John 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
wonderful.
besides kucinich, john edwards was one of the only candidates offering what the people actually want. a government that works FOR THE PEOPLE.
i gotta get the hell outta this country.
Nuts! Take your money with you for safe keeping.
Wow. No Edwards, no Kucinich. No real need to vote now. It’s hard to imagine how much more depressing this presidential campaign could get.
Every day, it gets a little worse. The “frog and the pot of water”.
I went digging around for some information, and I discovered that there is in fact a Green Party in the US. Whodda thunk? It would appear to me that the time for talking about the un-electability of any individual who is not a corporate operative is over. Can you support the Green Party? Can you convince others to do so? There seems to be zero sense in bickering about anything else at this point. Stack the Congress, the Senate, and the White House with Greens. Or put forth some other rational alternative.
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.
A leader like Bush in a parliamentary system would have been recalled very quickly and it would not have caused the kind of disruption an impeachment causes.
Our system is dependent on a news media that will uncover corruption and will give all points of view. That news media has been compromised by the vested interests that own it. (Thank God for the internet..which has preserved freedom of the press)
It’s not to late to support a candidate who can accomplish some of your goals.
Ron Paul support bringing home ALL American troops
He supports ending corporate welfare
He supports civil liberties
He has stood up for what he believes in so many times they call him crazy
Now he’s not progressive perfect
He’s against universal healthcare
He’s for federalizing a number of issues that would put abortion and gay marriage questions in the hands of some very unprogressive states
So which is more important fighting the imperial MIC or Hillarycare if the former is a bigger issu then Ron Paul is your guy if the latter Hillary or Obama but either way you should support the Greens in the general. They ARE more progressive perfect than even you think you are. Greens however have very few contested primaries and generally don’t garner attention until the general so use the primary election to fight the system from within and the general to fight it from without.
A revolution a day keeps the tyrants away
P.S. sorry about being a Paulbot. I really do enjoy less blantantly partisan discussion but what can I say, I got bit by the freedom bug bad.
Colleen, if you’re suggesting that there’s no place for Greens in the current system, I’d say you’re being overly pessimistic. And, a parliamentary system would not necessarily get rid of bush, especially if his party had a majority of seats. However, with this utterly mad “Super Bowl Mano-a-mano two teams winner-take-all model”, well you see what happens. Get the Greens in there, for heaven’s sake!
This will give an over view of the Green Party in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States)
Losertarian - I really wish people could hear what Paul has to say. He speaks the truth - and he’s the last one in the two major parties that will. Support him, and the Greens!
“Status Quo’s Gotta Go!”
Yes, there is a Green Party here in the US! www.GP.org
Our candidates do not accept ANY pac or corporate funding - ever. Nor do any of the state parties, or the nat’l party.
To all the liberals that read this message: No party owns your vote. Cast it how you wish,and support what you want. Do not let any party or candidate coerce you into supporting them. They don’t own your vote -you do.
www.GP.org
Big_Money
I like the greens a great deal and hope they will gain power, but it is more difficult in the US than in other nations to get them into power on a national level imo.
There are Republicans who are concerned about environmental issues and that may be a way to reach them.
Its going to be difficult…but its the right thing to do..to support the Greens.
By the way, Greens already hold hundreds of elected positions across the US:
The information can be accessed at http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/Elections-2007-01-27-08.xls
Please note, you will need Open Office or Microsoft Office to view the file.
A revolution led by Ron Paul, who is only libertarian so far as property questions are involved and reactionary everywhere else? Don’t make me laugh.
right now I’d consider voting for ANYONE who wasn’t part of the machine/cabal currently running this country (and I consider Hillary, Obama, McCain and Romney all part of the current problem)…just to throw a monkeywrench in their plans….cleaning up behind a reactionary wouldn’t be any worse (and probably easier)than cleaning up the mess we’ve got now…
Ron Paul is a right wing mole. No “libertarian”, once having taken office, does anything but vote along republican lines when it comes to foreign policy. Paul’s stance on immigration is flamingly reactionary, his attitude toward public health is 16th century. He represents people (”libertarians”) who think capitalism works if it’s just run correctly. Like vulgar marxists, they haul out their little schematics, and conveniently ignore what the system has always been- that is to say, a social system that uses the state to subsidize private interest. An administration run by Ron Paul will just be Ronald Reagan over again- Paul himself has never rejected Reagan’s legacy- and people who support him need to do not only their homework on him, but on the Ayn Randian utopian crap most of his supporters represent. Capitalism has no “unknown ideal”, its ideal has been trumpteted for centuries now and it’s a wash. 500 years after its inception and it still can’t keep its hands off of other people’s cultures. The market is the senior partner in any state dictatorship of the last 500 years, it’s too bad libertarians have never understood that.
colleen - we have an expression in Canada (where, thank heavens, there are more than two parties) we say “The Balance of Power”. If the major parties hold 45% of the seats each, and the mini-party has 10%, either major party has to woo either the other major party or the party that holds the “balance of power” to achieve a majority. Without that going on, our neo-conservative wing-nuts would have led us much farther down the path of destruction than they have. Our “French-Separatist” party has been more help to this country in the last couple of years than they could ever have imagined.
Um… the best example of how to gain political power in a nation of millions and a nation of corporations is what the republican ‘revolution’ did and later the ‘values voters’ did…. start local! get out in touch with as many people in your community that share your views or can be forced/pursuaded to share them- then start running for small offices, school boards, pta’s, neighborhood associations, trade associations, am radio jockeys, local editors and the like. Then move relentlessly up through city, county, state and national offices and media outlets- all the while building up an army of voters who will actually show up to the polls.
I’d be happy to talk with any greens on the how-to’s. Anyone in Chicago?
It’s a race to the final collapse of the empire, and the devil take the hindmost. Bit of irony, though, that the most progressive “candidate” remaining in the party pulls the plug in the city that best represents the domestic effects of modern U.S. fascism.
Goebbels sez: “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
- Dresden James
Big_Money
I am in the throes of living in Canada. I love you guys. And its why I now think a parliamentary system is better.
