likes his zwinkys.
RE: - Let us assume Barack wins the presidency, his naivete will be manna for the corporations and their ilk.
They will eat him alive.
Obama's attitude is that he can take the money and not let it affect his decisions. Obama also seems to want to get the Edwards supporters into his tent before the Clinton supporters talk them into theirs. This means a dilemma between taking on Edwards's causes and the causes of his backers. Obama's soul is still up for grabs. I just don't know which way he will go.
My friend says he reminds her of Abraham Lincoln in looks (you can see it in the face a bit). I guess that is still in the pattern of those who Obama usually reminds people of.
RE: - I would love to hear a debate between Nader and Ron Paul. It could be very entertaining and we may even learn something.
Yeah, a debate over whether government or private enterprise should run garbage pick up. I would like to see it because it would be quite informative.
Strange how Ron Paul was in last night's debate on CNN.
Tonight I have a choice between watching the full Dem debate and the episode of "Who Do You Think You Are?" where they trace Avi Lewis's (Naomi Klein's husband's) geneology. You know you come from a family of shitdisturbers if you can use fifty years of declassified RCMP security and intelligence files to trace you ancestry. Maybe, if it is good, I'll watch the first part of the Dem debate when it repeats at 2 am.
RCMP=FBI - CSIS=CIA
One usually gets more into geneology when one is thinking about children ...
RE: - And as per that Nader-Paul debate, let's invite Mike Gravel also.
Well, yeah, but who can we get to hold it? Has to be something that can be watched on line. And who would they all consider to be a fair host for it? I pick Avi!
RE: - For one thing, Canadians wouldn't be having this discussion in quite this way. They're just a lot nicer. Having lived there several years, I find they can have a strong opinion without raising their voice and without 4-letter words.
At least no more 4-letter words than they use in polite conversation. There isn't the same patriotic correctness or idea that a leader should be respected. And, while comedy in the US tends to be divided according to partisan lines (you make fun of the other side but not your own), our comics tend to make fun of all of them, regardless of their leanings.* Thus, there is a culture of making fun of your own side as well as the other side - which shocks those who are not used to this.
* The exception being the Peter MacKay - Belinda Stronach breakup. Air Farce took Peter's side, Rick Mercer took Belinda's and 22 Minutes was the most neutral.
As far as being more polite - you haven't read "Political Insults" - but note that it is the person who insults (rather than the intended target) that is laughed at:
Political insults: a short history of personal attacks
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/political_insults.html
RE: - In 1997 when Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone was considering running for President he also made a Poverty Tour that followed the Robert Kennedy trip.
With all the students Wellstone taught as a professor, it is surprising that none have come forth to continue in his legacy. Maybe they have, but we haven't heard of them yet.
No talk of real economic change can break through on a large scale, in this media and campaign financing system. Just won't happen. The media and the campaing financing system need to be re-constructed from scratch. And we should engage in politics on a local level, where there is an opening for truly progressive candidates.
I may run for a local office myself someday, once my kids are a bit older.
In this article the Associated Press and Nedra Pickler either have a bad memory, bad resources or both, typical of corporate main stream media;
"Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour, the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier"
In 1997 when Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone was considering running for President he also made a Poverty Tour that followed the Robert Kennedy trip.
As for dropping out of the Presidential race, maybe both Dennis Kuchinich and John Edwards started to feel the heat from corporate rule. It's only OK to talk the talk as class warrior, but when the monied interests start to worry that it's more than just talk, watch out for retribution.
Perhaps Kuchinich and Edwards decided that it is better to drop out of the race than to drop out of the air like Paul Wellstone's airplane did in an October 2002 surprise. It seems to me a lot of Democrats since have been afraid of getting their wings clipped.
Well, if the Democrats think they are a second choice for progressives, they'd better quit complaining and get working on Range or IRV.
Once the Green Party has their nominating convention and a candidate is selected, I'll be heading towards the only progressive party with a platform we can all live with and be proud of voting for. Count my vote this November as Green!
This sorry two-party corporate controlled media beauty race is sickening and shows Americans' lack of political awareness and basic intelligence when it comes to deciding their future for themselves.
I'll be proud to "waste my vote" by voting Green this November! Oh, and isn't it interesting how most negative comments about the Green party seem to come from Democrats. Hmmmmm.
Lobo Gris,
That's not the case with the two-party election system in America.
The two major parties remain two major parties. Any 3rd party gets consumed by one of the major parties or is simply wiped out. As the US goes in the direction that it is in now, it's usually the latter. Hence, a vote for any "outsider" is, quite literally aimless, in terms of impact. It is still, however, symbolic.
