zed

Now to read!

Facebook Frameshop sez:

Frameshoppers: Quite a debate last night. In today’s post I name a winner of the debate and offer some post-game analysis.

Frameshop: Can Obama Get Back On Message?

John Edwards was the clear winner of last night’s Democratic debate, but the big story is how far off message the Barack Obama has gone since his victory in Iowa. While Obama continues to stir hopes for voters, the impression he gives increasingly on the national stage is of a candidate caught in the old-school, finger pointing blame game. With Super Tuesday just a few weeks away, the challenge Obama now faces is substantial. Despite his lead in South Carolina, Obama must find a way to lead the debate again with his ‘new tone,’ or he will likely go down fighting in the very style of politics he seeks to retire…

Hi there Jane:

I sent you email…

E-mail from Russ today:

With so much focus on this year’s presidential campaign, it is imperative that we remember the importance of supporting strong progressive candidates for Congress and state office in 2008. … We must redouble our efforts this year to build on the majorities in Congress with strong candidates committed to promoting our progressive reform agenda, no matter who occupies the White House.

This is where my heart is ever more so that the presidency.

From the debate last night:

What Clinton said that Obama said: “You talked about admiring Ronald Reagan … You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader.”

What Obama actually said

: “I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the ’60s and the ’70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, ‘We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. All right? I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now.”

Also from the debate:

What Obama said that Clinton said: “The irony of this is that you provided much more fulsome praise of Ronald Reagan in a book by Tom Brokaw that’s being published right now.”

What Clinton actually said: “When [Reagan] had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully.”

(Same link as my 6.)

Weird how a few days ago the Clinton/Edwards whispers “Our guys should talk” about the # of dem candidates in forums from last summer bounced into my head. Now they met privately backstage. To be a fly on the wall…..

I’d never heard of LD and CX debating! Shows how unstructured we are in the UK.

I can’t tell you how happy I am that everyone is now having to distance themselves from the St. Ronnie show, backtracking on former praise.

This is how the narrative gets re-written.

Also, having read the two diaries on the credit card limit exchange, I have to say the one in favor of Obama is more persuasive on the face of it, though you’d probably have to know the politics of the Senate at the time to know for sure.

New narrative: David/Edwards vs the Goliaths….

This is how the narrative gets re-written.

Indeed. What do you think of the continuing Obama-Hillary combat?

I am not sure there was a winner or loser in last night’s debate. I doubt many were persuaded or converted. More likely, hopes and suspicions were confirmed.

Although Obama did much better in the second half of the debate, I am growing concerned about his seeming inability to answer criticisms in a clear and efficient manner. For most of Clinton’s criticisms there was a good answer, but he failed to articulate it.

AS for Clinton, it wasn’t pretty, but you have to admire her fighting spirit. She has game.

Edwards was good. For the first time the man and his passion came into focus for me. The early timing and the location of the first contests were cruel to him. Imagine if this tussle had started today and in an economically ravaged rust-bucket state. Things might be different. It is probably too late.

Convicted terrorism conspirator Jose Padilla sentenced to 17 years and four months in prison.

Both Hills and Obama bowing at the feet of St. Raygun and denying it for the sake of the Democratic voters they supposedly represent. Both of them backpedalled like hell last night. I find their Reagan coddling to be sickening. Why can’t either of them or anyone tell the truth about Reagan and his cruel and murderous policies.

Check the front page news box! The folks at FDL have the story in there already. Damn their fast here!

I was obviously happier with the more substantive, less contentious second half of the debate, but the other was good political theater. Whatever it takes to get people tuning in and paying attention, I guess would be my answer — though long term, if it becomes the bulk of the content the sniping will just turn people off.

Sh*t. That’s “they’re” not “their.”

I think we heard the beginning of the 21st century New Deal when Hillary made a point of shared responsibility and universal healthcare being a “Core Democratic Principle” and declaring that she was going to stand her ground and never give up the fight for it.
*THAT* was the highlight of the evening for me. More of this please!

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com

And IMHO this is the ugliest bit of the spat:

Obama contrasted his life experience with Clinton’s when he brought up his days as a community organizer.

“While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart,” Obama jabbed.

As the tempers flared and the candidates frequently spoke over each other, Clinton hit back, saying that while she was fighting Republican ideas, “You were practicing law and representing your contributor . . . in his slum-landlord business in inner-city Chicago.”

Thank you for posting this clip. I had missed the debate. Edwards rocks! That’s how you discuss race issues during an election.

Newsbox doesnt show when reading the comments.

Yes. There does appear to be a problem with Obama’s ability to defend himself and his positions clearly and strongly. He seems unprepared to face the barrage that will surely come from the Republicans if he is the nominee.

Never fear!
Underdog is here!

Indeed. What do you think of the continuing Obama-Hillary combat?

I think the three way combat is very good preparation for the General election. What is happening with the Dems is “playtime” compared to what the Thugs will dish out. Obama will benefit the most if he is the Dem candidate. I think Obama can intellectualize what the attacks will be but I am sure that both Edwards and Clinton can tell him that the reality is much worse. Obama needs a much tougher skin and this is the way to get it.

I still don’t see how insurance is the equivalence of healthcare.

True. But I’ve been trying to force myself to check the front page and even drill down a couple of pages in the news box just in case someone has been faster than I have in bringing forth the news.

health care has to be an industry expense not a personal expense

they need to pay for their heat, their electicity, the health of their workforce

and we need to tariff any country’s goods or services that does not provide health care for their workforce

that is the answer to national health care

Its not. But how will the poor insurance companies fare if they can’t loot their policy holders on premiums and cheat their policy holders out of coverage?

That is pretty mild stuff compared to what is coming in the General. BTW, I hope Obama was right about how few hours he worked on the Rezko account; sure as shit someone has the billing records from Davis Milner Barnhill.

Yep. Can we say “Rose Hill Law Firm billing Records?”

I thought we could.

S2D2.

Obama needs a much tougher skin and this is the way to get it.

You have a point here…

As long as we’re getting personal, let’s talk about money. AOL has a People Magazine type story up about Lifestyles of the Presidential candidates. It was interesting which houses they showed and which they didn’t…
lifestyles

It doesn’t matter what Jeralyn, or Taylor Marsh or Jerome Armstrong think. All three are pimping for Team Clinton and doing everything in their power to make sure the least progressive candidate gets the nomination. What really matters is what the people of South Carolina thought about the performance of the three candidates. The response of the audience suggests one particular candidate is preferred over the others.