I still vote in the US and I am involved with the political system there..I don’t quite understand Canada..but I am very impressed with what you have done with your nation…and you did it without a violent revolution. You are just so much more civil to one another…(a heavy sigh for my nation…the US)
I’m sorry John has to leave the field. He was among the best for truth-telling. Now that we’re down to Barack, Hillary, Mitt and John McCain, we still have an obligation to try for a result that does not put more conservative judges on the bench and does not give the power of law enforcement and veto to the Corpublicans.
eshu -
All initiation of force is a violation of someone else’s rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it’s supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.
—-
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don’t police the world. That’s conservative, it’s Republican, it’s pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution.
—-
In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.
—-
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms.
—-
The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
—-
War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.
**************
Know who said these things, eshu? Can you imagine mainstream red-state Americans having to hear these things? You’d like the guy who said these things to quietly disappear, like Edwards? I guess you would. I’d say, that’s kinda foolish and closed-minded.
I can’t believe this. What about California and the northern states that might vote more progressive and pick Edwards?
F*cking idiot, wait till Feb 5th. I guess I shouldn’t have expected much from Edwards, given that Kerry and him bent over for the Republicans even after it was clear there was election fraud.
I think the whole point of the Democratic party is to make people who know the issues feel disillusioned. F*ck the DLC.
colleen - one bizarre thing in Canada’s favour is that we are completely owned by the Queen of England. She is our head of state. Our government only exists at her pleasure. And she’s a nice lady! Not a sociopath, not an MBA (is there a difference, I ask?) The Monarchy and the French Separatists are a great boon to our freedoms.
Goodbye, Johnny, we hardly knew ye (thanks to the MSM).
As for Ron Paul and libertarians in general, they are the “dog eat dog” candidates. Selfish to the point of not caring about anyone but themselves. No concern for the “common good” only what suits their own needs, and to hell with anyone else. The so-called “Fair Tax”, like Bush’s “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests” is nothing but an oxymoron. It’s a boondoggle for the rich, and puts undue burdens on the poor and middle class. Thank goodness Ron Paul has as much chance as Dennis Kucinich to be elected president .
After volunteering for Edwards in NH, I’m now supporting Hillary. She has the experience, and she has Bill. She’s far from perfect but at least the right wing will go ballistic if she’s elected. Obama can earn his chops, and wait his turn.
I scorned the “Mod Squad” of Democratic “top-tier” candidates when they were put forth by the Powers in the Democratic Smoke-Free Back Room, but I kind of warmed up to “Pete” in recent weeks.
By this time next week we’ll know if it’s pro-military, pro-Zion, exceptionalist, pro-corporate, centrist moderate Uniter Linc or Julie.
this makes no sense
just got an email yesterday from joe trippi imploring us to continue to setting an on line fund raising record
and
an email from JRE the day before saying he was in the race to the end
what is up?
Well, there goes the effort to bring the Democratic Party back to its roots.
See you in 8 years when we try again with someone else.
another 8 more years of neo liberalism from Obama or Clinton, the political twins, should make the country a bit more receptive
I half hoped it was a play by John to get a little press…He’s got more press today than he has the whole campaign…what if he showed up in NO and said…Oh..my aides were wrong…I was just checking who was leaking things in my campaign…So much for pipe dreams…I agree with formernadervoter…I got those same emails ..what IS up? Had he stayed in he could at least have been a king maker with ALOT of leverage…has that power scared someone??…
DAMN! I was hoping he would at least wait until “super Tueaday.” Now there is really no one to vote for. Barring an alternative candidate, I can’t see bothering but then, we can’t really expect a legitimate election anyway.
Big_Money
It seems like people still need to have a single person who is their leader..like a king or a queen..and there seems to be a need that that leader in some way carry the values of the people they lead even in their personal life. In the US many are looking for a Christian leader and your Queen is the head of the Anglican church. People seem to need a philosophical motivation like the kind of motivation that is given by a belief in a God.
I support human rights and think it is a basis for political motivation with or without a belief in God.
The Greens are an international political party which also appeals to me. I think we either all start to back human rights or we will kill one another..with war or with economic inequities or with the ravaging of the environment for the economic gain of a few.
In the current political environment in the US it is not possible to know where the politicans really stand on some important issues. They can not say their true positions because any revealing will set them up for attacks and there are only some ideas which are permitted by the people in power. I am hoping that Obama will be a step in the right direction and I am influenced by the endorsements he has received from people like the Kennedys’. Imo they have a track record of supporting liberal causes and they have more inside information about what the candidates are like.
This sucks.
Still on the other hand it means that it’s up to the repugs to clean up the mess they made instead of having the dems do it. Then take the credit for it later.
So, thanks to Trippi I think we are going to see alot of dems going independent after 08’s over. Which may force the dems to do a lot of soul searching and reorganization to keep this from happening. Which means it may have to kick out the DLC-and it’s supporters ad go back to it’s roots.
But hey I could be wrong.
You guys are joking, right? I like Edwards and Kucinich along with everyone, but are there this many people who don’t see a difference between Obama and Clinton?
If you think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a better president than Obama in this system, prepare to live a long life of bitter disillusionment.
No need to vote now? How f*#^ing ridiculous! If anything, there’s more reason, because the anti-Billary vote can now consolidate and knock the Clintons off stage. Choice is pretty clear now: your choice of one of three neocons or Barack Obama.
And whatever he says about Israel/Iran or the like, you are all aware that the second a candidate says anything AIPAC doesn’t like, s/he’s a goner. Don’t blame him for the system we have.
To those of you who declare Hill and Barack are one in the same, I’d recommend removing your heads from your hindquarters.
The primary system and Corporate Media let just a few hundred people — in just a handful of states — winnow the Democratic playing field down to two candidates almost a year in advance. Did anyone honestly expect otherwise?
Jaded Prole - “Now there is really no one to vote for.”
If democracy is doomed, it’s not because of what the corporate master have succeeded in doing. It’s because folks like you can’t see the Green Party, right there, in real life, under your nose, not some vague conspiracy theory, but an actual political party you can vote for and support.
Or am I missing something?
I am a Green, recently converted to Dennis’ campaign, now considering Ron Paul or Cynthia McKinney.
If Cynthia doesn’t look like she’s going to win, please read up on Ron’s positions, many of which are excellent. He will bring the military home, stop Wall Street’s takeover of the US, restore our civil liberties, and so on. People, believe me when I say the biggest issue facing the US is not gun control or abortion rights, it’s the secretive Federal Reserve folks’ stranglehold over our government and the media, and the same’s control of the media to prep us for a police state and a collapsed dollar economy. Ron and his people tackle this HEAD ON.