The third party plays an important role nevertheless: that of the watchdog. In recent times, however, Kucinich and - to come extent - Edwards have shown that individuals themselves can also play that role.
This is obviously not a good thing and I dislike it as much as you do.
Peace.
ThinkFree January 30th, 2008 8:17 pm
"Oh, and those who understand the mechanics of a two-party system know that voting Green is useless. Voting Green is worse than not voting because it divides the votes aimlessly"
Hardly aimless. A election is not about the two major parties owning everyones vote. It is about the opportunity for all of the parties and candidates to put forth their ideas to try to get voters to vote for them, but the vote still belongs to the voter.
IE: Pepsi and Coca Cola have the opportunity to place their product before the public and encourage the public to buy their product. That does not mean however that the public is required to buy one or the other because they are the two major brands, the consumer may choose to purchase a brand that is associated with neither or they may choose to forego buying a soda completely and buy a cup of coffee instead.
Lobo Gris
quousque January 30th, 2008 8:26 pm
"To all the pathetic potential Green Party voters, here is one word to consider as you enable another nutcase GOPhascist to assume the Presidency:
SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
Just one more Federalist Society appointment, and our Noble Experiment is toast for the rest of your life!"
Got news for you, it's already toast regardless of who wins the nomination and presidency among the four remaining ms candidates.
Lobo Gris
Well, at least my guy, Mike Huckabee, is still in there.
OK, thought about it. Still want to vote my conscience. Still want to fight corporate power. Still want to end the WTO, which is even more undemocratic and much more powerful than the Supreme Court.
You make a valid point on the possible nominations of a Republican President, but I do not think it outweighs building a movement to end war, corporate control and the like, while witholding my vote for a pro-war, pro-corporate control politician.
http://www.naderexplore08.org
Nice to see a few comments that propose something besides dreaming about a heroic candidate to save us - or crying when we find out our heroic candidate will not save us.
Props to Dustinchicago, Claudius, Ticonderoga, Rebelnow, and Hazmat for your comments.
We need to work from the bottom up, organize ourselves, our friends, our neighbors, and build direct resistance to corporatism, fascism and war. We need to fight for justice and peace, not project our dreams onto national political candidates or parties.
ThinkFree,
Nobody's holding a gun to my head in the voting booth, and I'm not peeking over my shoulder to see how my neighbor is voting. Nor does my guess about who will win affect how I vote. The only losing is not voting your conscience.
Our system isn't designed to produce (small-d) democratic results, so why expect it? Despite what the IRV people say, the Range Vote is clearly the best sampling methodology. All candidates are on the ballot, and you can give them a score, independently (ties are allowed), for instance: 0-10. Whoever gets the most points on election night wins. Anything else is anti-democratic bullshit. So you may as well vote your conscience than legitimize an anti-democratic system.
I don't think our country is capable of sensible/rational/modernizing democratic change. It'll take being invaded by a country greater than ours, or the R-word. Unless our sorry culture wakes up.
NADER/PAUL? Yeah, we can all see how popular Paul is with the American voters so far this time around and I do believe Nader didn't do so hot when he ran the last time. How about Jesse Jackson and Paris Hilton? There you have a African American and a woman on the same slate. They could run on the Green party ticket and make everyone happy. Or, better yet start another party, call it thr J/P checker party. Or we could all vote for our pet dog, __ write in Snoopy, Spot or Fido.
Perhaps some of you missed the comment written by ~QUOUSQUE~ at 8:26pm? You might seriously consider thinking about that just before you vote for a Nader or a Paul, a J/P, or a Snoopy.
One of Obama's economic advisors supports partial privatization of Social Security, and another is so center-right that George Will wrote a flattering column about him.
http://www.thenation.com:80/bletters/20080211/fraser
Obama--Change we can believe in?
Nor for this Edwards supporter.
I'm ready to give money, time, and my vote to the Greens.
tailcap,
The difference among the Republicrats and the Demopublicans is what color icing is on the same cake. They're allowed to deviate on social issues around the edges, rhetoric, and perhaps have some leeway in deciding which big industries can get best positioned on the gravy train for government contracts. But on fundamental issues endemic to electoral reform, foreign policy, socio-economic justice, disaster capitalism, corporate crime, influence peddling, high cost of real estate, mideast politics, etc. they don't really offer much in the way of substantive difference. The politics of big money vs. no money trumps any now-illusory differences between "left" and "right". It's the politics of the 1% vs. the 99%.
Indeed, why do the Dems allow Liebermann (basically a Republican at this point) to caucus with them? Would they allow a Green to caucus with them?
When push comes to shove, the Dems overlap with the Republicans more than the Greens, and that's the crux of their problem. What have they done to earn the progressive vote? Is it some sort of automatic entitlement in the DLC's eyes?
