As I have pointed out several times on this site, I can’t see much difference between the H-O-E policy programs on issues like the Middle East: Iraq/Iran/Palestinian, Health Care, Terrorism, the Sub-Prime Lending Debacle, Energy, etc.

One of the big differences is that Edwards has almost always been the first to set out a policy and then watch the others gradually catch up to him 6 months down the road. Now, part of that might be that he’s not currently in the senate, but part of it is called Leadership.

What *was* evident was that, by the end of the interview, JStew had pretty much called Jonah a raving lunatic and there was antagonism to spare…

Wish I could see the whole thing – anybody have a link to the entire interview?

That was years ago.

nd I think that Obama and Clinton and Edwards are actually identifying what needs to be changed in three really different ways. I think Hillary Clinton is saying the Republicans and Bush need to be out and Democrats need to be in.

But that doesn’t do any good if the policies don’t change. The only way that it will occur is to increase the number of Progressives in Congress…otherwise you’ll get continued “blocks” and “holds”. Of course, people criticise her willingness to actually implement change.

I think John Edwards is saying the special interests and the lobbyists need to be out and the people need to be in, in the populist way.

But “people” don’t occupy the Executive branch, a person does. Edwards is saying HE needs to be in because he will do this. But he needs to get Congress to assist him in this, which doesn’t mean Republicans. But that gets back to “A”. How do you get Congress to change?

And I worry about Edwards’ actual credentials in this regard. Just look up his Federal Campaign Commission Financial Statements and “Fortress Investment Group”. Edwards WAS a lobbyist.

And I think that Barack Obama is saying that he needs to be in because he can transcend the differences across the political divide right now.

Which is also a populist message. And relies on getting the “will of the public” to shift opinion in Congress. Otherwise you have stasis. Again, the question is what are the policies…and what happens when the strategy fails with Republicans and some Democrats?

In all three cases these individuals need to have a “relationship” with Congress in order to achieve their ends. They can’t simply do it through Presidential fiat (unless they are going to continue the Unitary Executive model).

There’s three very different visions of what you would do to the country if you had the reins.

As I have pointed out several times on this site, I can’t see much difference between the H-O-E policy programs on issues like the Middle East: Iraq/Iran/Palestinian, Health Care, Terrorism, the Sub-Prime Lending Debacle, Energy, etc.

—

I am for Edwards but thought Obama did give up a bit to much meat to be chewed on with his organization comment. If anyone watched I think he explained it well, and also gave a great example of why Bush is on time all the time but sucks.

In any case there is the truth that calculation is only one potential part of a potential leader – without spark/wisdom/enlighthenment it may be for nothing (Ex. re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic would not do much). This can go both ways of course, having these skills can also lead to things that a less organized person might miss. For me here are the prized skills:
- Inovation over Dogma/aka an eye on the road less traveled: It is easier to outsource organization (to your aides) than wisdom.
- Wisdom: Intellegence is more common than wisdom. Wisdom will also help choose when to take the road less traveled/
- Skill & Effort & Empathy: Take your skills and the items you have picked to work on and see them to the end personally
- Truth: If only.

For me Edwards is on top (used to be Obama), and now Clinton and Obama are tied for 2nd place. I will likely go back and fourth on this since I already have a #1 choice – but often times I think if they are both so similar that I would rather the edge in experience for Senator Clinton, at the same time Obama is so much more the inspiring speaker. Lastly I struggle over the machine and insiders many of the people would bring in (how much of that is a good thing and how much a bad thing – and what are those people going to be tasked to accomplish).

Broad-strokes policy wise (theme I guess) I really think Obama and Clinton are pretty similar (system is OK, just badly managed) and like Edwards message of fighting with those who are illegally hurting our system (and changing/enforcing the laws to better us). This is all a bit smoke and mirrors since we don’t know where these people are bending or breaking the truth.

If all things remain the same I will support the Dem winner, if things get worse or scandle comes about I will likely write in someone and move if Rs win.

I think Tweety went apeshit when he saw how well Fox was doing for a while there. Said to himself, I can out batshit those people, and has been trying to ever since.

He should have taken his cue from what happened to Crossfire; most particularly, what happened to Crossfire after Jon Stewart went on the show and told them point blank to their faces that their show was hurting America.