His answer may have been technically true, but it wasn’t the whole truth.
Obama has had a long and very tangled relationship with Rezko.

I am really glad that FDL is neutral.

And I agree with Jane @ 18 that the second half of the debate was substantive on the differences among the candidates on issues.

I still don’t see how insurance is the equivalence of healthcare.

insurance is in the bussiness of denying service and improving the bottom line of their financial reports

health care is in the bussiness of providing service rather then denying service and in so doing that strategy improves the bottom line to America

insurance is not interested in the total bottom line, they are interested in deferring their costs, denying claims, at the expense of the rest of us and at the expense of our economy since in most cases the revenue a healthy person returns back to society far outweighs the cost of keeping them healthy

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..301/441095

“The possibility of a cascading recession that spreads to global markets is real. The need for an anti-recession “insurance policy” is urgent. Chairman Greenspan, Chairman Bernanke, President Bush, Secretary Paulson, Congress and Wall Street leaders have all been wrong about this crisis. They must restore their credibility with policies equal to the task.

First, there must be a six-month freeze on foreclosures. If another million homes are foreclosed upon, the stimulus will be swept aside under a tidal wave of trouble….”

We all pimp our faves…whatever the backstory on why. I can live with that.

Demand better, do better: Edwards [see, it’s easy ;-)]

The real hard part is pushing thru the media fog. Or finding ways to go around it. Because they are, as Matt Taibbi noted, the problem. [sorry I don’t have the link from an earlier thread] And their crocodile tears after the fact won’t mean shit.

The Wal-Mart corporate lawyer meme is crap. Wal-Mart has a large in-house legal team but Rose and other law firms have done work for Wal-Mart. When Hillary was working at Rose she had a lot of non-work stuff on her plate. There is no way they let her have any responsibility on a major account.

The proper attack on Hillary re:Wal-Mart is that she was on the board but didn’t speak out against the virulent anti-labor policies of the company.

I must say, the more I see of Obama, the less he inspires trust and confidence in me. Indeed, if he’s as good as he is purported to be, then his remarks about Reagan did not just roll off the tongue. As they say, these campaigns are planned so that accidents are unlikely. That leads me to the conclusion that the mention of Reagan in such a positive manner was meant to do three things: 1) pander to certain elements of the Republican party and 2) bait certain elements of the progressive movement and 3) bait and otherwise piss off the Clintons.

I think maybe Obama has an underlying agenda that has not yet become apparent. I also don’t think he can answer any question briefly. He’s great at long speeches, but he’s certainly not a man of few words.

I suppose universal insurance is another way to roll out RealID as well.

Obama did say she was on the board…:

you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart,”

I think maybe Obama has an underlying agenda that has not yet become apparent. I also don’t think he can answer any question briefly. He’s great at long speeches, but he’s certainly not a man of few words.

A Biden in the making?

Jerome Armstrong is an Edwards supporter. He has said that and he traveled on the Edwards bus in Iowa. Not that supporting a candidate obviates the validity of someone’s analysis, but on that point your critique is not accurate.

Don’t all politicians pander to people who may vote for them?

Also, what is wrong with long speeches? It seems that he puts a lot of thought into what he says. Very different from what we have now.

Yep, that is my recollection.

Same here. If people take nothing more than that away from the debate, I will be happy.

And did Obama really have to bring in the Blacks got rhythm bit:

Obama praised the former president’s “affinity” with black people but also drew laughs.

“I would have to investigate more, Bill’s dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother,” Obama said.

“I’m sure that can be arranged,” Clinton joked.

(Same linky as my 21.)

Interesting, that is the second time I’ve heard that about Jerome in the last two days and didn’t know one way or the other.

Good op/ed by Krugman out today on the Obama mention of Reagan. Krugman is convinced that Obama mentioned Reagan in order to get a newspaper endorsement from a right leaning paper- which he in fact got. He may deserve a little shit about the comment.

Still I’m pretty tired with the shit flinging. Makes my eyes glaze over and I crave a nap. It’s not as if any of this stuff is witty, creative, entertaining, or memorable. Death by blunt trauma.

The real news is the drop outs. Will says Huckabee is done- but that he just doesn’t know it yet.

Freddie appears to be done- AND he knows it.

Edwards knows he’s done but he’s gonna keep on truckin for a while- for whatever reason.

Rudy may be done by next week.

Gettin down to a four horse race it seems.

Why can’t either of them or anyone tell the truth about Reagan and his cruel and murderous policies.

Progressives will never prevail until they discredit Reagan, Reaganomics, and Reaganism. So far, our Democratic leaders are still praising all three, and very few progressives are taking the opportunity presented by the economy’s meltdown, the failure of private-sector healthcare, and Ron Paul’s campaign for extreme laissez-faire captialism to attack Reaganomics and the tenets behind it — a notable exception being Paul Krugman.

In all fairness, Obama was pointing out how Reagan convinced a large number of Democrats to vote against their own financial interests and support him to get his agenda pushed through. Obama then indicated that in order for the Democrats to get a progressive agenda to be put through, Democrats will have to gain the support of Independents and some Republicans. He was not supporting Reagan policies, just outlining a tactic that Reagan sucessfully utilized.

And this might be Edwards finest moment in the debate:

After fuming in silence, a portrait in irrelevance, Edwards finally got the last word and he ran with it. “Are there three people in this debate — not two?” he asked. “And I also want to know … on behalf of the voters here in South Carolina — this kind of squabbling — how many children is this going to get healthcare? How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to college because of this?”

Hi folks….

That clip of Edwards was superb….

Couldn’t be prouder….

Obama did say she was on the board…:

you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart,”

reply

True..and she also a Corporate Lawyer on the boards of..The Legal Services Corp., Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Children’s Defense Fund, TCBY, Lafarge and Wal-mart.

It IS true that in order for a dem prez to get elected AND to get things done, he/she will have to have the support of the great political middle- the place where indies and the survivors of that endangered species- moderate goopers- live. That will piss us all off.

The way Randi Rhodes said it was that he was not praising Reagan’s policies, but was admiring his political skill.

When Obama said “some of this other stuff” my mind went straight to the gutter thinking about old Bill’s “stuff”.

I still don’t see how insurance is the equivalence of healthcare.

As long as the insurance companies and for profit organizations remain in the business of healthcare, bean counters will remain high in the decision making process regarding who gets what kind of healthcare. They will be in charge of saying who can take experimental drugs, who will get transplants, etc. I want a single payer plan for this and other reasons, portability being my highest priority.