Here’s a link, but please check out the “issues” button” at top also.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/705/violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act/
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
by Ron Paul, Dr.
Summary:
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
by Ron Paul, Dr. December 6, 2007
Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the U.S. government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view H.R. 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”
There are many causes for concern in H.R. 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward U.S. government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization”–a claim for which there is no evidence–there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
Keywords: Government Surveillance
BM and Colleen, the queen is the symbolic head of state. Were she to try and disolve self rule in Canada, the monarchy would be abolished.
Shame about Eddy lad, then again only a fool would want to take over the shitpile that gomer bush has left for someone else to fix.
This is depressing news. I’m surprised. I wonder if there’s more to it than we’re being told (as usual).
It’s a choice now between a rock and a hard place.
Just interested in what the Edwards faithful have to say?
Is it now time to jump on the Obama band wagon, is he the guy to save us now?
And then a little further down the line Hillary.
I mean we all saw this coming right?
Are we completely disillusioned yet?
What a dark day. To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi:
“I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and then, suddenly, silence.”
May the Force be with you.
eshu,
The libertarians are hilarious. They argue that because of human nature all humans are self-interested and so only a capitalistic sort of system can work well. They fail to follow through with that line of reasoning, and observe all the accumulated evidence, and recognize that because of that self interest the powerful players in a capitalist system (and over time powerful players always emerge) rig the system, including by controlling the government, in accordance with their self interest.
They convince themselves that individuals who follow self interest in everything will somehow magically ignore that self interest when it comes to making sacrifices (e.g. passing up opportunities) to preserve the integrity of the so-called “free market.”
The amount of Ron Paul material on CD still somewhat surprises me.
1. Ron Paul is pro-life, whereas most progressives are pro-choice.
2. Ron Paul still apparently favors the socialization of law enforcement, the courts and military (which ultimately serve to protect private interests via coercion against the poor). Either he’s a Libertarian or not.
3. Does it matter whether it’s autocratic capitalists in office, or out of office, that call the shots, control the bulk of the wealth, wage wars to meet their goals, etc? Ron Paul’s Libertarian notions aren’t fully fleshed out for the modern era. The issue is monopolization of wealth and power. How does Paul suggest we flatten it out better, give middle- and working-class people a fighting chance again?
Maybe Edwards will become attornery general and he won’t have a problem with declaring water boarding a form of torture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001069.html?
“I sure would hope there will be a role for him,” said Gibson Vance, a Mongtomery, Ala., trial lawyer who has been a longtime friend and supporter of Edwards. “He would be a heck of a tough attorney general. Think about it.”
………………………………..
There will have to be small increments towards changing the US imo.
Maybe it would be good to pressure both Hillary and Obama to say they will choose Edwards as attorney general.
I am so sick! I think Edwards was done in by lack of adequate coverage by the corporate media who quickly ordained Clinton and Obama as the race they preferred to cover. It didn’t help that they saw him as a threat. It was also hard for him to run against the first woman and first serious black candidate in a national election. I hope he quickly comes out and endorses whichever of the remaining two that he thinks will come closest to implementing his more professive agenda.
Well, CHANGE has died and HOPE is on life-support ……… all before February of this election year. Odds aren’t even very good now of whichever compromised corporate “Democrat” we hold our nose to vote for beating a senile nutcase in November.
Turn out the lights …
rmax___ I am with you on this election farce. We have wasted too much time supporting candidates that never had a chance anyway, though Edwards should have stuck it out until the big primary day. I agree that Hillary is our best bet to combat some of this rot we have seen for seven years although she will disappoint us like all the rest would. Who cares whether Bill likes the women or not, that is Hillary`s problem, not ours, and she did not run off and cry about it but handled it, which is to her credit. Obama is a fine man, but may need a little more seasoning to take on that enormous mess Bush is leaving for someone else. Forget this dragging Hillary and Bill through the mud, the Repugs are better at it than we are anyway.
Big_Money, If you paid attention I said, ” Barring an alternative candidate . . .” If the Greens are running someone I may vote for them.
Yes, Obama might be preferable to another Clinton Administration, but that isn’t saying much.
This is a Very sad Day ,as I was Leaning Towards John Edwards My self.. I am a Member of the Green Party Here In Madison Wis.. To all who are whining and complaining about the Candiates, WHY do you not get off Your Lazy Buns and get involved in making a difference, Like Me and Others who Post on this site.. To MY WAY of thinking the Name of the Game is NOT to have Hillary Elected, Under NO Circumstances, Period.. We are NOT living in a Perfect World, BUT I do Like what OBAMA HAS TO OFFER, AND THAT IS A NEW DIRECTION WITH FRESH IDEALS AND UNITY MOST IMPORTANTLY.. IT IS TIME FOR THE BABY BOOMERS TO LET GO AND LET THE YOUNGER GENERATION TAKE OVER, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, TED KENNEDY SAID IT BEST, WE ARE READY FOR A CHANGE!! GRAN FOR CHANGE, IN MADISON WISCONSIN
colleen - “There is an underlying flaw in the way the US government has been set up by our founders.”
Surely you are right overall, but not in this case, the founders didn’t forsee the power of parties as they are now. They allowed each state to determine how its electors were chosen and then sent to the electoral college. I doubt that they ever believed in a winner take all situation in states with many times the population of others like California, Texas and New York vs. say Vermont or Wyoming.
Also in the first national elections, the President was the number 1 vote recipient in the EC and the VP was the second which created a situation where the majority AND the next largest voter group were both represented in the executive.
I honestly believe that a parlemntary system would be better, but what we have can be fixed by eliminating the winner take all primary. (start planning now so that it doesn’t become an election year issue and do it to ALL the states at once so no neither party is at a disadvantage). Also we have to have non-partisan redistricting, (maybe computer based?) so that there are fewer “secure” districts where the party never changes. It is comforting to know that San Francisco is always going to be Democratic for instance, but remember that there are a number of other districts that will always be Republican under the current system. If most districts were in play, then the politicians would have to be VERY much more responsive to the people.
For instance, we know that the majority of the US is against the war, yet their congressional representatives have no fear of voting for the war since they know they are not going to lose there seats even if they don’t represent their constituents. I read once that something like 4% of House races were really competitive. Also this would allow Greens and other smaller parties to be represented since some districts would be divided enough to not be two horse races.
