Switching from Kucininch to Edwards. Why? Something Chomsky has said.

[Roland99]

I've been listening to Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind by Noam Chomsky.

The demonizing and marginalization of the labor force and anyone supportive of giving power to workers (and, hence the middle class) is the NUMBER 1 effort of the power structure to maintain its stranglehold on power.

Edwards represents the most dire threat to retaining that power.


Obama is a lot about style and little about substance.

Clinton is the same-old, same-old under a different name and party suffix than Bush/Cheney.


I was supporting Kucinich in that he was speaking to breaking the back of the power structure and restoring control to Americans but he's made some bad decisions of late (no Iowa campaign office, shifting support to Obama). I still MUCH prefer his Universal Healthcare plan over Edwards but it's obvious Kucinich won't even be close to garnering any primary wins, much less the party nomination. I have to face the facts.


So, I now whole-heartedly declare I will support and vote for John Edwards in my state's primary and hope like heck he carries the nomination as he will literally DESTROY any GOP candidate. BUT, in that process, we will see the "swiftboating" of a candidate like none has ever before seen.

[jakem]

1. a little more independent thinking is in order

Obama is a lot about style and little about substance.

Clinton is the same-old, same-old under a different name and party suffix than Bush/Cheney.

would you like some fries with those memes?

[Mythsaje]

3. Sounds like he's thinking just fine. n/t

[jakem]

6. i dont have a problem with choosing edwards-

nor do i defend hillary much (ever?!)

it just sounded like he replaced one party line with another, without much filtering...


sometimes chomsky fucks up too!

[Roland99]

7. How am I incorrect in those assertions?

Obama has said he supports a stronger military (yeah, exactly what we need :eyes: ) and his speeches dance around the topics without getting into any details of what his policies would be.

Hillary, oh christ on a stick. Do we really need to even go there???

[EFerrari]

8. Seems pretty on the nose to me. Although in fairness,

these campaigns are ALL about style with no time or interest in substance.

[saracat]

15. Edwards has a lot of substance .His policies are detailed and pragmatic.

[jbnow]

24. But speeches are not about policy detail, whoever

the candidate it. People are likeliest to look into the policy details of their favorite and so know the substance better but stump speeches are the overview.

None lack substance despite their very different styles. Obama is charismatic but that doesn't mean he lacks substance.

[Yael]

12. If they didn't have any merit, they wouldn't have any traction

Thats why meme's exist...

[readmoreoften]

17. Of course Obama is all style no substance. "Change" "New" and "Hope" are advertising words

not platforms and positions.

For all I know Obama will support bombing Pakistan, staying in Iraq, be ultra-soft on gay rights to pander to his beloved evangelical hatemongers, vote for trade deals that hurt US workers, vote management over workers, and worst of all be a place-holder until the Republicans return.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

20. Precisely.

The whole Pakistan thing turned me off from Obama from the beginning; after that, it was like every question lobbed his way he gave the run around answering. I'm with Edwards!

[Mythsaje]

2. Welcome to the Edwards Camp!

Glad to Kick and Recommend.

[rucky]

4. I don't have a backup plan for Biden, but...

but I'm beginning to come around on Edwards as a second-choice.

I've really liked his message, but have been mistrustful of him. He's been ramping it up, and really staying on message lately, and I'm starting to believe he's sincere.

[Roland99]

16. Someone sent me a link to an awesome speech recently by Biden.

We have some good options this go-around but why do the candidates all have to be in the House or the Senate? We have a tenuous majority as it is! That's another positive for Edwards as he's not a sitting Rep. or Sen. ;-)

[AndyA]

5. On an issue basis, Kucinich has always been the one most aligned with my beliefs,

but I just never saw any real potential for him to be a real contender. I don't agree with Edwards 100% on everything, but I do believe he is the ONLY CANDIDATE running that will truly bring about the major change in government we so desperately need.

We must break the ties with lobbyist organizations, and their corporate money. That in my opinion is the #1 problem with our government today: money talks and everyone else walks.

I think you've made a good choice, and many believe that Chomsky's point you referenced is a valid one.

[Roland99]

9. My stance is that for this ship of a nation to be righted, we will have to endure much pain first.

And I think Edwards is strong enough to lead this nation thru that pain.

One thing I haven't heard him address much (or at all) is another item dear to me and one that is the sole focus of The Concord Coalition: The economic demise of the United States if entitlement programs and taxes are not modified (benefit cuts, taxes increased; some tenable combination of the two).

