Given the looming recession, if not depression or collapse, Obama should make Edwards the V-P nominee and encourage Edwards to drive the "two Americas" theme home, in the manner of true populism. I don't agree with Kuttner that he was off-putting by this message. Edwards can make the case; he has been a V-P nominee before, and Obama can benefit from staying above the fray and playing the role of the unifier. Clearly, someone needs to make the case for the wealth and inequality gap. this is not rocket science; the economy grows and real wages decline, as the richest .001 percent collects as much as the bottom half!

Only silly people who think they might get into the elite club would back such policies. Don't reign in Edwards, give him the license to drive home the point. And the fact that he is successful and not simply grousing, shoule make the message more resonant!

Lets get real here. It was Dennis Kucinich that had the whole progressive agenda, and for years..He voted against the war, and he never planned to keep our troops there, as both these Democratic candidates plan to do. Edwards even made mention of protecting american assets: ie. the huge embassy in Baghdad, protecting oil and securing some type of agreement to share oil revenues. Edwards connections to corporate interests, such as his hedge fund partners, was never fully answered whenever he was questioned. However, I would have supported him out of default.I think he would have been truer to the cause than either of these two. The two running give me little confidence for change.

There is much good to be said about the "Edwards message". He is overwhemingly RIGHT about many things.
But voters twice (in 2004 and this time) did not rally around John Edwards, the man. This is the single reason why Obama should win the presidency without appearing to need John Edwards "on board" in order to get that win.

Obama is both capable and willing, once in office, to implement many of Edwards' themes---especially if we give him the important enabling tool, a Dem Congress.
But Obama is ascending on his own and does not need to be diluted at the moment with a forced mix-in of someone else who has not been able to win.

If Edwards was to merely give Obama a no-strings endoresement, well, that would be great. But, oddly, that hasn't happened. And that's the only kind of "help" that Obama either needs or should accept.

"Edwards's?" In a headline, in the Boston Globe? Where are good editors when you need them?

93% of Americans who actually vote will vote on the same basis as they did for student body Pres in High School: "Pretty"; "Popular"; "Rich"; "Part of the 'in' crowd"; "Tight butt" (or big tits); "Would like to have sex with them (strictly hetero, this is America after all)"; or "The coach likes him so I like him".

Not a single "issue" will cloud their consciousness. 93%. Hells bells, more than 90% don't read even if they can.

But boy, does this ever make an exciting football game to watch like a true American, from the sidelines. Besides, All Americans know, elections are the same thing.

BIGGG MONEY. EVERYWHERE IS BIIIGGG MONEY. You seldom see or hear the Owners - we are told to focus on the razzle dazzle. We don't decide who wins and we have no say in the decisions made or the outcomes. We are entertained observers with our popcorn and our beer and we have no "right" to interfere although we may voice our opionions (meaningless though they are) on every "sports radio" show in America.

But boy do we get excited talking about HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE and how "strong" the players are and how they've got a big muscle. Enjoy the show, you have already paid (where do you think the Owners got all their money - they stole it from you to buy the Team).

But heh, check the Vegas line, at least you might be able to make a few bucks on the primaries between now and Doomsday. Get back some of the cumshaw that the Owners stole from you.

@ rcn: "Edwards's" is perfectly acceptable, you smarmy little douchebag.

If Obama is serious about Edwards' message, he'll appoint him Attorney General, where he can do some serious work on corporate malfeasance.

Looks to me like Obama-Boxer is the obvious ticket. Woman. Warm. Smart. California. What more could we ask for?

I think you mis-understood the meaning of RCNs post~Mycroft~.

I fail to see how Edwards could endorse Obama or Hillary and have any credlible endorsment. After their last debate Edwards ran TV ads and made numerous televised speeches for three days, saying Obama and Hillary were not ADULT enough to be our president. So suddenly, Obama grew up and now Edwards can endorse him? __ I believe John Edwards knows far more about Obama than we do.