I don’t understand why, since Medicare pays my insurance premiums to my insurance company, this wouldn’t work on a countrywide basis. That does not cut the insurance companies completely out, but it does put them under more direct governmental regulation. Then, hopefully, the government will be in charge of taking care of our interests. But if that’s not possible, then get rid of the insurance companies, I just don’t care. I want a single payer system!

Rudy may be done by next week.

He was quite done before he jumped in the race. As I’ve said before, his (non)candidacy is one of the most hapless and expensive fool’s errand in contemporary American poliitcal history…

It was the universal aspect that is the core Democratic principle. Also, several European countries, such as Germany, run their healthcare plans through private insurance companies. The money to pay for it is deducted from your pay like social security is.
But the beauty of a “universal” plan is that the costs are shared by everyone and not dumped on the backs of the few who have coverage. And when that happens, people who are sick will not wait until the last minute to seek help because they have no insurance. And when that happens, there will be fewer uninsured people in the hospitals for preventable problems. And when that happens, hospitals will have fewer unpaid bills that they need to pass on to you. And when that happens, the overall cost of insurance should actually go down.
The insurance companies aren’t going to like it much because it *will* cut into their profit margins when they are forced to cover things like mental health care and contraception and we’re going to hear the Republicans screeching like Banshees keening over the loss of their slush funds. But I don’t care.
Do you?

Answers irt stimulating the economy from last night’s debate:

Hillary:
As a further point, I do believe that the green-collar job piece of this is important. That’s why I have $5 billion to do it. There are programs already. Oakland, California, Mayor Dellums is working to have a green-collar job program. We could put hundreds and hundreds of young people to work right now, putting solar panels in, insulating homes.

That would give them jobs and it would move us more quickly to a green economy. And I think that if you look at this from a jobs and justice, a stimulation and long-term planning effort, we need to lay down the markers now. And that’s why the Congress, under the leadership of a lot of the people who are chairs of committees and subcommittees who are here today are going to play a major role in this. And we’ve got to hold the line against President Bush with his ill-advised approach to stimulating the economy.

EDWARDS: Thank you.

Well, first of all, what I have proposed for green-collar jobs will create jobs within 30 or so days, so we will have an immediate impact on the economy and stimulate the economy.

Obama had no real ideas he just pointed out the problems.

If a dems mentions Reagan without bashin hell out of him, he’s doing it for a distinct political purpose–probably to show that he’s not a “partisan”.

These speeches are not academic excercises in history.

yup :) I hope that voice stays in the race.

EVERYTHING pisses us off.

A Biden in the making?

If you wanna put it that way, yup!

…fools errands…

Thanks for the well worded reply.

Here’s my problem with Obama’s comment:

(Reagan) put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the ’60s and the ’70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.

The growth of the USG in the 60’s and 70’s paled in comparison to the growth of the USG under Reagan. Lack of accountability? VP Bush was put in charge of all USG counter-narcotics operations and a cocaine epidemic ensued. Drug-fighter Bush was famously photographed riding in a cigarette boat given to him by a big-time drug smuggler!

I was furious when I read Obama’s comments. Cost him my vote in the Cali primary. Why would I change my party registration for a guy who spouts GOP talking points about the truly pernicious Reagan Admin.?

the least progressive candidate

How is Clinton the least progressive when it’s Obama? Your assumptions about her and Obama frankly don’t match up with the reality of their respective domestic policies on SS, health care, and the economy. Check out Obama’s economic advisors: http://louisproyect.wordpress……-advisers/

How have any of those bloggers listed (exception: Taylor Marsh) not been telling the truth, using facts or evidence? If so, when?

I guess you can add Krugman to the list of “pimps” for Team Clinton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01…..ugman.html

The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.
And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable

As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..believing/

And somehow many people believe that [Obama] is the true progressive — he wasn’t really saying that Reagan was right — and that [Clinton], despite the progressive talk, is just Bush the third.

From Joe Trippi’s letter that just arrived in my inbox:

I just finished talking with John — and he’s committed to going all the way to the Democratic Convention, taking the nomination and then on to the White House.

We’re going to win delegates in South Carolina — and we’re going to win delegates in other critical states on February 5. And with John McCain emerging as the likely nominee for the Republicans, it’s becoming clear there is only one Democratic candidate who can win against him in November — and that is John Edwards.

Poll after poll shows it is John Edwards who can beat any of the Republican candidates in the general election.

Obama is naive if he believes he will win republican votes, not gonna happen, and he thinks we can be deluded into believing this crap. I’m glad old Bill & Hill are putting it to him, he should consider this an appetizer to what the repub establishment will do to him if he wins the nomination. Still hoping Edwards is the last man standing.

Good!

I agree. Obama was making a historian’s judgment on why Reagan succeeded given the kind of policies he let his people pursue. His analysis rings true to me. The trouble is, he shouldn’t be making that analysis in public. It does nothing to advance the public debate or his candidacy. It’s the kind of thing you discuss in private, and write down in your memoirs after it’s all over.

We are electing a President, not an historian.

Well…I would suggest that the reason it APPEARS that the Dem candidates have annointed McCain as the likely GOP winner is because out of the pile of shit that is the GOP candidates, he is the “most formidable” that they would have to face. Any of the rest would be even more of a cakewalk to crush in the general. So, you plan based on the worst case scenario (McCain, on many levels, would be worst case), not the best case (any of the other GOPers).

Also, what is wrong with long speeches? It seems that he puts a lot of thought into what he says. Very different from what we have now.

What’s wrong with long speeches is that frequently someone else writes them. Over the last seven plus years of the Bush administration, it seems to me this Prez has gotten in more trouble due to his poor choice of words in sound bites than he got into over his delivery of lengthy speeches. The sound bites come when he does press conferences, when he gets questions shouted at him by reporters while he’s making his way to the plane, etc. My point is he needs to be able to think on his feet and say things that people have the time to hear on the news where sound bites are favored.

How is Clinton the least progressive when it’s Obama?

Edwards is easily the most progressive candidate in the race…

I am hoping we’re watching a tortoise and hare story with Obama and Edwards. Obama is flashy but Edwards is steady.

Obama is naive if he believes he will win republican votes, not gonna happen, and he thinks we can be deluded into believing this crap. I’m glad old Bill & Hill are putting it to him, he should consider this an appetizer to what the repub establishment will do to him if he wins the nomination. Still hoping Edwards is the last man standing.

You are right..think of what they did with Jim MacDougal and White Water…..Tony Rezko will be the same or worse.