And what reason do we have to believe that the Democrats strongly oppose Bush? Where's the impeachments, the filibusters, genuine investigations?
Give us a break, Democrat apologists. You and your Republican tag-team have had 150 years to introduce Range or IRV, eliminate electoral college, modernize the campaign finance system.
Maybe it'll take one of the corporate parties a series of painful losses until one of them sees an advantage -- rather than disadvantage -- in Range or IRV. Maybe it'll take another few terms of a Bush & Co. lookalike in order to galvanize real opposition. Hillary, a former Nixon supporter. Obama, who courts AIPAC and supported Liebermann in '06.
To all the pathetic potential Green Party voters, here is one word to consider as you enable another nutcase GOPhascist to assume the Presidency:
SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES
Just one more Federalist Society appointment, and our Noble Experiment is toast for the rest of your life!
Oh, and those who understand the mechanics of a two-party system know that voting Green is useless. Voting Green is worse than not voting because it divides the votes aimlessly (a la Nader, who took Republican signatures to qualify). ... Historically, when the Republicans came, the Whigs went. A two-party system always cancels out the third party. Moreover, without party members in any other branch of government, what might a Green Party President do? If the Green Party wants to be worth voting for, it has to start at the very bottom and plant members in the machine before it makes any sense to vote for a Green presidential candidate.
Peace.
What has happened to Kucinich and Edwards in this race is going to be a classic case study of the American Corporatocracy at its worst. We live in a time when media manipulation is at an all-time high. We're mere steps away from explicit government suppression. Due to the passionate work and sacrifice of these two, though, we have clear cases to cite in discussions. For what it's worth, I think the progressive agenda ought be to keep Hilary out of office. Obama may not be ideal by a long shot but he deserves some wiggle room. Three months ago, he was saying much less. We must reserve the right to have hope that he can be influenced for the better.
He may well be smarter than we think - reserving his cards until he can afford to show them.
There are reasons why Edwards lasted longer, and did "better," than Kucinich. There are also reasons why Obama has gotten further than both of them. If Obama was now saying things that appealed to CD readers, he would have a similar fate to Kucinich and Edwards. Unfortunately, we live in a time and place where the man with the most integrity and honesty is the worst off. Yet, if there is any truth in such an observation, Obama may still be worth giving the benefit of the doubt. In terms of electability, total integrity is still unpopular. While principled, perhaps unwise. Nevertheless, my hunch is that Kucinich had some latent influence on Edwards (in addition to Edwards' own family experience) and the two of them have had an influence on the overall climate of these primaries, including the 3rd man at bat. I can imagine Kucinich and Edwards sitting at a table with Obama.
...I can imagine Obama being reflective, and I can imagine Michelle reminding him of who he is.
Hilary though... she's already helped beat the war drum against Iran.
Not to mention how bad a time it is for the first woman president. Hilary has an inferiority complex and has to prove all the chauvinists that she is strong. In a time of war, this could be disastrous. While there is a difference in gender, recall how Lebanon suffered when the new Israeli PM wanted to show his "strength."
Then again our first black president may be at a greater risk. If he's willing to take that step, however, there had better be some folks willing to stand behind him. While still politically compromised, I will probably be behind Obama. Unless his oratory skills are pure show, he's got something worthwhile in him.
Lastly, as it was in 2004, Kerry was a gamble but Bush was a sure-fire total loss.
The choice between Obama and Hilary is somewhat (but not completely) similar.
And if we don't vote, we ought write letters to Congress expressing why.
There is plenty to write about but not enough writers.
Ok, here's an idea...it's a stretch, that's for damn sure, but it's an idea that could work. In the probable outcome that the Dems choose Hillary and the Repubs choose McCain, it seems that progressives and liberals will have nobody to vote for that isn't considered moderate. Let's say that the election is extremely close...so close that the electoral votes are the same for each candidate. So what section of the country is willing to step up and REALLY REALLY mobilize to give us 1 green electoral vote? Could you imagine the leverage we could get? Imagine the concessions we could get from the Democratic party? Or maybe that would end the electoral college right then and there. Maybe the supreme court would declare third parties illegal! Who knows! The point is, we need to get off our asses and start advocating for REAL change.
I wish Nader would stop trying to run against the Green Party and either help out, join and run UNDER the party, or go back to being a consumer advocate. He has little to no charisma, and that may be his biggest drawback. Having an Independent and Green run that say the same thing is like having a contest for third and fourth place. Not to mention, neither person gets the 5% of the vote needed for matching funds.