Anyway, I do think we are savable with change, but it has to be bipartisan and it has to be every state at once. Maybe it is time for a federal election law covering all of this, eliminating or reforming the EC and mandating one type of voting machine that leaves a paper trail and checks for errors on site as it is submitted (crux of the Ohio ACLU suit right now)
Look we know most posters here are anti-capitalist. While I’d love to prove you otherwise chances are I’ll never convince you its good and you’ll never convince me its bad. All of this is IRRELEVANT. None of the the mainstream candidate are arguing for or against pure capitalism. They are all for knee jerk imperialism and corprotocracy. We will never reform this system as long as those desiring change don’t work together. We are at most 15-20% of the electorate yet we are always splintering and attacking each other for not towing party lines. What does that get us John McCain vs Hillary two prowar, pro corporate welfare, anti civil liberties, neoconservatives oops excuse me “moderates”. Even a moderate liberal or conservative has no dog in this fight. They embrace bipartisanship which is code for raping us in both holes at once.
quousque,
With Edwards out of the race, the senile nutcase becomes a prohibitive favorite to be the next US President. For the first time in my life, I am beginning to believe it is more likely than not that human civilization, and maybe even the human race, will not survive this half-century. The political news of today reads like a story about the end.
Maureen Dowd’s article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?
…………………………………
Hillary is an incredibly manipulative personality. Is that what America needs to change? Someone in the White House who does not tell the straight truth but is manipulating people?
I will not vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee. Then it will be a question of who I will write in…but if you can support her..well thats your right…(shrug) but imo she will cause a great deal of discord by lying and creating enemies.
Edwards for Attorney General !!!!
Everybody that expresses their sadness at this moment: really, don’t worry, the answer is Cynthia McKinney. You can always choose her. There is nothing wrong with her and she will be a candidate.
It is the perfect PROTEST vote, even if the Greens don’t win the election.
Oh, and by the way, if the Republicans steal the election again, don’t let them !
Paul Bramscher - “The amount of Ron Paul material on CD still somewhat surprises me. … Either he’s a Libertarian or not.”
Paul, do you read the material about RP here? Or just blow it off becuase he’s a Libertarian, and you already know everything about all of them?
You see his views on war? Does he not share a “Common Dream” with you on that issue?
To answer one of your specific questions, Paul, “The issue is monopolization of wealth and power. How does Paul suggest we flatten it out better, give middle- and working-class people a fighting chance again?” - He suggests we do this by stopping the process by which the government increases the money supply by obscene leaps and bounds, giving all the freshly-printed money to the govt’s buddies in the MIC, thereby diluting the wealth of everyone who didn’t get a no-bid contract to build killing machines. Which should sound good, if you consider yourself to be “progressive”.
Please ask some more specific questions, Paul. Lots of people on this forum know stuff that you can’t possibly know by closing your mind and leaning on your prejudices.
“Change” “Fresh Ideals” . . . lots of hype and good marketing but it’s meaningless without concrete examples. Change means more than appearance and a no-English name.
Goodness. Dowd’s hatred of both Clintons (and Gore) is almost psychopathic. She obviously hates any woman with more power than her! Certainly wouldn’t let her bile colour my opinion.
“Wow. No Edwards, no Kucinich. No real need to vote now. It’s hard to imagine how much more depressing this presidential campaign could get.”
–McCain winning the presidency?
Cheer up all, though Edwards was my first choice, I think Obama is marginally better than Billery. It’s also quite possible that once he gets into office (IF he gets there), he will take a sharper turn to the left.
UNFORTUNATELY, people generally vote their prejudices and, I hate say it, the majority of Americans in many ways seem to have become petty and lethargic. It may be a kind of spiritual sickness (which includes, not excludes organized religion) that only some great shock will awaken those still capable of being awakened from.
On the bright side, we will see the true character of people at that time, which always shines through when the going gets tough. I sincerely believe there is a coming economic meltdown of the likes we’ve never seen before. That being said, beliefs are often wrong and, in this respect, for myself and my family’s sake, I’d love to be wrong.
Be well all, and vote your conscience.
Goose2
“Also we have to have non-partisan redistricting, (maybe computer based?) so that there are fewer “secure” districts where the party never changes.”
yes I agree
“If most districts were in play, then the politicians would have to be VERY much more responsive to the people”
yes
Part of the problem is the lack of knowledge by the ordinary American..It may be that ideas percolate in groups like the Greens and then those ideas get taken over by candidates who are supported by the powerful people who are actually ruling this nation.
(You are right though that I am pessimistic about America..there is too much infighting and Americans are not working together to solve issues like education and health care. Without a healthy well educated people America will not do well….No matter how many weapons it has or how big its military.)
I have read every response on this thread and here is my question to all of you: we seem to go through this head-bashing against the brick wall every primary and either support or attack each other over the candidates, why? There are two sensible solutions from what I have seen on this thread;
1.) DustinChicago says it - run for local office and work your way through the system
OR
2.) Instead of focusing on the candidates, work together to change the system since it does not seem to work. How do we change it? First, have an open forum to solicit ideas. Then select a reliable group of people to draft a new document enumerating points about how to change the system. Enlist the help of legal scholars and experts (including law professors) to help craft this document. Present the document to the people, NOT the Congress or Supreme Court. It is time to abandon the government and start over.
Either way, we need to look at new approaches other than joining other political parties. Sorry, I very much applaud other political parties to challenge the single party with two factions. But we need drastic change, even an overhaul of the entire system.
That is my two cents.
Is Gravel on the ballots Feb 5?
Edwards claims to represent the poor but lives in several multi million dollar homes, worked for a hedge fund, put his own ambition before the welfare of his family and especially his wife, got a four hundred dollar haircut, voted for the authorization of war, and made a good living by representing clients as an injury attorney. What is there in his life that would cause people to believe that he represents the poor? His words only, not his actions! He is just another stealth DLC Democrat. Voters flushed him out early.
The latest fake election is over! Corporations win! Obama is just like JFK! Oh, good. The excitement and hope are almost unbearable.
Well that’s it for me.
I’m voting Green!
Cynthia McKinney for president 2008!