Ah, come on ... this isn't strong stuff. The only way its even vaguely strong is if compared to Obama's earlier completely content free repetitive chants of 'hope' and 'change'.

He still does not say what he'll do.

For instance, there's no hint in this that for most Americans, pensions don't even exist any more. Is Obama going to do anything to change that? Or is it ok with him that most Americans are watching their retirement plans fall with the falling values of their 401k stock investments?

Wow, he said something sharp about his Republican opponent. That's in the dog-bites-man category of non-news.

And of course, he says nothing detailed about what he'd do to protect Americans from the fallout of the housing crisis and the economic contraction its causing. Nor does he say anything concrete about what changes in banking regulation and enforcement he'd implement to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Yep, Obama's pollsters found a few new words that make the needles jump and are now implementing them into his speaches. But in terms of real specifics, or real 'strong stuff', this ain't close.

The other day, I saw a comment from a Dem sycophant to the effect that people like me would have said in 1932 that there was no difference between FDR and Hoover. Of course, that was obvious BS. But what it did was make me go back and read FDR's nomination acceptance speech to the 1932 Dem convention.

Its an amazing speech. Google it and you can find it. At the very beginning, he pledges to be clear and open about anything he proposes to do if elected President. Words that you'll never hear from Obama or most other modern candidates. And then he follows through with a long detailed speech that largely lays out the New Deal that he plans to implement ... in specifics.

Its so different from a vague, pollster-tested, feel-good Obama speech that its very striking.

Edwards likely does not know much about the new Common Dreams ~Riverman~ however. And I'm sure he doesn't wish to know.

OK, I'm sure I've missed something, but what is it that Edwards has done that makes everyone call him a lying fraud. Is this all about who he endorses?

I guess my first problem is that I could rarely give a @%@# about which politician endorses another politician. I've long since gotten the habit of thinking on my own, so I really just don't give a damn who a Kennedy endorses or who Edwards endorses.

Beyond that, I can't think of anything he could have done in the last week that conclusively proves that his talk and campaign platform were all phony.

Me, I'll sit back and wait a year or two and see. If he's still out their leading anti-poverty programs and still out there speaking on the same issues he raised in the campaign even when he's not running for Pres, then I'll believe he was serious about this. If he drops it completely and forgets all about this stuff, then I'll know it was all a fake. Time will tell. It always does.

Sorry ~Mycroft~. After clearing my head, I see you did read @RCNs post correctly.

luckylefty says:

"93% of Americans who actually vote will vote on the same basis as they did for student body Pres in High School: "Pretty"; "Popular"; "Rich"; "Part of the 'in' crowd"; "Tight butt" (or big tits); "Would like to have sex with them (strictly hetero, this is America after all)"; or "The coach likes him so I like him"."

To my own amazement, I actually was elected student body president late in my high school junior year to serve as such in the senior year. I had exactly NONE of the attributes listed above and ZERO "political" experience, never, ever having been elected anything before at school and never having even attended a student council meeting. That's just my kid stuff.

But, I LIKE that Obama is coming out of nowhere, and in many ways, I think his lack of experience is an asset. People, after all, who have long, long "experience" in politics also have long, long lists of former associates seeking favors. Imagine, for instance, how long the Clintons' list of hangers-on might actually be.

John and Elizabeth Edwards were helping hundreds of people, in many ways, before he ever ran for public office and ever since he did.

Geez, what's with this attack on Edwards? It has only been a couple of weeks since the man dropped out of the presidential contest and we have people baying for his blood. Give the man some time, especially since his wife has not been in the pink of health lately.

The silver lining is that a few others are of similar opinion.

Thank you ~Thought Shaman~.

~Riverman~ do you have any idea at all of how much money the Edwards dontate to charitable causes? Do you have any idea of how many civil cases they have taken Pro-Bono? Did you know that the reason we see so many payday loan companies is because of Obama and those who voted with him?