Now that my second favorite has left the field (Kucinich 1st!), I guess it's bluntly-spoken Mike Gravel left to carry the flag of opposition to business-as-usual. As voters, we've been backed into a two-person race without ever really hearing candidates' true positions. The media marginalized all of the candidates except Clinton and Obama. Contestants were picked off, one by one. Media coverage focusing only on the tactics, maneuvering, verbal parsing, surrogate sniping, etc. etc. A little information (researched by the journalists, please) of voting records, public statements, associations, etc. would have been waaay more helpful. If I want to hear about training, tactics, coaching, strategies, team mates, I'll watch a football or baseball or basketball game, thank you very much.
For one thing, Canadians wouldn't be having this discussion in quite this way. They're just a lot nicer. Having lived there several years, I find they can have a strong opinion without raising their voice and without 4-letter words. Also, snide remarks aren't heard very often. And as individuals they're effective.
How to get there? Just drive North, ya can't miss it.
The Queen is Head of State and doesn't express her opinions...she listens and is the unifying symbol of nationhood...somewhat the way we view our flag...she reigns; she does not rule.
To become a landed immigrant, you need to apply to Ottawa, have a chest x-ray sent there, a picture of yourself, fill out an application with all your transcripts (originals, by the way), diplomas, proof of a job when you get there, and one or some Canadians to recommend you, and have your doctor and dentist attest to your shot record and other medical and dental records.
Then you can vote in local matters, but definitely not in national elections. For that, you'd have to become a Canadian. There's a stiff penalty for breaking that law.
You will get points for each member of your family, for each college degree held by each member, another for having a job. I forget the rest since it's been a few years. If you have enough points you can come in by appointment for an interview. There at the border they will take your guns and give you a receipt to submit when you're ready to leave the country so that when you notify them you will be crossing the border at a certain place on such a date, your guns will be waiting for you.
You'll have to read up on your provincial (not state) laws for your driver's license, and pass a drivers' test within 30 days.
You'll want to exchange your money and find a bank that will do for you what you need. And the rest is pretty much like moving to another part of the U.S.
There are public schools in Canada as well as separate schools (Roman Catholic). I lived in Calgary where there were fine Jewish schools and other private schools. When I was there, schools began at 9, everybody left school for an hour and a half for lunch, returned and stayed until 4 o'clock when it's dark. EVERY KID WALKED no matter the weather. Every school was required to be no farther than 3 blocks from any kid in its zone.
After supper at 7, the whole family might walk to the school for Russian, guitar, drawing, skating, or other extra curricular activities. The streets are well-lighted and there are people everywhere.
Ice-skating rinks are everywhere. The small common gardens behind people's houses and yards on cul de sacs are often sunken, so in winter, firemen flood the area and level it off for skating.
In summer it gets dark about 11. Little kids love it. Adults can look out for the Northern Lights.
I was told 2 rules by my fellow citizens: Don't swim below 70 deg. nor ski below 15 deg. It's an o.k. rule of thumb.
You'll love it when some authority figure tells you to "Mind your head" in a nurturing voice, and you're at least 45 years old.
Okay, people. Edwards is out for Prez. Still glad I gave some money to him, because he was first (after Kucinich) to talk about the real issues. The other 2 just hopped on his bandwagon and got credit by the MSM. Why am I not surprised? NOW THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS!!! Raise your eyes to the future. If you have to hold your nose to vote, vote for someone who has a chance to win and who will put some balance in the Supremes. We loose that chance, we lose everything!
The comment list is long, and I'm sure nobody's reading all the way down here, but I have to say:
Even though I find Ron Paul's politics repulsive for the most part, I wish he got more support, and totally understand why he's got as much support as he does. He's HONEST. There's no mystery about what he really means because he says what he means. He's forthright and direct, and we need a lot more of that in politics, regardless the ideology.
Can the same be said for Obama? I have no idea. I don't ever hear him say anything substantive. He's a fantastic speaker, I just wish when he talked about 'change' he'd actually say WHAT he thought needed to be changed and HOW.
The other thing: Ron Paul was criticizing the Bush Administration when most Democrats were way too chickenshit to do it. That alone makes me want to go caucus for the guy -- and I think his politics are batshit!
John Edwards splitting from the presidential gambit
eliminates the last best chance to put the squeeze
on our supreme rulers: the multi nationals and the
defense department.
Let us assume Barack wins the presidency, his naivete
will be manna for the corporations and their ilk.
They will eat him alive.
Try Hilary. She knows who and where the power lies
and she will climb right in with it.
McCain? He is body and soul with the Military-Indus-
trial complex. A McCain presidency will be more of
the same obstinate bullying, flip-flopping, wars &
incompetence. John is not the swiftest kid on the
block.