Big_Money,
I’ve looked into pro-capitalist Libertarian thinking for 20 years. Most all governments, throughout time, are “public” expressions of private power. Whether you’re referring to Pharaoh, Caesar, European royalty, Stalin, Hitler, or the modern US system — leaders in the “public” sphere primarily exist to further the interests of the most powerful private elite. Government is one tool of many in this regard.
As such, the crux of the problem is the monopolization, hegemony, and ultimately coercive justification for private hoarding of wealth/resources. I’m not referring to Joe Sixpacks. I’m referring to the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, dynastic families, billionaires, etc.
If you advocate for Libertarianism, then you should dial back all the way. Get rid of forcible taxes, socialized courts, law enforcement and the military. Every man to himself. Lacking any “socialized” backdrop for the justification of wealth, you or I are just as ethically “in the right” if we evict the bankers from their offices, as they are in evicting us from our homes for failing to pay mortgages. Nobody has a claim on any private property, except by force. If you can defend it, it’s yours. That’s the only libertarianism that exists in the real world, the rest is utopia (at best) or a way of sneaking corporo-fascism in the back door (at worst).
I’m 100% in favor of the maximization of liberty. But it isn’t some island government which is cramping my style. It’s unchecked massive private wealth, government being one of its multimple expressions. If it can influence government so endemically, god only knows what it can do without any checks whatsoever. But most societies have been there before, so we need go no further than the history books. Any warlord or feudal society is a prime example.
There is something here that doesn’t add up. We are only 6 days away from super Tuesday, Feb 5th. Why would John pull out now? There are millions of us ready to vote for him in 6 days to show America that he is a viable candidate. There is much more here than meets the eye. The Clinton and Obama folks see John as a threat because he was “stealing” votes that they feel would otherwise go to them. The corporate powers also see John as a serious threat to their power structure. Could these entities have somehow strong-armed John into giving in? Any theories on how they could accomplish this? What could they say to him to make him quit 6 DAYS BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY?
There were too many ironies about Edwards. One that glaringly sticks out is when he lectured Howard Dean for being, “angry” back in ‘04. Now all of sudden, Edwards became the “angry” candidate. My how things change.
Paul - I know I’m kind of obtuse, as I advocate the words of a man who I may not necessarily believe would make the best president.
But he would absolutely make the best Republican candidate. Not least because of what he says - which people NEED to hear - but the great thing about him being the poster-boy for change amongst the right-wingers would be that those who call the shots would never let him into the White House, even if only for this threats to dismantle the Fed and the MIC. If anyone else is the Republican candidate, the Diebold vote correction system will remain in place.
Chunga’s Revenge seems the sanest here. If only 50,000,000 others could be so wise.
I think Edwards should stay in until the February 5th results are in. South Carolina and Florida do not represent the whole country. I support John Edwards and I think that he would make a great president.
We all need to learn the following:
1. How elections are conducted in Canada.
2. Who the Prime Minister of Canada is.
3. How long it takes to attain Canadian citizenship.
4. When the plane leaves …
God(dess) help us all.
When I collect the 100 bucks, I’ll send it to the Kucinich campaign fund to help with their debt.
Some of us knew ‘The Fix’ was in a long time ago, and the ruling elite wins again. Gravel, Kucinich, and now Edwards. I’m convinced more than ever about Oswald Spengler’s pendulum theory about culture and civilization.
We are spiraling downward and all we have left are military threats and imperial ambitions. That’s our 21st Century contribution to the world.
This nation is in for some “shock and awe.” and it won’t be nice. “Support the Troops?” No way!
sdw917, the Prime Minister of Canada is [I edited this out for fear it might be slanderous…] Fortunately, this week, his party holds less than 50% of the seats in parliament, and that’s the only thing saving our bacon. Sadly, our media gives him free pass after free pass, while constantly pissing on the leaders of the other parties, so we are at great risk. Scandinavia and the Netherlands are further from the brink, so don’t rule them out…
As a member of the Green Party I would encourage folks here to take a look.
http://www.gp.org/index.php
If we win a legal case in NC (to be announced by a judge today), then we will have a chance to be on the ballot. This is grassroots.
Doom n Gloom–none of the candidates working within the system are squeaky clean; the system dirties them all, even while they hold their noses voting for bills they hate. Edwards, at least, was giving the underclass a voice, and in the present political climate that alone is admirable.
And to Paul’s comment about libertarianism: I agree, it seems to appeal to those who are already well to do, and don’t want any restrictions on their lifestyle. Anarchy anyone? It’s just not practical for the world we’re living in, and would even cause more hardship for many.
Since many here consider our present system inherently ‘evil’ and flawed, how can we expect to ever get a candidate who is NOT corrupt? Sometimes simple logic works best:
Again, the choice we will have is vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’ Oh joy.
dahliagirl - “There is something here that doesn’t add up. We are only 6 days away from super Tuesday, Feb 5th. Why would John pull out now? There are millions of us ready to vote for him in 6 days to show America that he is a viable candidate.”
I have to disagree. JE is not a viable candidate as he is not 1 or 2. That is all the spaces there are in this sort of election. He even lost his home state. HOWEVER, he has shown strong enough to be VP. Hillary and Obama are never going to be on the same ticket, but either could pair with him, in theory at least. Also why keep running and spending money (millions and millions for the next 6 days alone) when you haven’t a chance in the world of winning?
I think he is smart. He did his best, he is saving his money for 2012(?) and now he won’t be out campaigning so he won’t be giving anyone fodder to throw back at him. In this environment, the more you say, the more you bleed. By convention time, he’s going to be the best if not only choice for VP. I think that works for him and it sets him up to run for Pres in the next or next +1 election.
This article from cnn.com (I know, I know, take what they say with a grain of salt) goes into a little bit of detail about John Edwards’ decision - not enough media coverage for him to be heard, for one; it was NOT a campaign funding issue, and it was NOT due to his wife’s health situation, according to an Edwards advisor:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
My guess (FWIW): he knows he can’t win at this point; he’s being shut out like Kucinich was; and he thinks there’s still time to stop Hillary Clinton from winning if Edwards’ supporters throw their support to Obama. (That is my wish, as I prefer Obama to Clinton.)
“Again, the choice we will have is vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’ Oh joy.”
Do people’s computers not show sentences containing the word “Green”?