Yes, so damn true it kills me that he’s not leading this race. At least Clinton had the good sense to follow Edwards’ lead. He’s been so ahead of the curve.

When did Kucinich drop out?

Sorry Steve-AR, you misunderstood me. I was using the “Rose Hill Law Firm Billing Records meme to highlight what Senator Clinton had to go through in the ’90s with all the subpoenas to her old firm. I was not raising the issue of her working for Wal-Mart in other than being on their BoD.

Steady Eddie

I agree. I think he was doing a little pandering to the Indies and Moderate R’s. IMO.

Agreed. But any of the current Dem candidates would be far superior to the current resident.

It IS true that in order for a dem prez to get elected AND to get things done, he/she will have to have the support of the great political middle- the place where indies and the survivors of that endangered species- moderate goopers- live. That will piss us all off.

I think it is a mistake to arbitrarily locate independents in the center. They are all over the place. I’m an independent and I’m nowhere near the center. As for moderate goopers, what does that mean? I haven’t seen one of those in an age. Republicans nowadays come in various stripes from the far, far right to the right. I doubt that there are any in the center. And that I suppose is my point. I doubt that the center exists anymore. The GOP’s take no prisoners partisanship and Karl Rove’s tactics of polarization destroyed it. Now the center is a void used as a political talking point by the likes of Joseph Lieberman.

Obama is seldom specific, pretty much motherhood and apple pie — or in his case change and harmony. As I’ve pointed out before, the main way that presidents achieve change with harmony is by implementing the platform of their opponent, as Johnson did when he went to war in Vietnam within a year of his election as the peace candidate. (Of course, things didn’t stay harmonious long when the reality of the draft hit middle-americans.) Similarly, a Democratic president would be much freer to say attack Iran, than would a Republican.

Reagan achieved change without much controversy by having a team of theorists with a well-honed pitch about “unleasing the miracle of free enterprise” etc. In the words of Obama, the Republicans have been the party of ideas. But if he’s going to have a big impact with harmony, like his hero Reagan, he’s going to need some fresh new ideas, ideas that are much deeper that “change and harmony.”

When he said he had an encounter with UFO’s :-)

Id give again. I read that we raised 300k last week.

Hair of the Dog

hangover from Rove’s new math for a permanent Republican majority: the Dare of the Hog

the die has been cast…. lookis to me like hil is going to be the nom….and nader making noises that he may run again….

When did Kucinich drop out?

Kucinich “is no longer a viable candidate at this point” (to quote verbatim what Andrea Mitchell said about John Edwards last week on MSNBC). *g*

Edwards is easily the most progressive candidate in the race…

I think that would be less so if he had has to “vote”. I suspect if he had done a second Senate term his voting record would be between his first term and his present positions.

Obama isn’t tryin to win gooper votes, he was tryin to win an endorsement from a moderate gooper newspaper- and he did- according to Krugman. He’s takin the road GW Clusterfuck took to the White House- tryin to stay vague enough so that everyone thinks he’s singin THEIR song. It’s the best way to go- if your opponent lets you get away with it. May work as Hillary is pretty much takin the same path- but she is by nature more specific and practical- so she ends up taking more positions than her staff would like.

Edwards is easily the most progressive candidate in the race…

I agree with that completely, which is why Edwards is also my choice of candidate. The only thing that bothers me is that Feingold said that when Edwards had the opportunity to vote on some progressive programs, he didn’t. Feingold says that Edwards is campaigning on Feingold’s record of votes, but he didn’t vote that way himself. That worries me, but the other two candidates worry me more.

That’s not good enough, and here’s why (per Paul Krugman).

WHEN U ARE CONFRONTED WITH LIES YOU EITHER CONFRONT THEM OR THEY STICK.

Hugh,

You make accurate points- but the center IS alive and well. It’s the group that wants out of Iraq- but not for a year. It’s the group that wants better deficit management, but no tax increases. It’s the group that wants universal coverage- but at NO COST- etc. They want abortions to be legal- but rare, etc.

They’re there all right- I meet em daily.

I agree on all counts. And, I’d much prefer to be voting for Feingold.

Yup. And that also is how Hillary is quoted addressing Reagan positively in her new book – sim to Bill earlier. But, Jane’s point is well taken.

If Hillary should offer Edwards the VP spot would he accept?

I guess I missed this part when I was watching last night:

The Democrats have long prided themselves on the history-making aspects of their presidential field. But Obama either stumbled or made an odd, caustic joke late in the debate when he burbled about the epic nature of “a race where you’ve got an African-American and a woman … and John.” You could see a visibly miffed Edwards at that moment wondering whether to strike Obama from his Christmas list.

I’m also missing Walter Shapiro’s point in Salon. I need help.

(Same linky as my 56.)

Kucinich’s role hasn’t changed-

Yup. I also am deeply concerned about the illegal stuff that seems to be happening with Hillary’s campaign (as per the various Nevada caucus blogs recently at Kos) and the robocalls her people are doing against Obama (also per a Kos blog, as seen in the Hillaryfor44 site. This speaks to major problems with Hillary as an honest broker on lots of fronts.

i dont think he’d accept…. he did that already

Edwards spent the four years working with the people crossing the country. Maybe his view have changed since his Senate days.

Reagan achieved change without much controversy by having a team of theorists with a well-honed pitch about “unleasing the miracle of free enterprise” etc. In the words of Obama, the Republicans have been the party of ideas.

Sure, if the idea is to cut taxes and jack up defense spending so that those who follow you lose their political careers cleaning up the mess.

Reagan cost Bush a second term because Bush had to raise taxes; the Dem congress of ‘93-4 also were kicked out because they raised taxes. But it took those moves to get the budget out of its Reagan-induced deficit, and it cost all involved dearly.

This ticket also occurred to me for the first time last night. Maybe that’s what they were discussing after the debate last night. See first para of Jane’s post above.

In all fairness, Obama was pointing out how Reagan convinced a large number of Democrats to vote against their own financial interests and support him to get his agenda pushed through.

Really? You don’t think he means to emulate Reagan in a lot more ways. You advocate a candidate being disingenuous to win an election. Don’t forget, if Obama can be so “apple pie and motherhood” that he convinces the Rethugs to abandon their own self interest to vote for him, he will likely be able to do the same to you.

I think Edwards would jump at the chance to reprise his VP role. He’d be the likely candidate in 2016 if he can still walk and talk and stuff.