Romney was, is and would be with the supreme rulers &
their minions. He is a "let them eat cake" man.
So, it is a sad day that America has left itself
without the one candidate who was on their side.
In Maine, at the end of winter and as late spring approaches, we again see signs of life stirring. The proof of this life is that we are surrounded by the color green. Could it be that this is a sign to trust that Green will infuse life into the dead soul of this country? Cynthia McKinney - Green. Sounds good to me.
I will now be 100% supporting the Green Party's candidates.
http://www.gp.org/
Well, I guess now we can feel easy about voting for the Green Party. Cynthia McKinney 08!! www.runcynthiarun.com
Nader-Paul? That could be a good debate. Or contest. Or ticket. Or sit-com. Or Twilight Zone episode.
And as per that Nader-Paul debate, let's invite Mike Gravel also.
There still is a democrat left - Mike Gravel. Just like mainstream media ignored Kucinich, the progressive media is ignoring Mike Gravel.
so it goes...
Nothing pulls national Democratic presidential nominees to the left. And if they don't have to play to the base when they campaign (unlike the Republicans), they can completely ignore the base when they govern.
It's going to be a long time before we see real change for working people.
I would love to hear a debate between Nader and Ron Paul. It could be very entertaining and we may even learn something.
KEM PATRICK - "It realy doesn't matter all that much what the polls show now GOOSE, it's what the polls will show next November. Hillary will get the money needed to win, McCain won't. __ Hillary is the neo-cons choice this time. ___ That's how it is. "
Believe it or not, I don't actually care what the poll numbers are, I just saw a claim that Edwards won in all polls and he didn't, not nearly. I agree, there is only one meaningful poll and that is the one in November.
I don't actually agree with you there on Clinton. I think that she may be the dem (DLC) candidate, but I think that in a run vs. McCain it will be a close election. Time will tell. I want to spend my energy in getting Obama nominated and then fight the next battle after the convention.
I agree though with those that state that the only wasted vote is one not cast. Vote your heart and then at least you have the right to complain at the end.
I will say though that at the *general election* if it comes down to a Democratic president or a Republican president, you might have to suck it up and vote Democratic if a third party acts as a splitter. There is a real possibility that the election will be close enough for a liberal/progressive candidiate to pull enough from the Democrat to make them lose. That is good in that it may force the Democratic candidate to move left to avoid that eventuality, but it can cost the election.
I feel almost as terrible as I did when Kucinich dropped out, like Edwards, after not getting his share from the MSM. What a terrible pickle we are in. For seven years we've been saying, "It just can't get any worse" and yet, voila- it can. This sucks to the core.
Was Edwards threatened with a small plane crash? With the same threat that inspired Kucinich to suddenly drop bringing impeachment to the floor? I wish we had a democracy and could find out what the hell is going on.
As Stephen Colbert would say, this is "super depressing."
BTW- as corporate and pseudo-republican as Obama and Clinton are, we still must vote- it does matter. We must realize that just because our standards have just been lowered a LOT, we do NOT want another neo-con warmonger in the White House (to the tune of John "bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain or Mit "lock em all up" Romney.) YUCK! The Dems, lousy as they are, are still better than the lying sacs of sh*t we've been dealing with since the coup.
It realy doesn't matter all that much what the polls show now GOOSE, it's what the polls will show next November. Hillary will get the money needed to win, McCain won't. __ Hillary is the neo-cons choice this time. ___ That's how it is.
~Vaudree~, that link didn't upset me at all. I'm surprised you bothered to post such trash, leave it alone.
If Hellary's the nominee, count me in.
Nader's baaaaack!...
http://www.naderexplore08.org/index.html
That John Edwards is jumping out I am expressly sorry. For me he was the best of all. There is no redeeming quality to vote for Ron Paul as he record stands and was thoroughly covered in a TruthDig article sometime ago and does not need revisited.
The interest has just gone out of the Democratic race in any event. It will now just be a slug fest between O and C and there isn't much difference between them except for the male member and color of skin.
FWIW, the polls on Clinton vs McCain have McCain winning in Rasmussen, NBC/WSJ, USA Today/Gallup, Hotline/FD polls. CNN and LA Times/Bloomberg give it to Clinton.
Polls on Obama vs McCain give it to McCain in Rasmussen, USA Today/Gallup, and LA Times/Bloomberg polls.
Hotline/FD polls and CNN give it to Obama.
NBC/WSJ shows the race a statistical tie
All polls were this year and all are detalied at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
curmudgeon99 January - "Amazing - the Democrats and their leadership turn their backs on the ONLY candidate they have that beats any Republican nominee 'hands down' in any poll."