Big_Money,
I like a number of things Ron Paul says. But unless I could sit down with him over coffee and ask about half a dozen questions, I have to assume that he’s the private arm of private industry speaking.
It isn’t government which makes it almost impossible for me to open a small business in my community. It’s Fleet Farm, Wal-Mart, and a host of other Big Boxes. It isn’t government which has caused me to neglect my real passions in life (writing, hiking, reading, nature photopgraphy, etc.) it is the racketeered real estate situation, and the amount I need to work just to put a roof over my head. It isn’t government which caused Iraq. It was Big Oil. Etc, etc.
America may be the only country with pro-capitalist libertarians. The original libertarians were intellectual anarchists, basically anthropologists, taking issue with unchecked power structures in general (whether government, corporate, etc.). Ron Paul’s analysis is too simple for such a bright guy, and therefore I don’t trust him.
As for Edwards, Kucinich, etc. what do the folks here think who donated money to their campaigns? Was it a waste? Better to have donated to a homeless shelter or local food shelf where it would have made a real impact on someone’s lives? (I’m asking this sincerely.)
What this article points out to me is that we just cannot pin all our hopes on any one single candidate, as if he or she were the new messiah, come to save us all. Some focused on Kucinich (including me), but he was made invisible, and didn’t have enough money to run. Others focused on Edwards, but he dropped out of the race, for one reason or another. So now we’re left with either Obama or Hillary. I guess I’ll go with Obama for four reasons: Kucinich endorsed him, he did pro-bono legal work for the poor in Chicago after law school, because just maybe he’ll pull an FDR if he gets elected, and because Hillary is a monster and also is so polarizing that she’s probably the only democratic candidate that can lose to whichever of the motley crew of republican candidates out there that manages to get the republican nod.
But the real deal is that we have to somehow unite and let ALL the politicians know, regardless as to what party they’re from, that we’re not taking it anymore. It seems to me that the only way we can do this is to simply stop supporting the big corporations that support the politicians. Buy from the little guy and don’t watch TV. Hurt them where it matters to them: in their bank accounts. Send ABC’s, NBC’s, CBS’s, Fox’s and CNN’s ratings down into the basement until they tell their employees, the politicians, to give us something so we’ll start shopping and start watching again.
The politicians aren’t the bosses, the big corporations are. But we can be their bosses if we don’t buy what they have to sell unless they do what we want. IF we can get together to do this, which is a big “if.”
The action has to happen at the local level. Give up on the corporate dominated anointing of the next CEO of USA Inc.
At the local level so much more can happen. Let’s let Cindy Sheehan be an inspiration. There is still time to elect progressive people at local levels.
Let’s shut off the damn TV, shun the national political bullshit and get local. Support local food growers, local hardware stores, the local coffee shop, the co-op, and elect local people you know and trust. We are a nation of locals, even if you live in a large city there are local neighborhoods.
Over 70% of people polled want us out of Iraq now. Anyone hear about that in the national campaign? On Corporate media? 70% is a helluva lot of people and we all live in some form of small community.
At the national level it seems all is lost, but through incremental gains at the local level maybe we can turn this fiasco around.
I donated money to Dean last time, Edwards this time…was my money wasted? I tell myself NO because in each case they were talking about things no one else was talking about…Dean was No War and Edwards has been pointing out the corporate influence…although admittedly he has recently been couching it as a “poverty issue??”,,so I consider it advertising money to some degree…But, I am a little more upset about my Edwards donation…He is running well enough to keep his (my) issues out there..and he has the funding…I don’t get it…
Paul, I don’t regret at all giving money to Dennis Kucinich, because I believe it was important for his message to get out there, even though he wasn’t going to win the nomination. It’s especially important that people donate to his congressionel re-election campaign, because he’s one of the few in Congress who fights for us, and there are many forces at work trying to force him out of office.
www.kucinich.us
If you look up the Green Party you will see what the problem is.
In many Europe states and even Canada their system is not so much winner take all or Majoritarian, which mean that it is designed to include representation of minority parties like the Greens and many others… So it is natural for the parties to form alliances so that the government can make decisions.
If someone like John Edwards can’t win, you got to come up with a way that the Greens can win and then you got to work your ass off If you got the time and energy…Do You really?
Now we should know that is not the system we have.
The Greens and all the 3rd parties in the US act as if they are each the only true party… a losing method from the start.
So look up the Green Party USA and you won’t find much about alliances…
3rd parties in the USA are setting themselves up up to be powerless on the national scene. The Greens have a few hundred members in local governments but none in State and national governments. They have 10 principals from 2000 but they think that these principals will somehow beat the system.
If you want to join the Greens please go ahead but if you want them to win you can’t sit on your ass like you can as a Dem or Repub. you got to get out and talk to everyone and get elected yourself. if you just join a third party and are not committed to working harder that you ever did in your life and be prepared and content that the winner take all system will likely still defeat you than you are a great American. So many hear say “I’ll vote Green” and think that will change the world… Well the first thing you will have to do to win any state or national office is to get the Greens and many other 3rd parties to form alliances… and don’t be afraid of the progressive Dems because without them you will get nowhere..
Most of the folks who complain don’t sound like they are ready for all the blood sweat and tears to sacrifice for the challenge that will likely fail if they don’t first face the facts of the problem.
Just a reality check folks from a guy who has been around the block… a Cold War Kid.
Good Luck Folks
Edwards was kind of another Howard Dean: a candidate with a not overly progressive voting record running a very progressive campaign. Unlike Dean he did not have the huge populist internet-based fundraising machine, and he never attained that front-runner, almost-inevitable status. The Military-Media-Entertainment-Complex had to knock Dean out with a very well orchestrated campaign that manufactured doubts about his “electability.” With Edwards, the method was to damn him by ignoring him. Turn it into a two-candidate race, with Hillary-or-Obama as “inevitable.” What continually amazes me is how many people can be led by the nose into accepting this manufactured “choice” — as though it were self-evident that Hillary OR Obama were the ONLY choice. Isn’t it a pity.
I am supporting Ron Paul for many reasons. He supports ending our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, he wants to bring all our troops home and stop our imperialistic military hubris in South Korea, and about 100 other places on Earth, he is a strong Constitutionalist and will take his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution more seriously than any other candidate, he opposed The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act and HR 1955, “The Stifling of Dissent on the Internet Act of 2007″, he has been consistently opposed to the death penalty his entire career as a Congressman, he wants to abolish the IRS and The Federal Reserve and to create a money system in the United States that is secure and NOT controlled by the whims of private bankers.