Edwards had as much vision for the country as Obama, but the great powers decided they wanted Obama. Maybe we should ask why? Edwards was prepared to go to work and had plenty of experience to do that, but it would not have pleased the big guys running the show.

Obama does not say he will hold some of the corporate shills feet to the fire, but that he will bring everyone together in unity. Does anyone really believe that will be possible? I am not too sure that is the right message to begin with as we need to clean house first and get along later.

This stupidity of bashing both Clinton and Edwards while idolizing Obama is not helpful in making proper decisions.

Edwards is a phoney.
He agreed with Billary about rigging the debates-and now look at him.

Phoney.

Are you positive of that "rigging"? Kucinich has not said that.

They spoke of it briefly, but did Edwards do anything to rig?

Daniel David said '(Obama) does not need to be diluted at the moment with a forced mix-in of someone'

That's the best description of my sentiments on V.P. suggestions. Thanks for articulating it.

And for whoever suggested Boxer, please God no! She's hardly got support here in Sacramento and mainly gets voted in because she represents a conventional/sure-thing Democratic win, something akin to what Hillary was counting on.

That said, Obama will probably want to pick someone with a responsible/statesmanlike reputation in International affairs. (I know, alot of the country see's California AS a foreign country, but we're really not.)

The Senate is split 49-2-49.

Let's leave Boxer where she is. She's doing good work on the investigating committees.

Being a Senator himself, Obama would do well to pick a Washington "outsider" and someone with executive experience... a state governor. Someone with a little time in the House of Reps or Federal Administration would be even better.

Bill Richardson comes to mind.

The more Obama sounds like Edwards, the easier he is to stomach.

I still think that Edwards would have made a great President. Whatever Edwards does next, what will influence his decision is what good he can do.

If the Democrats choose Hillary or Obama, and he is asked to be the running mate, I think Edwards would insist that certain condition be met and that if these conditions are not met that he will walk.

Edwards ran on the issues being paramount and I don't see him abandoning that.

The whole flack about the haircut is a phony one - even phonier now that I know the story behind it.

ekay1946:
You got it straight. The "two Americas" came right out of the Kucinich "Prayer For America". Edwards was Kucinich very lite at best.

All the above arguing is futile. Edwards is out and whoever on this site decides to vote for ANY Dem will have to hold their nose and sniff their underarms to make their "selection". THAT is the real bottom line.

I seriously doubt either one will select Edwards for VP. Attorney General perhaps. Edwards is a super delegate and now says he wil vote for Hillary.

I'm sure many here will disagree, But the person I think Obama should pick as VP is Al Gore,
although I'm not sure he would want the job again. Gore, outside of the U.S. is well known
and liked, the two of them would bring back a lot of respect for the U.S.

Since Kucinich dropped out, I don't know why I bother reading these election articles anymore. I'm not going to waste my vote on whoever the Dems appoint as their candidate. I've had enough with choosing between two evils that sold their souls to the corporate rulers. I'm done with it.

I'm writing in either Kucinich or McKinney.

If Obama is the nominee, he should choose Charles Barkley as his running mate. That would be good, an intelligent president, and an intelligent and honest VP who has a high degree of good common sense.

Like I said, Edwards would have made a great President. He is still a young guy ...

RE Hillary

Where did you hear this - last I heard a day ago was that Edwards was still uncommitted. Is this something to be announced or something that was already announced?

There is supposed to be a budget in two weeks. If more MPs vote against a budget than for it, the government is defeated and Canada has another election.

Huh! So it's Obama's voice speaking Edwards' message, but Edwards is supposedly going to endorse Hillary? Sort of shows Edwards up as being full of empty rhetoric.

Obama is not a unifier. Wake up. He's a celebrity. He's no more of a unifier than Brett Favre is for Packer fans.

Obama's no progressive either. Will you progressives actually look at his record.

On the basis of proposing an increase in military spending Obama is disqualified from the progressive label.