Obama isn’t tryin to win gooper votes, he was tryin to win an endorsement from a moderate gooper newspaper- and he did-

Wow – glad Sen. Suited Smile wasn’t trying to win endorsements from an extreme gooper newspaper.

Who knows who his statesman’s sense of history lust for power would have lead to extol.

So CNN says the stocks are “recovering”.

Nothing to see here people.

Edwards would be a better president… …I could live with VP Edwards though.

Krugman makes an interesting point about the dems needing to package their views of the economy in some way as an antidote to the proven failure of the gooper package.

The moniker “Sen. Suited Smile” cracks me up.

And, yesterday on the web there was talk of an Obama-Bloomberg independent run if Hillary is the nominee.

If only Gore / Edwards ….

Agreed. But any of the current Dem candidates would be far superior to the current resident.

Absolutely agreed!

Gore/Edwards

Sigh…..

I agree with that completely, which is why Edwards is also my choice of candidate. The only thing that bothers me is that Feingold said that when Edwards had the opportunity to vote on some progressive programs, he didn’t. Feingold says that Edwards is campaigning on Feingold’s record of votes, but he didn’t vote that way himself. That worries me, but the other two candidates worry me more.

If Feingold had wished to run, he could have. It sounds like sour grapes that he should criticize someone for espousing positions he supports.

I don’t get too involved in primary battles. Want to see dems win in the fall beatin the pants of goopers- of course goopers lately seem ta want ta drop their pants without the beating-or prior to it in some cases.

And, yesterday on the web there was talk of an Obama-Bloomberg independent run if Hillary is the nominee.

Well, to channel Stephen Colbert, Obama would then be dead to me.

The beatings will continue until the masochism is eliminated.

But it still comes down to who can win.

This republic has had some serious damage inflicted by Bush Cheney Inc.

Another GOP basket case will bury us.

The Democrats need to shed some of their inclusionist idealism and make a pragmatic choice.

I don’t think this electorate is sufficiently mature to elect a black man or a woman. Not yet, anyway.

Looks like either HRC or Obama will get the nomination. Where would Edwards be more effective at fixing the Justice dept? Would it be as AG or VP?

I’ll take any of the dem candidates vs. the whole hatful of gooper assholes any day.

64
In response to tw3k @ 27
It was the universal aspect that is the core Democratic principle. Also, several European countries, such as Germany, run their healthcare plans through private insurance companies. The money to pay for it is deducted from your pay like social security is.
But the beauty of a “universal” plan is that the costs are shared by everyone and not dumped on the backs of the few who have coverage. And when that happens, people who are sick will not wait until the last minute to seek help because they have no insurance. And when that happens, there will be fewer uninsured people in the hospitals for preventable problems. And when that happens, hospitals will have fewer unpaid bills that they need to pass on to you. And when that happens, the overall cost of insurance should actually go down.
The insurance companies aren’t going to like it much because it *will* cut into their profit margins when they are forced to cover things like mental health care and contraception and we’re going to hear the Republicans screeching like Banshees keening over the loss of their slush funds. But I don’t care.
Do you?
___________________________

another aspect of the German system is that most doctors are working in the public sector and they don’t get paid very much. they get a decent salary but nothing like many American doctors get. i personally know one of the most prominent surgeons in Germany. he lives in a fairly modest apartment. i haven’t discussed the issue with him but i imagine that they do not have to pay exorbitant liability insurance like American doctors claim they must do.

Given the new precedent set by the current administration VP.

Edwards may not get the nomination but I would like to see him play a significant role at the convention. If he stays in the race I (which I do expect and hope for), his block of delegates could/would force the eventual nominee to include major progressive planks in the Dem platform. I could accept a Hillary ticket if that were the case. I would also expect Edwards to receive an influential Cabinet appointment. I wouldn’t think he’d accept VP (again)-I guess it depends on how ambitious he is.

I don’t see Obama on the ticket at all…maybe a cabinet position.

And Fitz for AG.

I don’t think he would ever do it because he is such a party player, but all this stuff about VP choices is just talk. Considering how linked Hillary is with big corpa, and how upset big corpa has been with Edwards (witness the MSM blackout) I don’t think there is any chance of his being asked by Hillary to join the ticket.

I’ll be waiting for Sen Smile (D-Chicago Machine) to definitively and utterly quash the merest suggestion he’d jump the Democratic Party merely to advance his personal ambition if he were denied the Party’s nomination.

Wonder what advice Sen Smile (D-Rezko’s side yard)’s mentor Sen Lieberman will give him on this?

Thanks! I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful replies on healthcare vs. universal insurance.

an Obama-Bloomberg independent run

Somewhat unlikely. Although that might be what they were discussing when they had breakfast in a Midtown Manhattan coffee shop a few weeks ago.

tw3k, happy to given you a smile…

So CNN says the stocks are “recovering”.

Nothing to see here people.

I agree. The Fed’s cutting the interest rate by 3/4 of a percent is a dramatic gesture but it really is only a gesture (just like the $145 billion stimulus package). Cuts in Fed rates may have little effect if banks remain unwilling to loan money after being burned by the subprime meltdown. Markets might want to take a step back after losing $2 trillion in the last two days but when they take a good long look they will see that the Bush Administration has no intention of addressing the fundamentals behind the current crisis and continues to rely on bandaids and flimflam to calm the markets. The real question that market managers should be asking themselves is how far down is down going to go.

I don’t think this electorate is sufficiently mature to elect a black man or a woman. Not yet, anyway.

I definitely agree with you on the black man part, and have said so here many times. 2012, or 2016 maybe. But the electorate is more ready for a white woman candidate.

The dem economic model should be “Bubble Up”. When the working men and women of america do better- EVERYBODY benefits- cause the economy expands jolted by consumer spending. The wealthy will benefit in the end.

The working man and woman will do better when we INVEST in them- and using the gooper “INCENTIVE” language- we need to provide INCENTIVES for that investment- investment in higher education, health care, and job training. The investment will pay off in the form of a healthy, well educated work force, better salaries, and more money to drive the economy- making the capitalistic wheels spin like never before.

It makes more sense than the gooper nonsense.

Do you have a link or date for that? Thanks.

Gooper economic model is based on the premise that rich people need strong incentives in order to INVEST their money. IT’s total nonesense- what the fuck ELSE are they gonna do with it—EAT IT?

The Democrats need to shed some of their inclusionist idealism and make a pragmatic choice.

I think it would be helpful if Dems quit running in a general election, and finish the primary first. I don’t think it’s smart running general election tactics through the primary meat grinder. Someone’s going to get hurt, and we can’t afford to lose this election no matter how much they want to batter each other about the head.