I just looked that up and the polls are evenly split as of 12/07. Hotline and Zogby have McCain ahead by 8 and 4% respectively and Rasmussen and CNN have Edwards ahead by 7 and 8% respectively. That is not "'hands down' in any poll."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_edwards-226.html#...
Depressing news.
Amazing - the Democrats and their leadership turn their backs on the ONLY candidate they have that beats any Republican nominee 'hands down' in any poll.
Does anyone really believe Obama or Clinton(s) can win the presidency, given the rampant sexism and racism among the majority of voters?
I just heard Edwards speech from New Orleans. It made me cry. It's not that I've been so enamored of this old southern Dem, it's just painful to know that economic populism and caring for the poor can never break through into mainstream political discussion, even among many Dems who call themselves progressive.
This is a dark day. Around the country and the world, corporate CEOs and Wall Street billionaires are lighting up their cigars and celebrating.
Yay, Ralph! Here's some Ralphie quotes snarfed from CNN:
"John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, depravations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort,"
"They are both enthralled to the corporate powers," Nader said of the two leading Democrats. "They've completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they've ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don't talk about a living wage."
"Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word 'spoiler,' he said. "Because 'spoiler' means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other's votes."
Don't know about you, but seein' words like those on CNN takes a bit of the bite out of a dark day.
If Obama gets the nomination I'll vote Dem, if not, I'll vote Green or Nader if he runs...
I understand your idealism, Big Money, and if Edwards and Nader were running together on a ticket, I would vote Green without hesitation, and may still vote Green if Billery gets the nomination. However, if Obama chooses Edwards as a running mate that will, for me, make it a better ticket. And though this may be regressive thinking, it would sicken me to see someone like McCain win.
Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney. My god, can someone wake us up from this neoliberal/neocon/conservative nightmare?
Yesterday, on the Nation website, I read a somewhat buried article explaining that Obama's proposal for economic stimulus is to the right of Clinton's. It also explained that his three top economic advisors are good Wall Street types; one of them, in fact, was the subject of a flattering article by George Will.
So, on the economic front, an Obama presidency can only mean Change, if you consider more right-ward drift to be change.
Here's the link to the Nation article.
http://www.thenation.com:80/bletters/20080211/fraser
I wrote a web letter criticizing Obama and the Nation, but as of yesterday, at least, the Nation did not post it. Here's my letter:
Thanks so much for this fact-based article on Barack Obama. Most of the progressive community has been seduced by his charisma and his effect on young people. We've heard so much about the inspiration he creates. Meanwhile there has been little acknowledgement of the hard facts. His voting record in the Senate, his propoals on bread and butter issues, and now, his list of economic advisors demonstrate that he is, at best, a centrist. More to the point, during periods less dominated by the interests of corporate America and Wall Street, a politician with his views on the economy would have been recognized for what he is, a moderate Republican.
As recession looms, and ordinary Americans lose their jobs, their healthcare or their homes, it is time for real change in our national economic priorities. With his record and his advisors, Obama almost certainly cannot deliver such real change — particularly if his proposals challenge the centrist Clinton from the right.
Nevertheless, the Nation, like many in the mainstream media, has devoted a great deal of ink to the "Hilary vs. Obama" choice for the Democratic nominee. If a progressive magazine does not care to amplify truly progressive voices largely ignored in the mainstream media, who will?
I hope I am wrong about Obama. He is an inspirational orator and an intelligent, obviously likeable man. Nevertheless, I make my decisions about voting based not on someone's public persona but on their public record. As a result, unlike his large and growing following, I am not filled with hope that real change is coming any time soon.
Yeah, I just saw he was looking into forming an exploratory committee. I like Ralph but the thing that scares me is if he runs and doesn't get elected we will get McCain or Romney...This just really sucks any way I look at it...
Remember Nader said he would run if the Dims chose Clinton or Obama. He all bet endorsed Edwards. Looks like the Dims are going to make us Ralph! They have only themselves to blame.
Obviously Doom and Gloom wasn't on Earth when President Roosevelt was elected. The Roosevelts had a wealth that Edwards could never attain.
It's a tragedy that Edwards was forced out of the race. At least we had a chance.
The media won again! Whatever happened to Conventions? Candidates were chosen at the Convention, not on television. They weren't perfect, but at least the people had a say, not some Corporate-owned newspaper and TV station making the decisions. And now they want to allow the same TV station own a newspaper in the same community? Someone wrote earlier, "We're like mushrooms, they feed us manure and keep us in the dark."