[On the Road]

10. I'm Worried an Edwards Presidency May Not Live Up to The Candidate's Rhetoric

but no one else is saying the things he is. I qualify as a moderate on this board and am conciliatory person by nature, but the Democrats need a leader will confront rather than compromise.

I like Kucinich, but I see him as someone who cheefully signs on to all the right issues but is not prepared to step in and assume the enormous power of the office. Becoming president can be riding the tiger.

[bpeale]

21. anything will FEEL like an improvement after bushco

[Yael]

11. Welcome to Team Edwards, Roland

:hi:

[Dhalgren]

13. You know, I have gotten to the point where I just want a candidate

that SOUNDS like a freaking Democrat! Edwards, at least, sounds like a real, honest-to-god Democrat and right about now, that is pretty damned good. I disagree with some of his specific ideas and I truly hope he has learned his lesson on foreign involvements, but he is closer to me on a whole lot of issues than are the other "viable" candidates...

[Roland99]

14. He's consistent on the main issues of his platform and he's pushing harder now on Iraq.

and that I like!

[Roland99]

18. Woo hoo! A strong showing so far tonight.

[eridani]

19. I can understand that in primary states

Anyone in a caucus state should still be sticking with Kucinich, though.

[balantz]

22. Good choice

[tex-wyo-dem]

23. I agree...

Many things that Chomsky has said and written have stuck with me and I have used many of his points to evaluate the current presidential candidates. Edwards is the only major candidate that I can remember who has so bluntly and forcefully taken on the corporate power structure that has become such a ubiquitous influence on our government and has done enormous harm to our democratic institutions. The only presidents that have even come close to taking such stands are T. Roosevelt and FDR.

[Strawman]

25. There is something substantive about actually organizing people like Obama did

around the general promise of progressive change. FDR would not have appealed to pure issue voters on the left in 1932 either. They would have voted for Norman Thomas. He turned out ok. when deciding who is a "real progressive" doesn't it make more sense to put the emphasis on "real" as long as "progressive" still applies? Dk is the most progressive but his candidacy, sadly, is unreal. I hope DK served the country by giving voice to progressive ideas that will eventually make their way into policy the way Thomas did.

DK failed at an organizational level. Why didn't his campaign organize college students the way Obama's did? He seemed to have the better message for idealistic students to rally behind. Why weren't they turning out for him? It seems like effective organization is something that he is fundamentally incapable of. You can't lead a movement if you can't organize people. On some level alot of erstwhile Kucinich supporters (like me) are having to come to terms with this. Some will decide to stay in the room with a handful of other people who have the virtue of being totally pure in their absolute correctness on every issue and others will join Edwards who seems to be the second most correct and has a sort of facade of being a movement candidate based on organized labor support. Others will join Obama, who is probably choice #3 in terms of the issues, but seems to be organizing a broad-based genuine progressive movement. I was leaning toward Edwards, but now I'm strongly leaning towards Obama. He seems to be able to organize the people that organized labor can't seem to organize. I'm not sure Edwards can do that. We need those people. I can't vote for either in MI. so I will wait and see. Maybe I am wrong about Edwards.

Movements like Obama's can change this country for the better and move it forward in a progressive direction. 7 people sitting in a room agreeing with one another and lamenting the irrationality of the masses for not seeing the superiority of their more pure candidate, all they do is make 7 people feel good about themselves.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Some of Kucinich's more 'enthusiatic' supporters despise Edwards:

http://creativeyouth.net

I suspect it is because they see Edwards as the candidate most likely to take votes away from Kucinich.

[personman]

27. Cool, me too.

I switched mostly because he is a more viable candidate, nothing against Kucinich.

I became interested when I heard Cornel West on Bill Maher's show, months ago, appealing to Obama to be as progressive as Edwards.

Then there is Michael Moore's recent letter as well, regarding health care, and that he seems to be taking a stronger stance against the Iraq War.

I've heard Kucinich may be packing it in early to defend his congressional seat.

Also an admirer of Chomsky's work. :)

[MrMickeysMom]

28. Does this mean you won't watch Kucinich tonight on Bill Moyers' Journal?

I'm quite interested in what he has to say.

I still prefer his Universal Health Plan. We are crumbling in our ability to provide anything that resembles health care for all. I don't see solutions in Obama's version, certainly not HRC's version, and perhaps the closest candidate to Kucinich in that area is now EDWARDS.

I hope people here will watching...

[Roland99]

29. hmm...when is that on?

Been a bit hectic today for me (well, once I finally got up...dang sinuses)

[MrMickeysMom]

30. Well, in the Pittsburgh area, it's 9 pm on PBS

generally follows "Now" .. Look at the PBS listings tonight.