If Feingold had wished to run, he could have. It sounds like sour grapes that he should criticize someone for espousing positions he supports.

There must be a back story there, Russ’s comments were nasty.

Blue Texan has a new post upstairs about David Brooks and the GOP.

The dem economic model should be “Bubble Up”.

Even the Fascist Henry Ford used that model.

There are moderate Republican voters, and former moderate Republicans who are now independents. My father is one of them; he was a lifelong Republican until the 2004 election. He’s still quite concerned about taxes and spending, but the foreign policy disasters are what really drove him away. (The social issues don’t have too much effect locally, though I’m sure he disagrees with them as well.)

I think there are a lot of people out there like him, who hung on for a long time until it became clear that the GOP wasn’t going to return to sanity. Changing your tribe is a hard decision. I think it is worth appealing to them and trying to bring them into the fold permanently, but whether Obama is effectively doing it, I don’t know.

Hugh January 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
122
In response to Ann in AZ @ 98
I agree with that completely, which is why Edwards is also my choice of candidate. The only thing that bothers me is that Feingold said that when Edwards had the opportunity to vote on some progressive programs, he didn’t. Feingold says that Edwards is campaigning on Feingold’s record of votes, but he didn’t vote that way himself. That worries me, but the other two candidates worry me more.

If Feingold had wished to run, he could have. It sounds like sour grapes that he should criticize someone for espousing positions he supports.

___________________

i was for Russ. i agree with you too. he could be out there with the wind in his face just like Edwards, in fact maybe he could see what would happen and that’s why he passed. Edwards deserves our support because he is the one who has the most progressive platform and the one who really represents more closely how progressives think and feel. all we can go by is what these people are telling us. none of them have perfect voting records in Congress. what are they saying now?

Edwards gets it.

Wig

Well you already posted the link- here’s the part of the piece I was referring to:

“This is, in short, a time when progressives ought to be driving home the idea that the right’s ideas don’t work, and never have.

It’s not just a matter of what happens in the next election. Mr. Clinton won his elections, but — as Mr. Obama correctly pointed out — he didn’t change America’s trajectory the way Reagan did. Why?

Well, I’d say that the great failure of the Clinton administration — more important even than its failure to achieve health care reform, though the two failures were closely related — was the fact that it didn’t change the narrative, a fact demonstrated by the way Republicans are still claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan. “

I think it’s more likely they were discussing what Bloomberg wanted Obama to do to keep him from getting into the race. But that’s just hindsight, based on the fact that the confab in Oklahoma was blaming Obama’s bipartisan appeal for why their “national unity government” movement had completely failed to catch fire.

Imagine in any combination Edwards-Obama-Clinton. President- two Supreme Court Justices. Or President-Atty. General-Supreme Court Justice. Sounds pretty good to moi!

If there was any possibility that a sizable portion of black democrats had become disaffected, HRC would be insane not to try to restore party unity and Obama would be sending the party (and nation) straight down the shitter if he refused. It’s all highly speculative, but I don’t think HRC-Obama would be surprising.

Yes, exactly. Everybody knows they’ve screwed up massively, now is the time to permanently crush their crackpot ideas before “stab in the back” starts up and people forget.

do you ever dive deep for answers to critical questions of our time? or do you stay at the surface skimming along because there is more air and it’s easier? could you put tanks on and venture into the unknown without fear? or do you need the comfort that the surface provides? i love the lake because of i love the water but i’ve always been interested in the benthic zone. it’s not always the prettiest place but it is always the most interesting.

Wig
(I am assuming that by “change the narrative”, Krugman means that dems need to change the language and models within which these economic issues are discussed.)

Not a bad regular season/playoff analogy there.

Yet, the big game has to be considered early on.

Getta load of the other side. Scared shitless of Huckabee or Romney’s electability (specialized appeal), they now grope for a flaky workhorse with the best shot at national appeal – McCain.

rwcole January 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
141
Gooper economic model is based on the premise that rich people need strong incentives in order to INVEST their money. IT’s total nonesense- what the fuck ELSE are they gonna do with it—EAT IT?
___________

RW, you and i both know that there a lot of those SOB’s that will sit on every cent they have rather than use it to do any real good.

Possibly. But he ran as a progessive during the 2004 Campaign as well. It’s true that he did travel to many paid speaking functions at Universities advocating tuition-waivers for a type of Peace Corps program, but I’m unaware that he actually did anything related to that with his former colleagues.

I’d also point out that Edwards spent time as a well-paid consultant to the lobbyists and Directors of Fortress Investment Group, a major off-shore Hedge Fund group involved in buying up “distressed” sub-prime mortgages. He was hired to advise them on how to approach the Federal Government regarding legislation. Edwards received almost $500K for his advice, and it appears that he also received stock-options amounting to between $12-30 million dollars in value. In fact, at the time of his filing with the FEC those funds were the major source of Edwards wealth.

Edwards has also received about $188,000 in contributions from Fortress employees and officials in Campaign Contributions.

Ann in AZ January 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
142
In response to biffdiggerence @ 126
The Democrats need to shed some of their inclusionist idealism and make a pragmatic choice.

I think it would be helpful if Dems quit running in a general election, and finish the primary first. I don’t think it’s smart running general election tactics through the primary meat grinder. Someone’s going to get hurt, and we can’t afford to lose this election no matter how much they want to batter each other about the head.
_____

Ann, if you mean that they should stop attacking each other, somehow this doesn’t worry me. the way that they criticize each other and the pressure they are put under to really speak their minds is worthwhile. the electorate needs to hear and see how they respond, and as some have already said, it’s good preparation for the battles øf September and October.

*G* I noticed Clinton tried to slip in a Rezco dig. It didn’t go anywhere, and not near as far as her miraculous pork belly picks that netted her a quick hundred grand. Wolf Reindeer Blitzer cut Obama off before he could respond. I hope she brings it up again–because it will work against her everytime she does.

I wish I cold pick pork belly futures as miraculously as Senator Clinton seems to be able to do. Maybe she’ll write a book on her methods when she has time on her hands.

It’s really quite easy … just buy Pork Bellies before Bill goes for Lunch … *g*

nobody’s perfect …..

see above …..