I realize he is pro-life. But at least he feels that all “hot-button” issues should be decided by the states, including the abortion issue. He at least supports Americans being allowed to ingest whatever homeopathic and natural herbs we want (some of which are natural abortifacients), he is solidly against the War on Drugs and would not fight the various states who have voted to make marijuana legal for medicinal use. I feel certain he would fight for the various states to grow hemp (which is already being grown in Canada and in other countries). If nothing else, I think he would put the brakes on “The Unitary Executive”.
And frankly, the more I think about it, the less I support any national system to give health care to all Americans. I’d rather cut the nose off the IRS so all of us can keep our money and instead perhaps develop more localized health care systems that the citizens will have control over instead of the bureaucrats.
But you know the BIGGEST reason I am supporting Ron Paul? Because he has been shunned by the MSM. After every Fox debate (except the one they excluded him from), Ron Paul won all their text polls and I loved watching Sean Hannity have to say, “The results of our text poll tonight are that Ron Paul won the debate. BUT HE DIDN’T!!!!!” Schmuck.
I enjoy watching the spinmeisters try to sandbag Ron Paul in the debates, like when they asked him about the fact that most 9/11 Truthers support his campaign. “Are you willing to stand here tonight and shun these people who claim our own government somehow had a hand in the events of 9/11?” And Ron Paul said, “I do not support what they believe but I have no control over what others think and do. All I can say is that if they support me they should not bring up the issue if it hurts my candidacy, now can I please participate in this debate and answer the question on the economy that was asked of all the others ….please?!”
The MSM cannot stand him because he NEVER smears another candidate. He just calls the shots as he sees them. I honestly feel that because the MSM have become cheerleaders for the military industrial complex they hate Ron Paul because he will heed Eisenhowers warning from over 40 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
When you consider how the MSM is salivating over the thought of McCain (Bush on steroids!!), then it becomes obvious how they are trying their level best to deep six Ron Paul.
And on a personal note, the guy is an Ob/Gyn doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies and has been married to the same woman for over 50 years!
Please, watch the debate from the Reagan library tonight on CNN at 8pm EST. Notice how they give him the least time and switch questions trying to marginalize him.
After being a hard core Progressive Democrat for 40 years I can no longer stomach the “going along to get along” anti-Constitutional behavior of the Democrats. I’ll bet even Kucinich will roll over and kiss Pelosi’s ring. Never again for me. I don’t trust Obama or Clinton. They both support AIPAC and Ron Paul does not. Yet ANOTHER reason the MSM is marginalizing him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9At-PejXNIw
Jim Glover - Thanks for what you say and for your wisdom.
Had the Greens won the NC court case today, I was prepared to run (and hopefully get a few percent), but alas, I have just found out it was not to be. Once again the ballot in NC is in essence restricted to the two parties.
I agree with what you say regarding alliances, but if third parties can’t even get on the ballot (the obstacles have been a moving target in NC and very extreme), then they are not even in the position to make deals.
The “game” is rigged. The system is flawed. Because of this it will sooner or later collapse upon itself.
Nevertheless, on a local level we can still all make an impact. Nationally, I view it as equivalent to reality TV. A big joke that hopefully will end sooner rather than later.
Too bad about Edwards. I would have voted for him, but just like the Green’s having a chance to be on the NC ballot, I suppose it was not meant to be.
Peace,
Ken
Why is Ron Paul still invited to the debates? Not quite totally marginalized yet?
Edwards quit because it was obvious he was not going to win. Maybe he is looking in the future four years from now-who knows? One thing I don’t see many speculating about here is that fact his wife’s cancer reocurring which is an ominous threat to her life-that has to be a huge psychological blow, to have the rug pulled out from under you at home and then finish poorly in the primaries plus not looking good in the polls I think he has made the move he has to make.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who would Ron Paul put in the Supreme Court? Ask yourself that question, one more Conservative voice and forget any progressive agenda surviving the Court for 40 years.
CYNTHIA MCKINNEY…. www.runcynthiarun.org
If you were for Kucinich or Edwards, how could you not be for Cynthia McKinney? She’s an answer to our progress.
Remember, this is all long term. Altervative parties must be built, and the altervative to that; start over. Of course, that could get real messy, but hey, it is as it is.
I love Cynthia McKinney but she is not a viable candidate because the press has already portrayed her as an off-the-wall radical without credebility. That woulld be so hard for her to overcome that it would be a diversion from the issues.
Goose2, good points all. But here is the problem I see. I believe that neither Hillary or Barack can win the General Election. On the Hillary side, there are just too many people out there that intensely dislike the Clintons. The Republicans will very successfully mobilize their constituents to go to the voting booth to vote *against* Hillary, even if they are not particularly excited about their Republican candidate. On the Obama side of the equation, I really do not think that America is ready for an African American to be president (as much as I would like to see it myself). I beleive that the Republicans would love to see either Hillary or Obama as the Democratic candidate. They are ready and waiting in the wings to go into full attack mode. They will have a heyday with either one of them, maybe more so with Hillary. So, where does this leave us? With another Republican for President. I personally know of two people in my life alone, that if either Hillary or Obama are the Dem candidate, then they will vote Republican or not vote at all.
Someone please describe for me Cynthia McKinney’s “Green record” before she effectively removed herself from Congress?
TO THOSE THINKING GREEN: Please don’t waste your vote!!!
I’m ex-Green Party, have seen it up close and personal, and it is FUBAR. Democrats are the only vehicle in our antiquated system that can possibly save us, so work to change it as much as possible, as soon as possible.
Sorry Idealists, but the Greens are a dead horse.
abbybwood,
I’d feel a lot better about Ron Paul if his “ism” was about getting corporations out of government, rather than government out of corporations. One should happen before the other. An enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily a friend. The neo-nazis are also ignored by the Corporate Media. In fact, everyone who isn’t a millionaire (or lacks millionaire friends), is not photogenic, or isn’t a crypto-neocon is disqualified by the Corporate Media.