I just saw this on rawstory.com:
Nader launches '08 exploratory site:
http://www.naderexplore08.org/
Hmm.. Folks seem to say Edwards bailed because it's clear he won't win. Folks seem to think they can't vote Green 'cause they can't win. I hadn't realized that putting winning over and above one's values and contribution to society had poisoned the progressive community to such a degree.
Big Money, says there is the Green party. Yes, I had long been a fan of Ralph Nader who has been an advocate for better safety standards.
A huge factor against the Green party winning, among others, is the 'electoral college' system as opposed to the popular vote. Presently, I live in North Carolina and, for some time now, the republicans have taken all the delegates during the main election. Essentially, in the winner take all system we have, the popular vote takes second fiddle. That's not even democracy in my view, and generally makes elections a sham. The presidential election of 2000 highlighted that.
RE: - John Edwards may very well have a cabinet post Vaudree,
I hope so. History is easier to comprehend in retrospect.
John Edwards definitely looked as if he was not so much giving up the battle for change, but fighting it on a different front.
RE: - Donate, volunteer and vote Green!
The Greens in Canada have long ago been taken over by Libertarians (ie Ron Paul clones). Vote NDP!
Seriously, if we figure that the American media went out of there way to evade covering Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards, will anyone even know that the Greens are running.
Probably best to try to get a few more Greens into Congress and work to change the system so that the President is just another Congressperson who happens to lead the party with the most seats. And then C-span can televise President's Questions and the party leaders of the various parties will be in Congress gaining profile.
In other words, Colleen is right!
Speaker: The Right Honorable Ralph Nader
Nader: Madame Speaker, could you please ask the President why he is not supporting the move to make the Governor of California's law to make automobiles more fuel efficient universal?
President Edwards: Thank you for the question. I have looked at the law and think that we can do better. The Secretary of Environment will be tabling an enhanced motion on the subject Friday.
[Rolls one corporate selecto-dice (1d1), scores 1,2(!?)]
"Clinton/Obama 'O8 GO!"
*gag*
I still dont wanna play anymore.
colleen: There is an underlying flaw in the way the US government has been set up by our founders. Under a parliamentary system there would be a place for political parties like the Green Party.
The system doesn't matter. There's always a way around the system's flaws. The power is in the hands of the people, always. The place for the Green party is made by the people. The people need to start voting Green, ie. voting their better interests in the elections.
When the corporate duopoly cracks the whip hard enough, the people will start voting their better interests. Until then progressives may vote their better interests (in both the civic and economic realms), and encourage others to do the same.
Donate, volunteer and vote Green!
I finally got the text of the robocall that Clinton made against Edwards in South Carolina. I had heard about it and knew it was bad, but not this bad! This is so creepy and underhanded that I think that Hillary just made Dick Cheney proud!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html
Warning to KEM, if you read the text of it you will be so upset you will probably be banned. What ever you say the next few days, I forgive you!
There are many of us registered as democrats who cannot support Hillary for good reasons. With Kucinich and Edwards out, the only choice left is Obama. That choice may be a good one. I am not without hope there. If Hillary is the nominee, then consideration will be given to another candidate outside the party nominations, for we would have two imperialists running for the two parties. I fear that with Hillary, what little of an opposition party we have now would be eroded and nullified.
This could be Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. I respect those who will choose a third party candidate. Dems need to stop blaming those who will not go along with a party nominee simply because they happen to be the nominee. The party is over on that one for too many people. The Dems must move to be against war, empire, torture, prostitution to corporate power and unfettered executive power to get many of our votes.
I believe in the long haul struggle to change for greater justice.
I think we're jumping the gun here. I don't think Hillary is a shoe in for the nomination. Not only that, Obama is now ahead of Clinton by 3 percenatage points in California. And Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Billary. And the Kennedy endorsement is HUGE for Obama. And if Richardson tips to Obama, things could change very quickly.
I LOVE the idea of Edwards as Attorney General. Who should be Sec'y of State? How about Kucinich?
And where are Gore, Carter, and Nader in all of this?
Yeah, Ron Paul kicked ass in Florida. He has a swell chance.
John Edwards may very well have a cabinet post Vaudree, maybe Attorney General. As a member of her cabinet, he will have a lot to say and have a great deal of influence on many issues, health care, housing, enviromental issues, etc, and who is appointed to the Supreme Court, there will be three new Supreme Court judges and that is the biggee.
Does't Ron Paul advocate unlimited free trade? Isn't it the blessed free trade that got us into this service-industry economy in the first place, and isn't that at the base of most of our problems? Low wages, no benefits, cheap goods, classism, healthcare woes and on and on?
And doesn't he advocate for less federally supported public education?
And don't the gun owners love him because he wants no restrictions on firearm purchase/possession?