John Edwards can expalin himself clearly. He takes complex issues and defines them in lay terms. He is easy for americans to understand. He is going to get more support in the general.
Edwards has a fine mind that flows much better than all the other candidates repugs or dems.
His approach to a problem is smooth and well organized. America needs a mind that can deal with the present problems and the ones that will arise. The other candidates don’t manipulate concepts as well as Edwards doesYou all would br very foolish to eliminate hime from the mix as rwcole does.

night all. beddy bye for fahrender ……..

Of course, and even if they do invest it is increasingly not to the benefit of the U.S. workforce. It’s more likely to be a concrete block factory wherever the cheapest labor can be found.

If there was any possibility that a sizable portion of black democrats had become disaffected, HRC would be insane not to try to restore party unity and Obama would be sending the party (and nation) straight down the shitter if he refused. It’s all highly speculative, but I don’t think HRC-Obama would be surprising.

Obama, or anyone else,doesn’t have puppet control of black voters, and the splits where Clinton may have 25% of them in S.C. are evidence. They are split in many other states as well.

You mean Obama-HRC, and it won’t happen. He wants legitimate change, not someone whose leading contributors are Citi-Corp, Goldman Sachs, Disney, Time-Warner, Viacom, and Bear Stearns.

Corporate Whos Who Contribute MultiK to Clinton

bigbrother January 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
163
John Edwards can expalin himself clearly. He takes complex issues and defines them in lay terms. He is easy for americans to understand. He is going to get more support in the general.
Edwards has a fine mind that flows much better than all the other candidates repugs or dems.
His approach to a problem is smooth and well organized. America needs a mind that can deal with the present problems and the ones that will arise. The other candidates don’t manipulate concepts as well as Edwards doesYou all would br very foolish to eliminate hime from the mix as rwcole does.

____________

that bears repeating, so i did. i think RW might agree with much of what you said but he’s a realist. i’m still hoping for a miracle regarding Edwards but i’m not holding my breath.

Oh thanks, Pete. I just can’t figure this stuff out as well as you.

Here’s the deal: If Obama gets the nom, he will tap AZ governor Janet Napolitano as his VP (good move). If Hillary gets the nom…maybe she will go at least ask if Edwards would accept VP? Perhaps Richardson – he was running for VP not too long ago. Or since she is DLC all the way, maybe she will tap Lieberman! Or how about Rahm Emmanuel?

Here’s the deal: If Obama gets the nom, he will tap AZ governor Janet Napolitano as his VP (good move). If Hillary gets the nom…maybe she will go at least ask if Edwards would accept VP? Perhaps Richardson – he was running for VP not too long ago. Or since she is DLC all the way, maybe she will tap Lieberman! Or how about Rahm Emmanuel?

Except for Leiberman, those would all be exponentially better situation than what we have now–that’s for sure.

I would love to see Edwards have a strong voice in running this country. That would be an exciting prospect.

Oh great! It will probably come true then! As much as I like him, I was having a hard time seeing what Edwards had to offer the other two candidates. Thank God, you’ve put my worries to rest.

If John Edward’s ideas and energy can find a place in the next administration we will be a better nation for it. Corporations and slackers beware.

I think they will try to kick his ass out of the game though.

I an also nauceous because RR was ” W ” prototype, however what Obama was comparing was the attitude of the Country being receptive to change, and having lived through those times with 22% interest rates ,gas lines around the block, hostages in Iran and the country in a :”malaise” there is definitely some similarity to what we are going through.

Edwards was good. For the first time the man and his passion came into focus for me. … It is probably too late.

Nah. Only 3 of 50 states have voted. His biggest problem is convincing people to believe he can win, so he can then go and convince more people. That takes money.

But, a debate like that could spark some interest.

He’s certainly showing up the other two to be bumblers (at times), dissemblers (often) and blowhard children.

I liked his line where he said he was from the ‘adult wing of the Democratic Party’ given at a speech after the debate.

Edwards is a sincere as a heart attack and his rhetoric fits his life’s story and the issues and his message are perfect for these crazy times we live in.

It’s almost absurd to speak of “the middle” at this point. There are indeed a few people out there who don’t know what to think after 7 years of lies and deceit and looting the treasury, etc. But mostly there’s 67% of America wanting out of Iraq and the remaining losers who think pissing away our national treasure for no discernible reward is a good idea.

The “middle” is firmly on our side already, if the goddamned democrats in congress would just cut the crap and show some spine.

I still don’t see how insurance is the equivalence of healthcare.

We often wonder just what concessions Obama would make to get Republican votes. Well, this is one issue where it’s pretty clear.

He doesn’t mandate that everyone is covered because that’s the way Republicans like it.

He says there are probably some people who just don’t want insurance, as if we wouldn’t have to pay for their care if they were rushed to an emergency room. Everyone needs health care guaranteed.

Plus, having fewer people paying into the insurance program makes it higher for those who do. One of the great ideas of insurance is that the more people who pay in the less each one individually has to pay. Obama doesn’t care to force prices down that much.

Progressive policies? John Edwards is your guy.

His answer may have been technically true, but it wasn’t the whole truth.
Obama has had a long and very tangled relationship with Rezko.

Isn’t it odd how his long-windedness and verbosity dried up when it came to ‘5 hours’?

We want the Truth. Apparently he can’t handle the Truth.

You could say John Edwards is a phony or hypocrite because of his senate record or because he was/is a trial lawyer, but he’s a heckuva lot more consistent in his positions and honest about his past than Obama has been.

And, Clinton has been all over the place recently too. Did you hear her say she’d been fighting poverty her whole life? I laughed out loud. Did she find it difficult while sitting on the board of WalMart or as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm? what jokers?

John Edwards has more integrity in his little finger than the other two combined.

True..and she also a Corporate Lawyer on the boards of..The Legal Services Corp., Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Children’s Defense Fund, TCBY, Lafarge and Wal-mart.

And it’s also true she didn’t publicly argue against WalMart’s policies against unions or worker pay. Instead, WalMart teaches it’s employees how to get welfare from their local state government.

And, it’s also true the Rose Law firm worked to harm unions and she employs Mark Penn who did the same.

She’s DLC through and through and saying she’s Progressive is just a lie…simple as that.

The way Randi Rhodes said it was that he was not praising Reagan’s policies, but was admiring his political skill.

Though I haven’t heard her show for a while, I, like all men who have any sense, love Randi. She’s the greatest. Couldn’t you imagine her debating Ronald Reagan. Ha that would be great.

I also agree with her that Obama’s comment in and of itself is harmless.

Where I wonder about it is in how Obama (and his supporters) compare him to Lincoln, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and now Reagan. Why this kind of grandiose rhetoric. It borders on delusions of grandeur.