Or his phony universal health insurance plan. He is clueless. Only single payer gets us to universal health care and he flip flopped on that one. Talk about a man who has already missed his destiny. 70% of Dems favor single payer. They need a leader. But it's not Obama. And the reason is because he's not a progressive.

In 2004 I ran (unsuccessfully) as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention pledged to Dennis Kucinich. Since that time, I have continued to support Dennis because his positions on the issues most closely match mine. This year however, even before Dennis dropped out of the Presidential race, I decided to switch my support to Barack Obama. Here are the reasons why.

Our human species, having come to dominate our planet, now stands at a crossroads. We are at a point where our own actions threaten the very survival of our species and perhaps all species on the planet. We are confronted by four great threats to our survival. I believe it is entirely possible that unless we take significant action within the next ten years, any of these four threats may reach a tipping point where our survival is no longer within our hands.

The first great threat is the escalating catastrophic destruction of our environment, most exemplified by man-made global warming. Second is the barbaric violence unleashed around the world through a belief in, and embracing of, militarism by so many nations and peoples, particularly the US. Third is the crushing poverty and joblessness for vast numbers of people on our planet resulting in increasing starvation and sickness among the worlds' poor. Fourth is the deliberate inculcation among the general public of nihilism, despair, resignation, passivity, compliance and/or acceptance regarding these oppressive conditions.

These four threats all stem from the same root cause: the tyranny of unchecked corporate power, in both the workplace and society, which now dominates the decision making of most nations.

So why am I supporting Senator Obama? Clearly, among the Democratic front runners and prior to dropping out of the campaign, John Edwards has most clearly indicated his intention to take on the entrenched corporate power that threatens our democracy and our survival. In fact, there is hardly an issue where I am in complete agreement with Senator Obama on the specifics of the changes we need to bring about. However, there are four elements that I believe will need to be in place in order for any President - Kucinich, Edwards, or Senator Obama – to bring about the changes we need.

First, to be elected as a Democrat in 2008, any candidate will need to generate a huge turnout that will overcome any attempts to steal the election in such states as Florida and Ohio. Senator Obama has demonstrated that he can inspire people to believe in something bigger than themselves. The young, independents, the dispossessed, even Independents and Republicans are flocking to his politics of meaning and hope. Only Senator Obama appears to have the ability to turn out the numbers that no vote fixing will be able to stop.

Second, once elected, any President will need a significantly increased Democratic majority in Congress to ensure that there are enough votes to overcome the entrenched corporate interests within both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. Far too many of the Democrats will always go along to get along.

The truth of this can be seen by the results of 2006 where, even with Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, we cannot end the war nor impeach the worst President/Vice President combination in history. Only Senator Obama appears to have the ability to turn out the record number of voters that I believe will be necessary to elect Democratic majorities that are willing to confront the corporate lobbyists.

Third, once elected, any President will need to be pushed by a mass movement made up of grassroots Americans who demand the changes we need. FDR was famous for looking at progressive proposals and telling those who supported them, "This is great, I support this, now go out and make me do it."

No President will make the changes needed, in the face of the corporate power that will attempt to block those changes, unless the American people rise up and force that change to occur. It is not enough to go to the polls on Election Day. Democracy demands more of us. It demands that we become effective participants in the day-to-day struggle for the legislation and polices we need to ensure our survival. The corporations are engaged in that participation on an ongoing basis. We can, and must, do no less.

Also, the President we elect must be willing to take those actions that will enable that change. I can only hope that, based not just on Barack's rhetoric, but also his background with NYPIRG and as a community organizer in Chicago, that when given the chance he will rise to the occasion. It is indicative to me that only Senator Obama is running his campaign in such a way as to put in place the community organizing and mass mobilization that will be necessary to advance a progressive agenda once he is elected.

Fourth, and most importantly, a President who believes that he or she can get things done without that mass movement simply will not be able to bring about the changes I believe necessary. Only Senator Obama realizes that it requires "we" not "he" to bring about transformative change.