Ron Paul’s popularity among young/idealistic pawns of run-amok capitalism is indicative of growing chink in the usual conservative bloc. But too bad they’re so misguided. It was Big Oil in the White House that brought us Iraq, not government in the boardroom meetings at Halliburton, Exxon, etc. It is Big Insurance in government that prevents single-payer from going through, ad infinitum. As soon as Paul changes his tune and advocates for genuine maximization of liberty, and not simply more deregulation in a different wrapping paper, he might gain broader traction.
Unfortunate. Is there any difference from Clinton and Mccain? As far as Obama goes, he was clapping and smiling way to much for G.W. at the state of union. Impeachment is off the table because these guys are all the same, sharing the same greedy interests. Obama is no different. Hill promised us voter reform, what happened there? I could go on and on, instead i think it is time to evacuate.
I don’t know if this is true or just wishful thinking on the part of the corporate media. I am waiting until I actually hear the words out of John Edwards’s mouth.
I’ll bet he’s cut a deal with the powers that be. I wonder what they offered him? We’re looking at a lose lose situation here. I don’t want any of the current candidates.
Sheep being lead to slaughter.
Gravel is still in. Gravelanche 2008!!!
It is true, as Jim Glover says, that to be a Green is much more difficult than being a Democrat. It involves going to meetings and running for office yourself. (I guess you could change the old joke- I’m not an alcoholic, I’m a drunk. Alcoholics go to meetings- to- I’m not a Green, I’m a progressive. Greens go to meetings. But it’s not as funny that way).
For Dustin in Chicago, here’s a link to the Illinois Greens
http://ilgp.org/
In Chicago, Julie Samuels ran for the 8th State Rep in 2004 as a Green and got the endorsement of the Chicago Tribune, although she lost.
In 2006, she ran with Rich Whitney for governor/lt.governor, and they got almost 11% of the state vote. If Dustin in Chicago doesn’t know this, it’s because the corporate media focuses on the front runners in the horse race.
In 2006, Dorian Bruer ran in the 1st District and got the endorsements of the Tribune and the Sun Times, as I recall.
The Greens were clearly the best candidates, but voters are so brainwashed into believing that they must pick from the 2 regular choices, that they lost the election.
This is where we are now. Cynthia McKinney is clearly the best choice for President, but many people, even on Common Dreams will convince themselves that the candidate raking in the most money from the military-industrial complex is secretly anti-war. The wife of the man who starved Iraqis, bombed Yugoslavia with depleted uranium, attacked welfare in the US, pushed through NAFTA and the WTO, will be supported by many “progressives” who will, once again, be fooled.
Jaded Prole,
“I love Cynthia McKinney but she is not a viable candidate because the press has already portrayed her as an off-the-wall radical without credebility. That woulld be so hard for her to overcome that it would be a diversion from the issues.”
You are exactly the problem. You would rather vote evil over what is right. Who cares about winning 2008, it’s about the 5% and exposure of those very issues you think will get exposed with Obillary.
Good luck living in an extreme totalitarian country.
P.S. F#ck the press.
Oh, and don’t forget the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which helped bring us today’s corporate media.
But if you close your eyes, make a wish, and clap your hands, Democrats will bring you the better world you want.
Be sure not to open your eyes.
greenerthanthou:
Most progressives are wiser than this. The problem isn’t that 1-5% who won’t be fooled again — the problem is that it’s only 1-5%. Progressives are ridiculously small numerically. It’s the naive middle America Boomers who are always re-fooled, time and again, and outnumber us easily 10:1.
I’m sorry, but Ron Paul is responsible for the content of his self-published newsletters, no matter how hard he tries to distance himself from any knowledge of what he used to publish, which is a truly bizarre defensive strategy. At least he could say he had an epiphany or something. I don’t trust a man who had to clean up his image so extensively for national consumption.
Here’s a live feed to John Edwards’ speech in New Orleans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201240.html
The backdrop behind his podium is priceless — ramshackle homes that are the legacy of Katrina. Kudos to you, John Edwards, for this impressive visual statement.
To thinkingmom:
I believe Ron Paul is still being invited to the debates because he is still in the race and is flush with cash. You may not know that he set the record for raising more $$ from individuals in one day than any other candidate in history.
He is running a truly “grassroots” campaign. And believe me, he’s driving the Republican establishment up the wall!
I attended The Connecticut Republican Straw Poll here in Middletown last Friday evening at the Elks Lodge. There were about 300 people there and the vote came down: Romney, McCain, Paul, Huckabee, Giuliani.
As of today, The Hartford Courant has STILL not reported the results. Why? Because it drives them NUTS that Ron Paul came in third!
Think about how ambitious Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Romney are. They are SALIVATING over having power. I believe Ron Paul honestly considers himself to be a public “servant” unlike any of the other candidates.
We need to put the brakes on the Unitary Executive, not stoke the engine. Ron Paul is the brakes.
abby: What are Ron Paul’s suggestions for getting the corporate influence out of government, and more evenly distributing wealth/power/resources/real estate among Americans? These two problems account for probably 99% of America’s ills today.
re 10:24am
the dlc is here to remind us what our obligations are (vote as you’re told; then go quietly to your homes, pray for the best, and don’t annoy the grownups while they’re doing big important stuff).
i’ll decide for myself what my obligations are, thank you very much. in the case of our blatantly rigged elections, they are: to vote for the candidates who best represent my values and aspirations, regardless of their chances of victory (that’s one day’s work); then to go into the public spaces and create pressure on the eventual winners to do right (that’s the other 364).
those who allow corporations and their hired nannies to decide for them which candidates they may vote for, or what forms their protests may take, are surely deserving of whatever fate awaits them. it’s tragic, though, that so many innocent bystanders will suffer along with them.
the only wasted vote is the one uncast.
First Kucinich, now Edwards. The media decides who gets the coverage and therfore who is forced
to quit.
John gave an inspiring speech,even while announcing the end of his bid for the presidency.The Democratic Party needs to listen and return to it’s roots as a working and poor people’s party.
While in Congress, Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment against Bush (H.R. 1106), which makes three charges against Bush: manipulating intelligence and lying to justify the war in Iraq, failing to uphold accountability and violating privacy laws with his domestic spying program.
Which other Presidential candidate would do this or why haven’t they already?
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.
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.
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.
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.
how depressing, i thought he was a good candidate
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, Ron Paul kicked ass in Florida. He has a swell chance.
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?
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.