I also wonder, after seeing what happened in Iowa if he identifies with Reagan because of how they pander to this and that group and how they use race and perhaps how they cheated to win an election. Lee Atwater was pretty much scum and led Reagan’s dirty tricks (IIRC). Let’s not forget that aspect of Republican campaigning.

Edwards is easily the most progressive candidate in the race…

I think that would be less so if he had has to “vote”. I suspect if he had done a second Senate term his voting record would be between his first term and his present positions.

Possibly. A lot would have depended upon which party controlled the Senate and the White House. But still, he would’ve been a senator from NC and that would always entail some DLCish behavior. That’s probably why he left to get free and be himself.

I disagree with your analysis although Richardson make sense from Hillary’s
perspective.It will solidify latino support with foreign policy credentials
and I think you are correct he was running for VP. Wes Clark is another Hillary possibility as is Evan Bayh. She will never opt for Edwards. She is Ms Corporation also Democrat DLC favorite and John is an iconoclast.Lieberman would be the kiss of death and while she does AIPAC bidding he is too LIKUD and close to George W. Barack must have someone with National Security and Foreign Policy experience and someone who knows the Washington bureaucracy.Maybe Bill Dailey for Chief of Staff and for VP someone like a George Mitchell, (Gary Hart a little old and tainted and Barack’s choice must be squeaky clean to exploit all the Abramov and Republican scandals.) Bill Bradley is not out of the question and maybe a Sam Nunn or someone with exception administrative skills and money like a Bloomberg.Richardson is also an option for Obama. I don’t think he would select Edwards because he wants to project compromise but I think he likes him enough to consider it. Al Gore is too busy with greening the world and
would not consider it, but he is hoping for a deadlocked convention and a draft.Would that ever- Gore-Obama -melt the wicked witch of the East.

Edwards is easily the most progressive candidate in the race…

I agree with that completely, which is why Edwards is also my choice of candidate. The only thing that bothers me is that Feingold said that when Edwards had the opportunity to vote on some progressive programs, he didn’t. Feingold says that Edwards is campaigning on Feingold’s record of votes, but he didn’t vote that way himself. That worries me, but the other two candidates worry me more.

It worried me until I considered what you just said, if they’re all gonna pander and be all over the place, then why don’t I go for the candidate whose campaign positions most reflect what I want and who is most consistent about pushing for that agenda.

Edwards has been much more consistent in this campaign than the other two and recently they’ve gone off the rails, so he really does represent the ‘adult wing of the Democratic Party’.

One amusing thing I noted recently was that Edwards doesn’t toot his own horn very much. I’d think that if he were only a phony self-promoting hypocrite, then he would toot a lot more often. It seems he’s much more honest than many believed — the others…not so much.

Edwards spent the four years working with the people crossing the country. Maybe his view have changed since his Senate days.

Or, maybe he’s just built his resume the only way he could and then moved on to the real prize.

BTW, the vote count in NH is just as bogus as NV or Iowa. Somebody’s got a lot of ’splainin to do.

Right on target.Her whole campaign is a lie. Public service has made her a multi,multi millionaire- Bill in todays Wall Street Journal rakes in another 20 million.Check out her campaign documents. The utter hipocracy. Comparing herself to LBJ when she was a Goldwater girl. A Republican supporting Nixon
in 68 till she got religion with Bill got staff job on Watergate and saw her fortune in Arkansas. Tyson Exec handled her stock portfolio and now she wantsa to act like Mother Theresa.She cares about children and actually has done some good work in their behalf but how about the children that will be maimed by cluster bombs that she voted to use in civilian areas. That must have been a big contributor. She mentions Rezko.How about Johnny Chung and Charlie Tree, and Marc Rich, and her brothers- pardon me. Her brother married Barbara Boxers daughter and if she cares about children why doesn’t she get him to pay his delinquent child support. Some Auntie.

Yes, exactly. Everybody knows they’ve screwed up massively, now is the time to permanently crush their crackpot ideas before “stab in the back” starts up and people forget.

I agree completely. Why let them off the hook after what they’ve done. It was Republicans who chose to walk away from their moderate positions and become radical and fascist. It was Republicans who chose to use the government to support oil companies and quash research on new energy sources and technologies. It was Republicans who changed the tax system to let more and more of the nation’s wealth go only to the Rich. It was Republicans who tore down unions until the working stiff has very little going for him. It’s been the Republicans who let the health care industry rape America and push a lot of cities and companies to the brink of extinction.

They have a lot to pay for.

I’d also point out that Edwards spent time as a well-paid consultant to the lobbyists and Directors of Fortress Investment Group

Noted. Irrelevant. He has done what he said he would do in each of his ventures. As long as he does the same now then we’ll get the Progressive agenda and his solutions.

He has a long record of doing very very well. I want to see that applied to the presidency.

Some of them are waking up to reality. We need to forge an effective majority- lets cal it ” the righteous majority ” and the radical Republicans
will be hoisted on their own petard.

Yeah, I got Feingold’s email too. I told him to “sh!t in his fist” this time around:

tw3k at #5

E-mail from Russ today:

With so much focus on this year’s presidential campaign, it is imperative that we remember the importance of supporting strong progressive candidates for Congress and state office in 2008. … We must redouble our efforts this year to build on the majorities in Congress with strong candidates committed to promoting our progressive reform agenda, no matter who occupies the White House.

This is where my heart is ever more so that the presidency.

Oh, really, Russ?? I wrote back — sin $$ — this:

Dear Russ Feingold –
Sure. I’ll renew my membership in Progressive Patriots and send you MORE money …

… Just as soon as you publicize — LOUDLY and WIDELY — that you were a Corporate Dufus for dissing John Edwards recently.

Truth be told, I have a feeling there is some other kind of Political Cold Cocking going on, what with 2004 Weenie John Kerry AND Loser Gary Hart AND allegedly-sane Pat Leahy of Guerrilla Republic of Vermont all going out of their way to endorse Barack Kumbaya Obama or to diss John Edwards. (Same Difference)

Russ Feingold, alleged progressive patriot, piled on with others listed in the previous paragraph; all to piss on the only presidential candidate who is looking at Class divisions and Economic Justice issues in the US.

Now, maybe Russ is part of this stealth cold cocking of our crypto-fascist GOP masters and the corporate-owned fake news media. But until I get an explanation, Progressive Patriots Fund can Sh*t In Its Fist on more money from me. I’m giving it to Edwards.

Thanx so much. I look forward to your watered-down, PR Spin Cycle reply.
######