But really, it's his stance on abortion that is the kicker. Unlimited freedom except for those women forced to carry to term or have an illegal (re: dangerous) procedure. Then boot 'em while they're down by slashing federal programs that would provide for their health & welfare & that of the child they'd be forced to birth.
You go, Ron Paul! Usher us back into the dark ages when women had lesser rights, minorities knew their place in servitude and the environment succumbed to the dumpings of whatever offal the money train left behind. Good on ya.
As for Edwards, I don't understand why he couldn't get a bigger support base, what with his presidential hair and America's fixation on the superficial.
RE: - John Edwards was the very best person running by far. He would be a fine or even great president.
I would say a great president - definitely top ten if not top five.
If John Edwards didn't just give such an inspirational speech, I would be totally crushed.
I'll need to vomit (metaphorically) a bit longer before I can stomach my second choice.
Remember that John Edwards will continue the fight in whatever capacity.
Let's make sure that whoever keeps the pledge they made to John Edwards.
This country is pretty pathetic if people think that a senile, warmongering nut case like McCain is the better choice. Actually, it's difficult to tell which one is better between Shillary and McCain.
John Edwards was the very best person running by far. He would be a fine or even great president. The neo-cons who run this country didn't choose him, they have chosen Hillary Clinton and that's how it is. Obama has no chance and neither does McCain. Wait and see.
"Everybody was asleep at the wheel when Dr. Feelgood (Clinton) was President" and it will happen again. That's exactly why given a McCain vs Clinton choice, we'd be better off with McCain. There is little difference and we don't need the illusions that destroy a growing resistance. Better the wolf than the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Correction to my last post: the homes behind Edwards during his speech weren't ramshackle. A closer look showed they are new, unfinished homes -- humble, but not ramshackle. Nevertheless, he still made a powerful statement about poverty in America.
We're going to get more of the same, the poor don't have enough money to continuously help a cause, BUT, we do have feet and a peaceful march on Washington WHEN the elected are in session and continuously refuse to do they're constituional duty IS warranted. That's our city and if the politicians won't banish the K street corrupters, than we should do what Jesus did and beat the money mongers out of the system.
Ron Paul I hope you make it.
how depressing, i thought he was a good candidate
Hillary will NEVER EVER get my vote. Obama will, and I hear that from a great number of people. I work for a firm that does work in the campaign arena and there is a hell of a lot of chatter about Clinton not having enough juice to actually win the general, might even lose the primary.
We have to face the truth, we progressives have little power as yet. As long as Hillary stays healthy and there is an election, __ Hillary WILL be our next president, ___ I guarantee it.
I will also state, that I'd be amazed if either Obama or Edwards were chosen to be her running mate. Edwards may have a cabinet post, perhaps Attorney General, Obama will stay in the Senate.
Anyone who is honestly thinking of voting for Ron Paul or for doing something really ignorant like abstaining, should be preparing for the only viable alternative, which is an all out violent revolutionary take over of the White House. Point is, unless the 1-5% (arguably much higher than that actually) is ready to take the chumps down, they are simply shooting everyone else in the foot with their inability to understand what politics is really about in this country. That is, compromise. It sucks, it's usually fraudulent and nowhere close to what we really want, but it is our own fault, because we the people do no follow through. Everybody was asleep at the wheel when Dr. Feelgood (Clinton) was President, fucking up the whole world's economic equilibrium, when they should have been out on the streets in huge numbers. We must take responsibility for our decisions, and one way to do that is get someone we can live with in there and then continue to pressure them harder than any other leader in our country's history.
Thank you, Paul Bramscher, for reminding me that there are some people they can never fool, as Lincoln pointed out.
I actually think it's 6% of the people. I base this on the 6% who voted for Norman Thomas, the 6 % who voted for Ralph Nader, the 6% who were against the invasion of Afghanistan, and so on.
Unfortunately, the amount of people who can ALWAYS be fooled (Bush's base) seems to be 30%.
And the rest are very easily swayed.
To Hazmat, an uncast vote is not wasted. It shows the ruling class that some people reject the rigged elections. It actually seems to make them madder than the ones who vote Green, since we clearly still believe that our votes count. You've got Democrats, Republicans, rock stars and athletes given free air time to push people to vote. You've got to wonder if we should.
And the Greens do make alliances. We partnered with the Libertarians to pay for the vote recount in Ohio, 2004. The Democrats didn't pay a cent. We partner with peace groups, environmental groups, voter rights groups, and many more. Again, it's up to the individual Green and their local to make things happen. If you don't think the Greens are doing enough in your community, get out there and help! Believe me, they'd be glad to have you and your energy and ideas.