So I support Senator Obama because he, and right now only he, can put in place the elements required for the change I believe in. Once he is elected, then it will be up to us to fight for the change we want. That is an opportunity that I last felt in 1968. With Senator Obama, I feel it once again. And that opportunity is all that I can ask for in this campaign.

yep attorney general go get those arrogant greedy corporate fucks
before we do, put them in jail or fish food they will be
starting with the gold mining CEO's
Viva La Revolucion

Dennis for vice prez
Oprah for secy state

defense needs to be maybe UMMMMM shame the CIA killed Lennon
they all the rest of the world would not want to blow us up

ok, letz see keep Colin Powell maybe?

Bill Benet wrote: "So I support Senator Obama because he, and right now only he, can put in place the elements required for the change I believe in. Once he is elected, then it will be up to us to fight for the change we want."

My sentiments too. Kucinich is gone. I may not know where Obama will take us, but I know where Hillary will not. I'll take the chance, however miniscule, that we can influence Obama with progressive policies. I know Hillary is not interested unless she just comes out and publicly repudiates much of her history and actions, but let's not hold our collective breaths.

"Dennis for vice prez"

Wishful thinking, dreaming, whatever. But then, I am guilty of dreaming for the same. Highly unlikely, methinks. Hence, we have to get off our collective rear-ends and try to influence President Obama's policies.

I agree with Bill Benet on Obama--very well put.

Robert Kuttner, I don't know how I've missed reading you before.
Your eloquent prose makes elegant music for me. I intend to go back to The Prospect and your book(s)
With your Mass.,Berkeley and Princeton, Robert Reich and Paul Krugman associations, you're at the apex of who and what this nation so badly needs.

I hope riverman never serves on a jury, as his idea of "proof" is on a first-grade level. He says that Edwards is a "lieing (sic) corrupt politician" because he has stopped criticizing Hillary and hasn't endorsed Obama. He thinks Edwards should have spent months of hard work and preparation for his legal cases without earning a commensurate financial reward. I believe the plaintiffs usually receive two-thirds of awards given. Riverman, do you also think FDR was lying and corrupt because he didn't give his wealth away when he spoke for the poor? Please spare us your emotional, vitriolic diatribes.

I still have my Edwards for President sign on my front lawn. And I don't have plans to take it down any time soon. (And I voted for him on Super Tues., like the other half million of Americans who did the same.)

His campaign and his work on poverty during the last four years gave me hope that economic populism could re-emerge someday on the national level. Now that the middle class is in particular economic peril, it's time to fight back against corporate greed.

'Edwards's rhetoric was sometimes too hot. "Corporate greed," an Edwards favorite, did not resonate with most Americans.'

The problem with the phrase "corporate greed" was not that it was too hot. The problem was that it obscured congress's role in facilitating or enabling that greed. Corporations are only as "greedy" as the laws allow; including those laws passed when Edwards was a senator.

all this theorizing , calculating , fortune-telling drivel is as close to soap-opera dialogue as you can get . I'm going to sound like needle-stuck , wall-to-wall Dem you-know-who when I say this but ALL , I mean ALL posters on CD agree that with the complicit engineering by MSM/Diebold the "fix" has been and will probably be in for the nomination and election .

The only reliable voting booth that American citizens can rely on is their local newsstands and the only reliable ballots take on the form of their channel-changers.

Do I have to spell it out for boycott-shy Americans? Don't buy NYC , LAT , ...and punish MSM by watching PBS or taking the dog for a walk . Americans have a choice : cripple MSM or stoically accept a dynasty of fixed elections , Dem. or Rep.

John Edwards, thank you, has his own voice.

It was purposefully squelched by media that meant money that meant media.

The four obstacles that Edwards had to having his own voice heard are these:

Media
Campaign Finance Laws and Policies
Democratic Party Intransigence
Election Reform (Archane election law and tradition)

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

p.s.
Robert Kuttner at the Boston Globe, gives Obama all kind of praise for what is essentially the imitation of John Edwards' message as if only Obama could deliver the word that could be accepted by Americans, because of the pitch and key of his voice.

Read, "Obama's Voice, Edwards's Message", Robert Kuttner, Friday, February 15, 2008, The Boston Globe

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/15/7083/

[quote]"A great leader gets the music right as well as the words. It took a little while, but Obama now does both. He has the campaign's poetry, leaving Clinton with the prose.

A century ago, in the great textile strike of 1912 in Lawrence, the women mill workers insisted, "Give us bread, but give us roses." If Obama wins, the one-time community organizer will have deftly offered Americans both the roses and the bread." (Robert Kuttner) [/quote]

Pardon me, has anyone heard of Corporate Media (suggested by some to be a better name for MSM than Main Stream media), as the great obfuscator of JRE's message and the muffler of his voice throughout the campaign. Corporate Media labeled JRE the angry candidate and put forward the hypocrite meme ad nauseum.

Corporate media wouldn't let JRE's message get through, because they knew he meant it.

Are we going to let all the Obama fans obfuscate and revise the real story of the campaign as well?

I say, no, but mostly we should do it through action that fights the real obstacles to getting a message out, sung in the key of the originator.

Granted, some voices may be preferred to others by the great public, but shouldn't the public hear both, before they decide, which voice should sing the message, especially if one is the originator and composer and one is not. At least American Idol lets its singers have an equal shot at the prize.

Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat

I didn't like Edwards because he conspired with Hillary to make Kucinich and Gravel invisible before the M$M did it for real, but now I think he's redeemed himself by the very act of dropping out of the race. With Edwards in the race he would have pulled enough votes away from Obama so Hillary could walk away with the crown, but with him gone there's a good chance that the War Goddess will go home empty handed.

With all that being said, of course Kucinich was the true progressive, populist candidate, and I just don't understand why so many of these supposedly progressive writers continue to talk as if Edwards was.

Granted, Kucinich had many great progressive ideas, but it was only Edwards that really spoke to the plight of the poor in this country with absolute compelling singularity and eloquence. Only he painted the picture as Americans could understand, when they were given a chance to hear him. Similarly, his message on corporate greed and corporate lobbyists was equally singular and compelling. His message was the dangerous message that Corporate Media wanted to obfuscate and his voice the voice they wanted to muffle.

Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat

I have no 'Dog' in this race. I supported Edwards, and I really don't like any of the other three choices. I just spent 4 hours researching, one of three of Obama's 'chief economic advisers'.
IT's IMPORTANT! Do you want people making an informed choice NOW, or do you want it coming out after the nomination, when 'we' have no Choice left?

The Nation magazine, Feb. 11th issue, 'Subprime Obama' by Max Fraser:

"Obama's disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation" last sentence same paragrph: "Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security."

I googled, 'Liebman Jeffrey economist'. and read ALL seven links, some going back to 2004! Some very long. The Private Retirement Accounts (PRA) on Obama's web site, are part of this 'plan', which when you read the whole thing calls for a cut in benefits, by 45% by changing accounting methods, it's almost identical to what Bush wanted!

Please, don't believe me! Go look for yourself!

AndieG, I read his entire platform on his website for social security and pensions, and saw no reference to cuts. I am excerpting part of his plan:

Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

He also supports pension plans to provide additional financial security for seniors, through private investment accounts and pension plans through employment. He calls for eliminating income taxes on seniors earning less than $50,000 a year and changing corporate bankruptcy laws as follows - I have again excerpted his policy:

Obama will protect pensions by putting promises to workers higher on the list of debts that companies cannot shed; ensuring that the bankruptcy courts do not demand more sacrifice from workers than executives; telling companies that they cannot issue executive bonuses while cutting worker pensions; increasing the amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in court; and limiting the circumstances under which retiree benefits can be reduced.

AndieG, nowhere did I see a reduction in benefits. Can you refer me to the site where you read that? Otherwise, I challenge your statement.

kathyodat